Jump to content

Why Aren't We All Rushing To A Unitarian Universalist Church?


Monty

Recommended Posts

The UCC I attend (I was not raised as a Protestant) is universal in its non-adherence to creeds, though they have their own "creed" or profession of faith. I don't think it's really possible to "not stick to creeds" as every community of faith has something that is like a creed. Even atheists have their own set of beliefs. My understanding is that a church that might consider itself part of the UCC is not beholden to the administrative body of the UCC or its synods. I may be wrong. Its interesting to see the evolution of the UCC from a historical perspective and how it initially grew out of the Congregational and Reformed denominations. I wonder though how many people are knowledgable of that. I think one can belong to almost any denomination within the mainline Protestant churches, as well as the Roman Catholic Church and consider oneself progressive.

 

So this is wikipedia's definition of Progressive Christianity:

 

 

Progressive Christianity is a movement within contemporary Christianity, characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity with a strong emphasis on social justice or care for the poor and the oppressed (often identified as minority groups) and environmental stewardship of the Earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teaching of Jesus Christ.[1] This leads to a focus on compassion, promoting justice andmercy, tolerance, and working towards solving the societal problems of poverty, discrimination and environmental issues, especially by social and political activism. Comparatively, a further understanding within Christianity being of the Greek word agape or agapaó as used within John 15:17 translated to the English word "love" as that being of "i.e. embracing God's will (choosing His choices) and obeying them through His power".[2]

This movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians (see the 'See also' links below), but it is currently a focus of such issues in many parts of the world.

Progressive Christianity draws on the insights of multiple theological streams including: 19th century evangelicalism, 19th and early 20th century Christian liberalism, 20th centuryneo-orthodoxy, and late 20th and 21st century liberation theology.[3] The characteristics of Progressive Christianity, and its distinction from Liberal Christianity, have been articulated in an article[4] by Hal Taussig. These can be summarized as:

  • A spiritual vitality and expressiveness, including participatory, arts-infused, and lively worship as well as a variety of spiritual rituals and practices such as meditation
  • Intellectual integrity including a willingness to question
  • An affirmation of human diversity
  • An affirmation of the Christian faith with a simultaneous sincere respect for other faiths
  • Strong ecological concerns and commitment

 

So I am all for questioning tradition, but at the same time knowing what it is. This requires to actually know about, even at the bare minimum, about the last 2000 years of Christian history.

 

I am all for accepting diversity, though I have to admit I'm a bit tired of the constant need to point out differences than actually celebrating them and transcending them.

 

I am all for social justice. I do wonder though what the limitations that PC has on its own commitment to it? That term "social justice" is vague because I think the Catholic Churches' Regnum Novum is a text that needs to be looked at and discussed more at length within a PC context and a dialogue needs to opened up to engage the Catholic Church about where the two different views on "social justice" converge and diverge.

 

I am all for loving one another. I hope that PC members do that. Not just love those who are like-minded.

 

I think PC needs to do better, frankly, in living up to all these proponents. I am not so much interested in what other Christians are doing as I am concerned about what PC adherents are doing. I know we're all on our own paths and we all need to evolve, too.

 

I am all into liberal theology, but like all theology, even our theology, it is abstract.

 

If PC creates a standard about what it means to be progressive, then is it progressive? How long before that progressive-ness becomes old hat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post Matteoam. A lot to think about there.

I take your point about creeds. The Quaker's openly say they do not have a creed of beliefs but I think when it comes to a need to consider social concerns and promote peace and pacifism then I think it runs very close to having that as a creed.

I look on progressive theology as I do my faith in Christianity. I see it more as a journey towards the divine than acquiring a state of being or an arrival at some defined beliefs that stand for ever. I look at John 3:16 and ask what believing in Jesus means to me. Is it just a case of believing he just existed either as God or Saviour or more a believing what he stood for and believing in the process of renewal, love, peace and seeking ever deeper understanding of the divine. Is it a case of believing that he is the only truth or that he promoted awareness to truth. Is believing on Jesus' name a belief that he is the only saviour or a belief that through the teachings of Jesus there is truth to be found. There are many ways of looking at the same thing (IMO).

