Why race still matters

The controversy over Senator Obama's former minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has brought to the surface a lot of feelings and ideas about race that Americans have. I think we learn a few things from this. As I've talked about before, there are cultural differences between racial groups in the U.S. This means that sometimes we speak past each other and misunderstand one another. These cultural differences exist for several reasons. In the case of immigrant groups, the source of these differences are obvious. For African Americans, the differences are less obvious. I think they have something to do with residential segregation that allow those of different races to largely stay out of contact with one another. I think it also has to do with religious segregation. The Black Church has grown out of the distinct experiences, needs, and hopes of African Americans. It continues to address different things today than you might hear or see in a predominantly white church. When we fail to recognize or appreciate these cultural or religious differences, we get into trouble. I think this is really at the heart of public concern over Rev. Wright's sermons. I am not defending his statements, nor did Obama. But there is a need to be sensitive to these cultural and religious differences.

The other thing we learn is that many white Americans feel that African Americans need to stop complaining and playing the victim. Sociological research on racial attitudes has revealed that for some time now, white Americans have begun to believe more and more that racial inequalities have largely been addressed, and that we don't owe African Americans any special favors. Unfortunately, racial inequality still does exist, even if it's harder to see for the average American and it is uncomfortable to think about. So, if racial inequality exists in things like education, income, etc., you are faced with the following challenge. The vast majority of white people believe that African Americans are just as biologically capable as they are. That is, they are not somehow inferior and thus not capable of achieving similar levels of education, income, or something else. Yet, if there exist significant gaps between whites and blacks, what is the source if not biological ability?

I see two possibilities, and both are addressed by sociological research using survey measures. One view is that African Americans are somehow less motivated or are culturally crippled. But for me this gets too close to biologically inferiority, which I absolutely reject. The only other possibility is that social conditions exist, referred to collectively as social structure, that tend to disadvantage African Americans and make them less likely to achieve at the same level as whites. I believe that this is the case, but many Americans are very uncomfortable with this idea. I think it's even more difficult to conceptualize or grasp than simply blaming African Americans.

I think that to recognize the role of social structure in perpetuating racial inequality does not merely blame whites and absolve African Americans. Obama knows that. Many people understand that. But that's how a lot of people feel.

More on Obama's speech and the Black Church

Jon Stewart did the impossible. He poked a little fun at Obama's historic speech on race while managing to be respectful and even laudatory. The best part: Stewart notes at the end that Obama "spoke to Americans as though they were adults."



On a more serious note, I've been thinking about how frustrating media coverage of all this continues to be. Last night on CNN they had a segment promising to put Rev. Wright's infamous sound bites "in context" for viewers. So, they played 20 second long clips instead of 10 second long clips. No joke. They interviewed two guests, one an African American man (I forget what he does) and the other a white Republican "strategist" and woman. In this entertainment-style, sound bite-oriented CNN world, no one gets more than a few seconds to say anything at all, and ultimately nothing anyone says is all that intelligent. The Republican strategist said that Obama hasn't addressed the issue sufficiently and that people want to know why hasn't distanced himself even more from this anti-American, hate-spewing freak of a pastor. The other guest wanted to emphasize that pastors on the Right imbue their sermons with condemnations of the U.S. and that many people aren't used to the social criticism aspect of Black Church sermons. The Republican lady said that it's different on the Right because pastors call individual sinners to repentance instead of bashing the U.S.

It was frustrating to watch because of the real lack of depth and fairness. It was never more than a left vs. right, black vs. white thing. It convinces me all the more that Obama's speech was so right on. He called for Americans to get past the oversimplistic, paranoid treatment of race and religion that we allow too often (and which the media often perpetuates). Here's what I think needs to happen. News programs and political analysis programs on TV and radio ought to have serious, balanced discussions of the Black Church and how it's different from predominantly white churches. People need to understand how the Black Church has developed and the role that it has played for African Americans throughout American history. It should be honest - there should be serious discussion about how a notable pastor like Wright can say the things he does but it should treat him with respect and take what he says seriously, looking at his whole body of work and not just a few sound bites. Yes, it should be critical of Rev. Wright and should really ask whether his sermons do more harm than good. But it needs to be fair and balanced. And, ideally, it would include people like sociologists of religion that study the Black Church, religion scholars, black ministers, and members of predominantly African American churches.

