First of all, no, I don't know yet. Sore subject.
Secondly, David Markham at UUA Way of Life asked me to articulate why I plan to vote for Hallman. I wrote up a list of reasons, posted it at his blog, monkeyed with it a bit, and here it is.
If you're in a hurry, just read reason numero tres because it's really the crux of my feelings on the two, though I don't back it up at all. The other reasons go into a little more detail on why I feel that way.
Here's my reasons. Your mileage, of course, may vary:
1. Morales seems to mostly want to carry on Sinkford's legacy and seems more focused on lobbying and other political work. I really don't think that's a great use of our time and I really resent that political statements are so constantly being made in our names. (My husband refuses to join a UUA church until they halt this practice, so he will probably never join.) I suspect Hallman knows that opinion is unpopular and she has not directly said she would rein a lot of that in, but just from hearing her talk about what she will do, my impression is that she will be much less inclined to toss around the words "Oh behalf of the member congregations of the UUA" than Sinkford has been.
2. Hallman's sermons are thoughtful and awesome and suggest that she really looks at things from a lot of different perspectives and has an understanding of the complexities of issues. I get a sense of slickness and of a tendency to oversimplify in a lot of what Morales has written that I fear will lead to more "There are people who see immigration issues the way I do, and then there are racists"-style declarations from the president's office.
(The Morales campaign seems immensely proud of one survey that they answered more carefully than the Hallman campaign did. The answers to that survey certainly make Morales look like a thoughtful guy and Hallman much less so. But that's one survey. When you actually read what the two candidates have written for their home churches, you develop the opposite impression. Or at least I did. Again, YMMV.)
3. I get a much greater sense of the spiritual and a connection to that which is greater than ourselves from Hallman. She does seems to regard this administrative office as somewhat sacred and I really respect that given the nature of the job she's asking for. Morales appears to be running for UUA Director of Marketing and Product Development for the North American Region.
4. I feel like Morales wants to grow the denomination but doesn't know why, while Hallman really has a sense of who we are. I think Hallman's ideas might attract fewer people initially, but those people will stay. Note how for all Morales' talk about growth, he has only added 300 members to his church. Laurel Hallman has doubled the membership of hers to over 1000 people, and growth isn't even her main focus. The man who keeps talking about growth hasn't done as much of it.
5. Various statements of hers suggest that she gets our polity in a way few UUA leaders do.
6. Someone whom I know very well and trust very much knows both Hallman and Morales well and says without reservation that Hallman's the one for the job.
CC
28 comments:
I wish I felt as strongly about either of them.
I have a lean which I believe is based on my personal reaction to them as people--and I'm wary of such things, not because they're wrong, but because human beings tend to make decisions and then provide rational-sounding backfill that supports their decisions (or rather, appears to).
But it's that, a lean.
I suspect Hallman's going to win; her campaign's been running longer and very intentionally. That matters, but it's not a measure of being the better choice.
My biggest rational beef with her is that she sought questions at her blog and at G.A.--and even explained delays in not responding to them, and undertook to answer... and hasn't. Yes, I understand that she's got a congregation, a life and a campaign (and this is part of the campaign *as she structured it*--and she's blown that). She has, it appears, stopped seeking more questions. But not having answered questions that were asked going on a year ago doesn't fill me with a sense of responsive, thoughtful, forthright and has a plan.
Morales, on the other hand, chose to run because the there should be a race, not a coronation (I tend to agree...).
I think comparing church size and numerical growth is a dubious metric. It's not like Golden, CO and Dallas, TX are equivalent metro areas. Further, that would tend to suggest that the only presidential potentials in the future (assuming a desire to grow...) will be the ministers of large urban churches.
I like Morales' accurate statement that UUism has to speak to people who aren't WASPy--or we'll be Shakers....
