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

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

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.

Namaste PantaRhea,

so what do you suggest we UUs do? Yes, the problem at our church is that we have a senior minister who controls what is presented on Sunday mornings and expresses a strong preference for the Christian tradition, which makes non-Christian congregants feel left out. Otoh, our strength is that we have a senior minister who controls what is presented on Sunday mornings and consistently crafts a service that is coherent and emotionally resonant. It kinda cuts both ways.

I would absolutely love for us to have more input from other ministers. Similarly, I would love to hear more people's voices sermons where the laity get to share their perspectives. But I agree with my minister that I don't want a religious smorgasbord where we sample a little from here and a little from there and never get very deep anywhere. I think the clergy provide a valuable skill in that they are specifically trained in these matters, to help keep us focused. It's not necessarily paternalism (tho I agree it can be). One doesn't need a personal trainer in order to excersize but one might find the experience much more rewarding with one than on one's own.

But maybe it's just because I can't imagine what we'd have without the clergy, other than a smorgasbord of people eager to share their views with the congregation. Usually the people who are most vocal, not necessarily the ones with the greatest insight. I'm open to suggestions but I'll say upfront that I'd rather not do spirituality by committee.

[Davidium]

Ithink we need a different thread on the place of the ministry in the UUA.... Panta Rhea knows he and I disagree on this issue, even if we agree theoretically on some points... I argue to reform the ministery, he argues to abolish it.

I dont think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater... but that is another thread, and I will start it in a minute.

I will make a few comments on religious pluralism in UU congregations before I do though.

I have visited and attended several different UU churches, and had contact with person from many, many more. There is one realization that jumped out at me when I began to ponder those experiences.

Though religious pluralism is an inherent part of every UU Church I have been exposed to, each church has its own character... its own focus.

I have attended a UU church where the dominating philosophy was Humanism.

I have visited a UU church were the dominating philosophy was liberal politics.

I have visited a UU church where the dominating focus was liberal christianity.

I have spoken with memebers of a predominate new age church

I have spoken with members of a predominate pagan church.

I have spent some time with the minister of a predominately panentheist church.

I have spent some time discussing with the members of a rather Judaeic church...

And on, and on, and on.

I think this is a tendency in our faith tradition... while we do respect and explore the concept of religious pluralism, I think each church develops a character. A faith tradition they are most comfortable with. This can sometimes be caused by the minister, but not always. Often, it is the desires of the congregation... and if you have a "conflict of focus" between a minister and a congregation that can cause problems. I know of a church with a New Age minister and a Humanist congregation that had some serious problems because of it...

But, both grew into eachother.

Why? Because none of our congregations are static... and neither should our ministers be. The only constant in our universe (and our denomination) is change. When asked where Universalists stood on an issue, Hosea Ballou responded "We dont stand. We move."

But focus does exist, and you have to realize that and figure it into your analysis of UU. The key is to realize that focus does change. I am seeing it change in the church I am currently in. What it is changing to, I cannot say... but it is changing. My current church is much less rabidly Humanist than it once was.

Being a religion where revelation is ongoing, we have to accept that change will occur, and is a sign of health. Especially Theological and cosmological and teological change. Even liturgical change. We have gone through some interesting liturgical changes in the past year... Including adding the congregation singing "Gather Here" at the beginning of the services...

There was a time that would never have happened in our "Sunday Morning Humanist Lecture Series"

Realize that what you are reacting to, Lillitu is the focus, not the pluralism. While we never want our acceptance of religious pluralism to change, realize that focus can, should, and will change over time... I belive that will happen within your minister and within your church as well.

Unlike me, who does services on completely opposite things on various Sundays... but even I have my focus if you look hard... I tend to avoid the mystical and mythological. I will try and fix that in the future... my being stuck in the "rational religion" gear.

I had a choice to study the Baghvad Gita, or the wisdom of Confucius .... I chose Confucius....

My focus (for now) is rational religion.

David

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Davidium

Realize that what you are reacting to, Lillitu is the focus, not the pluralism. While we never want our acceptance of religious pluralism to change, realize that focus can, should, and will change over time... I belive that will happen within your minister and within your church as well.

