Juame of Noticias Unitarias Universalistas points me to a salvo by Davidson Loehr called "Why ‘Unitarian Universalism’ Is Dying." A few notes on what I find there.
1) Loehr argues that UUism is a new religion invented within our lifetimes, and that the historical predecessors we claim (Channing, Parker and Emerson) have absolutely nothing to do with UUism besides historical accident. UUism was invented, he claims, by Forrest Church and John Buehrens and is embodied in the Purposes & Principles, which function practically as a creed. He labels the P&P vacuous.
I’ve yet to see how the P&P are vacuous. I find them, together with the Living Tradition piece that usually follows, to be a helpful enough community statement of faith. If Loerh thinks he can do better, he should.
2) Loehr points out, again and again, that those very "predecessors" were not all that radical and were only saying what other, better theologians (Schliermacher, Feuerbach) had already said earlier. This, I think, is indisputable in the case of Channing and Parker. Cultural luminary Harold Bloom would vehemently disagree with Leohr on Emerson’s account.
3) Loehr points out the claims of the major religions that they represent a "narrow path," a contrast to UUism’s anything-goes path. He notes that in the 1970s UU parents started to complain that they’re children didn’t know what to say when asked what they believed.
4) This history was enabled by a certain historical moment:
But another reason religion wasn’t missed was that, in the 1950s and 1960s, the spirit of liberal religion couldn’t compare in relevance, excitement or moral clarity with the spirit of liberal politics. For good reasons, the “salvation story” of America’s religious liberals became the salvation story of political liberalism. It was a very distinctive story, with a dark side still seldom acknowledged.
The best example of this story was probably the civil rights movement of the 1950s. After Rosa Parks wouldn’t give up her seat on the bus, many white liberals followed outraged black leaders into the civil rights movement. While the movement was mostly organized and led by black people, it’s fair to say that it would not have succeeded without the support of liberal whites. They rightfully felt virtuous for their good efforts, and a new salvation story took shape. The role of liberals would be to speak up for victim groups, to accept the gratitude of their chosen victim groups, and to feel virtuous for their efforts.
He then makes explicit the implicit theology of US political liberalism, which he sees as UUism’s de facto theology:
1. Liberals select a few token groups among the many possible: blacks, women, gays and lesbians, etc. (In Marxist terms, these are our token proletariat groups.)
2. They define these groups as “victims” (rather than, say, survivors or warriors).
3. In return, they give special attention to these token “victims” within their small circles of influence.
4. The “victims” are presumed to feel grateful for this …
5. … and the liberals feel virtuous.
This remains the salvation story of political liberalism — and ideologically-driven “anti-oppression” schemes, which remain willfully unaware of the self-serving oppression of their own schemes.
This salvation story worked pretty well in the 1950s. But the individual rights movements of the 60s and 70s began to seek identities as survivors and warriors rather than victims, and they neither wanted nor allowed white liberals to define them as victims or speak for them… The salvation story of political liberals requires victims. That’s why it’s such a dehumanizing myth.
This is as damning an indictment as I’d ever hope to level against it myself. This, my friends, will preach.
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, it’s time to shit or get off the pot.
I am new to Unitarianism and “UU-ism” and the more I aquaint myself with it the more I realize that my preconceptions of what Unitarianism are closer to what it was 150 plus years ago,and I have found the amorphousness of post merger UU beliefs frustrating and difficult to accept. The seven principles do strike me as vacuous, I’m sorry to say– they sound like the verbiage you’d find at the website of a large corporation’s diversity office. I believe that if UU actually demanded more of its adherents it could grow its flock.
I have to think about some of the claims some more, but in terms of at least philosophy Emerson’s affect on the direction of american thought is far more profound than almost any figure of the 19th century. I’m UCC so not sure about assessing UU thought though the idea of creative interchange seems to be one way of providing a real religious center amidst the religious diversity of the UU and a center not based on a list of political beliefs, but with that which corrects, expands, challenges our ideals and visions of the good.
Dwight,
I think Henry Nelson Wieman’s concept of “creative interchange” is exactly the way to go.
Hugo,
I suppose principles one and seven provide the context for me, and I have a hard time seeing those in any corporate statement. Plus, I’m moved that someone would dare to call two through six religious principles. But aside from that, I think it’s the Living Tradition part that gives the P&P its fullest religious meaning (for me). Without that, I think we’d be treading water.
Yet I have to agree with “amorphous.” We need a heart to our principles (whatever they may be), and I see little evidence of that.
I’ve joined UUism to a certain extent because it is the least common denominator. I am a theist, but the more orthodox religions have dogmas I object to. I am uncomfortable being a part of a group where I have a mental reservation, “I don’t believe that.” Among UU’s, I believe what are in the principles, and MORE. Sometimes I feel things are lacking, but I don’t feel the dissonance when there is some dogma I wish was lacking.
I absolutely believe the seven principles to be vacuuous. After all, do they say ANYTHING that any reasonable person doesn’t believe anyway.
They give slighly more definition than “We’re a religion that believes that Love is good and hate is bad,” but again, only slightly more. Yet people use them to define us all the time.
No wonder no one knows what we’re about!
CC
who shouldn’t even get started on this topic.
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.
Pimped up too. ;-)
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.
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.”
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.
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, it’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.
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…)
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.
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.
[…] (I also quoted this earlier in this post here.) […]