Skip to main content

Free and Inquiring Religion?


This afternoon I got delivered a bunched-up package from Essex Hall, the headquarters of British Unitarianism. Along with other stuff from the mailing came an advert for a new Unitarian car sticker.

I'm not going to get one. The main reason for this is that I don't have a car. But in addition to that I really don't like the stap-line. It's the same standard one Essex Hall have been using for a long time (anyone know how long?), 'for free and inquiring religion.'

Is that really the message we want to give to people? What does it even mean? 'Free' to most people means you don't have to pay for it. 'We're a free church,' 'Great! No collection!' The concept of free religion needs explaining, you can't get it across in one line, so let's not try. 'Liberal' would be better, most people would have some idea what that means.

'Inquiring'? When I hear this word I think of an old man with half-moon spectacles reading a book, or gently and politely going to an information point and inquiring where the toilets are.

Even 'religion' isn't great if we really want to be missionary and get into the mindset of the culture, especially for those born after 1970.

I myself always go for 'progressive spirituality.' It may not be perfect, but I do think it's better. Maybe 'inclusive' as well. 'Unitarians: a progressive and inclusive spiritual commumnity.'

Feel free to leave a comment and offer your own strapline. Can we have a debate about this? Two years ago the Outreach and Communications Commission held a competition for people to suggest good phrases to be used on posters etc. Where have they gone now? We need to have a think about the most missionally appropriate language to use to speak about ourselves.

Comments

Robin Edgar said…
Well U*Us don't want to be *too* "inclusive". ;-)
Robin Edgar said…
More seriously, I really do not think that anyone would believe that "free" was meant in any other sense than religious freedom. As far as inquiring goes I really see little evidence of U*Us doing much genuine inquiring these days. So, besides being rather lame, the current slogan is open to some question about its level of "truth in advertising". Of course the same might be said about a variety of other U*U slogans and mission statements etc. I certainly agree that U*Us world-wide should devote some serious thought to what is the most missionally appropriate language to use to speak about U*Us. Indeed CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett would have done well to do just that back in 2003 when she proposed inserting an asterisk between the two Us of UUism in order to symbolize the much vaunted, but little realized, "inclusiveness" of what is now know as the U*U religious community in Canada, Europe and possibly elsewhere in the U*U World.
Rich said…
This problem with the word free is the same one that is famously experienced by the free software movement. But they have stuck with the name free since their inception in the 80s and I'm inclined to agree - it has the right connotations for something progressive.

In software's case, Eric Raymond proposed "open source" for a similar (though not entirely the same) concept and that is the one that the media have latched onto. And I think that's a shame, because free carries so much more political weight.
Anonymous said…
I think Rich might be on to something with "open" as an idea.

I agree that most people aren't into religion, but I'm not convinced that they're into progressive spirituality either. And there is a place for liberal religious communities.

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