PeaceBang says:

What is our center? What is it we will not be willing to give away to every anxious, demanding newcomer or old-timer? What are the boundaries and the sacred trust handed down from generation to generation of lay leaders in your congregation?

. . .

We must, we simply must, move beyond the answer, “Our moral authority comes from our own individual conscience. That’s really who are we are: we’re a collection of interesting individuals who think it’s really groovy to do their spiritual seeking in free and supportive community.” Really? Then what are the checks and balances to our own individual conscience? Why do we then gather in covenanted congregations under one name? Is there no other authority higher than the individual, and what the individual wants? What are our methods of discernment, or are we willing to have any?

Hear, hear!

Last year at General Assembly, I was so hopeful that the approved Study Action Issue of Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society(pdf), fueled in part by the Commission on Appraisal’s report on “Engaging Our Theological Diversity”(pdf), would spur such defining conversations in congregations across our denomination.

It was my first GA. I was, perhaps, overly optimistic.

I’ve been surfing through a lot of church websites lately, gathering what information I can in preparation for John’s search next year. And what I have found, in reading online postings of newsletters from all across our denomination, is that very few of our churches have a clear idea of wider purpose or identity. There are lots and lots of congregations doing lots and lots of good things, but there doesn’t seem to be any kind of denominational cohesion outside of a list of the UUA’s Seven Principles. The COA report explores this issue, too:

Despite consensus within the church that the liberal message of Unitarian Universalism is important in this troubled world, we find it difficult to articulate that message clearly. (p 3)

. . .

The theological differences among UUs, while acknowledged at a superficial level, are not discussed and examined with openness, care, and intentionality in broad UU circles. Our commonalities are more subtle, and they are easily missed, ignored, or forgotten. Our differences can seem huge, even irreconcilable, but through the development of consensus around other issues, we can see those differences as a source of enrichment rather than as a threat. (p 7)

. . .

It is critical that the Unitarian Universalist Association and congregations within the UUA know their identity. That identity cannot be, as some members suggest, a club, a social-action organization, or a surrogate family, although these functions may serve the needs of individual members at various times. There must be more. (p 32)

So my question is, how do we get this rather reluctant denomination to start having the important conversations that lead to a more unified identity, so that we don’t get hung up on all the picky crap and we can get on with doing the work of the church? I don’t think we can just skip this step - the conversations and reflections need to be had, as much as I personally wish we could just “shut up and do.”

I think that most members of most UU churches can agree that the work of the church is clear: comfort the afflicted, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, create healing community, in short to be better than we are.

So to continue from my earlier post, it’s not so much a question of purpose, but of identity and, as Peacebang put it so eloquently, of authority.

But can we figure this stuff out without talking about it? And is there any way to move this particular growth process along, so that we can get on with the work?

Or is the work the answer?