A question for RF UU's

[uumckk16]

Hi Djamila,

As Maize and tlcmel have said, UU has no creed or dogma. But that doesn't mean that UUs don't share common beliefs. UUs do not have a creed or dogma because we believe in the freedom of conscience above all else, and we wouldn't want to violate anyone's freedom of conscience by making them subscribe to ideas in which they don't believe. But we have that shared faith in conscience, and a shared faith in the worth of humanity.

As has been discussed recently in another thread here, Unitarian Universalism is a different kind of religion. Most (not all) religions start with a discussion on the nature of God or gods and from there go on to talk about the nature of humanity (whether it's good or fallen with respect to God). UUs start with the nature of humanity - we assert our inherent worth - and beyond that... it doesn't really matter.

Traditional theists are shocked by this and may think that means that those of us UUs who are theists are not really theists. I am a theist. I start my days in thanks to God and end my evenings in thanks to God and try to live every moment in between in thanks to God. BUT I sincerely believe that it doesn't matter if the person sitting next to me in the pew believes in the God that I believe in or not. Because my God is not so petty as to care whether someone believes in God or not. My God cares about the welfare of humans and how well we treat each other, not whether or not we espoused the correct dogma. For those of us who believe in God, God loves everyone... including those who do not believe. Therefore the question of belief in God is less important than the question of how we treat our fellow sisters and brothers.

*Sigh* It won't let me frubal you. But I second des' "Amen, sister!"

 

[des]

>There was a split in the pilgrim/puritan established churches after the American Revolution; the liberal ones became Unitarian (now UU) and the conservative ones became Congregational (now United Church of Christ).

It depends on what you mean by conservative. I think that most UCCs would not be considered *conservative*, but it's alll relative I guess.
(For instance, UCCs are usually for gay marriage and ordination and have a similar social justice outlook as UUs). I believe that UCC has become much more liberal since it "united" in about 1950 or so with several smaller churches.

But yes, they come from the same traditional roots. And UCC essentially is Christian-- some wouldn't agree-- but we have Christian sacraments and form of worship, while, at this time, many UU churches are not Christian-- although there may be, most likely are, Christians attending. There are Christian elements-- for example I recognized several hymns (just hymn singing itself).

>Both churches are democratic: the congregation is ultimately in charge, as Des pointed out.

This is radically different than many Christian churches which are authoritarian and based on top down ways of running things.


>I have known some very spiritual atheists and agnostic who attend UU churches. By "spiritual" I mean they have a sense of the wonder and mystery of life, as the scientist Carl Sagan did. To them, the classical personal God is likely a creation of our minds, a developmental stage of human development, and the mystery that we swim in is beyond human comprehension, so why get stuck with a limiting concept that makes people fight with each other because neither side can prove that its concept is objectively right?


Ever read (not see the movie) Contact? This is a highly spiritual (but not about God) book which essentially explores the numinous. Jody Foster does a very good job, but the "spiritual aspects" of the movie are essentially presented by a sort of Billy Graham figure. Carl Sagan, was much more interested in the numinous than that.

Baha'i:
>all religions come from the same source, we should independently investigate the truth, women and men are equals, and lots of other liberal things UUs agree with, but the authority is different. For UUs, ideas come from the individual conscience, for Baha'is the principles were revealed directly to a prophet and then to us. Big difference in cosmology there, despite the policy similarities.

I think that may actually be the difference between UCC and UU as well. In UCC there is ultimately the "spiritual direction" of Jesus' teachings-- however you might interpret that.

Of course, for those of you reading my posts you see that I may be having current problems with that.

--des

 

[des]

*Sigh* It won't let me frubal you. But I second des' "Amen, sister!"

I can't frubal her either. I'm supposed to spread the karma around.

--des

 

[lilithu]

>There was a split in the pilgrim/puritan established churches after the American Revolution; the liberal ones became Unitarian (now UU) and the conservative ones became Congregational (now United Church of Christ).

It depends on what you mean by conservative. I think that most UCCs would not be considered *conservative*, but it's alll relative I guess.
(For instance, UCCs are usually for gay marriage and ordination and have a similar social justice outlook as UUs). I believe that UCC has become much more liberal since it "united" in about 1950 or so with several smaller churches.

