As promised, here's how I got where I am, which might help some of you who've indicated an interest in UU'ism.

I grew up United Church of Canada. My grandfather was a minister who served 3 parishes and then finished out his formal career at head office (but he kept a variety of "ministries" going right up until his death at 81). My parents were proverbial "pillars of the church" serving as officers in men's and women's clubs, serving on the board, helping lead and plan services, and so on. As a consequence, being involved in a church is pretty much in my genes. However, Christianity, apparently, is not . An early interest in the sciences prompted the first questions, then, in university, I began exploring other faiths. Having a die-hard atheist (think Star Stuff) as a friend forced me to confront and think about many aspects of faith. When I met the young woman who eventually became my wife, I found out about Unitarian Universalism, which seemed to be a very good fit for me. Nonetheless, for a variety of reasons, I flirted with UU'ism for years until finally becoming active in my current fellowship about 7 years ago.

There's a lot of elements in my story that you find in other UUs stories: unhappiness with traditional Christian doctrine or at least a desire to explore beyond it's boundaries; converting later in life (there are probably many more UUs who come in either from being unchurched or from other traditions than are actually raised UU); continuing to maintain ties outside of UU'ism for family or other reasons (in my case, attending a UCC as well as my UU fellowship).

So, there's a story to get us started. I'll try to watch this thread and add my thoughts and answers when needed.

Hi Mendalla, 

Thanks for starting this thread, and for your very informative post.  I am delighted that you are interested in talking more about UU. 

Can you say any more about the evolution of UU in North America?  I am particularly interested in how transcending its Christian roots came about.  Was it a gradual process of emergence?  You mentioned in one of the threads that once Jesus was no longer viewed as divine, the door was open to incorporating the wisdom of other traditions.

Here in North America, the American and Canadian groups split from each other (maybe in the last decade?), and became separate groups.  Were they at odds with each other, theologically speaking?  Or was it more of an organizational issue?  The American UU's are in the process of reviewing their Unitarian principles.

I am also aware that there has been a split fairly recently within the American group.  A breakaway group of Unitarians fought and lost a court battle to retain the Unitarian name, I believe.  The details are fuzzy to me, but I remember reading that the breakaway group is striving to return to UU's theistic (not necessarily Christian) roots. 

There is lots more I would like to talk about, but maybe this is enough to get us started.  Looking forward to your response, Mendalla ... P3

It was more of an organizational/political issue is my understanding (the split was negotiated just as I was getting involved so I missed out on the preliminaries). Basically, the CUC and Canadian congregations wanted money raised in Canada to stay in Canada. We still partner with the UUA (the American body) for accreditation of ministers and theological schools and placement of ministers, so it's not a hostile split by any means.

I'll have to hunt up details on this one, but it doesn't totally surprise me. Unitarianism took a big swing towards Humanism just before union with the Universalists. However, in recent years, some of those very humanist congregations from that period (such as mine) are experiencing an influx of new faces who are more "spiritual" (for lack of a better term). It's not that they're tradtionally theistic in their theology (indeed, some are just as adamantly atheist as the old humanists, and many are Buddhists, pagans, etc.) but more that they want at least some of the spiritual trappings of a traditional church.

I think it comes down to the humanists came to UU'ism to "escape" church entirely, whereas the more spiritual UUs are looking for a broader, more diverse "church" rather a break with the notion of "church". You see this basic divide again and again in debates over what to call our assemblies (there are fellowships, congregations, churches, societies, etc.), over changes to the principles and sources, and so on. Is splitting up a solution? It has been in some congregations. I find that I get a lot from having the atheist/humanist crowd around, though, and I'd hate to lose that element.

Hi Mendalla, 

Thanks so much - - this is really interesting to read about.  How did the big swing towards Humanism in the 60's come about, do you know?  Were there popular humanist writers in that decade, maybe?

A few posters who have spent time in Unitarian congregations have told us that they ultimately found UU too dry and intellectually focussed.  When my family and I explored UU a few years ago, I had a long conversation with someone at the Unitarian Information Center.  He strongly encouraged us to visit different congregations. 

We went to Toronto First and Neighbourhood UU churches, and their worship services resembled Protestant services quite a bit.  The content of the readings, music, etc, was different, but the service unfolded in a very familiar way.  My husband also went to Don Heights and a small congregation in Durham region.  He said both of these churches were much more casual and discussion based. 

At Toronto First, the big downtown congregation, there was a very formal discernment program for newcomers, which helped them with their Unitarian identity.  The members identified themselves on their nametags as "Humanist", "Naturalist", what have you.  They also formed small groups, based on common interests, which met at various locations around the city.

