UU Principles: Set in Stone?

[Antiochian]

I find myself struggling with one of the 7 UU principles. Have been for some time. In fact, I'm not sure I can accept it at all. Must one believe in all 7 in order to be a UU in "good standing?"

Additionally, there are a couple of classical UU teachings that I'm really beginning to doubt. Does that mean I don't belong in the UUA? Or is the church really big enough to include one who disagrees with some of its core teachings?

(This isn't an attempt to debate; just an honest question that I've been pondering.)

 

[Splarnst]

Can you tell us which principle you're struggling with?

 

[Antiochian]

The first. But the point isn't to debate whether that principle is true, just whether I can safely remain UU if I cannot in my conscience agree with it personally.

 

[Splarnst]

Safely? Do you really think you'll be kicked out?

 

[Quintessence]

Isn't there a council that sometimes convenes to discuss possible revisions to the creed? IIRC, the one about respecting the earth was the product of such a meeting.

Truly, so long as you support a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, I think you can call a UU congregation a home. UU is non-dogmatic; part of its entire point is that things aren't set in stone. That's the impression I've gotten from the UU congregations I've been to, and from my time as a member.

 

[JonathanCid]

Antiochian, remember that Unitarian Universalism is a creedless religion. The Seven Principles are a human (and thus imperfect) attempt to express ideas that Unitarians in general believe, but they are not a creed - you don't have to accept them and everything about them to be a Unitarian. You can most certainly question the principles.

I myself like them as general guidelines, but do find them to be imperfect in the way they express certain ideas.

 

[seeker57]

I agree with Jonathan. The principles are guides, and imperfect ones.

My spirituality is Wiccan and I am a UU. There are points where these two faith communities diverge and that is fine as long as I am content with following my spiritual path.

That doesn't mean I consider myself any less a UU, or any less a Wiccan.

Consider the atheists who attend UU fellowships. Certainly there are portions of the principles with which they might not agree, yet they still consider themselves a part of the congregation.

Don't beat yourself up because you question. Questioning is what UUs do.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Storm]

Antiochian, perhaps we could be more help if you told us HOW you struggle with the First Principle... what it is that bothers you.

I struggle with it in some ways, myself. To say that my belief that the death penalty has its place is unpopular... well that's rather an understatement!

 

[Antiochian]

Safely? Do you really think you'll be kicked out?

No, I don't see my church ever kicking me out. And the other replies are resonating with me. Questioning and doubt are big in UU-ism.

When I was taking membership classes, my struggle was: why join a church at all? Well, I joined because I admired the church's (or churches') history of standing up for what's right, to end bigotry and keep people grounded in reason, while celebrating diversity.

And that remains reason enough for me to be UU, even though I don't necessarily agree with everything I hear being cited as "official" UU teaching.

 

[Antiochian]

Antiochian, perhaps we could be more help if you told us HOW you struggle with the First Principle... what it is that bothers you.

I struggle with it in some ways, myself. To say that my belief that the death penalty has its place is unpopular... well that's rather an understatement!

Frankly, my life experience teaches me that most people do have good in them. Even people I don't necessarily like. On the other hand, life experience tells me that some people are just nasty and rotten, and there's really no sugarcoating that for me. That's my beef with the first principle.

Granted, I only have 30ish years of life experience, and my views may change. My religious views have certainly evolved since I was in my teens and 20s.

Thank goodness this is a denomination where members can feel free to disagree, even be encouraged to do so!

 

[Antiochian]

As an aside, I courted Anglicanism some time back, and I was told they were a nonconfessional church as well. But when I joined, I'd have to recite the Nicene Creed. That's ironic, isn't it?

And I refused to do that. Episcopalians in another forum encouraged me to check out UU. Turns out that was a good idea!

 

[JonathanCid]

As an aside, I courted Anglicanism some time back, and I was told they were a nonconfessional church as well. But when I joined, I'd have to recite the Nicene Creed. That's ironic, isn't it?

And I refused to do that. Episcopalians in another forum encouraged me to check out UU. Turns out that was a good idea!

I'm not sure why someone would have told you the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion is 'non-confessional'. Some Episcopalians and Anglicans may be fairly religiously liberal, but the Episcopal Church and all the churches in the Anglican Communion are most certainly confessional churches: they recite (as you mentioned) the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. Lots of creeds.