Hi des,

I think applewuud was refering to the specific time in history (early 19th century) when the split happened over the Calvinist doctrine of the "total depravity of man," with "liberal" Unitarians rejecting that notion and "conservative" Congregationalists upholding it. Yes, it's all relative because the Congregationalists followed the Unitarians pretty soon afterwards, and nowadays the UCC are definately considered religious liberals.

applewuud I am thrilled that there is someone else on RF who is interested in UU history!

 

[des]

Yes, that is so. I recall reading things about Congregationalists. In the past, for instance they believed in predestination, and were quite Calvinists (unlike the Baptists who believed in the "priesthood of the believer" and those sorts of more liberal concepts). Gosh things do change don't they? I do think you could find some Baptists who believed that, but it wouldn't be the Southern Baptist Convention!


--des

Hi des,

I think applewuud was refering to the specific time in history (early 19th century) when the split happened over the Calvinist doctrine of the "total depravity of man," with "liberal" Unitarians rejecting that notion and "conservative" Congregationalists upholding it. Yes, it's all relative because the Congregationalists followed the Unitarians pretty soon afterwards, and nowadays the UCC are definately considered religious liberals.

applewuud I am thrilled that there is someone else on RF who is interested in UU history!

 

[applewuud]

I heard a sermon years ago by a minister from New England who said the difference between the Congregational churches and the Unitarian churches went all the way back to the 17th century, in fact. The puritans had come to America because they thought the Church of England was too materialistic and corrupt, and they wanted to create a "pure" version of the faith (not unlike the Taliban in Islam). The pilgrims came on the same ships...but they were different. They came in search of religious freedom, where their own thinking and preaching and reading independent of a hierarchy might reveal more truth to them, in the Protestant tradition. The Puritans' approach led eventually to the Salem witch trials, and other excesses, which drove pilgrims into the more distant parts of New England, away from Boston where there was essentially a theocracy.

So up on Cape Ann and Cape Cod, not to mention the northern Connecticut river valley, the established churches were more liberal even in the early 1700s. By the time Unitarian and Universalist ideas hit around 1780-1820, these "pilgrim" churches were eager to accept them, while the "puritan" churches thought they were heresy, and splits occurred in the "established" (state-supported) churches.

It's interesting to me that, in the end, the Anglican church proved to be the most liberal of the catholic faiths, and the Episcopalians in America are now at risk of losing communion with the worldwide Anglican church due to their acceptance of a gay bishop and sanctioning gay marriage.

So, another way of explaining Unitarian-Universalism is: "we're the pilgrims who have stayed on pilgrimage."

 

[lilithu]

I heard a sermon years ago by a minister from New England who said the difference between the Congregational churches and the Unitarian churches went all the way back to the 17th century, in fact. The puritans had come to America because they thought the Church of England was too materialistic and corrupt, and they wanted to create a "pure" version of the faith (not unlike the Taliban in Islam). The pilgrims came on the same ships...but they were different. They came in search of religious freedom, where their own thinking and preaching and reading independent of a hierarchy might reveal more truth to them, in the Protestant tradition. The Puritans' approach led eventually to the Salem witch trials, and other excesses, which drove pilgrims into the more distant parts of New England, away from Boston where there was essentially a theocracy.

I agree with the stated difference between "pilgrims" and "puritans." I wonder, however, whether it's actually been documented that this difference can be traced directly to the difference between the "Congregational churches" and the "Unitarian churches." Boston being the headquarters of the UUA and several prominent Unitarian churches.

It would be very convenient for UUs to say that we were never on the wrong side of anything.

 

[des]

I would guess that the Congregational church (and UCC-- all UCC are congregationalists but not all Congregationalists are UCC), has changed quite a lot *more* than UU. I don't think that Thomas Jefferson would exactly recognize the UU church today but he would be comfortable. I doubt Cotton Matthers and his lot would be too comfortable with Congregationalists today. However, it is my understanding they might not be quite as more or less universally liberal as UCCs are.
Many of the beliefs of the early Congregationalists like predestination,etc are mere memories. And the worst sin in the Congregational church is telling them they should believe this or that.

--des

I agree with the stated difference between "pilgrims" and "puritans." I wonder, however, whether it's actually been documented that this difference can be traced directly to the difference between the "Congregational churches" and the "Unitarian churches." Boston being the headquarters of the UUA and several prominent Unitarian churches.

It would be very convenient for UUs to say that we were never on the wrong side of anything.

 

[uufreespirit]

Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do, reading your old posts. You've been making some great points here!