We did this exploration a few years ago, and I found it very worthwhile. 

Hi Mendalla:

I could be a Unitarian Universalist as easily as a UCCer, or perhaps more easily, but for various reasons decided to throw my support behind the UCC.

I hope that some day in the not too distant future the two will become even more worthy of their respective unitive names and—unite.

I used to go to a UU church, and although there were groups of people who identified themselves by tradition, I don't think that many people would have wanted to wear their tradition on their name tag.  The UU's I know of here identify themselves as being UU;s rather than being members of a sub group.

The biggest reason for people joining subgroups based upon tradition is related to choosing the hymns that would be sung at certain services and planning holiday celebrations.  Certain services were themed as having earth centered music or Christian, or Jewish, or Quaker, or whatever theme music.  Some services also celebrated the holidays of various traditions.

A Unitarian once told me that the congrgation is split in half - intellectuals and spiritulists.

As I start reading Gretta Vosper and swap comments with folks like you, Arminius, I think it's more possible than I would have realized a few months (or even weeks) ago. However, there are some big hurdles. Even some religious UUs still have an "eek" reaction where Christianity is concerned . I'm sure that the UCC still has some mainstream, middle of the road types who wouldn't be accepting of a more open, intellectual approach of religion. Even if it did, by some fluke, happen, I would expect there would be both some UUs and some UCCs left outside such a union, just as there is still a Presbyterian Church of Canada almost a century after union.

I'm quoting you, but this comment goes to a couple posts above you, too. If you read between the lines in my previous posts, you might realize that UU'ism in many congregations is in a bit of state of transition (another similarity to Progressive Christianity, perhaps?). The Humanist-oriented fellowships founded in the post-war years (it was actually more the '50's than the 60s, P3) were very intellectual. "Services", at least in my fellowship, were really a lecture and discussion with a smattering of ritual elements. As time goes on, these are becoming more spiritual, but you also have older UU congregations that go back to the original Christian movements picking up more Humanists, Buddhists, etc. So they may become more intellectual even as the Humanist fellowships become more spiritual.

The phenomenon of UUs identifying themselves by their "faith" is a product of this. It can be a good thing as long as it is a basis for dialogue, not division. I cringe when I hear about  fellowships where you wear your "faith" on your name tag because I don't what I'd put. I'm a UU first and foremost. My personal beliefs are about where I am on my journey, not about what kind of UU I am. Having different people on different paths is what UU'ism is supposed to be about, a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning", to quote our fourth principle.

As for the whole bit about us being too intellectual, I think I talked about this in another thread, but it really does come down to what P3's friend said: if there's more than UU church near you, check them all out. Usually if there's more than one in an area, you'll probably have a more intellectual, Humanist one and a more "spiritual" one. That certainly seems to be the case in Ottawa from what I've heard and from reviewing the two congregations websites. If there is only one (or none, as happens in many smaller communities), then you may have to look elsewhere if it doesn't suit you.

Great conversation, everyone!

Does anyone know anything about the Christian Unitarians?  I was surprised to hear, Mendalla, that there are entire UU congregations identifying this way.  From what I have read, 10 - 20% of UU's in North America indentify as Christians, and the percentage is higher in Europe. 

Some UU Christians say that they feel more able to follow the path of Jesus in UU congregations than in mainstream denominations. 

When we visited Toronto First a few years ago, the "Following the Way of Jesus" group was planning a Maundy Thursday service.  They made a point of inviting everyone, not only those identifying as Christians. 

I take it, Mendalla and Itdontmatter, that wearing one's UU identity on a nametag is not the usual practice?

Not in my experience, though this isn't the first I've heard of it. Some of our members have slogans and such like on their nametags, but it's hardly the norm at my fellowship. BTW, I've Wondermail'ed Unitarian, a new UU member of WC and asked for them to peruse the thread and maybe join in. The problem with us UUs is that our diversity means you need to get as many of us in as possible to be able to get a true picture of UU'ism.

There is actually a group for UU Christians, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (http://www.uuchristian.org/). Our current interim minister has some history with them. I notice that there is also a Unitarian Christian Association based in England that maintains ties to Unitarian and liberal Christian groups, but they appear to be closer to traditional Unitarianism in that they are non-Trinitarian Christians.

I can't see the UCC and the UU uniting in the near future. The United Church I attend in a small city about a 2 hour drive from Ottawa is quite conservative in their belief. Or maybe their not that conservative and I am overly left wing liberal in mind. Anyway I think I would feel more at home with the UU. Unfortunately the nearest UU congregation is in Ottawa which is about 2 hours away.

