Hi all,
I just wanted to reach out and say thanks for all the encouraging words leading up to my visit to Unitarian Universalist district assembly in Meadville, PA. The Keynote talk seemed to be well received and the workshops afterwards were very lively, informative, and hopeful. We have a lot of leaders bravely struggling to increase the relevance and impact of their churches. In this post District Assembly reflection there were a couple of discussion topics that emerged during the workshops that I led that I wanted to further address. These were the themes of technology and theology. If you weren’t at the keynote some of this might not make complete sense and for that I apologize ahead of time.
The first question had to do with a systematic analysis describing exactly why the church is presently struggling as an entity that is institutionally alienated from the broader society and culture. In this analysis I intentionally did not mention technology as a leading factor contributing to the church’s irrelevance. This point came up in discussion and felt a bit counter-intuitive to some of the participants.
There are a few reasons I did not include it as a leading factor. First, let me say that the changes that technology brings is shifting culture in new and dramatic ways, so I did not mean to deny that. But I would suggest that the very fact that there is an awareness of this dramatic change of technology suggests that it is not a leading source of the church’s estrangement from the broader culture. In other words, the fact that leaving it out feels counter-intuitive means that we are not blind to the reality of technological change. In fact, no matter what cultural worldview you hold, you are dealing with changing technology, after all, you are reading this blog.
What I would say is that from a missional standpoint, it is not technology per se, but rather the culture that has been influenced by it that should be our focus. Different cultures and subcultures relate to different technologies in different ways. How we use technology to include people in our faith should be determined not by who we are inside the walls but by who is outside the walls.
The leading factors that were the focus of the missional analysis centered not on the methods that influence people (such as technological change), but on the people themselves, the culture, their lives and values. In other words, the discussion of why society has changed is a huge topic which could easily be endlessly debated, and so for the sake of the actual mission I’ll hand it over to the academics. My focus was on how we break through the UU cultural ghetto into real people’s lives. Technology is important, but who your heart breaks for is critical.
Another vital discussion was about faith and theology. Just to be clear, I’m a grace guy, a Universalist, everything else flows from this. It’s how I interpret theological stories and images. In my conversations in the workshops and in the hallways the question came up many times of the place of theology in our current UU climate.
There does seem to currently be a shift underway both among clergy and laity, but for a period of time after the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist denominations it seemed that the answer to bad theology was no theology. This is what I call the believewhateveryouwantism interpretation of the faith. Believewhateveryouwantism is the interpretation that is simultaneously embraced and decried in the description of Unitarian Universalism as the religion where you can believe whatever you want. There are some clever tropes to avoid this reality such as saying “you don’t believe what they want, you believe what you must,” which sound good but ultimately don’t mean much. The result of all this included a semi-purposeful disconnection from not only liberal theology, but from the discipline of theology as a whole.
It was interesting to hear from so many people the recognition that avoiding theology because it contained Bible words is not as liberating as it once was. So many of the people present had kids who graduated from our programs and have no interest in going to a UU church, and many have found themselves a spiritual home in other denominations both liberal and conservative. The reason they cited is that they were given nothing to believe in. In a recent conversation with a dedicated UU who recently moved to the UCC’s (a liberal Christian denomination), she said that the effort in retaining young adults is hampered by the fact that in her experience we lose most our kids by middle school. As she put it, unless your a church nerd, the moment you discover a social circle outside the church there’s not much of a spiritual reason to stay.
For the preaching-teaching minister it puts one in the position as no longer an interpreter of the faith, but as practically the only embodiment of it. In other words, take the Bible away, and the minister almost inevitably takes its place as the spiritual resource. In this kind of scenario the clergy moves from a more traditionally protestant role of preacher and teacher into a role closer to that of the Guru. The problem with this (other than simply the abandonment of both Unitarianism and Universalism) is that our ecclesiastic system is not set up for the Guru-disciple relationship.
The point of theological discipline is not that the Bible is perfect in all ways. It’s authority is that the very language of our tradition’s faith and practice is sourced in the stories and images of that ancient book. Liberal theology does not come from liberals thinking about religion, it emerges out of the disciplined process of how we tell these stories and engage those images. This means dealing with not just the stories, images and ideas that we like, but engaging the ones we don’t as well.
