As my first post let me think big.
I am ready to think about a new denomination. I am not satisfied with waiting on the current denominations to go through possible splits and possible transformations. Nor am I satisfied with individual/local emerging groups that speak to local concerns.
This suggestion is obviously not directed to those who are to some degree satisfied with their church alternatives or who see potential in working on anything less than a new denomination. However, I am wondering if anyone knows of others that are thinking big. If so please direct me to those persons.
David

I've found a home at the UCC.

I don't know of anyone else who is thinking big, but I am interested in learning more about what you would envision this new denomination to be like. It may be similar to what I am looking for, or maybe not. I'm not actually sure if there are many others who are looking for what I am looking for.

As for me, I have been frustrated with the sense that there is no denomination that really suits what I am looking for. I am uninterested in existing Christian denominations, even the liberal ones like UCC, because of their use of language, rites, and creeds that to me signal an old paradigm (and yet, unlike Marcus Borg, I cannot recite creeds that I don't believe to be true.) On the other hand, Unitarian Universalism is too amorphous and unfocused to satisfy what I am seeking. What I want is something new that rests within the niche that lies between these two kinds of denominations, a liberal theology similar to what people like Spong and Borg advocate, but lying outside of churches that use the language and rites and creeds of the old orthodoxy. I just discovered this forum by doing some web searching, and I am trying to determine if there are others who see things as I do, or if I am really alone in my theology and what I seek in a religius community. I don't really have the desire to reform any of the existing denominations that I know about; but I wonder if there really is any kind of critical mass for creating something.

How about the Universalit/Unitarians?

Thank you for responding.
I too have been caught between the UCC and UU and I too am frustrated with Borg and Spong. Borg has repeatedly said that he has no problem with the Nicene Creed. I just got back from Portland OR where he was to speak on "The Future Church" but gave us nothing more than a New Vision of Jesus/God. His wife's Church reflects nothing new on Sunday. I have watched Spong write about how Christianity must change or die and then suggest that he is impressed that the priests in many churches now face the congregation rather than the alter (not the kind of changes I have in mind). Don't get me wrong-I love Borg and Spong--I just don't think they are prepared to talk about what the future church may look like.
Generally I think there has to be some continuity between the results of what Borg and Spong have shown us and how we do church. For instance, it is well accepted that the Bible is true not based on history but based upon the truth of the metaphor (don't climb the sign post that points towards the road). Yet we sit in pews and listen to three point logical sermons and say creeds that do not sound at all metaphorical. The langauge that we need to speak is musical. The "liberal" seminary does not teach its students how to do church via the musical language (yes music needs logical rules but this does not necessarily lead to great music). I was impressed in Portland with Brian McLaren who is an evangelical that is willing to talk to progressives. His presentation reflected the power of the metaphor. It is interesting to note that McLaren is not seminary trained. We can learn a lot from people like him about how to do church even though I can not support his theology.
Listen to Michael Durall who writes about his vision of the UU Church of the future:
"These churches will have no steeples. no organs, no pews, and no stained glass windows. They are likely to be warehoused in low-rent industrial districts...These places will be noisy and boisterous, full of excitement and energy. Worship will be highly participatory...People will be close together, sing loudly and have their arms around one another's shoulders. The music--jaza, blues, rock and roll and rap will be live, preformed by professional musicians. The lighting will be colorful and dramatic. These services will go on for two hours or more, after which people will stay and share a meal together, a gourmet fare prepared by a first rate caterer. Potluck is a relic of the past...Worship will be conducted to two to three languages, alternating from one to another, with the text of hymns and prayer projected onto large screens, so that all can particpate so to some extent...These churches will attract interracial couples, both straight and gay, bringing the mix we have never been able to achieve before".
It seems to me that the new Progressive Christian Church will be staffed by professional musicians who may be more important than trained seminarians (yes I am one of those). I wonder if anyone else that is interested in Progressive Christianity may wonder what The Progressive Christian Chuch may look like?
P.S. Now I look back on this post and see how unmusical it is. Oh well, to recognize the problem......

Have you looked into Quakers? There are two kinds of meetings: programmed and unprogrammed. The unprogrammed meetings are contemplative (meditative) in nature. The members sit and wait and listen.

I've never been, but I've been interested in attending.

I have drawn a lot of inspiration from Borg and Spong, but, like you, I feel like they have refused to take their views to what I think are their logical conclusion. Their theological ideas are great, but their attachment to traditional Christian churches that use traditional language and traditional creeds just doesn't work for me at all. They want to merge new theological paradigms with modes of expressing them worshipfully that emerged out of the old paradigms. As Jesus said, you can't put new wine into old wineskins.

I notice that Matthew Fox, in his latest book, has called for a complete rupture between the old and the new Christianities, but I wonder what he means by this. Last I heard, he was an Episcopalian like Borg and Spong. Borg never calls for that kind of rupture in any case. He seems to talk a lot in his books about bridging the gaps between the followers of the old paradigm and the followers of the new, which I think makes no sense.



Exactly! This is what I can't undestand. It is one thing to understand that biblical narratives are metaphorical; it is another thing altogether to recite creeds, which are meant to be literal affirmations of belief and which serve by definition as litmus tests of belief, which one doesn't believe to be literally true! This is one part of Borg's theology that I just can't accept.



It's funny, but the musical part of services never did anything for me in worship, which is probably why I was attracted for a period of time to Quaker silent worship. But I would surmise that not everyone is pleased by the same thing. So, that being said, one thing that I would bring out of my Quaker background would not necessarily be the silence (although I think that silence and mystical worship can be part of worship) but the participatory nature of it, where every person can be a minister and where every person can plan or contribute their ideas to the service. My conception of worship services is really, really vague, except that I have this idea that maybe it could somehow be radically democratic, where people can create their worship services as they see fit, where diverse forms of celebrating God and diverse contributions can make up the worship process. What exactly that means in practice, I'm not sure.



My background is actually as a "convinced" Quaker (a person who was not born a Quaker but who became one.) I do find unprogrammed meetings to be an interesting and sometimes mystical experience. I do think that the mystical or meditative element of Quaker worship has been a positive experience for me, and I like the simplicity of worship and the lack of reliance on creeds or formal rites. But it has a somewhat insular culture, and it has its own internal divisions and disputes about how traditionally Christian its theology should be. Somehow, at some point, I felt a need to look beyond the Quaker horizons, although I think that some aspects of its methods of worship and its culture and values are things I would like to hold on to.

