Ep. 80: Unitarian Universalism

[Emery]

Finally, someone even harder to pin down that Scott! We're glad to have Josh Hooper on this week to talk about UU. What do you think? Is the need for church so great that we ex-believers need to start another? Are atheists missing out on something by staying home Sunday mornings and watching reruns of Star Trek instead?

[NH Baritone]

Josh didn't list the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism. It's probably helpful in understanding the way they approach theological topics:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The thread running through these principles is that human beings and human relationships are primary. None refers to a supernatural being or belief, nor to any specific religious text or tradition. But each relates to how humans are to relate to one another and to the universe in which we live.

So, Emery, in this way, it seems that the UUA would fit the definition of a humanist organization. The same could be said for Ethical Culture, which grew out of the Jewish tradition (UUs have Christian roots), and which is represented by Ethical Societies that likewise resemble churches in the format of their meetings. (If you are interested, The St. Louis Ethical Society podcasts their "platform addresses", aka sermons.)

And to address your question about why people would feel a need to assemble together, here are some reasons:

• Even though they felt ostracized from the congregations they grew up in, some people enjoyed church as an experience of connectedness. (Oddly, I think that's the primary reason most people attend church. That would explain why so few Christians think deeply about their belief system.)
• Transitional life episodes often call for a community response. Thus births, marriages, and deaths have a UU community in which to mark these events. Unitarians, for example, began celebrating gay marriages long before they became legal. (When my partner passed away, the compromise with his Christian family was to have a UU minister conduct the memorial.)

Even though they are considered by the wider Christian church to be heresies, Unitarianism and Universalism are centuries-old belief systems. New England, where I live, is the hotbed of the UUA, and even small towns often have a UU congregation. UU churches nearby appear to be thriving, welcoming organizations. Many of them fly rainbow flags in front to indicate that GLBT persons are welcome to attend. (To be fair, many United Churches of Christ churches also fly rainbow flags for similar reasons.)

[NH Baritone]

I have posted this on the forums a couple of times before, but here's my own take on how atheists and believers can find common ground:

A Unifying Spirituality:

• Awe and wonder at the complexity and grandeur of the universe
  
• Acknowledgment that no one is self-created and that none of us is self-sufficient
  
• Attention to birth, life, and death as common experiences worthy of exploration
  
• Awareness that no single perspective contains all the truth

If we can accept these as common human experiences, then it can represent a foundation for mutual understanding.

[Exrev]

I think it was funny that Scott was asking why do you feel the need for a church. As though once you stop being a believer you stop being a social being. Of course people want to fellowship. I found many chrisitan people complain that church is just a social gathering. Also, emery makes a mistake that atheist stay home on sundays. I actually make a point to go to an atheist meetup every other sunday. And i love it. In fact, I like it better than church, although church was fun.

Although very little was mentioned that the UU was apart of the freethought movement. I haven't been to a UU church as an athiest, but i did go to an UU wedding once and I thought they we a bunch of hippies. The minister was wearing a tiedye robe lol and they had this burning incese thing that to me looked like a huge joint. I wouldn't mind checking out a UU church. However, i find my atheist group pretty good.

anyways.

[jburnha]

Hi Guys and Gals,

After listening to Ep. 80 I couldn't help but feel a bit of frustration due to my own experiences with the UU church. I am an open, optimistic atheist and have been always searching for an enlightening community.

Listening to Josh Hooper discuss the UU approach to religion and community was reaffirming of my experiences within the UU church. For three years I spent time in the UU church of Portland, Maine, and initially I found it stimulating and enjoyable. I found their group discussions, coffee hours and sermons to be encouraging and positive and for a while I fell for it. But just as Scott pointed to, "what unites these people?" was something that irked me. Ultimately, my conclusion was that this group of people, in their individuality, all needed to be correct, or needed to be not-wrong in their beliefs/path/approach-to-life (something I think correlates highly with "Political Correctness"). Within the context of this church, you could believe whatever you wanted and you would always be "accepted" and for me, that was ultimately both corrupting and hypocritical (the moment you accept someone who you believe is inherently wrong, or what they are doing is damaging to self or society, and you accept it because it is their choice, is just wrong), and so I chose to no longer participate.

