Skip to main content

We are now too small to be a denomination

There's a thought that I keep coming back to: Unitarians in Britain are now too small to be considered "a denomination."

Now, I've not gone out of my way to research what sociologists of religion consider to be the definition of "a denomination" so I'm not trying to make a claim with a lot of research to back it up.

But it seems to me that a denomination is "an organisation of organisations" it is a series of organisations that have enough left-over energy and personnel to donate "upwards" to the organisation of a structure that is an umbrella to those local organisations.

I just don't see that being possible any more.

And I think that changes things.

Many times I have said of Unitarianism "someone should do something" and imagined money, people and structures who's job it is to do those things. But that's just an illusion. Those people and structures don't exist, or at least are really struggling to function.

I need to repent of those times when I've imagined that we were a denomination that should be doing things and asked for things to be done. It's simply not realistic.

We need to stop doing it. We think of various projects that we think a denomination should be doing. We have meetings and argue about such projects. We want order and organisation and functionality. I want those things too! I'm frustrated when things don't seem to be happening properly. But I (and all of us) need to get over that.

We are still thinking as if we were a denomination of 50,000 people. Now a denomination of 50,000 people would still be a tiny denomination. But it would be big enough to function. We are no where near that. There are less than 3000 of us. We are below the level where it is possible to function as a denomination.

Our expectations need to change dramatically.

Is it possible to have a new President every year? I don't believe that it is.

Is it possible to fill all of our current committees? I don't believe that it is.

It is possible to have different grand plans and projects every five years? I don't believe that it is.

There is a certain amount of busyness that we get up that assumes we are a denomination and that such busyness will generate results. It hasn't for decades.

We need to be liberated from such busyness, liberated from trying and failing to be a denomination of 50,000 people.

And get down to what matters most...

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's a good cliffhanger, Stephen. What does matter most for Unitarians? Not the busyness of running a denomination, even if we still could manage all that with our shrinking size. That's not why people would want to join us anyway. If we can only do one important thing what should it be? Have excellent Sunday services?. Social and charitable action? Or maybe just trying to agree on the way forward for our movement (are we still a movement?). Sorry I only seem to have questions, perhaps you are working on this for your next blog posting …


Nick.

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