Good to know.

My other thought was something WAY outside of mainstream, like the Golden Dawn. Or a gnostic church, if you can find one where you live.

Music is an effective language. So is silence/contemplation. So is ritual that invites the power of the metaphor instead of suggesting that beliefs are closed. A service may have several parts or you may have different forms of worship. My experience with UU however suggests that "radical democracy" has to exist with some form of common vision/structure so that we can be evangelical in the best sense of the word. I am not convinced that we can come together based upon a common theology or even a common sense of ethics. But I do think that there is a common "religious knowing" process that is shown by the languages of music, silence, ritual, etc.

I agree totally that there has to be a common vision or structure. A danger I see of trying to bring people together just based on a common theology alone, besides the fact that it would be hard to get 100% agreement on everything, is how would this be defined or enforced? If you start trying to enforce some kind of new creed on people and you become in a sense the very kind of doctrinaire religion that you rejected in the old paradigm.

There does have to be a commonality. I think that a service with several parts, or different services with different forms or worship, or different interest groups who might be interested in pursuing alternative forms of worship, are all conceivable. Of course, I am just fantasizing here, imagining a denomination big enough to accomodate these kinds of diversity.

Quaker worship, which I love for its contemplative group mysticism, is quiet and reverential. Yet other forms of worship, including some kinds of music, can be celebratory and loud and vigorous and joyful. Both are just different ways of mediating God. Is it possible to accomodate such diversity under the same religious roof, and is it possible to give people that diversity while still accomodating some kind of commonality of purpose or a common "religous knowing" process?

YES. Start to imagine what a common vision of "religious knowing" would mean and how that would require that we do church differently. That does not mean that we throw away what we "know" based upon the more accepted way of knowing. However, that way of knowing is limited and has limited our ability to do church. I think one reason the evangelicals are so successful is that people are so hungry for "religious knowing" that they will check their brain at the door to the worship service. We need to find a way to appreciate both ways of knowing, build a church on this basis and evangelize.

Sounds great to me. So how does this new church get built?

And that is the question that started this conversation (by the way I appreciate your contribution to this). I would much prefer that someone else answer this question and I could just join in the process. I have been looking for leadership in this process, but so far I have not found it. I think the process will happen since there is such a natural split in the mainline denominations, not based upon sexual questions that make the headlines, but based upon what the Jesus Seminar and others have brought out of the closet: The United Church of Christ is not really united because "Christ" is either some version of the vision of evangelicals or some version of the vision of the "liberal" scholarship; "Christ" can not be both. The fact that most churches hide this division or at best cloud the difference is what has made a lot of people mad (why did my minister not tell us about this?). This clouding of the difference can be seen in Borg who on the one hand is so clear about his vision of Jesus but so unclear about what difference that makes to the life of the Church.

I would recommend to all "The Fourth R" that is put out by Westar/The Jesus Seminar. In the May/June 2006 edition one of my favorite people, Hal Taussig, describes his recent book "A New Spiritual Home" which reflects his research directed towards the emerging Progressive Christianity movement. He has found "literally thousands" of communities that reflect the difference that Progressive Christianity is making across a wide range of denominational lines. My reading of Taussig indicates that this movement will emerge organically from these groups "from the grassroots" into a form that is not yet recognized. He suggests that the next step may be "some new regional and national conversations among progressive churches so that they may emerge more clearly as the elequent new national Christian voice that they are". He also suspects
that "denominational Christianity has--for better or worse--outlived its usefulness and attraction for most Americans".

Although I agree with Taussig that the major denominations seem to be on a death march I am not pursuaded that a movement from "the grassroots up" is the only direction. Taussig's research seems to indicate to me just the tip of an iceberg that is in fact being kept underwater by organizational problems.
For instance, I am familiar with a local Episcopal community that is a member of The Center for Progressive Christianity" and reflects some of the energy that Taussig talks about. However, they are limited by the Bishop and that Bishop's Bishop and that Bishop's Bishop. I would like to imagine what a group of people like this could do without those limitations. Yet I would not wish that they become UU without a compass.

It seems to me that organizations exist in response to the kind of "grassroots" interest that Taussig finds. Although there are many exciting things happening now I do not see the organizational response that could in fact further that "elequent new national Christian voice". And this explains the nature of my quest.

And so how would a "top down" process look? I really don't know. There are the simple answers that an organization needs to be created. A non-profit organization needs to have a board. That organization should probably start with a presence on the internet and perhaps go to other tech alternatives such as podcasts (is that the correct term?), develop resources, communicate about alternatives, etc, etc, etc.

However, the difficult part of a "top down" process which makes everyone uneasy is how one includes and how one excludes. Post-moderns attempt to pursuade us that this is an artificial process and the only "true" process is that organic approach where persons meet and form common interest societies and if those grow they grow organically based upon individuals that have no REAL connection that holds them together such as a Ground of Being or any such old fashioned concept. It may be that these persons may tend to be excluded by a "top down" process not because we can not learn much from post modern deconstruction but that because a "top down" process may be dependent upon a REAL connection such as that Ground of Being.

I have stated that I do not think that a common theology or a common sense of ethics can hold us together (note that much of the Progressive Christian movement defaults to the justice issue because that seems like the "common interest society" that may hold us together). I have to admit that the alternative of a common denominator of "religious knowing" has theological implications not the least of which is that there is a Tao, there is a Ground of Being, there is a Reality that we experience. However, the essence of "religious knowing" is that this can not be named. If we name it we lose it. At the same time we say it can not be named we have to say that we know it based upon some different way of knowing than the naming process that is so fundamental to the other way of knowing. If we can have this as a common denominator and then find ways of being together that explicitly point out this process of knowing then there will be that natural split in the United Church of Christ between those that think that the Christ can and has to be named and those that see the power of the metaphor. We need to be honest about that including and excluding.
I see a lot of potential in the TCPC eight points (another attempt to include/exclude) but I think that we need to include/exclude based upon what I am talking about.

Well this is the longer version of my original post. I am still looking for persons who are interested in a "top down" process but I would welcome comments from others.

This is a great thread. I see building the church starting with group contemplations at private homes with the practise created by the individuals. It could be a group meditation, starting with chant or song and ending with the same and/or discussion. One candle lighting another will create a storm that will shake foundations.

