Earlier I said ubuntu is all we need. Now I want to push further.
If Unitarian Universalism has a Good News, it is this: we already have what we need to practice ubuntu, and to practice it more fully. There is nothing missing that prevents us from realizing a fuller expression of ubuntu. If there is something we need on the path to fuller ubuntu, it has already been provided for.
I take this to be both a universalist and a unitarian message. It is universalist because everything is already provided, to each and all of us. It is unitarian because we can each choose to pick it up and do it. There is no divine favor needed to qualify us for ubuntu. Whatever divine favor might be necessary is already in place.
There will be a natural inclination among many of us to turn to god-talk at this point to explain how this is so. This inclination is fine, and probably even helpful to a point. But from a metaphysical standpoint it is not strictly necessary. We do not need to parse our god-talk to be able to practice ubuntu. All we need to practice ubuntu is each other, and we already have that.
Words like “Providence” and “grace” and “divine love” help the theologically inclined to better grasp the whole of how ubuntu happens, but such god-talk should be used only to the extent that is helpful, no more and no less. My own turn toward the language of Taoism and panentheism helps me frame for myself, in an abstract metaphysical sense, how ubuntu can happen at all. If this language helps others do the same, then good.
But when god-talk becomes a distraction from realizing our need for the person in front of us, it should be put aside. And when we begin to insist on our own god-talk, we’ve started to leave ubuntu behind.
For a future installment: So why aren’t we all practicing ubuntu then?
On an unrelated note: I think you should add the phrase–“I want to believe you” across the top–the menu bar that changes with every visit.
Regarding this post: the question of course is what sort of language works best for what sort of people? UUism is a pretty heady concept for most average ordinary folks to grasp. That’s part of the problem.
I do tend to frame my conception of it in terms of Providence and Karma. I don’t think the world should be UU–I think the faith appeals to a certain type of person. But I do think we can all work towards ubuntu in our own way through our own faith tradition. Perhaps we need a sort of common language–a sort of esperanto ubuntu?
“..when god-talk becomes a distraction from realizing our need for the person in front of us, it should be put aside.”
Yes. Even further, if god-talk isn’t a motivation to realize our need for the person in front of us, then we probably should question whether it is god-talk at all.
Kevin—Esperanto ubuntu. I’ll have to chew on that some more. Let’s hope it’s more successful than Esperanto though!
I agree that the world doesn’t need to be UU. But we should be able to make a convincing case—to ourselves and to others—that UUism is a great place to be if you’re on the road to ubuntu.
And duly noted on the tag. Does it come from someplace in particular?
ck—Excellent thought. I see some good connections to the synoptic Jesus there.
I always thought UUism had more of a message for how to live when there is no good news. Maybe that answer is Ubuntu, but I think it might be qualified with the absense of good news. The only news is what we make.
What’s wrong with good news? Isn’t it still good news when we’re the ones making it?
For me, our first principle is an example of our good news. That we are all inherently good, as opposed to being born sinners. Every time I hear that discordant message from other churches I am grateful for a religious home that says that we may falter, but we are essentially good. I think that is a so much healthier and uplifting message. I think it is more compatible with ubuntu, as well.
Very, very interesting series. Good stuff, MC.
[…] So if ubuntu is so damn important—maybe even all we really need—how do we do it? Short answer: any way we can. […]