I want to take some time out to discuss at length a Unitarian Universalist sacred story which Fausto recently proposed in comments over at Philocrites.
First of all, I want to thank Fausto. The story is beautifully written and thoughtful. And I want to thank Philocrites for calling attention to it. It’s an excellent start for discussion. Fausto’s story was written as a blog comment and was probably not written in hopes of a fisking. I mean this post to fall into the “saving hermaneutics” that Mike Hogue has called for, and I hope that it has.
Before I chew the meat of Fausto’s story line by line, I want to talk about the whole. It is, on the whole, a morality tale. It starts with something of a Pauline sin list, albeit a Unitarian Universalist one. It then goes on to say what we should be about. It closes by saying we would be better off if only we would return to what we should be about. There is a prescription, an implied fall, and exhortation to return to the true path.
As such, it mimics a typical form of prophetic discourse, so Fausto is in good company here. But we don’t need a morality tale. Morality tales don’t have good plots. They are mere-stories, not plot-stories. We don’t need a Unitarian Universalist version of the Prodigal Son, a story that says it will all be alright if we will just come home. We need a sacred story that compels us to risk harm for the sake of another, to venture new, bold things that embody our message to the world.
Now on to the meat:
What we are is what we have always been: the liberal Puritans. We are the First (literally!) Churches in Plymouth, Salem and Boston, and their hundreds of affiliated daughter congregations, still alive and still offering the same vibrant and valid witness that we have for almost 400 years.
I have to be honest: this ex-pat Oklahoman just doesn’t give a damn. And I won’t convert to Yankee.
This isn’t a Southern thing: Oklahomans are not Southerners (thank you very much). But it wouldn’t matter if we were. Yankeeism is a religion unto itself. I still shake my head at a poster I saw at the Harvard Coop. It was a map of the world according to the “New England mindset.” The great bulk of the planet fell between the Massachusetts Bay and the Hudson River. In the far distance stood LA and San Francisco, with a whole lot of nothing in between.
Fausto’s story fall into this trap of New England specialness. Further, it ignores Universalist contributions to our history and European and Roman contributions that go back to Origen and Pelagius. Unitarian Universalism didn’t start in New England. The world doesn’t need Yankeeism.1 It needs Unitarian Universalism.
We stand for redemption by the unlimited power of love rather than a selective gift of grace…
Fair enough, though this former Wesleyan would prefer the “unlimited abundance of grace” over the “unlimited power of love.” Grace grounds the world, makes all things possible, whether we choose to love or not. Besides, the cultural baggage of “love” is good reason to set that word aside theology-wise until it cools off some.
…by the power of self-improvement rather than the magic of special doctrines…
The unlimited abundance of grace meets Pelagius‘ teaching that we each have been gifted with the power to do good.
…by the diligent nurture of righteous character rather than the passive acceptance of God’s favor…
I’m wary of a Pietism that I fear lurks behind this line, but it is good all the same. I’d prefer “through the active acceptance of god’s unlimited favor to all” over “rather than the passive acceptance of god’s favor.” I want it to tell me what makes the dilligent nurture of righteous character possible.
…by the unceasing search for knowledge, because there is no divine principle which can be contrary to truth…
Change “knowledge” to “wisdom” and I’m on board.
…by diligent and selfless service to society, especially its least fortunate members, in humble gratitude for and stewardship of whatever earthly blessings and privileges we may enjoy.
The liberation theologian in me screams in pain at the fortunate/humble/blessed/privileged terminology. We are rich, by global standards, because we benefit from systems of oppression we ourselves did not create. I’d be more in tune with a UU version of the “preferential option for the poor” here.
Our history repeatedly shows that the farther away we wander from this, our core identity, the weaker and more enervated we become. But by the same token, in each generation we discover anew that this core is what makes us who we are, and who we have always been, and that when we return to it, we find renewed strength.
Here the morality tale comes to a close. I see nothing here of the theological ruptures in our theological history—Channing, Parker, Emerson, the Humanist Manifesto. Our core identity has grown and changed with time, in fits and starts. It is a bold, dangerous history as often as it is a comforting, reassuring one. Our sacred story must remind us of that and push us to renew Unitarian Universalism again and again.
