«
»

What I’m actually missing

08.08.03 | 10 Comments

After reading the several replies to my post on Unitarian Universalist liturgy, I now know that there is stuff out there, and stuff is still being written. I’m going to chalk my ignorance up to being a (relatively) new UU.

But I’ve also realized that what I miss (now that I’m Unitarian Universalist) are the image-rich lectionary and lectionary-based collects, not just “liturgy in general.” I miss the weekly art that’s possible, the changing colors, the changing focus. When I was in the ministry, the discipline of moving week to week from one set of texts to another was fulfilling. I miss writing a worship service around them.

Scott Wells raises some important concerns about my call for a UU lectionary.

1) Scott is completely right that the Purposes & Principles are not intended to represent any UU “theological core.” We do not, after all, have a creed. And we shouldn’t.

But I suspect I am not alone in finding the P&P a deeply meaningful document. It was key, in fact, to my becoming UU most of three years ago now. As Scott notes, the P&P have grown to be something more than “a census of competing factions.” If Scott is right, doesn’t this represent a sea change in Unitarian Universalism? If so, UUs should be having a large-scale conversation about what this means. Perhaps Philocrites can help us out.

Like Scott (but, I trust, for different reasons), I am not interested in canonizing the “self-selecting, materialistic atheist or wide theist, world religion-ism” that is so common among UUs today. I judge the nuances and caveats of the P&P to be a counterweight to what as an evangelical I would have called “cheap grace.”

2) The formative nature of the process of putting together a lectionary is one thing I’d be after. Perhaps something of that easy “world religion-ism” and cheap individualism would fall by the wayside as specific candidate texts were cussed and discussed. I’d hope that the end result world actually represent the full diversity of UU beliefs, and that those beliefs would not be forced into a false consensus.

3) One pastor I used to work with was setting out to write his own “Lectionary D” to include the Gospel of John when we last crossed paths. So I have no illusions about the staying power of alternative lectionaries. For my own purposes, alternative lectionaries are a study tool and a spiritual discipline. And I wouldn’t want to impose my own spiritual needs on others.

But adult religious education seems to be sorely lacking in UU circles, at least to this recovering fundamentalist. Is it any wonder then that the movement is troubled by easy world religion-ism and cheap individualism? A good, diverse lectionary could help counter those trends as it cycled through the seasons and years. UUs would start to get acquainted with ideas and texts that did not easily affirm what they already understood themselves to believe. Perhaps that easy world religion-ism would become an informed world religion-ism, in the least.

(Since the lectionary and lectionary-based collect are what I’m missing, I’m going to challenge myself to write a collect a week based on one of John Beverly Butcher’s lectionaries, without resorting to traditional God™-talk. If I’m somewhat happy with them, I’ll start posting them here under a new category.)

10 Comments


«
»