One of James Luther Adam’s (20th century liberal Unitarian theologian) guiding principals for a free faith is a belief in continuing historical revelation. That means approaching the revelation of truth and meaning with both an openness to the future, which most liberals do well, and it also means a continuity with the past. This is what Adams referred to as a sense of length. In my former church we used to say it this way – in our faith the Bible is the beginning but not the end.
The missional point of this being that the practice of telling people they have a million spiritual options available to them is redundant for our contemporary culture. As a Universalist I’m called by a particular theological interpretation, practice, and experience. Witnessing people discover the reality of God in their life is powerful and transformational. Like I said, I’m a grace guy.
Within the UU denomination it is very possible at this point to come up with alternative interpretations, but the point being that believewhateveryouwantism is an interpretation with a very narrow level of relevance and impact to most folks under 50. (In fact I’d find it interesting to discover what a missional humanism looks like but that’s a project for someone else to work on).
One final reflection before I close. In the conversations we often arrived at a point of questions and complexity to the point of feeling overwhelmed. Maybe like you feel now after having read this. To this I say two things.
First this is not easy, change never is, and their are no silver bullets.
And finally when overwhelmed, remember to return to the critical missional question, who is it that your heart breaks for in such a powerful and profound way that it changes you for good. The way forward is not found in a new program, its not found in another vote, nor is it in a clever elevator speech. The way forward is an adventure of doing Unitarian Universalism with new people in new ways.
peace and grace,
Dave
All – I have been following this post and its comments, and I find the debate to be very interesting. Please note that I am not a member of the clergy, nor have I studied theology. I am simply a converted UU, who is profoundly interested in the impact of progressive religious movements – particularly liberal religions like UUism – and, as such, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying and observing current religious attitudes and trends. I am currently writing a book about the impact that progressive religious movements (both liberal religions like UU and emerging churches) can have to attract the unchurched and irreligious.
Ultimately, I think that UUism needs to give equal respect to both its Unitarian theology and its Universalist theology. If it focuses too much on Universalism, it can start to look a lot like any other liberal Christian religion (UCC, Methodist, etc.). Additionally, I think that people from all backgrounds, cultures, and subcultures have been so hurt and damaged by conservative, traditional religion (and their political counterparts) that they shy away from doctrinal theology.
That said, we, as humans, crave a sense of structure. As such, the church cannot adopt a wishy-washy believewhateveryouwantism theology or people will get frustrated and leave. In my very humble opinion, however, the theological message could be as simple and profound as “We believe in God (or higher power, spirit of life, etc.) and we believe in the importance religious community.” Enough said. Everything else can flow from that. If someone is a liberal Christian and seeks Biblical interpretation, that is fine. They can study religious texts. If someone (like myself) is a devout non-Christian who is largely skeptical of the Bible, that is fine too. They can focus on secular texts for religious inspiration.
I do not see this as cafeteria theology at all. Rather, it is clearly defined by a belief in God and belief in religious community. Based on my perspectives and observations, it is not theology that is hurting the church. It is a lack of belief in the importance of religious community. Many people from all walks of life are leaving religion, not because of theological differences but because they don’t see the importance of religious community. They are frustrated with doctrinal rules, but not necessarily theology, and they don’t see benefits of religious community.
Perhaps therein lies the theological approach: God as community.
Again, I have not studied theology so I don’t have a strong background of theological history, nor am I in the inner-UU circle of clergy, leaders, etc. so please take these comments for what they are worth.
Christine
Hello, Rev. David. I think this is an important discussion. I hear variations of it in many parts of the UU community. Tim has added some interesting insights about the details of your proposals. I’d like to look more closely at some of your underlying premises.
1. You quote a former UU who said, “unless your [sic] a church nerd, the moment you discover a social circle outside the church there’s not much of a spiritual reason to stay.” I can confirm that this is true for some of our young people – I was a Unitarian youth and I’m a youth advisor now. However, I also know youth and young adults who left the UU community because it was too spiritual in the context of their personal beliefs, because they were comfortable with spirituality but felt that a single definition of spirituality was being forced on them, or because they were disillusioned by the actions (or lack of action) of the UU community on issues that were important to them. Let’s be careful of generalizations from anecdotal evidence here. In my experience (40+ years), the first category is not the most common one.