Applewuud, your discussion of pilgrims and puritans is right on the money, from what I've read. (I'd love to know more about that sermon you mentioned, by the way.) The "Mayflower Pilgrims" were an intriguing bunch: "Calvinists with just a pinch of free-spirit" in them. Probably got some of that from their original minister John Robinson, who (according to Edward Winslow, one of the congregation's leaders)....

"He took occasion also miserably to bewail the state and condition of the Reformed Churches, who were come to a period in religion and would go no further than the instruments of their Reformation...they could not be drawn to go beyond what Luther say.... And...you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them---a misery much to be lamented; for though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them...The Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth
out of his holy word."

There, from the year 1620, is some of that non-creedal, "never come to a period" emphasis that we still cherish so much today. Did y'all happen to see the UU World article on the two churches in Plymouth that grew up right next door to each other--one UCC and the other UU--that are both parts of the same "Mayflower Pilgrim" congregation. (Since I'm not yet allowed to post links yet I'll just share this with you;

Go to uuworld dot org then slant ideas slant articles slant 6570 a dot then shtml )

 

[uufreespirit]

about the pilgrim/puritan difference leading to the start of Unitarianism. For one thing, there were also English Unitarians settling farther south, mainly in the Pennsylvania area at about the same time. Their roots appear to have been more "generic or hybrid protestant" than the Puritans. It can be at least argued that these folks farther to the south were "ahead of" the New England Unitarians and that their relationships with the Universalists were closer as well. It was these Unitarians that Jefferson and Franklen related to the most--especially Dr. Joseph Priestley. However, from an institutional, organizating standpoint, the folks in the Boston region had an edge over them.

 

[des]

I think you mean Congregationalists not UCC. UCC is a new church,
relatively, and it's 50 years old this year. It was a combo of *some* Congregationalists and 2 other smaller churches. (BTW, that is clear in the article you quote). The historic Congregational church is pretty different than the UCC, and the only similarity maybe is congregational structure. Congregationalists back in the day did not believe in the priesthood of the believer. That was Baptist and maybe Methodist, I forgot. UCC is ardently nondoctrinal. But doesn't take it quite as far as UU, as it maintains identity (its own mostly)as a Christian church. Mainly that is in the social gospel, as opposed to necessarily taking any tenets. I was surprised that the belief statement doesn't contain either reference to substitutional atonement or Jesus as God.
I didn't agree with everythign though.

"United Church of Christ Statement of Faith—adapted by Robert V. Moss

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, who is made known to us in Jesus our brother, and to whose deeds we testify:

God calls the worlds into being, creates humankind in the divine image, and sets before us the ways of life and death.

God seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.

God judges all humanity and all nations by that will of righteousness declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,God has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the whole creation to its Creator.

God bestows upon us the Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

God calls us into the church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be servants in the service of the whole human family, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table,to join him in his passion and victory.

God promises to all who trust in the gospel forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace,the presence of the Holy Spirit in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in that kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto God."

I can buy into some of that maybe 60% or so, I'm not sure which ones I buy into but I can definitely say which I definitely don't. Anyway, you can see that this is prettty much a different whole thing than the Congregational church circa 1600.

BTW, a couple years ago UCC took on a God is still speaking campaign. It is sort of evangelistic in an off-beat way. Anyway it says "Never put a period where God has placed a comma."

BTW, the article says that there is some tension between these two UCC and UU churches. Gosh I find that hard to believe, of any church it is one of the most likely that we would work with. (Maybe it is the shared history?)

thanks for your "you rock" btw.

--des

There, from the year 1620, is some of that non-creedal, "never come to a period" emphasis that we still cherish so much today. Did y'all happen to see the UU World article on the two churches in Plymouth that grew up right next door to each other--one UCC and the other UU--that are both parts of the same "Mayflower Pilgrim" congregation. (Since I'm not yet allowed to post links yet I'll just share this with you;

Go to uuworld dot org then slant ideas slant articles slant 6570 a dot then shtml )

 

[applewuud]

By "Congregational" churches, historically, I'm referring to the "established" churches supported by town taxes in New England, before lawsuits in the early 19th century under "separation of church and state" ended that support. Many if not most UU and UCC churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut can trace their lineage to one of those congregations. Many UU churches here have a hidden set of communion silver that hasn't been used for 50 or 100 years, or is kept at a historical society.

The issue of communion and how often it should be celebrated, or indeed celebrated at all, often led to the split between liberal and conservative congregations. It was a major issue leading to Ralph Waldo Emerson's leaving the ministry--his congregation wanted communion services, and he felt it had become a hollow ritual.

