Should laypersons develop a shared UU theology?
Steve Caldwell asksWhat responsibility do laypersons living in local UU congregations and other UU religious communities have in developing a shared UU theology?In his commentary, he notes several discussions on UU theology that have gone on or are currently going on.
Personally, this strikes me as infinitely more difficult than re-writing a congregation's bylaws (having had 2 experiences with such an attempt). Speaking only for myself, I think participating meaningfully in such a discussion requires a lot more theological background than I have. Or, I suspect, more than a number of other UUs have. Shouldn't people who discuss such an important topic be qualified to discuss it (other than "life experience" or "what's in our hearts")? I could probably weasel my way into a discussion of current trends in heart surgery, but I'd certainly hope no one would listen to any comments I might make.
Sure, each congregation could all gather 'round and talk about what UU theology means or should be, but at the end of the day, what would that realistically accomplish? If it were a big enough discussion, we'd probably combine it with a potluck dinner, which might be most satisfying and meaningful part of the day.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 9:04 AM
8 Comments:
We have civilian control of the Military because War is too important to be left to the Generals. (Oddly this control eroded under Clinton and was restored by Rumsfeld --read Midge Dector's book-- but leave that aside).
Similarly, Theology is do important to be left to the Clerics; or the Theologians for that matter.
Less authoritiarian credentialism and more civilian control probably a good idea.
I think it's basic for a Free Church.
Except that the civilians doing the civilian control of the military are senior, experienced, knowledgeable people. They didn't just walk in off the street and apply for the job of supervising the military.
I'm not suggesting "authoritiarian credentialism" - I'm not even sure I know what that means. I'm suggesting that people who discuss a topic as important as UU Theology have some knowledge or experience that qualifies them to be listened to. Otherwise, it's just one of those discussion groups that UUs are famous for.
Who would you have certify Paul, that someone has knowledge or experience that qualifies them to be listened to.
Ratzinger, who actually had such a job as certifier and used it, could come up with zingers like this in response to the question
How many ways are there to God?
As many as there are people. For even within the same faith each man's way is an entirely personal one. We have Christ's word: I am the way. In that respect, there is ultimately one way, and everyone who is on the way to God is therefore in some sense also on the way of Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that all ways are identical in terms of consiciousness and will, but, on the contrary, the one way is so big that it becomes a personal way for each man. p33 of Salt of the Earth
When the Cheif Inquisitor talks like that, it's best time to evaulate our own sense of authority. He's using the archaic gender specific terms but he's outflanking us on the left when it comes to authority. And speaking what I feel a truth to boot.
If we need someone to certify who were supposed to listen too, whe should be specific. In Ratzinger's case, for Catholics, it was him, and he took the hits.
If you're suggesting UU's go this route, we should institutionalize it.
I don't think selecting qualified individuals would be that difficult. How about: ministers, people with degrees in theology, or anyone else acceptable to the first two groups.
I don't want to get caught up in certifying people - that's not my point. One way of expressing my point is this: I see a few different types of discussions about theology - parlor discussions ("should we talk about movies, current events, or theology this evening?") vs serious, knowledgeable discussions. Or discussions about personal theology vs discussions about institutional theology. Certainly there can be a parlor discussion or small class about what each person believes his or her personal theology to be. That accomplishes precisely what it appears to accomplish - the other people in the group have heard the personal theologies of the rest of the group. And if that helps some or all of the members of the group, that's great.
But unless I'm mistakened, I don't think that's what we're talking about. We're talking about developing a UU theology, and to do so we need trained theologians. If I wanted a history book written, I'd want a historian (however you want to define that word) to write it. It I wanted a math book, I'd want a mathematician to write it. Why is it that in order to define a theology, we can take anyone off the street to contribute?
The History comparison has been on my mind because much of the interesting History now a days is coming from non Historians.
If we're asking who is qualified to participate as "trained theologians" in this discussion, we may want to keep in mind that some very famous theologians (e.g. Jesus, Hosea Ballou, etc) would not be academically qualified to participate.
:^)
Steve,
Is it me, or are people just missing the point I'm trying to make? Granted, Hosea Ballou wasn't an academically "trained thologian" from what I understand, but he was accepted as a minister in several congregations. Jesus is a special case.
Is it too much to ask that people who would be participating in a discussion whose outcome could affect the UU community have some qualifications other than the ability to breathe?
Paul,
Regarding Jesus being a "special case" among theologians, that reminds me of a joke I read many years ago in an essay by Issac Asimov.
Two Roman Centurions, Cassius and Maximus, are sentries guarding Jesus' crucifixion scene. They are standing at the base of Jesus' cross.
Cassius says to Maximus, "I don't feel right about this execution. They say this Jesus fellow was a good man and a teacher."
Maximus replies, "A teacher? Really? What did he publish?"
This joke might make more sense to those employed in higher education.
Post a Comment
<< Home