Paul Wilczynski's Observations

Unitarian Universalism - not for everyone?

Doug Rogers of the Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation submitted an interesting piece to the UUA Public Relations mailing list, and he's given me permission to reproduce it here:

Curtis Michelson commented on the idea that not everyone is cut out to be a UU.

The "not for everyone" is a very important issue for UU's. I believe that it is a flaw that we should address and fix. It's important to remember that Apple nearly went out of business, and would most likely have gone under, except that they came up with the iPod, which is for everyone (or at least a lot of people). The nitch market is a tough one to survive in because the nitches keep changing.

A message that is aimed at one person out of a thousand (our current fraction of the US population) is a weak message and is quite likely to die out completely as the culture changes.

An institution that is unable to re-formulate itself to become more attractive to potential members is not likely to endure. Religions tend to fade slowly, but they do disappear. Quakers were once a powerful part of the culture, now they are nearly gone. Methodists and Presbyterians are dying out. In the late 1800's Unitarians and Universalists were about 10% of the US population, now we are 0.1% and holding.

We claim that we want to influence the larger culture, to promote justice, etc. Currently we are unable to do that, we have just the smallest bit of influence around the gay rights issues, and that's about it. Some people join us with the idea that they are going to be able to influence political issues, but they are unable to do so because we do not have the numbers. We also don't have the focus or the discipline.

Saying that we are an elite group, not for everyone, is a reflection of present reality, but it is not an honest position to take forward. Do we really think that we are the only people who deserve or are capable of happiness, spiritual growth, ethical behavior? Do we really think that we can exert a positive influence on our society at our present strength? Do we really believe that fundamentalists succeed by preaching hell fire and damnation?

One of our big conceptual problems is that we are hung up on theology. Since it matters to others, we allow our lack of it to define us. That takes us right into the "build your own theology" and elitism. Not that many people are concerned with theology. It's a bad focus, particularly since we don't have one. We start our definition with a negative. Not good framing. We do have a lot to say and we have a lot of agreement among ourselves when it comes to behavior, that's where our message should be.

Look at the Buddists, for example. They have a path that is extremely difficult to actually follow, you need to be a monk. They also have no theology, at least not in the sense that Christians use the term. Yet, they have a powerful worldwide presence. The reason is that they have a powerful message. Their message can be grasped at many levels, and is accessible to everyone.

Look what the Dali Llama has done. During the last 35 years or so, he has, nearly singlehandedly, brought his ancient, extremely complex, and largely unknown religious culture onto the world stage. People world wide know him and his message. They have read his books and have the greatest respect for him and what he represents. How does he do this? I think we can learn at least two things:

• He is focused outward, to people all over the world. He truly wishes them well, even his enemies, particularly his enemies. Can we say with a straight face that we wish the best for those we disagree with? We have trouble even talking to those who have different political opinions, let alone a significantly different religious outlook from ours. We need to get past our own self centered view of the world. The truth is that nobody cares what we think, except us. And why should they? Unless, of course, we have something to offer.
• He is always on message. His message is consistent and easy to understand. He doesn't parade his deep knowledge of the complexities of the Tibetan version of Buddhism. (If you've read some of his popular books, try one of his more theoretical books, I couldn't get through any of them.) We are much too quick to use special terms, "code", to separate ourselves. To be fair, we have tried to push past that tendency, and to the extent that we have been successful, we have grown. We need to simplify our message and stick to it. Try reading our 7 principles and purposes. They are convoluted and unclear; they were written by committee and they sound like it. We don't even know what our message is, we are told to invent our own version. Not a strong position.

We have all the elements of a great religion, one that could bridge the gap between modern science and ancient wisdom. One that really could bring peace to the nations and peace in our hearts. We have both a clergy and a membership who, together, comprise an expertise in both science and religion that is unmatched. We also have a culture of open discussion (except we don't discuss politics well, we mostly just repeat slogans), and we also are willing to change and have changed our service format, music and words. We could be the force that re-interprets spirituality in our time.

We lack organization. We are stuck in the worst possible model, every church for itself, but with a centrally educated clergy and a weak national association dominated by a professional staff. (I see progress at the national level) We don't know what our message is, we are unable to separate important issues from distractions and we have the foolish idea that every individual has the right to pull the organization in his particular direction. The wonder is that we exist at all.

It's ironic that we are quite clear on advising individuals on how to organize their individual lives, deal with grief, prioritize and move forward, but have not yet figured out that the same issues and problems exist at an institutional level. As an institution we need to do the work that a weakly functional individual does when he see a shrink, review, refocus and move forward with some purpose.

I recommend "The Almost Church" by Michael Durall. We can confront and solve our problems. We can do a better job of framing in our everday communications, we can learn to look for the universal appeal in our message, we can reach out to our local communities. These everyday things will strengthen us, but to be world class, we will need a major re-organization.

Their are many paths up the mountain, but all of them are uphill.

posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 2:03 PM