Michael Goldfarb notes the problem with piling on and on with nasty treatment of Rev. Wright and Obama: hypocrisy. Evangelical ministers "bash" America every day on TV and on the radio. Others have wondered why McCain hasn't been questioned more about endorsements he's received from the likes of John Hagee, whose comments seem even more hateful than Wright's. The likes of Pat Robertson and others have speculated about the causes of 9/11 and Katrina, too. But instead of blaming society as a whole or blaming the government, they blame gays, liberals, and civil libertarians. I guess it's OK as long as specific groups are targeted and not the actions of the government or society as a whole.

I'm not defending everything Wright has said. I agree with Obama that his comments ignore much good that has happened, and that they don't capture the complex realities that exist. I want to point out two things: 1) we need more fair, honest, balanced discussion of race and religion, and it starts with TV and radio as well as schools and universities, and 2) we don't need a double-standard where black preachers are labeled as hateful and anti-American for preaching a gospel of social responsibility while white evangelicals are given a free pass.

Obama, Wright, and the Black Church

I've been watching this whole Obama-Wright controversy very, very closely. I have a lot of things to say about it. Probably so much that I don't know where to begin. But I think what I'll do is to present an email response (edited a bit and with some links added) I wrote to my brother a couple days ago. I sent my parents and my brothers a link to video and text of Obama's speech. My brother responded to my email saying that he was for the most part on Obama's "bandwagon" until the Rev. Wright controversy. This is what I told him:

Obama actually wrote the speech himself. Do you really think that his advisers would have let him talk for 37 minutes at that level of depth and complexity? I think it's all the more suggestive that he wrote it. For one thing, he is a fantastic writer. His two books are generally considered to be fine writing, and not just for a politician. This was not a speech that is easily broken into nice, short CNN clips at a dumbed-down level. I don't think his advisers or speechwriters would have made it so long and so complex if they had a say.

I'm still "on the bandwagon," so to speak. I was bugged by Reverend Wright's sermons, but I have a bit different perspective, I guess. First of all, what will it take for Obama to convince people that he disagrees with the comments of Wright that are in question? Seriously, what does he have to do? Does everybody agree with everything they hear at church? Should he denounce that church when he has a commitment to it and to its mission? Also, why is there a double standard for Obama? McCain has been endorsed by some of the most extreme, hateful evangelical ministers (like John Hagee) and he hasn't taken the same heat that Obama has. Why is Obama even judged by what someone else said? Why do we assume that Obama just bought everything that he ever heard at church? You said that Wright helped shaped Obama's views. So what? Haven't you been shaped by people that you simultaneously agree and disagree with? People that you admire and that challenge you but also who bug you at times? Can't we allow that kind of complexity?

I think the whole thing illuminates the real chasm between African American Christianity and white Christianity, as well. I've done a lot of reading on the Black Church, and culturally it is just a different thing altogether than what us white folks are used to. It has played a tremendously important role for African Americans dating back to slavery. It has a distinct style, theology, and history. I think this whole thing shows the real lack of understanding Americans have about the Black Church. Also, several studies by a sociologist friend of mine at Southern Illinois Univ. have demonstrated that for African Americans, particularly in the South, participation in the Black Church is semi-involuntary. A comment I found on an NY Times article really illustrates this:

My husband and I are both professionals with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools. We are also Black Americans. Many people do not understand the tremendous professional, social, and familial pressure that many Black Americans feel to remain connected to the Black Church, despite not agreeing with a great deal of the rhetoric. Many of the Black families we know often use this solution: attend a mainline church (read: White church) two times a month and attend a traditional Black church the other two times a month. Those of us with young kids often gravitate toward the Black Church, hoping to connect them to our historic and cultural roots. It is an imperfect solution–a split between head and heart that is difficult to reconcile. Barack Obama earned my vote today. Up until this speech, I was skeptical yet intrigued. I truly appreciate his courage in addressing issues of difference in such a way as to allow complexity and a dialectical stance–with all its inherent messiness–to enter the national political debate.

Also, I guess Rev. Wright's comments are not entirely atypical of the kind of messages heard in black churches, and understood in context, are probably not what they may seem to outsiders (see this nice NPR piece). I'm not defending Rev. Wright's comments, but I think that all of us have to think a bit deeper about this and recognize the role that the black church has played for African Americans, and that yes, African Americans are still not thrilled with where they're at today. I think religion is a space for them to explore that and even vent a little. Even his infamous "God damn America" could be understood as quite a biblical statement, in the style of a prophet, really calling out a nation for its sins. C'mon, are you sure you're not just turned off by Rev. Wright because you just prefer the boring, subdued talks of Mormon services? Just joking, but even though I'm not defending everything he said, I think to judge him you'd have to look at his whole body of work, and if you did, I bet you'd find that it's just not that simple. I think that Americans are surprised to see how different worship is in African American churches, and surprised by the real social justice emphasis. This confuses or even turns off people.

