I'm a long-time member of the UU Church of Medford MA - known for such luminaries as Lydia Maria Child - author, abolitionist, women’s rights advocate, and Indian policy reformer; abolitionist George Luther Stearns, one of the “Secret Six” who funded John Brown in his militant opposition to slavery, and Reverend Eugene Adams, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma.

I watched the election results in the First Parish Church in Concord MA - where once gathered the MA Provincial Congress, calling for Revolution.

My Fellow UUs, enough with the Peace & Love stuff. It's time again to GET ANGRY, and GET ACTIVE.

I woke up with a nasty thought this morning: It occurs to me that the history of UUism is replete with a history of rejecting one group after another. Is being unwelcoming and non-inclusive baked into our history, and possibly our nature?

- Unitarianism & Universalism were both born of heresies - rejecting orthodox Christian thinking.

- Congregational Polity - the very notion of a "free church" is born of a rejection of outside authority

- Early on in the US, LOTS of First Churches split over doctrine - splitting into separate Trinitarian Congregationalist & Unitarian churches

- after the UU merger, humanists & atheists grew into large proportions of many congregations - to the extent of making some very unwelcoming to those who held theistic views - a schism that remains to this day (e.g., in the continuing move to reject "god language" in covenants, hymns, etc., and perhaps playing a part in the early end of Peter Morales tenure as UUA President)

- UUism, particularly in New England, shows a strong legacy of upper class "WASP culture" - I know plenty of people who don't attend UU churches because they look for something more than a dry, intellectual experience at Church (as my wife puts it, it "leaves her cold")

- When I first joined a UU Church, 30 years ago, it seemed like we had a mix of very old "church ladies" and some new blood - mostly young families looking for RE for their kids (count me among them). This struck me as fairly common. In those days, it seemed like we tended to have respect for elders, but over time, "youth culture" took over more and more. With the exception of a few folks who are "old firebrands" from the old days, there doesn't seem to be much respect for the elderly (can you say, "old white people?").

- For a while, we were very active in the Civil Rights movement, and our churches were reportedly more welcoming of POC (if we really were) - and then there were some big, contentious events that blew this all up.

- We have certainly been a refuge for the GLBGTQ+ - perhaps to the extent of being rejecting of those of us who happen to be cisgendered.

Maybe what we're seeing now is simply a cycle of one marginalized group after another, taking refuge in the UU church, and then rejecting the previous group, and perhaps the next one as well.

Maybe love really ISN'T the doctrine of this church. Maybe it's more like recurring cycles of "be different, move in, take over, change the place radically to fit our mold, then reject anyone who doesn't go along."

I just came back from the 4th of July fireworks in our town - the first time I've been able to attend since moving here 2 years ago. Found a link to ‘What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?’ by Frederick Douglass on our church website - a very good read by the way. And some thoughts have gelled for me.

What with all the discussion of racism & anti-racism of late, it struck me how diverse & tension-free the crowd was. Our town, Acton MA, is just far enough outside Boston to be a mix of farms, traditional single-family houses, and commuter-oriented condo complexes. We're decidedly majority-white, with very few black folk (.1% or 8 people), and for some reason lots of Indians and Asians (though I think blacks are under-counted, unless most of them are living in my condo complex - which I kind of doubt).

I was struck by the wide diversity of faces in the crowd, on the shuttle busses taking us to the park, on the lawn for the pre-fireworks concert & the fireworks, on the trail walking back through the town forest. And I'm not talking crowds of white folk in one place, blacks somewhere else, Indians & Asians in their own groups - I'm talking a completely mixed crowd of teenagers playing volleyball, folks of different races intermixed on the lawn, and sitting side-by-side on the shuttle busses. Not a smidge of tension - racial otherwise to be found - just a crowd of neighbors having a good time.

Now I'm not claiming that we've solved the race issue, here in Acton, or that we're representative of the rest of the country - but it's a data point, drawn from a moment in time & space that I find noteworthy.

