UU=Post Christian? I Agree

I’ve used the term regularly to describe us Unitarian Universalists…not in a negative way, but in a comprehensive way. It does not encompass all of us obviously, but gives credit to our history.

UPDATE 8/5/08

I appreciate the deeper discussion that is sprouting here. I also like that folks are raising the anti-oppression analysis. I’m going to think about that more and post a response here later. I read this editorial about how Christian the Unitarian response was in Knoxville, who then proceeded to add fuel to our fire:

“…despite the fact that the Unitarian church is hardly Christian at all…”  (Scolded by Unitarian)

Advertisements

38 responses to “UU=Post Christian? I Agree

  1. Right, but it sounds hella snotty to people who don’t know what it means, including, one presumes, most readers of the Washington Post.

    CC

  2. I disagree strongly, for reasons that I explain more fully at Boy in the Bands, including that it exhibits the same sort of unwittingly oppressive and exclusive attitude that our AO programs are designed to combat.

  3. That is, I disagree with Joseph’s endorsement of the term, not CC’s objection to it.

  4. It’s all welcome and inclusion until the Christians come along, at which point we’ve moved above, beyond, farther.

    Begs the question of who “we” is. Just unacceptable.

  5. Scott – say more about what you mean about “we”.

    CC – not sure what you mean by it sounding “snotty”.

    Is there still christianity in Unitarian Universalism? I say yes. Are we purely christian in a christian sense, in the broadest terms? I say no. That doesn’t mean we don’t have the christian DNA anymore. I guess this goes back to the debate about what is christian anyway. I don’t seem to hear much in UU circles (ministers chat, seminary, in writings or elsewhere to the best of my knowledge) about us trying to reclaim or redefine christianity in progressive terms. Seems that is the role of the UCC and DOC, and that the UUA has moved out of that realm since the merger, or before.

    Would love to hear more from you all (and Fausto)

  6. Joseph, Christianity has not been normative for us since the merger if not many years before, I would agree with that. However, rejecting Christianity has never been normative for us either. It is the connotation of rejection in the word “post” that I find troubling. You might say that such a connotation is not intended, but if you spent a couple of months of Sundays worshipping with the good parishioners at First Church in Salem, or First Parish in Weston or Chestnut Hill, or Eliot Chapel in Natick, or King’s Chapel in Boston, you might better appreciate how using words that connote a normative rejection of Christianity sound to those UUs who do not reject it.

    Moreover, the Christianity that self-identified “post-Christian” UUs do reject is usually a perverted variant of Christianity that no Christian UU, Unitarian or Universalist has ever affirmed. What is new in the epithet of “post-Christian” is not the connotation that such rigid, exclusive, oppressive expressions of Christianity are wrong and ought to be rejected, but rather, the connotation that such rigidity typifies any valid form of Christianity, much less all of Christianity.

  7. I don’t seem to hear much in UU circles (ministers chat, seminary, in writings or elsewhere to the best of my knowledge) about us trying to reclaim or redefine christianity in progressive terms. Seems that is the role of the UCC and DOC, and that the UUA has moved out of that realm since the merger, or before.

    You’re probably right about that, and I think that is to our shame. A century or more ago, we were the ones leading the discussion, and our witness and experience over the last century would still be meaningful to them if we were willing to characterize it as a natural progression of Christian sensibility in the light of expanding human knowledge. (And their witness and experience would also be as meaningful to us, if we were willing to accept it as originating from the same source as our own).

  8. (((What is new in the epithet of “post-Christian” is not the connotation that such rigid, exclusive, oppressive expressions of Christianity are wrong and ought to be rejected, but rather, the connotation that such rigidity typifies any valid form of Christianity, much less all of Christianity.)))

    Word, Fausto.

    (((not sure what you mean by it sounding “snotty”.))

    Well, a post-modernist has abandoned modernism and has left it behind as insufficient.

    Post-production is where you take all the errors out of your videotape and make it something usable.

    Post-secondary education is for people who have learned all they need to from high school and have moved on.

    As for, “Post-feminists” well, I’ll go with the t-shirt slogan and say I will be one in a “post-patriarchy.”

    Need I go on? I’d say the implication is pretty snotty, particularly to Christian UUs who haven’t “moved on” and are still practicing Christians.

