No such thing as freerange? Ha! Obviously, as a matter of fact that’s wrong. And, having been corrected (with especial thanks to Peter Bowden and Rev. Naomi King), some of the theory behind it is coming clear to me. But I’m still gnawing on the bone here, and here’s why. How can one be UU without being in covenant (or congregation, or… or… or…)? There’s no UU creed, the range of actual beliefs held by UUs is probably something like the range of human experience and beliefs. And that’s as it should be, especially as I work on my own UU identity.
Here’s a conversation I cannot imagine actually having:
Person I’m talking to: “I’m a Unitarian-Universalist!”
Me: “Oh, no. No you’re not!”
Good heavens. My actual belief is that anyone who wants to claim UU Identity has it, and good on you! (I might dial that back under further correction, but I’d far and away rather err on the side of inclusion, and I don’t expect that to change.)
So, if groupiness isn’t a necessary condition to be UU, and particular beliefs aren’t a necessary condition, then what is necessary (or, to pull out my freshman philosophy terms, necessary and sufficient)? I don’t know. I’d be glad to hear opinions.
In the meanwhile, I’d like to re-float a term I dropped in that post: Congregation of One. Since I have no standing to spout off on this, I’ll do it in a future post. And I’ll sign off now with an invitation to follow the #uuidentity conversation on twitter. Keep correcting me, I don’t think I’m right, and I want to know how I’m wrong… thanks, all.
Grumble Flap 