Pluralism and UU theology (reject, tradition, beliefs, America, doctrine)

[lilithu]

Namaste Yall,

Maize and Michel, thanks for the kind words, support and advice. Of course if there is a conflict the most sensible and honest thing to do is to speak with the person with whom one is in conflict. The thing is that I have; it's been an ongoing disagreement between us for two years now. Last year I was a student in the same class that I will be cofacilitating tonight and I voiced those concerns. He politely and respectfully acknowledges such objections, but it doesn't seem (to me anyway) that they have any impact on how he states things. He has his vision, and I cannot argue with the success of his vision. People grumble about the lack of pluralism or all the god-talk and yet our numbers keep growing. And certainly I respect someone who's convictions are strong enough that (s)he will continue to lead despite objections. Despite George Bush, it isn't always a bad thing to be certain of oneself in the face of criticism.

I have to remember, as Robtex remembers, we all want the same thing - a vital community where people feel welcome and loved for who they are, and a voice with which to tell people that we're here. Our arguments are only about disagreements on how to achieve that common goal.

PantaRhea, thank you very much for your post. Process theology will figure heavily in our class discussions later, particularly Hartshorne and Loomer. I don't have the time right now to give your post the attention it deserves but will do so soon. We can start another thread on process theology and how it relates to UU.

[lilithu]

Namaste Yall,

I just reread PantaRhea's post and I fear that I am not expressing myself clearly, and thus am not presenting my minister's position fairly. I fear my own stress had maybe made this sound worse than it is. This is a subtle distinction here but real nonetheless.

Our on-going debate is not over whether Christianity is more true than other religions. Our senior minister has never said anything like that nor otherwise given any reason to believe he thinks that way. As far as I can tell, like many UUs including myself, he ascribes to some form of process theology mixed with existentialism. He's absolutely fine with different people holding different beliefs as long as we all share core values. But the way that he personally expresses these values is in Christian terms. Which is absolutely fine except that he's the senior minister of a large church and when he only uses Christian terms it confuses people in our congregation who do not share his terminology, making them feel like they're being left out or ignored.

The issue between us, ever since our first argument two years ago, always has been whether or not the leader of our church should make it a point to acknowledge the pluralism within our congregation. Should he try to occasionally speak using other terms? or at least explain his own? OR whether he is free to express our beliefs in his own way and the congregation should trust him and trust what he's doing.

Think of it in terms of the "language of reverence," with different religious traditions having different vocabularies. Ultimately, I don't think our senior minister is saying anything about what UUs believe that isn't "true" given enough interpretation. If he were, my decision would be simple. But he's saying it with the Christian vocabulary (God, sin, salvation, etc) while others in the congregation use a Hindu vocabulary or an atheist vocabulary, etc, etc. And they wonder why he never speaks in their language. This may seem like a petty complaint on their part, if, afterall, the underlying message is agreed upon. But it gets to the issue of how welcoming we really are as a denomination. Why should the "minorities" always have to be reminded that they are "minorities"? Why should they have to learn a vocabulary different from their own and then interpret?

On the other hand, it would help if we all spoke the same language or at least understood each other. And it would be a little ridiculous for our minister to try speaking Buddhist one week and Pagan another week, etc. I see the merit in both sides of the argument and am torn.

[lilithu]

Namaste Yall!

I thought I owed you an update after raising such a fuss. We had our first session (of six) Tuesday evening. Over thirty people showed up, which is great in that it showed how much interest UUs have in theology, but it also made it much more like a college seminar than a UU thing.

Anyway, long story short, I am embarassed and relieved and happy to say that I didn't give my minister enough credit. Apparently he's been listening afterall, if not to me then to someone. Right up front, he acknowledged that not all of us UUs believe in God, and he gave a framework in which we could talk about "theology" in a way that would be meaningful to everyone - theist and nontheist alike. So instead of getting hung up on "God" like we have in previous courses (and sermons), the class could talk about the important thing, what we UUs share in common. The fact that we can say something definative about what we all believe and it's a good message. It is our "gospel," our good news.