Full disclosure: If memory serves, Fausto lives in Tennessee.[↩]
Memory doesn’t serve.
CC
Feeling cranky, are we?
Most of us aren’t Yankees. So? It’s a regional culture. That our faith traditions have deep roots there, and spread from there doesn’t mean that those beliefs are Yankee. Doesn’t even mean that they were Yankee, in any distinct or unique manner. There were Unitarian Churches in the South early on.
As a case in point, while modern demographics would lead one to believe that the Baptists are distinctly Southern, that’s not their roots, either. In fact… Baptist roots are as Yankee as UU roots are. Which you can say is either mostly, or not really.
I’m a Westerner, and a Californian. All you folks east of the Rockies have cultural characteristics I find strange, peculiar and off-putting. I’m not converting, either. But it doesn’t bear on my being a UU. I’ve seen similarly thin, joking maps of the world, looked at from Los Angeles, or Dallas. Or Chicago, or…. I’ve always seen them as recognitions of the bounds of the cultural group’s parochialism, tongue in cheek.
Our whole tradition’s taproots are, as Fausto observes, those of liberal Protestantism. Radical, liberal Protestantism, in fact. I’m not a Christian, but I have no discomfort with that fact.
I understand your preference. Here’s why I reject it; it uses language which is narrower and more obscure, and off-putting (something that ought to be corrected, but there it is) to many. “Grace” is a term that most people don’t understand. What’s it mean? Its Christian definition “a state of sanctification by God” is exclusionary to those many folk in our fold who aren’t sure they buy the idea of God, or do, but don’t buy the idea that it’s God’s action or will that’s central. Perhaps a good UU defintion of “grace” would help. But until it’s hammered out and in common UU use, I think we need to be wary of letting our own preferences and theological views color what is an attempt to describe the core theme of our faith. I don’t think that grace is there, myself. Or if it is, it’s in a Universalist context and isn’t selective, and is therefore almost moot for the purpose of discussion. What’s redemptive is love. It may be redemption because God’s love mandates universal grace and salvation, or it may be because human love an be refined and expanded to achieve that end. The two may be identical… in the end.
I’ll skip the next point. It depends on the wording change, it appears, in any case.
Same critique. It defines a huge part of current UUs out of the faith. Many of us don’t accept God. As for the latter, I’ll simply point out that Fausto’s remarkably brief post (given all it included) couldn’t have done there and remained even imaginably brief. What makes the diligent nurture… possible? Diligence. Self-application. Intent. A healthy dash of humility, and a community of like-minded folk willing to provide criticism to each other, along with some reading of the works of those who’ve devoted themselves to the same objective for millenia.
I’ve no objection to adding “wisdom,” though I’d add it without excising “knowledge.” How does one know whether wisdom is actually wisdom or simply self-supportive poppycock?
While I won’t argue with your point drawn from liberation theology and the facts of history, again, you’re looking for what would be a far more intricate and lengthy writing, rambling off into self-criticism. We are fortunate–and the facts are that that great fortune is based, as in the traditional formulation, on a great crime. It’s not possible to just wave one’s hand and make it all right, or better. But the formulation sets out the key point that fortune–whatever its origin–imposes an ongoing obligation to work on behalf of those who are less fortunate. I can’t disentangle myself from all the oppressive systems that benefit me, just as my forebears couldn’t disentangle themselves from the system that oppressed them. The irony being that they’re the same system, really, is pretty bitter. I can work to slowly dismantle that system, and do so, and feel it to be an absolute obligation. I do feel fortunate–blessed, lucky–to have been born where and when and as I was. I guess I fail to see what the real beef you have is. Yes, the picture is more intricate and complex than Fausto’s presentation of it. But it does capture the key point, to my mind.
I’ll dispute your closing. I think that the great historical disputes and ruptures you refer to are completely consistent with what Fausto presented. They’re examples of what happens when perspectives and understandings about those fundamental, ultimate, divine truths make less gradual and more abrupt leaps “forward.” People are discomfitted and there’s a period of struggling to close the gap.
I rise to speak in defense of Chutney.
UUism has evolved so much. Old school Unitarianism (and by this I mean pre-WWII UNITARIAN-ism) was Emersonian transcendentalism. Universalism has a rich tradition all itself that varied from region to region.