I like Hallman's focus on the importance of children in growth. That said, as someone in a congregation with a *superb* nursery/young child program... I can state that THAT is nothing more than a starting point. Her focus there feels like overfocus to me (and I also question what the UUA can do about such things in congregations!).
And I'll admit that I was impressed initially that Gini Courter came out in support of a candidate--but distressed on further consideration of what she actually said... that it was just really personal support, and not really an explanation of WHY, in any tangible sense.
I'm not sure that our process is serving us well...
(Amusing word verification: "bravo")
((( she sought questions at her blog and at G.A.--and even explained delays in not responding to them, and undertook to answer... and hasn't))
You're absolutely right. That's sloppy.
((will be the ministers of large urban churches.)))
Honestly, I think the ministers of large, urban churches are the only candidates I'm likely to vote for.
IMHO, large churches are where it's at as far as where the denomination is going and they are places that are doing things right and what they do effects far more UUs.
Also, ministers of large churches have experience running large organizations. Ministers of small churches almost never do.
((I like Morales' accurate statement that UUism has to speak to people who aren't WASPy--or we'll be Shakers.... )))
Well, yeah, but snark about the Shakers aside, hasn't every UU you know said the same thing?
(((that it was just really personal support, and not really an explanation of WHY, in any tangible sense.)))
Markham asked about this too. My response there was that anybody can just go to Hallman's website and learn about her resume, her ideas and her vision. But we can't all get to know her as a person between now and GA, so I thought Courter's more personal reflection made a lot of sense.
CC
who actually thinks that "no fucking" was a bigger problem for the shakers than lack of diversity. But again, my impression is that Morales isn't one for complexities.
"And I'll admit that I was impressed initially that Gini Courter came out in support of a candidate--but distressed on further consideration of what she actually said... that it was just really personal support, and not really an explanation of WHY, in any tangible sense."
Is it possible that Ogre read my analysis of Gini Couter's somewhat dubious endorsement of Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman for UUA President? Or did he come to the same conclusion quite independently?
It's a pretty obvious conclusion if you start with the premises you guys started with.
I disagree with those premises, though.
If nothing else, Bill Clinton had a lot of great ideas. But who he was as a person got in the way of him carrying out any of those ideas.
So when someone who knows a candidate well wants to tell me what sort of person that candidate is, I'm listening.
I can judge the ideas for myself.
CC
((I like Morales' accurate statement that UUism has to speak to people who aren't WASPy--or we'll be Shakers.... )))
Well, yeah, but snark about the Shakers aside, hasn't every UU you know said the same thing?
CC puts her finger on it. We need to speak to non-WASPy people, as if we didn't know that already. Okay, so what is he going to say to them?
Check out a talk by Rev. Morales at this interesting link:(Thanks Robin!)
http://www.jeffersonunitarian.org/sermons/morales/pm_religion_forour_time.html
When you call someone a WASP, are you being friendly and inclusive, or snarky? What other ethic terms do you use for other groups?
Best wishes
Dudley Jones
jonesdudley@hotmail.com
If I know a girl in one of my classes is Chinese, and I saw her coming out of the 5:00 mass on campus two days ago, is it in some way insulting to call her a "Catholic of Chinese Origin."
I don't see that as a problem. It's a description, not a judgement. "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" seems analagous.
CC
who, given the term's popularity among people to whom it might apply and the frequency of affectionate usage, goes back and forth on "Jewish American Princess" as offensive, but there's an implied judgement there that WASP doesn't have.
"When you call someone a WASP, are you being friendly and inclusive, or snarky? What other ethic terms do you use for other groups?"
Well I like to refer to 97% White Anglo Saxon Unitarian*Universalists as WASU*Us myself! :-)
No doubt CC and other U*Us will see this as further evidence of my anal fixation by I can blame it all on *resigned* CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's "less than brilliant" idea to insert famous U*U Kurt Vonnbegut Jr.'s "picture of an asshole" between the twin cheeks of the UU "corporate identity" to symbolize the alleged inclusiveness of what is now known U*U World-wide as "The U*U Movement". . . ;-)
I still look at U*U and think "U times U?"