 

[des]

This is a hugely big deal at our church apparently. I didn't know this until recently. Some feel that once a month is almost a law, and really way too much (the majority maybe). But there are some ex-RCs (and also MCC-- the "gay church" for lack of a better description), and they did communion every week, and miss it. They have compromised and are doing kind of an informal one. I went to it not knowing what to expect and just about freaked out when they said "this is the body and blood of Christ". YIKES.
They never say that.

So the debate still holds forth.

--des

The issue of communion and how often it should be celebrated, or indeed celebrated at all, often led to the split between liberal and conservative congregations. It was a major issue leading to Ralph Waldo Emerson's leaving the ministry--his congregation wanted communion services, and he felt it had become a hollow ritual.

 

[lilithu]

I went to it not knowing what to expect and just about freaked out when they said "this is the body and blood of Christ". YIKES.

Well imagine hearing that at a UU church, which is what happened at mine a few years back.

 

[des]

Well I thought I had been attacked by aliens and teleported to the nearest
Catholic church, so I can only imagine what you thought. I was like YIKES you just don't say that. But apparently the ex-Catholics etc. really like this all. I'm not sure to what extent they still believe those things but they expect to hear it and if they don't hear those words they are disappointed.
I was grousing around to someone and said "What was that supposed to mean" and the person was in Chicago theological seminary (very liberal), and she said well I don't think he meant transsubstation (that's where they believe that the bread and wine literally turn into...), so she said "ask him".
And he told me "basically anythign you want". But had he said that in a regular service there would be open revolt. People expect the whole thign done very metaphorically.

So I can only imagine what you thought!!!
(Of course, I'm thinking it might come out different in a church that is openly experimental in the way UU is. We have life time UCCers, and they have certain expectations that this or that isn't UCC. Hence all the comments about how often you are supposed to do this and so on. People tend to think "less is more" I think. ) Also I am thinking it would seem different to me as well if it were one aspect of experience I was considering rather than "this is the monthly communion service".

--des

Well imagine hearing that at a UU church, which is what happened at mine a few years back.

 

[des]

Well I thought I had been attacked by aliens and teleported to the nearest
Catholic church, so I can only imagine what you thought. I was like YIKES you just don't say that. But apparently the ex-Catholics etc. really like this all. I'm not sure to what extent they still believe those things but they expect to hear it and if they don't hear those words they are disappointed.
I was grousing around to someone and said "What was that supposed to mean" and the person was in Chicago theological seminary (very liberal), and she said well I don't think he meant transsubstation (that's where they believe that the bread and wine literally turn into...), so she said "ask him".
And he told me "basically anythign you want". But had he said that in a regular service there would be open revolt. People expect the whole thign done very metaphorically.

So I can only imagine what you thought!!!
(Of course, I'm thinking it might come out different in a church that is openly experimental in the way UU is. We have life time UCCers, and they have certain expectations that this or that isn't UCC. Hence all the comments about how often you are supposed to do this and so on. People tend to think "less is more" I think. ) Also I am thinking it would seem different to me as well if it were one aspect of experience I was considering rather than "this is the monthly communion service".

--des

Well imagine hearing that at a UU church, which is what happened at mine a few years back.

 

[lilithu]

Well I thought I had been attacked by aliens and teleported to the nearest
Catholic church, so I can only imagine what you thought. I was like YIKES you just don't say that. But apparently the ex-Catholics etc. really like this all. I'm not sure to what extent they still believe those things but they expect to hear it and if they don't hear those words they are disappointed.
I was grousing around to someone and said "What was that supposed to mean" and the person was in Chicago theological seminary (very liberal),

By Chicago theological seminary, do you mean Meadville Lombard??

and she said well I don't think he meant transsubstation (that's where they believe that the bread and wine literally turn into...), so she said "ask him".
And he told me "basically anythign you want". But had he said that in a regular service there would be open revolt. People expect the whole thign done very metaphorically.

So I can only imagine what you thought!!!
(Of course, I'm thinking it might come out different in a church that is openly experimental in the way UU is. We have life time UCCers, and they have certain expectations that this or that isn't UCC. Hence all the comments about how often you are supposed to do this and so on. People tend to think "less is more" I think. ) Also I am thinking it would seem different to me as well if it were one aspect of experience I was considering rather than "this is the monthly communion service".