    CC

  9. Patrick McLaughlin

    Succinct, useful term desired, must communicate accurately, not exclude, offend or tend to deceive. No experience necessary. Apply to UUA.org. Competitive salary and benefits.

    1. In that the broad UU movement is not Christian, it seems legitimate to use the term “post-Christian,” since its roots were on both sides Christian… and now it’s not. As an attempt to explain and describe, I understand it. But I can see it falls short.

    2. In that it feels to UU Christians like it denies their existence, it’s a term that needs to be replaced. Upgraded. Improved. I’m not a UU Christian (a fan, a sympathizer, though)… but I can see that it could be hurtful.

    Interfaith religion?
    Ecumenical faith?

    Both have the advantage of not calling out any individual faith tradition as being or not being part of the religion.

    Scott, “It’s all welcome and inclusion until the Christians come along, at which point we’ve moved above, beyond, farther,” sounds… oh… petulant. I’ve heard the same tone from certain Humanists who feel that the current wave of nebulously spiritual seekers and Pagans and others (including Christians willing to label themselves as such) are driving them from their churches. And from Pagans who feel like they’re not really accepted into the UU communion, but… grudgingly tolerated (and perhaps mined for their earth-based spirituality…).

    While it is true that certain individual churches are distinctly Christian, or Humanist, or Pagan, or… whatever… there’s no single core faith, and every single group can feel (legitimately, sometimes) like it’s being dissed, taken for granted, devalued. If one wishes to focus on the occasional snub (intended) or the rudeness of some members (intended, clueless, inappropriate), at least.

    It might be that if UU Christians were more vocal and were pushing the boundaries… defining and redefining Christianity publicly, there’d be more appreciation within the movement and more awareness. But I think that’s something that needs to happen more broadly, too. I think we need to develop some definition of what it means to be UU-and-of-some-faith-tradition as well.I’d like to see work on Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Paganism, Humanism and Christianity that are firmly rooted in UUism.

  10. Every champion cry that Unitarian Universalism has moved to a state past Christianity suggests that the speaker has an idea of Unitarian Universalism that either (1) would rather I not be there or (2) would conveniently use my presence to satisfy selfish needs for a false pluralism, or to call it by its true name, tokenism.

    I think (2) is more common and, though subtle, more abusive. Christians aren’t assumed to be a part of the “we” of Unitarian Universalism, and rather than pout I prefer to protest.

  11. It may be worthwhile to look at the Wikipedia article on Post-Christianity:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postchristianity

    The article uses the following definition for a Post-Christian world:

    ” … 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.”

    Another thought here is that Post-Christian may mean that Christianity is present in our society but not central.

    This idea is visually depicted by the pre-merger Universalist Church of America symbol:

  12. Steve,

    Again, I at least have conceded that there is some theological accuracy to the term.

    That’s not the point. The point is how it sounds, particularly given that this is coming from a spokesperson.

    If you’d like an alternate example, there’s nothing wrong with the term “niggardly.” It comes from Norweigian and has nothing to do with the N-word. At the same time, if your spokesperson is using it, you need to get a new spokesperson because they are using terminology that sounds offensive and detracts from the message you’ve hired them to spread.

    What amazes me is that people can argue for a month on the subtle implications that the term “brown bag lunch” has to those who know about a decades-old racial practice, but the fairly obvious implications of “post-Christian” are something Christians are just supposed to tolerate.

    CC

  13. CC wrote:
    -snip-
    What amazes me is that people can argue for a month on the subtle implications that the term “brown bag lunch” has to those who know about a decades-old racial practice, but the fairly obvious implications of “post-Christian” are something Christians are just supposed to tolerate.

    CC,

    One doesn’t view these potential verbal slights without historical and cultural context.

    There has been and continues to be a history of racism in North America.

    While there are some persons who have prejudice and/or hold a grudge against Christianity, the difference here is that Christians are not an oppressed group in our society.

    With the possible exception of some of the Founding Fathers who may be considered Deists, every US President has been a Christian and nearly all of them have been Protestant.

    Christians may be marginalized in some UU settings but they are not marginalized in the wider culture.

  14. With the possible exception of some of the Founding Fathers who may be considered Deists, every US President has been a Christian and nearly all of them have been Protestant.