I understand that there are many who use the term progressive Christianity and it conveys differing things to differing people. I have met fundamental Christians who have used the term to promote their belief in the renewal of their commitment to seeing the bible as the literal word of God and do not see it in terms of how many of us see things on this forum. So things can become confusing in my experience. I guess although I see myself as a liberal Christian and can relate to liberal theology, I also see it as a way of staying with a faith rather than being kicked out because I do not believe in the so called fundamentals of fundamentalist Christianity such as the inerrant bible, the virgin birth, and the need to have someone viciously and cruelly put to death in order for God find it acceptable to ever forgive anyone. I guess liberal Christianity allows me to question older ways of looking at things and finding my own way of understanding my faith without having it dictated to one. This is important to me. I am sure others have other things that are important to them but for me the freedom to have a personal journey and arrive at other understandings is part and parcel of Progressive/Liberal Christianity. I do not look to where I think such beliefs will eventually settle at and define that as a creed but the importance of making the journey in seeking truth in what way we can understand it. Tomorrow people may look on what I believe now as flawed and indeed maybe foolish but that is progress and what they believe will likely have been built on those findings, experience, and understandings we have today.

As for theology being abstract, I would go with all beliefs are based in ones perception of the abstract and personal opinion as little is able to be conclusively provable and self evident to all. That said I still think those beliefs play a major part in who we are and are important to each of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the evolution of Christianity in its diversity points to God working through it. I am on board with non-theistic and even atheist views held by people like Greg Epstein and Alain de Botton who recognize the morality inherent in humanity beyond the images of tradition, even as I recognize the necessity and truth in these images. My hope is that humanists like them become the standard. Then maybe a mature conversation can place in the public forum. Maybe people will emerge from their darkened buildings and interact in true community beyond their own beliefs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but the conversation needs to take place on a larger more relevant scale. When someone like Krista Tippet has an evangelical like say Ravi Zacharias or Pat Robertson on her NPR radio program On Being then I will know this society of ours is truly tolerance and open minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matteo,

 

In my view, the conversation doesn't "NEED" to take place on a larger more relevant scale as if something is wrong or deficient in Reality at the present. The conversation is just fine for now. It seems to me. when people are ready it happens. For now people have what they want. One can't really force that change you speak of. You can work toward inner change on yourself and it will influence others but you can't change the other. Change happens when the time is ripe and the individual is ready. At least that is the way i see it.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also i see a lot of tolerant and open-minded people on this forum and elsewhere like UU churches. Most of them seem to me to see no need to push their beliefs on others such as some fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and others do.

 

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again Matteoam, I have never heard of Krista Tippet before and I thought I wanted to know more. So I went to you tube and came across this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5vZHuAtDZA

I loved it.

 

I also agree with Joseph that each period has a time and change happens when the time is ready. It is said that when Jesus was with his mission on earth he was relatively unknown and yet today you can still see the impact. The growth and impact of a faith may not be evident at first.

 

One of the things I do not go to listen to fundamental preachers is not that I feel they have nothing to offer but it always seems to start with a premise "You have to believe this" and when this breaks down or is questioned it is often followed up with "if you do not believe this then you will suffer in hell and bad things will happen to you". I am more of the type that looks for truth from whatever source it comes from, but with no strings attached either for the teller or the listener. In that I believe there is a chance for us both to grow. Very often when one prescribes what another must believe we trample on the grow and truth they already may have and offer a short cut to some other growth that another has. We presume we know and they do not and therefore are closed to whatever truth they may have which could have a benefit to both. The like of Pat Robertson is not for me what is needed but spiritual growth is. It is far more important that people grow spiritually in their own right than have others like Pat prescribe what that should be for them (IMO). I did previously mention that Quakers have no ministers or clergy in the UK believing that all can preach and all can be the voice of truth and connect with that inner light. Charismatic evangelical ministers like Pat Robertson do the opposite in my opinion in that they seem to say I preach and you should accept what I say is the only truth. If liberal Christianity were to behave likewise then I think I would be for looking elsewhere. I would much rather be in a community that shares one's growth and we all grow spiritually rather than have others hanging on my every word and never thinking and growing for themselves. I think sharing on forums like this and in open minded communities are very important. If such communities did not exist then I feel many like me would be looking for it because it is a need for some like me who would otherwise find faith isolated by the zeal of fundamentalism in society. I think this forum is important and I am sure it will grow and not because it dictates a faith but because it offers a ground for others to share theirs so we can all grow.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph

 

I know that everyone had their path and I respect that. But there is way too much talking past one another in this society which is not being addressed. Whatever will come if it I am not worried about. That being said I am very depressed when it seems that groups can't just attempt to live up to their own standards of true tolerance. I don't really listen to Pat Robertson. The point is that we are not talking to those with whom we have the most differences. All that is hurled more often than not are stones of judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matteo,

 

I would have to ask you .... What can you do to change that? (people talking past one another) What good does worrying do or being "very depressed" except to bring on suffering of a sort ? It seems to me that it is good to ask oneself.... What can i do about this thing and if there is something wise that we know to do then do it and be content .... and if not then remind ourself that there are things that are not in our power to change and be thankful we know the difference between those we can change and those things we can't.