--des

Oh, we only have communion once a year and that's for Good Friday. I don't know if that makes it more or less shocking. I wasn't in DC yet so I didn't actually hear those infamous words spoken in our church but some people who did hear it are still talking about it.

When our current senior minister was called he reinstated Good Friday communion here at the request of several members of the church who, like the people you describe don't really believe in transsubstantiation or even the ressurection but they just like the tradition. It's what they grew up with and it's comforting to them. It's funny because these guys readily admit the 50 weeks out of the year, they are perfectly happy in our church but come Easter and maybe Christmas and for some even Palm Sunday, they miss the trappings of Christianity. And I admit that I adore ritual so I don't mind. (What does bother me is that we do it for Christianity but not other religions.)

Anyway, our minister reinstated communion during our tenebrae service, and another person, not our minister, actually said, "This is the blood and body of Christ." And several of our congregants have not been to a Tenebrae service since then! Which is kinda funny dontcha think, given that the whole reason for having a Good Friday service is because of the whole sacrifice thing. Even so, I'll admit that had I been there I would have been shocked, and I would not have in good conscience been able to eat and drink. To me doing so would have been disrespectful to those who actually do believe.

But our church kept communion despite the controversy and changed the words, and what they've said every year since then is fine with me. I don't remember the exact words but it's something like this is the bread made from many grains of the Earth that sustains our community... something like that but nicer. *shrug* I like it. I think that's what communion is about anyway. communion = community.

 

[applewuud]

What's a Tenebrae service? I haven't heard of that.

There's a "communion" ritual in one of the UU youth group books, that we found particularly meaningful. It's based around an old story about the difference between heaven and hell...in both, people are gathered around a pot of stew, with spoons several feet long attached to their arms. In hell people are hungry, and in heaven people use their spoons to feed each other. We used pizza for our "communion", and it was as deep an experience as any communion I've had at a conventional church.

Maybe we should start a separate thread about the communion issue? Is there much controversy about that in other UU churches?

 

[lilithu]

What's a Tenebrae service? I haven't heard of that.

It's traditionally a service to mark Good Friday and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. It's very somber and ends with the extinguishing of light. ("Tenebrae" is Latin for "shadows.") People leave the service in darkness and in silence. And then return again Easter Sunday to light, music, and joy. Here again is a place where I don't agree with traditional Christian theology, but I love the emotional aspects of this service. The idea of sorrow over the deaths of our prophets, and then the movement into joy again. Renewal.

My church's Tenebrae service is more traditionally Christian. We focus on Jesus' death and our loss of him, and I have no problem with that because Jesus is one of my biggest spiritual influences. We don't think of it as a sacrifice to appease God, but rather as the murder of a prophet who spoke truth to power. I know that other UU congregations have more modified tenebrae services where they reflect on the murders of modern prophets like Gandhi and Dr. King, etc.

There's a "communion" ritual in one of the UU youth group books, that we found particularly meaningful. It's based around an old story about the difference between heaven and hell...in both, people are gathered around a pot of stew, with spoons several feet long attached to their arms. In hell people are hungry, and in heaven people use their spoons to feed each other. We used pizza for our "communion", and it was as deep an experience as any communion I've had at a conventional church.

That's an old Sufi story. In terms of having a ritual where we feed each other, I experienced that at a shabbat led by Rabbi Michael Lerner. Same thing as Christian communion, bread and wine (well, ok, grapejuice) - Jesus was a Jew afterall, but instead of the rabbi giving it to each participant, he passed around loaves and we each pulled off a bit and then fed it to the person next to us, and vice versa.

I do like the symbolism of that MUCH more than taking communnion from a hierarchical figurehead. Methinks I'll suggest we do that at All Souls but it probably won't fly. We tend to be a little more "hierarchical" than most other UU congregations. But I'm not complaining. I love my church!

Maybe we should start a separate thread about the communion issue? Is there much controversy about that in other UU churches?

There might be. We're UUs afterall. Everything is a controversy. I personally like communion.

 

[arthra]

I think I understand. I thought UU was similar to the Bahai Faith, in that it was very open but it was still a "there is a God" faith. UU, I suppose, is a little more open then?

I think if you look at the internal organization and say the ordinances of the Baha'i Faith and compare it say with Unitarian Universalist churches there a lot of differences but there are probably also areas of agreement where Baha'is could support similar objectives say for social justice or peace but again Baha'is strategy is different as we avoid partisanship.

- Art