This is a really important thread for Unitarian Universalists. In a religion that has a strong humanist component, how do we define "spiritual needs" and "spirituality"?
I agree, this is an important thread. Part of my struggle is between UUism as a faith, and how it is played out in my local church. Our family receives the "World" magazine, and I've read up on UUism, so I feel I have a sense of what it is about, what it seeks to be as an organization and as a faith movement. I have a lot of respect for that.
Spirituality is a tricky word, it means different things to different people, and there is conflict within UUism about what it is and how much energy should be put into it as a congregation...should the congregation support people to privately develop their spirituality while spending fellowship time to address more humanistic concerns, or should the congregation use fellowship time to try to provide spiritual experience for the group.
One of my issues with the local congregation is that it has chosen to call itself a church, rather than fellowship. When this is brought up, that maybe "fellowship" would be a more appropriate term for the group, it is argued that "church" will attract more people from the area due to the culture,even if it is not an accurate description of the group. Same with calling the Sunday meeting time "Worship Service" rather than "fellowship time" or "meeting time",they use the term to entice people in.
I believe that "spirituality" involves a feeling of contact with something larger and transcendent, something mysterious and infinite, and then acting upon those feelings in the world. But it's in the nature of human beings to personify and objectify our ideas...to worship the rock, not what made the rock; confusing the symbol with what is signified; and to repeat ritualistically the behaviors that gave us that feeling of transcendence even when our feelings have moved on and the rituals have become empty.
A lot of people who come to UU churches and fellowships have, as a spiritual act, become aware of the limitations of objectifying spirituality. A key element of their quest for truth and a higher standard is to reject theologies, symbols, and rituals that have become empty for them and don't truly represent the transcendent. The desire for transcendence is still there, but focused on the rejection of old limitations on where we could look for it, e.g., only in the Bible, only through Jesus, only through a literal, personal God, only through lighting incense and drawing pentagrams in the forest.
The problem of a "spiritual deficit" is that if we reject any use of symbols or ritual at all, we're deprived of the poetry that allows us to evoke deep feeling. Others play with and misappropriate the ideas, rituals and symbols of cultures we don't understand very deeply--as you're seeing with burning Yule logs in an Egyptian ceremony.* In that sense, we're just repeating the problem of confusing the symbol with the symbolized, but it seems fresh and helps us to "directly experience that transcending mystery and wonder" because it is new to us.
I see what you mean about this,it's a sort of spiritual angst, like a twentysomething rejecting the "tired" ways of their parents, but not sure what to replace it with, and also feeling nostalgic and remembering that some of the stuff their family did was sort of cool,trying to find a way to make the old stuff new, and hang onto the genuinely real feelings that some of those old ways stirred up.
It's like tofurkey...wanting to adopt new ways, for genuine and valid reasons, but not wanting to let go of the familiar tastes and textures either.
More particularly, why do people see spirituality as NOT social, not involved with interesting people and sub groups? The UU theologian James Luther Adams said, "by their groups ye shall know them", e.g., true spirituality has to be forged in the fire of a social association. As difficult it is to deal with, it is the heart of congregational religion. It's fair to say that Unitarian-Universalists may have times when we are "spiritual" all by ourselves, going on retreat to have contact with those deeper streams within; but if we don't feel it's also spiritual to come back into community with others and work to forge common ideals and actions, Unitarian-Universalism isn't the place for us.
I do find it spiritually satisfying to join with others on all sorts of topics and tasks. I had some deeply "connected" times in that congregation setting up for the Unicef Halloween Carnival, discussing...well, almost anything, etc. I think in the end what kills this is an overload of self conciousness...like learning to ride a bike, we do fine until we realize that we're doing it on our own, and then we start thinking too hard and CRASH! Sometimes too much analysis, too much assessment, etc end up killing the thing it's trying to support.
We had a interim minister that really worked us over. We had assessment workshops and leadership trainings and video series identifying the different "types" of people in congregations and we labeled ourselves and one another, and we found out we were doing everything wrong according to some smart person's standards and we were told to change things just for the sake of changing them to see how we responded, and,we discovered how dysfunctional we were. And then somehow we were supposed to put ourselves back together again, but I'm not sure that last part ever happened.
Going from the theoretical to the personal, it sounds like you have a problem with the minister. What's that about? Does the minister not offer any ideas from the pulpit that connect in any transcendent way? Or is it that the community has let her "take over" instead of being co-ministers with her?
*
Footnote: There is some kind of theological connection between ancient Celtic rites and the Egyptian forms of worship...so I would allow the possibility that there's more to this than we think.
That whole thing is complicated. I had some "personal" issues, in the sense that I don't agree with some of the minister's views and ways of doing things, fair enough. I was still able to function and serve and not let my personal issues stop me from participating. But what did me in is the relationship between the minister and the congregation. I think it has abdicated way too much of it's identity to this one person.
I have removed myself personally, but when I hear some of the things going on between the minister and the congregation, via my spouse, who serves on committees, etc I can't believe intelligent people are allowing these things to happen. When I ask if others think some of this stuff is ridiculous, he says yes, many people recognize the same things I do...but no one is willing to make an issue of it. Or when someone does bring it up, the minister's supporters rush in and say "don't you realize how lucky we are to have them?!" and shuts the discussion down.
My friend tells me to just ignore all that, but I don't seem able or willing to do so. I guess that is my issue, I can't just make nice while I see things going on that I think are bad for the church, I think it's irresponsible to do so.
I had a friend there, a lifelong UU, who I discussed several issues with before I stopped participating. She agreed with me, that these things were serious,ongoing issues, but she was raised UU and wants her kids to be raised UU and this is the only congregation in town...so, she's not going to make trouble.
I've heard the quote many times from that church's own pulpit "The only thing neccessary for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing"...and while I'm not ready to label these things as "evil"...the rest holds true. There are lots of good people there who, for all sorts of reasons...don't want to make waves.
From all I know of Unitarian Universalism's own history, from the very stories that the ministers of that church have shared from the pulpit, from the forefather's they teach about with pride...not speaking up when one perceives injustice is NOT the UU way, it is the antithesis of UUism!
I see no point in "just going along" when that is precisely what UUism is against. It's not about settling for a comfortable social group, it's all about speaking out, even when one's voice is shaking, for what one believes is just. But after years of doing just that and being told..."yes, but..." I guess I decided I'd leave with my principles intact rather than cave to taking the easy route.
I know it sounds like I'm being a spoiled child, demanding my way, but I've spoken to so many long time members, lifelong UU's, etc in that very congregation that tell me that I am seeing things clearly...but...They haven't told me I'm wrong, or that the situations are not an issue, they agree they are, but then suggest maybe it's not worth it to confront them.
They say the congregation needs to be a safe haven for people fleeing other religions. But I don't think that is what UU is about. It's not the "whatever you need us to be" faith for the disenchanted, it has a set of strong and challenging principles. It's about rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work others shy away from, not about keeping quiet so no one's feelings get hurt.
Or, at least that is what I was led to believe.
It's not about doing whats fun or creative or inclusiveor easy, it's about doing what's right, according to the principles.
Or have I misinterpreted the whole thing?