Meanwhile, down the street, at the Church I recently started attending, we appear to be lily-white (I'm told we have one POC member, but I've yet to see a dark face on Sunday). We seem to have no Asian or Indian members. Do I chalk that up to being unwelcoming, or to a combination of demographics and interest? There are historically black churches in the area, as well as Asian churches and Hindu temples - I would expect that the religiously inclined can be found there. It makes we wonder how much of an issue anti-racism should be for us (we have a Racial Justice Group - but, for the life of me I can't see that it does very much, or has much of an effect - what are we going to do, bus black folk in from Boston, Lowell, and/or Worcester?).

A little closer to Boston, lies Medford MA, where I attended church for 30 years - raising two kids in our RE program. The area is a little poorer - mostly working class - and a little darker. The congregation of 100 or so typically has 3 black members at any given time - and what seems to keep them around is the same thing that keeps/kept the rest of us around. We (I'm "inactive," but still a memer, so I can say "we") have long been a congregation driven by families with RE-age children. That's why I joined, that's why many joined. My observation is that the POC who have stayed are those with kids in RE and/or who've made personal connections within the congregation. The ones who leave, like the white folk who leave, are the ones who have neither kids in RE, nor have made connections (we don't have much of a singles scene for younger seekers, folks tend to drift away as their kids go off to college, or as they get older and move to warmer climes, or to retirement facilities in other local). Again, what to make of it - we seem to be welcoming enough to those who are interested in what we have to offer - but there aren't that many who are (a few people join each year, a few leave, it's not like we're a megachurch or anything).

Meanwhile, both churches have reasonably high proportions of LGBT members - probably a little higher than the general population. In Littleton, our female minister is married to another woman (who turns out to be an old friend, and the ex of the best man at my first wedding - small world). In Medford, we've had a good contingent of LGBT members since I first joined; and the minister came out from the pulpit, a few months after I joined (our reaction was mostly "what's the big deal" - we ended up ministering to him, his then-wife, and his kids as they went through some changes). Since then, we've had several settled, interim, and part-time ministers of various combinations of ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference. All in all - no big deal. And, as with blacks, what seems to keep people attending is having kids in RE - all in all, a lot of us connect and relate over parenting. We did all the rigmarole of becoming an official welcoming congregation, but it really didn't make a difference, except by allowing us to hang a sign.

Now the Boston area is not representative of the country as a whole, and we certainly have our legacy of racism (slave trading & all, bussing & the conditions that led to it, etc.) - but then again, we share the distinction with NY as the two major US cities that DIDN'T have riots when MLK was shot. And MA was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage (Julie and Hillary Goodridge, of Goodridge vs. Dept of Public Health, were married in the Newton MA Church, down the street from where I was living at the time - though still attending church in Medford).

What conclusion do I draw from this - none, really. Other than perhaps we've been doing something right, at least in our small corner of the world. And that maybe all the Sturm & Drang floating around is a tad over the top. I think I'll get back to working on class & environmental issues - trying to get a Democratic Socialist into the White House, and trying to push forward on reversing climate change (the true existential crisis of our immediate future).

[I wrote this, as a bit of a rant, in response to a post on a UU Facebook group. But it occurs to me that it's worth posting on it's own - and that this might be a good place to post it. So.... ]

Why is it that that any questioning of anti-racism ideology & tactics immediately results in accusations of racism, condemnation, and then, often, people taking their marbles and going home rather than engage in dialogue?

I mean, it's pretty well established that racism is real, remains endemic, systematically entrenched - and a serious social problem.

What's less clear is what actually works to make things better. Yet there are those who proclaim, very loudly, various ideological doctrines & tactics - and when some of us dare to observe "you know, in my experience, that seems to be counter-productive" one is immediately condemned.

Almost all of us condemn our current President for Orwellian tactics that resemble those of the Nazis, the Stalinists, Sen. McCarthy - imposed doctrine (from which the term "political correctness" derives), politburos that enforce said doctrine without any semblance of due process (call it a Star Chamber, the House Un-American Affairs Committee, or a Right Relations Committee - it's a matter of degree, not kind), suppression of ideas & debate, spreading false information ("fake news" - an accusation made by Trump, that more commonly applies to him), labeling opponents (including the press) as traitors & threatening retaliation (and labelling true traitors as patriots), stacking agencies & the courts with autocrats, etc., etc., etc.