Mandella do you have in your UU those who would consider themselves agnostic, atheist or fairly conservative Christians and how does that work?

On your first point, that's kind of my sense, too. I might make sense for UUs and more liberal United Churches to work together on some levels, but a merger would likely create issues for more conservative UCC members (and the more humanist/atheist UUs, who would, I guess, be our "conservatives").

On your second point, there are lots of agnostics and atheists in UU pews, for sure. Conservative Christians, not so much. Once you start dropping major points of doctrine like the Trinity, you aren't very attractive to that crowd. UU Christians tend to be very like the progressive Christians around here.

It's too bad you're so far from Ottawa. There's actually a church and a fellowship there, so you'd have a choice if you were close enough. The UUA (US body) has a "Church of the Larger Fellowship" for UUs who can't get to a church or don't have one local to them. The URL is http://clf.uua.org/. I'm checking the CUC website to see if there is a Canadian equivalent, but I haven't found it yet.

Hi Mendalla:

My soul friend, LumbyLad, who also posts here on wondercafe every now and then, has been a member of the UU in Vancouver for several years. He, like me, is sort of a UU/UCCer. He said that in Vancouver, too, there was a UU group who called themselves "Followers of the Way of Jesus," and they were able to do so unencumbered by traditionalist Christian doctrine, and were, perhaps, closer to the spirit of the original movement around Jesus than mainstream Christianity.

Hi Mendalla, 

Let's hope the new poster Unitarian will join us in our discussion here.  I was glad to see Itdontmatter upthread, and Arminius has shared some of Lumbylad's thoughts. RevJamesMurray also has experience with UU, but he hasn't been posting too often in recent months. 

*Note to self* Send RJM a wondermail.

Mendalla, 

You said upthread that UU's often debate what to call their assemblies.  Is there a common understanding of  "church" vs "fellowship" among UU's? 

Itdontmatter told us once that there is also lots of debate about you are doing when you get together -- worshipping or just gathering?

This is an interesting comment, Mendalla. 

Broadly speaking, we seem to have two clusters of progressive Christians, with little consensus about what the term actually means.  

At different times, posters here have differentiated between "vosperian" and "borgian" progressive christianity, or "hard core" and "soft core" progressivism.  More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that the former might be more accurately termed "post Christian theology".

Gretta Vosper, who is the founder and chair of the Canadian Center for Progressive Christianity (CCPC) specifically rejects the ideas of Marcus Borg, who is associated with the progressive Christian movement in the United States.  She refers to theologians Lloyd Geering and Don Cuppitt in WWG, and supports their ideas of a non-theistic future for Christianity.

The Center for Progressive Christianity (TCPC) in the United States is chaired by Jim Adams.  We have studied Bruce Sanguin's Emerging Church here on wondercafe, and a book study is currently underway with Diane Butler Bass' Christianity for the Rest of Us.  While Sanguin is a Canadian author, both he and Bass would seem to fall into this cluster. 

From what I have read about Unitarian Christians, I would say they are closest to TCPC/ Borg style Progressive Christians.  And UU humanists probably have more in common with Gretta Vosper and her ideas.

Hi, just read through your posts on UU and find them interesting and informative. Just a few of my thoughts- I would have some difficulty joining a UU group that maintains an exclusive religious bent, such as Christian or Jewish, or whatever.   For me i would expect UU to be completely inclusive.  Accepting all religious traditions and even those without a tradition.  Totally plurlistic in nature, accepting, non-dogmatic and loving in makeup.  I thought this was what UU was all about?

Gord...

Many UU congregations are pluralistic and the movement as a whole certainly is. However, historical or social circumstances have led to some congregations developing a particular focus. Mine was very humanist in the beginning, as I've mentioned upthread, but has evolved into something more diverse over time. But there have been cases where congregations have split, leaving two smaller groups who each have a bit of a focus. This is sad, but the reality is that UUs are human, too.

Mendalla

Interestingly, when we ran a Bible study at my UU fellowship (over the objections of some atheists/humanists who treated the Bible the way a fundamentalist might treat a D&D book ), we did use Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (with references to a UU text on the Bible as well). I'm just starting to read With or Without God, and I can see where it would appeal to our religious humanists for sure. Not so sure about the aforementioned atheists humanists.