With the merger in 1961, things changed quite considerably. That’s a master’s thesis and a half in itself so I’ll stop right there.
And I think what Mr. Chutney was pointing out was that the powers at 25 Beacon Street often can’t seem to realize that there IS a world beyond New England and Boston.
UUs from region to region have a slightly different flavor. The West has its own strain. The upper midwest its own. The Northeast its own. The Southwest and the South are relatively new districts so they’re undergoing growing pains of their own.
But by in large UUism is at a sort of impasse. It knows it needs to be evolving somehow, someway but no one really knows in what direction it should go. There are a few conflicting theories but by in large everyone is collectively scratching their head and their backside.
The problem is that UUism hasn’t defined itself outside of 1968 and outside of the Civil Rights Movement.
Chutney, I won’t dispute your objections to the catalog of specific propositions that I articulated. (In fact, I share some of the same objections myself.) However, nothing you can say diminishes the truth that all these propositions are historically, authentically ours, and constitute some of our little denomination’s most characteristic and original contributions to the wider religious discussion. Likewise, nothing you can say diminishes the truths that most of the original old Puritan churches that still survive belong today to the UUA, and that their unique character established a pattern that has since spread throughout the rest of the denomination.
We may have long ago abandoned Calvinist theology, but in many other ways we retain traits and attitudes that were characteristic of our oldest congregations even when they were young, even if we don’t realize it or care to admit it to ourselves. (But no, “Yankee” attitudes are not the attitudes I mean.)
Ralph Waldo Emerson, by the way, represented the sixth generation in a direct family line of ordained Standing Order ministers dating back to the mid-1600’s. He was both as Puritan and as liberal as anyone could be in his time, in the sense that I’m using the words.
I completely understand the historicity of the liberal Puritanism. I don’t dispute that. What bothers me is letting that be the sum total of our heritage.
I get the impression from your write-up that we have always been liberal Puritans, that we always be liberal Puritans, and that we must return to being liberal Puritans. Perhaps this isn’t what you intended. But that’s how it looks to this Okie.
I’m still not convinced that Yankee attitudes don’t permeate UUism. To push back: How is the UU ethos different from the New England ethos?
ogre,
Pot and kettles and all that, eh?
Yes, the posters are tongue and cheek. Except for the people I met who honestly saw the world that way.
Point take on grace, but I think it’s about as well understood as love, with less baggage. Perhaps we could settle on compassion?
I don’t accept “God” either. I’m something of an agnostic panentheist. I’m just trying to push the language.
I don’t understand why you dismiss universalistic grace so easily. Your understanding of what “grace” and “salvation” might mean seem rather limited.
Your understanding of diligence looks a lot like bootstraps theology. If people could improve themselves simply by trying hard, the world would be perfect by now. You seem to acknowledge this when you speak of disentangling yourself from oppressive systems.
On the “less fortunate:” Talk like that is patronizing. It reaks of noblesse oblige.
On ruptures: We need to be more discomfitted.
Fausto, to push back a little more: what is the UUism’s critique of the New England ethos? And how is that central to UUism?
I don’t know what “UUism’s critique of the New England ethos” would be. Mine would be that you seem to be using it as a straw man. You also seem to be using the word “Puritan” in a way that rules out the possiblity of “liberal”, and then attacking the proposition on the grounds that the Puritans, as popularly remembered, were not liberal. Or else you seem to be equating it strictly with geography in a way that I don’t quite understand and didn’t mean to imply.
OTOH, if what you’re objecting to is my implication that we UUs walk around with what other New Englanders call a “Harvard attitude”, a sense of their own moral superiority that imposes on them a certain way of behaving toward the rest of the world, well, I would say that (a) yes, in fact we do, and (b) that is in fact where we got it. As the 12-steppers say, admitting that you have a problem is half the battle. Nevertheless, it is a part of who we are and always have been.
