Author: Daniel Harper

Rebound? No, recalibration.

The ongoing research project “Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations” (EPIC), part of Hartford Institute for Religion Research, has released a new report titled “Signs of Rebound Amid Uneven Recovery.” The results are cautiously optimistic. Key findings, summarized on their website, include the following:

  • “Median in-person worship attendance has risen to 70 — surpassing pre-pandemic levels and marking the first positive gain in 25 years of tracking
  • “Median congregational income reached $205,000 in 2025, well above inflation-adjusted expectations
  • “Volunteer participation has rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, with 40% of congregants now volunteering regularly
  • “58% of congregational leaders say their congregation is stronger now than before the pandemic
  • “Clergy well-being has improved across physical, mental, spiritual, relational, and financial dimensions”

The new report makes me cautiously optimistic about the state of organized religion. The report also confirms anecdotal evidence that at least some congregations are experiencing a bit of growth. Growth, that is, compared to the past few years; 2025 median worship attendance (traditionally one of the best measures of growth) was slightly higher than what it was before the pandemic, and this graph from the report shows:

Graph showing worship attendance over the past 25 years.

The report includes data from many different denominations. Figures for Unitarian Universalism may possibly vary somewhat from the nationwide norm — e.g., from what I remember of the data collected by the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), we supposedly hit our peak attendance in about 2005 and thus started declining a bit later than the national average.

On the other hand, attendance data reported by the UUA depends on figures reported by local Unitarian Universalist (UU) congregations, and from what I’ve seen, many local UU congregations are not good at collecting data on average attendance. I’d place far more trust in the data collected by Hartford Institute for Religion Research — just remember as you read their report that Unitarian Universalists fit neatly into the sociological category of “Mainline” congregations.

I’m only cautiously optimistic, because the trends outlined in Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone continue — most Americans no longer want to participate in voluntary associations. And in spite of all the chatter about how isolated people are feeling these days, it remains hard to convince most Americans that showing up at a values-based community once a week might help reduce their feelings of isolation. If we could just convince people of that, then we might see a more robust increase in weekly attendance.

Cohasset Patriots

It’s Patriots Day tomorrow, and I’m giving a sermon tomorrow telling the stories of three Cohasset Revolutionary War heroes and heroines, all of whom would have attended services in our 1747 meetinghouse. These three were Persis Tower Lincoln Hall, Briton Nichols, and Noah Nichols.

Due to the time constraints of a sermon, I have to give shortened versions of their life stories tomorrow. I had hoped to post fuller versions of their life stories here, but the research took much longer than I had planned and I’m out of time. Instead, I’ll put a timeline of Noah Nichols’s life after the jump — just to get the information on the web where it’s publicly accessible.

So… just in time to commemorate Patriot’s Day, here’s the life of Captain Noah Nichols….

Continue reading “Cohasset Patriots”

Philip Gulley on why war doesn’t work

I first encountered Philip Gulley a couple of decades ago in the book he co-wrote with James Mulholland titled If God Is Love: Why God Will Save Every Person. In that book, Gulley and Mulholland set forth a Quakerly approach to universalism.

The current U.S. war in Iran has prompted me to seek out other pacifists. This is not an easy time to be a pacifist. While I’m hearing quite a few people who are opposed to the war, I’m not hearing people who are opposed to all war — only to this war. Or maybe they’re just opposed to the current administration.

So I was pleased to stumble across a blog post Philip Gulley wrote back in March in which he makes the case that all war is wrong:

“…We have mastered the ability to number the war dead with great precision. 175 schoolgirls killed when we bombed the school in Iran. Thirteen American soldiers dead thus far, thousands of Iranians and Israelis, the numbers growing every day. We have perfected the science of counting bodies. What we do not count, what we conveniently forget are the parents, siblings, and friends whose lives are also shattered when their loved ones die. What we do not count are the lives haunted by grief, those yet unborn who will one day bear the scars of their ancestors’ wars. And bearing those scars, are more likely to perpetuate and multiply the pain of war. We are never able to fully count the eventual casualties of war….”

And he adds a pacifist statement that is both Quakerly and Universalist:

“Friends, resist with all your heart the temptation to love only some.”

If you’re a Universalist pacifist like me, you might find Gulley’s post worth reading in its entirety.

Snow and moss

I’m on study leave this week. A friend of Carol’s offered to let stay in her house in Maine, which is good for my studying, since there are fewer things here to distract me. And when I need a break from studying (to stretch my legs and rest my brain), I can go outside and look at the amazing diversity of mosses and liverworts around here. Mosses and liverworts can be surprisingly beautiful, as in the photo below.

This is a view through the microscope of the peristome on a capsule of Dicranum species — the peristome is a structure that holds the spores in the capsule until they are ready to be released. I find the colors and shapes quite beautiful.

As an added bonus, it snowed for several hours. Although it was cold enough to snow, it was too warm for any accumulation of snow to build up; we had the beauty of snow without the mess. And it was quite something to watch large flakes of snow fall on tiny moss plants.

