Would you like fries with your sermon?
In case the members of your congregation arrive Hungry for the word ..
(PRWEB) April 30, 2005 -- There's a two woman Army in Las Vegas who believes piping hot fries and the "Bible" have a lot in common. These ladies are teaching local clergy how to super size their dying church membership.
Las Vegas has been the "Goliath" in national growth for 18 years in a row. Additionally, 41 million visitors traveled to the "entertainment capitol of the world" in 2004. Approximately, 6000 people a month are relocating to Southern Nevada. Church membership is at an all time low in the city that never sleeps despite continuous astronomical growth. Nationally, over 90% of all churches in America have just 160 active members.
Lost Sheep Consulting conducts groundbreaking "McChurch" seminars. Nina S. Griffin and Rachael D. Richardson show God's CEOs how to recreate the one of a kind spiritual experience McDonald's customers have been enjoying for the last 50 years.
Fortune 500 companies didn't start to become successful until they started talking to customers who had left their companies and/or who were on the verge of defection. These brave ladies are visionary in empowering clergy with proven 21st century winback and retention techniques.
There's a "David" in the desert with a sling shot of a message; "Save the lost at all cost".
McDonald's customers have been enjoying a
spiritual experience?? I know their fries are pretty good, but I didn't think they were
that good!
Pharmacist's Rights
The Revealer describes a
hypothetical commercial in which a mother can't fill a prescription for birth control pills because the pharmacist has made a moral judgement not to fill it. The article asks:
What, if any, is the pharmacist’s transgression: hampering a woman’s freedom to control her reproductive decisions? Or violating the sanctity of marriage and family by interfering with private decisions? Which is more important?
My answer: None of the Above. The transgression, simply, is that the pharmacist didn't do what (s)he is paid to do: fill legal prescriptions. If you sometimes don't want to do your job, get another job where you don't have to make moral decisions. This is just another example of Don't Impose Your Morality On Me.
Defrocked Lesbian Minister Wins Her Appeal
Reuters says that ...
A lesbian Methodist minister defrocked last year for openly admitting to living with another woman has won her appeal against the church's decision, the United Methodist Church said on Friday.
A statement on the church's Web site said a committee hearing the appeal by Elizabeth Stroud in Baltimore reversed the ecclesiastical court's December decision that stripped her of her credentials as a minister at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown, Philadelphia.
Living wills can be a mortal sin
At least for Catholics in the Madison, Wisconsin area.
NBC15 reports ...
The Bishop of the Madison Diocese is clarifying the church's position on living wills.
Bishop Robert Morlino says he needed to do so because of the debate that erupted over the Terry Schiavo case.
The Bishop received lots of letters and emails asking if living wills were a mortal sin. He answered in a recent edition of the Catholic Herald stating that, "According to the church's doctrine, if a living will gets in the way of medical procedures that could prevent death, even if a person is permanently unconscious, it is a mortal sin."
USA Today says: Good reason to exclude gays from military
An
editorial in USA Today supporting the continued exclusion of gays from the military says
Servicemen and women should not have to expose themselves to persons who might be sexually attracted to them.
Well, it's true ... if no one in the military were exposed to anyone who was sexually attracted to him or her, none of those pregnancies in the military would happen.
Oh ... what? I'm sorry, I misunderstood. They must have meant it's ok for servicemen and women to expose themselves to persons who might be sexually attracted to them, as long as they expose themselves to people of the opposite sex.
DeLay's agenda
The
Talk of the Town section of the April 25 issue of
The New Yorker has a commentary entitled
Without Delay. It quotes Tom DeLay responding to a question by the Washington Times about who was to blame for "activist judges":
I blame Congress over the last fifty to a hundred years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
So there you have it, the article concludes, the DeLay agenda: no separation of church and state, no judicial review, and no right to privacy.
And people ask why we're getting increasing alarmed about the way our government is headed.
Whose nation under God?
Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect,
writes in the Boston Globe an op-ed piece which begins ...
WHEN John Kennedy was running for president and passions were running high about whether a Catholic could serve both the American citizenry and Rome, a joke made the rounds about a priest and a minister whose friendship nearly came to blows. Finally the priest phoned his old friend. ''What a pity," he said. ''Here we are, both men of the cloth, fighting over politics." ''It's true," said the minister. ''We're both Christians. We both worship the same God -- you in your way, and I in His."
America, which separated church and state precisely to protect the private right to worship, has long had its share of religious absolutists who have wanted to harness the power of the state to their own view of revealed truth. But never before in our history has the government deliberately and cynically intervened on the side of the zealots.
Boston-area Liberal Religious Bloggers Picnic
For all of you Massachusetts residents (and those who'd love to visit this beautiful state),
Philocrites is sponsoring the a Boston-area Liberal Religious Bloggers Picnic on Saturday, April 30, at First Parish in Milton, Massachusetts.