CC
Well U*U is clearly U asterisk U CC, as per former CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's unique and original words and ideas expressed in this quite historic, and indeed quite hysterical, CU*UC PDF file. ;-)
For the record, it seems that some U*Us who are apparently not terribly enamored of Mary Bennett's U*U "corporate identity" acronym have taken to using U+U to identify Unitarian*Universalism aka The U*U Movement.
BTW Sometimes when *I* look at U*U *I* think about those disturbing allegations about "Unit*Aryan" Nazi ideologues "steeplejacking" the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft following WWII. I must say that, all things considered, I find this particular "corporate identity" logo that the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft has adopted to be quite interesting. . .
'If I know a girl in one of my classes is Chinese, and I saw her coming out of the 5:00 mass on campus two days ago, is it in some way insulting to call her a "Catholic of Chinese Origin."'
What if you had a three or four letter word that you used every time you referred to "Catholic of Chinese Origin." How would that sound after a while?
Can you give me any examples of UU clergy using the term "WASP" in a truly friendly approving manner?
Sorry about being so cranky on this. It is true that I have trouble keeping up to date culturally, so maybe these very short 3-4-5-6 letter ethnic references are truly OK nowadays.
Good luck with your neat blog.
Dudley Jones
jonesdudley@hotmail.com
Hallman not responding to questions is a problem.
Morales marching along Sinkford's path a bigger problem.
Not a great choice...
Your absence going to be a big loss to the UU blogosphere CC. There is really no other site like this.
(((Can you give me any examples of UU clergy using the term "WASP" in a truly friendly approving manner?))
I dunno. Most of the ministers I know don't really talk about WASPs all that much.
If nothing else, Morales is a minister and his statement here treats the term neutrally. He's not saying that the WASPs are a problem, merely our lack of knack for attracting other kids of people.
CC
(( she sought questions at her blog and at G.A.--and even explained delays in not responding to them, and undertook to answer... and hasn't))
You're absolutely right. That's sloppy.
Alas, that's not sloppy. I got told that she wanted to answer things personally--and was behind, and given her job, campaign and life... it would take a while, please be patient. And I was. And I was. And I politely reminded them. And waited... a long time. And the ask-a-question space went away. But the questions that were asked didn't get answered. Nor was there even an acknowledgment, nothing that said "Gee, there've been so many questions and Laurel would insist on answering them all personally, and that's just not going to happen, so... we're sorry, and hope that you find the answers you're looking for in the other posts and the existing Q&As." (And no, I didn't.)
THAT, CC, bodes poorly for a Hallman presidency. Possibly Carteresque (wonderful, wonderful, wonderful person who... could not delegate and micromanaged and... as a result failed to adequately deal with the big issue, policy stuff). The ability to find people who can act on your behalf and to delegate to them--that's a critical administrative skill.
((will be the ministers of large urban churches.)))
Honestly, I think the ministers of large, urban churches are the only candidates I'm likely to vote for.
IMHO, large churches are where it's at as far as where the denomination is going and they are places that are doing things right and what they do effects far more UUs.
Also, ministers of large churches have experience running large organizations. Ministers of small churches almost never do.
Wow. The universe of potential candidates just dropped to what... maybe 20 or 30--tops?
So very successful congregations that aren't in areas large enough to support large (and urban) congregations aren't doing things right? I fail to understand the next point--even the actions of the minister at FUS Madison don't affect more than a couple thousand UUs--a mighty 1%.
Running large organizations? A congregation of 1000 members supports a staff of what... maybe 10? Even with volunteers that's just not a large organization. And the UUA office is how "large"?
((I like Morales' accurate statement that UUism has to speak to people who aren't WASPy--or we'll be Shakers.... ))
Well, yeah, but snark about the Shakers aside, hasn't every UU you know said the same thing?
