The problem with sociological identity

I think that Unitarian Universalism is going to have trouble if its self-definition is based upon sociological data.

The current UUA website describes UUism as "a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others." This is a sociological self-definition. There is no reference to a 400-year history, collective wisdom, or common spiritual inspiration and aspiration. It is based upon statistical data on how individual UUs identify themselves when they are asked what their "actual" religion (or "faith tradition", as if Unitarianism and Universalism were no faith traditions...) is, in addition to their membership in a Unitarian Universalist church or fellowship.

There seems to be a need in finding identity beyond the borders of our own specific tradition, which is implicitly seen as lacking, incomplete, or for some people, perhaps simply non-existent. Unitarian Universalism would therefore be an empty container that needs to be filled in with spirituality from the outside, with only a few ethical principles to support the recipient and hold its contents together. No wonder then that some state officials think that UUism is no religion at all.

Apart from the huge sense of self-denial that this sociological definition implies, it also generates uncertainty about what exactly Unitarian Universalism is. What if, in the next 5 years, 300,000 Mormons become members of UU congregations? Would the website say that UUism is "a liberal Mormon religion that also includes Pagans, Humanists, and others"?

You may think that it is highly unlikely that thousands of Mormons would become UUs. But it was also highly unlikely that thousands of atheists would join a church in order to worship and practice religion on sunday mornings. And it happened!