2. I wanted to be sure that I understood your religious and theological position, so I looked at your definitions. This is some of what I discovered:
“For myself, Universalism describes the core and answers the question posed above; What is it about my faith that the world cannot live without? The answer is in the reality of God’s unlimited, unending, unshakable, unbreakable, inconceivable, all-embracing, omnipotent, and unrelenting love. A love that includes everyone. A love that overwhelms our differences. A love that is revolutionary. And most unbelievably, that on the most personal level, this God loves you. As you sit there reading this, God loves you. And God loves you right as you are, and not as you should be. That is the most urgent good news that I know of and that’s why I must call myself a Universalist.”
“[the search for truth] points beyond our individual opinions to the source of real theological authority, the God who loves without limit.”
To begin, I think you’re misleading us when you say that you want to find a new way of doing Missional Unitarian Universalism. This sounds like traditional Universalism to me, with no Unitarian or UU components. I can respect those as your personal beliefs, but they hold no appeal for me. This is almost identical to the teaching of the Evangelical Christian church that I left when I was 15. (The main differences are no reference to Jesus and no damnation.) I left that church deliberately and joined the Unitarian community about a year later. Both were conscious choices. Traditional religious answers to the questions of life don’t work for me. I knowingly joined a pluralist religious community. Why do you think that I or others like me would want to recreate what we walked away from? Since I don’t believe that God (as you define God) exists, your words, no matter how important they may be for you, are meaningless for me. My personal beliefs would probably be meaningless (or wrong) in your eyes. If we’re going to live in the same community, common belief must be set aside.
3. You said in your original post, “My focus was on how we break through the UU cultural ghetto into real people’s lives.”
I realize that reverse snobbery and cultural guilt is fashionable among some people. There are many cultural ghettos in the world. Despite your statement, I’m going to continue to believe that the members of UU communities are real people, even when they’re white, middle-class, or even wealthy and powerful. And I assure you, although I’ve certainly known people with harder lives, I have not lived a life of privilege.
I think your comment would make an excellent Rorschach test for the current state of Unitarian Universalism. Anyway, this response may make no sense to you, and I would imagine that much in this blog may not really be speaking to you and your situation. But I’ll try to respond:
You perfectly described this progressive covenant we call Unitarian Universalism (re-)interpreted through a modern, secular, churched culture. You added the additional hurdles of white middle-class culture. Wonderful! This probably accurately describes the central cultural contextualization of the majority of our congregations. I’m not attacking you or the congregations embedded in this particular cultural circle.
In the context of reaching the vast majority of Americans who live outside of this cultural reality, I’m simply trying to point out that the culture is different than the faith. This may be the mental sticking point. Let me re-phrase it as a question.
What does Unitarian Universalism look like contextualized within a different culture? Or to ask it in a more troubling manner;
Has Unitarian Universalism so capitulated to its modern, secular, churched cultural reality that the culture has completely displaced or even replaced the faith?
I’ve spent the last seven or so years of my life bringing our faith outside our predominant cultural bubble, and I continue to feel called to do so. It’s really hard work, it is very messy, and I’ve sacrificed a lot in following this call. Your response to this kind of ministry as being “misleading” is hurtful, but not all that uncommon. The irony here is that the religious “vagueness” so often manifested in our congregations is something that I actually find misleading.
Perhaps in your mind, and in the minds of many others, Unitarian Universalism is not a religion and may simply be a cultural sanctuary for like-minded people. A place for people to bring their different religions within the cultural container that we’ve spoken of. If that is your definition, then my ministry of building bridges between Unitarian Universalism and the contemporary emerging culture would be counter-intuitive and probably feel like I’m changing the “religion” or something like that. Perhaps that is what feels “misleading.” Maybe it even feels threatening.
There’s and old joke that goes Unitarians believe in the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the neighborhood of Boston. Nothing against Boston, but it’s just one neighborhood among many. A missional expression of Unitarian Universalism must reorient itself for something other than Boston. If we care about our faith impacting the world then we need our faith to be culturally contextualized for it.