At the beginning of the Trump Administration, most people poo-pooed comparisons with Nazi Germany, and dismissed his cozying up with Vladimir Putin, and generally expressing his admiration of the tactics of Putin, Kim Jong-Un, etc. These days, people take these comparisons a lot more seriously - and many of us see them as a clear and present danger. More and more people are asking the question, "can our democracy survive Donald Trump?"

It behooves us to recognize & act when we see such dangerous behaviors in ourselves, those we look to for leadership, and our own organizations & systems. Being on the "right side" of an issue doesn't grant us the rights to act badly. And not applying the same standards to ourselves, is hypocritical in the extreme. Can we consider ourselves to be on the side of justice if we act, towards ourselves, in unjust ways?

Some of us see the emergence of such trends in the behavior & structure of the UUA - an organization that is supposed to serve our denomination, that instead increasingly seems to behave like a papacy. We claim to be about the "free & responsible search for meaning" and "the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process" - and to be the "faith of the free" - yet when I see a General Assembly that's supposed to be about "what we want our faith to be," instead be largely a series of workshops premised on pre-ordained conclusions, it gives me serious pause.

Maybe anti-racism should be our highest priority, to the exclusion of all else, and maybe intersectionality is an accurate description of the situation, and maybe the goals and policies promoted by DRUUM and the Commission on Institutional Change are the ones we should be following - but it behooves us to reach those conclusions for ourselves, through inquiry, through dialogue & deliberation, and through democratic process. Jamming pre-defined conclusions, doctrine, and tactics down people's throats; shaming & guilting those who disagree with doctrine; censoring & expelling people from meetings - those might be acceptable in the Catholic Church (the Pope, after all, is infallible) - but not in UUism.

So why is it, at the slightest challenge, the proponents of <whatever> proceed with what might be best called "Trumpian" tactics? And, perhaps more important, why do we allow it? Shouldn't we be better than this? Can we survive, as a denomination if we continue to act as a circular firing squad?

It occurs to me that much of the "debate" (or shouting, or whatever), going on of late, has a lot to do with differing views of "what we want our faith to be?" (to quote the focus of last week's GA)

When I joined UUism, the term "faith of the free" was common, as was the joke about being the church that burned question marks on people's lawns.

As our congregations have become refuges for various disenfranchised groups - notably LGBTQs - it strikes me that more and more people want UUism to be "a place of safety."

And it strikes me that freedom - specifically, " A free and responsible search for truth and meaning," and "the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large" tend not to be very "safe" activities. Not to mention being born of heresies that got people excommunicated, imprisoned, and worse - historically: Being Unitarian or Universalist was distinctly unsafe, as was being UU in the Civil Rights era.

It also strikes me that, along with lots of refugees from more doctrinal religions, the notions of doctrine, guilting, and shaming have crept into a UU tradition that was avowedly non-doctrinal, and that rejected shame & guilt.

Those who value safety, seem to lapse into very concrete and ideological (doctrinal) views of what constitutes safe & unsafe, and often deploy tactics of thought suppression against those who question, disagree, or otherwise object. Recent discussions of the "After L, G, B & T" article in UU World, and the events surrounding Rev. Eklof & the Gadfly Papers, at GA, bring to mind the notions of "thought police," "being summoned before the politburo," and the Inquisition.

What DO we want our faith to be? Free? Safe? Can we have both?

Personally, I'm with Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And I vote for freedom.

I just came back from a debrief from our Church's GA attendees, and the discussion turned to "white supremacy culture" and reactions to it.

During the discussion, it occured to me that folks seem to lump together, into one term, three different notions: "white culture," "supremacy culture," and "white supremacy culture" - which really are quite different, and warrant different responses.

Me, I certainly agree with, and support, dismantling institutions of supremacy - be it "white supremacy" or oligarchy.

