Conflict models in religion
Transient and Permanent discusses religious conflict models:...This school of historiography (short definition: the methodology of writing history from a scholarly viewpoint, rather than an insider's sectarian one) suggests that American religion is best understood through the encounter and clash of differing ethnic, religious, and other groups, usually in an unequal balance of power. ...But, he says, Unitarian Universalism doesn't fit this model.
The problem is, at least as I see it, this is fundamentally not how Unitarian-Universalism should be conceptualized. As a UU I do not see my religion in conflict with Christianity. Nor is UUism in conflict with Judaism, with Islam, with Wicca, or Buddhism. UUism is not a soldier in the wars between religions. Rather, our conflict is with ideas and actions. We oppose exclusivity, tyranny, irrationalism, falsehood, prejudice, injustice, dogma, and all the sins of the heart which sever human beings from one another and the greater mystery which surrounds and sustains us. It doesn't matter what banner they march under, be it Christianity or Judaism or Islam. We don't oppose any of the significant dogmas of Christianity, not even the trinity--odd as it may seem at first, one can be trinitarian and Unitarian-Universalist.That's why UUs can adopt a range of theological positions and still remain Unitarian-Universalist: because we don't oppose other religions, but the elements of evil and ignorance that we encounter in the world. Sometimes we encounter such things in other religions, which can give the mistaken impression that we are, say, anti-Christian. At least for me as a UU, nothing could be further from the truth. I oppose evil and ignorance when they are brought to me in a Christian guise, but elements of love, wisdom, and beauty in Christianity are welcomed and cherished. ...
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 1:28 PM
3 Comments:
First, let me say that I don't think your beliefs are wrong; they're your beliefs and you are entitled to them. It's not up to me - or anyone else, for that matter - to decide that an individual belief is right or wrong. What we could disagree on, perhaps, is what or or I consider to be *facts*. That's different from beliefs.
Unitarian Universalist churches don't have a creed which they require their members to believe. That sets us apart from, for example, Christianity. No member of a Unitarian Universalists congregation can say what all UUs believe, because we don't all believe the same things. What we do have is Principles and Purposes (see http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html ) which UUs tend to support, although there's no church law that says they have to.
As far as conflict goes, you may certainly believe that Christianity is in conflict with Unitarian Universalism, if you wish. The fact that UUs as a faith have no position on the status of "God" (or no definition of what "God" might be, for that matter) or the divinity of Jesus might support your belief. Creedily speaking, it would be difficult for a Unitarian Universalist to define which the conflict would be because Christians have a creed and Unitarian Universalists don't.
About Jesus, the UU web site says: "Classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians [not all UUs are Christians, of course] have understood Jesus as a savior because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.
Many of us honor Jesus, and many of us honor other master teachers of past or present generations, like Moses or the Buddha. As a result, mixed-tradition families may find common ground in the UU fellowship without compromising other loyalties."
Although I am by no means an expert on the Bible, the last comment I'll make is that different people seem to have widely divergent viewpoints on exactly what the Bible (and I'll assume you're really referring to the New Testament) "says" in terms of interpretation. Considering that it didn't start to be written until a number of decades after Jesus died, it's factual basis is a bit suspect.
Dan,
Rather than filling up this blog with our conversation, why don't you send me your email address and I'll reply offline. You can send it to paul.wilczynski atsign gmail.com . (Phrased like that so automated spammers don't pick it up).
I oppose evil and ignorance when they are brought to me in a Unitarian Universalist guise. . .
Post a Comment
<< Home