09.19.06
A Screed on Creeds
When I saw the Speaking of Faith episode entitled The Need for Creeds I just knew I had to listen to it. I often like to test and challange my beliefs and perhaps nothing could be more challenging to a UU than to assert that creeds are good for you. The format of SoF is an hour interview with a certain person about a certain topic. The interviewee in this episode was Christian historian Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan.
Pelikan asserts that when one removes a creed, it must necessarily be eventually replaced by another creed. He quoted Emerson’s Divinity School Address, in which he said to the Unitarian seminarians, “So let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those which are sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil. … Yourself, a newborn bard of the Holy Spirit — cast behind you all conformity, and acquaint people at first hand with Deity.” This is a precursor to the UU principle of the free and responsible search, which now guides all UU congregations. His response to Emerson was that “The only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.”
According to Pelikan once one raises children and must teach them, all (s)he has to teach them is what (s)he believes, which over time becomes, itself an institutionalized creed. I disagree. Even before any of us had ever heard of Unitarian Universalism, my Zen Buddhist father and lapsed Catholic mother did not raise me in their faith traditions (or lack thereof). That is not to say that they did not share with me their insights or those of teachers that inspired them. They raised me how any UU parent would raise their child; not to believe something just because they do, but to think and experience for myself. This is what makes our tradition so different from others and difficult for others to grasp.
I would not go so far as to say we must refuse the models which others offer us, as Emerson says. I personally like to collect models, and examine them at my leisure. One may be able to purchase pieces of art, but can never buy the actual art itself. So it is with our theological models. The models which have been fashioned by other hands, but the only one I can truely own is the one I have made myself.
Unsurprsingly, I’m not the first UU to respond to this show. Several other UUs had some insightful responses to Pelikan’s assertions. It’s too bad that Pelikan has passed away. A conversation between him and a modern Unitarian Universalist would certainly have been a sight to see.
09.17.06
Approaching our Theological Diversity
I thought it would be quite appropriate to end my hiatus with a discussion about the Water Gathering/Water Communion/Ingathering of Water service. Last Sunday my church put on a pretty good one incorporating four bowls at each of the cardinal directions to symbolize the direction from which their water (or most of it, anyway) comes. I actually was told ahead of time how this would work by the minister during a discussion about starting a campus ministry at my school, but that’s a topic for entry. He told me that he was glad that four people of very diverse theological backgrounds would be helping at each of the four directional bowls.
Elseblog there has been thoughtful discussion of class tension within UUism and how they are demonstrated at Water Communion, but on my mind during the service were the theological rifts. During our talk, the minister noted that part of the reason he was called to our congregation was because of his mystical leanings, and that our congregation has more of a humanist bent to it. I think that was a good idea on the part of the Search Committee. I remember hearing now, I don’t recall if it was our minister that said it, but for whatever reason someone recounted one Sunday about a UU minister that was asked his/her personal theology. (S)He said something to the effect of, ‘If you’re mostly Christian, then I’m a humanist. If you’re mostly humanist, then I’m Pagan.’ OK, I think I greatly reinterpreted whatever the original statement was, but I believe that’s true to the spirit of the statement.
I haven’t yet read the Commission on Appraisal’s Engaging our Theological Diversity but at the outset it seems to me like we are too reserved in general about our individual beliefs. One might think that if people were more vocal about their beliefs that it might cause an even greater rift within UUism, but I don’t think it would, if we go about it the right way. I think that in our culture we have been conditioned to be wary of those whose worldviews differ significantly from our own. Many UUs, perhaps most, have grown up with people shoving their beliefs down their throat. We are all aware how unhelpful, and even destructive this is. So it is out of genuine compassion that we keep our religiousity hidden, even in at church. The problem is that this isn’t really a genuine approach either.
Right now I think that the best approach is two-fold: We must give others the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their expression of their religiousity (or lack thereof) is not intended as a challenege to ours. We must also be upfront about who we are and what we believe and do not believe, but to do so in a way which is not intended to be threatening to challenge others. This is not to say that we should not have our assumptions challenged at all. On the contrary, I think that is one of the most important things about liberal religion. But there are those that are not comfortable with this, and church is the last place one should have to feel defensive. Whatever one’s theological position, church should be a place were we can lower our defenses and rejoice.
