Interfaith and Unitarians

I encountered, in the US, a rabbi who was on the staff of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. It may seem like a remarkable oddity, but for a religion that embraces a pluralistic religious ethos it did not seem particularly strange. This rabbi had coined a particular label for Unitarianism - 'the interfaith faith.' [He also spoke of the Jews as the original Unitarians with a wry 'welcome back' sort of look in his eye!] In some ways, that label fits us as we incorporate within our tradition, teachings from many sources - including the great world religions.

And so, we seek out the wisdom and writings of other traditions. We want to find out more about what a Buddhist thinks and feels, what motivates a Sikh, and how powerful it is to pray five times a day as Muslims do. This exploration is very much part of our own work to seek our personal spiritual paths and to grow toward wholeness.

And yet I am puzzled. British Unitarians not only seek interfaith exchange for spiritual exploration, but seem to consider that such contact is also an essential - perhaps even central - part of their mission in the world. And it's not usually the Muslims they want to talk to, but the Christians who have very deliberately and resoundingly rejected them! I don't get it...

In the US, where 50% of people participate in a religious community on a regular basis, to avoid interfaith work means ignoring 150 million people!

In the UK, where only 5-10% are regular participants in traditional religion, what is the rationale?

As I understand it, my mission as a Unitarian minister is to create growing, vital communities of faith that help people transform their lives and join together to transform the world. To do that, surely it is the 'unchurched' 95% of the population with whom we most want to be in conversation.

Yes, there are social action and social justice causes that are important - we should participate in those. I would even call that a moral obligation. But again, if we wish to join forces in such work and such struggles, why focus specifically on religious groups? Shouldn't we join our efforts with those of any group - secular or religious - that has the best hope of making a difference in the important work of peace, justice, and equality?

I am left puzzling over why a movement with so much potential to affect the world for the better - a movement that is more able to speak the language of the contemporary post-modern, secular, world citizen - is so intent on spending limited time and energy talking to the relatively few people who are already part of other faith bodies. Is it that we are afraid we can't relate to secular people? Is it that we are reluctant to try to understand the perspective of those people who don't like the word 'church' or that we dread that we might be harshly rejected by them?

Whatever the reason, our purpose in the world depends on our talking to and engaging with the majority secular portion of our population. The religious minority is a side-show. 

And, if my experience is a reliable guide, the secular majority will find in Unitarianism - a religion that encourages thinking for yourself and deliberately welcomes diverse beliefs - a place that feels like the home they have been seeking.

I am not ashamed

I received a very interesting email the other day:

I am going to be in London over the summer with my girl friend Amy and we are interested in your fellowship. The issue is we are both people in the arts and grew up in conservative churches .. me Roman Catholic, she Protestant fundamentalist and we really got hurt. We found a Unitarian fellowship in America and this was healing for us both. Would we fit with you? We are "out there" in terms of style. I (Chad) wear short skirts and tall boots and Amy goes bra-less and wears very very short dresses. We have been rejected in our home churches and wonder if we would be welcomed dressed as we are in your church. 

Chad Bradford

The message came through the British Unitarian Association's web site contact system. My intention was to contact these folks and find out more about them. There are certainly people who are biologically men and identify as women and I would and do welcome them completely. This didn't sound like that at all though. The story seemed - well - more than a bit odd.

So I poked around just a bit and what do you know! The return email address is canonpearson@yahoo.com. This address belongs to Canon Mark Pearson, the pastor of the Trinity Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) in Kingston, NH, USA.

I contacted Canon Pearson. He replied by email that Chad and Amy were staying with him and had borrowed his computer - but that they were good people. All my requests for contact information for "Chad" and "Amy" were fruitless...  "Oh, Chad doesn't have an email address..."

The CEC is a conservative church. It opposes "...theological liberalism, gnosticism,Theosophy, non-traditional sexual ethics, and the ordination of women to the priesthood." Is a picture becoming clear now? Do you think that Canon Pearson with his strict CEC morals would have house-guests like Chad and Amy? I think not. I think that Chad and Amy might be figments of someone's over-active imagination.

What can we learn here?

First, some conservative Christians are so insecure about their position that that they have to bait more inclusive religionists in the hope that they can find some way to portray us in an unflattering light. When you don't have anything to say, it's always helpful to have a good enemy!