At lot  of this comes out of the humanist/spiritual divide again. My congregation was founded as a "fellowship" because the humanists who started it didn't want a traditional "church" (and still don't). Others, especially the really old Unitarian and Universalist churches in the States, were founded as Christian churches and retain the name. Today, it's really up to each congregation to choose what they are comfortable with, but the "fellowships" are generally ones that were founded/dominated by humanists while the "churches" tend to be (or have been at some point) more spiritual. Our current interim did, however, tell us about a UU church in the North-Central US where they changed from being a "Church" after a lengthy discussion about whether the term was really reflective of their spiritual diversity (they had, for instance, people from a Jewish background), so it isn't necessarily just the humanists who are moving away from the term. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that the word "church" is a loaded one for many UUs both spiritual and humanist. I'm not one of them, but I respect those feelings and understand why they might choose to avoid the term. (eg. some UUs left Christianity over things like clergy abuse).

Algogord, 

Welcome to wondercafe, and thanks for joining our discussion about Unitarianism ... P3

Hi Mendalla, 

Thanks so much for the insight you are providing on this thread. 

I really had no idea there was such variance among UU congregations, and I didn't know there were congregations with a particular focus.  I am getting that UU congregations covenant to uphold the Unitarian principles, and then hash out a great deal at the local level.  

Additionally, I didn't know that Humanism had such a "traditional" identity and history.  Upthread, you said that humanists can be considered your "conservatives".  Could you explain what you mean by a "religious" humanist vs an "atheist humanist"?

Thanks ... P3   

My understanding is there is also a different emphasis on laity as compared to  ordained/diaconal ministers.

I did attend a unitarian for a bit, and I won't make a judgement on all based on it, just as I wouldnt' expect anyone to do that re a united church of canada congregation.

i found it to be a small congregation for the size of the city. It was communal in nature, with kids in mixed programming.

I recognize that programs such as wondercafe, and other programs are initiated in part due to the size of the united church.  I recognize we are also not able to do some things as we come no where near the size of the some the big name denominations/congregations.  I wonder how effective small denominations  and even smaller congregations are; howeve,r I also recognize that UU's tend to be socially justice motivated.  (that is part of the draw)

It still comes back to that I came back to the church in part to delve deeper into the stories and the histories, with an awareness of it not being the only one, but, enjoying all be on similair paths with similair points / common language.

Oh yes, I know what you mean about the Christian story, Pinga.  I am also reminded of Marcus Borg's comments re the "thin places" in worship.  There are many elements of United Church worship that work this way for me.  The community aspect that you mentioned is important, too.

There's also a lot of commonality, such as a commitment to social justice, democracy, and a rejection of doctrinal religion. However, you're right to the extent that commitment to democracy and lack of doctrine does mean that it really comes down to the local church and even the individual level as how that comes about.

Humanism dates back to the humanist manifestos which were, I believe, both signed between the wars and are still used to define humanism today. Of course, they also cite classical Greek humanism and the humanism of the Renaissance as spiritual ancestors. so there is definitely a tradition, there.

They are UU'isms "conservatives" to the extent that we are moving from a more "secular humanist" approach to a more religious or spiritual one, so that they tend to be the ones who are seen as resisting change. Certainly, by the standards of broader society, especially in some parts of the States, they are still very much the radicals.

The religious humanists that I know may be theists or may simply engage with the world in a spiritual way while still being atheists (Unitarian seems to lean this way). They are not uncomfortable with terms like worship or church, but still see humanity as central rather than divine revelation. The secular humanists are more or less classical atheists, rejecting any notion of the supernatural or spiritual and focussing more on science, philosophy, etc. The two both see humans and human endeavour as central to the world, but just come at it from different views. This is more my experience of the two than my reading of actual humanist works, though.

This varies from congregation to congregation. Smaller or more humanistic congregations may be entirely lay-led (mine has been during some periods in it's history) or only have part-time ministry. Larger congregation will generally have a full-time minister, but there is still generally room left for lay leadership in worship (e.g. our minister is contracted for 3 Sundays a month, leaving 1 or 2 for lay-led speakers or outside speakers). There is also lay leadership during at least one month in the summer, but we've been doing scaled down services the last couple years since the turnout is generally quite low.

From the standpoint of governance, our system is really quite similar to most UCC churches and very lay focussed: a board elected as a slate by the congregation with committees looking after various aspects of congregational life. The minister is an ex officio member of the board and some committees (including worship, which I chair), but has no special authority beyond acting as a guide, mediator, advisor, etc. This is in keeping with one of our principles, which is "use of the democratic process".

As someone who loves leading worship but is not at a place in life where I can easily drop everything and start on discernment and training for the ministry, this lay orientation makes UU'ism a good place for me. By contrast, there is very little lay involvement in worship in the UCC I go to (with 2 ordained ministers, a lay minister, a minister emeritus, and at least one other ordained member, they don't often have an empty pulpit). I'm working on a service now that I'll do at the end of March called "Exploring the Dark Cave of Life" and have a couple others that I'm still contemplating.