I did not arrive at the UU church to preach my atheism, nor to argue about beliefs, but what I sought was a community where there was acceptance. empathy and encouragement. I did find acceptance but it was a very strange sort of, I-accept-you-because-there's-no-way-your-beliefs-can-threaten-my-own, which cultivated a perverse sort of disingenuous trust. All of Josh Hooper's comments, along with his hesitations and retorts, reminded me of the UU community and reminded of why I have stayed away ever since. I did enjoy the segment and keep'em coming.

Cheers all,
-John, your friendly neighborhood atheist

P.S. This is my first time on this forum and I hope my negativity doesn't come off as unbecoming. ...I am a humanist first and foremost and hold many of UU's principles close to my thoughts and actions, I just feel strongly about their community.

[Brad]

Hey John,
IMHO, your post is insightful and excellent!
Please visit here and post often!

And if your post would count as unbecoming negativity, some of the rest of us here are definitely going to burn in hell!
Especially me, perhaps.

FWIW, I, too, have experimented with UU involvement, and found many of the same very positive things you did.
But the group agreement to essentially suspend reason in favor of not rocking the boat of anyone's pet belief / worldview, whether neo-woo-pantheist-pagan or what have you, was just too much.
And years earlier, in Massachusetts, I'd visited a couple of UU congregations, one of which was almost entirely Christian in orientation, seeming only to reject the trinity notion, and the other almost exclusively a sort of ultra-liberal Jewish group. In the first I felt like I needed a Presbyterian haircut, and in the second I felt like I needed a Yamulke.
I guess the foundational element of suspension of reason is why they call it "church." (See what I mean? )

Anyway, I found ways to satisfy my social needs and my desires to be helpful to others elsewhere in secular society. How about you?

(Am hoping to listen to the podcast later today).

[mitchellmckain]

I listened to the broadcast and I have a few of my own observations to add.

I am sure that intellectually I would be very much at home with the pluralistic approach of the the UU church, particularly the philosophy behind giving a class entitled "building your own theology". As a parent I am particularly committed to the idea that religion is something you have to explore and define for yourself or it is completely worthless.

One of my dominant impressions of the church from attending its service long ago is that it is highly intellectual and I would even describe as having an academic atmosphere -- so much so that its sermons seem a lot like university seminars to me, though maybe that is specific to the church here in Salt Lake city which is in the neighborhood of the University and I am sure the majority of people at the church are part of the University community.

I was delighted by Josh's response of "land of misfit toys" to Emery's inquiry about what unites them. I would point out that for most churches there is a difference between the denominational vision and the actual church community which will form its own communal dynamic, especially in a church that is as non-credal and non-restrictive as the UU church. I am sure that Emery is right that there will be a kind of unspoken philosophy that restricts what is acceptable but part of that is going to be an unofficial product of the community itself rather than the denomination -- AND thus a little a harder to articulate since it is unspoken.

I would say that what becomes defining for a church in absense of doctrinal restrictions, which is typical to a lesser degree for evangelical churches are those of methodology and practice. In that regard and aside from its pluralistic committments, the UU is quite in line with mainline American church tradition. I guess that I don't find that format to have ever provided me with enough draw to keep me going there.

One of the things that stopped me going to my last church was a little bit too much vocal self-righteous support of a conservative political agenda and I think that I would find a similar problem with the UU church because of too much vocal self-righteous support of a liberal political agenda. This kind of self-righteous atmosphere in support of a pre-packaged agenda, whether political or religious is something that I don't have much tolerance for. I don't have to be in a group that agrees with me and I think that the majority at the church I go to now would not agree with me in regards to politics especially, but so far it lacks that vocal self-righteous atmosphere that I find so uncomfortable.

[Emery]

With respect to Josh and everyone that has the need to congregate, I just don't get it. Joining friends, or even a meetup group over beer to discuss and debate is fine, but scheduled meetings are too contrived for my taste. And what John describes is what I would expect. I just don't see a compelling unifying message. To me a UU meeting would be sort of like an Asian Lawyers Association meeting. With so many different countries and languages under the umbrella of "Asian," participants can't find much in common with most of the other members. Even misfit toys prefer other misfit toys that are more like themselves.

But, these are all comments from a member of the peanut gallery. I'd like to know what Josh and other UUers think. Maybe we should do another show to have Josh address these issues.