 

Just a consideration to think about,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry if I missed the point you were making Matteoam. I gathered that you were discussing the group, liberal/progressive Christianity in general, and what you feel we should be doing. If I am mistaken then I am sorry.

I also go with Joseph's point

 

I found this on facebook and like it and thought it helpful.

 

"People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.

Be kind anyway.


If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.
Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.
Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten.
Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.
Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God.
It was never between you and them anyway."

- Mother Teresa

Edited by Pete
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.

Forgive them anyway.

 

I must admit (from my world view) this is fundamentally wrong. There is nothing to forgive. Fundamental particles, atoms and molecules are not unreasonable, irrational and self-centered. These are simply constructs of the brain and society.

 

Mother Teresa ... hmmn? There is point of view that she has been responsible for much suffering

 

And why don't I rush off to the nearest UCC? As an agnostic I don't feel much need and apparently there nearest one is four hours drive away. Well isuppose there might be one in Spokane which involves crossing the border and 2.5 h drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom,

 

While irrational, unreasonable and self-centered indeed may be constructs of the brain and society and you may feel there is nothing to forgive as i also see at a 'deeper level' , in my view, for many, forgiveness is a necessary step in the evolution of their consciousness. Where there is 'ought' against another because of self judgement, it seems to me a beneficial approach to take (forgiveness that is), at least until one ceases constant measuring and judging of the other and can 'see' reality more clearly.

 

Joseph

 

Personally i hold Mother Teresa in high regard because she usually said very little and practiced what she preached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I must admit (from my world view) this is fundamentally wrong. There is nothing to forgive. Fundamental particles, atoms and molecules are not unreasonable, irrational and self-centered. These are simply constructs of the brain and society.

 

Mother Teresa ... hmmn? There is point of view that she has been responsible for much suffering

 

And why don't I rush off to the nearest UCC? As an agnostic I don't feel much need and apparently there nearest one is four hours drive away. Well isuppose there might be one in Spokane which involves crossing the border and 2.5 h drive.

I gave the quote as I had found it. Yet, on thinking about it, it is not "often" my experience either. However, we are human and as such I am sure most of us have experienced such things both in others and ourselves at one time or another. I guess the message (IMO) behind the quote is not to hang on to such things.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mother Teresa’s quote is right on target. Any mature reflection of the reality of human behavior results in the same conclusion. We need look no further than ourselves to find unreasonableness, irrationality and self-centeredness, even if they are mere concepts.

 

We are more than the accumulation of atoms and molecules. When we operate at the Newtonian level of existence (and we all do), we are able to observe this in ourselves and others. Very few have realized the absolute nature of reality and human existence, so most of us react to our environment in ways which must be described in relative terms. A nihilistic view of reality refuses to admit this fact.

 

As Joseph alluded to, believer or not, things like love, compassion and forgiveness free us to experience reality unhindered by irrational and unreasonable concepts of self. That way, we are able to experience reality with more clarity. Ultimately, this proves beneficial to ourselves and those we interact with. In my opinion it is the nature of happiness.

 

Peace,

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom,

 

While irrational, unreasonable and self-centered indeed may be constructs of the brain and society and you may feel there is nothing to forgive as i also see at a 'deeper level' , in my view, for many, forgiveness is a necessary step in the evolution of their consciousness. Where there is 'ought' against another because of self judgement, it seems to me a beneficial approach to take (forgiveness that is), at least until one ceases constant measuring and judging of the other and can 'see' reality more clearly.

 

Joseph

 

Personally i hold Mother Teresa in high regard because she usually said very little and practiced what she preached.

 

Broadly I agree with you Joseph.

We all take on models of the universe (some have gods others don't). These models help us adjust to the universe. Father Christmas is for youngsters, to help them have a sense of compassion and sharing. For some of us we need interpretations of religious texts that vary from the complety literal to the completely metaphorical. Is one interpretation/model more accurate than another? I suppose it must be.

 

My particular poison is science, some interpret this as a nihilism in some form. For me it is anything but. Science for me instills a sense of wonder. How can one not look down a microscope at a four cell pre-zygote, a potential human being and not see the universe staring back at you.

 

And Mother Teresa? The criticism is pretty damming (Wikipedia) despite much of it being ochestrated by hitchens.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave the quote as I had found it. Yet, on thinking about it, it is not "often" my experience either. However, we are human and as such I am sure most of us have experienced such things both in others and ourselves at one time or another. I guess the message (IMO) behind the quote is not to hang on to such things.

 

My disagreement is primarily with the need to forgive, Pete.

 

As Joseph (I think) suggests ... forgiving people is better than say a grudge.

But fundamentally understading there is nothing to forgive is (at least for me) one step further on the path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My disagreement is primarily with the need to forgive, Pete.

