So, what is Syncretic Religion?

[lilithu]

Hi Applewuud! Just wanted to say that I'm a big "Powell Davies" fan, and have been for decades. I'm glad to see that Chris and the folks at UU World are finally doing some articles about him. While understanding Rev. Davies admittedly requires that we know a little about the times in which he lived (during and post WWII), I think he had a solid grasp and focus on what is distinctive about Unitarianism (and Universalism...he died before the merger), and arguably, the need to respectfully share this "Faith of the Free" with the rest of the world. In his book "America's Real Religion," for example, he talked about a faith freed from the rigid constraints of dogma, but also suggested that this "faith behind freedom" need not be confined to any one religious denomination. In that sense, he saw UU as having something to "give to" other religious traditions, as well as something to "borrow from" them.

Davies is big where I'm from (since he was the senior minister of my church, All Souls Church, Unitarian) and I'm glad to see him recognized elsewhere. (You guys may not know this, since it's relatively new, but the A. Powell Davies Memorial Committee at All Souls now has a web site: www.apowelldavies.org.)

An interesting thing about Davies is that, like you and me and many others, he was a convert to the faith. Converts, since they have actively chosen their faith above others, often have a better grasp of what is distinctive of the faith. Otoh, I think we also bring in what we want to see, and which may not really represent the existing UU culture. I don't have this idea fully fleshed out yet; I just know that I've experienced this tension and can see it in our history.

I guess I'm wondering, given the high percentage of converts that we have and given how quickly converts can rise to prominence within UU.... what that means....

As I've respectfully submitted in discussions on a number of occasions, our modern-day UU faith---and this faster-moving, ever-shrinking, but deeply fragmented world---could really use A. Powell Davies and his passionate spirit and leadership these days. Had he not died when he did, I think he would likely have been the first president of the merged denomination, and because of this, I seems to me that there might also be a lot less ambiguity now about what "UU is all about" and why it exists.

One can only hope that Davies would have handled the black empowerment controversy that rocked the UUA in the late 60s better than Dana Greeley did.

 

[uufreespirit]

Thanks for that Davies committee link! While I'm not really into the "worshipping of heroes," I think he might have come close to being an exception. John Wolf in Tulsa was another UU leader whom I have long admired. I actually exchanged letters with Dr. Wolf last year (he's now retired, and "emeritus" at All Souls-Tulsa. (What a down to earth gentleman!) He hand-wrote me five pages of reflections about his career and those who inspired his own highly successful ministry...and, to no real surprise, he listed Powell Davies at the top of that list. For example, two things we both agreed on was the emphasis that Davies placed upon youth programs and music. (Dr. Wolf's former church, which now has about 1500 adult members, also has about 600 to 700 in RE, and I would guess at least five choirs (three for children).

It probably was not a good thing for me, having been raised in rural, small-town South Georgia, to have been a member of All Souls-Tulsa, because this is unfairly the standard by which I still measure our UU congregations. Yes, I know, it's not fair, and bigness isn't necessarily goodness, is it? Still....I look at the story of how they stood their ground with pride there in conservative Oklahoma--in the shadows of Oral Roberts University--and became (by some measures) the largest UU church in the country, while spinning off at least three other congregations. Now if we could learn how to do THAT nationwide, seems to me we'd be in business!

I've also visited your church, by the way Lilithu. You folks have an impressive story there as well: Someday I would love to attend services there.

Agreed, there are different, often conflicting currents and interests within modern-day UU, and again I'll admit to being in the minority in my "UU-style evangelistic" way of thinking. I've been trying to get a little congregation started here in the Charleston suburbs and have run up against a surprising amount of resistance to "establishing a strong liberal-religious presence" here. (Let's just say that most people here would seem to rather just have an informal, weekly coffee-house "social" instead of services. I know these folks mean well--and I have nothing at all against informal social meetups--it's just sometimes hard for me to square it with the more high-profile, mission-oriented atmosphere which I had experienced there in Tulsa.

 

[lilithu]

Agreed, there are different, often conflicting currents and interests within modern-day UU, and again I'll admit to being in the minority in my "UU-style evangelistic" way of thinking.

Ah no, I'm right there wit ya on the evangelism. Not that I would be thumpin any UU canonical bibles at people. But I do believe we need to get the word out, because so many people come to us saying that they'd been looking for us for a long time.

I've been trying to get a little congregation started here in the Charleston suburbs and have run up against a surprising amount of resistance to "establishing a strong liberal-religious presence" here. (Let's just say that most people here would seem to rather just have an informal, weekly coffee-house "social" instead of services. I know these folks mean well--and I have nothing at all against informal social meetups--it's just sometimes hard for me to square it with the more high-profile, mission-oriented atmosphere which I had experienced there in Tulsa.

For some people, they're adverse to evangelism and organized religion, due to their past experiences. For other people, I think that they're just happy having found their little niche and don't want to bother with the rest of the world. Actually actively welcoming new people to their fold would require adjustments. IMO, the latter is just a tad selfish, and sometimes even elitist.

 

[des]

Just as a comparison for ya'll, UCC has done evangelism with the ad campaign of a few years ago. If anyone saw these they were not allowed on network tv, due to being too controversial, but became a news story and were on cable. There was a bouncer that kept anybody but clean cut white people out of a church, and then cut to "Jesus didn't reject anybody, neither do we", etc. Our church also did radio ads with the same message. Anyway, it was very successful, not because it was reaching out and grabbing people who were just tired of listening to you, but because they felt rejected and now felt welcomed. We have a lot of new members and many new gay members.

I feel there are a lot of people turned off by church because of the Jerry Falwell's of the world. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouth about what religion is or should be. So I don't think they are really opposed to hearing that things could be different.

BTW, I think that UU is the only progressive church that is growing at any appreciable rate. I would guess that like ours many of your members are not life long UUs. So for a lack of a better term you should keep the faith. That doesn't mean shoving it down people's throats.

To me the comparisons are kind of interesting. I don't know of UCC people who really want to be in the business of evangelism. So we have our own "brand". I think it's basically this place is "safe". We need all the religious safety we can get these days, and I mean that seriously. UU is a safe place. That is no little thing.



--des

 

[uufreespirit]

That almost-deliberate attempt not to "spread the word" seems to be a part of our "free-spirit legacy" in religion that dates, by some measures, even back into the 1500's. I've been putting together a little essay on one of my websites about the "other Reformation" (which we UU's sometimes call the "radical reformation" or the "radical left wing" of Christianity's Protestant Reformation). In my research there, I found this "other Reformation" described as being "too gentle, too tolerant, to succeed in a violent and bigoted world. It defined Christianity too much in terms of love and too little as dogma to have succeeded in the times and places where it was born." Their approach to religion was generally low-key, soft-spoken and humble, although (from their writings) it was very devout in its personal mission to separate the "wheat from the chaff" in religion. They stressed tolerance and goodwill almost to a fault, often in the midst of their own persecution. They were reluctant to even organize (much less to spread their gospel of "freedom of conscience" and of "spirit more than letter").

To me, that's a fascinating part of our heritage...the way these early free-spirits (...folks like Hans Denck, Sebastian Franck, Francis David, Sebastian Castellio...) held, in varying degrees, mixtures of mysticism and humanistic rationalism, and how that interaction brought about not only new thinking about Christian dogma but also led some to extend their quest for truth even outside the traditional boundaries of Christianity. Seems that, even now, we're inclined to just let this "ongoing Reformation" stay one of society's best-kept secrets. (Reminds me of how Jefferson, toward the end of his life, made his most boastful statements about the future of Unitarianism only in private letters, even requesting that they not be shared with anybody.)