Is it too radical to support Unitarian Universalism reaching new people in new ways? Some may feel it is.
For myself, it doesn’t seem radical at all,
or at least I feel it shouldn’t be.
-D
Rev. Dave:
I think you are getting some of the responses you’re getting, for example from me and Bryan, because your description of what you’re trying to do and how you’re trying to do it is not specific enough.
In other words, I don’t think the proposition that we should reach out to people of diverse cultures is controversial among UUs. Whether we actually walk the walk is another issue, but people agree with this in concept.
The proposition that UUism should have some distinct positive message that really reaches people’s souls — that might be more controversial, but would, I think, get substantial support, perhaps even a large majority, among UUs.
But at points you seem to be implying something beyond that. You seem to be implying that a specific Universalist bible-based theology that you adhere to is the way to reach out and be more inclusive. I think that position is likely to be much more controversial among UUs.
Now, if you’re NOT saying that, you should make that clear, and explain what you are saying. If you ARE saying that we need to adopt a Universalist theology to reach out to diverse cultures, then you should say so more clearly, and defend that position.
But right now, I don’t really understand what you’re advocating with enough specificity to really intelligently engage with your position.
Regards,
Tim Bartik
Hey Tim,
I think I hear what your saying about the theological matter. Let me pull this back from the original post that may have gotten lost:
“within the UU denomination it is very possible at this point to come up with alternative interpretations, but the point being that believewhateveryouwantism is an interpretation with a very narrow level of relevance and impact to most folks under 50. (In fact I’d find it interesting to discover what a missional humanism looks like but that’s a project for someone else to work on).”
I would also add that I am not advocating a creedal test or anything like that. I’m really not even looking for institutional UU support for a particular positive theological message. Hopefully that helps so that the main point of my message is easier to hear. I’ll try to summarize:
If we care, (and I would hope this isn’t too big of an if) to include people outside the increasingly narrow culture which our UU faith inhabits, that means doing our faith within other cultures. This is a challenging, messy, and beautiful type of ministry. So I’ll repeat this:
“First this is not easy, change never is, and their are no silver bullets.”
I do not mean reading about other groups, or studying different cultures, or creating a class/cultural representation of them. I mean spending time, meaningful time, with people who are outside of the cultural boundaries of the congregation you attend. Having real relationships with a people that you/the congregation have a heart to reach and include.
It is from this standpoint that your doing the theology and ecclesiology. Rather than re-using our current predominant UU culture as the starting point, use the cultural worldview of real people to build a community of faith. We are not only meeting them where they are at, we are meeting with them, as them, until them becomes us.
Speaking totally personally, from my experience, the theological issue is not the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is uncoupling our faith from our current cultural confines. It is a cultural reality that we so strongly privileged that once you take it away you almost have to start at ground zero as there is not much left. Herein comes the importance of the theological discipline I was referring to in the original post (ie: the sense of length that James Luther Adams talked about). Theological reflection was actually the initial purpose of this blog, but in terms of readership, when I talk about mission and the state of the church, it triples over my theologically geeky posts.
To authentically be a congregation of our UU faith that is outside of our current cultural paradigm, you have to really work at it. You don’t simply capitulate UUism and its message to a different culture. You have to be flexible enough to contextualize the message for the culture while being rooted deeply enough to contend for the faith. This is where the interpretive work becomes so important. Universalism is the resulting theology of my personal experience forged through this interpretive work. Re-read this and see if it makes more sense now:
“Within the UU denomination it is very possible at this point to come up with alternative interpretations, but the point being that believewhateveryouwantism is an interpretation with a very narrow level of relevance and impact to most folks under 50. (In fact I’d find it interesting to discover what a missional humanism looks like but that’s a project for someone else to work on).”
A comment that I chose not to post because it was so highly reactive could be summed up by screaming into the keyboard “where are you trying to drag us or what are you going to force us all to believe.” First, other than the fact that like any preacher I hope I can make a persuasive case, I’m not trying to make up some UU dogma like the principles and purposes. In fact, at the risk of sounding crass, I don’t much care what current UU’s believe or don’t believe, how they’re doing church, or anything else that floats their boat except for one thing. And that is, as you put it:
“the proposition that we should reach out to people of diverse cultures”
This is proposition that my faith calls me to. I know it’s not what may call to others. However I would say it is a concern for us all because the challenge for our liberal faith is that it is currently deeply embedded in a cultural reality that is small, aging, and shrinking. Therefor whether we like it or not, our very future depends on this kind of ministry. And whether we like it or not, this kind of ministry is messy and uncomfortable in all sorts of ways.