    Including the four (five, if you count Jefferson) who were Unitarians. So what?

    Christians may be marginalized in some UU settings but they are not marginalized in the wider culture.

    So that makes it okay for us to marginalize them? Sounds like you’re saying oppression is only deplorable when other people oppress the canon list of previous victims, but not when we religious innovators find new ways to oppress new victims. I really don’t think you want to go there.

  15. (((Christians may be marginalized in some UU settings but they are not marginalized in the wider culture.)))

    I just keep reading this and shaking my head.

    I can’t believe I have to say this to a guy who talks so much of the talk about anti-oppression, but, ahem:

    The fact that a group believes things you think are silly and because you perceive them as a cultural threat does not make it ok to marginalize them, insult them and make them feel unwelcome in UUism.

    UUism is about free religion. We have freedom to build our own barns here. Nobody’s saying that you have to put up a cross in your barn, and indeed, if you did so without feeling a commitment to Christian ideals, that would be pandering. But when we criticize other people’s barns, our criticisms are supposed to be based in reason, not bigotry. (Or reverse bigotry, if you want to think of it that way.)

    Are we clear?

    CC

  16. I read this editorial about how Christian the Unitarian response was in Knoxville, … “…despite the fact that the Unitarian church is hardly Christian at all…”

    Thanks for that link, Joseph. I think Carl Stock, the columnist who wrote that, is exactly right. As a general rule, most UU churches may no longer be overtly Christian in their worship, and most UUs may no longer be exclusively or even primarily Christian in their personal theology, but we do share a common heritage and foundation of primarily Christian moral orientation and sensibility. The fact that many of us have come to see those moral principles as universal, and expressed equally well in other cultural and religious traditions and philosophical schools, rather than as being unique to Christianity, does not change the historical fact that Christianity is the particular source that bequeathed them to us. So when Stock says that TVUUC exhibited a more “Christian” response than the fundamentalist church in Denver that shot a similar assailant dead, in spite of being “hardly Christian at all”, he’s correct on both counts.

    That ironic, vestigially-Christian-but more-now-too quality is precisely what facile labels like “post-Christian” try to capture. IMHO “post-Christian” fails not because it inaccurately describes a prevailing tendency within present-day UUism, but because it inadequately encompasses all that is UUism. The prevailing tendency is real enough; it is only the normative definition that is limiting and divisive.

    (Oh, and that indignant UU from Schenectady who took offense at Stock’s comments needs to get over himself. Seriously, dude.)

  17. It probably won’t surprise you, Fausto, that I came down the other way on Stock’s comments.

    I thought the implications about “turning the other cheek” as applied to homicide were silly and needlessly insulting to conservative Christians. He seemed to have a paper-thin understanding of both faiths, and his indignance and pissyness at his “generosity” not being properly appreciated was ridiculous.

  18. I don’t know, CC, I saw several posted comments by fundamentalists after the Knoxville incidents to the effect that we liberals are naive not to have anticipated this, and if our ushers had packed concealed weapons in self defense like theirs do, maybe nobody would have been killed (except, of course, the assailant himself).

    Given a choice between that attitude and “standing on the side of love” and offering prayers for the assailant as well as the victims, I would say, yes, our response was the more “Christian” one.

  19. You may be right, at least as far as those individuals go. It might be his tone that gets me.

    Either way, I’m not a fan.

  20. I have to admit, I hadn’t considered the good points several of you are making about the offensiveness of the term post-christian in our UUA context. Thank you.

    I don’t think we’re post-(insert religion here) of any other faith though. Maybe this isn’t relevant, but while we come from a christian heritage, it is no longer the primary religious characteristic.

    On another note, I’ve had several talks with UU friends where we have generally criticized the idea that UU is from a judeo-christian (not liking the linkage and prefering jewish and christian), nor do we have explicit jewish traditions inherent in UU. It seems like a stretch, but perhaps is passable given our naming of other “sources” that had little to do with our historical origins.

    I’m quite sleep deprived with the little 3 month old waking at all hours…

  21. I’ve had several talks with UU friends where we have generally criticized the idea that UU is from a judeo-christian (not liking the linkage and prefering jewish and christian), nor do we have explicit jewish traditions inherent in UU.