I have to admit that I'm more attracted to the bottom-up approach rather than the top-down approach. I actually like soma's idea of people meeting in homes and developing their worship practices through an emerging process. That being said, I also think that some kind of leadership is probably a necessary step as well, but I think that the authority of the leadership must be vested in the grassroots movement and not self-appointed. If the movement takes off, there will naturally be people with the energy, and perhaps the charisma, to act as leaders, and they would be recognized as such not by any self-appointed authority but by the abilities that they display.

I appreciate the reference to the Westar institute. I did not know abou them. I looked at their web page and they have some wonderful archived articles. I also have taken a look at a yahoo group, pomoxian, where there are literally thousands of messages from people interested in progressive christianity and similar ideas. I feel like I have been missing out on some really important and interesting dialogues taking place in and outside of the internet for many years and now I have so much catching up to do.



I really like the ideas you express in this paragraph. Defining what is common under a new paradigm is key; if it isn't some recitation of a formula or a creed, then what is it? In particular, like the idea of a common denominator of religious knowing.

Would someone be willing to define "religious knowing" (as is being used in this post) for me? As a Gnostic, my brain defaults to Gnosis (that wonderful direct mystical intuitive knowledge of the ineffable "God" ) everytime such a phrase is written. I just might be in agreement with all this, but seem to be missing that common definition.

Thanks.

I like "wonderful, direct, mystical, intuitive" as opposed to knowledge gained by analysis, breaking into parts, nominalism, and most importantly fundamentalism/literalism. I have not studied enough about Gnosis but I think it important to note that the appreciation of awe/wonder/mystery are very common and come quite easily to humans. Therefore I suspect that there is something biological about the process. In that sense the "material body" is important (perhaps one can say necessary but not sufficient). I would not totally separate the "knowing of the body" from the "knowing of the mind". I think there is a tendency to associate the knowlege of the material world with the scientific method and this should be questioned---it seems that the material world can be known "directly, mystically and intuitively". There certainly is truth to saying that the REAL is "beyond" the material world because we are talking about the infinite in relation to the finite. However, one can also argue that the infinite can not be understood without some contact with the finite. I like Tillich when he talks about this dynamic.

All of this is getting into philosophy and theology that will perhaps lead to unnecessary disagreement.
I am not sure whether this discussion is helpful but I trust that the reader knows that I think the real split is between those that need to name the Christ and those that see the power of metaphor. I think that there is a natural epistemological split here that is bigger than any justice issue or theological discussion. If we can separate on that split we can then talk about "unity within diversity" (in this case how much of "religious knowing" can be called Gnosis).

It seems to me that religious knowing and empirical or scientific knowledge should complement rather than contradict one another--I think you said this at an earlier point when you commented on people checking their brains at the church door--and to me this needs to be important in developing a basis for a new denomination. By that, I mean to say that science teaches us that the universe is very old, that humans evolved on this planet, and so forth; any religious way of knowing needs to accept this. In fact, it seems to me that one reason for the necessity of a new paradigm in religious thought is that the old paradigm wasn't really consistent with a rational understanding of the world. We live in an ordered world that conforms to certain physical laws. For the last few centuries, religion has had to cope with this understanding of the world, that differed from the way ancient people saw things. All sorts of "isms" cropped up in religious thought, from deism to fundamentalism, as ways of coping with this newer understanding.

I chewing over your comments concerning naming being outside of the religious way of knowing. From my point of view, we come up with names as metaphors for a divine reality that we cannot understand fully or completely, at least not in what you would call the other way of knowing. I think of the world's religions as representing a process by which various people came up with ways of "naming" God that seemed appropriate for their time and culture. This is sort of the "blind man and the elephant" phenomenon, except that I think that later cultures and religious communities can build on what the earlier ones developed. So, to me, revelation is continuous, and ways of knowing should not be individual and always building from scratch; rather each successive individual and community is part of a great historical process of trying to understand the Divine. We read Spong or Tillich because we are interested in characterizing, discussing, and applying our human reason to that other way of religious knowing. It sounds like you are saying that we should never put a name on it. I am inclined to see names as okay as long as we understand that the names are inadequate and incomplete. The problem I see with so much of religion, especially creedal or doctrinaire varieties, is that it comes up with the names and then assigns a dogma to them, rather than recognizing their metaphorical and approximate nature. Maybe we are talking about the same thing. I am not sure.

Thank you for your continued conversation. I understand that when someone suggests that there is a common denominator one had better understand what is being suggested.

Yes I do appreciate the wonderful and really unbelievable results that have come to us as a result of science and that way of knowing. Nothing should be done to stop this or discount the importance of this way of knowing. I would suggest that anything that seems to fall in the realm of the scientific be left to science (for instance evolution). I think that much of what has been called religion was just an attempt to do science and should properly be rejected when science shows that it is bunk. Yet I do not think we will understand awe/wonder/mystery via the scientific method. It is really a different way of knowing. I would suggest that the scientist is looking for the "ah hah" experience and the person looking for religious knowing is looking for the "awe" experience. It is possible that both are experienced at the same time in some circumstances and so in that sense they "complement" each other. I would suggest however that to "know religiously" is to know via the symbol or the metaphor where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts whereas science has no method to deal with that "greater" factor.

There also is a desire for the scientist to split the subject from the object and try not to affect the objective by the subjective. We are finding that this really is not possible in looking at the really big scientific questions but nevertheless it can be noted that "religious knowing" may blur the seeming subjective/objective split. When one is struck by awe/mystery/wonder there is a tendency for the ego to take a back seat. Our language seems to require a subject and an object but when one is struck by awe/mystery/wonder one "knows" without the need for the language which requires a subject/object and thus "naming" does diminish what is known.

This requires a lot more exploration and perhaps someone else can start a new topic that covers what is meant by "religious knowing". I would like to continue to think about what difference it makes if we believe Borg that the Kingdom of God is not a result of "conventional wisdom". If there is "religious knowing" how are we going to do Church differently?

Maybe I should clarify my point when I talk about how religion should be consistent with a modern rational understanding. The old concept of God was as a patriarchal authority figure, a transcendent presence who was identified by male names, who dispensed favors according to his whims--which is to say that he intervened in the normal operation of the world when he felt like it and answered the occasional intercessionary prayer by using his omnipotent power.

