Skip to content

On Repelling Fewer People: Reflections on Multiculturalism and More

June 29, 2009

During this year’s Ministry Days and General Assembly, the trend toward multiculturalism in American society came up repeatedly—most notably in Paul Rasor’s Berry Street Lecture and UUA President Peter Morales’ campaign speeches.

Paul Rasor asks, “Is our brand of religious liberalism fatally linked to a demographic that’s fading?” In 2042, projections indicate that white people will compose only 50.8% of the population. Will we still be a faith community that is 90% white, as we are today and as we have been for the past 10 years, even after all the proactive antiracism, multiculturalism work of leaders in our denomination? “We face a major turning point: will we stand, or will we move?”

Echoing this, President Morales says, “One of our problems is we have a faith with enormous appeal, but we need to stop packaging it in Yankee culture.” We need “a new faith for a new America.”

Our congregational culture proves to be a barrier to many people who would otherwise love to be a part of us because they love what we love: the promise of personal and social transformation through free religion. Of what does this culture consist? From comments shared by Rosemary Bray McNatt, following on the heels of Paul Rasor’s lecture, this culture is a matter of aesthetic and lifestyle preferences: “We don’t own TVs, don’t like gospel and pop music and definitely don’t like rap, are unapologetic nature lovers, eat locally, say NO to shopping at Wal Mart, listen to NPR, love Garrison Keillor, read ahead in the hymnal to see if we agree with the words we are about to sing.” But, says Rosemary, “how does this allow us to encounter people whose experience of church is different? What’s their entry point into our congregations?”

I can personally attest to this. As Lead Minister of the Pathways Church project (the initial “rapid-start large church”) from 2003-2007, I was given this marching order: think outside of the Unitarian Universalist box, explore ways in which non-UU churches attract people by the thousands, and then, through trial-and error, create a church that integrates these dynamic elements. Build a new kind of Unitarian Universalist church for a new day, one that is at its core UU even as, on the surface, it might look and feel very different from what UUs are used to.

I can personally attest to what Paul, Peter, and Rosemary are getting at because the people who resisted this the most and gave me the most trouble were existing Unitarian Universalists. By contrast, people who had never heard of Unitarian Universalism before and found us (or we found them) were delighted, excited, on board and wanting more. But not existing UUs. Part of this definitely related to worship style. At Pathways, we modeled our worship after the intense, full-immersion worship favored by many evangelical and non-denominational congregations. Our music was primarily popular—one time we even did some rap—and it proved to be the golden thread that ran throughout our services, at times joyfully energizing us while, at other times, taking us to sweet silent places of prayer and reflection. Our services also appealed to multiple-learning styles in that they featured visual, dramatic, and kinesthetic components. I will never forget after one of our first services, how a 75 year-old-woman came up to me and said that it was the best worship she had ever experienced in her life. She loved the music. She loved the slice-of-life dramas. She loved the multimedia. The lesson is clear: it’s absolutely false to say that only youth and young adults prefer contemporary worship. Many people in this world hunger after worship that helps them connect with energy and joy in the idiom of contemporary American life. Many people, that is, who are not already Unitarian Universalist. I can’t tell you how many times I was “pecked to death” by people who came to us from other Unitarian Universalist congregations—people whose sense of what is proper for UU culture was mortally offended by what they were experiencing in our pews. They smelled white trash, and they sneered.

Pathways definitely taught me that Unitarian Universalism, as it is practiced in most if not all of our congregations, is an ethnic religion with cultural norms. Violate the norms, and you are in trouble. Free religion only in mind but not where freedom most fully and truly resides: in the heart and in the body.

And yet…. Even as I can personally relate to what Paul and Peter and Rosemary are saying, I feel that there are other, more significant obstacles to people entering into our faith (and staying). I am particularly struck by how all such obstacles tend to remain generally unspoken, unsaid, and unacknowledged.

One of these unspoken obstacles came to light for me during the opening events at General Assembly. During the opening plenary, outgoing UUA President Bill Sinkford reviewed the highlights of his administration’s achievements, and part of this included a recitation of injustice after injustice in the world, which he enjoined the Unitarian Universalist community to address. Then, during the opening worship that followed, he spoke of truth and reconciliation and formally apologized to representatives of local Indian tribes for what we did in the 19th century: our complicity (however ineffective) in the U. S. government’s initiative to “civilize” the indigenous tribes of Utah and elsewhere. By no means do I think that such an apology was unnecessary. By no means do I think that the evils of the world should go unchecked. Yet the whole thing, from first to last, was so solemn, so earnest, so suggestive of … overfunctioning. I sensed behind it all a larger pattern—a troubling pattern—which I will call “the Unitarian Universalist superego.”