I don’t know if I will ever personally start another church. What I am trying to contribute to our faith is opening up some “ecclesial space” so that the next wave of missionally driven leaders can focus their struggle in reaching people and building community, and not have to wage a second struggle on the home front because what they’re doing looks different from the status quo. I may be way too hopeful, but my vision for our faith is much bigger and looks to a day when reaching diverse communities is so widely and deeply valued that the leaders willing to engage in this kind of work are encouraged and supported.
That’s as much of an intellectual explanation as I can give at this point. There may be some other sticking points or things that seem too messy to make sense to you. If I’m totally unconvincing, that’s cool too.
“And finally when overwhelmed, remember to return to the critical missional question, ‘Who is it that your heart breaks for in such a powerful and profound way that it changes you for good?’ The way forward is not found in a new program, its not found in another vote, nor is it in a clever elevator speech. The way forward is an adventure of doing Unitarian Universalism with new people in new ways.”
peace and grace,
Dave
Hello again. First a technical note – I didn’t see my original post and was having some problems with my wireless connection, so I re-sent the original. Then I saw my first post and your reply. I’m finding the sequence of replies hard to follow. Now for my response.
I would argue that the Unitarian and UU community (I don’t know as much about the Universalist community) hasn’t been a faith or a religion in the traditional meaning for over a century, although it has continued to include elements of both faith and religion. I think that the modern UU community includes both a religious faith community and a secular culture community. Both groups have been trying to take control of the whole community and eliminate all traces of the other for more than a hundred years. Of course, the balance of power just shifts back and forth and much of our time and energy goes into this struggle. I’d say that there are four basic parts to the community today: religious idealists, secular idealists, religious pragmatists, and secular pragmatists.
I know well the cultural ghetto that you’re describing and I agree that it’s very limiting. As it happens, I don’t live in that cultural ghetto, but I visit it from time to time because I have friends who live there. My personal goal has always been what you probably mean by the term missional humanism. However, you need to understand that my definition of human nature (and non-human nature) is based on scientific rather than religious insight. On the other hand, I’ve always had an active spiritual life, so I’m more sympathetic than most secular humanists and atheists to the religious experience. I’m willing to try to create a place where both orientations can co-exist in peace, if not in harmony. I’ve stopped trying to persuade people who experience the world differently that I’m right; at the same time, I’m not going to convert to their world view. Is this type of compromise even possible? I don’t know. It seems like something that’s worth trying, but only if enough people can let go of their conviction that there’s only one right way.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comment.
Several quick responses to your response.
1. I am not of the belief that all sources are equally valid or that we should mindlessly use a cafeteria approach. I think there is some difference between Plato versus Good Morning America, or Epictetus versus World of Warcraft. I suspect one is more likely to gain from deep study of Plato than from trying to find esoteric interpretations of rush transcripts of yesterday’s GMA TV show. Having said that, we can of course find insights from pop culture into many important issues in how best to live our lives. But some sources tend to be deeper and more profound than others, and tend to reward prolonged study. Other sources provide less reward to prolonged study. How do you tell the difference? This takes some judgement and experience to discern.
2. We should also engage in critiquing our sources, and point out areas where these sources have embraced positions that seem now to be mistaken. As you point out, there are a number of problematic positions embraced by some Buddhists at some times. This is also true of Christianity, Socrates, and one can go on.
3. You state that theology “tells and retells the story of God, a story that is a historical engagement with transcendence”. Since, like many UUs, I am not a theist, I can only interpret such a statement metaphorically. Taken literally, this story does not have much meaning for me. I would prefer a broader definition of theology.
4. I prefer William James’s statement that “religion…consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.” In my view, that is a statement that can be made easily compatible with a completely naturalistic world view, as well as with a view that believes in some supernatural order. Order can come in many forms. I prefer to base my sense of order on what I can see in the world, and on what human experience and wisdom has suggested over the centuries. So, let us with theology see what we can learn from our own experience, and the experience of many wide people over the years, about how we can best live in this world, based on the order that can be discerned.