Please come - we'd love to meet you!
Feeling and Spirituality vs Reason
I had a disagreement with someone recently about what the main focus of being a Unitarian Universalist should be. (Neither of us used the phrase "main focus" - it's the closest I can come to describing the context.)
He said that some Unitarians overemphasize feeling and "spirituality" (he verbally put the word in quotes) at the expense of Reason, and doing so "was a slippery slope".
I told him that if I wanted a completely intellectual experience, I'd go to grad school.
Reminded me of a day-long seminar I went to a few months ago that was run by Michael Durall who wrote The Almost Church. The subject of how long people stayed active Unitarians came up. Durall took a quick survey of the audience and determined that those attending (church leaders for the most part) had stayed active Unitarians longer than most people. He asked people why they thought they stayed active.
I said that, if Unitarians are there to learn, maybe we were the slow learners.
Open Letter from a Gay Priest
Beliefnet offers this
Open Letter to Benedict XVI from a Gay Priest which begins
Congratulations on your election. I know that the Holy Spirit will be helping you over the next few years, and you can count on my prayers and those of Catholics worldwide.
But, though hopeful, I am a little apprehensive about your papacy, especially given your time as prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In this position, which you held from 1981 until your election as pope, you were charged with safeguarding Catholic doctrine, an important function of the Vatican. Even the most liberal Catholic understands the need for maintaining clarity when it comes to proclaiming the Gospel.
But what concerns some Catholics is the way that the Congregation often went about that "safeguarding." The Congregation has silenced theologians, removed priests and sisters from various teaching positions, and issued harshly-worded documents that seemed aimed more at punishing the faithful than inviting them to a greater trust in the mercy of God. Among those who have also felt punished have been women, lay ministers and, especially, gays and lesbians.
Why can't we believe
Philocrites provided a cogent response to my recent post called
Affirming vs believing. I asked the question "why do Unitarian Universalists have to affirm everything - why can't there be anything we can
believe?
His answer - worth reading in its entirety by going to the original post - is summed up in his first sentence:
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.
Ok, I'm pretty much persuaded by that argument. His last sentence, though, got me to thinking:
In the end, you — just you — are still going to have to make up your mind.
It's not that this is the first time I've heard that thought, of course. That's what UUs are all about. But I'm going to toss out one final attempt at a shared belief:
Unitarian Universalists believe that their ultimate truth comes from within themselves.
Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?
UUA President Challenges Senator Frist's Claims About Faith
Issued from the
UUA Press Room:
For April 21, 2005
The Rev. William G. Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, joined other religious leaders today in expressing deep concern at the attacks on religious liberty coming from Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Family Research Council. Last week, Senator First agreed to take a leading role in the Family Research Council's "Justice Sunday" event, which defines a commitment to preserving the Senate filibuster as an attack "against people of faith."
"No one religious group or political party can ever hold a monopoly on spiritual conviction," said Rev. Sinkford. "In fact, political opinions vary widely even within particular faith communities. Within my own tradition, Unitarian Universalists experience diversity of opinion as a true blessing. Many different theological viewpoints are able to thrive within our congregations because we have agreed that we need not think alike to love alike."
Sinkford continued, "To claim that minority-party senators and their supporters are acting 'against people of faith' because they wish to preserve the Senate filibuster is an affront to millions of devout Americans."
"Senator Frist has crossed an important line in our American tradition," concluded Rev. Sinkford. "The Constitution wisely ensures that there are no religious tests for political offices. While private groups, including churches, have a guaranteed right to speak out on social issues, a democracy's highest elected leaders must hold themselves accountable to all of 'we, the people.' I believe that Senator Frist has a moral responsibility to declare unequivocally that the political views of the American people do not define the depth or quality of their faith. Our nation was founded on this inspired principle, and we imperil the precious freedoms of all our citizens when we cease to honor and protect the separation of church and state."
Roe's Birth and Death
David Brooks in the New York Times (free registration required) says that unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.
Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.
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)
The closest of those words I can equate to
affirm in the sense I think the UUA means it is
support.
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.
Hungarian Unitarian Catechism
Unitarianism has been in the Transylvanian part of Hungary for hundreds of years. To see the significant difference between what they believe and what American Unitarian Universalists "believe", check out
the English translation of the Hungarian Unitarian Catechism.
Just one example is the second question:
How do we know that God exists?
Whether we look to the universe and its order, or to ourselves and our talents, we obtain the conviction that there exists one God, who created, maintains and manages everything.
Pretty darned different.
After writing the above, I read the initial comment below, and added the following:
"Pretty darned different" was perhaps too cryptic.