Historically, our UU superego can be traced back to our Boston Brahmin forbearers, though the form it takes today reflects great distance from those social movers and shakers and the transformation of many years. Now it is a moralism that combines masochism with workaholism. Every evil in the world becomes our problem—its very existence suggests some kind of collaboration on our part, unwitting if not witting. And since we are interrupted Calvinists who have rejected the guilt-discharging techniques of our ancient ancestors without replacing them with anything else, the sense of guilt just builds and builds. Can’t get away from it. Our backs ache from the accumulated weight. We have become guilt-grubbers. We look for ways to kick ourselves.

The UU superego is into masochism, and it is into workaholism. We must be overachievers, in the lead attacking every social ill. Theologically, it’s not enough to become familiar with one world religious tradition—we’ve got to know them all, in addition to every liberal art and every science. Our dreams have got to be the biggest. And if we are going to do “diversity,” well, then, we’re gonna do Noah’s Ark diversity. We’re gonna gather two of every possible kind within our walls—we’re going to aspire to doing something only a God could do. We are going to act like the God that most of us don’t believe in. It’s all up to us. Poet Wendell Berry says, “Not by your will is the house carried through the night,” but we don’t believe it. It’s ALL up to us. If we don’t do it, it’s not going to happen.

Now I know that I verge upon exaggeration. I know it. Yet every time I hear a key UU voice reciting a litany of all the evils in the world, together with the message that we’ve just got to DO something, I feel the weight of the Unitarian Universalist superego: the masochism, the workaholism. What a heavy burden we place upon our shoulders. What a heavy burden we place upon the shoulders of those who come to us.

Makes me wonder what Meg Barnhouse’s surly waitress would have to say to us. “In my life,” says Meg, “I have certain things to take care of: my children, my relationships, my work, myself, and one or two causes. That’s it. Other things are not my table. I would go nuts if I tried to take care of everyone, if I tried to make everybody do the right thing. If I went through my life without ever learning to say, ‘Sorry, that’s not my table, Hon,’ I would burn out and be no good to anybody. I need to have a surly waitress inside myself that I can call on when it seems that everyone in the world is waving an empty coffee cup in my direction. My Inner Waitress looks over at them, keeping her six plates balanced and her feet moving, and says, ‘Sorry, Hon, not my table.’”

We need to have a surly waitress within ourselves and within our movement, so we don’t burn out.

The next day, I went to Mark Morrison-Reed’s workshop entitled “The Perversity of Diversity.” In it, I was delighted to encounter a message that echoed my own sensibilities somewhat. It was my first GA workshop—I came there right after breakfast at the Radisson, during which I spent most of the time gulping coffee and writing cranky things in my journal. Mark shared his own thoughts about how UUism is an ethnic religion. He affirmed how, as a liberal religion, we are especially responsive to currents and trends in contemporary life, saying, “Rather than leading, we are reaping the rewards of a changing society. The growth of the black and Hispanic middle class has led to more blacks and Hispanics in our pews.” Mark also put his finger on how we assign ourselves incredibly ambitious goals and then, when (of course) we fall short, we fret, we self-flagellate. It’s moral workaholism, moral masochism: the UU superego. I know it well, since that’s exactly what the Pathways experience made perfectly clear. The ambitious and beautiful dreams that led to it; the incredible consternation and embarrassment and outrage that exploded when things did not unfold as expected and the small church did not become large instantly, as if it were some bag of microwave popcorn. As for the people who risked much to do a new thing: scant gratitude. Small thanks.

President Morales: “One of our problems is we have a faith with enormous appeal, but we need to stop packaging it in Yankee culture.” Yes. But more important is that our faith returns to a sense of genuine reverence, as defined by philosopher Paul Woodruff: “Reverence is the virtue that helps human beings from trying to act like God.” “Reverence and a keen eye for the ridiculous are allies: both keep people from being pompous or stuck up.” It’s Meg Barnhouse’s surly inner waitress, coaching us to loosen up. We can take ourselves way too seriously. We can become anti-liberal and inegalitarian in our enthusiasm. We can become overcontrolling of each other. We can nurture a sectarian spirit that makes us feel superior to all the other religionists who are working for world peace too. Perhaps if we talked more about God we would be better humanists. We would do a better job remembering our human limitations.

