An open letter to Rev. Dr. Lillian Daniel,
My name is Jeremy Nickel and I am a minister in the Unitarian Universalist movement, serving a congregation in California. Recently I came across the devotional you penned and posted to the UCC denominational website, entitled “Spiritual but Not Religious? Please Stop Boring Me.” At the heart of your devotional is an important message, that “There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself. What is interesting is doing this work in community, where other people might call you on stuff, or heaven forbid, disagree with you.” A sentiment I completely agree with and think is at the heart of our call as liberal religious clergy. But for some reason, you chose to wrap this important message in a snarky, mean spirited diatribe against those that identify as Spiritual but not Religious. And as someone who himself became an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister to provide a welcome to this exact group, it feels important to respond to your negativity now, before this divide you have carelessly created becomes a chasm.
Now, one might think that after identifying the insight that spirituality is greatly enhanced by community and accountability, that you would then try and create a bridge between your resource rich tradition and these spiritual seekers. But shockingly you go on to do the exact opposite when you dismiss the Spiritual but not Religious as being “comfortably in the norm for self-centered American culture, right smack in the bland majority of people who find ancient religions dull but find themselves uniquely fascinating.” Wow. How is that for a welcome to the fastest growing group of seekers in America according to countless polls including the 2008 Pew Research Poll on Religion in America? In one sentence you manage to perfectly encapsulate all that repels these people from our congregations. Unnecessarily mean, judgmental, privileged, and just flat out wrong.
I certainly agree that this narcissistic tendency exists in society, but I am afraid I must remind you that it is every bit as prevalent in our churches as it is elsewhere. I wonder why you feel the need to create this straw man of the Spiritual but not Religious, a group you admit you only know from forced airplane interactions, when we have so much work to do in our own spiritual homes?
So Rev. Daniel, let me tell you just a little bit about this group of people whose sacred stories bored you. You see, I have personally always felt that having someone share their spiritual journey with me is one of the most sacred interactions we can have. So I spent a year interviewing the Spiritual but not Religious for a Master's thesis, and trust me, it was far from boring. And what I learned from speaking with hundreds who identify this way, is that they could not be more different than how you have imagined them.
Far from finding ancient religions dull, they delight in studying and reading theology, philosophy and history wherever they can find it in a non-hypocritical presentation. And while many of us do appreciate a good sunset, we are far from this one-dimensional caricature you created. You see, these folks are on genuine spiritual journeys, and told me over and over again that they would love to find a community that could actually support them in their search. One that offered resources without the close-mindedness and 18th century worship so many of our congregations stubbornly continue to provide. And they actually have found plenty of communities that do provide some level of guidance and accountability. Unfortunately because of messages like yours, instead of finding that safe space within our congregational walls, they have found them in Yoga and Meditation classes, book clubs, in small group ministry settings in friends homes, in volunteer associations and online in chat rooms and on blogs, and in countless other ways that all turn out not to be your church. And I think at this point, it is becoming pretty obvious why that is.
It is not, as you mockingly suggest, because they find themselves “uniquely fascinating,” but rather because they find us, and our congregations, predictably close-minded and judgmental. I can’t offer an apology on your behalf to the millions you have offended and made to feel unwelcome, but I can offer them a very warm and very real invitation to my congregation. Far from your rejection of the Spiritual but not Religious, Unitarian Universalist congregations around the country would love to meet you, to hear your stories about sunsets, double rainbows, double helix's and everything and anything in-between. We are a non-creedal movement that welcomes people without judgment no matter where they are on their spiritual journey. Our communities are made up of believers, non-believers, atheists, agnostics, pagans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, seekers, gay, straight, queer, transgendered, young and old, black, white, brown and every other beautiful hue and everyone else too, the only person we are missing is you. And in that respect, I couldn’t agree with you more Rev. Daniel. Our communities are living proof that you don’t have to think alike to love alike and that all of our spiritual journeys are enhanced by being in community and being held accountable by others. Rev. Daniel, your reputation assures me this devotional is not a good representation of who you really are. I hope this experience helps you realize that your fleeting interactions with the Spiritual but not Religious is likewise not a good representation of who they are.
Sincerely,
Rev. Jeremy D. Nickel
Myself, I jumped off the bandwagon at, "There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself." While I understand that Rev. Daniel, many ministers, and most church-going people think this statement is helpful in getting people in the pews and in the community, I don't think it's a true statement.
ReplyDeleteThinking, really thinking, about important issues, alone or in community, is challenging. I can be self-absorbed and uncritical of my opinions if I do this thinking by myself. And, I could let others think for me and accept the loudest person's opinion in a religious community. Moreover, thinking about spiritual issues separately does not exclude worshiping in community. I might argue that we should do both.
Of course, I agree enthusiastically with your main point of welcoming, validating, and accepting people who are not used to going to church. I just started disagreeing with the Rev. Dr. earlier than you.
Rather than dissing sunsets and their admirers, I would have liked for her to explain why going to church is deep. I want her to entice people to join her on the religious exploration. Simply postulating that its better to follow traditions established by others than creating your own is thin logic and unappealing, IMHO.
I think a lot of people's reaction to Lilliane's piece is overwrought and defensive. She wrote a tiny little rant for a denominational website - she's a well-respected, very successful UCC minister who has contributed a tremendous amount to the larger Church. Obviously her frustration is with people who revert to the "spiritual but not religious" label as a kind of proud rejectionist stance against organized religion. I've met the sort she's talking about and they're irritating because they think they're unique. Lillian's point is that they are NOT unique and should know better. You reference folks who are "spiritual but not religious" but who participate in yoga and other spiritual practices that require commitment and effort. The kind of person Lillian seems to be critiquing (again, in her VERY brief little piece) is the sort who doesn't bother with any of that. I'm watching the UU response to this with great interest, as we don't seem to have any problem when religious people are insulted, and this deep woundedness and offense seems very telling to me.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems like she mostly just wants some peace and quiet on the plane, and this is one of those conversations that doesn't interest her. Just like when people want to talk about politics and you're so not in the mood, or when you're 41 weeks pregnant and someone says "when's the baby coming?"
