A question for RF UU's (Jesus, ritual, rejecting, Earth)

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Hi Djamila,

As Maize and tlcmel have said, UU has no creed or dogma. But that doesn't mean that UUs don't share common beliefs. UUs do not have a creed or dogma because we believe in the freedom of conscience above all else, and we wouldn't want to violate anyone's freedom of conscience by making them subscribe to ideas in which they don't believe. But we have that shared faith in conscience, and a shared faith in the worth of humanity.

As has been discussed recently in another thread here, Unitarian Universalism is a different kind of religion. Most (not all) religions start with a discussion on the nature of God or gods and from there go on to talk about the nature of humanity (whether it's good or fallen with respect to God). UUs start with the nature of humanity - we assert our inherent worth - and beyond that... it doesn't really matter.

Traditional theists are shocked by this and may think that means that those of us UUs who are theists are not really theists. I am a theist. I start my days in thanks to God and end my evenings in thanks to God and try to live every moment in between in thanks to God. BUT I sincerely believe that it doesn't matter if the person sitting next to me in the pew believes in the God that I believe in or not. Because my God is not so petty as to care whether someone believes in God or not. My God cares about the welfare of humans and how well we treat each other, not whether or not we espoused the correct dogma. For those of us who believe in God, God loves everyone... including those who do not believe. Therefore the question of belief in God is less important than the question of how we treat our fellow sisters and brothers.

*Sigh* It won't let me frubal you. But I second des' "Amen, sister!"

[des]

>There was a split in the pilgrim/puritan established churches after the American Revolution; the liberal ones became Unitarian (now UU) and the conservative ones became Congregational (now United Church of Christ).

It depends on what you mean by conservative. I think that most UCCs would not be considered *conservative*, but it's alll relative I guess. :-)
(For instance, UCCs are usually for gay marriage and ordination and have a similar social justice outlook as UUs). I believe that UCC has become much more liberal since it "united" in about 1950 or so with several smaller churches.

But yes, they come from the same traditional roots. And UCC essentially is Christian-- some wouldn't agree-- but we have Christian sacraments and form of worship, while, at this time, many UU churches are not Christian-- although there may be, most likely are, Christians attending. There are Christian elements-- for example I recognized several hymns (just hymn singing itself).

>Both churches are democratic: the congregation is ultimately in charge, as Des pointed out.

This is radically different than many Christian churches which are authoritarian and based on top down ways of running things.


>I have known some very spiritual atheists and agnostic who attend UU churches. By "spiritual" I mean they have a sense of the wonder and mystery of life, as the scientist Carl Sagan did. To them, the classical personal God is likely a creation of our minds, a developmental stage of human development, and the mystery that we swim in is beyond human comprehension, so why get stuck with a limiting concept that makes people fight with each other because neither side can prove that its concept is objectively right?


Ever read (not see the movie) Contact? This is a highly spiritual (but not about God) book which essentially explores the numinous. Jody Foster does a very good job, but the "spiritual aspects" of the movie are essentially presented by a sort of Billy Graham figure. Carl Sagan, was much more interested in the numinous than that.

Baha'i:
>all religions come from the same source, we should independently investigate the truth, women and men are equals, and lots of other liberal things UUs agree with, but the authority is different. For UUs, ideas come from the individual conscience, for Baha'is the principles were revealed directly to a prophet and then to us. Big difference in cosmology there, despite the policy similarities.

I think that may actually be the difference between UCC and UU as well. In UCC there is ultimately the "spiritual direction" of Jesus' teachings-- however you might interpret that.

Of course, for those of you reading my posts you see that I may be having current problems with that. :-)

--des

[des]

Originally Posted by uumckk16

*Sigh* It won't let me frubal you. But I second des' "Amen, sister!"

I can't frubal her either. I'm supposed to spread the karma around. :-)

--des

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by des

>There was a split in the pilgrim/puritan established churches after the American Revolution; the liberal ones became Unitarian (now UU) and the conservative ones became Congregational (now United Church of Christ).

It depends on what you mean by conservative. I think that most UCCs would not be considered *conservative*, but it's alll relative I guess. :-)
(For instance, UCCs are usually for gay marriage and ordination and have a similar social justice outlook as UUs). I believe that UCC has become much more liberal since it "united" in about 1950 or so with several smaller churches.

Hi des,

I think applewuud was refering to the specific time in history (early 19th century) when the split happened over the Calvinist doctrine of the "total depravity of man," with "liberal" Unitarians rejecting that notion and "conservative" Congregationalists upholding it. Yes, it's all relative because the Congregationalists followed the Unitarians pretty soon afterwards, and nowadays the UCC are definately considered religious liberals.

applewuud I am thrilled that there is someone else on RF who is interested in UU history!

[des]

Yes, that is so. I recall reading things about Congregationalists. In the past, for instance they believed in predestination, and were quite Calvinists (unlike the Baptists who believed in the "priesthood of the believer" and those sorts of more liberal concepts). Gosh things do change don't they? I do think you could find some Baptists who believed that, but it wouldn't be the Southern Baptist Convention!