Of course we should aspire to bring healing and wholeness to the world. Of course we should incarnate our “many ways” theology and celebration of life in communities of vibrant diversity. Of course. But let this not become a moralistic burden, one we are lectured into by a superego that continually whispers in our ears that we are shameful. Our surly inner waitress needs to counter and silence our Unitarian Universalist surperego. Only then will we recognize what is and what is not our table.

Mostly, I’m talking about the need for an attitude adjustment. Resisting the anxious, perfectionistic impulse to clean up the messiness of the world. Savoring the world so that our impulse to save it flows out of a sense of abundance and love. Serving out of the deep knowledge that we exist in partnership with a grace-filled universe. “Not by your will is the house carried through the night,” says Wendell Berry:

The grace that is the health of creatures can only be held in common.
In healing the scattered members come together.
In health the flesh is graced, the holy enters the world.

What if, for example, this grace and this health were the focus of the opening worship at General Assembly, every year? Starting out, not by reciting an earnest litany of social evils and injustice, but by remembering and invoking the grace and the health in which we live and move and have our being? The President of the UUA, saying, “Here we all are, gathered together again, and the Spirit of Life is with us as well, within us and between us, leading us towards more strength and more healing and more peace. Let’s see where it takes us, in our time together. Let’s expect to be surprised. Let’s see where we go….”

The attitude adjustment is remembering always to serve out of a visceral sense of grace and abundance. Put this at our center, and our cultural ethos will be far more sustainable and far more encouraging. We will indeed repel fewer visitors and retain more members, but more importantly, we will be making our contribution to the healing of the world, and we will trust that, however imperfect or limited our contribution, the gracious universe will turn it into some good. It will be enough.

16 Comments
  1. I’m reminded of the Simpsons character who stands up in every town meeting—whether they’re talking about a monorail proposal or Mayor Quimby’s latest improprieties—to implore her fellow Springfieldians: “But won’t somebody please think about the children??” Except that UUs don’t stop with children, and some UUs would fill entire town meetings with nothing but recitations of “But won’t somebody please think about the X??”

  2. Amen, brother!

    I have similar experiences. My church started a new church poised to grow on the growing edge of our city. Unfortunately about a dozen of the first 50 people to come were old UU’s, and they resisted everything our organizers had been taught and burned them out. That church still has 90 members.

    We have a high-energy contemporary service at our church. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, of course, but the only people who have ever criticized it are visiting UU ministers.

    I’m all for repelling fewer visitors. But once we quit doing that, we have to give them something to come back for.

    • Anthony David permalink

      Thanks Christine!

      I hear you about the need to give people something to come back for. Regarding this, I’ll just quote from the last part of my blog entry:

      Mostly, I’m talking about the need for an attitude adjustment. Resisting the anxious, perfectionistic impulse to clean up the messiness of the world. Savoring the world so that our impulse to save it flows out of a sense of abundance and love. Serving out of the deep knowledge that we exist in partnership with a grace-filled universe. “Not by your will is the house carried through the night,” says Wendell Berry:

      The grace that is the health of creatures can only be held in common.
      In healing the scattered members come together.
      In health the flesh is graced, the holy enters the world.

      What if, for example, this grace and this health were the focus of the opening worship at General Assembly, every year? Starting out, not by reciting an earnest litany of social evils and injustice, but by remembering and invoking the grace and the health in which we live and move and have our being? The President of the UUA, saying, “Here we all are, gathered together again, and the Spirit of Life is with us as well, within us and between us, leading us towards more strength and more healing and more peace. Let’s see where it takes us, in our time together. Let’s expect to be surprised. Let’s see where we go….”

      The attitude adjustment is remembering always to serve out of a visceral sense of grace and abundance. Put this at our center, and our cultural ethos will be far more sustainable and far more encouraging. We will indeed repel fewer visitors and retain more members, but more importantly, we will be making our contribution to the healing of the world, and we will trust that, however imperfect or limited our contribution, the gracious universe will turn it into some good. It will be enough.