On the other hand, I value a lot of "white culture" - or more specifically "European Enlightenment Values & Culture" - which are at the core of our avowed UU principles & sources.

And it seems like we're starting to reject much of our Enlightenment values in the name of rooting out "white supremacy culture" (or at least many of those trying to drive the UU train are doing so).

I just came back from a debrief from our Church's GA attendees, and during the discussion the topic of "microagressions" came up. Along with the topic of "intent vs. impact."

One person told a personal story about how, for years, she felt badly about a particular individual who she kept introducing herself to - and realized that not remembering her name was a microagression. Until... she discovered that the 2nd person had tunnel vision, and simply couldn't see her face very well. But... she still felt, and thought, it was an aggression, because it felt like one ("impact vs. intent").

Now me, I don't see that as an aggression. In such a situation, if anything I see taking offense as itself a form of aggression (micro or otherwise).

[For some context: I have another church acquaintance, different congregation, who also suffers from acute tunnel vision. She's very up front about it, asking people who they are, telling people that if they're standing to her side she has no idea who they are, etc. And, on another note - I seem to have a problem remembering names - or more accurately, keeping names associated with faces. In most cases, nobody is offended by my asking their name every time we meet - and I really appreciate name tags (conversely, I don't resent the fact that many places ask that people wear name tags).]

What this all made me realize, is that taking offense might be considered its own form of aggression - micro or otherwise. And that being "prickly" - or otherwise taking offense at the least perceived affront - is itself a form of microagression.

And the extreme form - suppressing things one doesn't like and/or agree with (e.g., calls for censorship, in the name of "safety") - is a particularly egregious form of MACROaggression.

I just noticed this on the UU World web site: https://www.uuworld.org/articles/ga-2019-business-preview - with the title: "General Assembly 2019 asks, ‘What do we want our faith to be?’" And goes on to say:

"In Spokane and in online groups, Unitarian Universalists will engage with questions of their religion’s purpose and future." And, "With the theme “The Power of We,” GA 2019 has been created collaboratively by the UUA staff, the Board of Trustees, the General Assembly Planning Committee, and the Commission on Institutional Change to invite UUs to engage in discernment about the future of the faith."

And then comes word that the minister of GA's host congregation, is asked to leave - because he is distributing a book that addresses this very issue? And further that folks start distributing letters condemning both the book & the man - with much of that condemnation coming from folks who haven't even read the book, and who urge others not to.

Is this what passes for "engag(ing) in discernment about the future of the faith?" I thought we were the "faith of the free" and were dedicated to a "free and independent search for meaning" - not a faith committed to white guilt, shaming, and forced awokening (to coin a term).

In some of the discussion, about Rev. Eklof, there was mention that he violated a covenant that everybody signed in order to attend GA.

That was the first I heard that folks were required to sign a covenant to attend GA. Was it part of registration? Does anybody have a link to to the document?

Seems relevant.

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/10/where-has-our-love-gone-its-missing-from-progressive-politics_partner/

Among all the discussion about divisions in our community, something seems to be getting lost. What is it that we're about anyway?

Why do people join a church, (UU or otherwise, or synagogue, or mosque, or coven, or ...)? Why did we? What are we offering to others, why, why should they care? What about us makes us unique, valuable to ourselves, valuable to others - to be preserved, lest we lose our identity, passed on to our kids? Where might we want to consider splitting apart - as many puritan congregations did, into Unitarian and Trinitarian Congregationalists?

In the early days, people formed religions & religious communities for self-protection (from the gods they imagined, for healing by shamans & priests). They broke into new religions to chase/worship different gods & beliefs.

For a long time, church, state, and community were one and the same. You were born into state religions, you stayed because you were indoctrinated, or you had to. New religions were born in blood - you really had to believe in something strongly to risk imprisonment or death. The Pilgrims were a proto-UU church - a religious community that moved from place to place to avoid forced conversion, AND a business corporation, AND a "civil body politic." The First Parish Church (now UU) of Plymouth descends from the Pilgrims. It's still the case in lots of places - Islamic states (or wannabe states), it's good to be Jewish in Israel, Evangelical Christian in the Bible Bult, various cults. Religion continues to tie generations together - a vehicle for passing traditions & values from one generation to the next.

