Why not a UU (ritual, reject, mysticism, evolve, preach)

[applewuud]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Religious value does not have to refer to God...But it has to be a statement of faith, of value. For example, "Because I believe the scientific evidence that greenhouse emissions are rising..." is not a statement of faith. Whereas, a Christian environmentalist can easily say "Because I believe that God created the earth as good, and God made us stewards of the earth...." and that is a statement of faith. There is explicitly stated value in there. The earth is good. It's our sacred duty to protect it. ...

A value-based statement on this from a UU perspective might be:

Because we believe that individual reason is a gift to us from the universe, and that we have the responsibility to follow scientific evidence wherever it leads, we conclude that our greenhouse-gas emissions are impacting the climate of the earth. Because we believe that life (human, animal, and plant) is valuable, and the diversity of life is valuable, it is our sacred duty to take action to preserve life on earth by being good stewards of the earth.

And, I might add, because we don't believe (by and large) in supernatural solutions to problems, we can't be in denial of the problem and comfort ourselves in the belief that God will save us, or the belief that the destruction of the world is an inevitable part of God's plan to bring the Messiah back.

[applewuud]

Originally Posted by lilithu

[color=DarkRed]
WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST

by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain
Humanist Society of Friends
... The combination of
residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this
denomination is to be found nowhere else. The hospitality to
atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying saucers,
pyramid power and all manner of foolishness is amazing. You do
provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be
without one otherwise. I am attracted to many things, and most of
the people here. Hence, my reason for still being about as a
FRIEND.

However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian
Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no
creed is, I believe, less than forthright. Agreeing to disagree
is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society as a
whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community
dedicated to celebration and action as a community. Groups that
stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive.

The alliance of convenience between residual Christians and Closet
Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups. Neither theists nor
atheists may act boldly or creatively on their convictions out of
fear of offending the other. For Humanists, the result is a timid
humanism that spends more time keeping peace with the god
believers in the church than meeting their own needs as Humanists
and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community.

...The willingness on the part of the Unitarian Universalist Church
to TOLERATE my Humanism is far from enough for me. My need is for
an organization that AFFIRMS my Humanism.

So, while I will remain a friend of the Unitarian Universalist
Church and of all of you, as long as you'll have me, I cannot for
reasons above consider myself a member of your congregation.

I've heard similar complaints from all sides of the spectrum, and I feel that way myself sometimes. Sometimes I'm the "cranky old humanist" who's revolting against something that seems to me irrational. Other times I'm the "closet theist" reacting against a shallow analysis of scripture by an atheist who's never studied the texts or their contexts to find out why so many millions or billions of people could have been "misled" by them.

Here's the deal: if you want an organization that "affirms" your particular belief by excluding other reasonable beliefs, go off and form one. (And apparently, Revka did.) If you're a Christian who feels that there can be no truth at all in atheism or humanism, and that those who conscientiously study those philosophies are leading people astray from the True Path, a vibrant Unitarian Universalist church is probably not for you. Similarly, if you are a humanist who thinks that all spirituality and intuition is irrational poppycock designed to lead humanity back into darkness, and that all religious ceremonies are mere propaganda for falsehood (instead of deep expressions of human culture and psychological growth), stay in the library.

Being a UU, I'm coming to realize, is NOT "agreeing to disagree". It means being in community with other people, of many different viewpoints, searching for (and incrementally finding) greater truth. Just as scientists are open to many hypotheses--but not to everything--we're aware that the universe is a big place. God, if I may use that word, is infinite, and our grasp is finite. But as the light increases, our vision improves.

We cannot, as Reyka pointed out, "stand for everything". I for one don't want to waste time on "flying saucers" (e.g., evolution deniers, Bibliolaters, racists). But we can "celebrate and act" as a religious community despite not having absolute agreement on theological abstractions. We celebrate what's behind the theology or philosophy without getting hung up in a particular expression of it.

If being in community together makes us timid or less assertive about our beliefs, that's not really a covenanted community. To be in a covenant means to bring your whole self to the relationship, even the parts that are challenging to others. Reyka says pluralism is OK for the larger society but not for a religious organization; but I think that a church that models the pluralism of the world is the only one worth being in and the only one that can bring about peace in the long term between Muslims, Christians, Humanists, Jews, Hindus, etc. In that sense, Religious Forums is like a big UU encounter group, drawing from a much larger community than a UU church can.

Religious freedom is difficult. It's not freedom to "believe anything we want to". It's freedom to believe what we have to believe, and hold our ideas up for scrutiny, examination, and criticism in the light of real life. It's not always comfortable, and it may not feel "supportive". But we can find common ground in dialogue.

There's a song by Jason Shelton that expresses this well--
"We dare to question, we choose to believe
We're searching for truth in our past, and in lives that we lead
Though we may not find answers, our search will go on
Together we'll journey in love while we question as one"

(this is a great piece and is available online, BTW )

Also BTW, the average length of membership in most churches of all denominations is about 5-7 years, not just UU, apparently. Whether that means people move from San Francisco to Denver, or from Unitarianism to Episcopalianism, I don't know.

[BrandonE]

Great post applewuud! What a wonderful explanation of what it means to be UU. I completely agree.

[Scuba Pete]

On a side note, I believe that the average length of a marriage in the US is just under 7 years. Coincidence?

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by applewuud

Also BTW, the average length of membership in most churches of all denominations is about 5-7 years, not just UU, apparently. Whether that means people move from San Francisco to Denver, or from Unitarianism to Episcopalianism, I don't know.

Really? I'd think other churches would have a lot more "life-time" members. Where'd you get this number?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

On a side note, I believe that the average length of a marriage in the US is just under 7 years. Coincidence?

Really? That short?

That's depressing...

[des]

Yeah, we do (life time members). We even have people that we baptized in the church (wouldn't suppose you'd have those :-)). OTOH, I am like you guys. I was a member of this church in Chicago for about 7 years. Stopped going, then started up again. I see myself slipping out again, though between various colds and creeping crud and lent...
It might be a liberal thing though I don't think the most liberal members have been the least devout. On the contrary they have been most active.

--des

Originally Posted by uumckk16

Really? I'd think other churches would have a lot more "life-time" members. Where'd you get this number?



Really? That short?

That's depressing...

[applewuud]

That number is from a workshop at General Assembly; I believe there's a study done by the Alban Institute that covers several mainline denominations, but I can't find the exact source. Sorry.

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by applewuud

That number is from a workshop at General Assembly; I believe there's a study done by the Alban Institute that covers several mainline denominations, but I can't find the exact source. Sorry.

Wait...did you mean the lifespan of a membership in a specific church (which I could easily believe is just 5-7 years) or in a specific denomination?