Wouldn’t it be interesting if significant conversations raised in in the UU blogging community were turned into small group ministry sessions? Oh, if only I had a dozen iMinistry interns…

Whatever issue is being discussed, a question has to be raised somewhere in order or it to be picked up and discussed by our larger UU community. I’ve been pleased to see that a number of congregations are publishing various feeds from uupdates.net on their websites making UU blog conversations more visible to non bloggers.

What do you think about the need for additional UU publications? Do you think we’re fine with primarily UUA publications or would you like to see others?

I often saw in UU Voice and still in some ministerial blogs a lot of text devoted to slamming UU denominationalism. But, I don’t recall ever seeing a sincere defense of it. You can’t really have a debate, or for that matter an informed conversation with just one side of an issue being presented.

My new blog, http://www.TenMinutesOrLess.blogspot.com is an attempt to introduce issues that are lacking in our discussion today. This blog is written for many faiths, but the issues are similar.

You also asked: “Or are loosely connected bloggers with interwoven comments sufficient?” It’s not sufficient, because a loose web is too fragmented to draw or sustain attention from a broad audience. I suspect that very few UU blogs attract the regular interest of even a small fraction of UU leaders.

Much of the USA still sees UU as an outsider faith, as an asterisk hardly worthy of consideration. Only to the extent that we can establish some degree of legitimacy and persuasiveness in the public arena will society begin to sit up and take notice that we just might have something important to say…that we even have our own “tradition” and “heritage” that’s worthy of consideration. Powell Davies did that in his high-profile ministry. His was a courageous, high-profile ministry, which even challenged the evangelists to debate him…even Billy Graham*…and which earned the respect from Washington politicians and Supreme Court Justices who came to hear what he had to say on the issues of the day from a liberal-religious perspective.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,815957,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

Today, in contrast, our more famous UU’s seem thoroughly ashamed to even use the name for fear of condemnation. (Davies then was able to establish many new UU congregations which today have thousands of new members…it’s not an either-or proposition.)

Here in the Bible Belt I could tell many stories about how lonely it is “out here in the UU hinterlands.” In Facebook groups like the “Unitarian Universalists of Georgia” and “South Carolina Unitarian Universalists,” I hear them quite often…about the struggles people are having with family members and friends, in trying to convince them that UU is a valid faith-alternative and not a cult. Being a religious liberal should be a cause for pride and honor, no matter where you happen to live or how close you are to a UU congregation. And, in a highly-mobile society, I believe that should be an important consideration.

I think it is the local congregations that need to get their message out in whatever way that is appropriate. They do not need to necessarily take their cues from the home office in Boston. I agree that we are all priests and prophets and we should live our lives accordingly.

Peter, I’ve been having the same thoughts recently. (I may eventually put it all together in a blog post at my ole MUUsings Livejournal blog.) Just this morning I was wondering why we couldn’t still have a UU Advance, and why it isn’t funded appropriately. (I would suggest Veatch for that, and believe that if it’s done right it would eventually pay for itself.)

What I’ve been wondering about is the need for a UU advocacy initiative. It could be an “Advance-like” endeavor, but I think that even a low-profile faith really does need a high-profile advocacy effort. As Jefferson stated, when the questions and facts are clearly defined, there are, no doubt, many who would embrace our liberal faith community. Just as importantly, there are countless others who would have a better concept of who we are and what we represent in this faster-moving, ever-shrinking world.

But the facts do need to be clearly stated, and that’s where we need a coalition of articulate theologians, historians, clergy and layleaders who can tell our story, instead of leaving a public void in which others (with other vested interests) are only too quick to fill. If our advocacy efforts were effective, then statements like those from Garrison Keillor wouldn’t bother us nearly as much.

Today, on the “Unitarian Universalism” Facebook group, I posted a “today in history” item about John Hamilton Thom, who joined forces with other leading Unitarians of his day in England to debate the criticisms of other Anglican clergy about Unitarianism. That could still happen. We can have a public voice that deals with the needs of the present day, and instead of simply debating scripture, our study would be of “real-world scripture” of common sense and common human issues.

I really admire those Universalist circuit-riding ministers of times past, who would not only go around the country gathering small groups and possible congregations, but also debating religion with the fundamentalists. I also am a big fan of the ministry of 20th century Unitarian minister A. Powell Davies, who had a very clear vision of public advocacy as a part of his sacred duty. (Not coincidentally, he also was a primary mover behind the original Unitarian Advance project.)

One of my religious mentors, a rural Georgia Universalist, farmer and small-town mayor named Haynie Summers, was also editor of the Universalist Herald publication. In one issue of the Herald, he made a statement that has stuck with me for almost forty years: “To me, religion should include everybody and be concerned with everybody. The more I learn about the actions of human beings, the more sure I am that any activity that pits one individual, one group, one nationality or one race against another is wrong, and is not good religion.” We have nothing to be ashamed of, I believe, in proclaiming the high-road of “good religion” that heals and seeks to bring people together (in their myriad interests and styles and customs) instead of building walls and barriers to keep us apart, and in proclaiming the “good news” of a world where freedom and unity, respect and compassion, love and mercy can grow together.

I think we almost have a duty to proclaim that good news of “good religion” (whatever the name) over the destructive tendencies of “bad religion” (whatever the name), and of humility in ALL religion — admitting that none of us have all the answers, even those who founded and grew the various world religions. In our liberal tradition, all of us are ultimately “priests” and “prophets,” but I’m convinced that we still need a place at the table of public advocacy on a societal level.

While I continue to develop that blog post, I would love to know what other people think about this subject. Thanks again, Peter, for all that you are doing!

But the missing piece — I’m working up an associated long-form post about a related issue — is advocacy. Fine opinions don’t change decisions, and there’s not a lot of evidence the associational decision-makers read the bloggers.

I was disappointed to hear back that they would not even CONSIDER allowing discourse on issues that they themselves hadn’t raised.

Reject my letter if the topic is too narrow, or if I’m inarticulate, but don’t decide as policy that only the editorial staff can determine the issues we debate.