- The catechism expresses beliefs which do not exist in my congregation as a whole.
- A catechism, as I remember the meaning, and as defined by Wikipedia, is "is a summary of Christian religious doctrine. Catechisms are doctrinal manuals often in the form of questions followed by answers to be memorized, a format that has been adopted for secular or non-religious use as well". The UUA does not have a doctrine. Although the Hungarian Unitarian site says
It has been said that we Unitarians have no Doctrine, only Principles of faith. The difference between these two words is that Unitarians possess no articles of faith enunciated by church meetings which are compulsory and unchangeable.
It also repeatedly refers to Jesus ...
The basis of the Unitarianism is the Gospel according to Jesus. The rules of Unitarianism are rooted in the teachings of Jesus. The seed of continuity in Unitarianism is the seed which represents ideas accepted in the Gospel, the inferences of humanism and social liberalism are significant only as they relate to this seed.
The catechism refers to lots of things that look like a creed, not the least of which is "we obtain the conviction that there exists one God, who created, maintains and manages everything." as I quoted in the beginning.
I don't believe that the majority of members of churches belonging to the UUA believe what I perceive to be the creedal (from the word "credo" - "I believe") part of the Hungarian Unitarian Catechism. The basis of Unitarianism when it first began was the teachings of Jesus, but it isn't now.
Let me finish by saying that I posted this primarily so that non-Christian UUs could see a big difference between them and the Hungarian church. It was not meant to try to teach the Christian UUs among us on the net anything - I have learned, and will continue to learn, more from them than they will ever learn from me.
Power for Power's Sake
An
editorial in the New York Times (free registration required) says that "when power and leadership come to politicians incapable of handling either, the results can be disastrous."
The Democrats who controlled Congress into the 1990's grew so comfortable with their majority that they lost track of the country. As House speaker, Newt Gingrich sacrificed his revolution to his swollen ego. And now there is Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, whose hunger for power has grown so insatiable that it has detached him from the nation's business, the principles of electoral democracy and even the mainstream of his own party.
Mr. DeLay's ethical and financial lapses are serious and disqualifying for his high office. But even more alarming than his love for political money is his abuse of power. He appears to be confused about the difference between a legislative majority won in an election and total control held indefinitely.
Things to hate about liberals
Thanks to
Left2Right for pointing out RightReasons's
Ten Things I Hate About Liberals which begins ...
- Liberals invariably charge their critics with the straw man fallacy, no matter how tight the fit between the criticism and the words and deeds of real liberals.
- Liberals are quick to distance themselves from their wacko spokesman (Michael Moore, Ward Churchill) whenever these spokesman are attacked by the right, but liberals will never initiate such criticism, holding fast to the maxim of pas d’enemi à gauche.
Yep, that's me all right. I try not to ever let that darned maxim of pas d’enemi à gauche go.
Don White appearing at coffeehouse in Quincy
For those of you in the Boston area who like folk music,
Don White is appearing at the Stone Temple Coffeehouse at United First Parish Church in Quincy Center on Friday, April 22. Doors open at 7:30; show starts at 8:00. Admission is $14.00.
Don is a terrific performer, and a really funny guy. Please try to make it; you won't be disappointed.
More info is at http://coffeehouse.ufpc.org/.
Being a bit paranoid about creeds
The Rev. Sean Parker Dennison in his blog called Ministrare has a very good piece called
A Brave New Unitarian Universalism which is worth reading in its entirety.
His final comment, though, in reference to a long discussion that's continues in the Coffeehour blog.
P.S. As to the rest of the discussion at Coffee Hour, I think we are a bit paranoid about creeds. Of course we should not make people prove they can pass some doctrinal test to belong, but at the same time, the more we can articulate what it is we believe (concretely and not in esoteric and abstruse generalizations) the more we can communicate it to the world.
I totally agree. This speaks to my "why do we always have to affirm things and never believe things" question.
Appeals Court: Wiccan not allowed to give opening prayer
Fredericksburg.com reports that
A federal appeals court yesterday ruled against a priestess of the Wiccan faith who wanted to give the opening prayer when a local board of supervisors meets.
Cynthia Simpson sued Chesterfield County [Virginia] after she was excluded from a list of religious leaders allowed to pray at Board of Supervisors meetings. In a letter to Simpson, the county explained that the invocations "are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition."
Wiccans consider themselves witches, pagans or neo-pagans, and say their religion is based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reversed a lower court's decision ruling in Simpson's favor. A U.S. District Court magistrate judge in 2003 ruled that the county's policy violated the Constitution by stating a preference for a set of religious beliefs.