[Exrev]

With respect to Josh and everyone that has the need to congregate, I just don't get it. Joining friends, or even a meetup group over beer to discuss and debate is fine, but scheduled meetings are too contrived for my taste. And what John describes is what I would expect. I just don't see a compelling unifying message. To me a UU meeting would be sort of like an Asian Lawyers Association meeting. With so many different countries and languages under the umbrella of "Asian," participants can't find much in common with most of the other members. Even misfit toys prefer other misfit toys that are more like themselves.

But, these are all comments from a member of the peanut gallery. I'd like to know what Josh and other UUers think. Maybe we should do another show to have Josh address these issues.

Just move on. Give us something to discuss.

[mitchellmckain]

With respect to Josh and everyone that has the need to congregate, I just don't get it. Joining friends, or even a meetup group over beer to discuss and debate is fine,

LOL and yet you like a lot of other people participate in this forum rather regularly and even listen to a broadcast. Why you even put in some time and effort to make the broadcasts and maintain the forum. Someone has a vision to do something just like Emery had the vision to make these podcasts and this forum, and some people find what they do worthwhile and others do not. I really cannot see what is so different about the Unitarian Universalist Church except that Emery and myself are not interested in participating in that one. The point is, Emery, that you do not have to "get it". It is the people that participate who "get it". That you don't get it is perfectly natural -- it is the subjective nature of interest and significance. There are a lot of things that I don't get either, not at all: spectator sports, reality shows, Calvinism, and S&M. Why do people do these things? I cannot fathom it.

but scheduled meetings are too contrived for my taste.

"contrived"? is that perhaps another highly subjective perception?

And what John describes is what I would expect. I just don't see a compelling unifying message.

Think about it. Does this forum/podcast have a "unifying message" that compells you to do the work and others to participate? Are you sure that the UU church doesn't have a "unifying message" that is of a similar nature?

To me a UU meeting would be sort of like an Asian Lawyers Association meeting. With so many different countries and languages under the umbrella of "Asian," participants can't find much in common with most of the other members. Even misfit toys prefer other misfit toys that are more like themselves.

And so the members of UU do have common interests and some commonality of vision -- otherwise they would not be there.

But, these are all comments from a member of the peanut gallery. I'd like to know what Josh and other UUers think. Maybe we should do another show to have Josh address these issues.

I do not. I think the issue was already addressed and I really doubt that further discussion of this will not change the fact that you don't get it.

[Brad]

I agree entirely with Scott that if the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, then Christianity is not a useful enterprise.

(Maybe someone else can quote exactly how Scott phrased his conviction.)

[Andrea]