Second, some conservative Christians are obsessed with sex. Really - can we not find a better use of our time in a world that is fraught with war, starvation, and oppression than conjuring up images of men in short skirts and high boots? One has to wonder what's really going on in a mind that is focused on images of braless women in "very very short dresses".

Third, some conservative Christians are technologically challenged! Don't we all know how easy it is to get another email address?

In a world that so needs to feel the connection between all people - a world where divisions and misunderstandings are literally killing our brothers and sisters - religion must play a unifying role. We must promote love and understanding in all its forms. We must be a force for acceptance and never the instigators of exclusion. We must recognize the beauty of all human beings in all their wonder and with all their many flaws.

Someone tried to shame us for standing on the side of love. Where does the shame truly belong?

IDAHOmophobia

Today is IDAHO - not the US state best known for potatoes and survivalists - the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.  What would the world look like if bias against and fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were suddenly to disappear? Would it be a place where 'normal' marriage would be destroyed and the fabric of society would totally unravel as most religious people and political conservatives would have us believe?

Perhaps that world would look more like Mexico's region of Juchitán - a place where - as reported in a 2008 New York Times piece, sexuality and gender identity is understood in a more flexible and continuous way than it is in most of the world. Juchitán is a place where males who have felt themselves to be female from childhood are known as muxes and are as accepted in society as much as anyone else.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Juchitán society has not completely unravelled. But the attitudes expressed by the family members of the muxes bring tears to my eyes in their gentle acceptance and welcoming of differences. The grandmother of a thirteen year old Muxe sums up the attitude of many when she says “It is how God sent him." The father of 16 year old Alex (pictured above with Alex and his mother) says about his muxe son “It was God who sent him and why would I reject him?" These people with their considerable faith seem to 'get' what the more 'sophisticated' religious right do not - we are all children of God to be accepted and loved in the way we are made.

The Juchitán way of thinking intrudes on what is usually a tidy categoried way of looking at sexuality. You must be gay or straight, we are told. OK, bisexuality is possible, but no one dare admit to it knowing that they will be rejected by everyone identified with either of the two poles...  Juchitán allows for more fluidity.

The Juchitán way is more in alignment with the many studies over the years that tell us that sexuality is a continuum. And why would it not be? We are not either short or tall, with no one in between. We are not divided neatly into the shy or outgoing, messy or tidy, smart or dumb, black or white, or blind or sighted categories. Why would sexuality be entirely different from these others?

The classic Kinsey Reports clearly show sexual orientation to fall along a continuum. A more recent piece in Scientific American by Robert Epstein is one in many confirmations of the Kinsey conclusions and Epstein claims that "fewer than 10 percent of subjects score as “pure” hetero sexual or homosexual."

So, why - despite all of the evidence that sexual orientation is continuous - do we continue to insist on tidily categorizing each other into two or three discrete groups? To some extent, it is clearly human nature to put everyone into boxes and slap on a label - it helps us make sense of our world. It also degrades people and prevents us from understanding and having compassion for one another - and indeed, for our own selves.

On this day - IDAHO - maybe we can begin to recognize with acceptance that the walls we build between us are false and that we build them out of fear for what we see within. Maybe today can be a moment of gentle loving kindness to ourselves that say it is OK not to be 100% this or that, but that being human is good enough. Only when we can accept ourselves can we accept others.

Life or death - an everyday choice

To many people, I may seem rather bold. I am not shy to share my opinions, even when I know they will not meet a warm reception. And theres that dramatic mid-life career change from business to ministry and the sudden relocation from one side of the Atlantic to the other... surely it takes some backbone to pull of changes like these?

The honest truth is, that I have always wrestled with fears and timidity - and still do.  There have been times - too numerous to count - when I have chosen to avoid the new experience and to stay snug, safe, and comfortable at home. My mind rebels against the idea of an adventure as I think about what to do next. A proposed adventure: I'm tired, not feeling well, or - the most effective - too much work to do!

Oh, I'm keen to try new things, but only if they can be tried in the comfort of a familiar environment.

I have to force myself to do anything more and when I do I feel a cold kind of fear flowing down my spine. I know that I could very easily end up as one of those old retired guys with slippers and a recliner chair leaving the house only to get the newspaper or for new batteries to the TV remote. Hell! I already have the recliner!

