Smelling that UU Rose--What's in a Name?
On the Unitarian Universalist History Chat e-list there has been a discussion, not for the first time, about the name Unitarian Universalist Association, its clumsiness, and the careless habit of many to speak only of Unitarians, offending the historic Universalists. What follows is an excerpt from a post by Janeen Grohsmeyer of the UU Fellowship of Southern Maryland and my response.
“Richard Kellaway asked: “Simple question. What percentage of Unitarian Universalists
Identify themselves as such, rather than as simply Unitarians? Is any Further explanation really needed?’
“The main issue for newcomers is that Unitarian Universalist is an unwieldy name. No slights are intended, no disrespect is meant, no theological attitude is implied ... to newcomers, it's simply our first name.”
I think Janeen is right on the money for very many contemporary members of our congregations. Relatively few of them come in with more than a superficial understanding of either historic Unitarianism or Universalism. I am an “old timer” resource person on the Newcomer chat list. Most folks say they found us through Beliefnet or some other source which indicated that we are broadly inclusive a variety of religious belief. For them, our religious pluralism and tolerance are the primary motivations for seeking out our congregations. Therefore they are attracted to “Unitarian Universalism” or “UUism,” not either of our historic roots. They may, however, come to use the short hand Unitarian without implying any particular identification to that source.
By the way, Universalists, who often feel marginalized, should take heart. Knowingly or unknowingly so many contemporary UUs are attracted to the essence of what might be called post-Christian universalism and not, like a generation or so ago, by the strictly agnostic humanism then dominant among Unitarians.
The clumsiness of our name is widely acknowledged. I am fond of the story of the present-at-creation witness to the consolidation of the Unitarians and Universalists who referred to Unitarian Universalism as akin to “rhinoserous-hippopotumus” in tripping lightly over the tongue.
Perhaps, like many had hoped, it would have been better in 1961 to abandon both names and to strike out with a defiantly new identity. But I suspect the rebellion in the pews of both Universalist and Unitarian churches, resentful of loosing their identities, would have been overwhelming and might have doomed the new Association from the start.
And the alternatives were not all that good. The most popular, some variation on The United Liberal Church in America, sounded even then theologically tepid. Today, when the perfectly respectable term “liberal” has been transformed into a kind of linguistic pariah, it would greatly restrict our appeal and growth opportunities over wide swaths of this country.
If you think it is difficult trying to explain UUism to the uninitiated in an elevator, try nuancing political and religious liberalism.
Like it or not, Unitarian Universalism is our brand. At least it has some recognition. We are stuck with it, just as we are stuck with the sometimes careless habits of verbal short hand. Not that I mind. I’m kind of fond of that horny toad.
Not a LiveJournal member? Comment by e-mail to pmurfin@sbcglobal.net