UU'ism too Christian? (ritual, reject, tradition, contradiction, homosexual)

[spiritually inclined]

Why do some Unitarian Universalists claim that your religion is becoming more Christian and exclusive of non-Christians and pluralism?

Some of these same people have a problem with using words like "church" and even "reverend". If a person is so opposed to religious terms and practices, why would they join a religion?

James

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Why do some Unitarian Universalists claim that your religion is becoming more Christian and exclusive of non-Christians and pluralism?

Some of these same people have a problem with using words like "church" and even "reverend". If a person is so opposed to religious terms and practices, why would they join a religion?

James

It's complicated.

Wow, where are you digging up all our dirty laundry anyway?

Unitarian Universalists are a diverse lot.

MANY of us come to the faith because we are religious refugees from our previous religions. For example, BGLT Christians who for various reasons did not feel welcome in Christianity anymore. Or people who just asked too many questions. A lot of these folks feel anger towards the faith that they had to leave, and most of these are ex-Christians. Whenever they hear words that remind them of Christianity, it brings up negative feelings. Feelings of hurt and rejection. Or associations of irrationality and discouragement from intellectual curiosity. They want religion but they don't want to be reminded of the negative things they left.

Some other UUs came to UU because they wanted more diversity - they wanted to be around people of all sorts of backgrounds - but they feel no hard feelings towards whence they came. Some of these were Christian and have nothing against Christianity but think that if our services are too Christian, then they might as well have stayed where they were instead of coming to us. Other UUs grew up Jewish or Hindu, etc. And their feeling is that they came for diversity - for what is good in all faith traditions to be lifted up, so why are they going to things called "churches" (instead of temples or synagogues) and why are the clergy called ministers (instead of rabbi or imam, etc.).

Still other UUs were born into UU. Despite having gone thru UU religious education (sunday school), they still don't know that much about the bible. They have no baggage (negative feelings) but also no connection (positive feelings) towards Christianity or other religions.

I would say that there are UUs who feel that we are a separate religion in our own right, so why do we keep using the terms of someone else's religion? Why not have our own names for our houses of worship or for our clergy? And then there are other UUs who feel that in order to be able to be in dialogue with other religious folk in this country, we have to know how to speak their language instead of inventing our own.

Like I said, it's complicated.

You should check out the "Language of Reverence" controversy that erupted after our president, Rev. Bill Sinkford, suggested that UUs should get more comfortable using religious language. Whew, boy! did people get upset.

[spiritually inclined]

Interesting. It all makes perfect sense. When I first left Pentecostalism, I was sort of an anti-Christian. I read through the New Testament and most of the Old marking all of the barbaric scriptures I could find as well as contradictions. Eventually I locked all of my Bibles and Bible dictionary away where I couldn't see them. I laugh at myself now. Though I'm not a Christian, I still enjoy reading and learning about the Bible and reading the Bible dictionary. I've also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.

My views toward Christians have softened since I've been attending a Methodist church. The first minister there, Jack, introduced me to positive Christianity for the first time, and he completely accepted me as a homosexual. However, I am still very much opposed to and angered by the Religious Right and have a sharp tongue whenever that subject comes up. I have had a very negative experience with "Christians" even from a non-Pentecostal background, so I still have my wounds, but as I said, my experience with the Methodist church has shown me that not all Christians are this way.

As for the terms for your clergy. Why not be diverse? If the clergy wants to be a minister call her/him a minister. If the clergy considers her/himself a Jew. call her/him a Rabbi. Does this occur?

I do agree that Unitarian Universalism should actively encourage pluralism in their congregation and liturgies because your diversity is such a positive trait of the religion that you don't want to lose. It makes it different than many of the other religions.

But it is a religion, after all, so I don't see the point in completely secularizing all of its language.

James

[spiritually inclined]

Wow, where are you digging up all our dirty laundry anyway?

I found some discussions going on on another (very slow) UU forum. The same messages have been up for months.

But do you think it's true? That UU is focusing more on Christmas and Easter and Christian themes to the exclusion of other religious themes?

James

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

I found some discussions going on on another (very slow) UU forum. The same messages have been up for months.