Yes, I do realize that. I realize that different congregations will have different focuses. I was in a humanist UU congregation before this and frankly, it left me cold. I don't mind our Christian focus. I don't want us to be an interfaith hodgepodge. But there's a difference between focus and exclusivity. What I'm reacting to is that there is a conflict of focuses between my minister and congregation. And while I have seen dramatic changes in my congregation over time, I've seen less of a change in my minister. But then again, I have seen changes in him as well.

The question really is just how much change can each side rightfully expect from the other. My minister has a vision of a UU community that is conversant in the Christian language, and who can dialogue with Christians in order to share our liberal version of the good news. I think that's a great vision, and towards that end, I've helped organize classes on biblical literacy at the church, to help the congregation develop their vocabulary. And people have responded. Once the reason was explained to them, I've been amazed at how open my churchmates have been towards incorporating Christian language into their vocabulary. We've got Buddhists talking about God, Pagans talking about sin, and Atheists talking about salvation, all with a UU perspective.

But on the other side, much of my congregation has a vision of a UU community that is truly open to people of all faiths, where Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and Pagans, etc are all equally welcome. To achieve that vision, they want Sunday services that reflect the diversity, that we do have within our ranks. I'm not saying that my minister doesn't also want that. But his priority is the congregation that is conversant in Christianity, and pluralism is an afterthought, if that.

I don't mean to paint too gloomy a picture by focusing on this issue. As I've said many times, our minister is truly gifted. Every week new members come through our doors and stay. We are vibrant and engaged, and I love my congregation and all of our ministers. But this pluralism thing has been an ongoing source of friction, frustration and hurt feelings. I am really curious as to how other congregations handle it.

Originally Posted by Davidium

Unlike me, who does services on completely opposite things on various Sundays... but even I have my focus if you look hard... I tend to avoid the mystical and mythological. I will try and fix that in the future... my being stuck in the "rational religion" gear.

I had a choice to study the Baghvad Gita, or the wisdom of Confucius .... I chose Confucius....

I have studied both. I love the Gita and Confucius leaves me lukewarm at best. (much to my father's dismay)

We all have our focuses, the things that we're drawn to and the things that we're reacting against. The only question is whether we're willing to recognize that and intentionally step out of our comfort zone. It sounds like you are.

David, I am curious, how can you do a sermon on the Universalists without an appreciation for the non-rational? And what then are your views on Emerson?

[Davidium]

Lilithu,

David, I am curious, how can you do a sermon on the Universalists without an appreciation for the non-rational? And what then are your views on Emerson?

I'm trying to branch out! Hehehe... we will see how well it works. I have not written the Universalism sermon yet. I plan to approach it from a historical standpoint... journey through the evolution of Universalist theology, and throw in some stories with it.

Part of what my church asked me to do was introduce some more UU history and theology.

As to Emerson... that is a longer story. I dont connect as well with Trancendentalism... at least not as a primary source for belief. I do, however, believe it is rational to accept that which you experience at first hand... which is why I also accept the concept of ephiphany. I also beleive in the feasability of personal revelation. The problem with revelation is that, when you attempt to transefer belief in a revelation from the person who experienced it to anyone else, you lose that experiential basis for rational belief in it.

In other words, if God appeared to me and gave me the key to understanding the universe, then I might be able to accept that rationally.... because I experienced it. (Probably not, but possible). However, if you came to me and said that God had told you the key to understanding the universe, I would have no rational basis for belief in that, as I did not experience the revelation personally.

So, I can understand Emersonian trancendentalism, as it is somewhat close to my view of Ephiphany and Personal revelation.

Yours in faith,

David

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Davidium

As to Emerson... that is a longer story. I dont connect as well with Trancendentalism... at least not as a primary source for belief. I do, however, believe it is rational to accept that which you experience at first hand... which is why I also accept the concept of ephiphany. I also beleive in the feasability of personal revelation. The problem with revelation is that, when you attempt to transefer belief in a revelation from the person who experienced it to anyone else, you lose that experiential basis for rational belief in it.

In other words, if God appeared to me and gave me the key to understanding the universe, then I might be able to accept that rationally.... because I experienced it. (Probably not, but possible). However, if you came to me and said that God had told you the key to understanding the universe, I would have no rational basis for belief in that, as I did not experience the revelation personally.

