Looking over the growing list of ideas to “fix UUism” over at ChaliceChick, it occurs to me that the vast majority are about what Roger Kuhrt calls the “hypercorporatism” of the national Association and its authorizing body, the annual General Assembly. Which is to say, they’re really not about fixing butts-in-the-pews Unitarian Universalism at all. We seem to like that just fine.

What we don’t seem to like are the national organization, its bureaucracy, and the annual legislative meeting. Why so many grumpies?

If these were the sort of complaints I kept hearing over and over, in any organization, the message would be pretty clear: the grass roots don’t believe their national organization represents them. In a congregational polity, this is a grave sin. The national organization only exists to express the will of the congregations. And yet those in the congregations say, over and over again, that the national organization doesn’t represent them, or represents them poorly.

It isn’t that folks disagree with with all the “actions of immediate witness.” Most UUs agree with most of the statements. But they don’t do a damn bit of difference, and everyone knows it. Any belief otherwise is either wishful thinking or something about the wings of a butterfly in China causing a tornado in Kansas. They are much ado about nothing, and a waste of time and energy.

The national organization is opaque to most members, which is exactly why Philocrites’ idea to put together a “Denominational Politics for Dummies” feels like such a very good idea.

But it doesn’t get at the larger problem. In a congregational polity, the national association of congregations shouldn’t really matter that much. It should be an exercise in minimalism. There should be little there to change in the first place.

The national Association recently acknowledged its overstep, however implicitly, in the addition of “of Congregations” in its new logo. But however much logos can change tone, this is hardly a course correction.

The Association and GA clearly believe they are more important than most UUs believe they should be. Otherwise, why all the suggestions to put them in their place?

As Indrax helpfully shows us with her UU fixes, we are a tiny little new religion, and we had best start acting like one. We quit being a liberal Christian denomination long ago, and yet we still act like it’s the 1950s at the national level. No one cares what we have to say about politics, not even the Quakers or the UCC. New religions are decentralized and spread by word of mouth. Which is to say, by our fruit they will know us. But the Association and GA persist in shouting their prayers from the street corner for all to hear.

Someone will want to point out that GA is composed of ministers and congregational representatives, and that it conducts its business democratically. But, however technically correct this may be, it doesn’t make it representative of butt-in-the-pews UUs. The folks who go to GA are a self-selecting bunch who are—most of them—already “in the know.” Your average butt-in-the-pew UU isn’t in the know, or, again, why would Philocrites’ guide feel like such a good idea? And why should they need to be “in the know?” How damn difficult does it need to be?

It seems there are two UUisms out there. And one of them has to go.