    I don’t like it when we describe ourselves as having our “roots” in the “Judeo-Christian tradition” either. Our heritage is liberal Protestant, and no more Jewish than that of other Protestant sects. It is our legacy of liberality and the quintessentially Protestant principle of personal discernment that have allowed us to expand our religious apprehensions beyond the traditional boundaries of Christianity over the last century and a half or so, rather than any inherent and integral orientation derived from non-Christian tradition.

  22. Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion. I think that part of the tension being elicited is between the culture and theology of individual congregations and Unitarian Universalists and the culture and theology of Unitarian Universalism writ large. I would argue that while many individual Unitarian Universalists and Unitarian Universalist congregations are Christian, the Unitarian Universalist Association is not a Christian church. We emerged from primarily from heretical Christian movements but as institution we have moved beyond–the reader is free to pick the word here since it is meant to be descriptive and not pejorative–Christianity.

    I had a conversation with Rob Hardies a couple years back about this issue and in it he said he described Unitarian Universalism as post-Christian protestant. He argued that Unitarian Universalists are post-Christian because much of our theology emerges from Christianity and Protestant because our institutions still follow Protestant forms (we have ministers, churches, sing hymns, listen to sermons, etc.).

    As for the relationship between Unitarian Universalism and Judaism, I think it is much more significant than fausto believes. There is a very long history of dialogue and relationship between Unitarians and liberal Jews that appears to me to be substantively different than that one might see between Jews and other Protestant sects. To cite a few examples:
    — in the early 20th century the Reform Rabbis at least once sent greetings to the AUA which recognized the two groups common unitarianism. The address is in the AUA May meeting minutes from 1917, 1918 or 1919. I came across when researching a different subject at the HDS archives but I photocopied it in hopes of returning to it later.
    — current UUMA president is, at least in part, ethnically Jewish
    — former UUA moderator Denny Davidoff is, at least in part, ethnically Jewish
    — when I went to Meadville Lombard there were three people who had been raised UU in my class. All three came from mixed Jewish-Christian families.
    — the Free Religious Association, which included many Unitarian and Universalists transcedentalists, also included liberal Jews and the founder of the Ethical Culture Society, Felix Adler (who was the son of Rabbi). Over the following many years there has been continual interchange between the Ethical Culture movement, which has a very high number of ethnic Jews, and Unitarian Universalism.
    — in my own congregation about ~20% of the members and ~40% of the families are in some way ethnically Jewish.

    That might be different than having Jewish roots as a movement but in my experience it is pretty different than what might find if one looks at, say, the history of interchange between Baptists and Jews.

  23. Pingback: The Latest Form of Infidelity :: Unitarian Universalists as Post-Christians? :: August :: 2008

  24. @fausto. There is a strain of Jewishness in Unitarian Universalism that’s distinct from the Protestant inheritance, namely from a significant number of Jews who became Unitarians (less Universalists) and Unitarian Universalists directly.

    How we understand Judaism as a part of Unitarian Universalism goes back to a long-standing issue of how we deal with minority strains of faith, which also includes Christianity.

  25. On 6 August 2008, CC wrote:
    -snip-
    “The fact that a group believes things you think are silly and because you perceive them as a cultural threat does not make it ok to marginalize them, insult them and make them feel unwelcome in UUism.”

    CC,

    I think you’re confusing critical analysis of ideas (which includes critical analysis of theology) with bigotry. They are not the same thing and we need to remember that critical analysis of religious ideas is a part of our heritage.

    Our religious heritage as Unitarians and Universalists includes criticism of orthodox Christian theology.

    For many years, we criticized Calvinism, the doctrine of the trinity, doctrines of eternal damnation, and more in more traditional Christianity.

    Furthermore, critical analysis of religious ideas isn’t bigotry. I would consider any suggestion that religious ideas are somehow exempt from critical analysis would be a form of idolatry. However, you’re free to criticize this idea.

    :^)

    If an individual Christian promotes a young earth creationism myth in spite of the facts we know about the world, criticism of this idea is not bigotry.

    If an individual Christian compares not eating a communion wafer during Mass and taking it home to be ethically the same as kidnapping a family member and goes “ballistic,” criticism of this over-reaction is not bigotry.

    BTW – the Florida college student involved with this incident was not expelled. Also, the Minnesota biology professor who defended him from individual Christian over-reactions was not fired as well. We don’t need a resumption of blasphemy laws in our nation because they would apply to us too.

