Skip to main content

Missional liberalism

This is the problem, I think, with liberal religion. What it seeks to do is to maintain a space between conservative religion on the one hand and secularism on the other. But in fact it spends too much time concerning itself with conservativism and not enough time dealing with secularism.

I worry that Unitarnianism in the West had a parasitic relationship with conservative religion. Where conservative religion is strong, as in the United States, Unitarianism does well scooping up a certain percentage who rebel against conservative religion, because it is refreshingly different. But where secularism is strong, as in the United Kingdom, it fails utterly as a powerful religious force. Unitarianism too often seeks to answer the question - why belong to this faith community as opposed to another faith commmunity? But too little seeks to answer the question - why belong to any faith community at all?

We have no idea how faith development works as a transition from unchurched to liberal church. The path of unchurched to conservative church is well documented. The path from conservative church to liberal church is well documented. But how does one go from unchurched to liberal church? It seems that few people do that. Are we prepared to accept the fact that we need conservative religion to define ourselves and to grow?

What is required is a strong missional liberalism that provides something more solid than secularism, as opposed to something less solid than conservativism. This will require a change in our culture and our theology if we are to have any hope of reaching the unchurched.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well, there's an assumption in there that liberal religion is "churched" - maybe you'd care to write a piece saying what the concept means to you?

I have long suspected that if we are to reach the "unchurched" we will do well to recall Jung's opinion that people turn to the spiritual in mid-life.

Of more importance, I suspect, is the fact that within congregations growth is seen as being at least as painful is it is a cause for celebration - not least by their lay leadership. The congregation that wants pain-free growth is the congregation that doesn't want to grow.

As you will find out when you are called to your first pulpit!

Popular posts from this blog

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...

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...

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...