ReplyDeleteThe UU whine continues. Honestly, it's a bit ridiculous watching a UU go after a UCC minister. She's right on and I very much appreciated her short rant. (Kudos to the responder above who pretty much pointed out that your rant was about ten times the length of the one you are critiquing!) But maybe that's because I'm a Mainline Protestant clergy person who is also bored watching people luxuriate in their isolated specialness. At least now I know to recommend the UU the next time I find myself stuck in a conversation about finding God in the sunset!
ReplyDeleteFor those interested, there is a longer, more full flavored, post done by Rev Daniel here:
ReplyDeletehttp://christiancentury.org/article/2011-08/you-can-t-make#
The title of the longer version is "You can't make this up - The limits of self made religion"
In this case - I don't think additional context does the esteemed Rev Daniel any good.
I guess my experience of UU is that it is a predominately humanistic, atheistic, social action culture. I've been in UU since 1992 and very active as a musician within it. Whether or not UU can provide a home to the SBNR people, "spiritual but not religious" group remains to be seen, as I have commented in conversations that we don't provide what the Yoga, Meditation, Buddhist, Sufi type of groups provide. So people don't come to us what want a "spiritual" experience. It seems possible that the decline in UU membership over the past few years is linked to the flight of liberal people into the aforementioned. We share values of liberalism with the "yoga/meditation" crowd, but we are not able to give them what they need.
ReplyDeleteRev. Nickel doesn't seem to get that the reaction Rev. Daniels shared to her fellow UCC members is almost certainly NOT what she says to SBNR seat-mates, who, I gather, aren't any more interested in the richness of spiritual experiences as part of a community than she is in the isolation of SBNR.
ReplyDeleteThe extended version linked two comments above has some good points. Perhaps most of all: "when you witness pain and declare yourself lucky, you have fallen way short of Jesus' vision and short of what God would have you do." Leave out the reference to Jesus and isn't that statement common to most organized religions?
Certainly it's contrary to the self-centered "religion" of gratitude that doesn't ask any sacrifice in response for blessings received. And that's her point.
Jeremy, I appreciate your taking the time to drop some (social) science on this matter. My take on this is similar to yours, and its always satisfying when someone takes the time to say what you're thinking more articulately and in finer detail, with the weight of actual research behind them.
ReplyDeleteAs some earlier commenters have alluded to, the discourse about this piece is in many ways more interesting than the piece itself. Here are some thoughts that it brings up for me:
1. I've seen multiple defenses of Rev. Dr. Daniel that amount to "she is a person of high standing and reputation". I see no reason to bring this up except to dismiss the critic as unfit to criticize because they don't have the same fame and authority. And that's a load of crap. If a thing is wrong, it is wrong.
2. It matters what we say, even on the internet; the fact that the piece is short and penned in a casual voice doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.
3. At the same time, it is no basis from which to assess Rev. Dr. Daniel's gifts as a minister or her compassion as a human being. Her wisdom, dedication and generosity of spirit shouldn't be at issue here, because they are not even remotely knowable from such a tiny little window.
4. Much as the wider world and members in both houses occasionally want to conflate the two, the UUC is not the UUA. As a Unitarian Universalist, I must never be content to point casually to the work of Congregationalists and other liberal protestants as a fine summary of my own thoughts. They are our cousins and coworkers and they do many laudable things (many of which we should be ready to learn from). But they are not us, and if we let their voice substitute for ours in the public square, we will have consigned ourselves to a final irrelevance, and there will be no one left to defend the ancestors we owe our selves to, the legacy of ideas they passed on to us, or the values for which they lived and died.
I think the varied responses from Unitarian Universalists show how unsettled this question is for our Association. As a lifelong UU, my spirituality has emerged from deep engagement with the worship life and programming of the church. Many UUs, including me, find that spirituality develops from our religious practices and not from isolated experiences with nature or whatever else. Putting the tone of the article aside, I think Rev. Daniel captured the frustrations not only of many UCCs, but also of many UUs. I hope we can enter into a respectful engagement over this question. Too many UUs have lashed out at "religious people" or stereotyped them, not recognizing that those same people sit next to them in the pews each Sunday.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, did Rev. Daniel ever ask the person she was conversing with if they were tired of having the same conversation, too? Tired of being excluded from religion as they understand it?
ReplyDeleteI think this begs the question - what does it mean to be religious? spiritual? "Spiritual but not religious?" Many of us are great at being religious - as UUs, but not so great at being members of other denominations with doctrinal barriers to membership.
I don't consider myself unique in being someone who is not a mainline Christian because I couldn't be one with integrity. It is because of the depth of my consideration of what it means to be a Christian that I did not join said groups. I can't and I won't lie and say I believe something I don't. And I had the impression that would be necessary to be a "member." So, I found a place that accepted me as I was and continued my spiritual journey in that community. Yes, I am UU. And part of the reason for that is I didn't give up on finding a community of faith - I kept looking even when it got hard. And I was fortunate enough to have had some experience with UU churches and to include them in my search. If not, I may still be out there, considering myself "spiritual but not religious" or simply someone who went to church and went through all the motions, but without integrity. I consider myself very fortunate to have found a place where even a "heretic" like me can be accepted as I am. I think even Jesus would approve. Didn't he hang out with those excluded by others? What would it look like if the church really did that? Would he have said, "I'm sorry, but, because you don't believe doctrine X, you're out?" I wonder because I do consider myself a Christian and a UU.