5. I am certainly not of the belief that UUism means you can believe anything you want. The 7 principles, in bureaucratic committee-speak, express a particular view of human nature and the world that has always been a minority position and is hard to live by. For example, to “truly respect the inherent worth and dignity of all” is a principle that would get you thrown in jail for most countries in most time periods, and is not truly lived up to by most people today.
6. I think that UUism is distinctive in believing that (1) religion should make rational sense, and (2) religion should be focused on the here and now. I think UUism is also distinctive in believing that Reason and Experience of the here and now points to the truth of the Golden Rule and compassion as more important to a better life than wealth, power, or status. This is a truth embraced by many religions, but typically it is believed that this statement must be backed by a transcendent source. I don’t think that UUism believes that this transcendent source is REQUIRED. It is certainly OPTIONAL, but I don’t think it is felt within UUism to be REQUIRED in order to believe that we should rule our lives more by love and compassion than by fear and the thirst for more and more. .As Francis David said, “We need not think alike to love alike”.
7. I thought that the Rev. James Ishmael Ford’s sermon from February 19 of this year, “One World at a Time” was a good statement of some unifying beliefs in UUism. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2012/02/one-world-at-a-time-a-meditation-on-unitarian-universalism-rational-religion-the-great-humanist-way.html
8. I certainly do not believe that any church should base its sermons and services to members, friends, and the broader community on giving sociological and philosophical lectures on different “Great Books”. But this includes the Bible as well as Plato. . Most people, including me, most of the time want some regular rituals and reminders of some guiding principles, with examples taken from our everyday lives as much as possible. This was the style of Jesus’s ministry, as well as Socrates and the Buddha. Most people do not want every Sunday to engage in deep theological or philosophical discussion. However, church should also offer opportunities for smaller groups of people to engage in more sustained exploration of these issues, through both studying important texts, including the Bible, as well as open dialogue. This more intensive study of texts that reward such deep study is only a part of the church’s mission. But if we’re going to serve people’s needs, we need to deal with people in the here and now, where they are.
Awesome response Tim,
I still feel like were talking more about a set of socio-cultural assumptions. By that I am asking whether the shape of faith that you eloquently describe is theologically foundational, or whether it is more predominantly shaped by a particular cultural foundation?
In other words does the “hidden order of things” (what I would think of as transcendence) as you expressed it here define our faith, or is it to a certain degree influenced by a particular set of cultural commitments that we’ve inadvertently, perhaps unconsciously, accepted as normative or universal?
“But if we’re going to serve people’s needs, we need to deal with people in the here and now, where they are.” – exactly!
Hear me that I am not saying that this particular cultural reality is wrong, only that from the standpoint of mission (and I realize you weren’t at the keynote talk) that this is only representative of one cultural reality and values among many other divergent cultural realities in America.
And if you can go along with that idea for just a moment, then what does our faith or the church look like incarnated within and/or through a different cultural landscape? Or is our gospel completely bound within the particularities of our current predominant cultural paradigm?
-D
A powerful and prophetic post-conference reflection. Thank you!
Thank you Justin for the kind words, and I know your leadership is part of the creative movement to move us toward a 21st century expression of the church.
Why wouldn’t a truly liberal theology draw on wisdom from a large number of sources, not just the Bible?
In other words, for example, the Gospels might be a great source if we were trying to explore becoming more compassionate and forgiving. Plato and Socrates might be a great source for exploring the importance of justice, and the importance of realizing the limits to our own knowledge. Aristotle might be an important source for understanding moderation. Buddhist teachings might be an important source if we wish to understand more the complex and dynamic way in which our minds work. The Stoic philosophers might be a good source for understanding the need to focus on what we can control, and for learning gratitude for what we have. The tragic dramas of the Greeks and Shakespeare might teach other lessons. And so on.
If the answer is, because our UU tradition is rooted in the Bible, there is some truth in that. But until very recently, it is also true that most ministers would also have been quite familiar with the Greek and Roman philosophers, not just the Bible. And UUism has been extensively engaged with Eastern philosophies at least since the 19th century. And Shakespeare and the Greek tragedians have shaped our entire culture.