I was very proud of our minister, and very proud of our class, who was obviously willing to meet him halfway. If 30 UUs can talk about a UU "gospel" without at least one or two people balking, then I think that we are living up to our commitment to true openness pretty well.

So, since I started this thread based on apprehension, I'd like to salvage it into something productive, if we can.

What do you guys think about how we as a denomination should express our religious pluralism? How 'bout at the congregational level? Should we make an effort to have our Sunday services reflect that diversity? Or is that tokenism? Should we have different congregations that emphasize different faith traditions based on their history and demographics? (This is a purely theoretical question, obviously, as UU congregations are free to do what they wish regardless of what we might think should be done.) Should we forget pluralism and move towards syncretism?

Basically what I am asking is how should our pluralism be reflected in our theology, if at all?

[Green Gaia]

Lilithu, I'm so glad to hear that the class went well and it sounds like it's going to be a wonderful experience.

I know you asked several questions, but I'm going to focus on this one for now:

Originally Posted by lilithu

Should we forget pluralism and move towards syncretism?

No, absolutely not! That's not to say that we can't have both. In fact, we are already syncretic in that we allow beliefs and religious services to draw from other religions. Each congregation and person takes various rituals and beliefs from these religions and adds to our services, to our daily lives. Some may take none, but then they are not required to. I really think it's something that should be discussed at a congregational level, as it already is, and supported by the UUA. So syncretism is already a part of our religion, and that shouldn't change, but I don't believe we will or we should ever become completely syncretized.

For me, religious pluralism, the celebrating of and respect for the diverse traditions of the world, is paramount to the UU movement. It is what drew me to Unitarian Universalism, and I cannot imagine UUism without it. We teach children, "this is what others believe and why" and tell them they don't have to believe it, but we teach them to respect it. We teach them how to relate to other cultures and beliefs, and in doing so allow them to explore what they believe. To me, there is nothing more important than our religious pluralism. Recognizing and celebrating ALL faith traditions and as well as our humanist philosophies is what makes us different, I believe. I also think it's important that we keep our diversity alive and when we celebrate Rosh Hashanah, we do it as a Jewish holiday, but that doesn't make us Jewish, for example. Celebrating Christmas and Easter, doesn't make us Christian. Recognizing Diwali doesn't make us Hindus. But we do learn from these traditions, their holidays and beliefs. We are none of these religions, and yet we are all of them.

That's not to say I think we couldn't do a little better in that department.

[lilithu]

Namaste Maize,

I absolutely agree with you. But I was surprised on the UUA theology listserve when a significant number of others disagreed. They argued that pluralism relegates us to no more than an interfaith meeting place and we need to be more cohesive. Of course, as is often the case, they don't agree on what to be cohesive about. Should we return to the secular humanism of the previous decades or the liberal Christianity of the previous centuries? I say that there are already secular humanist societies and liberal Christian denominations, and I would love for us to work with both of them. But there's a reason why I personally don't belong to either one of those groups.

Anyway, I'm bummed again because we failed to mention Rosh Hashanah and the start of Ramadan from the pulpit today, even tho I sent an email reminding our ministers. Was wondering if your congregation mentioned them.

-lilith

[Davidium]

Hello all....

I was going to start off by saying that I could not believe I had missed this thread... and then the past few weeks rushed back into my mind and I was happy that I remembered my name.

That being said..... here we go.

First... on ministers. I have had the pleasure of meeting the minister of which Lillithu speaks (if only breifly) and I could not doubt his sincerity, or dedication to religious pluralism. The problem is that we often forget several things about ministers, and ministers (and student-ministers like me) often forget several things about ourselves.

The first thing we often forget about ministers is that they are human. (Some might say some ministers forget this about themselves, but that is another issue). We forget that they are going to make mistakes... While I think I do pretty well as regards to religious pluralism, I have made a few amazing gaffs from the pulpit with regards to gender inclusivity....

Sometimes even when I write down "humankind" in my text, "mankind" rushes from my lips.

The key is for us to realize that we are doing it, and to be working towards being better. Part of the responsibility of a congregation is to realize that, as the minister is there to help the congregation grow (spiritually as well as numerically) so to does the congregation carry a responsibility to help the minister grow... and to do so in a positive way.