This image of God presented a lot of problems even in the pre-modern world, namely because it was hard to reconcile this image of God with the problems of evil and human suffering. The ancient Jewish prophets believed that the possible reason that God allowed or was responsible for much of his people's continual suffering at the hands of neighboring empires was that his people had turned away from God. In the modern world, many Jews simply reject this kind of theology in the face of the Holocaust (consider Rabbi Kushner as an example of a Jew who argues that there is no way to reconcile divine omnipotence with the extremity and order of magnitude of what happened under Hitler.)

But even aside from the famous "problem of evil", the modern rational understanding of an ordered world that follows certain rules according to physical laws forced those who believed in divine omnipotence to believe in the "God of the Gaps", who intervened in the world only in those narrow areas of the physical world that we didn't understand. But these gaps have continued to get smaller over time. The God of the Gaps is reduced to not doing much. So what are we left with? The old patriarchal, favor dispensing, male God has butted heads with modern reality.

I see fundamentalism as one way of trying to resolve this problem, essentially by shutting down one's mind and excluding rationalism from one's religion. Deism, which has probably long gone out of favor, was at one time a way of conceiving of a stale, irrelevant God that has no place in the modern world.

It seems to me that religion needs to move beyond these patriarchal concepts of God. I think it does matter when we come up with a new religious community. But there is the rub--how do we do that without getting too bogged down in theological details that will divide the community? Since not everyone is going to agree necessarily with my own panentheism, but they might still want to participate in a community of religious knowing as you have describe, can we bring people together in a way that allows freedom of thought, joyous religious participation that is liberated from the old creeds and the old paradigm of Christianity, and yet which at the same time offers a home for at least some level of commonality so as not to simply become another breed of Unitarian Universalism?

Perhaps it would be good to flesh out what is meant by "religious knowing". The sense of awe and wonder, and the mystical experience of God, are what I think of when you describe this. This is the experiential aspect to religion, as opposed to the theological aspect. How much should theology figure into this at all? Or should we only focus on the experiential to the exclusion of the theological?

Some thoughts on what David said.I would like a "new" church, though I am at times quite happy with UCC (and other times less so). Anyway, David said:
> The United Church of Christ is not really united because "Christ" is either some version of the vision of evangelicals or some version of the vision of the "liberal" scholarship; "Christ" can not be both. The fact that most churches hide this division or at best cloud the difference is what has made a lot of people mad (why did my minister not tell us about this?). This clouding of the difference can be seen in Borg who on the one hand is so clear about his vision of Jesus but so unclear about what difference that makes to the life of the Church.

I don't think the name was ever meant to be so grandeous. It was the "uniting" of several churches-- Congregational (at least across the Mississippi), Brethren of Christ, etc. and coalition with several others: Disciples of Christ, Metroplitan Church, etc. into one organization. Though the church has very little upper organization (the synod meets every 2 or 3 years) and each church is separate and isn't bound by the Synod. The fact that all UCCs are not the same is based on organizational structure which makes each church it's own. (I have heard of almost evangelical UCCs as well as very radical progressive ones, though most of them tend towards the liberal.) If there was a "higher authority" to rein in individual churches they would be more similar, but UCC takes on the congregational roots and each is self-governed and controlled.
It also means that in any UCC you will see a range of beliefs from more traditional to probably identical to Unitarian. For ex. I consider the "trinity" more of an metaphor. I'm actually pretty comfortable with a democratic, self-run church, even if another structure might make it more unified in theology. I would not be comfortable in any church without doctrinal freedom, even if the "imposed" doctrine was more to my liking.


--des

Perhaps it would be good to flesh out what is meant by "religious knowing". The sense of awe and wonder, and the mystical experience of God, are what I think of when you describe this. This is the experiential aspect to religion, as opposed to the theological aspect. How much should theology figure into this at all? Or should we only focus on the experiential to the exclusion of the theological?
[/quote]

If you participate in a worship service that reflects the power of the metaphor then I do not think you want to preach too much based upon what the metaphor should "rationally"mean. If you are doing some form of communion I think it is important to be explicit in the process as to whether this act is meant to be something that is understood as metaphor or not. How you lift up the metaphor in preparation for communion will have theological understanding but I do not think doing communion in this way will result in a common theology. Certain theologies will not work with "religious knowing" via the power of symbol/the metaphor. Those theologies that are open to the power of symbol/the metaphor can coexist within a denomination. So to some extent theology is important in that way but I do not think that a common theology is necessary for a denomination.






Thank you for this input. I do not think that "top down" necessarily means the loss of the freedom that you talk about. I would ask whether within your own congregation you can see a split between the two Christs that I described. If so, does this limit the ability of your group to represent to the larger community who you are and what you are about? If you do not have such a conflict then more power to you!!! (I suspect that many more do have such a conflict than those that do not).

I think scientific knowledge is important because it seeks the truth and can quiet the intellect by answering questions, but at the same time I think mystical knowing is a higher knowledge that is stronger than belief. Mysticial knowledge is the experience of God inside and everywhere, but the communion starts within where as belief starts with believing what another tells you from outside about God.

Different personalities commune with this Mystic God in different ways, service, song, contemplation, philosophy or even physical exertion. All good paths to the zone. Different ways to express this experience is necessary for the different personal histories one has to relate to. I think all are valid explanations as long as all are respected and accepted as trying to explain the one truth. One who has mystical knowledge I think would be comfortible with this tolerance.

If a pathway to the zone is experienced the church will grow from private quarters to a bigger one. If a person has contact he or she may be able to inspiror many from the top down so bottom up or top down could work.

I REALLY like this. Thank you.

Would that be "The United Mystical Church of Christ"? You'd have me showing up each Sunday! Wouldn't it be great to see Gnostics and Quakers and Creation Spirituality folks and ...... all the other branches of Christian mysticism under the same umbrella.

I had some time. So I did some exploration of this message board. There are some incredibly gifted philosophers and theologians here. I pale in comparison. Perhaps that is one reason that I do not think that a common theology will hold us together. But I think it is more than that.

I was working full time when I went to seminary. I remember that my fellow students could not understand the corporate world and my fellow workers could not understand the seminary world. I remember one Christmas I returned to a UCC church that I loved when it had a progressive minister before he got booted. There I found the message that I was a horrible sinner that could only be saved by the blood. I left before the message was over and dropped by a local Unity church. There I was told that I was no less than God and again I left before the message was over. I can see why my fellow workers do not understand the “inside” of the Church and I can see why the “inside” of the Church does not relate to the working world.

It seems to me that the Church needs to preach less theology and be more of a place where grace is a safe place to happen. I do not think that grace happens when one is told he/she is worthless or when one is told that he/she is God in disguise. Really not much grace can happen when one is being told anything.