So, I can understand Emersonian trancendentalism, as it is somewhat close to my view of Ephiphany and Personal revelation.

Yes, Emerson would agree with you. That's why he had no use for scripture, because that's someone else's revelation, not one's own personal revelation. He said as soon as you start citing scripture faith is dead.

I think he has a point, but I think he goes too far, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know that scripture has helped me to focus my own personal reflections, and facilitated my own revelations. Without a framework to work in, epiphanies would not make sense. Even Emerson framed his transcendant discoveries in the framework of the Hindu concept of God. We need both external and internal sources of spiritual truth.

If you came to me and said that God had told you the key to understanding the universe, I would ask you what God told you. If it conflicted with my own experience I would reject it. If it did not conflict, I would meditate on it to see if I could verify it personally.

But I do not understand your not connecting with Transcendentalism yet accepting "epiphany." What do you see as the distinction?

[Davidium]

I believe that the trancendentalist experience goes beyond what I mean by ephiphany. I view ephiphany as still being within myself... I dont think of it as something from beyond me. I view ephiphany as that moment when my subconscious is able to break through to me... and force me to realize something in a radically different way...

But it still comes from within me. I do not believe it comes from outside of my own mind.

Now, I have always thought of the trancendentalist experience as a connection to that which is beyond ourselves. It is connection to the universe, or in Emersonian language to the "oversoul".

So, to me, the difference is one of source.

Yours in faith,

David

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Davidium

I believe that the trancendentalist experience goes beyond what I mean by ephiphany. I view ephiphany as still being within myself... I dont think of it as something from beyond me. I view ephiphany as that moment when my subconscious is able to break through to me... and force me to realize something in a radically different way...

But it still comes from within me. I do not believe it comes from outside of my own mind.

Now, I have always thought of the trancendentalist experience as a connection to that which is beyond ourselves. It is connection to the universe, or in Emersonian language to the "oversoul".

So, to me, the difference is one of source.

Yours in faith,

David

For me, immanence and transcendance are two sides of the same coin. You can't truly have one without the other. Emerson's "oversoul" is just his restating of the Hindu view of God as Param-Atman (literally over-Soul). In Hinduism, each of us is jiva-atman (individual souls). And jiva-atman and paramatman are one and the same. And we attain moksha (union with God) only when we see thru the veil of illusion (that we are separate) and recognize this truth (that we are one with God).

To understand how this could be, however, one has to examine what one means by "self." Our "selves" are not distinct entities, isolated. Our "selves" only exist in relation to everything else. I am the sum of the interactions that went into causing me, from my DNA to my historical and cultural environment, to my parents, to every person and experience that I have encountered. I do not exist separate from these things. But I am also not completely passive, as I can make choices that determine myself and in turn affect those around me. Hence, the interdependant web of existence of which we are a part. (which btw, was phrased by a Buddhist UU) What I am is God, but obviously not all of God.

So, yes, epiphanies come from within you, and from beyond you. Both.

I do not know how well this fits in with your deist theology because, honestly, I still am unsure what it means to be a deist. (From talking to you and scitsofreaky, deism apparently isn't what I thought it was.) But for me, I have always leaned towards the Hindu view of God (which I believe the Buddhists also share but do not call God). And I was surprised when I realised that Emerson had introduced Hindu theology into American Unitarianism within the second generation of our existence. And I was even more surprised when I investigated process theology, which is also very popular with UUs because of its rationality, and found many of the same beliefs there. Basically, I continue to find new ways in which I've always been a UU but just didn't know it. (Not that one has to accept Transcendentalism or process theology to be a UU.)

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by lilithu

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

If it was mentioned specifically, it wasn't until after the children and us teachers left the service for RE. But the service last week was about the place religious pluralism in UU and the had Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist readings, and I wish I'd been able to listen to it. In RE we did talk about Rosh Hashanah and Judaism with the kids, and this Sunday we'll be talking about Mohammed, Ramadan and Muslims. I do know that the homily this Sunday will be the Jewish "Day of Remembrance" so, the adults are just a little behind the kids.