So why not give in to my urge toward comfort - why not abstain from challenges if they are so uncomfortable?

At every point in our lives we have to make a decision of whether to choose life or death. Death is easy. Living is hard. We are more like sharks than we know. Death means to stop moving, stop changing, stop growing. It means to go into the embracing night without a care.

Living means growing and changing. To live is to feel discomfort and pain along with the pleasure and the joy. It is to feel the awkwardness of not speaking the language, not knowing the customs, not being able to differentiate safety from danger. It is to feel the floor drop out beneath you. Living is diving into the wild mess of life not knowing what's coming next except that it will challenge and change you.

Today, I'll choose life. Right now, I'm still ready to be a part of this living connection that means so very much to us all - with all of its trials.

I hope to live as long as I am alive.

Growth - 'the new orthodoxy'?

A letter in the 1 May 2010 issue of the Unitarian magazine, The Inquirer, complains that recent issues of that journal have focused too much content on the subject of growing congregations.  "An unworthy motive" is how the author of the letter describes growth. The fact that detailed suggestions have been offered is termed "prescriptive" and the whole focus on growth considered perhaps "a new orthodoxy."

Although the author of that letter did not mention any names, you - dear reader - can be certain that I am the target of the barbed phraseology of this letter in which the author pretends to fret about "stepping over newly defined boundaries of heresy." The tone is called "strident", which I have learned often translates as 'American'.

No one is telling congregations to grow. I and others are responding to their desire to grow by providing information on how to go about that process.

To be honest though, I am fully in support of Unitarian growth. I would go so far as to say that to oppose that growth is immoral.

If you 1) believe you have something that can change people's lives for the better and 2) you consider yourself a generous person, are you not obligated to do what you can to share it? That sharing means something more active than waiting in the dark with the lights off hoping that no one shows up but being gracious if someone does.  It means doing what you can to make your presence known and your life-changing proposition appealing.

This endeavor is called 'trying to grow a congregation.' It is not for the sake of money or abstract numbers - it is for the sake of the lives that can be changed and the peace that can arise as a result.

Some - and perhaps many - Unitarian congregations don't really want growth; they don't really want to reach out to people outside of their existing communities. They have good reason for this. The truth is that sharing Unitarianism is not without discomfort. It means change to the community where they find comfort - perhaps very dramatic change - and that is not at all easy.

I understand this discomfort and I understand that helping others in this way may not be what they signed up for. I can only hope that such congregations will come to feel that as they have eaten the fruit and sat in the shade of trees planted long before their birth, that they also must plant trees for the future.

Whither/wither Unitarianism?

I am by nature a very optimistic person - sometimes absurdly so. At the moment though, I am deeply pessimistic about something that matters a great deal to me: the future of the Unitarian movement in Britain.

It is not Unitarianism itself that is the problem. Unitarianism has a tremendous gift to give to our society. It is the one faith I know of where people can be supported in their spiritual lives by a caring, committed community and yet still be free to follow their own path - wherever it may lead. It is the right faith for a pluralist, multicultural society. I know this to be true. I have seen people come to my congregation seeking what we have to give and I have seen the extraordinary growth there.

But, despite my usual readiness to ignore the obstacles and go full speed ahead, I can find little reason for hope that the kind of turn-around that happened in my congregation will happen in many others. There are two reasons for my pessimism. The first is related to attitude and the second to professional spiritual leadership in our congregations.

Attitude is essential, of course. To the extent that congregations wish to grow only for their own benefit, they will fail. Consistent, sustainable, and meaningful growth can come only out of a faithful desire to serve others and a deep readiness to give Unitarianism away to the future. [I talked about this in a recent presentation to the Midlands Unitarian Association's AGM.]  Until we can understand our mission as calling us to give Unitarianism away, we will not progress.

But even if this great shift should come to pass across our movement's congregations, it would not be enough. Most of our congregations are tiny. They are elderly. They have no professional spiritual leadership. To attract members in significant numbers, these congregations would need to be able to offer high quality programming that is relevant to their context. Without excellent professional leadership, there almost no chance that this will happen.