I think that grace happens when one hears that song sung from the point of view of a homeless person singing “you could be me” and suddenly one realizes that I am both the victim and the victimizer. I think grace happens when your soul finds a home even when you know that you will lose that feeling in the very next hour. I think grace happens when one feels a need for forgiveness and accepts forgiveness from an unexpected source. I think grace happens when one finds a place to burst with thankfulness for no particular reason.

The Church can be that place but too often theology gets in the way. We need the language of music. If I knew how to do it I would offer you a song….. amazing grace how sweet the sound…

Now following the sermon and our hymn we return to the subject at hand.....

The question is whether this "new denomination" idea "has legs". I have suggested that this not be based upon a common theology or common sense of ethics but instead based upon a rather loose definition of "religious knowing" that may be large enough to bring into the net a majority of persons that call themselves progressive Christians. Am I talking to the wrong audience here? Are people more satisfied with the status quo than the uneasiness of what a new denomination may look like? Is there any hope for us in exile?

David:
>If you participate in a worship service that reflects the power of the metaphor then I do not think you want to preach too much based upon what the metaphor should "rationally"mean. If you are doing some form of communion I think it is important to be explicit in the process as to whether this act is meant to be something that is understood as metaphor or not. How you lift up the metaphor in preparation for communion will have theological understanding but I do not think doing communion in this way will result in a common theology. Certain theologies will not work with "religious knowing" via the power of symbol/the metaphor. Those theologies that are open to the power of symbol/the metaphor can coexist within a denomination. So to some extent theology is important in that way but I do not think that a common theology is necessary for a denomination.


I don't know David. I feel so strongly for doctrinal freedom that I would rebel against someone standing up and saying "This here communion, this is just a metaphor, and Jesus didn't really do any of this". :-)
(not sure I would go that far either). So just how far and to what extent do individuals interpret these things.
I'm sure people in our congregation do see it as much less metaphorical than I do. Otoh, some see it as much less so. I guess I am just not so serious about theology as you are, David.

Otoh, I have been to communion services which were much closer to what I see as communion and I saw them as more meaningful, but to be honest it had more to do with this particular everyone came up around the table together vs passing the bread and wine (well grape juice) down the aisles. So it wasn't really what anyone said but how it was done.


>Thank you for this input. I do not think that "top down" necessarily means the loss of the freedom that you talk about. I would ask whether within your own congregation you can see a split between the two Christs that I described. If so, does this limit the ability of your group to represent to the larger community who you are and what you are about? If you do not have such a conflict then more power to you!!! (I suspect that many more do have such a conflict than those that do not).


David, I honestly don't know what other people think about various things. I know what certain people think. I know the pastor is more conservative than I am ( he is really a Lutheran, but as they don't allow gays...). but then I don't really care for his style of preaching so much to be honest. But I don't see a real clash as to values when we need to get things done. This is an activist, social gospel church essentially, and I am pretty comfortable with that aspect. I have never heard of any major dissension-- but like any human institution there are always disagreements. This was even more the case in the other UCC I went to. And I think the views of members were even more diverse.

Hey, United Mystical Church of Christ. Now there's an idea!!! :-)
Where can I sign up??


--des

des, wasn't that what you were getting at with your previous post? I have always thought of mysticism as, somehow, being inherently progressive. The mystics have also always seemed to be the ones to be more inclusive of other faiths.......and of other's myths. It would make some sense to have an inclusive and welcoming form of worship where all of us mystics could find some fellowship together. The focus on Christ (however the individual mystic defines Christ) would be the glue that holds (or the thread that links) all those crazy mystics together. Just think of the wealth of religious/spiritual material that would be at our fingertips. It would be easier to find commonality among mystical Christians than the group of people that the UU deals with every day.

Do you want to get the UMCC started? It only takes a few people willing to act as founders and start the grass roots movement rolling. BTW, www.umcc.ws is available on Godaddy for only $9.99.

I was just kidding though. OTOH, I also think deeper mystism is missing in most protestant churches-- Quakers are probably the exception here. Might sometimes happen, but there is something missing. (Though I have been to a few Quaker meetings.Perhaps I like talk to much. :-)) OTOH, I feel church is somehow in "real" vs.virtual community. And although I feel a connection with many people on this board (for instance), it somehow is different from community with real people. However, I will be happy to go to your website, as i think there is value in that too.

--des

As was I (mostly anyway......not sure what I'd have done if you called me on it ) My point being that it is not real difficult to start a new denomination these days. The law allows for as little as three people to form an independent religious organization. Set up an inexpensive website and presto a denomination is born. Now, making it grow is like the Demiurge trying to bring that first human to life…..needs a little help from the Spirit. I am hopefully waiting for someone (else) to do it.

Yes, and until they figure out a way to include it the numbers will continue to decline.

Well I am still thinking big. The corporate person in me sees a vast “unmet need” out there and a denomination can be seen as a corporation that is looking at a customer base. That customer base is much larger than my group that has been called the church alumni association. That customer base includes a lot of persons who are going to an evangelical church because, for the most part, those new evangelical churches do church better than we do. We can learn from them. The parent organization to a lot of those churches being planted around the country came up with a formula of how to start and grow new churches. It seems to me the key to that success is being organized and being well funded. But there also needs to be motivation to organize and to fund. I am wondering if the common denominator of “religious knowing” provides the same kind of motivation as wanting to “save my soul so I can go to heaven”.

I see potential in adding “entertainment” onto “religious knowing”. Both would involve music. Music draws a lot of people. A lot of musicians sing songs that are quite religious. McClaren told us in Portland that he knows that the purpose of the Church is not to “meet needs” but it is better than not meeting needs and not going to Church. I would say that the primary purpose of the Church is not entertainment but if entertainment also provides an audience for “religious knowing” I see no great evil. I like to listen to Prairie Home Companion. Garrison Keillor mixes religion and entertainment with the emphasis on entertainment. How about a mix where the emphasis is reversed? The key to starting a new group would be to have musicians. If you are doing home church a simple CD can do (I have used this succesfully).

This line of thinking could go in several directions but generally what about making music a primary motivation for organizing and funding?

I agree music can take one beyond the mundane world. Silence, contemplation, meditation or Quaker silence can then take people deeper into their journey without saying a word. People need to feel and alter their consciousness. Then different people can discourse at the end of the silence and others can question or add to it out of the silence and then end with music on a high note.

