define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);
I am fascinated and challenged by your blog and I’m gratified to know you sometimes read mine. It may interest you to know that one of my candidates for a blog name was Gentleman’s Relish. Now, I feel I may have missed my chance to be part of a condiment web ring. Alas!
The connection you make between avoidance of God-talk conflict and cautious use of liturgical forms makes sense, but then I also think that fear of conflict leads UUs to de-emphasize theology for fear of discovering differences in belief. It is remarkable to me, for example, that after a year of seminary I still don’t know the theological orientations of most of my class. I think this is unfortunate, since where beliefs are always implicit they are rarely challenged. And challenging our own beliefs seems to me to be central to the pursuit of truth, which has heretofore been a central value in our religion.
Perhaps one of the reasons for the paucity of original UU liturgical materials is that we are so willing to appropriate and revise the materials of other faiths. I know that recasting words has a long tradition in hymnody, but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea. I like singing unaltered hymns in their historical context or not at all. If we can’t stomach the words of old hymns, it is a signal that it is time to write new ones.
I cannot agree that reason and individualism don’t lend themselves to high poetry. Some of my sacred texts are the Gilgamesh Epic, Byron’s Manfred, and Goethe’s Faust. All celebrate the human striving toward reason and individualism and none are exactly shabby as poetry. If we lack contemporary examples, I think the reason must be something besides the sympathies of the theme.
Thanks for sharing your interesting observations. I look forward to reading more of them.
]]>