Looking at the Uk Unitarian website, and reading their manifesto, i see, at least in the way they express UU, that it is much like i stated.  The U.K. version, "it says" is all inclusive and allows pluralistic views and expressions of such.  

What i have found while looking into all of this, is that there often appears to be a real fear-or reluctance to let go.  In my opinion many progressive Christianity groups often seem to flip flop back and forth between their Christian traditions and something like UU.  I believe this can be seen rather clearly in Gretta Vospers West Hill.  I also believe that this is understandable, as it is a big change for anyone coming from the traditional mainstream Christian denominations.  Yet i think for an all inclusive, plualistic expression of a spiritual movement, the time will come when the good folks make a complete decision and move on.

It would never be easy.  However i firmly believe that we live in an exciting time of change and formulation of new spiritual paradigms.  If all of us continue our quest for answers keeping in mind "the golden rule," i don't think we can go too wrong. 

This is good stuff.  A wonderful expression of thought and hope for a better matrix of spirituality for self and others.  Many in todays society could care less about all this - but here we are sharing good thoughts.  There is hope... Gord 

Thanks, this is becoming clearer to me now.   Would some of the religious/ spiritual humanists refer to themselves as agnostics, do you think?

I have read that approximately 50% of UU's in North America identify as humanists.  It is interesting to learn that there are different types of humanists within this group! 

Hi Gord, 

There are different approaches to Progressive Christianity, that's for sure, but I don't think they are necessarily flipflopping back and forth.  All progressives have moved away from what we might call conservative doctrine, but they have not all ended up in the same place.  Gretta is calling for the distillation of Christianity and other faith traditions down to core values (love and compassion), which are held in common.

Other progressive voices are calling for more of a renewal of Christian practices - - prayer, bible study, meditation, hospitality, social justice, and so on.   Marcus Borg is probably the best known progressive Christian of this type.  Heart of Christianity is a wonderful book to read if you want to learn more about his approach.

Do you see Unitarianism as fitting the bill for "an all inclusive, plualistic expression of a spiritual movement" ?

Interested in your thoughts ... P3

I know that a lot of people here will think that this is shallow, but it can't really be.  Music in the Unitarian churches really sucks. And because it attempts to be music the lyrics -although PC are not poetic enough to be beautiful - it's too rational and there you can't have music because it has no intuitive structure.

I can say much for the present state of "Praise Music" which exists purely as emotional exploitation and uses a system of  analytical keys for the lyrics- much like any blah blah pop music.

So, we can't, unfortunately lose the Presbyterianism because it gave us such great music and the poetry is exquisite, still I can't sing the Lords and Him's and Kings  but you know that's not the poetry itself and anyone who studies poetry knows that those " words" are not as political as the present day church tries to make them.  The poet who wrote them didn't mean "King and Lord".  The poet meant "my inspiration", " my salvation" , "my grace" and manythings . . . the church indoctrinates the political; however.

Great thread!

 Aw man!  Why did they have to deny the Trinity?  Wouldn't the holy paradox of the three-in-one go perfectly with a religion that can accept all others as equally true (sometimes paradoxically, but nevertheless awesomely?)

paradox3: It was the '60's.  Everything swung towards that end of the spectrum.

itdontmatter: Christian, Jewish or Quaker - it's interesting that you mention that, because I've noticed that for an all-inclusive, multicultural church, Unitarianism is rather Western-oriented.  I was at a Unitarian church for a concert recently and I was looking through the hymnal (I love reading through hymnals) and they had a whole chapter on Christianity, and a whole chapter on Judaism, and then a chapter on 'religions of the world'.  Where's Islam?  Islam is at least as big as Christianity and I'm pretty sure it's bigger than Judaism.  It's one of the Big Three world religions (like the automakers LOL) - why does it get stuck in a subchapter next to Shinto?  (It would be really sweet if ALL the religions in the book got an equal standing, meaning even Christianity and the other big ones got the same as little things like Jainism or whatever, but either way...) Seriously - they need more Islam!

crazyheart: No, it's split in three - intellectuals, spiritualists, and those who are both.

Is there really only more secular and more Christian?  I thought there would be a big Eastern, new-age rejoinder in there, that would be just as spiritual as the Christian ones but just - less Christian specifically.

I love the UU though.  At the same aforementioned church they did this semi-pagan Easter thing a while back, and it was AMAZING.  (we painted eggs!!)

Definitely there are agnostics in that group (probably some of the secular humanists are, too). We had a member (who still comes occasionally, but officially left a few years ago) who did a good service on agnosticism and who identified as an "orthodox agnostic" .

