There's been quite a discussion on the "UU blogs" recently about just what is the role of our congregations in "this thing we call UU." How important are they? Why are they not adequately meeting the needs of the majority of those people who identify themselves as Unitarian Universalists? It's a healthy conversation to have, but some of the angst is unwarranted, IMHO.

While some UU bloggers are just now coming to this realization --that UU is more of a movement that extends beyond our institutions, arguably even beyond UUA--some of us have recognized it for years. UUA has itself struggled with this fact (and continues to do so, it seems to me). There's even a hint of authoritarianism in its assumptions that it can somehow speak for an entire movement...for all UU's through a common set of "principles and purposes" (as admirable as they may be, and upon which I voted favorably as a delegate back in 1985, by the way).

The tendency to conflate this particular mode of liberal religion that we currently are calling Unitarian Universalism with any one single religious institution or denomination is a fundamental error. This "movement" is older than the UUA, and I would argue is much, much larger. Surveys have only recently begun to reflect the fact, having discovered that people are (by the hundreds of thousands) adopting the name Unitarian or Unitarian Universalist who have no personal relationship with any UU organization. This thing that we call Unitarian Universalism--largely for the sake of convenience, and the lack of any better name at the moment--reflects a "whole 'nother way" of looking at religion, a far different paradigm of progressive, dynamic, non-dogmatic, radical-reform oriented and Enlightenment-spirited religion, which simply refuses to be confined by the old boundaries, or to be judged or measured according by the old rules and standards. Yes, it has--and will continue to possess--both communal and individual aspects, as it sees religion itself to be an expression and embodiment of both diversity and unity.

There will, no doubt, be room for "congregations" in some form, but the old rules need not apply any more--should not apply. Ours is a "new wineskins of ongoing-reformation" kind of faith--one which, by its very nature and DNA is tasked to respond to the new needs of an ever-shrinking, ever-changing, faster-moving world. The "new paradigm" will inevitably give birth to new models of community, of networking, of extended family. Rather than bemoan that fact, we should learn how to accept this new mode of religion, and adapt ourselves to its different "new world" demands and expectations...to its different rules and standards.

As our liberal prophets have been insisting for centuries, the ways of the fifth and fifteenth centuries will simply not do for ours. Whether intended or not, we've hitched our horses to something distinctly different...to a "whole 'nother way" in religion, a way of critical questioning; of nondogmatic, inductively-reasoned, "free and open marketplace" scientific discipline; of democratic human relations which respect both diversity and unity; of personal free-agency in matters of conscience and ultimate truth and meaning; of radical belonging and of an inextricable cosmic connectedness with the very heartbeat of the universe...with the "interdependent web" of life. The sooner we come to grips with just how distinct is this particular legacy in religion...of this still-emerging new paradigm of "thorough-going liberalism," of sound reasoning and utmost personal honesty applied even to matters of the spirit, the sooner we will begin to meet the needs of a world that simply refuses to comply with the dogmatic, authoritarian, patriarchal constructs of religion which we humans have sought to impose upon it for far too long. The universe itself is calling for a different mode of human relationships...for a different kind of civility...a different set of standards...a different mindset. As a Universalist once suggested, we who call ourselves Universalists have an obligation to either "improve the premises" or step aside and allow others to do it.

But...I could be wrong. What do you think?

Ron