Obama's speech was fantastic. It was intellectually subtle and complex. It recognized the complexities of racial relations. I'm glad he didn't "disown" his church and Rev. Wright. He has had a commitment to it and he doesn't have to agree with everything his pastor says: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother (who he explains has made racist comments). These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love." And he has also said that he has told Wright that he "profoundly disagree(s) with him." I think he's right to point to ongoing racial inequality, which most Americans prefer to think doesn't exist. I think he's right to acknowledge the frustration that many white Americans feel. I think he's right to challenge us to confront these issues and not succumb to the dumbed-down media version of racial issues that we've seen so often in this campaign. I think the speech was honest. Maybe that's the best thing about it. I really feel like it was honest. It was certainly above and beyond what the political situation called for.

I've actually volunteered for his campaign here in PA. I've spent several hours helping with it. I'm not happy with Clinton, either, and I'm certainly not voting for McCain. I think Obama would make a fine president. I appreciate his judgment when it comes to Iraq. I support his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, environmental issues, LGBT rights, and many other issues. I think electing him to be President would send a strong, positive signal to the rest of the world, too. I rejoice that unlike the Republican candidates, he hasn't identified "Islamofascists" as the number one threat facing America today.

His lead in delegates and the popular vote will almost certainly hold up, and in order for Clinton to win, she'd have to convince about two-thirds of the remaining superdelegates to go her way and go against the will of Democratic voters. I don't think that will happen. He has really outgained her on the superdelegate front for about two months now. I hope that Americans will be ready to accept this man as the next President and get over their fear of electing a black man to be President. I think Rev. Wright was a reminder that Obama is black, and that blacks have a different experience than the rest of us. This scares people. I'm not saying that if you don't vote for Obama you're racist. Not at all. I think let's all just make sure that if we don't, it's not because he's black and because he has a scary-sounding pastor. That would be a shame.

Keith Olbermann speaks out with scathing honesty and courage

Last night on his show, Keith Olbermann devoted a nearly ten-minute "Special Comment" to Hillary Clinton and recent events surrounding her campaign. It was courageous, bold, and honest. I feel like it needed to be said. It's unfortunate that Olbermann is the only one on TV with the guts and the integrity to say it. But at least we have Olbermann and his Murrow-like approach and honesty. Watch this, it's fantastic:



It's sad and frustrating to see that race is becoming a major issue in the Democratic contest, and even more sad to see that a lot of it is coming from one of the nominees themselves. As Olbermann points out, even if it's untrue, there is a growing perception that Clinton is using race and religion to "knee-cap" Obama and his campaign. In the political party supposedly committed to racial equality and religious freedom, this is sad to see.

Very funny video that also happens to be too true

The video makes reference to several comments and actions that have come out of the Clinton campaign. A major fundraiser and supporter, Geraldine Ferraro, played on fears of reverse discrimination and special black privileges by saying that Obama wouldn't be where he's at if he weren't black. The campaign leaked a photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress during a visit there. Clinton chose to be less than convincing when asked whether Obama is Muslim during an interview. And the list goes on.

Yes, the video is goofy and exaggerated, but it points to subtle ways in which race and religion are being used against Obama in this campaign. Obama's campaign responded strongly:

"The bottom-line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes,'' Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday.

''There's no other way to send a serious signal that you want to police the tone of this campaign,'' he added. ''And if you don't do those things then you are simply adding to the growing compendium of evidence that you really are encouraging that."

Obama is looking strong right now. He is back on top in national polls of Democrats and in polls against McCain. He fired back at the Clinton campaign with a statement by Greg Craig, formerly in the State Department under Clinton, that rips apart the idea that she has experience that puts her over some magical "threshold" to be commander-in-chief, a "threshold" that she and McCain have crossed, but not Obama.

Her recent suggestions that Obama would make a fine VP, clearly an attempt to woo voters torn between the two, is ridiculous, given her earlier suggestions that he's unfit to be in the White House, and that Obama has a commanding lead in both delegates and the popular vote. Maybe all this nonsense will start to backfire for her.