  3. Gotta love those old U*Us who resist change. . . No?

    Rev. Robinson makes a very important point that I have made before but which bears repeating –

    without spiritually nourishing “full meals that have real integrity and their own unique flavor” being served at the figurative “table” of the Unitarian*Universalist religious community, no amount of “radical hospitality” will retain new members. If people are invited to a “feast” and find the fare being served to be little more than thin spiritual porridge sprinkled with dollops of MSG, to say nothing of saccharine. . . they will seek their spiritual nourishment elsewhere.

    Here is another very much on topic point that I have made before which Rev. Christine Robinson has even publicly validated by saying, “Robin’s got his finger on one of our major problems.” Thank you once again for that public affirmation of my shared concerns Rev. Robinson.

    If U*U congregations really want to become more ethnically diverse and genuinely multicultural they are going to have to try a lot harder to be genuinely welcoming towards God believing people from all kinds of different cultural and religious backgrounds. I have been telling U*Us for years that one of the reasons the U*U movement has so few “people of color” as members is the anti-religious intolerance of the hard-core atheist faction of “Humanist” U*Us that rears its ugly head in too many U*U “churches”. It does not take that many such “obnoxious atheists”* to repel any number of potential U*Us either. A small but vocal minority of “obnoxious atheists” can make a large number of God believing people feel far from welcome in *their* U*U “church” if their anti-religious intolerance is ignored and/or effectively condoned by the proverbial “silent majority” of that unwelcoming congregation’s members. Even non-theists who are none-the-less open-minded and tolerant people have been seriously put off U*Uism simply by witnessing the anti-religious intolerance of the “fundamentalist atheist” subset “Humanist” U*Us when visiting some U*U “churches”. I have very reasonable grounds to believe that U*U tolerance and even tacit acceptance and approval of the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of the minority of outspoken “fundamentalist atheists” is a major contributing factor to not only the lack of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity within the U*U religious community but also to the overall lack of interest of the American public in joining U*U “churches”. What God believing person wants to go to “church” on Sunday only to have some obnoxious atheist express condescension, and even outright hostility and contempt, for their theistic religious beliefs?

    * To quote former UUA president Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens

  4. Tom permalink

    Thanks for such an illuminating essay. I have always wondered why UUs talk as if denominational growth were limited by a shortage of white people. 99.9% of American white people reject UUism, as do 99.5% of middle class white liberal NPR listeners. Even 90% of the alumni of UU RE reject UUism as adults. The idea that we are intense masochists explains all that.

    For example, UUs don’t really want to go to an integrated church. If they did, they would quit UUism and join one. What UUs really want is a predominantly white church which feels really guilty about being predominantly white. They want a church that disapproves of itself.

    And intense Calivinist guilt explains UU grandiosity. In polite society it isn’t really acceptable for white people to boast that they are experts on racism. But white UUA staff do it all the time. I guess the powerful guilt feelings provide a sense of moral superiority which justifies sweeping generalizations about other people.

    This is obviously a niche sensibility, which explains our small size. But what is wrong with that? Don’t masochistic liberals need a spiritual home too? I am sure that if we were more like some of the local New Age megachurches with which we compete we would have more members. But it would be a different crowd.

    UUism has a history of success at attracting and ministering to masochistic liberals. It has been a long time since we were a mainstream religion. Why shouldn’t we stick to what we know how to do? The mainstream folks have plenty of options already.

  5. It’s time for Unitarian Universalism to be a both / and religion again. Active and contemplative. It’s time to look for what’s NEXT? Who’s NEXT? UU’s have largely been playing catch up and copy cat on the American religious landscape on everything but social justice for decades. The people seeking religious community in a post-modern, global media culture find our congregations little different from the Catholic Churches, or fundamentalist mega churches that they are turning away from. I know that will strike many UU’s as odd, but it’s true. For all of our liberal theology and social justice, there is no real place for a person to be heard at the soul level in many of our congregations. The energy in the American religious landscape moved away from the mega churches a decade ago and is now in the emergent church movement. By the time the UUA tried its hand at mega church, it was already a decade behind. It’s really time we took a look at what’s NEXT instead of what already happened.

  6. Tony, I really appreciate this conversation! I’ve added links to it at a number of Facebook groups. Your July 1 comment above really hit it, I believe…that we’ve tried to play “copy cat on the American religious landscape on everything but social justice for decades”. I’ve ranted on this for years now, on blogs and message boards.