A good discourse to satisfy the intellect so it will sit in silence is good to be a part of.

I am enjoying this tread. Again, I recall this line of thinking from the experimental congregation of which I was a part in 1970-71. I find my current congregation moving in directions akin to what you envision.

The Oxford Study Bible NRSV and The Oxford Study Bible REB are excellent English language study Bibles. I am not aware of them being progressive. They usually take a middle-of-the road view that is a consensus of scholarship. Some of the commentators are progressive—Richard Horsley in the NRSV. The old Oxford Study Bible RSV is a great resource. I very much like the Oxford Study Bible JPS. I use the Oxford Study NAB. The New Interpreters Study Bible NRSV helps pastors avoid making faux pas.

This is starting to feel like church…we had a sermon, a hymn and now Bible study.

Again I would like to think big. A large church can do what a small church can not. If we want to learn from those evangelical churches that are growing up around us we can look at a common formula that they use. They use the main Sunday service to attract people and fund the organization. In addition some use the TV to attract and fund. The formula is very organized but the idea is to bring people through the door and once they are there you find a filtering process that leads to where the “real” Church meets in much smaller groups. It is in these smaller groups that religious transformation usually takes place (not that many people are not “moved” some by the Sunday service). There is an “umbrella” group that sponsors these new church starts and they obviously help with the funding and organization. Much of the draw is to “meet needs” and then later talk about saving souls. They really think that they are doing good on Sunday by “meeting needs” as well as doing “true” Church during the week by saving souls.

Can we transfer this model to the Progressive Christian Church? It may go like this. The large Sunday service could be “centered” by the music. You could alternate Sundays by the type of music or mix the music in one service. The music has to be excellent in quality. Yes this is entertainment but at the same time you build into the service what it means to “religiously know”. You add some ritual, some silent contemplation practices and other languages designed to show what it means to “religiously know” but really, if truth be told, the congregant comes away being mostly entertained. However, while there the congregant sees the opportunity “to go deeper” within in small groups that meet throughout the week.

Here is an example of one such small group:
Mission Statement: To meet in small groups and share music that speaks to our souls.
Practice: Listen for and identify those songs and artists that speak to your soul and then have weekly get togethers for wine/cheese and share. Leadership would rotate as each person is given a chance to share an artist or a collage of music with a theme.
Method: Start the gathering with lighting a common candle that is passed from meeting to meeting. Repeat the same blessing each time which would bless the group and invite grace to happen. Then ask that people prepare themselves to listen to music. Do an exercise to quiet the mind, concentrate on breathing,etc. Then music is played. A few minutes of silence follows each piece. People can jot notes about what struck them. Someone may ask that one piece be repeated. Then share what is “religious” about the music. Share what metaphors are raised by the music and where those metaphors take you. If there is a story in the music try to see if you are a character in the story and see where that takes you. Play the next piece and repeat the process. Then share some wine and cheese (or home made bread and juice) (or if you are really sinful strawberry shortcake). Gather to close with a song that can be easily sung by all and has the potential for being your group’s theme song.

This would be an “entry” small group. Other groups would go “deeper” and pick up what people here have been talking within this message board about what leads to real religious transformation.

I think that some version of my idea with music can make you large so that you can organize and fund while at the same time making you small so you can be effective. The point is that throughout the Church program there has to be some Primary message that ties the group together both in large and small groups. My suggestion is the “Religious Knowing” is that common thread.

In my current congregation, I am already where you point. There has to be depth. Otherwise, we are just into the next fad.

I like the funnel and the steps leading to a deeper and deeper spiritual experience.

I can also see a progressive TV show that is fast paced, stimulating and entertaining, very eclectic to arouse interest.

I do not see the depth developing from the theatrics. I have not experienced that happening.

People just entering the spiritual life would not like to sit in silence for long periods, they would appreciate the music, but avenues could be opened for them if they want to go deeper into a spiritual experience. Not to say one is better than the other just different ways to commune could be offered. A path leading deeper and deeper into Chritian realization and then shared with the larger body. All are necesary for balance. The people into music would say the silence between the notes takes them deeper while others would say it is the notes.

God is at the carnival laughing with us and He is leading the parade, dancing and singing.

Perhaps my interest in polity hides my desire for depth. But we have the interesting dilemma that I am sure Jesus faced. How do we react to the Kingdom of God? Apparently Jesus did not intend to start a new Temple. That may be because he thought the Temple could be transformed or it could be that he thought the Temple had nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. One thing seems clear to me and that is if we are going to start a new denomination we have to really be aware of what we are talking about. We are talking about “building mystery”. We are talking about organizing what can not be organized. We are talking about building a structure for that which can not be held within a structure.

What are the alternatives? We can continue to muddle along with the present form of the Church. I find that depressing. The current Episcopal discussion mirrors the split in most mainline denominations not based upon sex but based upon theology and the religious knowing process. To continue to talk Christ when Christ is so divisive seems depressing to me.

We can give up on the attempt to think big. We can concentrate on our own spiritual journey and find support in serendipity ways and be organized only when it comes time to talk about the need for justice to act. This is the only viable alternative to me at the present time. It seems that our generation has lost the positive vision of polity that seems to have existed from Plato to Kennedy. Much has to do with post modernism but many have shown where that path ultimately leads. We need to start putting something back together.

I can live without “depth” on Sunday morning if Sunday morning brings the whole family back to church. That family includes those that do not do a lot of theological thinking but are “missing something”. That family includes children who learn first how to know before they begin knowing what they know. That family includes a diverse culture living in a culture that divides based upon language, income and other cultural factors but more importantly increasingly divides by lifting up diversity as more important than what we have in common. When the family is together we can point towards “depth”.

Without polity “depth” may further divide. I will go “deep” within my spiritual path and we can meet within message boards but we can not do Church together.

If we realize that we are “building mystery” then we know that we start with an impossible task. However, some ways are better than others. I do think that a common set of symbols is necessary. Jesus, the Christ and the Bible are powerful symbols with a lot of history. That is why I think a Church can do well when it is both Progressive and Christian. It is not the only "path" but a "path" must be chosen. When this all is recognized then we can start to “do Church” which really is just helping build a safe place for Grace to happen. If we refuse to help in the building will Grace not happen? I don’t think so but it will be increasingly difficult for us to “be together” when it does happen.