In some places, religion is more voluntary - more a matter of seeking, and joining, than being born or coerced. Early Christianity, Buddhism, ... - and UU churches have become havens for may escaping the religion of their birth.

So, while we're discussing all the things that we need to change (rooting out racism, sexism, whatever) - perhaps we should be asking what it is that we should preserve, and give it equal or greater measure.

Ok. So I just started hearing about the movement to add an 8th Principle - though it seems to have been going on in the background for a while, in a somewhat behind the scenes, dare I say covert, way.

Personally, it strikes me as a very divisive statement, and one that is not so much a values statement (as are our other 7 principles), but a very targeted call to very specific action.

Can anybody speak to status? Or opinions (on either or both the 8th Principle language, and the process)?

My new church (recently moved) seems to periodically have "social justice moments" during the service. But not your typical preachy stuff.

Context: Lily white congregation, not surprising in a lily white town (8200 people, 46 black, .5%) vs my old church.

Unlike so much of what passes for discussion of social justice, what seems to be the case in this congregation are personal stories. A few weeks ago, someone talked about their travels in Israel, and conversations with both Jews & Palestinians. This week, one of our members, who volunteers in a nearby urban school district, talked about how both whites & blacks are in the minority (asians and hispanics dominate) - and how the kids don't seem to care. Contrasted it with his school days, when whites were in the vast majority, each group kept to themselves & didn't trust each other, and his few conflicts were between Christians and Jews. (Or, in my case, middle class suburb, majority Jewish, the rest mostly Christian, and a smattering of blacks who were welcome curiosities amon we limousine liberal New Yorkers).

Ok - so I've been sucked into all the recent discussion of inclusion - particularly around anti-racism work, and trans inclusion - and somewhat dismayed by how most of the discussion (elsewhere) has been dominated by those with a position to promote, and a workshop to sell - and by meta-discussions of whether UU World should have published this article or that, to the exclusion of discussion of the core issues. I've been partially motivated by moving, church shopping, and noticing the differences between the "look and feel" of both my previous congregation (of 30 years), changes in that congregation, and several in the area that I've moved to that "feel" considerably different.

So much so that I've been looking for an actual open, UU forum - like the old UUS-L email list, not dominated by a few, with a position to promote - which led a few of us, on the UU-Leaders list to contemplate setting up a replacement for UUS-L, and then, led here (as far as I can tell, this is the only current open UU Forum that isn't organized around a specific group or issue).

Anyway... amidst all the proclamations of how we should approach anti-racism work, trans inclusion, and so forth - what seems to have been lost is personal experience. What really matters. What really makes a difference. Beyond (or before) all the pronouncements by activists and professionals about how things are supposed to be, and be done.

So... let me put it to you:

1. Who out there belongs to a congregation with a large percentage of POC, or trans, or some other marginalized group that we believe to be underrepresented in our congregations? To what do you attribute your higher percentages? Have you gone out of your way with special programs, marketing efforts, whatever - and if so, how much of a difference did they make (e.g., did you have a high percentage of gay members before becoming a welcoming congregation?). (Perspectives from the white, cis among us, and those who identify as minorities of one sort or another.)
2. For those of you who are a minority: What's worked, what hasn't? If you're a member of a congregation - do you feel that you belong? Are there points of friction, and if so, what are they? Why did you first come? What were you looking for? Why do you stay? Do you feel that you fully belong, and if so, why? Why might you leave? Have you visited and/or left other congregations, and not returned - why? What might have made a difference?

Perhaps we might learn something from sharing our experiences.

And here we UUs are known for talking up a storm, intellectual masturbation, burning question marks on people's lawns, coffee hour being more defining than worship ...

SO HOW COME EVERYONE IS SO QUIET OF LATE????!!!!!

The recent brouhaha, over UU World's article on "After L, G, and B," as well as a lot of the current focus on anti-racism work, has highlighted something that's started to disturb me about our denominational approach to "welcoming" and "inclusion."