--des

Originally Posted by lilithu

Hi des,

I think applewuud was refering to the specific time in history (early 19th century) when the split happened over the Calvinist doctrine of the "total depravity of man," with "liberal" Unitarians rejecting that notion and "conservative" Congregationalists upholding it. Yes, it's all relative because the Congregationalists followed the Unitarians pretty soon afterwards, and nowadays the UCC are definately considered religious liberals.

applewuud I am thrilled that there is someone else on RF who is interested in UU history!

[applewuud]

I heard a sermon years ago by a minister from New England who said the difference between the Congregational churches and the Unitarian churches went all the way back to the 17th century, in fact. The puritans had come to America because they thought the Church of England was too materialistic and corrupt, and they wanted to create a "pure" version of the faith (not unlike the Taliban in Islam). The pilgrims came on the same ships...but they were different. They came in search of religious freedom, where their own thinking and preaching and reading independent of a hierarchy might reveal more truth to them, in the Protestant tradition. The Puritans' approach led eventually to the Salem witch trials, and other excesses, which drove pilgrims into the more distant parts of New England, away from Boston where there was essentially a theocracy.

So up on Cape Ann and Cape Cod, not to mention the northern Connecticut river valley, the established churches were more liberal even in the early 1700s. By the time Unitarian and Universalist ideas hit around 1780-1820, these "pilgrim" churches were eager to accept them, while the "puritan" churches thought they were heresy, and splits occurred in the "established" (state-supported) churches.

It's interesting to me that, in the end, the Anglican church proved to be the most liberal of the catholic faiths, and the Episcopalians in America are now at risk of losing communion with the worldwide Anglican church due to their acceptance of a gay bishop and sanctioning gay marriage.

So, another way of explaining Unitarian-Universalism is: "we're the pilgrims who have stayed on pilgrimage."

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by applewuud

I heard a sermon years ago by a minister from New England who said the difference between the Congregational churches and the Unitarian churches went all the way back to the 17th century, in fact. The puritans had come to America because they thought the Church of England was too materialistic and corrupt, and they wanted to create a "pure" version of the faith (not unlike the Taliban in Islam). The pilgrims came on the same ships...but they were different. They came in search of religious freedom, where their own thinking and preaching and reading independent of a hierarchy might reveal more truth to them, in the Protestant tradition. The Puritans' approach led eventually to the Salem witch trials, and other excesses, which drove pilgrims into the more distant parts of New England, away from Boston where there was essentially a theocracy.

I agree with the stated difference between "pilgrims" and "puritans." I wonder, however, whether it's actually been documented that this difference can be traced directly to the difference between the "Congregational churches" and the "Unitarian churches." Boston being the headquarters of the UUA and several prominent Unitarian churches.

It would be very convenient for UUs to say that we were never on the wrong side of anything.

[des]

I would guess that the Congregational church (and UCC-- all UCC are congregationalists but not all Congregationalists are UCC), has changed quite a lot *more* than UU. I don't think that Thomas Jefferson would exactly recognize the UU church today but he would be comfortable. I doubt Cotton Matthers and his lot would be too comfortable with Congregationalists today. However, it is my understanding they might not be quite as more or less universally liberal as UCCs are.
Many of the beliefs of the early Congregationalists like predestination,etc are mere memories. And the worst sin in the Congregational church is telling them they should believe this or that.

--des

Originally Posted by lilithu

I agree with the stated difference between "pilgrims" and "puritans." I wonder, however, whether it's actually been documented that this difference can be traced directly to the difference between the "Congregational churches" and the "Unitarian churches." Boston being the headquarters of the UUA and several prominent Unitarian churches.

It would be very convenient for UUs to say that we were never on the wrong side of anything.

[uufreespirit]

Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do, reading your old posts. You've been making some great points here!

Applewuud, your discussion of pilgrims and puritans is right on the money, from what I've read. (I'd love to know more about that sermon you mentioned, by the way.) The "Mayflower Pilgrims" were an intriguing bunch: "Calvinists with just a pinch of free-spirit" in them. Probably got some of that from their original minister John Robinson, who (according to Edward Winslow, one of the congregation's leaders)....

"He took occasion also miserably to bewail the state and condition of the Reformed Churches, who were come to a period in religion and would go no further than the instruments of their Reformation...they could not be drawn to go beyond what Luther say.... And...you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them---a misery much to be lamented; for though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them...The Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth
out of his holy word."

There, from the year 1620, is some of that non-creedal, "never come to a period" emphasis that we still cherish so much today. Did y'all happen to see the UU World article on the two churches in Plymouth that grew up right next door to each other--one UCC and the other UU--that are both parts of the same "Mayflower Pilgrim" congregation. (Since I'm not yet allowed to post links yet I'll just share this with you;

Go to uuworld dot org then slant ideas slant articles slant 6570 a dot then shtml )