UUPdater wrote:

//”I’m all for honoring people of other faiths, but I’m also all for having one I can call my own and that I can share with the neighbors around me. The above is not it for //me.”

//”the above” referring to “A labyrinth walk for 5th and 6th graders led by what I’m guessing to be a Pagan/witch”.

//Which I would interpret to mean he would only feel at home in an exclusively Christian environment. Perhaps this is not what he meant, but it sure could be interpreted that way.

“The above” I was criticizing is the senseless act of recklessly smashing together three or four different traditions and naming it something else. I have no problem with a Pagan, Native American Flute Music, and/or Egyptian/Greek/ Christian Labyrinths. When they are all combined it is religiously ridiculous and screams of a lack of a personal center. The dissolution of a center is the tipping point I was point toward.

I do believe the UUA is seriously unattractive to the larger culture. It has no center. I need a religious center. The majority of people out there need a center. That is what religion is for. You can do all the work in the world you want but you will not attract people of lower classes and people of color without an identifiable center - thus it will remain a fringe movement dominated by new-age ideas that dislike centers. A church that can not reach the lower classes and people of color is doomed.

Me? I honestly believe the UUA lost it all when the classic heritage was tossed out. Yes, humanism is to blame, but so is something else. What is this something else? Well, when the UUA woke up to the realization it needed more “spirituality” it went for the “new ideas” rather than relying upon the old (heritage), for some reason. Bad move.

Quite frankly, I think the “new ideas” are not conducive to church growth. In fact, much of it scares people away. This is not a critique (though I have no problem offering one up for whoever wants one). It is reality. If this is the reality people in the UUA want, so be it. But don’t get angry if someone simply points to it.

I left the UUA because I want a center based upon the Jesus of classical Unitarianism and the salvation of classical Universalism. I am one of the most dedicated inter-faith/pluralists one will ever bump into. I do think, however, that to be such I actually do need a personal religious identity that I can share with others too. There are many paths to God. I just don’t want to tread every single one of them at the same time. The offer to do such a vain thing does not resonate with the broader culture. It is a strategic failure. It is a failed misison.

Carry, on … I do imagine there are more interesting things to discuss. I’m done.

PS: Elizabeth - It’s cool. :)

“I’m all for honoring people of other faiths, but I’m also all for having one I can call my own and that I can share with the neighbors around me. The above is not it for me.”

“the above” referring to “A labyrinth walk for 5th and 6th graders led by what I’m guessing to be a Pagan/witch”.

Which I would interpret to mean he would only feel at home in an exclusively christian environment. Perhaps this is not what he meant, but it sure could be interpretted that way.

Let me put it this way. If someone left saying “the UUA is to gay” and “I am leaving because I only want to be around straight people” then I suspect people would respond to such a post with proud proclamations of acceptance in the UUA.

And if Shawn wants to leave to proclaim Jesus as Savior being the one truth I have to nod my head and agree that is a wise choice. I don’t think proclaiming a one true path is in line with UU values.

If the sum total of his complaints had been “I want to talk about Jesus but there are too many humanists and new agers that won’t let me” then I would agree with what you are saying, but that is not the sum total of his complaints. At least not the way I read it.

And Fausto is right in his first comment, your blog post is in many ways arguing against a straw man. This is what disappoints me about our denomination - debate over theology / identity / tradition are all too often reduced to a debate over who is being excluded.

Elizabeth, perhaps you did not mean to express yourself in an unwelcoming way, but there was an inherent bias in the way that you framed your response that you may not even have been conscious of. Shawn never said, “Let’s evict all the new agers”, but he did say, “All the new agers are leaving no room for me.” What you took particlar offense at, though, was that he spoke of religious innovation in marginalizing terms, and not that he felt it sucked all the rest of the air out of the room. Rather than taking issue with his supposition that a Christian orientation like his is unwelcome or inadequately supported within the denom, you defended the UU enthusiasm for religious innovation in a way that seemed to accept as valid Shawn’s impression that his own more traditional spirituality is incompatible.

While I would agree with you if you say that we should try to make our more traditional members feel welcome and supported in their faith, I would also agree with Shawn that we have generally done a pretty poor job at it over the last half century or so. In particular, rather than continuing to preach and promote the fully-developed Unitarian gospel of Channing and Parker, or the fully-developed Universalist gospel of Murray and Ballou, we have tended largely to ignore them except for a few glib sound bites. What is promoted instead by the UUA and many of our congregations is too often something very much like what Shawn describes — a broad, shallow, inclusive message that is long on pleasantry, but doesn’t leave enough oxygen in the room for authentic substance or depth, not even our own.

Again I’ll say, that Sean never called for drumming all the “new agers” out of the UUA, but you responded as though he had. Despite professing an abstract allegiance to principles of inclusion, in the heat of the moment you seemed particularly eager to defend the innovative majority who were not being excluded, rather than support the lone traditional voice who did feel excluded. That’s not what we are supposed to be about, but it does reflect the problem with the path we have recently been walking.

I feel so strongly about being warmly and radically welcoming to a wide range of beliefs in Unitarian Universalism. I come from a very Christian background and still feel a great attachment to that tradition and a deep love and respect for those who identify with Christianity. I have my own, personal, back and forth with Christianity, but in no way judge or feel unwelcoming to Christians within our faith. I feel terrible that Shawn or others would feel as though “old” ideas are not welcome - I am not, however, the person that is being unwelcoming or representing some anti-traditional faction in our movement.

You write that I have a “casual supposition that today traditional ideas cannot co-exist with newer ones” and I really am not sure where you got that. I think that calling Unitarian Universalism “fringe” and a “new age smorgasbord is a not said in a supportive or approving way. I think Shawn was being critical. Which he can do. I’m simply responding to that by saying that I disagree and that by saying that sort of thing, I think it could make folks are being referred to as “new age” and “fringe” feel unwelcome in our faith. I am not saying, however, that more traditional people or beliefs cannot coexist with the new ones. If someone else referred to those “old-time, traditionalist, weirdo Christians” I would also react strongly and feel as though that makes Christians feel unwelcome in our faith and disagree with such a characterization.

You write, “Rather than expressing fear that views like Shawn’s threaten our receptivity to newer ideas, perhaps we should put more energy in affirming views like Shawn’s as enthusiastically and vocally as we do newer ones.” I like to think that I try to do both - defend receptivity to newer, less traditional faith paths, as well as affirm that view’s like Shawn’s should be accepted with respect, open arms, and joy. I regret if I’ve ever come across as feeling or thinking something differently.

Of course for Shawn this was a tipping point, not the whole of his issues. Are you saying if he felt more free in expressing his “old ideas” that the tipping point would probably be a non issue?