1. Is UU a religious faith? If so, by what definition of religion and what definition of faith?
2. Are your definitions of religion and faith so broad as to be applicable to a book group or sports club, or even a personality cult dictatorship?
3. Did your seminary education prepared you to minister to a group that is majority humanist (see below) with many being secular and having intellectual tendencies?
4. Do you get sufficient support from UUA headquarters and did its credentialing process prepare you for ministering to your humanist congregants?
5. What is your vision for the future of UU?
6. Are the Seven Principles sufficient as a guide for UU?
7. How would you modify the UU Seven Principles? (Note, there is no mention of UU being a religion or a faith in the current Seven Principles.)
In 2001, a regional survey of UU members in the Midwest was conducted by Ohio University. This survey allowed respondents to choose more than one label for themselves. The researcher noted that “the typical respondent felt the need to circle three or four terms to describe his or her theological views.” The results of this survey were:
humanist (54%)
agnostic (33%)
earth-centered (31%)
atheist (18%)
Buddhist (16.5%)
pagan (13.1%)
Christian (13.1%)
It would be interesting to see the results if this survey were conducted today and a second survey taken of ministers only to see how much UU ministers are in tune with UU membership.
It would also be interesting if the results were grouped as above and secondly, the choices ranked by which most applied to the person being surveyed. How many first identified as Buddhist, for example.
Excellent questions, and some which point out the difficulty of simply rolling back the years in the UUA. We not only have to consider the true believers that have joined congregations (we don’t want to treat them as we were treated, do we?) but we have to replace much of the UUA infrastructure, as well.
Not only has the ministerial slant of the group been changed from Humanist to christian, many of the lay positions at Beacon Street and in the districts have gone the same way. It will take many years to revert back being a primarily humanist organization even after the UUA leadership sees the light.
The major hurdle to resurrecting humanism within UU will not be membership which is majority humanist, as much as UU leadership which is overwhelmingly religious theists whose background, training, interest, and career are in doing “church”; a Christian-lite version. UU members will be happy if there are good Sunday morning programs, if UU World magazine is engaging, and if the UU brand is relevant to their lives and aspirations. UUA leadership, on the other hand, is dominated by a power structure whose first concern is protecting their careers. [Anytime you want to understand the structure and operations of any religious, political, or educational system, follow the money, where it comes from, where it is, and where it goes.]
One of the first things that must be done is to break the grip Boston has on congregations thru its ministerial credentialing and placement process. Boston is acting as a union hall for ministers on whom they have put their stamp of approval which, in turn, makes the ministers supportive of the Boston power structure. When a congregation is looking for a new minister, Boston threatens that if they do not hire one of their approved ministers, the congregation will lose favor with the UUA and if the congregation ever needs another minister or maybe a loan to build or expand. . . . . The UUA is supposed to be an association of independent congregations but that is not the way it has worked out. Further, Boston has rigged the election process to favor UUA presidents coming from their UU minister ranks.
-Boston should not be in the business of approving ministers. UU congregations must be fully free to hire their leaders from where they choose, employed or retired teaches if they wish, for example.
-UUA has association with two seminaries, Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, California, and Meadville Lombard Theological School, Chicago, Illinois. (Does the UUA lend support to these schools financially?) Starr King and Meadville Lombard are schools to train ministers in theology. A non theist would not fit in. Starr King and Meadville Lombard, if they were to become interested in producing humanist leaders, they would drop the theology indoctrination and model themselves on Reed College in Portland, Oregon and St. John’s College with campuses in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Annapolis, Maryland, where students receive a real education in the humanities based on the Great Books program; Great Books Foundation, Chicago, Illinois.
-A primary job of the UUA should be to supply good material for Sunday morning programs. Congregations would be free to use, not use, or modify the material as they see fit. This would save congregations a lot of money because they would be less dependent on ministers for Sunday morning programs.
- Running for the presidency of the UUA must be fully open to all with full coverage of each candidate in UU World and a UUA website where candidates could post even more about themselves. There could be two primaries to narrow the field down to five or six candidates and then down to two, with the final vote being tallied at a General Assembly from votes brought from each congregation.
I do not disagree with any of that. In fact, it just adds to the proof that this is a very difficult task to which we have set ourselves.