As a UU minister, we have an added difficulty... or rather a price we pay for a benefit most other traditions dont have. I have often remarked on how I enjoy writing and presenting Sunday morning services more as a UU than I ever would in another faith tradition... because all of human religious thought, philosophy, art, literature, science... indeed everything is open to me to draw from in crafting a service.

We UU ministers (and someday ministers) have a much larger canvass to draw on than any other tradition. The price for that, however, is that we must learn to subsume our own personal theology in favor of the needs of our congregation on occasion.

This is the place where I differ with certain other UU ministers... but even for me it is a struggle. I find my Deism likes to creep into my services... and that is positive... so long as my Deism does not take over the service. Except when I write a service that is Deist specific.

Other ministers do not have this problem... and the ministerial model does not always prepare us for it. Many ministers are taught to "bring forth that which is within them" rather than learn to "draw forth that which is in their congregations" and that is a mistake, I think.

My theology, my religious philosophy, my creedo, my faith tradition is where I draw my strength from... but my job as a minister is not to promulgate my theology, but rather to draw forth the strength of my congregation, from their theology, philosophy, creedo, and faith traditions.

As my theological system is pluralistic in nature, this is easier for me than it is for some. My version of Deism allows me to draw from many traditions... not just what they have in common, but also from their differences. This is why Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Naturalism, and many other traditions all have had an impact in forming my specific set of theological beliefs and imperatives. In fact, with each new tradition I study, that list gets longer.

My point is that a Minister is never a finished product... and those that think they are need to take off their stole, in my most humble opinion. If there is anyone in this world who must realize that their spiritual and theological journey cannot stop, it is a UU minister.

Now, I know a bit about the minister that Lilithu spoke about here, and if there is anyone who would understand what I am saying here, it would probably be him. He is on that journey, as Lilithu's recent posts just go to show. My point is that congregations need to realize this, and be a bit more supportive and less judgemental when it comes to their ministers. At the same time, ministers need to realize this about themselves, and accept the necessary humility that goes with a life long journey of spiritual seeking.

Ok, I will end this post here, and then I will discuss UU and religious pluralism. I am now off my soap box about the ministry. You will find I have some strong feelings about the role, characteristics, and duties of the UU Ministry... And if the Ministerial Fellowship Committee has a problem with it... well, they will have plenty of opportunities to discuss it with me over the next few years!

Yours in faith,

David

[Davidium]

Ok, and now on to the place of religious pluralism in UU... and I beleive that place is central.

It goes beyond tolerance of ideas.

It goes beyond being "open minded".

It goes beyond acceptance of people.

It goes beyond allowing people to make their own mistakes.

It goes beyond being "multi-denominational"...

I beleive that the place and importance of religious pluralism in the Unitarian Universalist Faith Tradition goes to two of our core values. Core Values... part of the inherent UU Theology that so many people are having trouble trying to define in a meaningful way. There are indeed many of these core values... and I would even go so far as to say that, blatant violation of these core UU ideas might be the closest thing we come to blasphmy in our faith tradition....

Now, have I got your all's attention? Good!

I wont go into what I think all of these values are, because I have not gotten that far in my thinking yet. Give me a few years and let me complete seminary. But I think I have identified a few of them, and they relate to the concept of why religious pluralism is not only desirable, not only tolerated, but essential to who we are as Unitarian Universalists.

First one of David's Core UU Values.... No one person, No one faith tradition, and No one teacher has a monopoly on truth. No one has "THE TRUTH". Many, if not most have "some truth" but no one system has it all figured out. Not even the Theological system of Unitarian Universalism as a whole.

Second of David's Core UU Values.... Revelation is ongoing and continuous. Revelation is not something that happened to one person long ago, but happens to each of us every day of our lives. As we each learn and grow, more is revealed. Each person, Each faith Tradition perceives as different part of truth... and together we see more of truth than we ever would alone... or in just one faith tradition.