I guess I should start getting off my soapbox. This is either going to happen or it will not. I do not have anything to sell you. I can not offer you a website or some other place to go so you can get the "real" information. It seems like the Center for Progressive Christianity is a good place to talk about a new Progressive Christian Church. However I guess I am still where I started this conversation. I am still looking for those who want to work specifically on polity. I have no agenda at this time other than that. Perhaps there is a "group" out there that is already discussing this or wants to have this discussion that may or may not lead to something practical. I am ready to see if the practical is possible. Certainly I would welcome any more thoughts on polity in response to this conversation but I really am looking for those that are also willing to explore the practical. I understand you can send a message to me if you are a member. Please do that if you share this interest.

I have been on vacation and away from a computer for a while, and over that time have had a few chances to mull over some of this discussion and maybe clarify some of my own thoughts on this issue. I agree with the above sentiment that symbols are necessary. Without symbols, without the use of words and myths to convey mystical experiences before the presence of God, then I think you can have no religion--at best, you have a lot of private mystical experiences, but without a way of sharing our experience of God together, there is no religious community. We as finite and limited humans require words and myths and symbols to communicate, however inadequately, to one another our experience with the infinite reality of God. (Even identifying "God" as being part of that mystical experience is in and of itself a way of characterizing the experience--not every mystic might necessarily see God as part of their experience.) We use these intermediate and limited means of conveying the religious experience because those are the tools that we have at our disposal for communicating with one another that we can only inadequately characterize.

But I think the key point is that, in the contemporary age, we cannot take seriously any religion that literalizes those myths, symbols, and words. The old creeds that Christians recite ring hollow for many of us. Many of us, for example, cannot believe in the literal truths of myths about a virgin birth or a literal resurrection of Christ. At least I know that I cannot.

So what I would seek in a religious community is one that accepts the value of myths and symbols without literalizing them, that is open to pluralistics approaches and that does not claim an exclusive right to any set of myths or symbols. Not everyone need choose the same symbols, if some prefer certain symbols for cultural or other reasons. Thus some may prefer to use Christ-language and Christ-symbols and the Bibles as part of their worship practices, while others may prefer to use other religious traditions, and others still may choose to mix them freely. Some may prefer silence, while others prefer music (I actually have no use for music as part of worship, but I am probably in the minority on that point.) The community joins together in its diversity of worship styles because each of them understands that these are just symbols that they are using to mediate their relationship with God. As long as they don't literalize the symbols, they can join together in a greater community.

Because it rejects literalism, that means that it is not a form of syncretism. Even a religion like the Baha'i, which I certainly have a great deal of respect for, essentially, creates its own literalism. Bahai's, as much as they respect other religions, have their own literally interpreted myths about Bahaullah and what they call the manifestations of God. This dogma about specific prophets or religious revelations is something that I reject.

The other thing that I would seek in a religious community is one that is grounded in rationalism. It rejects the literal truth of stories of divine miracles because it doesn't believe that God operates that way in the word. Science teaches us much about the way that God works in the world. We know that the world operates according to certain principles, that the universe has expanded from some initial Big Bang billions of years ago, that life evolved on this planet; and this knowledge teaches us something about the nature of God. What it teaches us, exactly, of course, is something that a religious community can collectively try to discover.

I think it is clear that what I would seek in a religious community is not the same as what David is looking for.

Regarding my views on the use of symbols to describe religious experiences, I found an excellent passage by Marcus Borg in his book "Resurrection: Myth or Reality?":

Words are never neutral or obective. Therefore words can never be used as if they themselves were the truth of the experience that one is trying to relate. Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of the truth, the means of communication used by one person to convey to another the experiences that have defined and given meaning to the one speaking. Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared. Words point to reality; they do not capture reality. So it is that no words employed by anyone at any time can be objective, infallible, inerrant, or strictly literal. To apprehend them as such is to destroy, distort, bind, and violate the content of the experience that those words seek to communicate.

These linguistic facts present serious problems and challenges to every institutional religious system in every age. Every religious system has historically built and maintained its authority on the claim that its tradition was different and somehow spoke objectively for a God who was perceived to be both eternal and unchanging. When employed in religious history, this argument has proved to be both powerful and wondrously circular. Its component parts include, first, the claim that the God acknowledged in a particular religious tradition is the only true God, and, thus, that all other gods are false. It asserts, second, that this true God has been made known in a direct way to a particular faith community by divine revelation, the veracity of which can be challenged no more than God can be challenged. Finally, since this religious tradition is portrayed as the sole reciipient of the divine revelation, and since its leadres are the primary interpreters of this God, they alone can relate to the people the truth they have received. The circle is now complete, and these designated religious leaders now make the claim that they speak with the infallible voice of God and that this voice brooks no challenge and will entertain no debate.

What I advocate is breaking out of that paradigm that Spong describes above, which specifically means no more claiming that the words capture a literal reality about God. As Spong says in the same book, "Religious traditions are strange combinations of subjective descriptions of actual events plus mythological interpretations of those events. It is only when an actual event enters inot and is carried by a mythological interpretation that the event is finally remembered at all." I agree that we need the myths--but I also agree that we should never at any moment forget that they are myths. The moment we do that, I believe, the religion loses credibility. This is the problem that I have with all existing Christian denominations; they retain their tired old creeds, and recite them as if they are true, and even if many participants no longer believe those creeds, they recite them anyway. On the other hand, I am not attracted to a denomination like Unitarianian Universalism either, where I see the monotheistic and spiritual roots of Christianity dissolved and washed away into a melange of what I view as spiritual blandness (not all UUs would agree with my characterization of their faith, but that is my overall take on it.) I am seeking a niche in between those two religions. I don't know if it is possible to really fill such a niche, or if I am only dreaming.

And I thought this conversation was over…..welcome back from vacation Mystical Seeker. I have really appreciated your contributions. I am thinking that any group that Mystical Seeker would join would be a group that I could love. Both of us seem to be caught between the likes of the UCC and UU.

The UU in me also is attracted to rationalism which is grounded in logic, reason and appreciates the fruits of science. That includes the work of the Jesus Seminar which has so brilliantly shown us how the historical Jesus can, in part, be seen differently from the early Church. There are rational methods here and the fruits of this work have given us the ability to have this conversation about a new denomination. However the Jesus Seminar is really struggling with what difference their work makes for the Church. It seems to me that being rational is necessary but not sufficient (showing us a historical Jesus does not “rationally” lead us to how to do Church any more than knowing the rules of music leads to great music).

