I’m teaching high school religious education this year, and we’re starting the year off with the UUA’s “Articulating Your Faith” curriculum. Today we were talking about what we say when folks ask what UUism is.
The phrase that popped into the mind is “an open faith for religious humanists.”
Does that work? Does it leave anybody out?
Recently, I would have considered the “humanist” label too narrow. But in a recent congregational survey, it came up that “humanist” was the most popular choice of theological flavor, but that it seemed to be everyone’s second choice. That is, most people who chose “humanist” also chose something else (Christian or Buddhist or pagan or what have you).
I’m growing more and more fond of the term “religious humanist” since I first heard it. And I still find Lo-Fi Tribe’s thoughts on it very chewable:
I do believe humanity to be the author of our world’s religions — great and small. I don’t believe the fact at all diminishes the importance of religion. In fact, I think it actually increases it. Why would not a properly thinking humanist NOT consider religion to be EVEN MORE IMPORTANT if it IS truly a product of human rather than divine revelation?
I suppose the “religious” end of “religious humanist” might ruffle a feather or two. But if we are a prediminantly humanist religion, doesn’t that make us religious humanists by default? (I suppose the objection could be made for the “open faith” part of the definition too.)
What about “spiritual humanist” as an alternative? Better or worse? Seems a little more descriptive and evocative, though the way these folks us the term doesn’t mean what I thought it should mean. Throw “religious naturalism” into the mix, and the waters get muddier still.
Mostly, I want a definition that’s descriptively correct, but also proscriptively useful. It should say something not only of who we are and who we’ve been but also of who we wish to be. “An open faith for religious humanists” is the closest I’ve been able to get so far.
If we’re talking the broad humanism that inspired the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, why not?
I don’t like the term “religious humanist” as applied to the whole denomination, because it has a very specific definition and connotation.
I don’t think there’s an easy two word answer to “What is Unitarian Universalism?” besides, well, Unitarian Universalism. And that, of course, is the very issue with articulating our faith – it’s not the same for everyone and so we need to learn to transcend vocabulary somehow.
But to take a stab at it, I like to say that we’re a non-creedal faith based in liberal religious traditions, and the two core tenets of our faith are that the Spirit/God speaks in every language and that at the very core of all Creation is unconditional love that calls us into community and service to others.
Most of this language comes from the mouth of the Rev. Jennifer O’Quill at 2nd Unitarian in Chicago. I find it works well because it gets to the meat of what we are called to live more than what we don’t believe in.
I will often hear a sermon re: a spiritual topic and I’ll be offered a Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Christian and/or Islamic perspective on the topic. This is all fine and good but where – or what – is the Unitarian Universalist perspective on the topic? Why do we need to stretch so far to substantiate basic spiritual concepts?
Why is this so important? Well, it is a class – and consequently an institutional – issue. Profoundly, it is a Gospel issue. Members of the working and lower classes desire a center upon which they can place lives which already seem to be center-less. Non-religious security is a privilege of the rich (in our context). Religion has been the source of this center from the very beginning (Marx himself would even agree while striding off in a different direction). This is not a simple local truth – it is a universal fact. Religious liberalism will need to articulate its center if it is going to resonate with those members of our society who are not privileged enough to decide weather or not they need – or want – a center. The last thing people with very little security or center desire is a religion which requires – or seemingly requires – them to totally give up what little hope for security and center they possess.
On any given Sunday one can hear the words “Unitarian Universalism” tossed about as meaninglessly as the word “God” is tossed about by individuals and faith groups we (religious liberals) would charge with non-cognitive religious behavior. No, we are not so different.
I think there is a center “out there” which can be reached while not changing one iota of our present ideology re: pluralism.
Jess, I think the definition you mention is descriptively correct, but it’s not very sexy. Plus, it requires folks know what “non-creedal” and “liberal religion” mean.
Of course, the same might be true of my own definition. Though I think the “open faith” bit is a bit on the sexy side. ;-)
I’m not entirely happy with the connotations of “religious humanist” myself, but I’m wondering if we could widen that tent, along the lines of what John has suggested.
Chutney,
Would the idea of “open faith” correspond to “open source?”
I love that idea! There’s pre-existent content, anyone can add to it and improve it, and it’s for the public good. Very nice.
Sounds like a Wiki to me :-)
Wikism/Wikiism? Wikianity? The Church of Wiki?
Wikism/Wikiism? Wikianity? The Church of Wiki?
Wicca????
{backs slowly out of the room}
No, definitely has to be Chutnianity.
As I keep chewing on this, I’m wondering if “open faith” could be taken to mean something along the lines of “radical welcome.” That would definitely give us a direction in which to head.