I would add, on a personal note, that believing that you have found "Ultimate Truth" is just a cop out not to have to keep looking, keep learning, and keep growing. It is a form of stagnation, which is just another word for death.

Now, the irony is that I wrote this in language like I had found my own kind of "ultimate truth"... lol... that's just David having a bit of subtle fun with the universe. I am easily amused.

In Truth (lol), even my view of these Core UU values will change with time. But that is indeed the point, for Truth is larger than any single person or faith tradition, and revelation is continuous.

Therefor, unless we as UU's want to repeat the past mistake of many other religious traditions and spend our time wallowing in our own preconceptions and misconceptions, we MUST have religious pluralism as a core part of our churches, congregations, and ourselves. Not because we want to feel like we are tolerant souls, but rather because we are so much less without it. Without it, we lose that unique advantage of being a Unitarian Universalist... the advantage of having so much greater a source of inspiration than any other faith tradition... because all of them belong to us.

As an example, I will be presenting a service in two weeks on the theological journey of American Universalism. Much of my inspiration from it will come from my past as a Southern Baptist. I plan on being downright evangelical in style.... and its topic will boil down to religious pluralism....

That, and I am going to win the congregation over by using Ray Stephens song "Mississippi Squirel Revival" preformed by me, as my Children's Moment.

Religious Pluralism in Unitarian Universalism is not a nice thing to have... but an essential one if we wish to remain UU's. That does not mean to me that we have to keep every kind of person in the pews, but rather that we need to convince all of our members, friends, and even the world that no matter what tradition you feel yourself most called to, you need all of the traditions to fully travel your spiritual path.

Else, you are wallowing only in what is comfortable to you.

(Now, Channing said that if you ever preach a sermon everyone agrees with, you preached a bad sermon... I know I've been preaching here a bit, and if you disagree with me, then let me have it)

In the interests of honesty, however, and in case I come to have changed my mind about these views later, I will close with the words I used to have engraved on a sign sitting on my desk when I was an Intelligence Analyst....

"Products of this office are not necessarily well thought out.... therefor we reserve the right to change our minds without notice. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause"

That sign did get me into a little trouble, especially when doing a breifing for a unit preparing to go into a combat zone that had to rely on my intelligence analysis....

Yours in faith,

David

[PantaRhea]

Originally Posted by Davidium

The first thing we often forget about ministers is that they are human.
Part of the responsibility of a congregation is to realize that, as the minister is there to help the congregation grow (spiritually as well as numerically) so to does the congregation carry a responsibility to help the minister grow... and to do so in a positive way.

I believe there is a reason why some (ministers as well as the "laity") forget that the clergy are human. Historically, the clergy have been representatives of a male deity, standing before the congregation, usually behind a pulpit, which also serves to separate them from the congregation. The clergy system is inherently paternalistic. Through the use of the vocabulary and images of patriarchal traditions, it allows the clergy to exercise an authority of false love through a relationship of dependence. Your statement quoted above about the responsibility of the minister to "help the congregation to grow" hints at that kind of patronizing relationship.

The practice of "preaching" reinforces the amnesia concerning the human status of the clergy. Although subtle, godlike authority (paternalism) is exercised when a speaker displays homiletical skills which make the person appear to be self-possessed and all-knowing - the very skills which are valued and taught in many seminaries in training the clergy person to present "sermons". Of course the congregations who hire the clergyperson desire these kind of skills. It is difficult to reach a state of maturity where we don't need the strength and assurance of patriarchal leadership and when we accept this kind of leadership over us, maturity becomes even more difficult. This leads to an autonomous relationship of authority between the clergy person and the "laity" and away from a relationship of interdependence. The sermon serves to reinforce a sense of inferiority and dependency among many of the "laity".

It seems to me that a congregation which truly values pluralism would want to guard against the idea that there is only one truth, demonstrated through the practice of having one voice (the minister's) dominate all other voices in the congregation. This, in my opinion, is really the core of Lilithu's problem. Many traditions are valuable, but when a tradition and practice becomes an obstacle preventing the full realization of new values (and religious pluralism is a new and growing value), we need to discard the tradition. We need to discard the clergy system for a new paradigm of authority.