So, in my view, a truly liberal theology, while it would include the Bible, and be engaged with the Bible, would also be at least as fully engaged with a wide variety of other sources about how best to live in this world.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for engaging with thoughtful questions. Before I offer a couple things to consider I’ll preface by saying that this post is within the context of a 70 minute keynote talk on missional practice for our faith. In that respect this post is taking place in the middle of an ongoing conversation, and the key take away from the standpoint of mission is clarity about the “core” spiritual commitments. This in itself may shed light on where this is coming from.
Having said that let me push you in two ways within the context of a space for grace for both of us. First, it seems that the way your using ‘truly liberal theology’ seems to be coming from more of a sociological definition than a theological one.
“wouldn’t a truly liberal theology draw on wisdom from a large number of sources”
For instance we could easily say that this is true of anyone or anything conservative or liberal. How can we possibly avoid be influenced by anything we come in contact with. Among the resources you offered I could add Good Morning America, World of Warcraft, the acid trip you had in college, your job, Google, and you get the point. I would suggest that your choices reflect a particular liberal socio-cultural reality more than a liberal theological one.
It is in the midst of the million influences and messyness of life that theology tells and retells the story of God, a story that is a historical engagement with transcendence. When I reflect on Buddhism for example, it is through the lens of this concrete historical revelation that I engage it. Currently the Dali Lama is considered to be a great religious leader among many socio-cultural liberals. However, theologically he is far from liberal. For instance, the liberal theological perspective on human love and sexuality between two people is an issue of covenantal bonds. The Dali Lama teaches that homosexuality is always wrong. That’s a big difference and this exposes a significant problem with believewhateveryouwantism.
This is just one example that without the “sense of length” that James Luther Adams speaks of we can end up with a lot of UU’s proudly lifting up a person who may be the world’s most famous homophobe. The point here is not that we should avoid Buddhism (or other “wisdom” for that matter), but that there are underlying assumptions, or a lens that we wear in viewing all this. I would push you to think about the difference between holding a sociological or cultural lens versus a theological one.
Which takes us into a final thought to consider. To what extent are we theologically disagreeing about our faith, if at all? Is it possible that the apparent difference is more deeply cultural than anything else. Is it possible that your desire to read a bunch of different sources is a reflection of a bias toward a certain liberal academia social class (which I myself am personally steeped in)? Is it possible that in contextualizing our faith for a particular culture that its possible to end up capitulating to it? Is it possible that the cafeteria approach to liberal theology is an interpretation manifesting from the capitulation to certain cultural realities? Is it possible that if you were building your church with homeless teenagers that this would effect your interpretation of what the core commitments of faith you would be contending for? Is it possible that if you were living your faith within a culture of people with less formal education, or people who don’t listen to NPR, or people without any existential privileges that this might effect how the faith gets interpreted? And finally, would you consider the resulting interpretations to be “truly liberal?”
These are big complex questions about faith and culture that are at the heart of a missional practice and expanding who we include in living this progressive covenant we call Unitarian Universalism. Thanks again for engaging these critical issues for us all.
Peace and grace,
Dave
Preach on Brother David!
believewhateveryouwantism/Cafeteria UUism is going to continue to be a problem and cause non-creative tension until UUs understand that their practice of UUism is totally class and culture-bound. And the number of people who fit into that is getting smaller by the day.
Until UUism is allowed to go outside of its normal bounds, there will be problems. And until there is institutional support for going into non-traditional communities/doing UUism within different cultural and class contexts, nothing will change.
Thank you sister Kim!
It seems for those who embrace the status quo that the issue of reaching alternative culture groups is very hard to fully grasp. The bits and pieces that people pull out of context seems to reveal certain stumbling blocks to communicating the issue.
A 70 minute talk with powerpoint visuals seemed to get a lot of people on the same page, and the discussions of faith and culture in the workshops afterwards were as rich and real as I’ve experienced. Unfortunately its not a very practical form of communication in most situations including a blog. Maybe what we really need to figure out is a good soundbite because I don’t believe this is fundamentally beyond us.
-D