It seems to me, that our "airwaves" - and certainly top-down direction from UUA and various interest groups – has become dominated by "orthodoxy," (call it "political correctness" if you will), and by those who promote various formal programs ("Welcoming Congregation," various workshops, etc.). And... woe to anyone who questions the orthodoxy in some forums. Case in point: "After L, G, and B" could have served as a starting point for bringing people together - instead, outrage, shaming, and guilting dominated the ensuing conversation in what limited forums there were for any discussion (notably UU World's Facebook group - it's not like UU World has an active letters column, or allows for online comments on articles). And the few of us who commented that the outrage, and subsequent apology by UU World's editor, were perhaps over the line, immediately got pounced on by the proponents of orthodoxy (funny, isn't it, that the folks who complained the loudest, and got the most "ink," were professional "educators" with workshops to sell, "allies," and yes, the term "social justice warrior" seems fitting).

​

It strikes me that there is a fundamental difference between:

- Starting by finding common ground. Perhaps around our 7 principles. And then moving on to celebrate our differences, and perhaps make accomodations where appropriate (handicap ramps, gender-neutral bathrooms, maybe a few services that focus on specific issues).

- Starting with our differences. Encouraging outrage. Shaming & guilting ourselves, and others, into changing our ways. Formal processes. "Call-Out Culture," if you will.

​

Personally, it strikes me that:

- We have way too much of the latter these days, and perhaps too little of the former.

- We have much to be proud of. Our values & principles. Our long standing history of activism, social justice work, and fighting battles that have needed to be fought. Maybe we can sometimes do a better job of living up to our principles, (and perhaps we should call each other out when we don't), but by and large they provide a pretty good basis for common ground and inclusion.

- One might note that "inclusion" implies a desire by some to be included, and might well involve some change on their part. Presumably, folks come to UU churches because of what we are, and what we offer - we're not selling cereal to the masses, we shouldn't be (IMHO) adding sugar, or putting pretty pictures on the packaging, to better addict kids to our product.

- One might go so far as to say that inclusion does not involve treating each (marginalized) community with a different set of kid gloves, as much as simply creating a space where folks are welcome to be themselves, and perhaps be celebrated for their differences. (Might I add that "we're here, we're <whatever>, deal with it" has been a lot more successful route to the mainstream than "we're marginalized, we demand special treatment" or "we're damaged, treat us with kid gloves." And, when it comes to UUs, we're a denomination born of heresies that got people imprisoned, tortured, and killed - our forebears fought for their right to worship freely, rather than demanding kid glove treatment in the name of emotional safety.) (NOTE: I'm not saying that there is no privilege or injustice in the world, or that we shouldn't be addressing them. I'm suggesting that UU congregations are places that represent, or should represent, common ground & a level playing field - or perhaps a melting pot, if you will.)

- One might also ask what the limits of accommodation & respecting differences should be. There are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. among us. And yes, many of our churches offer Christmas mass - but generally outside of main worship time. Many offer Solstice ceremonies. Fewer organize Seders on Passover, and I've yet to find any that observe the Jewish High Holy Days, nor have we incorporated bowing to Mecca into our worship. We are UUs, and we are individual congregations - we have our values, our ceremonies, our traditions - which, by and large, are neutral & inclusive. Yes, we adjust these over time, but in the moment, we expect those who join us to participate as is - and perhaps these are what we are holding out to the world as something worthy of joining.

- One might also ask about welcoming & including those with whom we don't always agree. Many of our congregations are not all that welcoming of those in the military, or with family members in military, or even those of us who are not always anti-war.

---

Anyway, It would be nice to have some discussion of this - outside of "official" channels (e.g., UU World) dominated by proponents of "orthodox" and formal approaches to inclusion. What's the broader spectrum of opinion on such things.

All of the recent discussion about "what is our faith," as well as calls for change - be it calls for a renewed emphasis on spirituality, or anti-racism work, or whatever - has led me to wonder a lot about the role of tradition in UUism, and the balance between tradition and the new.