 

As Joseph (I think) suggests ... forgiving people is better than say a grudge.

But fundamentally understading there is nothing to forgive is (at least for me) one step further on the path.

I think forgiveness is a necessary part of being human. I have often seen people wounded by past events and from previous relationships that have occurred in their lives. A process of forgiveness of themselves and others is often useful in the first step to reclaim ones life and allow a person to move on. I admire your enlightened ability to not to need to forgive but I have to say it is not something I find is a common aspect of human life or an ability that all have.

How does ones not need to forgive differ from already having forgiven all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think forgiveness is a necessary part of being human. I have often seen people wounded by past events and from previous relationships that have occurred in their lives. A process of forgiveness of themselves and others is often useful in the first step to reclaim ones life and allow a person to move on. I admire your enlightened ability to not to need to forgive but I have to say it is not something I find is a common aspect of human life or an ability that all have.

How does ones not need to forgive differ from already having forgiven all?

 

I am not sure it is enlightened as such Pete.

 

Say if someone is 'rude' to me. I can think they have done some wrong but I will let it pass and forgive them.

 

Alternatively ... I can understand that the universe has unfolded to cause them to say stuff that I have been caused to interpret as rude.

What's to forgive?

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can relate to both ways of seeing things. I think people have a choice unlike atoms which have no free will as to what they will or will not react with.

I sometimes need to forgive when I see a person who had a choice but still decided to hurt me anyway. Hanging on and not forgiving hurts me as well as impeding the potential of forming differing relationship with the other person.

I also work in mental health and I have often been sworn at, cursed and accused of many things but I can see that each person is unable so much to help themselves because of the personal hell they are going through and so I just let it role over me.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete

I agree that forgiving someone can be of a benefit for both parties.

But again in your mental health example, you seem to be accepting people for who they are and accepting your own responses for what they are.

 

Regarding free will. For some people free will is simply the ability to make a choice. Some might add consciously to that mix. But then that opens a huge pandora's box of what consiousness is, what is and is not conscious and for that matter does it even exist?

 

Our computers are making myriads choices every second. These choices definitely not free. Our brains or the molecules/atoms/ions etc in our brains are also making choices. Are these any freer than the electrons in a computer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that although all that is physical is made of atoms and energy waves when collected as in the human brain it is self aware and can make informed choices. I would therefore put us in a differing category to present computers. When the next computer comes unprogrammed in to the office for psychotherapy/counselling to resolve its personal issues then I may have to reevaluate my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that although all that is physical is made of atoms and energy waves when collected as in the human brain it is self aware and can make informed choices. I would therefore put us in a differing category to present computers. When the next computer comes unprogrammed in to the office for psychotherapy/counselling to resolve its personal issues then I may have to reevaluate my position.

 

 

Pete ... You and I had a fair amount of programming especially after we left our respective wombs. Don't kid yourself that you hit the ground running.

 

If we know how to interrogate a computer it can divulge a fair amount of information. It can tell you about what is in its memory if we know how to ask, My computer does display a certain amount of awareness of its surroundings and itself. Generally when it stops doing this (making informed choices) it is time to send it to recycling or perhaps to a therapist to clean up its memory registers.

 

But i take your point, I suspect a computer's experience is not as rich as mine.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choice and free choice or free will are indeed interesting topics to discuss and that we have discussed here before. It would be best done in another thread so not to get so far off the topic of this thread. It can be a real eye opener for those open to such a discussion. It also seems to me a most difficult topic to accept a different understanding than one might previously hold because it can expose what some call ego or self which seems to produce much internal resistance. But anyone is welcome to start a new thread if interested.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the UUA is not honest about their name, for they are neither Unitarian or Universalist. That's my point. We should be honest about who we are and are not. Yes, I know, that's just my opinion. :lol:

I am comfortable with identifying myself as a Unitarian Universalist. I don't feel this requires me to share the theology and world view of its founders (can these two be separated?) In very loose terms I understand the key ideas of the seeds of UU to be that God is One and All will be Saved).

It makes a lot more sense to me to affirm the contemporary principles of UU, which don't mention these ideas.

 

These principles, which include Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part ,and The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all stretch the earliest meanings of Unitarian and Universalism a great deal, but in my opinion an underlying continuity still exists.

 

For me identifying with a religious group involves coming to terms with its history. Overall I find it easier to accept the history of the UU than that of 'Christian' denominations I have attended (Anglican and Presbyterian). Likewise the behaviour of some of its members. For example, a PC oriented Anglican church wished to host a same-sex wedding (recently legalised in New Zealand); this was forbidden by the hierachy; the UU church was willing and able to perform the service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service