    We are not a religious faith where one can “believe anything.” We do have some boundaries. And one of those boundaries is being “responsible” in our searches for truth and meaning.

    In my personal opinion, the audience that reads the Washington Post is probably OK with the Janet Hayes’ use of “Post-Christian” as she later defines it in her comments:

    “We include the teaching of Jesus and we appreciate the wisdom of the Bible, but we don’t limit our sources of inspiration to the Christian faith.”

    As defined in the article, I doubt there are many Unitarian Universalists who would disagree with this definition of Post-Christian other than the all-too-common UU tendency to parse and over-analyze a comment to death.

  26. Steve:

    I used to read CC’s blog. I think you are putting too much into what CC is saying. She regularly and with gusto likes to somehow bring an argument to a place where she tries to make her opponent concede some point concerning race. Some how making passive agressive racist statements makes her feel “unique”

    It’s part of her pathology.

    Even with the Knoxville shooting she suggested the shooter should have attacked the Obama headquarters.

    Just ignore it.

    As a Christian UU I am not at all insulted by the term Post-Christian. Then, I tend to consider the word Universalist to mean that there are some beliefs within our faith that I will not like and may use terms I may disagree with.

    I know many Humanist UU’s who are pretty out there when they denigrate Christianity, however, that’s their path. I don’t mind, I’m walking a different one.

  27. ((((It’s part of her pathology.

    Even with the Knoxville shooting she suggested the shooter should have attacked the Obama headquarters. ))))

    I’m torn on this because while I always appreciate the free psychoanalysis one can get on the internet, I prefer it when my psychoanalysis comes from someone who can read.

    FWIW, the post Chuck is referring to is one where I was speculating on the motivation of the TVUUC shooter and noting that if attacking liberalism were really his goal, the Obama campaign would have been a more likely target and that it is more likely that he picked the church because of the connection to his ex-wife.

    My exact words were: “Or to put it another way, if he was going to shoot up a symbol of liberalism, the local offices of the Obama campaign would have made more sense. My guess is he wanted to shoot up someplace where his ex-wife had been happy and found support, and scrawled some concerns about politics to give his actions greater meaning. ”

    I don’t mind when people disagree with me. People do it all the time. Sometimes very smart people convince me I’m wrong and when that happens I’m happy to take something I’ve said back.

    But for goodness sakes, disagree with a point I’m actually making rather than lying about me.

    CC

  28. Steve–

    Are you saying that Janet Hayes calling us post-Christian in the Washington Post was a critical analysis of a religious idea?

    If so, does that seem like a good thing for a spokesperson to be doing in the pages of a national newspaper?

    If not, why is the critical analysis point relevant to the discussion?

    CC

  29. CC,

    Gee — we use “Unitarian” even though this term is critical of the doctrine of the Trinity (a doctrine that is wide-spread in Christianity).

    And we use “Universalist” even though hellfire and damnation are commonly held theological views of many Christians.

    These are OK but “postchristian” isn’t.

    I’m guessing the reader who gets bothered by “postchristian” would also be bothered by the terms “Unitarian” and “Universalist” as well.

    I have seen conservative Episcopals call their liberal co-religionists “Unitarians” in my town — and they don’t mean it as a compliment.

  30. (((I’m guessing the reader who gets bothered by “postchristian” would also be bothered by the terms “Unitarian” and “Universalist” as well.)))

    Given Scott Wells, I’d say that your guess is wrong.

    There is a difference between using a term that signals your differences from a group, and using a term that signals that you have transcended what that group has to say.

    CC

  31. Steve, I don’t know how much more completely you could miss the point.

    Christianity is not monolithic. There is no one true Christianity. Over the entire span of almost 2000 years of Christian history, there has arguably been only one Christianity for at most about 600 of them. That period ended almost 1000 years ago, and even before it did, it encompassed differing theologies, which was why it split.

    Unitarian and Universalist Christians understand that as well as anybody. To them, Unitarianism and Universalism are not exceptions to the rule; rather, they are the truest and purest of the many different expressions of Christianity.

