What books would be in a UU canon? (gospel, Leviticus)

[applewuud]

The Bible is a collection of books written by many different people at many different times. Ecclesiastes is very different from Leviticus; the Book of Revelation is very different from the Gospel of Mark. But what they hold in common is that at some point in history, a group of human beings (the Levites in the case of the Hebrew bible, and a group of Christian bishops at the Council of Nicea in 321? AD in the case of the "New Testament") said: these particular scrolls hold deep truths and should be in the canon; these other scrolls aren't sacred enough to be in the canon. (And then they went out and burned "pagan" libraries and any copies of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary they could find.)

To UUs, revelation is not sealed. We can follow Paul's instruction: "Whatsover things are true, whatsoever things be of good report, then think on these things." We wouldn't burn any books. Still, some writings must be more valuable than others. When a friend needs comfort or information, you recommend certain books more than others.

My question to UUs in this forum is: what writings (besides the existing holy books of major religions) are "more sacred" to you than others? What authors seem to be more influenced by the Spirit of Life than others? If you had 100 books to put into a UU canon (which would have to be a loose canon, of course), what would they be? We're lucky we're forming our canon after the introduction of the printing press, so we have a lot more paper at our disposal.

It might help to think of the books of the Bible and what the UU equivalent might be. For example:
For Genesis: "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan
For Leviticus: the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence
For the Epistles of Paul: the collected works of Emerson; perhaps collected sermons of A. Powell Davies
For the Psalms: poetry by Emily Dickenson and/or Mary Oliver (or perhaps, Singing the Living Tradition)
For Revelations: works by Carl Jung (anyone have a specific book?)
For Isaiah: books on the dysfunctions of the economy, like "Nickeled and Dimed" or "Screwed" by Thom Harttman.

I think we'd also find a special place for Thoreau's Walden, and Unitarian Christianity by William Ellery Channing.

A humanistic psychology book or two would be great in the canon. Carl Rogers' On Becoming a Person is the one most in tune with UU values. So many have been written in the past 50 years, each with great concepts, but no outstanding summation of them all...

This is just a mental exercise, of course, but it could be valuable.

[BrandonE]

We're reading The Road Less Travelled by M. Scott Peck in an adult RE class at my church now. I'd definitely add it to my personal list.

Also, Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh.

[Tigress]

I think the noncanonical Gospels, like the Gospel of St. Thomas, would be another great contribution, alongside the works of Emerson, Thoreau, King, etc.

[jamaesi]

I'd like to think The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry would be included, just for some lighter reading.

"Here is my secret. It is very simple: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by applewuud

a group of Christian bishops at the Council of Nicea in 321? AD in the case of the "New Testament

Is that question mark because you don't know the date of the Council of Nicea or because you don't know if the canon was decided there? If it was for the former reason (as I suspect), the council was actually held in 325. If it was the latter, then, no the canon was not decided at Nicea. I have absolutely no idea who first started bandying this myth about, but I'd conveniently forget my religion's injunction against murder and throttle the guy if I met him. There actually never was a council at which a canon was definitively decided, and there never even was a single canon that everyone agreed on. Most people agreed to the canon first suggested at the local council (so one which had no authority to set a universal canon)of Carthage some 70 years after Nicea but even then, there were three different NT canons (and even more variety in OT canons) all used simultaneously in the Church. Nowadays, the Ethiopian Church is the only one with a variant NT, but there are still 3 different OT canons in use. At the time of Nicea no council, local or otherwise, had come up with a definitive canon and Nicea did not even consider the issue.

James

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Is that question mark because you don't know the date of the Council of Nicea or because you don't know if the canon was decided there?

James, this is the Unitarian Universalist Discuss Individual Religions forum. UU is in the title of the thread.


applewuud, I like your model, taking the functions of the different parts of the bible into account. One of my professors once said that the bible should be read like a newspaper. There's the news, the op-eds, the comics, the style section, etc. And each is to be recognized for what it is and read as such. Otoh, I wouldn't assume that the bible is the best model for a canon. Just because that's the way that it was done in the canon with which we are most familiar doesn't mean that it is what would best suit us now.

Equating Emerson and Davies with Paul. Interesting.

I haven't put nearly as much thought into this as you. I only know that Emerson, and in particular his essay on "The Over-Soul" guides the way I live UU.

I understand why the DoI, BoR and even the Constitution are in there but I'm not keen on including books on dysfunction of the economy unless they come specficially from a religious (not necessariy theistic, but religious) viewpoint. For Isaiah and the prophetic voice, I would put James Luther Adams and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

And somewhere, you have to fit Alfred Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne into this. Where would process theology go? And the Existentialists, where do the existentialists go?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by lilithu

James, this is the Unitarian Universalist Discuss Individual Religions forum. UU is in the title of the thread.

So? I don't recall there being any rule that I cannot offer a friendly correction to the misrepresentation of a different faith in a DIR forum. Let's just see - no, there isn't one. I did not criticise anything in the main point of the thread, did not argue with you about your faith, did not proselytise. All I did do was offer correction for a factual error on the part of the OP. I couldn't care less where I see it happening, if my faith, not yours, is being obviously misrepresented I will correct it. If I had seen anything other than an honest mistake in the OP I would have reported it, as deliberate misrepresentation of a faith constitutes and attack on it and that is forbidden in DIR forums.

James

[Tigress]

Originally Posted by lilithu

One of my professors once said that the bible should be read like a newspaper. There's the news, the op-eds, the comics, the style section, etc. And each is to be recognized for what it is and read as such.

I rather like that analogy, actually. It's very fitting.

[des]

[quote=lilithu]
>applewuud, I like your model, taking the functions of the different parts of the bible into account. One of my professors once said that the bible should be read like a newspaper. There's the news, the op-eds, the comics, the style section, etc. And each is to be recognized for what it is and read as such. Otoh, I wouldn't assume that the

If that's the case, then I nominate Revelations as the sci-fi/fantasy section. :-)