← Back Published on

Droplet Theory: The Future of Unitarian Universalism

We live in a kairos moment, that is a true tipping point. Most progressives and liberal religionists realize we are rapidly bringing about an Anthropocene crisis. Many conservatives and religious fundamentalists either ignore the potential crisis for immediate yet fleeting profit or flip the perspective and work actively to welcome what they envision as an immanentization of the eschaton. Humanity and the world are at the center of this tug of war. If we, the progressives and liberal religionists, prove stronger in precisely this moment, we can save our planet from a crisis of incomprehensible scope. I realize the tone of this statement projects doom but, I prefer to consider the following. Ultimately, even though fear abounds, and mortality is a relentless timekeeper, success is possible. What’s more, although we are pulling against each other now, we actually want the same thing. There is no “winning” because when we triumph, everyone shares the reward. Further, what choice do we have but to think, communicate, and act? Audra Lorde says it best in her poem “A Litany for Survival.”


and when we speak we are afraid
our words will not be heard
nor welcomed
but when we are silent
we are still afraid

So it is better to speak
Remembering

We were never meant to survive.

How do we muster the strength to pull even harder than we already are? How do we isolate the most pressing social justice concerns in order to address them?

It is not possible to choose the most pressing social justice concern. Certain issues of social justice affect certain individuals to a greater degree depending on social positioning. However, could anyone conceivably rate racial justice compared to reproductive justice, for instance? A survey was recently conducted in my teaching congregation where respondents were asked to rate social justice issues in order of importance. I received many complaints about the difficulty and indeed, the impossibility, of this task. Ultimately, the issues overlap and intersectionality dictates that to address one, is and must be to address all.

The question then becomes, how do we achieve justice and liberation for all life? Specifically, as a standard-bearer for the movement for progressive and liberating justice, what is the biggest challenge for Unitarian Universalists in this pursuit, and how can we rise to this challenge?

As a Unitarian Universalist minister in formation, I may start by looking to other, more knowledgeable liberal theologians and UU professionals. Wesley Wildman, in his book Effing the Ineffable wrote that “Friedrich Schleiermacher pointed out that theologians routinely fail to notice how the qualities of their religious experiences directly impact what they are prepared to accept as theologically true.” If this is true for theologians, we can reasonably assume it is true for congregants and other religious laypeople. So, the first consideration is what manner of religious experience–what meaning-making–are we offering so that those experiencing it will likely join the choir, figuratively and literally? What are the necessary elements of the religious experiences we provide our parishioners and all of those to whom we minister?

Paul Tillich states simply that “justice preserves what love reunites.” If it is social justice, equality and mutual liberation we profess as our preserving theology, we must be united and repeatedly reunited by love. Love must come first so that justice can preserve what only love can actuate. So far so good. We should conduct love-filled worship, with rituals that are guided and driven by love. But we do that already, don’t we?

These are not the only and certainly not the most important theologians to look to, however. Our movement has, in the words of Dr. Stephanie Mitchem, traditionally put up borders. It is also incumbent upon people of privilege who identify as I do–white, cisgender, heterosexual, and male–to work overtime to dismantle those borders surrounding our movement. It is our directive to actively listen and seek out knowledge from traditionally marginalized populations. Countless people of color, women, Indigenous people, LGBTQ people, and others­–all members and leaders in our faith–are very clear about loving worship.

Dr. Sharon Welch writes in her book After Empire: The Art and Ethos of Enduring Peace about actualizing loving experiences. It is not specific religious experiences that are holy, but rather comprehensive experience, what manner of active participation in life, that can be holy. Further, this participation can and must be self-induced but also exist within community, specifically within what Welch specifies as “the beloved community.” There can be no beloved community with borders in place because walls create a fortress of isolation.

Summarizing all of the above; religious experience must be of a certain quality that induces rational and liberal epiphanies; it must be composed of love; and it must be participatory as well as collective, where all are welcome as absolute equals. Once again, isn’t this what we strive to do?

To elaborate upon the idea of borders, I return to Dr. Mitchem who, in expanding Henry Giroux’s idea of border pedagogy talked about border theology and going forward. “Border theology points to the need for conditions that allow all participants and members to speak, write and listen in a language which becomes multi-accentual and disperses and resists permanent closure and responds to the times with holistic activism. Border theology then is beyond good deed-doers who act in order to feel a kind masturbatory self-righteousness, beyond theological theories that sound pretty but are never connected to real life, beyond living a life that is only tangentially connected to the meaning of professed religion, beyond enforcing religious ideological purity, that becomes a new unable-to-be-questioned form of oppression.” Unitarian Universalists must work to take down the walls, to set the example for all humanity to take down the walls by living a life that is inextricably connected to the meaning of our professed principles.

