Why I am NOT a Unitarian-Universalist TM

I'm told that UU identity is a current thread in this corner of the Blogosphere, so I thought perhaps I'd share a few of my own ideas on the subject. Ideas, not answers. I don't really believe in "elevator speeches" although I can certainly see their utility. My own tends to focus on the historical -- that we are the direct institutional descendants of the Pilgrims who crossed the ocean in 1620 in search of religious liberty in a New World, and who during the Enlightenment rejected the doctrines of total depravity and predestined eternal damnation in favor of a belief in free will and basic human goodness, and the faith that ultimately All Souls will be reconciled with their Creator. So basically I like to think of myself as an Enlightened Pilgrim....

And then I generally say something like "Oh, but that really doesn't do us justice, since we're actually a lot different than most other churches you're probably familiar with, and you really need to experience it for yourself to appreciate it."

Of course, one can also always look to the Seven Principles (and the five, no wait, six sources), along with their predecessors: all that business about the Fatherhood of God, the neighborhood of Boston, and "the Progress of Mankind onward and upward forever." Or the tried-and-true characterizations regarding Universal Salvation and the humanity of Jesus. But does any of this really capture the spirit of who we are and what we truly stand for? And what does it say about us UUs that we have to ask ourselves this question in the first place?

Some of us still do think of ourselves as "unitarian" Universalists: liberal Christians who believe that God is a Spirit with whom we have a personal relationship, that Jesus is not just a great teacher, but OUR great teacher...that theology is an act of imaginative meaning-making which, despite it's limitations, can still cast light on an experience that is essentially beyond our understanding, and that the Gospel message that we are all God's children and heirs to God's kingdom is a good one.

Others of us are more comfortable with the notion of "universalist" Unitarianism: a form of radical, post-Christian neo-Transcendentalist Protestant panentheism which understands Religion (or "spirituality") as a basic element of the human experience, which each historical culture (and ultimately every individual) shapes in their own way based on their own particular context and circumstances. Thus the sacred can be seen in EVERY faith tradition, provided one just knows where to look.

And then there is "Unitarian-Universalism TM" -- a brand-new "brand" of religion/spirituality competing for greater shelf space in the marketplace of religions, constantly "re-inventing" itself In Search of Excellence or to become more "user-friendly" in the attempt to gain market share. This "new and improved" style of faith seeks to be agile and customer-focused, and is driven by the eternal (and insatiable) demand for higher Value, greater Quality, and ever more efficient Service.

I have to confess (if it isn't obvious already) that when I first learned that "Unitarian-Universalism" had become a registered trademark, it made me a little sick to my stomach. It's not that I don't appreciate the need for the denomination to protect its "brand" by legal means; it's just that I lament that need and pretty much everything it stands for.

But the more interesting question for me remains this: What IS it about "our liberal movement in theology" that allows us to believe all three of these things at once in the first place?