On the one hand, religion, and religious institutions are a source of continuity with the past; a way to propagate values, beliefs, and traditions - which is somewhat at odds with a faith built on heresy, questioning authority, a continuing "search for truth and meaning" (or, as the Methodists put it, "revelation is not sealed"), welcoming & inclusion to new and different communities, social change work ("deeds not words"), etc.

Personally, I first came to join a UU church, as a parent - seeking to expose my kids to a spectrum of religious believes, without indoctrinating them, and to provide a bit of a moral & ethical education. Coming from a non-religious Jewish background (spiritually, I consider myself a Taoist Psychopharmacologist), then married to a lapsed Catholic, UU RE was just the thing. I came to appreciate the community for myself, and have been an active UU ever since - including serving in various congregational leadership positions.

When I first joined the Church, it was small & recovering from some difficulties - our membership a mix of long-timers, and newbies. Our basic worship was, and is, pretty traditional along the lines of old New England congregational protestant traditions (we were, after all, inheritors of the First Parish in town, which had originally been town government). We were, and sort of still are, pretty respectful of our elder members, and our traditions (including a pretty strong tradition of social activism - dating back to Underground Railway).

At the same time, we have ridden the waves of the Civil Rights era, Women's Rights, Welcoming Gay & Lesbian members, fighting for immigrant rights, and now struggling with the current foci on anti-racism work and trans inclusion. At various times we have struggled with reinvention (mission statements, rewriting our Covenant, becoming a Welcoming Congregation, a minister who very aggressively tried to turn us into the congregation for Boston-area LGBTQ community) - though somehow we kept returning to a focus on families with young kids (including both parents and kids of various races and gender identities).

(Not to say that this is true of all, or even most congregations, or UUs. I've moved recently and found a new congregation that's a lot more "comfortable." My adult son, who still attends church regularly, has been doing his own church shopping. There still seem to be a lot of what passes for "old timers" on some email lists, perhaps this Reddit; not so much in the UUA offices, or at UU World.)

---

Given how loose the definition of our faith seems to be - I have come to wonder about the role of tradition in our congregations & our faith. The 2005 Commission on Appraisal Report, Engaging our Theological Diversity, includes the statement In general UU congregations do much better at meeting the needs of relative newcomers than those of longtime members. Which gave me pause to wonder, do we better serve newcomers by holding to tradition, or by following market forces? (During one of our mission statement exercises, I proposed "to be a beacon of light in a spiritual wasteland.") For that matter, do we better serve marginalized communities through formal change programs, or by better living up to our 7 principles (does inclusion start with "respecting differences" or with an open door, finding common ground based in our principles, and then celebrating our differences)?

I came to UUism, for the values and traditions – to help inculcate them in my kids (fairly successfully, I think). I still find those values & traditions appropriate and worth continuing - yet, it seems that, at least in my old congregation, they seem to be changing considerably. Our leadership has become far more authoritarian (making decisions that, IMHO, are reserved to our membership) - and much of our membership has become accepting, even defensive of this. We don't seem to know how to handle even the mildest disagreement or dissent - protesting that a particular decision should have been made by the congregation, was taken as a personal attack, leading to "formal listening meetings" that focused more on how the board might better communicate its decisions to the rest of us. I've noticed this kind of authoritarianism, top-down "orthodoxy," and attitude becoming more common across our denomination - dare I use the terms "political correctness" and "social justice warriors" dominating conversations - whatever happened to being a denomination of heretics and "questioning authority?" And, for that matter, when did formal programs - Welcoming Congregation, anti-racism workshops, etc. – start trumping simply living up to our 7 principles (which seem to cover the same ground, more inclusively, but with a lot more room to seek out approaches). When did prickliness, outrage, shame, and guilt come to dominate opening doors & finding common ground?

Which all comes back to: To what extent are we about propagating tradition, vs. adapting to the current flavor of the week? To what extent do we hold to and celebrate our core values & traditions (such as we have them), perhaps doing better to live up to them, vs. changing our ways? Is it our role to adapt to the times, or perhaps to shape the times to our values? What's a good balance, and how do we strike it?