In Search of a Religious Left
Chris Bowers of myDD discusses the need for a
rising religious left. He references an article on
DriveDemocracy.org which starts
Those on the left who are waiting for progressive religious leaders to add their voices to the national political debate need wait no longer. A powerful assembly of religious leaders from a variety of traditions gathered at Riverside Church in New York on April 4. Their message was loud and clear: the militarism of Bush, the widening divide between rich and poor, the failure to provide families with health care, education, safe neighborhoods, even food, demands a revolution.
Day of Truth vs Day of Silence
The
Associated Press via iWon.com reports that
The inaugural Day of Truth, seeking to mobilize students who believe homosexuality is wrong, attracted 1,150 participants Thursday at about 350 schools nationwide, according to the conservative group which launched it in response to the far larger, gay-supportive Day of Silence.
The New York-based Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, which coordinates the Day of Silence, said at least 450,000 students at more than 4,000 schools and colleges participated in the 10-year-old event - which took place Wednesday.
Let's analyze this:
| |
Number of students |
Number of schools |
Average students per school |
| Day of Truth |
1,150 |
350 |
3.29 |
| Day of Silence |
450,000 |
4,000 |
112.5 |
Works for me.
How different should UUs be?
When I first joined the UUA's
UUTheology mailing list, I sent an introduction which said in part
Here's my question, and please let me know if it doesn't fit here. I
find it strange that, as I'm told, Unitarians can't all "believe" in
something. They can, however, all "affirm" something. Why is there
nothing that we can't all believe in? (Like "the world is good" or
things at least at that level). I suspect we'd somehow be better off
it we could tell people that we *do* have shared beliefs.
Ideally, it would be great if we had at least one thing that we all
believed in that everyone else in the world didn't all believe in.
That would make us special :)
After reading it when it appeared in the mailing list, I suspect I could have done a better job of describing feelings about belief vs affirmation. I should have realized that saying "I suspect we'd somehow be better off it we could tell people that we *do* have shared beliefs." might get me into a little trouble. When I said "better off", I meant that people outside of our religion might find it a little easier to understand us.
Karl Paananen replied as follows:
One way of thinking about it is to think of Unitarianism (including American UUism and all the other national forms) as "The organized religion that was organized by people who didn't like organized religion". One of the main reasons that Unitarianism has always been shy of "official beliefs" and "creeds" is that historically these have been used to persecute people, by telling people who didn't subscribe to the beliefs that they were not welcome in church, or even telling the "heretics" that they were not welcome in society, which led to imprisonment and burning at the stake.
Another problem is that a creed can tend to "fossilize" a religion. In a creedal religion, each generation of the religion has to be taught to obey and believe in the creed that was invented by a previous generation, often a long ago and almost forgotten generation. This can lead to serious conflicts when science or other intellectual endeavors advance, but the religious creed stays the same. In the United States there are religious groups who keep demanding that evolution not be taught in government schools, because evolution conflicts with their ancient creed that cannot be updated with the new times.
Unitarianism is a "different" sort of religion. It is so different that many people have difficulty imagining it. Many people who are in a belief-centered religion cannot imagine a religion without a belief system. Maybe if they came and tried Unitarianism, they would see that a religion can do perfectly well without a belief system, and can still have all the things that they like about religion.
I don't think that we would be "better off" if we changed our religion to be more like other religions. Those people have their religions, we have ours. Unitarianism isn't a religion for everyone. The person who says "I want to go to church to be with a group of people who all think exactly the same way that I do about everything" will not find Unitarianism a good religion for them. The person who says "I want a religion that will just give me all the answers I'm looking for, without requiring me to think for myself, without leaving any gray areas or doubts, and with a promise that these answers will not change for all of eternity" will not find Unitarianism a
good religion for them.
Perhaps what I'm looking for is something we can agree that we all believe in without it being a creed. Something so obvious and apparent to anyone who becomes a UU that we almost don't notice it. Something that it would be silly to have to
require us to believe (in the sense of trying to teach our children, for example, that we
require them to breathe).
While a lot of what Karl says makes sense, there was something about the reply that bothered me. I finally realized that it was the attitude - shared by many, many UUs (perhaps the majority, I don't know) that one of the good things about Unitarian Universalism is that it's different. We tend to hold that up as a badge of pride. I think that being different is ok to a degree, but I think we're finding that the more we hold ourselves out to be different - the more we make ourselves out to be on the fringe (consciously or unconsciously) the less respect we get and the less interest we get.
A lot of us say that there must be a gazillion people out there who are looking for a religion that's different. Personally, I think a lot of people are looking for a religion that's a little different. Is there room in Unitarian Universalism for people who don't want to go through the grueling search that we portray as some sort of requirement for being a good UU? Can we welcome Christians who feel way too pressured by their evangelical conservative church into ours? (I ask that question of UU congregations who don't identify as Christian). (And the hardest question: can we welcome self-identified Republicans?)