On second thought, maybe it's not Obama's job to do it

In my last post, I suggested that Obama and his campaign should do more than assert his Christian faith when confronted with the "Muslim smear." They should state unequivocally that it is totally unacceptable to even use being Muslim as a political smear.

After talking to my wife about this and reading Kristof's column yesterday in the Times, I admit that maybe he's not the one to be challenging the "Muslim smear." Of the outrageous and utterly false accusations thrown at Obama based on religion, Kristof says:

These charges are fanatical, America’s own equivalent of the vicious accusations about Jews that circulate in some Muslim countries. They are less a swipe at one candidate than a calumny against an entire religion. They underscore that for many bigoted Americans in the 21st century, calling someone a Muslim is still a slur.

There is a parallel with presidential campaigns in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when one of the most common ways to attack a candidate was to suggest that he was partly black, or at least favored racial intermarriage. For example, the Federalists charged that Thomas Jefferson was “the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” And the word “miscegenation” was coined in 1863 and 1864 in charges that Abraham Lincoln secretly plotted for blacks to marry whites, especially Irish-Americans.

As late as the 1920 presidential campaign, a quarter-million letters were sent to voters accusing Warren Harding of being descended from a “West Indian Negro. ... May God save America from international shame and domestic ruin.”

In looking back at that history, you wish that a candidate had responded not only with, “No, I don’t have any black ancestor,” but also with, “So what if I did?”

Likewise, with countless people today spreading scurrilous rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, the most appropriate response is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?

Granted, that’s not politically realistic as a comeback. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman. In contrast, a Los Angeles Times poll in 2006 found that only 34 percent of respondents said they could vote for a Muslim for president.

So, what's to be done? Again, Kristof:

This is a case where Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain should take the initiative and denounce the fear-mongering about Mr. Obama as hate speech. The wink-wink references to “Barack Hussein Obama” and lies about his going to a madrassa are the religious equivalent of racial slurs, and Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton should denounce them in the strongest terms. This is their chance to show leadership.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly — but then added, most unfortunately, “as far as I know.” To his credit, Mr. McCain scolded a radio host who repeatedly referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” and later called him a Manchurian candidate.

Martin Luther wasn’t a model of tolerance but even he took the position that, “I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.” In this presidential campaign, we should at least aspire to be as open-minded as 16th-century Germans.

I agree.

Obama needs to handle the "Muslim smear" better

Not surprisingly (but terribly disappointingly), Senator Obama has been the target of numerous attacks based on religion and race during his campaign. Speculation that he is a Muslim has been particularly popular. I hear that an email claiming that he is actually a Muslim was circulating very, very early on the campaign. The Clinton campaign appears to have "leaked" the photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress. Apparently, enough people are concerned about all this that on 60 Minutes Clinton was recently asked whether she thought Obama is Muslim. Unfortunately, Hillary's response was not very convincing.

Obama's middle name is troublesome to some, too. I sincerely hope that the vast majority of Americans are mature and intelligent enough to not somehow distrust Obama because his middle name happens to be "Hussein." But, you never know. To McCain's credit, he stood up to a radio guy that kept repeating his middle name during an interview. But why should McCain have to do that? Why should Obama have to pledge his belief in Jesus anytime anyone suspects he may secretly be a Muslim?

Perhaps more importantly, why hasn't Obama taken the opportunity to boldly show how offensive and intolerant the whole "Muslim smear" is? Yes, he should state that he is a member of the United Church of Christ and attends a church in Chicago. But he should also take the chance to say that there's nothing wrong with being Muslim and that these smears only perpetuate distrust and hate. Naomi Klein of The Nation has this to say:

The turban "scandal" is all part of what is being referred to as "the Muslim smear." It includes everything from exaggerated enunciations of Obama's middle name to the online whisper campaign that Obama attended a fundamentalist madrassa in Indonesia (a lie), was sworn in on a Koran (another lie) and if elected would attach RadioShack speakers to the White House to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer (I made that one up).

So far, Obama's campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. "Barack has never been a Muslim or practiced any other faith besides Christianity," states one fact sheet. "I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," Obama told a Christian News reporter.

Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn't have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire "Muslim smear": that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama's supporters often say they are being "Swiftboated," casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.

Occasionally, though not nearly enough, Obama says that Muslims are "deserving of respect and dignity." What he has never done is what Singer called for in Poland: denounce the attacks themselves as racist propaganda, in this case against Muslims.