    As Rev. Duncan Howlett wrote in several of his books, we try to be a “modifying” liberal faith rather than a “thorough-going” one. Our “fatal flaw,” as he calls it, is that we try to sit on the liberal-religious fence–between the two options–instead of jumping off, committing ourselves and embracing the critical, questing spirit in religion at its depth. We are heirs to a potentially very different tradition in religion, but what we wind up offering–up there on the fence– is “religion lite” instead of “religion liberated” (…religion set free, to not just, as Robin said,go through the spiritual buffet line and pick and choose from everything there, but to also be encouraged to consume and digest what we select from there as well…diverse as it may be. That’s a kind of nourishment–from a critical, questing and celebrative spirit– that is likely to bring people back again and again. (Implied here is a generous tolerance for differences in worship language and style, don’t you think?)

    We need to get off that fence and embrace that legacy of the questing spirit in both its richness and its depth. The seemingly large number of people who (like Melissa Harris-Lacewell described) tend to simultaneously attend both UU and other liberal congregations, often on the same day, suggests to me that (as you suggested) even freedom-loving people are looking for depth and authentic support in their personal spiritual journeys and are not finding enough of it in either place.

    Yes, we can work closely with others of many faiths (and of no faith) for common goals and purposes, but the uniqueness and “genius” of our particular way is not to be found in becoming more like them. We have our own legacy and approach to religion–of the critical, questing, affirming, celebrating and transformative spirit–that needs to be more thoroughly developed and nurtured, rather than continously copying others. Thanks again, Tony, and others who have commented here!

    • Diane Guernsey permalink

      Yes, UU is a faith with cultural norms and flaws–like any other faith, yes? One of these flaws, as Anthony David points out, is the masochistic, perfectionistic, workaholic UU superego: we’re always ready to believe that we’re not doing enough good, or that we’re not doing enough, period–we’re always ready to clobber ourselves for falling short morally and ethically. Anthony David’s comments, while trenchant, run the risk of falling into that UU trap. But we UUs, like other people, deserve of love and understanding –to hear from the “benign superego,” which most people don’t know about but which exists as surely as the punishing superego and, in my view, leads to far more human goodness, joy and inclusion than the latter. So yes, let’s acknowledge our flaws and work at correcting them, but let’s not condemn ourselves to hell, UU-style, by being angry, unloving and self-punitive as we do so.

  7. After writing the above, I immediately found an example of what we are talking about…

    “I am a HUGE supporter of the Unitarian Universalist Church! I am attracted, awed, impressed and inspired by the UU’s unfailing commitment to equality and justice. I often say, I would be a member if you would just get Gospel Music! ”

    Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-8061-Baltimore-Unitarian-Universalist-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Let-us-stand-together-a-Pride-Month-QA-with-Pride-in-Faith-director-Lea-Gilmore

    …well, there it is. Along with a new “Spanish supplement” to our hymnals, maybe we should begin developing our own “Gospel supplement” as well?

    More than this, maybe the UU Universities, with their multi-track format, have suggested something that could be applied to local congregations…even smaller ones. Small-group ministries within the congregations could employ study, worship and music resources to follow any number of spiritual/theological tracks or disciplines, with online support by online dedicated websites from groups like the UU Christian Fellowship, Buddhist Fellowship, UU’s for Jewish awareness, CUUPS, etc.

    If that’s all that Lea Gilmore needs to be a committed supporter of a UU congregation, then I wonder how many others are just that close as well?

    • Diane Guernsey permalink

      As a UU church musician, I welcome any kind of music, if it’s conducive to worship (joyfully energetic, contemplative, and everything in between). But I’m only one person, and though I try to vary the service music as much as possible with classical, pop, folk, contemporary and other offerings, I can’t cover the musical waterfront single-handed–who can? I welcome suggestions (and guest performances) from congregants and visitors alike, and I’m betting that most other UU musicians do too. So if you wish that UU services offered a certain kind of music, maybe you should ask the church musicians about it or offer to give them a sample–or even to perform it yourself! Our dynamic, interactive faith relies on individuals to take action to create change, and this holds true for our music as well.

