However, I think we're overlooking the very real "postchristian" demographic trend in North America and its impact on our congregations.
Here's a brief quote from Wikipedia to help us with what the term "postchristian" might mean:
Postchristianity, postchristendom or postchristianism are variants of a term used to describe a contemporary cultural attitude strictly linked to postmodernism. It may include personal world views, ideologies, religious movements or societies that are no longer rooted in the language and assumptions of Christianity, though it had previously been in an environment of ubiquitous Christianity (i.e., Christendom). Neopaganism and its cultural backgrounds, are the most notable examples of this kind of postchristian new religious movements.Or in simpler terms, postchristian describes a culture where Christianity had been the dominant civil religion in the past, is still present today, but is not the dominant religion today.
Thus defined, a post-Christian world is one where Christianity is no longer the dominant civil religion, but one that has, gradually over extended periods of time, assumed values, culture, and worldviews that are not necessarily Christian (and further may not necessarily reflect any world religion's standpoint). This situation applies to much of Europe, in particular in Central and Northern Europe, where no more than half of the residents in those lands profess belief in a transcendent, personal and monotheistically-conceived deity.
In other words, religious life in our culture is moving from Christianity as the majority religion to simply being one of many religious views in North America. The suggestion that Christianity is present but not dominant visually depicted by this Universalist lapel pin where the cross is present but not central (image provided by UniUniques):
If the term "postchristian" is insulting, I suppose this lapel pin is insulting as well. Go figure.
In a postchristian world, we can't assume that our potential members will understand the Protestant Christian assumptions that influence our Unitarian Universalist congregations in the past and today.
We will see this demographic shift happen in Canada first based on the extrapolation of current demographics provided by the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance:
"The percentage of Canadians who identify themselves as Christian has been dropping by about 0.9 percentage points per year. This is very close to the rate of decline in the U.S. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2023, non-Christians will outnumber Christians in Canada."And here is their prediction for the United States:
[In 2001,] 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then:In the past, we have recruited many of our members from those who have left Christianity to become Unitarian Universalist as adults. Close to 90% of our adult membership are adult converts who were not raised as Unitarian Universalist.
- At the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians
- The percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
- By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
However, this group of potential Unitarian Universalists is shrinking.
What impact will this have on our future growth and long-term survivability as a religious movement?
While we discuss the suggestion that "postchristian" is an insulting or loaded term, this demographic issue remains untouched even though it could and probably will impact us within the next 10 to 30 years.
9 comments:
You conflated a societal response to Christianity to an internal Unitarian Universalist approach to Christianity.
Unitarian Universalists are bound by a covenant which includes, among other things, support for the various religious strains that brought us where we are. Within Unitarian Universalism, "post-Christian" is a supercessionist claim against a single party; indeed, one party that had to fight for inclusion when the current Principles and Purpose were crafted in 1985.
This is more than a matter of hurt feelings: I detect a violation of covenant and will continue to object to official descriptions of Unitarian Universalism as "post-Christian."
Scott says,
You conflated a societal response to Christianity to an internal Unitarian Universalist approach to Christianity.
I think Steve is also conflating an empirical description of the theological orientation of a plurality of individual UUs and congregations with a normative prescription for a monolithic rather than pluralistic UUism. His prescription reflects his own analysis of external cultural trends, but fails to embrace the complete range of heritage and spirituality that already exists within the denomination as presently constituted, including a specific theological heritage that is uniquely our own and is found nowhere else. It is the normative prescription, not the empirical description, that is exclusionary, discriminatory, and contemptuous of covenantal bonds.
I don't agree that the Universalist "left-cross" connotes anything close too the same meaning as the term "post-Christian", by the way. In fact, if anyone seriously proposed that the Universalist cross should replace the Flaming Chalice as a more accurate symbol of our post-Christian UU identity, I imagine the strongest opposition would come from self-identified "post-Christians", not from old-fashioned Unitarians.
As a not-ever Christian (not even nominally raised as one) and a birthright UU, I'd object to "Post-Christian" too.
It's not "my" label.
I'm influenced by Christianity, and by Buddhism, and by Taoism, and by Paganism, and by Humanism, and by... and they aren't in neat little boxes that I take out and let interact. They're a sort of ratatouille which is complex and wonderful in its own right. The flavor is what it is because they're all there.
"Post-Christian" suggests two things that are grossly unacceptable. To my UU Christian brothers and sisters, it implies that "we" (the enlightened of us) are over that silly stuff that "you" are still inexplicably still attached to. I think that's some of what got Scott hopping mad. Given that I've heard that sort of thing actually articulated (now and then, not too often... and I think less often more recently...), I'm with them. It's denigrating, offensive and unnecessary. "We" aren't over that (and here I speak as a UU non-Christian, as well as a current seminarian). We are so not over that, and I see nothing to suggest that such a thing is even on the far horizon. But the proposition is obviously offensive to those who find their personal theological centering inside UU Christianity.
And, I object as a non-Christian, too. I don't care to see the movement described to the general population in terms that those who have a significant theological interest argue, debate and wrestle over, because there's utterly no chance that the public at large is going to be interested or in tune with the subtleties of meaning and the nuances. I don't want to be labled as a movement with a confusing and deceptive term. I don't want to be viewed as being "Post-Christian" in my views when if anything it's something more the opposite. Delving into UUism seriously is giving me a personal value of/for Christianity. That's hardly post-, in my view.