Um... *brain cells slowly firing*... you wouldn't happen to be jhurst, would you?

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

But do you think it's true? That UU is focusing more on Christmas and Easter and Christian themes to the exclusion of other religious themes?

I think that UU, while it celebrates diversity and pluralism, is still the product of its history, and its history is as a liberal Christian denomination. The Unitarians and the Universalists were both "liberal" branches of Christianity. Thanks to Ralph Waldo Emerson the Unitarians quickly became "post-Christian" and that is what has held sway. That is why we have Jews and Humanists and Pagans etc in our ranks. But the first Unitarian school for its clergy was a seminary (it was Harvard, as a matter of fact) and it put out ministers. Our oldest houses of worship were already called churches before we became "post-Christian." And our worship services are modeled on the Protestant tradition, because that is where we came from.

Even when we have songs from other religious traditions or the preacher that day preaches about a different religion, it is still structured around a Protestant service. So the songs get plugged in as hymns, even tho they may not have been intended to be hymns, and the sermon is still a sermon, even tho other traditions may not have sermons. This is the history that we inherit, even if we just stepped through the doors for the first time. This is the framework in which we operate. And this is the tension.

I myself am a BIG proponent of pluralism and diversity. But I've also seen how silly we can be when we try to plug that "diversity" into the Protestant worship service. There was one gawd-awful "hymn" that was done with a "Buddhist" chant (it was actually the writings of Thich Nhat Hahn), people walking around spreading rose petals on the floor, and a guy in the center aisle banging on a garbage can. "The rose is the gargbage; the garbage is the rose..." Ack!!

And yes, just like in other Christian denominations, our churches are packed at both Easter and Christmas. People who otherwise do not attend services, who in fact are hostile to Christianity specifically and organized religion in general will, nonetheless come through our doors on Easter and Christmas. And then complain about the fact that we're too Christian! lol. So some of the same people who complain about this are in fact contributing to it. (It's not rational, but it is very human.)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

As for the terms for your clergy. Why not be diverse? If the clergy wants to be a minister call her/him a minister. If the clergy considers her/himself a Jew. call her/him a Rabbi. Does this occur?

Um, not quite like that. If there is someone who was Jewish and ordained as a rabbi who then comes to UU, he or she can certainly continue to call her or himself a rabbi. But I don't think that someone who went through a UU seminary and got ordained as a UU minister can just call him or herself a rabbi when ever she or he feels like it. That seems rather disrespectful to me.

Another tension within UU is cultural (mis)appropriation. There is a line somewhere between celebrating diversity in religion with genuine respect for those various traditions versus taking things from other religions without knowing their cultural contexts or any relationship with people of that religion, and just "using" them to make ourselves feel good about our diversity.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that we shouldn't have diversity. I'm just saying that we have to be mindful when we do it. How will this appear to others? Are we being genuine and respectful? To be a UU is to learn how to walk many tightropes. And also to learn that it's ok to fall sometimes and to get right back up on that balancing act.

[spiritually inclined]

Interesting.

The rose is the garbage and the garbage is the rose? What's all that about?

James

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Interesting.

The rose is the garbage and the garbage is the rose? What's all that about?

James

Thich Nhat Hahn was talking about the Buddhist concepts of interdependency and non-attachment. I don't know how familiar you are with Buddhism, but one of its central tenets is that the cause of suffering in this world is due to us being "attached" to the way things "should" be instead of accepting life for what it is. So we make a judgment: garbage is "bad" and we are unhappy when we're confronted with garbage. We make a judgment: rose is "good" and we are happy to be around the rose and unhappy when it goes away. (I'm oversimplifying but I hope you get my gist.) Part of Buddhism is to suspend those kinds of judgments. The other part is interdependency. The rose will become garbage (when it wilts and decays) and the garbage will become the rose (when its nutrients feed another rose). In a cycle. So, yes, the rose is the garbage and the garbage is the rose.

There is nothing wrong with what Thich Nhat Hahn wrote. It just didn't translate well as a chanted "hymn." The whole thing came off more as bad performance art.