In the “search for Truth” that is discussed, interestingly and understandably, there was little discussion/definition of what “Truth” is. The proverbial phrase “What is Truth?” jumps out and we all know that can be discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I think Josh did a commendable job of bringing the idea home that Unitarian Universalists are a welcoming group “living the questions” and not expecting a concrete answer. But if there is no expectation of a concrete answer, then what is everyone searching for. I was intrigued by Josh's comment on Bishop Spong’s presentation of the Resurrection story and how it grows in its “magic” from Mark to John. Whatever happened with Jesus and the resurrection (because we weren’t there, and, as you said, “whether it was physical or not”), is only relevant to the “magic” it contains for Christians in what the resurrection means to them and the outcome of their lives. In other words, if they get something meaningful from it and can live a better life because of it…then that is the “magic” of belief and “truth” is irrelevant and arbitrary.
All of our beliefs are arbitrary and subject to change depending on what we need in our lives and how “happy” we are at the moment. If happiness is not a destination, but a path, then the search for “Truth” becomes the search to be happily fulfilled moment to moment. Gnostics may search for that truth outside of the self and find comfort in that. Atheists don’t look for it outside, but accept what is in front of them as true without spiritual reference or meaning outside of existing. Agnostics are not sure what the “Truth” really is but hold out for the hope that something is out there in a spiritual sense. Buddhists look at it all and shrug their shoulders with the idea that a big “?” is the vehicle for the journey on the path; We are all on the Path and that just the experience of searching is enough. That there is enlightenment in everyday experience… in the “here and now”… and each step along the way can be inherently valued as the “truth”.
There is an old phrase “That which you are seeking is who is looking.” Some people may scratch their heads and say “Huh?”, but it is as close to the search for truth as we get. We are ALL conditioned to believe what we believe from the day of our birth in whatever society we are born into and then we move outward and onward to live within that set of ethics, mores, and social constructs. Some stick to their conditioned beliefs like flies on flypaper and some move forward to question and seek answers within other conditioned belief systems. It is a search for belonging and acceptance and need for community, because it all reflects back on our basic questions: “What is the meaning of our existence?”, “Why are we here?”, “Where did we come from?”, and, “Where do we go when we die?” These are all questions that human beings, as conscious, ego driven entities, need to ask, but we will never “know” one absolute truth as an answer. So, again, the search, in and of itself, becomes the “truth” that we seek. The “Path” is merely that journey, the conscious/unconscious intention is to relieve suffering, and in that endeavor, find some happiness and the joy of interacting with others. Whether we go beyond the “truth” of ethics to a supernatural or Divine “Truth”, the path is really the same. We all need to feel safe, to be held, loved, fed, nurtured, stimulated, to feel that we belong to something. So, YES, we are all “heretics”, because we choose our reality based on what we seek to make us happy. We invent and reinvent the idea of God as a need to fulfill that goal. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant in the face of our search for the “truth”, because WE DON”T REALLY KNOW WHAT GOD IS OR ISN”T! We just want to experience life with a sense of meaning and joy and that involves interconnectedness with others…feeling that we belong…feeling our humanity as the source of our nurturing. As Buddhists, we ascribe to the idea that we are born with an inherent worth that can neither be added to, nor subtracted from by what we do or have. It is there by our very “being”. It is the understanding that we can move forward from that place of worth and that we can achieve things in our lives, but always with the idea that if we fail at our endeavors, we are not failures as human beings and our worth is still in place. This is in direct contrast to the notion that we have to look for acceptance and worth from a Divine “parental” source to make us okay. It is possible to live with the notion that there is a divine or spiritual source and still understand that our human worth is not dependant on getting a divine pat on the head for subscribing to a certain dogma or to be okay in this world or any other. It makes us take complete and undeniable responsibility for all of our actions and our lives, in relationship to the way we treat others, NOT to define our worth, but to affirm it.
There are so many “different permutations of beliefs”. But, again, just what are beliefs? Looking at our thoughts, we know that they are just that…thoughts…based on what we have been taught, our interactions with family and friends, our sense of belonging in a community, our experiences with the good ,bad and ugly…all define and condition our beliefs. When we CHOOSE to look at the way we think and understand that it is a CHOICE…that we can honestly move into a place of acceptance and tolerance and change the way we feel and act towards others. This does not exclude a Gnostic viewpoint, but rather enhances the “magic” of looking at the universe as an infinite playground of possibilities where “truth” is ephemeral and the day to day imaginings of the human mind meet in that playground where we find joy in recognizing one another as inherently worthwhile and just human.
Respectfully, Osho Andrea Minick Rudolph

[mrhvmd]

Dear Ms. Minick Rudolph,

I have read your post several times and I am struck by a couple of passages. I hope you will tolerate a question or three. First:

Whatever happened with Jesus and the resurrection (because we weren’t there, and, as you said, “whether it was physical or not”), is only relevant to the “magic” it contains for Christians in what the resurrection means to them and the outcome of their lives. In other words, if they get something meaningful from it and can live a better life because of it…then that is the “magic” of belief and “truth” is irrelevant and arbitrary.

Is “magic” in quotes because you consider it a euphemism? If so, what does it stand for? To my mind a sustaining underpinning for one’s religion (let’s use that as a working definition for Truth) based upon an event for which there is no evidence of occurrence outside of a couple of accounts out of a book that can be demonstrated to be historically inaccurate in many places, is shaky ground. The lack of historical confirmation and the fantastic nature of the claim lead a thoughtful person to reasonably conclude only one thing: “It never happened.” I can’t disprove The Resurrection of Jesus any more than I can disprove the reality of a teapot orbiting Mars (to paraphrase an example of Richard Dawkins) but I can find no compelling evidence to suggest that it ever occurred and, therefore, no compelling reason to base a world view upon it. As much as I respect John Spong (and I do) I don’t find much cache in his argument that an actual resurrection occurred, supporting this contention by pointing out that details of its description fall outside of social conventions of the time (a point that Josh said during the podcast, made him reconsider, at least momentarily, his own doubts of the veracity of the event). My question sounds cynical but I mean it sincerely: Does this come close to your own thoughts about “magic”?