Unitarianism may not be a religion for everyone. But if we try, we can make it a religion for a lot more people than it is.
Half full or half empty
Bill Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association asks, in the
May/June 2005 issue of UUWorld, Is the Unitarian Universalist glass half empty or half full? Here are some of the questions he asks:
Does our great strength, our commitment to freedom of belief and the religious pluralism that naturally follows, leave us without a coherent center? Does the unwillingness of many of our congregations to use traditional religious language leave too many visitors unfed? Do our congregations mistake the friendliness they experience among themselves for a ministry that truly welcomes the stranger? Has the Association staff invested too much time (and money) pursuing ineffective strategies?
This may be a chicken or egg situation, but he's asking the same questions I've seen asked by others on the net - and questions I've asked myself.
Four congregations that have achieved sustained growth will be showcased at General Assembly, and we need to learn from them. But we need to do much more than learn ... we need to do what is necessary to share our message with others who are looking to find it.
Blocking Fox News
Today's Boston Globe has an article about Foxblocker - originally a piece of hardware designed to block Fox News from your TV, and now a concept.
If you believe - as many do - that Fox News' "Fair & Balanced" reporting is the least fair and balanced ever to appear on television, check out the Foxblocker web site. It will give you instructions about how to get your cable company to install a "Trap Filter" for FOX News.
Why pastors quit
Thanks to
Scott Wells at Boys in the Band for pointing out this
essay on why pastors quit.
Those of us who aren't ministers need to read this and give it some careful thought. We often believe that our minister can be everything to everyone, and it just ain't so.
Sincerity is not enough
Left Coast Unitarian, in an
article abut the Unitarian Jihad article, (the article
can be found here) comments on the section of it that starts
We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough."
when he says
Would that this were true. If there was one disfunctional belief that contributes to worst excesses of contemporary psychotherapeutic expressive individualism in UU culture, I believe it is precisely the idea that sincerity is enough. We pass resolutions, sign internet petitions, attend solemn vigils and vote every other year for candidates and pat ourselves on the back for our earnest sincerity with only the vaguest concern for the effectiveness of our actions.
There is the old joke about the recently departed UU who chooses going to a discussion about heaven over actually going to heaven. Sadly I fear too many UUs would choose to make a sincere personal statement about the ills of the world rather than actually doing something to bring about justice.
No truer UU words were ever spoken. I would just add "and study the Study Topics chosen at General Assembly that were initially selected by congregations".
Finding Their Religion
An article by Don Aucoin in the Boston Globe says that
young people are seeking faith in nontraditional ways.
Many of them sound like UUs who don't know they are.
From the Rosslyn Hill Unitarian chapel
In the UUTheology mailing list, Jaume de Marcos noted that he had visited the website of the
Rosslyn Hill Unitarian chapel in Hampstead, London and quoted the opening words on the site:
This is not an ordinary church. This is a Unitarian Chapel. Our religion is a spiritual journey and each one of us is an explorer. Reason is our map and conscience is our compass.
I could think of elevator speeches that are a lot worse than that.
Becoming a Man-Friendly Church
David Murrow at pastors.com notes that more women than men seem to come to church, and lists the following ways to attract more men:
- Cultivate a healthy masculine spirit in your church.
- Make men feel needed and wanted.
- Present Christ’s masculine side.
- Avoid feminine terminology.
- Preach shorter sermons.
- Become students of men.
- Create a culture of person-to-person challenge.
Hey. Don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger.
Largest 25 churches
Philocrites refers to, and comments on,
the largest 25 churchs in America.
The quest for gay marriage
It strikes me that the more politically and religiously liberal people campaign in favor of gay marriage, the more states pass laws and constitutional amendments against it.
Do you think we're taking the wrong approach toward this issue?
The Theocratic Right and the Democratic Republic
Case Wagenvoord writes in The Village Gate an article beginning ...
Christianity is a religion of the highest ideals. One of life’s crueler paradoxes is that the higher the ideal, the more slime it produces. The slime begins to ooze when the ego breaks wind and the soul thinks the breath of the Spirit is upon it.
Yet, when Christianity works it is a thing of beauty. When the soul is able to shatter the fetters of the ego it soars. Slavery is abolished, prisons are reformed and Jim Crow is sent packing.
Slime and the Spirit are at opposite ends of the Christian spectrum. Slime expresses Christian love in a spray of angry spittle; the Spirit expresses it in acts of tender mercy. Slime destroys; the Spirit heals. Slime screams; the Spirit is silent. Consequently, slime gets most of the airtime.
