Evangelism in context

In America, the question is 'which church should I go to?' because everybody goes to church.

The answer is, 'Come to ours, because we are less conservative, less dogmatic, because we are not like churches that you dislike.'

In Britain, the question is, 'why should I go to any church?' because nobody goes to church.

Our answer has to be to say what is good about being religious. What differences being religious makes to our lives. We need to rediscover what is at the foundation of our religious faith. How we are made better people by this thing that we do. We need to say what we are, not what we are not. We need to say being Unitarian makes a difference in our lives. If it does not, then why bother?

Comments

Bill Baar said…

Everyone goes to Church?

That hasn't been my experience.

These folks say the 40% commonly reported is overstated.

12:20 pm

Anonymous said…

Bill's right, and it really depends on which part of the States you're in. Northern California and the Pacific Northwest is much more like the U.K., with a very low church attendance rate (but without the religious education that kids in the U.K. get in school, so very little knowledge of religion at all). Whereas in the deep South, it still is pretty true that "everyone goes to church." Here in New England, we're sort of betwixt and between -- church is considered a normal part of life, except few people actually go to church.

--Dan Harper

3:35 pm

Stephen Lingwood said…

I take both your points, obviously I was exagerating and simplying somewhat. Nevertheless what I've heard again and again from UUs was, 'we started having a family and thought - now we're a family we should go to church' a thought that wouldn't occur to a Brit.

I think American UU evangelism is still based on the idea of choosing a church, even though in large parts of america are becoming more like the UK and the US will need to shift to talking about why to go to church at all.

7:48 pm

Anonymous said…

in other words you were stereotyping Americans as religious church goers, and presenting a one-dimensional image of American society...

11:07 am

Swords into Ploughshares

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...

Reignite

Search This Blog