For a third time, I’ll ask the obvious questions. Isn’t that what Unitarian Universalists are already attempting to implement? Is that not our current mandate? If so, then why aren’t there more souls in the sanctuary, more self-identified Unitarian Universalists? Why does the world we inhabit seem to be slipping into “fake news” oblivion rather than reasonable resolve to love all equally? To be blunt, if we know what to do, why are we failing? One reason is because we are still learning exactly how to do it.

So, the next step must be to consider something new and proceed beyond what has been done, through trial and error, to discover what must be done. It’s incumbent upon future ministers and UU leaders to drive the movement into the future by changing the paradigm.

Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Dr. Wangari Maathai’s The Story of the Hummingbird talks about how to deal with overwhelming challenges. The story tells of a hummingbird putting out a forest fire. As the hummingbird drops water one droplet at a time, it is criticized by the other animals for what they see as a futile effort. “You are too little. This fire is too big. Your wings are too little, and your beak is so small that you can only bring a small drop of water at a time.” The hummingbird is not discouraged. The message of the story, in Dr. Maathai’s words is; “We should always be like a hummingbird. I may be insignificant, but I certainly don’t want to be like the animals watching as the planet goes down the drain. I will be a hummingbird; I will do the best I can.”

I propose what I call the “droplet theory,” an evolution of the hummingbird’s process. Through the lens of the transformative paradigm; considering that truths are determined socially, culturally, economically, racially, by ability, by gender or by other arbitrary and nonarbitrary social constructs, we must find the divine within all of us, one-by-one and one-to-one. We literally remove the border, not in fell swoops as we have been attempting unsuccessfully, but brick by brick. The droplet theory involves sociocultural, interhuman and spiritual methodology, wherein love trickles up or rather streams out into the greater society.

We must be like hummingbirds and do what we can one drop at a time. However, whereas drops of water from the beak of a hummingbird may take quite a while to put out a fire, we don’t have to use water. A single drop of dye placed in a liquid will diffuse and saturate all of the liquid. Each interaction between just two people acts as a droplet of love-tinted dye released into the greater sea of humanity. Certainly, seas are vast, but thousands of droplets will soon spread love ubiquitously. Instead of great fell swoops that don’t seem to break down walls, by using potent droplets, we move under, in, and around the walls. We weaken and dismantle them structurally until they crumble.

The idea is that we begin by continuing on our current path, creating traditions, rituals, and religious experiences that are likely to effect progressive change, enact them with love, and do it all actively and in beloved community. Here is the caveat, we, as ministers, must now focus on also doing the work single heart-to-single heart, not speaking, but actively listening, and giving of ourselves unconditionally to each individual we encounter, as they allow us, one at a time. These encounters must be with all, if possible, and beyond pastoral care we already offer.

It will take some time going person to person rather than preaching to a group or leading a class. I’m not saying we should give up sermons, covenant groups or other gatherings, all of which can be useful supplements to the droplet theory. However, the respect and compassion generated by individual inter-personal interactions will spread exponentially and quickly. I believe it will do so much more quickly, effectively and pervasively than if we speak to groups touching every third, seventh or 20th person that happen to be listening to us. Countless potent droplets make much more impact than a weak and diffuse spray. Ultimately, spraying is what we have mostly been doing until this moment, and we are stalled. If we kick-start the UU machine in this way, I believe good and love will, rather than drip down from the pulpit, stream out from each interpersonal interaction to all. At some point, each person will become every other person’s soul interlocutor. Only then will we be in a beloved community with a dynamic that truly is conducive to also receiving messages from the pulpit or from the podium.

What about non-UU’s? What about conservatives and religious fundamentalists? Do we exclude them altogether? Doesn’t exclusion create and maintain a substantial border around our churches? I am not suggesting we implement the droplet theory just within our circles of love, our own congregations. Especially ministers must set the example of going out into the broader community and meeting with people as they allow, soul to soul, actively listening, and giving of our hearts unconditionally. We may not change hearts and minds and we may not bring a single conservative into Unitarian Universalism, but it is my hope and consideration that more borders will come down between spirits and ever more love will stream out even further.

How will I personally implement the droplet theory in practice? I commit to sticking around and speaking to people after Sunday services and other church events. I commit to meeting with all willing congregants, one-on-one, listening to whatever is on their minds. I commit to attending community events, introducing myself to every person I can, and listening to their concerns. I commit to listening and responding respectfully when I find myself addressed by a person who has a differing view from myself. I commit to making every effort, going out of my way, to meet people in and outside of my congregation. I commit to think, communicate, and act, knowing it will be risky, and often fearful, because “it is better to speak, remembering we were never meant to survive.”

This essay was submitted with an application for scholarship and financial aid in 2020.