It is tempting to view the Religious Right as a monolithic block and to see it as a vast conspiracy determined to return us to the 19th Century. It is more complex than that. The Religious Right is made up of many components: some of them extreme and some of them quite moderate. Understanding the Religious Right is made difficult by a media that is only interested in covering wedge issues that generate conflict. A shot of a protester holding up a sign that reads, “God hates Fags” does more for ratings than a shot of a church-sponsored soup kitchen feeding the hungry.
The future of Unitarian Christianity
Thanks much to Philocites for mentioning that Earl Holt, the minister of King's Chapel in Boston,
scheduled a lecture with the above title this morning. I was pleased I was able to attend.
First things first: Note to self: make sure to wear a suit the next time you attend a function held at or by Kings Chapel if you want to fit in. At least I had my black jeans on; if I had worn my blue ones, I would have been too mortified for words.
Earl (everyone called him Earl) definitely knows what he believes and how he feels about us non-Christian UUs. We exhibit "spiritual trendiness", and use the "language of euphemism" (a play on Bill Sinkford's reference to our needing a language of reverence. Our ministers and UU leaders speak "pablum" to us.
I'm not the best note taker in the world, but more to the core of his message he made the following points:
- Where it the unity in our spiritual diversity?
- During the merger talks (merging Unitarianism with Universalism) there were no discussions about the theological foundation of the merged religion
- In the days of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote glowingly a few times about Unitarianism, he equated it with liberal Christianity - a fact some ignore when writing sermons about Jefferson's Unitarian-leaning tendencies, he said
- He drew an analogy of walking up to a cliff and coming to within 20 feet, then 10 feet, then 5 feet, then 2 feet, then 1 foot of it. If you go any further, you're finished. He asked if we've moved past the edge of "religion".
- While we all know that our UU roots are in the Judeo-Christian heritage, a root doesn't limit how much you grow and where you grow, but you'll wither if you cut yourself off from your root.
- One that I particularly agreed with: UUs have a strong motivation not to offend. If we say something that someone else disagrees with, we drop it. That leads to being the lowest common denominator religion.
- He noted that he is the Chair of the current UU Commission on Appraisal which is studying a question he put forth: Where is the Unity in Our Theological Diversity? He said the report, due out at this year's General Assembly in June, is about 200 pages long and will be most likely shelved before anyone reads it. Those who read it, he said, will almost certainly be disappointed.
Unitarian Jihad
Thanks to
Philocrites for pointing out this
San Francisco Chronicle article by John Carroll about a mysterious organization called the
Unitarian Jihad which, he says, sent him a fax. His article starts ...
The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.
Divestment from Israel?
Scott Wells at Boys in the Band thinks the UUA
should consider a divestment from Israel motion at General Assembly.
I think we should stay away from such overly political stuff and spend our time on religous and philosophical issues, of which we have more than enough.
Who the heck is the UUA and its members to decide whether Israel or Palestine is right? It astonishes me that some of us think we have the insight to know who's right or wrong on this incredibly complex issue.
We need to define what we're for
The March 21 issue of The New Yorker (I know, I'm trying to catch up) has a good article called
Jesus in the Classroom.
Rather than commenting on or summarizing the article, I wanted to quote one sentence:
Not the least, the A.D.F. [Alliance Defense Fund - an alliance of conservative mega-ministries] runs a national media department, which is adept at exploiting the fact that the secular left is increasingly defined, in the minds of many, not by what it for, but by what it is supposedly against - Christmas, the Boy Scouts, The Pledge of Allegiance, and traditional marriage.
What
are liberals for? Aside from things like peace on earth, which is hard to be against. What things are we for - that conservatives are against - that would strike a chord in the hearts of a majority of voters? This whole question goes back to the idea of framing our message.
"Physician of the Year" ain't what it seems
ABC News reports ...
The good news reached the Jamestown, N.Y., office of Dr. Rudolph Mueller in a fax from a congressman in Washington. Mueller had been named 2004 Physician of the Year.
"My secretary came running in and said, 'Dr. Rudy, look at what you've won, you're Physician of the Year,' " said Mueller, an internist.
But to receive the award in person at a special two-day workshop in Washington last month, Mueller found out that he would have to make a $1,250 contribution to the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was a disturbing discovery, he said.
Read the entire story to find out what else he found.
Does the term "dirty tricks" ring any bells?
Senator Cornyn thinks murderous violence against judges is understandable.
An
editorial in the New York Times discusses a recent speech by Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. It starts ...
It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to their decisions, then it is time to get really scared.
It happened on Monday, in a moment that was horrifying even by the rock-bottom standards of the campaign that Republican zealots are conducting against the nation's judiciary. Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, rose in the chamber and dared to argue that recent courthouse violence might be explained by distress about judges who "are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public." The frustration "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in" violence, said Mr. Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which supposedly protects the Constitution and its guarantee of an independent judiciary.