The core of Obama's candidacy is that he alone--who lived in Indonesia as a boy and has an African grandmother--can "repair the world" after the Bush wrecking ball. That repair job begins with the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom are convinced that the United States has been waging a war against their faith. This perception is based on facts, among them the fact that Muslim civilians are not counted among the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan; that Islam has been desecrated in US-run prisons; that voting for an Islamic party resulted in collective punishment in Gaza. It is also fueled by the rise of a virulent strain of Islamophobia in Europe and North America.

As the most visible target of this rising racism, Obama has the power to be more than its victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign. The next time he's asked about his alleged Muslimness, Obama can respond not just by clarifying the facts but by turning the tables. He can state clearly that while a liaison with a pharmaceutical lobbyist may be worthy of scandalized exposure, being a Muslim is not. Changing the terms of the debate this way is not only morally just but tactically smart--it's the one response that could defuse these hateful attacks. The best part is this: unlike ending the Iraq War and closing Guantánamo, standing up to Islamophobia doesn't need to wait until after the election. Obama can use his campaign to start now. Let the repairing begin.

I wholeheartedly agree. Religion seems to have played a small role thus far in the election thus far. Exceptions would definitely include speculation about Obama's faith, Huckabee's relatively out-in-the-open evangelicalism, and Romney's defense of his faith. Huckabee and Romney made little attempt to reach out to anyone other than the Religious Right. Obama is right to be open about his Christianity when challenged, but he can do more. We can all do more. It's wrong to make being Muslim such a dangerous and even treasonous thing.

"For the Bible Tells Me So" - or does it?

A couple nights ago I watched the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So. It was fantastic. It should be required viewing for any religious person, particularly for anyone that thinks they know what the Bible says about homosexuality. Actually, it should be required viewing for any nonreligious person, too, since it demonstrates that religious individuals, families, and groups can be supportive, accepting, and loving toward those that are homosexual.

The film focuses primarily on the experiences of a handful of deeply religious families with gay or lesbian family members. The families include that of Gene Robinson, the Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire whose ordination was highly controversial because of his homosexuality, and the family of Dick Gephardt, the former Congressman who ran for President in 2004, and whose daughter is a lesbian. Several other families are interviewed, as well. Each family has reacted differently to their situation. In a couple cases parents and other families have actually become staunch activists and LGBT supporters, even after previously holding very conservative views. In at least one case, parents remain strongly opposed to their child's homosexuality.

Several biblical scholars and clergymen are interviewed, too. These individuals discuss several biblical passages that are often used to condemn homosexuality, and demonstrate in each case that language, historical context, and culture need to be taken into consideration, and that current interpretations by religious conservatives and biblical literalists are inaccurate and ahistorical. They're not necessarily making the case that early Christians and Old Testament prophets were cool with homosexuality, but that the kind of often conclusions drawn from the Bible are simply not accurate.

A humorous but informative animated segment in the middle of the documentary was pretty neat. It covered some major scientific findings and dispelled several myths.

But the most powerful thing by far was listening to the experiences of these deeply religious families and how they were transformed.

Setting aside religious and scientific arguments about homosexuality, which are no doubt important, this is also a matter of the heart. I've been fortunate to know and befriend individuals, men and women, that happen to be homosexual. My heart tells me that these people are just as entitled as I am to expressing their love, exploring and enjoying their sexuality, and having a committed relationship, even in marriage. In a sense, the arguments for or against it fade away when you are faced with a real life person whose hopes and dreams you care about. Then it becomes a matter of compulsion, for you feel compelled to do all you can to fight for their rights and make this world a place where they are respected and understood.

Far from undermining the foundations of Western civilization, as some would have you believe, recognizing the right of LGBT individuals to love and marry would make our society stronger and more just.

For the Bible Tells Me So is a small step in the right direction, and shows that religion can and should be a force that takes us in the right direction.

The new Pew survey and the gap between UU identity and belonging

I was really excited to find out about the new U.S. Religious Landscape Survey from Pew. Good survey data on religion is always hard to come by. The General Social Survey (GSS) and the National Election Studies (NES), both very high quality and widely used surveys, have some decent religion questions but there are not very many of them. Plus, these surveys typically have 2,000-3,000 respondents, so getting information about smaller religious groups is very difficult. Some researchers design and carry out their own surveys, but again, they tend to have sample sizes similar to the GSS and NES and it can take a while before other scholars can have access to them.