From what you've written, it seems to me that UU is a good fit for you, and I would encourage you to 'keep the faith' and stick to our creedless religion of values. Remember that when it comes to UU, if there's something about our faith that you think could use improvement, we're the faith most open to improvement and change; a lot of other denominations are extremely defensive about change or improvement, about considering new ways of doing things. That may be the case to some degree amongst a few individual members in UU congregations, but as a whole, our denomination is very open to improvement where the faithful feel we could do with some.

 

[applewuud]

Back in the days when the Principles and Purposes were being discussed at General Assembly, there was a significant concern that any statement adopted would "become a creed" in an explicitly non-creedal religion. Antiochian's OP shows that these concerns were well-founded. But please be aware that they are meant to be a clarifying purpose for the Association and our common activities as an organization, not an individual statement of belief. Historically and theologically that would have made Unitarians jump out of their skins to protest.

After all, the fifth principle is "the right of conscience"...the humanist belief that truth can't be handed down from above, it's the individual's conscience that is the ultimate ground of faith. If your conscience says that sociopaths and psychopaths (as an example) do not have inherent worth and dignity, a UU would certainly discuss the point, but wouldn't cut you off from the community.

After all, General Assembly adopted these principles, they weren't handed down by Moses. At GA a few years ago, there was a significant effort to totally rewrite them (which was voted down...thankfully, the new proposal wasn't nearly as good IMHO). They only represent our current consensus on our overall mission, and can change.

But it's important for any institution to have a statement of purpose--you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Having said that...

I believe extending the worth of persons to EVERY person is an important value. That doesn't mean we can't support throwing murderers in jail, that we should let them "do their thing"...that would be denying the inherent worth and dignity of their victims. It does mean that we don't torture or degrade prisoners, we hold out the hope that even the most toxic person may eventually be healed. Historic Universalist theology, after all, while it holds that everyone is eventually saved by a loving God, still believed that there would be a purgatory for those who had egregiously sinned during their lives. So it's not like we have to like everyone or what they do.

 

[Antiochian]

Back in the days when the Principles and Purposes were being discussed at General Assembly, there was a significant concern that any statement adopted would "become a creed" in an explicitly non-creedal religion. Antiochian's OP shows that these concerns were well-founded. But please be aware that they are meant to be a clarifying purpose for the Association and our common activities as an organization, not an individual statement of belief. Historically and theologically that would have made Unitarians jump out of their skins to protest.

After all, the fifth principle is "the right of conscience"...the humanist belief that truth can't be handed down from above, it's the individual's conscience that is the ultimate ground of faith. If your conscience says that sociopaths and psychopaths (as an example) do not have inherent worth and dignity, a UU would certainly discuss the point, but wouldn't cut you off from the community.

After all, General Assembly adopted these principles, they weren't handed down by Moses. At GA a few years ago, there was a significant effort to totally rewrite them (which was voted down...thankfully, the new proposal wasn't nearly as good IMHO). They only represent our current consensus on our overall mission, and can change.

But it's important for any institution to have a statement of purpose--you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Having said that...

I believe extending the worth of persons to EVERY person is an important value. That doesn't mean we can't support throwing murderers in jail, that we should let them "do their thing"...that would be denying the inherent worth and dignity of their victims. It does mean that we don't torture or degrade prisoners, we hold out the hope that even the most toxic person may eventually be healed. Historic Universalist theology, after all, while it holds that everyone is eventually saved by a loving God, still believed that there would be a purgatory for those who had egregiously sinned during their lives. So it's not like we have to like everyone or what they do.

When I was a teenager my uncle divorced his wife and moved in with my grandmother. He proceeded to emotionally and physically abuse Grandma and made life hell for the whole family for several years. It was traumatizing to say the least.

After my grandmother died, I was still very angry about all this, and my confessor at the time made me feel like the bad guy because I couldn't forgive. I wanted nothing to do with that uncle, but everyone hollered I needed to forgive. They said he changed. Eventually my theory that he hadn't was proved correct.

The whole idea about the inherent worth and dignity of all is nice--as far as ideas go. But I've seen enough of humanity's dark side that I cannot in conscience accept it as true for me. Most folks do have good in them; however, others are just toxic to the core. I'm more than willing to agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's the UU thing to do, ja?

 

[seeker57]

The whole idea about the inherent worth and dignity of all is nice--as far as ideas go. But I've seen enough of humanity's dark side that I cannot in conscience accept it as true for me. Most folks do have good in them; however, others are just toxic to the core. I'm more than willing to agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's the UU thing to do, ja?

I would have to agree with you. I also have seen enough to know that there are sociopaths out there.

But, most people have some good in them.

So, I guess I would probably say I believe in a person's worth and dignity until they show me they don't have it.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Peace,

Seeker