Snow falling on a rocky hillside covered with moss.

3 AI dangers you might consider

Here are three emerging AI dangers, with brief comments on their implication for religious professionals and congregation. Since a large percentage of the population is already using generative AI for various purposes, let’s make sure we’re using those services wisely and well.

AI danger number 1

Your chatbot logs, and the queries you make to chatbots, may be accessed by lawyers during lawsuits. See, for example, how one law firm used such files in a defamation lawsuit against a Youtube influencer. In this lawsuit, the Youtube influencer is being sued for defamation by a woman, about whom he allegedly made intentionally defamatory comments. The woman’s lawyers claim to show that the influencer’s ChatGPT logs reveal his malicious intent.

As usual with anything to do with Big Data (including the web, the broader internet, text messaging, etc.) — you have to assume that anything you put into electronic format can and will be made public in ways that you might not like.

Nothing new here, but it’s a good reminder that congregations and religious professionals should refrain from placing any confidential information into chatbots. in addition, congregations and religious professionals can help educate people about this very real danger — including educating teens (e.g., in OWL programs), people going through divorces, etc.

AI danger number 2

The title of a peer-reviewed study says exactly what AI danger number 2 is: “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence.” To quote the editor’s summary in full:

“The sycophantic (flattering, people-pleasing, affirming) behavior of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, which has been designed to increase user engagement, poses risks as people increasingly seek advice about interpersonal dilemmas. There is usually more than one side to a story during interpersonal conflicts. If AI is designed to tell users what they want to hear instead of challenging their perspectives, then are such systems likely to motivate people to accept responsibility for their own contribution to conflicts and repair relationships? Cheng et al. measured the prevalence of social sycophancy across 11 leading large language models (see the Perspective by Perry). The model’s responses were nearly 50% more sycophantic than humans’, even when users engaged in unethical, illegal, or harmful behaviors. Users preferred and trusted sycophantic AI responses, incentivizing AI developers to preserve sycophancy despite the risks.”

An obvious implication is that there are specific and measurable dangers if you use AI as an inexpensive therapist. Unfortunately, lots of people have good reasons for turning to chatbots for mental health support — mental health professionals are expensive and may not be covered by insurance; in many places there is a shortage of mental health professionals; for many people there remains a significant social stigma for referring to mental health professionals; etc.

Congregations and religious professionals should be aware that some people are relying on chatbots for mental health support. While we are not qualified to provide mental health support, this might be an area where we could help create low- or no-cost mental health services and/or steer vulnerable people to existing low or no-cost services.

AI danger number 3

The U.S. Copyright Office has denied copyright protection to certain AI-generated works: “In general, the office will not find human authorship where an AI program generates works in response to user prompts….” See the U.S. Congress webpage on “Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law.” There remain questions about how much human influence is required before a work may be protected by copyright.

I’d expect this to be mostly a concern for religious professionals. If we use generative AI to come up with sermons, music, curriculum materials, etc., we should assume that material is not protected by copyright and can be used freely by anyone. In addition, it’s wise to be aware that generally speaking your prompts (and maybe even output generated by your prompts) can be used by AI companies for many purposes, so e.g. assume that you are giving away the rights to any text you enter into a chatbot.

There are legitimate uses for generative AI (think: people with dyslexia who use it to clean up writing). However, it appears that many current generative AI services are not well designed, nor do they make clear the potential dangers in using their services. I’m not saying “don’t use generative AI ever,” but I’m also not saying “AI is the solution to all our problems and we should use it for everything.” Using generative AI is analogous to using a chain saw — great tool for specific purposes, used wrongly it can cut your leg off. So read the (non-existent) warning label and wear safety gear.

Dawoodi Bohra masjid

Next to the northbound New Jersey Turnpike rest area in East Brunswick, there’s a Dawoodi Bohra masjid. Carol and I looked at it over the fence separating it from the rest area access road. It looked quite impressive. Behind the masjid is a parking lot, and on the far side we saw two men wearing the characteristic white clothing of the Dawoodi Bohra.

If you’ve never heard of them before, the website of the Dawoodi Bohra community in the United States says:

“Following Islamic principles, our faith is expressed through service and kindness to others. We believe in the value of society, equal education, women’s empowerment, interfaith engagement, physical health and wellbeing, and a responsibility to care for the environment.”

Carol and I both wanted to see the inside of the building. But we were on a tight schedule. Plus, given the increased security necessary for many religious communities these days, we thought unexpected visitors might not be welcome. So we admired the outside of the building from afar.

Al Masjid Al Zainee (Dawoodi Bohra), East Brunswick, New Jersey

Big tech landscape

A large bleak-looking warehouse
Crate and Barrel warehouse, Cranbury, New Jersey

On our way to a seminar in Maryland, we stopped at a rest area in New Jersey. Right behind the rest area was a bleak Crate and Barrel warehouse that extended more than a quarter of a mile in one direction; behind it was another bleak warehouse, an Amazon fulfillment center, again more than a quarter of a mile long.