The new Pew survey is great because its tremendously large sample size of more than 35,000 Americans. It's so exciting because we can finally get accurate estimates of the size and makeup of smaller religious groups in the U.S.

Of course, this goes for Unitarian Universalists, as well. The UU blogging world has been abuzz with speculation and discussion (see Philocrites' post) about the finding that 0.3% of Americans self-identify as Unitarian Universalists. Some quick math reveals that over 600,000 Americans would self-identify as UUs. Yet, the UUA reported to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches that there were 214,738 members in 2002, and Philocrites offers some congregational data from 2006-2007 that comes to more like 150,000 members. However you do the math, there are far more Americans that identify as UU than attend or belong to a UU congregation. Hence, there is a gap between UU identity and UU belonging.

It's been really interesting to read possible explanations around the UU blogging world. As a sociologist of religion, I find two to be really promising.

Philocrites had this insight:

But it strikes me that if the 76 percent of Unitarian Universalists who aren't members of UUA congregations are still identifying as UUs — rather than as "atheists" (1.6 percent), "agnostic" (2.4 percent), "nothing in particular" (12.1 percent), or fractional options like "spiritual but not religious" and "eclectic" — then there's something about Unitarian Universalism that makes it a compelling and distinctive identity.

I think he's on to something. People with liberal political views and see themselves as "spiritual but not religious" may feel comfortable with that UU label as a way to express that position to others. Also, there still may be normative constraints on people that are not religious. In other words, there may be pressure in society to express a religious preference. It also may be a more comfortable label for atheists and agnostics, given the prevailing negative attitudes people have toward this group. Saying you're UU can be a way to deflect concerns others may have about one's religiosity.

PeaceBang has some particularly fantastic insights:

So where are the 400,000 Americans who identify as Unitarian Universalist but who never appear in our churches or fellowships? Out golfing or in bed reading the NY Times? Shopping, doing errands, catching up with family, cleaning house? Disappointed in our too often uninspiring, cliquish, self-congratulatory, sloppy worship services? Working their second job? Intimidated or put-off by our snobbery and haughty liberalism? Offended by the wide gap between who we claim to be on paper (or on the internet) and who we are in person? Sure. I have no doubt that we’re guilty of losing many, many members for our most besetting sins. But there’s also our laissez-faire attitude toward membership, joining, and commitment to spiritual growth that leaves us bereft of many folks who desire a deep and demanding religious life. We’re getting a lot better at lifting up the virtues of community along with the sanctity of the Individual, and that helps. Many of our congregations are putting membership processes in place that appeal to the “joiner” in people who find that, contrary to what they believed about themselves, they do crave a serious and intentional bond of fellowship with other seekers. Also good.

But since we’re still allergic to evangelism, and because our ad campaigns and too many of our members and our outdated promotional pamphlets and books still frame us as the alternative TO religion, we’re bound to stay teensy beensy. If there are so many interesting, intellectually provocative, or just relaxing alternatives to religion that I can do on my own, why in the world would I join a congregation or church so that I can pledge my money to, give my volunteer hours to, and send my children to Sunday School (or religious education) an institution that is still trying to convince the world that it’s a legitimate religious institution … but not really religious?

I thought these comments were tremendously insightful and they really sum up existing work in the sociology of religion on religious involvement and congregational and denominational growth and vitality. The plain and simple truth is that more strict churches experience more growth and more commitment from their members. They accomplish this in two major ways: 1) they offer rich, compelling religious explanations and supernatural rewards, and 2) they make interaction with and commitment to outside activities or people costly. Unitarian Universalism has the challenge of not being strict, and being very theologically and socially inclusive. Sociologically speaking, this is not the path to growth and commitment. Two sociologists of religion, speaking of Unitarian Universalism, actually compared it "shopping in an empty store for things you don't want."

Obviously, I'm one of those regularly attending, highly committed UUs that sort of go against the theory. And, obviously, there are many others like me that believe in what UUism has to offer to the world. But we're the exception, not the rule.

PeaceBang offers some great points, and perhaps we should really think about them long and hard. How can we offer a more demanding religious experience while still staying true to our commitment to individual autonomy and personal exploration? How can we stop being "allergic to evangelism"? These are tough questions, and I suspect that they will be ones we'll have to ask if we want to reach out to those that identify as UU but stay away from churches.

Another big question: to be a "big time" UU blogger do you have to have a cool name like Philocrites or PeaceBang? I need to start thinking of one for myself!