To hit a few of your points:

- I myself didn't so much deny the Trinity when I still identified as Christian as retcon it into a mythological image. That is, rather than God being literally Three in One, there are three different mythological images that describe how we can approach/interact with God. That said, many Unitarians reject the idea completely while others would agree with my approach. Of course, I suspect there are a lot in the UCC who would agree with my approach without explicitly calling themselves unitarian (using lower case to denote the theology rather than the organization here).

- Islam is one of our inclusive Achilles' heals. I've actually used readings from the Qu'ran in a service, but because so much of our membership came from Christian or Jewish backgrounds, Islam is generally neglected to some extent. That said, we do support Muslims in their struggle for understanding in the current political climate and my fellowship has been involved in events at the local mosque in the past.

- No, Christian and Humanist aren't the only traditions but are fairly common ones. There are a lot that are truly diverse (ie. don't specifically orient one way or the other even if they have both within the congregation) and, yes, a few that orient towards Eastern or pagan traditions. I'm sure that I've specifically heard of a UU church that is pagan-oriented, but forget where. Generally, however, I find that these traditions tend to be groups within more diverse fellowships/churches though, rather than churches unto themselves. Certainly, my fellowship had a strong Eastern group at one time (mostly Buddhist but some Taoist and even one who was into Hindu philosophy), and the UU church that I went to prior to my son's birth in another city had a strong Goddess group and a Buddhist-inspired meditation group.

- I don't think we've done the Easter egg thing in our church (the adults, at least, I think RE has) but it sounds like fun. Not sure what our minister has up her sleeve for this year, but she's fairly Christian in orientation so I imagine it will be looking at themes of rebirth, resurrection, etc. Alas, my wife will likely want to go to our UCC that weekend.

Ultimately, and this is very IMHO, FWIW, etc., I think religious humanism is probably a good middle ground that gives lots of leeway for embracing the diversity that UU'ism tries to embrace. I don't identify that way myself for various reasons, but if I did a fully honest appraisal of my current faith/philosophy, that's probably what I am to some extent. Unitarian (are you out there?) talked about religious naturalism in their thread, which I need to read up on based on that post, but I suspect I'm a fit there, too, and it, too, sounds like a fairly moderate, inclusive position.

 Hi P3, in thinking about West Hill again, i guess that they may have been a poor example. Your correct, West Hill is not really a UU group and therefore Christianity distilled as you put it, is maybe closer to the West Hill model.  I don't go to West Hill so i guess i can't really speak on it with any authority.  Certainly, they are not trying to develop a UU group.  Maybe it is Mendalla's UU model that dosen't seem to let go of the Christian fetters.

Hey, i know very little about UU except for what i learn here and on UU Websites.  However the model i would like to see would be something that doesn't try, while being inclusive and pluralistic to be everything to everybody.  I would be happy with a sacred, spiritual gathering of love and fellowship that encompasses all, without spelling it out.  I don't know if i make much sense, but this is where i find myself as of now.  I have even started to become disturbed by the term Christian etc.  I find it so exclusive.  An example of this, was when i told a friend about the book that we are about to share on CCPC, her immediate response was," is it Christian."  Her tone of voice said it all.

Saying all of this, at the same time i must commend the UCC [I'm not a member] for their wonderful approach to an open dialogue such as this.  Coming from an RC background, i can say, just wouldn't happen.  Like everyone else i too learn from folks like you guys, that share  on this site... blessings... Algogord 

Yes, ShamanWolf, the Triple Paradox of the three-in-one is truly awesome: the (any) universal opposites, plus the transcendental power that unites and/or sperates the two. The Transcender, the Transcendet, and the Transcendental Power that unites and/or sperates the two. Perfect for any religion, particualry for one that includes all religions.

Perfect even for atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious types, because the Triple Paradox is enshrined in the scientific Principles of Complementarity and Uncertainty, as well as in the Principle of Proof in mathematics.

Hi jlin:

Yes, I quite agree. I too am in love with our powerfully poetic and evocative traditional hymns. I take the lyrics metaphorically, of course, and so could everyone, if those lyrics weren't reflected in some rather unwholesome church attitudes, doctrines, and policies.

But we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. Can't we just get rid of unwholesome doctrines and keep the beautiful hymns?

"Nearer my God to Thee!"

Actually, it depends on the UU church, as usual. I've been to some with very good music programs. My congregation engages a couple pianists who are graduates of the Dept. of Music at the local university and they do some great work, esp. with providing preludes and postludes. They also manage to make some of the clunkier hymns quite singable. It wasn't always this way, and it is definitely a big improvement over past practice.