Are conservatives successful because they squabble?
David Brooks, in a
New York Times Op-Ed piece, says that conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly - not that liberals are too fractious, too nuanced or too freethinking.
Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they've found one faction to agree with.
And later, he says
If I were a liberal, which I used to be, I wouldn't want message discipline. I'd take this opportunity to have a big debate about the things Thomas Paine, Herbert Croly, Isaiah Berlin, R. H. Tawney and John Dewey were writing about. I'd argue about human nature and the American character.
In disunity there is strength.
U.S. Catholics would support changes
A
CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll says that
A majority of U.S. Catholics surveyed want the next pope to have a theological outlook similar to that of Pope John Paul II, but they would also like to see changes on issues such as birth control, stem cell research and allowing priests to marry, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.
Ummm .... who believes that what American Catholics think about the Church's view on specific theological issues makes any difference to anyone in a position to change them? Since when does the Catholic Church listen to what Catholics want? To the contrary: the Catholic Church
tells Catholics what to want. Not all Catholics, of course, want what the hierarchy wants them to want.
And the last thing the Catholic hierarchy wants is a bunch of rebellious, individualistic, obstreperous Catholics. If they voice their objections too loudly, they're apt to become rebellious, individualistic, obstreperous excommunicated Catholics
This from a recovering Catholic.
American Constitution Society
Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo introduces us to the American Constitution Society, which
is the progressive counterpart to the conservative Federalist Society, a group which, whatever you think about its effect on America, has been extremely effective in seeding the courts and the legal academy with committed Movement conservatives who've worked for years to shape American law and government.
Kansas Voters Approve Ban on Gay Unions
According to the
AP News ...
Voters in Kansas overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday banning same-sex couples from marrying or entering into civil unions.
With 97 percent of the vote reported, 395,468, or 71 percent, voted "yes," and 163,766, or 29 percent, voted "no."
CUC considers change to UU Principles
Radical Hapa reports that the Canadian Unitarian Council is debating a proposal to make changes to the UU Principles.
A link to an analysis is accessible via the link above.
Touchstones of the UU faith
The Transient and Permanent blog has articles on two of the touchstones of the Unitarian Universalist faith:
William Ellery Channing and
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
UUism: A Christian Faith Tradition
Ethan Field, a UUA Staff Member, part of the Unitarian Universalist Youth and Young Adults group, and a lifelong UU, says, in a beautifully written piece, that
UUs should reclaim their rightful place as a Christian denomination. He begins ...
In the beginning – of this sermon – there were Christians. Unitarians were Christians. Universalists were Christians. Even Southern Baptists were Christians! And Unitarians and Universalists brought a radical voice to Christianity. We talked about the humanity of Jesus, more important as a human prophet of peace than as a divine personal savior. We talked about a positive place in eternity for all of us, even if you didn’t have the “right” theology.
But then something happened. Slowly, over time, Unitarianism and Universalism, and eventually Unitarian Universalism, stopped being a Christian faith. I don’t mean individual UUs stopped being Christian in their theology. I mean sometime in the last hundred years, we’ve come to a point where, if we’re asked if UUs are Christians, we’ll mumble something apologetic about history, and then say quickly, “But we’re not Christians now!!”
What happened? It’s true that lots of humanists came into our faith in the early 20th century. It’s true that as that century progressed, we came to embrace many sources of faith – which is awesome. But at some point, we kinda collectively bailed out on Christianity. Now, I would love to think that it was because we truly widened our tent until the word “Christian” just couldn’t contain what we are… but having spent my life as a UU, I’m just not buying it.
Thanks to
Peacebang for pointing this one out.
Online resources for lay leaders
Steve Caldwell has a great list of
Online resources for lay leaders.
Let say that you've just stepped into a lay leadership role such as committee member, committee chair, or even board member. You want to learn as much as you can so you will be an effective leader. Where do you go for information for your new role? Luckily, there are plenty of online resources available to help you.
Men in dresses and fancy hats
Philocrites points out that there's one issue that can create interfaith agreement in Israel - opposition to an international gay pride festival in Jerusalem. (See the link to understand the Title of this post.)
UUA Commission on Social Witness Poll
It's time again for the annual Congregational Directives for General Assembly Action survey described in detail at the
UUA Commission on Social Witness web page. Here's a summary of the issues from which we're supposed to choose a favorite:
- S1 - Women’s Rights Worldwide - What can Unitarian Universalists do to secure fundamental human rights for women?
- S2 - Safety of All Children and Youth - What can Unitarian Universalists do to ensure the safety of children and youth in our congregations, communities and world?
