Comments on: Where the beef?

By: makingchutney.com » Washing liberal trash

makingchutney.com » Washing liberal trash — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:32:12 +0000

[…] (I also quoted this earlier in this post here.) […]

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 10 May 2005 20:37:01 +0000

Not yet, no.

Well, now that I’ve said that, I have seen it among our community’s youth. But that’s not enough for me. I want to see it be the rule and not the exception in the larger congregation.

By: Jay Sennett

Jay Sennett — Tue, 10 May 2005 20:22:22 +0000

chutney,
Have you found the liberal-theology-as-victim at work in your community?

Certainly there are still elements of it everywhere. I guess it is not how we choose to focus our attention. (I’m in Michigan now. Different congregation. Filled with good people doing radically good things).

Thank you for your very provocative blog. I’m still thinking about many of your posts.

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 10 May 2005 15:34:35 +0000

Jay, thank you for your concrete counter-example. At least at your community, another theology is in play. My hope is that this will be the case across UUism, but I fear that it's just not the case. But more examples from other UU communities would convince me that I'm wrong. (Hint, hint...)

By: Jay Sennett

Jay Sennett — Tue, 10 May 2005 13:41:28 +0000

Chutney wrote: I challenge those who disagree with his assessment of liberal theology (the last two blockquotes in particular) to show, concretely, that this is not the case. Moreover, I challenge them to show that a counter-theology that is more life-serving is actually in place. By your fruit you will know them. As grandpa said, itâ€s time to shit or get off the pot. I agree with Loehr's assessment of liberal theology. As a transsexual and raised from birth UU, I still see well-meaning people speaking on my behalf. However, I disagree with chutney's statement that a counter-theology that is more life-serving is not in place. Why? If I were to base my answer solely on what goes on at the UUA, I might agree. The fact of congregational polity, one that I see is not discussed much on the blogs I've read so far, has shown me, in the churches in which I have belonged, that there is a more life-serving theology at work. Reverand Terasa Cooley, formerly of the first Unitarian Church of Chicago, guided us through the process of moving from a victim centered theology to a survivor/warrior empowered one. When I came out as a female to male transsexual, I was afforded dignity and respect and with the thought that I knew what was best for me. Perhaps it was the congregational history of First UU. We integrated before Truman integrated the Armed Services, housed Vietnam War deserters and sent one of the first African American women to the National Board. Reverend Cooley also worked tirelessly to include spanish speaking peoples within the walls of UU churches. I don't understand why the principles are "creedal," "not creedal," or "covenantal" or not. If creed is used in the form of its second meaning, the seven principles are a statement of belief or opinions. I'm not sure everyone attending UU churches believes them. Perhaps some come to make new friends and have coffee. I was brought in UU tradition that taught me I got out of UU what I put into it; that every religion, even UU, is incomplete; that the more capable I am of living with ambiguity the more successful I will be in life; that life is an open-ended, rich proposition; and that communities of people slogging along with me may make the ride easier, or at least more fun. UU is not monolithic. Congregational polity ensures that it is not. And I'm glad. In my adult life I've had to revisit my committment to UU. Congregations have failed me. People annoy me. And dammit! I want the congregation to tell me what to do!...Until I don't want to do what they ask... When I realized that I must recommit to the principles in the same way that the principles recommit (if you will) to me, then the dynamic reality of congregational life opened up for me. I agree with Doug. Our committment to is to each other. If UU is "failing," then I argue that failure is as a result of our failing committment to each other.

By: Doug Muder

Doug Muder — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:10:45 +0000

I really have to get my “What is Unitarian Universalism?” piece on my web site soon.

I think Loehr completely misses the point of a non-credal religion. Yes, the P&P suck as a creed — because they aren’t a creed. Duh.

UUism is covenental, not credal. We have a commitment to each other, not to a set of beliefs. Another example of a covenantal institution is marriage. Like marriage, those entering the covenant aren’t promising to believe some list of things, but they are making pledges to each other. But a marriage isn’t vacuous just because there is no creed associated with it.

In my church, we say a unison affirmation every Sunday in which we pledge “to seek the Truth in Love”, among other things. Taken seriously, the idea that I’m going to help all these people in their search for truth,and give my help in the spirit of love — that’s a challenging spiritual path.

By: Sister Sword of Looking at All Sides of the Question

Sister Sword of Looking at All Sides of the Question — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:01:38 +0000

I think the P&Ps are a statement of beliefs, but not in the same way that most “creeds” are. It does NOT state what to believe about God, afterlife, etc. I like that it’s loose, because it’s a LOT less divisive than most religions. In my church, we have members who identify their beliefs as Christian, agnostic, Muslim, atheist, pagan, and more. I love the diversity. We are, though, united in our belief to make the world a better place to live.

BTW, I came to this forum looking for the person who posted the national (international?) Google ad for “unitarian jihad”. I’d like to know how it’s doing – clicks, cost, etc. I have a MD/DC one which I posted a day or so before yours and it’s only cost me 25 cents so far (5 cents per click for 5 clicks since April 12).

109,000 results on a Google search for “unitarian jihad” now.

Sister Sword of Looking at All Sides of the Question
(aka Sister Broadsword of Reasoned Discussion)
Click to feed an animal in need (no charge to you)
“Be the change you wish to see.” Gandhi
Pope John Paul II: “Gandhi was much more Christian than many people who
say they are Christians.”

By: Edward Frost

Edward Frost — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:36:40 +0000

As the author of the book, “With Purpose and Principle,” I naturally disagree with comments that the P&Ps are “vacuous.” The very first Principle is a radical departure from traditional Christian theology in that it declares that human beings are not born into sin but are both “of inherent worth and value.” Tell that to a Christian Fundamentalist.

By: chutney

chutney — Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:59:14 +0000

Pimped up too. ;-)

By: chutney

chutney — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:18:03 +0000

Well, again, I don’t think principles one and seven are things everyone believes. And the rest probably are not either.

For example, I would consider the average evangelical pretty reasonable. But yet they wouldn’t sign on. Are they reasonable or are only those who we agree with reasonable? Because that would mean resigning all those who disagree with the P&P to some sort of “hell of unreasonability,” and I’m not willing to do that (not today, anyway). And then we really would have a creed on our hands. ;-)

I think maybe we need to spend some more time hanging out with some reasonable exclusivists to be able to realize what it is that’s radical in the P&P. I think they need pumped up a bit, to be sure, but they’re still “good news” to a lot of folks.