Our hymnbook, Singing the Living Tradition, has some great stuff and some not so great stuff, but a lot depends on who is doing the singing and playing. I tend to prefer the original UU material (Come Sing a Song, Spirit of Life, We Laugh We Cry) to some of the completely rewritten traditional hymns (although some of these do work for me). We do sing the original words to some classic hymns though, with about the same amount of "inclusive language" tinkering as the UCC (Be Thou My Vision, For the Beauty of The Earth, Morning has Broken). Note, too, that UU hymn writer Carolyn McDade appears not once, but twice, in Voices United, so we can't be totally bereft in the music department .

In the end, I don't think that UU church music is any better or worse than any other church music, but I think it has been poorly served by some congregations who stick to a few hymns that they know no one will object to or that are easy to learn. I'll bet that with some research, we could find UCC churches with poor music programs, too.

However, I have to give my UCC full marks for music. They have a large, well trained choir, a top notch organist/music director, a string orchestra and some very good soloists. However, it can actually get a bit overbearing at times (I've been to services where the music badly overshadowed the preaching instead of complementing it).

And I have very little patience for the "I love Jesus, ya, ya" school of praise music so I'm glad I don't go to any churches that use it.

A friend who is a Christian minister is the president of a Unitarian theological school - what is interesting is those of us who are within the Process/relational theological school of thought have both unitarians and christians ( and others)-  what we share is our theistic grounding in panentheism and Process Thought.

I once preached at a Unitarian church and was told they had not heard the word God used as often as I did -  

While in seminary I would go to a Unitarian church ( along with others like a black Pentecostal church) and while found it theistic, in many of its members and its minister, but there were too many recovering religious conservatives and that they defined themselves by what they were no longer believed rather than what moved now them spiritually.   Now that is only my limited experience and I know like the UCC there are many different takes-  My theological philosophy allowed me to be and continue to be a Christian and again in discussions at Claremont found both the unitarians there, and the christians there, who shared a process perspective, to have much in common - theism and even the role of Jesus and ethics.

Yes, there are many in the UCC who would describe the Trinity in a similar fashion.  I think of it as a model, or conceptual framework.  I think of God as the source of life; of Jesus as a manifestation of God; and of the Spirit as the divine within and among us.

Interesting.  Are "progressive" or "post" Muslims more likely to be drawn to Bahai, I wonder?

Toronto First is the UU congregation I am most familiar with, because I visited there several times a few years ago.  It seemed to be very pluralistic, with no single dominant viewpoint.  The worship style was very consistent with Mendalla's description of religious humanism.  We were told that the congregation has several interfaith couples (mostly Jewish/ Christian).  The service "felt" very much like a Protestant one, although the content was more of a "blank slate".  The religious diversity came out more in the small groups that would gather based on a specific interest or UU indentity. 

Based on Mendalla's comments, I can see how UU secular humanists might be drawn more to a fellowship with a lecture/ discussion format.

Hi Algogord, 

This is not the first time I have heard the complaint that UU's try to be everything to everybody.  We heard from a poster once that he had attended a UU church that tried to celebrate all religious holidays (from all traditions), and it just got to be silly.

The non-theistic gatherings at West Hill would probably be a good match with what you are seeking, but I don't know if attending WHUC is feasible for you.  (I don't know where you live.)   It could be that a Unitarian church/ fellowship in your area would be a good solution, because they seem to vary so much. 

I am not surprised by the reaction of your friend, really.  Recovering conservative Christians and those outside the tradition often equate Christianity with its more fundamentalist expressions.  Congregations within our denomination range from the moderately conservative to the ultraliberal. 

My experience with Unitarianism was in the early 1980's. While saying they were 'open and inclusive', everyone would laugh with derision at the thought of someone defining themselves as Christian. It was a humanist gathering with no God or sense of the transcendent. My time with them was helpful for me to question exactly what I do believe in and why. The experiences of God I had experienced couldn't be incorporated into their matrix. I eventually chose to join the UCC, which I had grown up in. But this time it was my choice.

While a small part of the UCC would feel comfortable in the UUA, I doubt the UUA would welcome so much God talk. Most UCCers, while not being strictly orthodox dogmatic types, still hold to the reality of the transcendent God. And they have the mystical experiences to back it up.

In a recent survey done by StatsCanada. UUAs were shown to be growing. So much for the theory that all liberal churches are in decline! 