What we need is for superb ministers to appear as if by magical in the pulpits of each of these congregations and for the small groups of existing members to embrace change and fling open their doors to the world.  This magic will not happen. The reality is that many, if not most British congregations will have to shut their doors for good as their existing members become increasingly unable to keep things running.

But part of this dream is possible. How? We would need quite a bit of money to support additional ministers until the congregations could grow enough to become self-sustaining. Could that money be found? I believe that it could. I believe that if we united around this one essential objective rather than spreading our energies, we could do it. If a focused, coherent, compelling plan were brought forward, people would support it financially.

What about the number of ministers needed? There are not enough in the UK, but  ministers could come from the US if British Unitarian congregations would welcome them. [There has been a considerable discussion on the potential challenges of bringing US ministers to Britain in the comments to a previous post.]

Uniting around the goal of getting qualified ministry into many more of our congregations would not, I am sorry to say, save all our congregations. But it would leave a number of vibrant congregations dotted around the country from which a new generation of Unitarianism could grow. That seems to me a dream worth working for.

The elders and the rock band

At the 27 March AGM of the Midlands Unitarian Association [mentioned previously] I talked about how congregations need to change to create communities that are relevant to their context and to the people they hope to attract. Being faithful Unitarians, I said, is incompatible with the selfishness of keeping our communities to ourselves. As a religion, we are about generosity and service - not about preservation of what we have and tending only to ourselves.

That message seemed to get across. And the very difficult side of the commandment to 'give away' our congregations and our movement emerged - at least in the minds of some participants. One member of the audience - with a resigned tone in her voice - asked "do we have to have music we don't like when 'they' haven't even arrived yet?"

This question gets right to the heart of what many of our British Unitarian congregations are facing. They are small groups of older people who join together for a very traditional worship service led by paid visiting preachers. They have no minister. Sometimes, they have no accompanist and sing hymns along with a CD. The possibility of attracting and retaining new people other than those few with an affinity for small groups of older people and very traditional worship services seems vanishingly small.

The question posed to me makes the situation very real. Imagine 12 people - middle aged and older - sitting in their sweet old chapel together with a rock band belting out contemporary music. Imagine the cappuccinos being brewed, only to be poured out by this group of tea-drinkers. And all of this in anticipation that some young adult might just wander in that day.

Clearly, the way forward is more complicated and must be quite a bit more nuanced.

The first and biggest step is and must be readiness. A congregation that commits itself to readiness for change in response to the people who will arrive has overcome the largest obstacle there is. Yes, that readiness will be tested and tested again, but a true, faithful, readiness will make all the difference in the world.

Don't get the drum set and the electric guitar just yet!

The two essential steps after readiness are 1) directing your outreach efforts and 2) honesty to newcomers.

Do the work of learning about and understanding your congregation's context - the people within a reasonable distance of your location who might be attracted to the inclusive, accepting, saving message of Unitarianism. Choose the particular group you will try to attract and adjust every bit of your public communication to speak in their language. (This is described in the growth scheme posted previously.) Your outreach will be much more effective if it is directed in this way.

When the group you've targeted begins arriving - be it young adults, disenchanted CofE members, isolated pagans, empty-nesters, the recently-retired-and-looking-for-meaning, or any of a number of other cohorts likely future Unitarians - they are going to notice who you are today. Even if the rock band is blasting out the right tunes, those young adults will not fail to observe that the congregation consists of twelve people the age of their grandparents. The only possible approach is honesty. If you have truly done the work to reach readiness, then you can honestly and authentically say "Welcome! We have been waiting for you. We have been the guardians of a beautiful healing and saving tradition. We are ready to give it away to the world and we are ready to join with you to create the Unitarianism of tomorrow. We are ready to change. Will you work with us?"

OK, so you don't say exactly that the first time because they will think you are a bit mad and never darken your doorway again...  but the idea is to convey the readiness that is in your heart. Most newcomers arrive to find a very different kind of 'welcome' - a very clear  "don't touch anything sonny because this is how we like it and this is how it's going to stay!" message.

Readiness is hard. It means opening ourselves up to change and loss of what we know in exchange for a future that is deeply uncertain. And yet, this is why we're here. May the spirit of love be in the hearts and minds of us all and may it help us to be ready.

(And...  earplugs can come in handy if you do get the rock band...)