Boots and Blessings

A few years ago, "tolerance" fell out of favor. It was during excitement about marriage equality and the feeling that we were on a progressive, inclusive arc. Who wants to be tolerated? we said. We want to be welcomed, cherished, honored. Sure, if the alternative to "tolerance" is "welcomed, affirmed," I'll take the latter, please. But what about when the alternative is intolerance? Or worse? It is a a bit odd that in the corners where I hear the most resistance to binary thinking, I also often hear the most resistance to allowing a common ground with those whom we have disagreement with. I am not talking about tolerating intolerance. True tolerance must be a shared ground. An agreement that we can be in the same space together, while holding different beliefs. And that ground, along with being shared, must be agreed upon. I am in an interfaith group. I know that we differ on many things, but we are in agreement that treating each other with l

"I Believe...." "I believe" are two words we need to hear more of in UU churches .... I believe. First, wouldn't it be great to be having more of the deep conversations about meaning, God, Spirit, purpose, etc? I mean, don't get me wrong, we also need the conversations about politics, the news, and how excited we are about the first woman Doctor Who and Patrick Stewart returning to Star Trek. But those rich conversations about religious ideas ... isn't church kind of the ideal place for those? So go deep. Start with "I believe ...." It may feel a little scary, but being willing to share your thoughts opens the door for others to share theirs. IF you begin with "I Believe." Sadly, I've seen so many conversations, in person and online, where UUs seem unable to use them. Opinions are stated as fact. Which is a terrific way to shut down a conversation -- unless the other person wholly agrees with you, it's not a grea

1n 1961, the Unitarians and Universalists consolidated, and a new religion was born. We're still sorting out that marriage, figuring out the structural issues, cultural issues, and then there's theology. Much of Unitarianism and Universalism was co-mingled long before consolidation, but I think that the area where there's still deep dissent is found in where you place yourself on the spectrum of Free Will vs. Mandatory Universal Salvation. It's a fun thing, because I have noticed that even the UUs who do not believe in a post-death heaven or hell can really get really het up about this. Even the atheists! It is a fun discussion, because either way, you're arguing for something good, you know? On one side, you've got the Free Will thinkers, who tend to align themselves more with the Unitarian side of our theological history. Because God is good, God would not make someone be saved (go to Heaven, be reunited with God, etc.) against their will. On the oth