I believe that's my snark, not his.
And no, not really. It's not something I've seen as a focus of Hallman's campaign; just an acknowledgment that yeah, those are real demographics--but the focus needs to be on a great nursery program. (Another example; Marilyn Sewell's perspective -- which may be legitimate -- is that we ought to be focusing on doing what we do well, and being who we are, and letting those who are drawn to us be drawn to us).
So... no.
From what I've seen, Morales has been far more forthright and blunt about what he views as the need to move beyond the walls of the accepted cultural bounds of UUs.
(((that it was just really personal support, and not really an explanation of WHY, in any tangible sense.)))
Markham asked about this too. My response there was that anybody can just go to Hallman's website and learn about her resume, her ideas and her vision. But we can't all get to know her as a person between now and GA, so I thought Courter's more personal reflection made a lot of sense.
I guess I'll go and look again--I've been there repeatedly, and was... well, underwhelmed. And I went expecting something different, so many I know who've burbled their support made me think I'd be impressed.
We've had precisely one significantly successful growth program in the last century--which can't be repeated in the same way, for easily explained problems. But from what I've seen and heard, the enthusiasm among TPTB (of whom Hallman is one) is for pumping resources into a handful of potential large church start-ups.
We've done that. Repeatedly. The results range from spectacular failure to horribly disappointing. For at least a century.
CC
who actually thinks that "no fucking" was a bigger problem for the shakers than lack of diversity. But again, my impression is that Morales isn't one for complexities.
Tch, tch. That was my snark. Don't go tarring Morales for it. And the point stands; whether it's "no fucking" or slowly aging into being a shrinking demographic that doesn't have enough kids to maintain its size (as a percentage of the overall population), then it's not vastly different--just much a slower path to extinction.
Given that most UUs remain converts as adults, and particularly as adults with kids, the need to be more broadly open and inclusive culturally seems like a pretty valid criticism.
Dan Harper expresses a lot of what I'm feeling pretty well...
http://www.danielharper.org/blog/?p=2646
What was your question?
I certainly don't see the questions thing as a good thing, though it's very like political campaign to pretend something didn't happen rather than admit that they took on too much. I confess I don't see it as quite so big a deal as you do in the context of an entire campaign. I think most people running for an office would be delighted if something like that were their biggest fuckup.
Also, Obama promised every bill would be viewable online and he hasn't come through with the stimulus bill. Is he Jimmy Carter, too?
(((Wow. The universe of potential candidates just dropped to what... maybe 20 or 30--tops? )))
We're not a big organization. That's not an unreasonable number.
(((
So very successful congregations that aren't in areas large enough to support large (and urban) congregations aren't doing things right? I fail to understand the next point--even the actions of the minister at FUS Madison don't affect more than a couple thousand UUs--a mighty 1%.))
Shrug. Better than .01 percent.
(((Running large organizations? A congregation of 1000 members supports a staff of what... maybe 10? Even with volunteers that's just not a large organization. And the UUA office is how "large"?)))
My observation has been that in large churches with not just more staff but more members, more organizations and more agendas to deal with, leadership issues more obviously come to a head. IMHO, in small organizations, people are quicker to say "that's just Bob. He's just like that."
In a big organization, it's much harder to coast by on personality.
OK, on the Shaker comment, I didn't know.
As for attracting people of other cultures, as far as I can tell, the most successful method for converting people of other cultures to your religion is to oppress them and offer your religion as the only good news in their unhappy lives. (cf. The Spanish and South American Catholicism, The Americans and black protestantism that really started during slavery,etc, etc, etc,)
Anyway, I assume we're not going that route.
As a general principle, I tend to agree with Marilyn Sewell's approach. Since Morales is so hot to view this as a product marketing issue, it seems reasonable to note that Starbucks doesn't do anything special to attract people of other races and cultures, they just make a good product that people like.