To those who might jump down my throat because I have assailed a foundational tenet of their belief structure, I will awaken confederates to your army by tweaking another group, namely the Latter Day Saints. It’s amazing and amusing to me that something as wonderful as the LDS genealogical library could grow out of the fraudulent claims and ridiculous shenanigans of a 19th century polygamous, religious huckster. Whatever this universe is or isn’t, it sure is funny sometimes. Like, TOTALLY ironical.

Anyway, I digress. Or do I, since I’m not sure where I was going in the first place? Oh, I’ll not pester Ms. Minick beyond the one question, especially since I just monopolized a good 20 minutes of her time on Skype. k? k.

To Emery, a “need to congregate” seems to be what us human beans are all about. We congregate all over the place. Oh sure, you have your occasional Thoreau and the sporadic isolated monk in a cave, but most of us find something of value in the company of others. And many, like me, just love to banter back and forth over unanswerable questions. Such a diversion, I contend, is no more a squandering of time than, say, an hour of gawking at “Survivor” on TV. Perhaps, Emery, you would like to join (and consider this a formal invitation) a group of two of us, my dear friend David and me, who are, ourselves, resurrecting the lost 19th century practices of the Muggletonians. They gathered in ale houses (I think this meets at least one of your criteria for an acceptable congregation) and engaged in philosophical discourse. John Reeve, their founder, was as deluded as Joseph Smith, but much more benign. For more information, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggletonianism. Like all such groups there was, inevitably, dissention in the ranks and a falling out and arguments over propriety, etc., and, eventually, extinction.

I do enjoy congregation. The UU’s seem to pull it off rather well, judging from Josh’s description and information gleaned from their website. But all congregations eventually lead to some dissension and strife and I imagine the UUs are no exception. In the end, as Alan Watts said, there’s nothing left but to “have a good laugh.” I’ll just leave my first posting at that.

[Andrea]

Dear Mr. Haas,
My reference to magic and why I included it in quotes was from a comment Josh made in his interview when he paraphrased Bishop Spong
regarding the story of the resurrection: that "it grows in it's magic from Mark to John". As for my own views on magic...they are the same as anyone who understands the nature of illusion; it is all in how we percieve and concieve reality based on our conditioned thoughts... and they are ALL conditioned and therefore illusory. The magic of belief abounds in religion because it gives people hope. Not what I ascribe to, but that is my choice. That is why I also propose that the search for "Truth" is in the every day process of being human...not some lofty goal or destination. Again...what you are looking for is who is looking. Resurrection or no Resurrection...the belief system (the "magic")around it has sustained millions of Christians and led them to do both wonderful and heinous things in the name of Jesus.
Being a Buddhist, I understand that Buddha was just a guy who happened to come to his own conclusions about the nature of suffering and human experience. His musings and sermons have been translated, transformed, misunderstood, and mutilated over the centuries just as the passages in the Bible have. It is what we each take from the texts and the meanings that allows us pick and choose what seems to work in our lives and what gives us that sense of community and belonging...and in the end it is the illusory quality or the magic of those beliefs that sustains us in our search.

[mrhvmd]

Dear Ms. Minick Rudolph,

Thank you for your timely response.

"The magic of belief abounds in religion because it gives people hope. "

I spent a weekend with John Shelby Spong during which he talked about his own encounter with Christianity. A couple of very interesting recollections: One, Spong said that his own experience as a Christian did not give him comfort, solace or hope. In fact, he said, it raised questions and made him uneasy and constantly questing to dig deeper. The other point that Spong made was that the New Testment Synoptic Gospels were written in the Jewish midrosh tradition. The writers never intended the stories to be taken literally. What they did, in the fashion of midrosh, was to wrap the old stories around a new hero (Jesus) which conveyed to the Jewish listeners of the day the exalted status of the man. I'm not sure that Spong, himself, considered The Resurrection an historic event. So the "magic" of The Resurrection, Andrea (may I call you Andrea?), might be in it's symbolism of our own lives. Certainly I have, and I would wager most of us over fifty years old have, endured some encounter with life that required a resurrection to get beyond. In this permutation of Christianity, Jesus on the cross provided a model for us to follow: dying, perhaps repeatedly for some slow learners like me, for our own sins (sin = missing the mark), coming to acceptance and then being reborn. This paradigm seems to me not to be out of accord with a Buddhist philosophy. Would you agree?