Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with