Which doesn't mean I don't see needing to speak to other cultures as important. Hell, ideally, we'd be speaking to everybody.
(((Tch, tch))
Do not imply someone has said something and then make scolding noises at me for accepting your words at face value. I don't have time to fact check what you wrote. I just went with it.
(((Given that most UUs remain converts as adults, and particularly as adults with kids, the need to be more broadly open and inclusive culturally seems like a pretty valid criticism.)))
It is, it's just a criticism that everybody in the world has made and nobody has a real solution for because it's very, very hard to do it right and very very easy with the best of intentions to make yourself look stupid and piss off the very people you want to attract.
I took a careful look at both candidates' platforms and I invite you to do the same. Both platforms are available in PDF version on the candidates' respective websites.
Note that on Morales' own page, his idea for addressing the "not speaking to other cultures" problem is to pull together a task force on reconciliation at the UUA and THEY would make a plan, suggesting Morales doesn't know how to do it either. But either he assumes that if only we had a task force, they could figure it out, or he knows that the idea of reach out to other cultures is going to sound good and he doesn't much care that he's making an empty promise.
Hallman's solutions, more support of existing multicultural UU organizations, creating a collaborative style of leadership that encourages different kinds of people to participate and more support for international programs, are nothing earth shattering, but at least they have SOME substance.
Either way, I'm underwhelmed my Morales' dearth of ideas on the issue that is the centerpiece of his campaign and far MORE underwhelmed that I am by Laurel Hallman not answering her mail.
CC
"I think most people running for an office would be delighted if something like that were their biggest fuckup."
Who said that failing, or even outright refusing, to answer questions posed to them is teh biggest fuckup of either Rev. Dr Laurel Hallman or Rev. Peter Morales?
"OK, on the Shaker comment, I didn't know."
It looks like Ogre saved me the trouble of pointing out that regardless of how much fucking U*Us may doing they are not doing all that much better than the Shakers when it comes to actual reproduction that results in cradle to grave aka lifelong U*Us. . .
"Since Morales is so hot to view this as a product marketing issue, it seems reasonable to note that Starbucks doesn't do anything special to attract people of other races and cultures, they just make a good product that people like."
Touché. . . Doesn't that pretty much sum up what I have been telling U*Us for over a decade now CC? To use your terminology CC the Godless, to say nothing of spiritless and soulless, religious "product" being served in too many U*U "churches" just plain sucks and *that* is why the American public just ain't buying it. . . U*Uism will remain "a tiny, declining, fringe religion" as aptly described by Rev. Peter Morales, if not become an extinct religion, if it does not significantly improve the quality of its religious product in the coming years and decades.
"Which doesn't mean I don't see needing to speak to other cultures as important. Hell, ideally, we'd be speaking to everybody."
Even that 97% white "crazy" "psychotic" "nutcase" Robin Edgar. Too bad U*Us in positions of responsibility obstinately refuse to do so. . . I seem to recall that the alleged "cult" Creation Day did a bang up job of providing an opportunity for U*Us to interact with people of other cultures. Who would have thought that it was, and still is. . . "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a fundamentalist atheist bigot of a U*U "pastoral specialist" to slander Creation Day as a "cult"?
"it's very, very hard to do it right and very very easy with the best of intentions to make yourself look stupid and piss off the very people you want to attract."
It's even easier to make yourself look stupid and piss off the very people you want to attract with the "less than best" aka worst intentions CC. . . Not that I *really* need to tell you that do I?
"he doesn't much care that he's making an empty promise."
No kidding CC. In fact vRev. Peter Morales biggest empty promise, and quite possibly one of his biggest fuckups, albeit not the only fuckup aka "mess up". . . is his campaign promise cum campaign slogan,
"We can be the religion of our time."
