Comments on: Unitarian Universalism: A definition?

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:58:51 +0000

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.

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:17:35 +0000

No, definitely has to be Chutnianity.

By: John Cullinan

John Cullinan — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:06:12 +0000

Wikism/Wikiism? Wikianity? The Church of Wiki?

Wicca????

{backs slowly out of the room}

By: James

James — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:00:11 +0000

Wikism/Wikiism? Wikianity? The Church of Wiki?

By: Ole

Ole — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:35:39 +0000

Sounds like a Wiki to me :-)

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:53:13 +0000

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.

By: John Cullinan

John Cullinan — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:29:39 +0000

Chutney,

Would the idea of “open faith” correspond to “open source?”

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:59:07 +0000

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.

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:33:49 +0000

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.

By: Jess

Jess — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:03:37 +0000

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.