The UCC in me responds to Borg as quoted by Mystical Seeker. The rational person may also tend to be “literal” and may not appreciate the metaphor/symbol. Mystical Seeker shows us that this is not necessary, but my favorite is Tillich. In “The Courage to Be”:

Absolute faith, or the state of being grasped by the God beyond God, is not a state which appears beside other states of the mind. It never is something separated and definite, an event which could be isolated and described. It is always a movement in, with, and under other states of mind. It is the situation on the boundary of man’s possibilities. It is this boundary….It is not a place where one can live, it is without the safety of words and concepts, it is without a name, a church, a cult, a theology. But it is moving in the depth of all of them. It is the power of being, in which they participate and of which they are fragmentary expressions.

Being “grasped by the God beyond God” is not described in “rational” language. Yet it does not contradict the rational. This “points to” what I would say is “religious knowing”.

Tillich provides the basis for my suggestion that we not come together based upon a common theology, but instead come together with an attempt to provide better opportunities to be “grasped by the God beyond God” knowing full well that this lives “without a church”. We need a church based upon “Absolute Faith” knowing that this does not lead to a church or even an agreement on theology. Having said this some options are clearly better than others. Make a choice between the religious right and Tillich to begin with. Then look at practical alternatives--some of which clearly “invite” the “God beyond God” and others which clearly are not receptive.

Although many UCC people would say “amen” there is nothing that I have found in the UCC that would make Tillich’s way a test for including and excluding. One such UCC church sums it up by saying “We believe the Kingdom of God exists wherever Christ is accepted”. This is a pitiful attempt to be all things to all people. We need to be clear that the Christ we are talking about is not anything close to the Christ of the religious right. The religious right has a Christ that can be named clearly, has the safety of a clear theology and is supported by a huge cult/church.

Mystical Seeker---can we go to the same Church? (I will go to the music services and you can go to some other services—our Church needs to be large enough to be inclusive but small enough to be effective).

Sure. I might even be willing to sit through the occasional music service just for a change of pace.

Not just the both of you. You would have enough company to make some noise......enough to make some music and be awed by some silence, enough to be challenged by some thoughtful theological discussion and elevated by some mystical sacrament. Enough to get me out of bed every Sunday morning.

For me, much better than alternating my Sundays between the two. Hmmmm, let's see, odd weeks must be UU & even weeks mean UCC.

1) You might try a house church, which seems to be where you're headed. I doubt you can do the "from the top down thing" you'll just find a lot of people whose attitude will be: who are you to tell me what to do/believe/think? Check out House Church Central for folks who have been doing it for a while. House churches are very controversial now, especially among more conservative folks who see it as a threat to large churches and denominations.

2) I'm afraid you've set yourself up to fail for the simple reason that it looks like you won't be dealing with/teaching/worshipping/etc. anything bigger than your own set of opinions and ideas. It may attract a few folks who like the novelty, but ultimately they won't feel themselves bound to give/serve/participate/get-up-on-Sunday because the thing that urges them to do so (their own tastes and opinions) will be the same things that eventually will urge them to sleep in. It's one reason why the mainstream denominations are in trouble: there's such rhetoric about how Christianity is not better than any other religion, you can get saved without it, you are the guide to your own life, etc. that a lot of folks wind up saying: "Why bother?"

3) Jesus formed his church by challenging and offering an adventure, not by trying to find out what would make the most people happy. You like the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, fine. He makes a great intellectual study. But most people wouldn't follow him to the corner grocery.
Why do you think so many of the conservative churches are growing? Because people like being told what they can't do? No.

Because they are convinced they are on a pilgrimage of otherworldly adventure and wonder.

Why do you think Lord of the Rings and Narnia were so popular among Christians? Especially conservative ones? Because it's how they see their lives. For these people Jesus isn't a curious and pleasant wandering sage with a good line to be deconstructed. He's a lion, a wizard, a wonder worker, a king. He's Arthur, Aragorn, Aslan. He's eminently and wonderously attractive.

4) If Progressive Christianity is to be more than a plaything of bored liberals (and I think it can be, there's a lot of power in those 8 points), you have to have a Jesus people are willing to follow. Not just one that can get them out of bed on Sunday for a lecture, but one who can get them on the picket line, in the voting booth, in the soup kitchen, opening their homes to the poor, opening their pocket books for the needy, raising their voices against injustice, standing side-by-side with the gay, the black, the single mother, the illegal immigrant. Historic or not, the Jesus of the gospels is that Jesus. You can take Him apart all you wish, but all you'll be left with is a bunch of academic papers and empty churches. And if Progressive Christianity can't get people to go out and follow Christ (with all the pain and challenge and trouble that will entail), then it's just a liberal discussion group and will fade away . . . justifiably

If you can't challenge people, urge them to reach beyond themselves, to push their envelopes, to give them wonder and awe and majesty, then don't even bother. Logic, rationality and high academic standards are nice (and I don't want to have anything to do with a church without them) but it's not enough on which to build a life.

I believe that it is certainly possible to get people to be challenged and to follow a spiritual path without giving them a dogma that they can't accept. And it isn't simply a case of either following Jesus or having no religion at all; if that were true, the world wouldn't have so many non-Christian religions out there.

I can't speak for David, who is now (as I understand it) gone from this forum, but in response to his own quest I offered my own take on it; and what I sought was something that had the spirituality of mainline Christianity (which I see lacking in UU churches) while eschewing the more traditional premodernist dogma and its associated creeds. Far from being a mere academic exercise, my own desire was indeed to pursue a spiritually based religious community, but one grounded in a new paradigm. If I wanted to participate in a more dryly academic response to religious impulses, I could always attend a UU church. I was looking for something different.

Of course. I focused on Jesus because this was a discussion of Progressive Christianity. And you are right, you don't have to offer people a dogma they can't accept, but IMHO you do have to offer them something greater than themselves, than their own opinions and ideas, something beyond themselves. You may have to pull them out of their comfort zones and into a new way of seeing things.



I can certainly undrstand that. My experience with my local UU church was of a group of aging leftist intellectuals who met every Sunday to talk politics. And they wondered why their fellowship was dying.

I have nothing against the UU denomination per se. It does seem to satisfy what some people are looking for, and for those individuals, I think it's fine that they have found a home. And it is possible that some congregations are more spiritually focused than others are, or even that some are more Christian than others (some research on the UU Christian Fellowship indicates that there are some churches with a Christian focus.) But I p