I have repeatedly asked Rev. Peter Morales to back up that campaign slogan/promise with a clear plan of how he intends to take U*Uism from the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" that it currently is to "the religion of our time" in *our* time, let's say 20-30 years at the outside. Like Rev. Laurel Hallman he has consistently failed and possibly even just plain refused to answer even one of the pertinent questions that I posed to him months ago on his moribund 'Along The Campaign Trail' blog, on supporters blogs, or on his U*UTube campaign videos.
Who knows maybe Rev. Morales, or one of his supporters, will drop by and see my questions here, so I will repeat here a few of the most important questions that I posed to him in the summer of 2008 -
Do you genuinely believe that Unitarian*Universalism can actually become "the religion of our time" or is your campaign slogan just empty campaign rhetoric intended to help you to gain votes and win the UUA Presidential election?
What specific conditions do you believe would need to be attained and sustained for Unitarian*Universalism to credibly be able to claim the status of being "the religion of our time"?
How do you propose to transform Unitarian*Universalism from the "tiny,declining, fringe religion" that it currently is to "the religion of our time" within a reasonable time frame, let's say 25 years?
Here are some related follow-up questions that I posed to his supporter Martin Voelker -
Where is Rev. Morales' comprehensive 25 year plan for transforming U*Uism from the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" that he keeps reminding U*Us it is today to "the religion of our time"? Indeed where has Rev. Peter Morales clearly articulated exactly what criteria U*Uism needs to meet in order to be able to become "the religion of our time" down the road a bit? I have yet to be convinced that Rev. Peter Morales' campaign slogan "We can be the religion of our time" is anything more than over-the-top, American pie-in-the-sky, UUA election campaign rhetoric, aka U*U hype. I look forward to Rev. Morales convincing me that a.) his slogan is sincere and serious and b. he actually has a realistic and viable plan to get U*Uism from point a. of being a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" to point b. of being "the religion of out time" however he chooses to define that phrase.
WVC = prospack
(((Who said that failing, or even outright refusing, to answer questions posed to them is teh biggest fuckup of either Rev. Dr Laurel Hallman or Rev. Peter Morales?))))
That I haven't heard of a bigger one, at least not from Hallamn.
(((It looks like Ogre saved me the trouble of pointing out that regardless of how much fucking U*Us may doing they are not doing all that much better than the Shakers when it comes to actual reproduction that results in cradle to grave aka lifelong UUs)))
Since when? I probably know at least a few dozen personally. That's not a ton, but it's more than zero, which is what the shakers had.
(((Who knows maybe Rev. Morales, or one of his supporters, will drop by and see my questions here, so I will repeat here a few of the most important questions that I posed to him in the summer of 2008 -)))
These folks are in the middle of a campaign. I seriously doubt that they are sitting around reading the Chaliceblog.
CC wrote:
-snip-
"who actually thinks that 'no fucking' was a bigger problem for the shakers than lack of diversity. But again, my impression is that Morales isn't one for complexities."
CC,
Actually, the lack of biological reproduction wasn't a problem for the Shakers for many years.
Before state-run orphanages and adoption agencies were available, religious groups like Shaker communities were the "social safety net."
As long as there were a ready supply of orphans, Shaker communities were able to survive. The philosopher Daniel Dennett mentioned this during his TED talk a few years ago -- the Shaker tradition was a religious meme that caused sterility in its human hosts but was able to survive for many years due to the ready supply of orphans in the environment.
Wikipedia has some information on why the Shaker movement died off:
"Membership in the Shakers dwindled in the late 1800s for several reasons. People were attracted to cities and away from the farms. Shaker products could not compete with mass-produced products that became available at a much lower cost. Shakers could not have children, so adoption was a major source of new members. This continued until the states gained control of adoption homes."
I suspect the best parallel that one could draw from the Shakers is the need to be agile in response to changing demographic, economic, and cultural trends.
As Unitarian Universalists, our post-WWII trend has been towards suburban congregations as our growth strategy -- both Hallman's church (in the Park Cities suburbs of Dallas TX) and Morales' church (in the Denver suburb of Golden CO) fit the suburban category.