    And as Unitarian and Universalist Christians would be the first to tell you, the more broadly stated principles that “post-Christian” UUs derive from our more overtly Christian Unitarian and Universalist predecessors have not moved beyond Christianity, but rather, are nothing other than restatements of the essential heart of Christianity in a more universal vocabulary.

    (As for conservative Episcopalians calling their more liberal co-denominationalists “Unitarian” as and insult, so what? The conservative Congregationalists did that to our own ancestors 200 years ago. It didn’t prompt our ancestors to renounce Christianity or call themselves “post-Christian”.)

  32. Fausto wrote:
    -snip-
    “Christianity is not monolithic.”

    Gee … I never said that there was.

    -snip-
    “As for conservative Episcopalians calling their more liberal co-denominationalists ‘Unitarian’ as and insult, so what? The conservative Congregationalists did that to our own ancestors 200 years ago. It didn’t prompt our ancestors to renounce Christianity or call themselves ‘post-Christian.'”

    I’m understanding that some do read the word “postchristian” as a denouncement of Christianity and triumphalism.

    Based on what I’ve read about the word and how it’s used to discuss religion, here’s what it means when applied to Unitarian Universalism:

    (1) We have roots in Christianity (more specifically, Protestant Christianity);

    (2) Christianity is still present within current Unitarian Universalism;

    (3) however, Christianity isn’t the dominant religious view within current Unitarian Universalism.

    I understand you don’t like how the word sounds.

    But what the word means appears to be an accurate description of who we are today even if you don’t like the word that was used to describe us.

  33. On 16 August 2008, Chalicechick wrote:
    -snip-
    “Given Scott Wells, I’d say that your guess is wrong.”

    CC,

    OK — I’ll rephrase this slightly:

    I’m guessing that most readers (Christian and otherwise) who are bothered by “postchristian” would also be bothered by the terms “Unitarian” and “Universalist” as well.

    Yes — it’s true that some folks who are Unitarian Universalist and/or Christian might be upset by the word “postchristian.” Scott would be an example of this. So is Fausto. And so are you.

    However, people get upset with words all the time in UU congregations and other settings.

    Often, the upset comes from “god” language and we don’t stop using these words just because some folks get upset.

    -snip-
    “There is a difference between using a term that signals your differences from a group, and using a term that signals that you have transcended what that group has to say.

    Given the UUA spokesperson’s use of the word and her explanation after using it, I don’t think she was signaling that we have somehow transcended anything.

    One could assume good will here.

    Also — I’m curious if you have received any reply from Janet Hayes in response to your email to her.

  34. (((Often, the upset comes from “god” language and we don’t stop using these words just because some folks get upset.)))

    So do you apply this logic to brown bag lunches?

    Also, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone argue that using the term within UUism is unacceptable, though people have arguments about the accuracy of it.

    It was using it in the Washington Post that was an issue.

    (((I don’t think she was signaling that we have somehow transcended anything.)))

    Really, because I certainly took her explanation to suggest non-post-Christians don’t look outside Christianity for wisdom, and that’s simply not true.

    (((Also — I’m curious if you have received any reply from Janet Hayes in response to your email to her.))

    I recieved an automatic response that read as follows:

    Thank you for your email inquiry.

    I’ll be in Knoxville through Monday, August 4th, and I won’t be able to check email reguarly. I’ll respond as soon as possible after I return.

    In the meantime, if you need general information assistance please contact Sabe Graham at sgraham@uua.org or 617-948-4652. If you’re calling from the media, please contact John Hurley at 617-948-6131 or jhurley@uua.org.

    Thank you,

    Janet Hayes
    Public Relations Director
    Unitarian Universalist Association
    Boston, MA 02108
    (617) 948-4386

    And no other response.

    CC

  35. (((One could assume good will here.)))

    Ummm… Why do we want a spokesperson whose goodwill must be assumed?

    Isn’t it a spokesperson’s job to say things in a polished way that doesn’t require goodwill to be assumed?

    Do you think the newspaper reporters that Hayes spoke to are inclined to assume goodwill?

    CC

  36. Steve, the word “post-Christian” doesn’t mean only what Steve Caldwell thinks it should mean, any more than the word “Christian” means only what Pat Robertson thinks it should mean.

  37. Pingback: ‘Famous’ UUs, reactions to Knoxville, ‘post-Christian’ UUA, and more « uuworld.org : The Interdependent Web

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s