We mostly think of big tech as software and computer companies. But huge fulfillment centers are also a part of the big tech landscape — all that merchandise we buy online goes through physical plants like these.

NAACP and No Kings Day

NAACP has issued a set of talking points for the No Kings Day protests set for March 28. To my way of thinking, the NACCP talking points sound better than the verbiage on the official No Kings website. One especially good NAACP talking point: “Today we march. Tomorrow we organize. In November, we vote.” In other words, protesting has to be followed by organizing.

Yeah I know, NAACP seems so old school, but they’ve been doing protests for decades, and they know what they’re talking about. For example, check out their tips for staying safe during protests. And if you’re an NAACP member, they’re offering a webinar next week; I’ve found their webinars inspiring and informative.

Update 3/25/26: Removed non-working link to the NAACP talking points. They set up the link so it can only be opened via an email from them. Yes I could have downloaded the PDF and reposted it here, but I respect their commitment to member security and privacy. Join NAACP to get the full list. In the mean time, here are a few more of their talking points (posted under fair use of copyright law, fewer than 500 words, less than half the document):

“— Today we march. Tomorrow we organize. In November, we vote.
— Register. Verify your registration. Volunteer with your local NAACP. Help your neighbor register. Then show up like your freedom depends on it—because it does.
— Every moment this nation has faced its darkest hours—Reconstruction, Jim Crow, World Wars, Civil Rights—it was We the People who rose. We are rising again….
— 250 years of survival, struggle, and triumph didn’t happen because we waited for permission. It happened because we showed up.
— Come November 2026, we will show the nation—and the world—once again: it has always been us. And it will always be us.
— No kings. No retreat. No surrender. WE. THE. PEOPLE.”

Jurgen Habermas

Jurgen Habermas died on Saturday, March 14. I encountered Habermas first through his book Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press, 1973), required reading in an undergraduate class I took on the Frankfurt School of Marxism. I found his writing to be impenetrable; I’m not the only one, as the New York Times obituary of Habermas quotes one philosopher as saying that reading Habermas is like chewing on glass. Then later on, Habermas came to speak at the college I attended. He had a speech impediment and a thick German accent, and that coupled with his impenetrable writing style meant I understood not a word of what he said. I found this very frustrating, but also acknowledged to my self that much of the fault was mine — I wasn’t dogged enough to force myself to read Habermas in any depth.

Yet I read enough to realize he was brilliant, and that he represented the kind of society that I wanted to be a part of. He asserted the value of reason and rationality — this in the face of the widespread embrace of postmodernist baloney that swept through late twentieth century Western thinking. He continued to assert the value of truth and rationality through the early twenty-first century, in the face of cynicism from both right and left. The cynics were wrong. Society could be made better, Habermas said, and we could make it better by better in part by learning how to communicate with one another. And while it would be easy to criticize him for writing such dense impenetrable prose in his books, leading to a lack of communication, he also wrote for the popular press in Germany where he lived.

Although a staunch upholder of Enlightenment atheism, in his later years he came to understand the importance of religious institutions. In 2007, he participated in a public discussion with the Jesuit School for Philosophy, which resulted in the 2008 book Ein Bewußtsein von dem, was felt; translated into English in the 2010 book An Awareness of What Is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age (Polity Press). I read his essays in that book not lang after it came out, and I had forgotten how much his closing essay in that book has influenced me, until I picked it up again upon hearing of his death. He wrote:

“Secular morality is not inherently embedded in communal practices. Religious consciousness, by contrast, preserves an essential connection to the ongoing practice of life within a community, and in the case of the major world religions, to the observances of united global communities of all the faithful. The religious consciousness of the individual can derive stronger impulses towards action in solidarity, even from a purely moral point of view, from this universalistic communitarianism. Whether this is still the case today I leave to one side.”

This short excerpt helps define one of the reasons that make me think that religion is still relevant in today’s world: the need for communities that support solidarity in moral action — and further, to link to other similarly constituted communities to support worldwide moral action. It is fashionable in the West to disparage organized religion as outmoded and useless, but there is no other Western institution to fill this void. Part of today’s crisis of polarization and lack of communication can be traced to the decline of communities that support solidarity in moral action; and part of the challenge facing organized religion today is to recognize one or our primary purposes is to promote some kind of universalistic communitarianism.

These days, when I’m trying to explain to someone why they might want to be part of our congregation, I talk about the importance of being part of a values-based community that aims to influence the world locally, nationally, and globally. This turns out to be far more convincing than saying things like “you can believe whatever you want” (you can do that anywhere), “it’s a great place to raise kids” (only works if you have kids), or any of the other old bromides we used to repeat. Jurgen Habermas nailed it — we need for communities that support solidarity in moral action, and you need and want to be a part of that.