Will this suburban growth strategy continue to work for us?
Unlike the Shakers, we do plenty of fucking but our reproductive fucking may not lead to growth. If our churches are good at attracting adult seekers but repel adult who were our former children, that has an impact on growth.
Finally, our current growth strategy has one similarity to the Shaker's "orphan" strategy. There is no guarantee that we will always have a ready supply of adult seekers looking for a religious community.
Christianity as a demographic group is shrinking the US and most of our adult coverts come from this background.
The "atheist - agnostic - unchurched" demographic has doubled over the past decade so they are around 15% of the population. And this appears to be a demographic group that has very little need for what Unitarian Universalism offers.
So - our traditional recruiting pool for adult converts is shrinking.
We reproduce but drive off our offspring from our churches.
And we may be currently ineffective at attracting growing demographic groups.
Like the Shakers, we may be facing demographic, economic, and cultural changes. Are we agile enough to adapt and change in response to these changes?
"The "atheist - agnostic - unchurched" demographic has doubled over the past decade so they are around 15% of the population. And this appears to be a demographic group that has very little need for what Unitarian Universalism offers."
Thanks for validating what I have been telling Unitarian*Universalists for over a decade now Steve. . . If Unitarian*Universalism wants to get of the path of being a tinier and declinier fringe religion than it already is it is going to have to be a lot more welcoming to God believing people than it currently is.
Robin wrote:
-snip-
"Thanks for validating what I have been telling Unitarian Universalists for over a decade now Steve . . . If Unitarian Universalism wants to get of the path of being a tinier and declinier fringe religion than it already is it is going to have to be a lot more welcoming to God believing people than it currently is."
Robin,
The problem is more complex than that.
Michael Durrall (the UU author and congregational consultant) has written on a UU lay leaders email list that churches that offer certainty grow more than churches that offer ambiguity.
For sake of discussion here, I'll assume that Michael's comments (which he based on Alban Institute studies) are accurate.
The problem for UU congregations is that the only certainty we offer is ambiguity. With the mix of theist, deist, pagan, atheist, agnostic, etc that one finds in our congregations, Unitarian has changed from the traditional "belief in one god" to the current practice of "one god more or less."
Right now, our churches are "not religious enough" for many theists and "too religious" for many non-theists.
If we move towards a more god-friendly stance, we risk losing the humanist demographic (it's not a majority but it's significant -- around 40% of UU membership). Furthermore, the theist pool is shrinking demographically.
If we move towars a less god-friendly stance, we risk alienating the largest current source of our new members (theist religions such as Christianity). However, if Christianity continues on its current demographic trend by declining from the current approximately 78% of the US population to 40% of the US population, recruiting of members from theist traditions like Christianity may be less of an issue.
As a Canadian, you may be seeing this happen in your nation before it happens here (if the statistics on the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance are corrent). The projection is for around 2041 for the US and about 10-15 year earlier for Canada.
The "ambigious religion" market niche that we've staked out is probably always going to be small because of the ambiguity.
So essentially you are saying U*Us are fucked either way. . . ;-)
"Right now, our churches are "not religious enough" for many theists and "too religious" for many non-theists."
I'm not going to argue with that Steve. I think I have been making those points, especially the former one, for well over a decade now in one way or another. U*Us need to decide which route they want to take to the future. You know which way I think U*Us should go. That being said, I do think that U*U theists should be welcoming to atheists and agnostics but, if U*U churches are "too religious" for some atheist and agnostics, they have other options open to them, not the least of them being not attending "church" on Sunday. Personally I think that the UUA has made a huge mistake targeting its national marketing campaign squarely at the ""atheist - agnostic - unchurched" demographic which you acknowledge has very little need for what Unitarian Universalism offers. I think the UUA flushed a few million dollars right down the proverbial toilet, and may well have done more harm than good with its poorly conceived and executed national marketing campaign.