- S3 - Peacemaking - What can Unitarian Universalists do to bring about the conditions for peaceful relationship in our congregations, our communities, and our world?
- S4 - Need for Affordable Housing - What can Unitarian Universalists do to promote affordable housing?
- S5 - Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society - How might the moral and ethical grounding of Unitarian Universalism be given greater voice in the public square?
- S6 - Ensuring Voter Rights - What can Unitarian Universalists do to ensure voters’ rights?
Personally, I think it's really presumptuous to believe that UUs, in our small numbers, have the ability to influence such global problems. Except, that is, for those issues that include the words "in our congregations or communities". Ensuring the safety of children, for example, is a big enough task just within our congregation ... it's virtually overwhelming to think we can
ensure it in our community. And the world? Please.
To have any kind of effect, we need to concentrate our efforts at the community level . Otherwise, all this kind of survey thing is going to do is let us pat ourselves on the back for being so socially conscientious.
Brave new UUism
Philocrites hosts a very lengthy and wonderful discussion by many UU observers called
Attention Imagineers: What is your "brave new UUism?". He credits a post I made last week of a messages by Doug Rogers.
If you're interested in the growth of Unitarian Universalisn and you never read any other discussion on the subject, read this one.
The Journey Starts Here
Jeff Wilson of the
Transient and Permanent blog has created his idea of a
30 second video for Unitarian Universalism. He describes it as "tinker[ing] around with the video software on my computer for the first time."
I think it's absolutely great for a first try ... maybe even for a 3rd or 4th try.
Blessing the Taxes
From the UUA Washington Office ...
As Unitarian Universalists, we are committed to creating an equitable tax system that provides sufficient revenue to meet our country's human needs. Faced with a federal budget that includes massive tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthiest among us at the expense of the common good of our country, "blessing" our taxes allows us to reframe the national conversation about the role of government in society and its moral and spiritual imperatives.
What you can do:
- Lay hands on envelopes containing tax returns or copies of returns in worship, and pray over them; or create an altar for tax returns
- Weave the blessing into sermons or pastoral prayers
- Conduct special worship services
- Conduct prayer vigils at local Post Offices on April 15 (a great and easy way to get local media attention!)
- Distribute the blessing with attached information about how taxes are used and how citizens can contact their legislators
The message:
- Paying taxes is a moral responsibility of all people.
- Creating a just tax system used for just purposes is the responsibility of all people and institutions.
- Elected officials are entrusted with a greater responsibility to ensure that taxation hold as a primary concern the needs of low-income persons to prevent the entrenchment of poverty in society.
- Taxation must be used toward the organization of social structures to ensure that basic human needs for all people are met.
- Taxation must not inhibit a person's ability to meet their basic needs-the payment of a higher rate of taxation by those who have higher incomes or profits is just and good.
(Adapted from the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon www.emoregon.org)
See The UUA Washington Office website at http://www.uua.org/uuawo/new/article.php?id=571 for suggested readings and sample blessings your congregation can use! You will also find analyses of the current tax structure and how our tax dollars are used on the federal and state levels.
See The UUA Washington Office website at http://www.uua.org/uuawo/new/article.php?id=568 for updates on the Federal Budget Process-including some good news on Medicaid from the Senate! Both the House and Senate budget proposals include billions of dollars worth of new-unpaid-for -- tax cuts that deepen our deficit and largely benefit our country's wealthiest individuals. It's more important than ever to urge your members of Congress to create a fair and balanced budget!
The Politics and Pain of Terri Schiavo
The following came from the UUA Washington Office on Friday March 25 (before Terri Schiavo died) ...
The Washington Office wants to let you know of a few resources that may be helpful in dealing with the politics and pain surrounding the controversy over the life and death of Terri Schiavo.
First, we commend to you a personal letter written by the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, and a close partner of the UUA. It's available at http://www.interfaithalliance.org ; click the box in the upper middle part of the page entitled "Personal Reflections on Theresa Schiavo's Life." We join with Rev. Gaddy in being "astonished, appalled, and grieved" by Congress's decision to get involved.
Two other pieces of information may be helpful (or at least relevant). First, the UUA is one of (and may be the only) religious denomination to have passed a statement supporting the right to die with dignity. The 1988 resolution provides for the possibility that individuals may make very different choices, and they should be honored equally: "Unitarian Universalists advocate right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths." The complete statement can be found at . The UUA has also consistently advocated for safeguards against abuses by those who would hasten death contrary to an individual's desires.
For more information on advance directives (living wills and power of attorney), see
http://www.endoflifechoices.org/learn/who/news.jsp?reqID=100828.
Additional resources include: Wayne Arnason's study guide, "Faithful Choices" and Ralph Mero's pamphlet, "Choices in Dying," with the text link found at http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3100.html.
