Faithworks‘s Steve Caldwell responded to my last posting, and since it spoke so well to the point I was making, I pulled it to the top.
Scott â€¦ if this discussion is a game with â€œwinnersâ€ and â€œlosers,â€ then perhaps we are left the realm of religious discussion for something different.
I can’t agree. We each have a duty to be compelling to the “hearts and minds” — cliche or not — of the people we encounter. Unitarian Universalism has settled into a nice quietism. What passes for activism in our ranks only convinces those already convinced of our correctness.
Evangelicals have it half-right when it comes to “soul winning.” (I’d say something about Quaker “convincement” but as a group, they haven’t had anything to say to other institutions for a long time. Except perhaps the west coast Evangelical Friends. Go figure.) I detest that term because it commodifies persons, but at least they don’t dwell under the genteel delusion that people are interested in becoming like them because they’re so dang interesting. Evangelical Christianity is hard work, and successful ones continually work at it, and work at finding and keeping new adherents.
I used to believe that Unitarian Universalists could be actively convincing across party lines, but we have so little to say to one another that an outsider would appreciate that we underplay our differences and dilute our effort.
So it is a matter of winning and losing. But as I see it, Unitarian Universalists are all in the losing category. Little wonder that for the better part of living memory, the Christians found it easier to keep company with other Christians than try to change the Unitarians or Universalists. And those days are ending. We’re staying now.
And gloating about the progress UU Christianity is making doesnâ€™t sound very â€œChristianâ€ to me.
Perish the thought of enjoying a moment in the sun after years in the shade! I’ve seen this line of logic, and reject it.
You (or any number of people) define Christianity on social terms, rather than theological or ecclesiological ones, and then expect the Christians to abide by it. No thanks.
This is an example of what not apologizing for a non-injury. Pretty rare in Unitarian Universalist circles. And an example of tall poppy syndrome, besides.