Affirming vs believing
I'm still hung up on the whole UU issue about affirming things (which we do as an organization) vs believing them (which we don't do as an organization).First, a definition from the web. Wordnet says that affirm means
- confirm, corroborate, sustain, substantiate, support, affirm -- (establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts; "his story confirmed my doubts"; "The evidence supports the defendant")
- affirm, verify, assert, avow, aver, swan, swear -- (to declare or affirm solemnly and formally as true; "Before God I swear I am innocent")
- affirm -- (say yes to)
So let's take the first principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person. We appear to be saying that we as an organization support the principle, but we as an organization don't believe in it. Why don't we believe in it? Because the UUA says there can't be a creedal test (creedal coming from the word credo which means "I believe"). So we're not allowed to believe in it (as an organization).
So when a non-UU says to us "what do Unitarian Universalists believe?" I can't say "we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person" because the UUA says I can't say that. Apparently I can say "we support the inherent worth and dignity of every person".
I'm not a theology student or minister. But that looks an awful lot like an artificial distinction to me.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 11:42 AM
4 Comments:
I think you may be reading too much into it. But you are right, the principles and purposes are just the second article of the bylaws of the UUA, and not a comprehensive belief system.
If you wanted, you could say "We are free to find our own answers, but as a group we agree to promote and affirm the inherent worth and dignity of all, the free and responsible search for truth and meaning and the use of the democratic process..."
jfield,
You're right - I could say "We are free to find our own answers, but as a group we agree to promote and affirm". But my point is that I'd much rather say "We believe in". It's much shorter, much more to the point (much "punchier", if you will), and much more understandable.
Our bigger problem — and the reason we can't say "we believe" — is that we have no idea by what authority we'd make substantive religious claims. God didn't say so; our holy book(s) didn't say so; charismatic leaders didn't say so. Instead, we say so. But who are we — and why should anybody care?
Our tradition's only established mechanism for saying "we say so" is a democratic vote by (often self-selected) delegates to a General Assembly, although we have several even fuzzier mechanisms — like the congregational poll for Study/Action topics (pick as many as you like! whether you're a member or just visiting this week!).
But a democratic vote on what we believe doesn't actually address the nature or quality or basis of anyone's beliefs. Our say-so isn't good enough to make something true, which is why we tend to make our statements in the form of affirmations or commitments rather than assertions of truth: We're describing our consensus rather than asserting truths.
Because we tend invariably to root the truth of religious beliefs not in an accepted external authority but in the individual conscience, we have a hard time knowing how a compromise statement of beliefs — accommodating widely or narrowly divergent opinions until a majority is content — actually tells people much of value. After all, why do we root "our" beliefs only in the conscientious conclusions of those individuals who happen to be "us" right now? Why not count the opinions of people who used to be us, back before they died? Why not ask everybody? After all, they all have worth and dignity and are responsible (whether they want to be or not) for their own beliefs. Why should we take as true only what 250,000 people — or 120,000, or the 1,800 delegates at a General Assembly — agree to believe?
See how this is a problem for a religion of individualists who decide that they want to say "we believe" something or another? In the end, you — just you — are still going to have to make up your mind.
I'm still hung up on the whole UU issue about affirming things (which UUs do as an organization) vs actually practising them (which UUs apparently don't do very well at as an organization).
Post a Comment
<< Home