And not all of us do that, thank heaven, though we will certainly acknowledge them, we certainly don't celebrate all of them. In my church, we tend to observe the Christian festivals (albeit with reference to the related non-Christian festivals, so that we acknowledge Hanukkah, Solstice, etc. in December as well as Christmas). One thing that we do try to bring out is that, because of Christianity's propensity for syncretism (borrowing from earlier traditions), the symbolism of Christmas actually fits nicely with the symbolism of many other late fall-early winter festivals and we focus on those commonalities rather than specific festivals. Ditto Easter and it's relationship to Passover, various pagan spring festivals, and so on. Yes, you can be inclusive to the point of being silly, but I'm not sure that there are really that many UU congregations who cross that line. I haven't been in any that did, and this is the third UU congregation that I've had ties to (but the first I've been actively involved with).

Unfortunately, that could well have been my fellowship at one time . Our secular humanists weren't always the most tolerant. I get on well with them, but my beliefs at this point don't really conflict with theirs in any big way (and even when I first became UU and self-described as a UU Christian, I didn't seem to set off any strong reactions in them). At this point, in my congregation at least, we've gotten past that are really starting to enjoy the diversity that is possible when we live up to our principles.

Ah, yes,I did discover this kind of kinky thing was an aspect of the Unitarian church as well in existence with a capitlist interpretation of patriarchy and feminism and what to do about it.  The unitarians, that I had come into knowledge of; had developed an ideal of pragmatic prostitution whereby a woman strapped for finances is introduced to a man with means and he becomes a mentor, sexual partner, liason; whatever.  It is totally gross.  And the institution maintains it is reasonable humanism and compassion when in fact. it is intolerable exploitation and seditious manipulation to effect the cultural norms.

I have wondered if this ideology has not been adapted from the B'hai's.   What's your guess?

Hi Jlin, 

When I visited UU churches a few years ago, I thought that the music was really well done.  It seemed to fall into the category of "spiritual but not religious", and much of it was familiar to me from folk festivals.  (Folk music is also in a state of transition these days.)

"I'll bring you hope

When hope is hard to find.

I'll bring a song of love

And a rose in the wintertime."

Yes, it is hard to be poetic when your metaphor doesn't refer to anything you can experience or know. Symbolism only works when it points to something transcendent.

Thank you all for putting your thoughts in this thread - it has been very helpful to more understanding of the UU belief structure.  I am good with my present UCC faith group because it is really strong on what to me is the key to the Christ message - compassion, justice, and love (agape).  However, my childhood was nested in the box of Wesleyanism-Methodism of rural Alberta UCC (50 some years ago) and followed by the kind of "in search of meaning" for decades. Now, the whole scriptural and doctrinal message - loosey goosey as it is - doesn't much get my attention but some of the new worship songs are great!

So I have not gone through all the details in the thread; I have saved it even though I know it will live forever as a digital presence within the womb of this website!  Right now, I guess UU has some certain appeal a open and inclusive, but I wonder if the members of our local UU have gone through the important issues as we have.  I mean here to develop understanding and relationship in a direct and meangful way among our faith - formally establishing inclusiveness, declaring affirmation status, describing personal ministries emphasizing the charitable and social justice dimensions of action...

And because environmental stewardship is important to me, I walk; bike to my UCC and most of its outreach program, the nearest UU is way over by the University (accidental- I think not!) and is at least 40 minutes by bus on a regular day let alone a worship day.  And about that; is there some reason beyond economics and tradition that means the vast majority having their own worship space do worship 10 00 - 12 00 Sundays?  That's even the Gurdwara hours - except Sikhs also have evening community gathering pretty much every day.

Good points. I think that one element to keep in mind is what you said farther down in this post "Many in todays society could care less about all this."

For me, it's not so much that they don't care as it is that they've simply moved on. Debates, or even polite discusssion, about various forms of worship is really just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic as the saying goes. Most of the people have left the boat and are rowing on to shore while a few dedicated, sincere individuals keep passing the same seats back and forth while looking around wondering why there are fewer and fewer people to bail. (he said, horribly mangling his metaphors)

We'll never, at least I hope we never, have a single inclusive pluralistic expression of faith. I pray, I hope, I believe, I wish, that we will reach a point where we acknowledge the one universal underlying principle of all of our faiths and then celebrate the amazing diversity with which the human race has embodied and expressed that principle in different times and places and cultures.

You've expressed it well below -

Amen to this, David!

Do you have a vision for how this might be achieved?  Unitarian Universalism seems to be getting close, with its emphasis on common principles and respect for diversity/ religious pluralism.  UU does not seem to engage in proselytism, and this suggests to me that they are not seeking to become a single, inclusive pluralistic expression of faith. 

It has been fascinating to read about UU history on this thread.  Interesting that they experienced a period where secular humanism hardened into "dogma", and that they are now moving beyond this.