  8. As a young seminarian aspiring to serve the U*U tradition (and its members!), I greatly appreciate the honest self-reflection and long-overdue self-criticism that the aforementioned posts flesh out. I must confess that I am an unapologetically proud U*U that readily shares the Good News of liberal religion with fellow students and young professionals – in so doing, I am constantly struck by the degree to which ‘my generation’ responds favorably to the promise of a dogma-transcending-faith that locates God in the everyday. Nevertheless, I would echo Rev. Anthony David’s description of U*Uism as an “ethnic religion with cultural norms”: sermon-heavy, intellectualist, super-skeptical, relentlessly activist, pew-proper and hyper-PC. I suspect that most people would prefer to do religion (to shout, sing, cry, love, pray, etc.) rather than merely ruminate and debate about it.

    Given, there are numerous congregations in our association that offer spiritually rich opportunities for growing-in-fellowship. Amen! And yet, as concerns our faith tradition, I have watched in despair as our message of hope all too frequently degenerates into moralistic nitpicking, while our rhetoric of inclusion dissolves into an inflexibility re: religious-speak and devotional practice. We must, it seems, engage in some serious re-prioritization: living in reverence for the Holy should precede adjudicating ‘acceptable’ ways of talking about the holy; working alongside (following, for once, as opposed to necessarily leading) non-U*Us on issues of social justice (replete with the inevitable awkwardness, discomfort and mutual offenses involved in such work) should precede the dream’s deferment on account of excessive educational training and anticipatory reflection; etc.

    Of course, there is a certain irony to the fact that much of our criticism neatly and safely resides in the blogosphere! As such, my approach to gradually change U*U culture is simply to live the new U*Uism I want to see: despite my inevitable short-comings, I strive to focus less on belief and more on faith, less on thinking-about-God and more on being-in-God, less on empiricism and more on intuition, less on self-service and more on service for others, the list goes on.

    Following a U*U service, a close friend of mine asserted: ‘I don’t think I could do that again – not because the worship offended me, but because I came out of the church the same person as when I went in.’ Our faith holds the keys to transformation – to move individuals from a place of Self-centeredness to a place of Life-centeredness. I pray that we continue to offer people hope in light of despair, love in the face of hate, so that we may join the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in proclaiming: “Just as iron is transmuted into gold by the touch of the Philosopher’s Stone, so are people transformed by joining the Sangat, the Holy Congregation’ – and stop at nothing less. Dayenu.

  9. Years ago, at the Arlington Street Church, someone played Gershwin’s “Back Bay Polka” — its final words are, “You never get ahead, unless you’re dead … you never get ahead in Boston!”

    Complete lyrics here: http://www.smartlyrics.com/Song596682-George–Ira-Gershwin-The-Back-BayPolka-lyrics.aspx

  10. Thanks for this rich conversation! Another example of the “UU superego” is the way in which some UU’s get tied up in knots about “cultural misappropriation” when attempts are made to have our worship be less “Yankee.” Sometimes such concerns are valid, of course – but I confess to having breathed a huge sigh of relief at a workshop this spring, when Paula Cole Jones encouraged us to worry less about misappropriation, and think more about how to make our services welcoming to more people.

  11. Apologies if this is an old post/old conversation… I read this blog with mixed feelings — it made me think as Rev. David has the past few weeks that I’ve attended services at UUCA. As an admitted Yankee transplant to ATL guilty of all of the things that Rosemary cites above (except loving Garrison Keiller), I have found comfort in the intentional community that is UU-ism. I understand it as an ‘ethnic’ practice of sorts, but I’m not totally sure we should feel guilty about that… We (I) do, in fact, have an ethnicity, a political, spiritual heritage and lineage that nourishes me, and that is what I sought when I found UUCA in my new hometown. “Whiteness” isn’t the absence of ethnicity — it can’t be ignored or wished away — and ethnic identity can be progressive… arguably even a white ethnic identity. Identities that have historically been co-constituted with power have an obligation to be reflexive about the replication of power relations, of exclusivity, of privilege, but those that have genuinely (if imperfectly) sought to be progressive places/spaces of welcome and justice also have the right/obligation to nurture what is fundamental, both for the sake of the replication of the space, and as a place of refuge for fellow travelers. Thanks for the post.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Breaking out of UU Culture into what’s NEXT « Sunflower Chalice
  2. Arkansawyer » “They smelled white trash, and they sneered.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.