Oh, and the vague worry that with a declining Christian population there won't be converts (away) to fill UU ranks is just silly. That's assuming that the past is a model and map for the future.
ogre wrote
-snip-
"Oh, and the vague worry that with a declining Christian population there won't be converts (away) to fill UU ranks is just silly. That's assuming that the past is a model and map for the future."
All too often, the past is the model for the future until the past example is unsustainable.
Witness the ecological collapses of the Greenland Vikings and the statue-crafting Polynesian culture of Easter Island.
So -- I'm not that optimistic. I could see us easily keeping the status quo until it collapses. No one has addressed this question so far on this blog thread other than me. I'm tired of being in "Cassandra mode."
The move in North American society to sociological postchristian culture could impact our congregations and the population we recruit new members from.
I'm still seeing this question being overlooked that I posted in the original blog post:
What impact will a shift from a Christian to a postchristian culture in North America have on our future growth and long-term survivability as a religious movement?
I'm not trying to ignore hurt feelings or breaking of covenant -- but this question about future demographics will affect us.
If we end up with a postchristian society similar to Western European societies where religion fulfills at most a cultural, symbolic, and ceremonial role, what is our future as Unitarian Universalists in this world?
Scott wrote:
-snip-
"Within Unitarian Universalism, "post-Christian" is a supercessionist claim against a single party ... "
Scott,
I don't think this is a supercessionist claim.
Pre-merger Universalism has always been viewed as the "more Christian" partner in the Unitarian Universalist merger.
But even the Universalist Church of America was postchristian in the 1940s. I'm basing this on the UCA's rejection when they attempted to join ecumenical Christian groups.
Dana McLean Greeley (first president of the Unitarian Universalist Association) said that Unitarian Universalism was postchristian. This is referenced on Wikipedia using Rev. Dan Harper's blog as a source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postchristianity
http://www.danielharper.org/blog/?page_id=463
Greeley said this because many Christians no longer considered Unitarian Universalists to be Christian while persons of other non-Christian religions would likely describe us as Christian (as least in terms of Unitarian and Universalist historical roots and current practice of some Unitarian Universalists who are UU Christians).
Keep in mind that the pre-merger Universalist Church of America was viewed as not Christian enough by the Federal Council of Churches (the forerunner of the National Council of Churches) when they applied for membership in late 1940s.
So Greeley's definition of Unitarian Universalism as "postchristian" may have been an accurate description of us an accurate description in the late 1940s prior to the UUA merger.
Fausto wrote:
-snip-
"I don't agree that the Universalist 'left-cross' connotes anything close too the same meaning as the term "post-Christian", by the way. In fact, if anyone seriously proposed that the Universalist cross should replace the Flaming Chalice as a more accurate symbol of our post-Christian UU identity, I imagine the strongest opposition would come from self-identified 'post-Christians,' not from old-fashioned Unitarians."
Fausto,
Well -- we basically had a version of the UCA off-center cross in the UUA chalice logo that we used until the recent "corporate logo" chalice change.
The UUA symbol before the "corporate logo" chalice that we used until recently was a joining of the two circles (reflecting the merger of the Universalist Church of America and the American Unitarian Association) and an off-center cross-shaped chalice to reflect the symbols of Universalism and Unitarianism combined into one.
A chalice clip art example can be found online here:
http://www.uua.org/images/chalices/asset_upload_file746_9883.gif
The Federal Council of Churches vote, as it affected the Universalist Church of America, is a terrible disappointment. But the melodramatic and persecuted response by period Universalists was even more disappointing.
Two things are worth remembering:
1. It was a split vote by the Federal Council.
2. The Universalists didn't reject themselves as Christians when they made the application.
As for the influence of the Humiliati and Clinton Lee Scott, there's so little written about them that doesn't come from an adoring disciple that it's hard to get the real story. That's frustrating too.
(And, of course, Christians persisted in the Unitarian side; the UUCF is a Unitarian-founded organization, after all.)
@ogre. I appreciate your perspective.
For what it's worth, I think one reason there are fewer sideswipes at Christians today (I've noticed that too) is that the Christians no longer sulk with solent self-pity, as was far too common when I was a pup, but respond energetically.
In the past, we have recruited many of our members from those who have left Christianity to become Unitarian Universalist as adults. Close to 90% of our adult membership are adult converts who were not raised as Unitarian Universalist.
However, this group of potential Unitarian Universalists is shrinking.
What impact will this have on our future growth and long-term survivability as a religious movement?
The fact that the majority of converts to UUism were people who used to be Christian may simply reflect that the majority of the US population has been Christian. As that percentage shrinks it would only impact the growth of UUism if we accept the premise that only former Christians would become UUs.
The real issue is whether our approach to religion would also appeal to people from the entire spectrum of religion (and anti-religion) - people who are disenchanted with their current religious home and are seeking a new way to be religious. If so, then the group of potential UUs remains the entire population and the proportion of Christian to non-Christian is insignificant.
Post a Comment