Given the size of the UU tradition, it really isn't necessary--and in fact it's probably grandiose--to target "everyone."
If we target one significant demographic effectively, we could triple in size and still have a vast opportunity for growth.
The idea that we need to be more attractive is absurd. We're plenty attractive; most of our congregations see enough visitors to grow by something like 100% a year.
What needs to happen is to figure out how to make the changes that are needed to keep those visitors, or a lot more of them.
Given that I've watched the visitor data in my congregation pretty closely for several years... and the membership stuff... we're attracting BOTH religious humanists and theists (of various stripes) as well as agnostics, mystics and spiritual seekers.
The problem isn't a campaign to get more people to come visit... though I keep seeing people do that (and in my own congregation, too). Increasing visitors by 100% when retention is 5-10% or is a lot of effort... for a few new members. Increasing retention -- doubling that -- ought to require less effort and energy. But people don't have ideas of that--like "Bring a Friend Sunday," which is easy to think and talk about.
And no, Robin, we're not going to make that choice and become less open.
Of course, I visited 10+ UU churches in the DC area before choosing mine.
CC
That's a luxury of living on the East coast, CC- I'd have to be willing to drive two hours each way to reach ten UU congregations. I'd guess more than half the country has only one or two congregations within easy reach.
:The idea that we need to be more attractive is absurd. We're plenty attractive; most of our congregations see enough visitors to grow by something like 100% a year.
But they don't grow Ogre. . . Gee I wonder why? Could it *possibly* be because they are "not religious enough" for many theists and "too religious" for many non-theists? There is a reason why U*U congregations have had a dramatic increase in visitors (thanks to U*U marketing efforts) but few visitors have "bought" the "product" on offer.
:What needs to happen is to figure out how to make the changes that are needed to keep those visitors, or a lot more of them.
See above Ogre. The religious "product" has to change to one that visitors attracted by U*U marketing efforts actually want to "buy".
:Given that I've watched the visitor data in my congregation pretty closely for several years... and the membership stuff... we're attracting BOTH religious humanists and theists (of various stripes) as well as agnostics, mystics and spiritual seekers.
:Increasing visitors by 100% when retention is 5-10% or is a lot of effort... for a few new members.
No argument from me there Ogre.
:Increasing retention -- doubling that -- ought to require less effort and energy.
And it would require less effort and energy to increase retention *if* U*U "churches" were NOT "not religious enough" for many theists, and/or "too religious" for many non-theists.
:And no, Robin, we're not going to make that choice and become less open.
What do you mean by *we* Ogre? Your U*U congregation, or the greater U*U religious community, if such a term may be used to describe a "tiny, declining, fringe religion"? I am not really suggesting that U*U congregations be "less open" Ogre. I am suggesting that they have to decide who they want to appeal to the most. Does it make sense to gear your marketing efforts to a "demographic" that is at best only 15% of the population *and* has very little need for what Unitarian Universalism offers? I think not. U*U congregations would be a lot better off being a bit "too religious" for the 5-15% of the population that isn't all that interested in going to "church" on Sunday anyway, than being "not religious enough" for the other 85% that *is* actually interested in going to church on Sunday. That is all I am saying and have been saying for over a decade now. It's called common sense aka good old fashioned Unitarian Reason.
On a related note to this comment thread, has anyone seen the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey that was just released:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/
There are some interesting trends:
Mainline Protestant Christianity is shrinking.
Catholic Christianity is decreasing in the Northeast and increasing in the Southwest.
The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2% in 1990 to 14.2% in 2001, has now increased to 15% percent.
Northern New England has now taken over from the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent "Nones," leading all other states by a full 9 points.
It should be noted that just because someone does not identify themselves as belonging to any particular religious group does not mean that they are unbelievers and/or unreligious. It just means that they are "unchurched". The last time I checked there was no category for excommunicated Unitarians. . .
Post a Comment