We don’t stand in a direct line from Origen or Pelagius as you suggest, though we have adopted some of their ideas. We do stand in a direct line from William Bradford, John Winthrop and Anne Hutchinson, and many of the concerns that preoccupied them still preoccupy us. They signed the Mayflower Compact and built the “city on a hill”, and argued about communal versus individual discernment of truth. Show me a UU church today that does not espouse egalitarian democracy or have a core of folks who conceive of themselves as a “city on a hill” and model for the rest of the world, or does not have problems conflicts between communal and induvidual pursuits of spiritual truth, and I’ll show you an empty meetinghouse with a for-sale sign on the lawn. (Incidentally, those are broadly American, not narrowly Yankee, cultural archetypes and conflicts, but they are also in a religio-cultural sense uniquely ours.)
(BTW, whatever the New England ethos may be, it’s not a Yankee ethos. New England is Red Sox Nation. They hate the Yankees.)
I am describing why we are the way we are. You are arguing that that is not who we should aspire to be. Yes, I will agree that there are things about what our predecessors believed that we may no longer choose to uphold — certainly that has happened before in our history — but I will argue also that at some level a leopard cannot change his spots. If we can’t get comfortable with the spots we do have, all we end up doing is flaying ourselves.
Fausto,
Yes, the Harvard attitude! I wish I’d thought to put it that way. And I’ll take the Red Sox Nation over the damn Yankees any day. (I’m not really a baseball fan, but when I am, I’m a Red Sox fan.)
Perhaps another way to put it is that it begins to feel like being trapped inside a Daughters of the American Revolution cocktail party—dear god, must everything go back to the Puritans! In our case, it pretty much does, but this does not give us any special virtues.
Yes, there no direct line from Roman-era heretics. We risked life and limb to be who we are, and often it didn’t work out for us. To go into alternative history mode: Who knows who we would be now if those first inklings of Uism and Uism hadn’t been crushed by the powers-that-be?
Yes, description versus prescription. And, yes, no self-flaggelation allowed. I think, now, that you and I are fundamentally in aggreement. Your write-up would make an excellent historical preface to a longer, aspirational story. What I want to ask now is who we should aspire to be. What is that story?
A lot of the aspirational is, however, also expressed in my little story:
Trusting in unbounded love, not restricted predestination.
Practicing self-culture (as Channing called it) or self-reliance (as Emerson did), which IMO are both elaborations of the earlier Puritan idea of “visible sainthood”, but without falling victim to the closely correlated tendency toward self-satisfaction (which the original Puritans would have preached strongly against).
Taking responsibility for our own ethical and educational nurturing, rather than waiting for God to do all the work needed to change us.
Serving and relieving the needs of the weakest and most oppressed among us, no matter what theological vocabulary we use.
And I might also add:
Working continually toward the fuller realization of the just society, whether we call it “Beloved Community”, the “Kingdom of God”, or the “City on a Hill”.
Continuing to search for the balance between covenanted community and personal inspiration that eluded John Winthrop and Anne Hutchinson, Charles Chauncy and Jonathan Edwards, and RW Emerson and Andrews Norton.
Keeping a lid on the Harvard attitude, and learning instead, or at least in addition, to love “Boomer Sooner” (which is, of course, an adaptation of “Boola Boola“, written by Allan M. Hirsh, Yale class of 1901).
Boola Boola (audio clip)
Now we’re talking.
(I’d quibble with City on a Hill because of it’s subsequent Americanism and because the metaphor needs some folks to not be in that city, so that it can be seen from a distance and admired. But small points.)
I just want all this in a story with a good plot! We have good symbols and metaphors (when we care to use them), but a good story is so much more compelling.
And, at last, we’ve found something that all UUs should aspire to: Fuck Texas! and Fuck Harvard! ;-)
Just made some comments at my blog, http://www.progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com from an Okie and liberal Puritan perspective, seeing some challenges, and referenced a post from August on Puritanism and the Emergent Church
Ron
Alas, too much of UUism and too many UUs were formed by Harvard to ever be able to aspire to forge a “Fuck Harvard” consensus, I’m afraid. You’re abandoning the realm of realistic plot and entering the realm of eschatology.
Alas, too much of UUism and too many UUs were formed by Harvard to ever be able to aspire to forge a “Fuck Harvard” consensus, I’m afraid. You’re abandoning the realm of realistic plot and entering the realm of eschatology. Final Triumph over the Beast in whose grasp we suffer, and all that.
Yes, well, a boy can dream, can’t he?
Chutney, you may like this website:
http://www.harvardsucks.org