Language of Reverence

[EverChanging]

What exactly is meant when UUA presidential candidates (or others) express the intent to develop a "language of reverence"? The main problem I see with this is that each individual person can have a totally different idea of what a language of reverence means or should encompass; a liberal Christian and a Humanist are going to have different vocabularies in some respects.

How could one person develop a language of reverence to fit everyone? Why should it be relevant when a person campaigns to become president of the UUA? How exactly do they plan to develop this language and what relevance will it have to the UUA as a whole?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Storm]

I don't know what others intend, but it strikes me that they're taking up the challenge you describe.

For instance, in my church, people usually say "spirit of life" rather than "God." Maybe the people you're referring to want to find that sort of compromise for the UUA as a whole?

I don't know, I'm just spouting off.

 

[bicker]

This has come up in conversations a lot, recently.

I think a major aspect of this stems from realizations that we're not the first or second largest religious community in the United States, and therefore we have no right to impose an expectation on the broader population to adopt our nomenclature. Instead, we need to communicate using words for which the meaning of is reasonably determined by a majority of people who happen not to be us.

Let's be clear, though: "They" reasonably determines what words mean -- "they" don't get to determine what truth is.
​

Anyway, it is important that we express our religious faith using words that convey its importance, and its impact. A language of reverence claims for ourselves the status imparted by the words we use to describe our faith.

There have been some studies that have shown that Americans trust Atheists the least of any group of people in our society. [Source: American Sociological Review, April 2006. And others.] And I'm sure no one would question that many people in our society distrust those who describe their beliefs in a manner that sounds alien to them. But why? Ostensibly, because to these people "God" is goodness. However, what is "God"? This is a question that has plagued UUs for centuries. The reality many of us have come to realize is that God (as goodness) isn't something that other people impose the definition of onto us, but rather is something that we define for ourselves. Therefore, that which is goodness to us is God. That's just one example of how using a language of reference claims the right to define the essence of goodness for ourselves, instead of letting the majority, of which we are not, impose that definition onto us.

 

[EverChanging]

I'm still not understanding how a group as diverse as Unitarian Universalists could ever come up with a language of reverence that fits all of us. Some UUs don't use god-language at all. I'm okay with the word coming up in a religious setting because it is so vague and has so many different (even contradictory) meanings, but I don't use the word myself. I find that it confuses people about what I'm really saying.

 

[Storm]

No one's saying it would be easy. In fact, I think it may be futile.

 

[J Bryson]

Maybe, Storm, but I'm getting into the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington idea of lost causes being the only ones worth fighting for. When the lack of such a language was simply something that those outside the church did not understand, it was merely an inconvenience that led to certain challenges, such as the "elevator speech". However, it seems that it's gotten to the point that we have gone from a diverse community to a fractious one, and also that we do very little to attract those who agree with our inherent ideas and ideals, but are more comfortable with a language of reverence. Many grew up in churches that they drifted away from due to a lack of comfort with the dogma involved, but still yearn for the shared language that creates a sense of community and shared experiences.

What can we do to include these people? It's a question worth asking, and a topic worth discussing.

 

[Storm]

I don't disagree.

 

[EverChanging]

Perhaps it is a sense of tradition or ritual some UUs feel is lacking? Though I'm not a pagan, I've found myself drawn to it because of the traditions and ritual; I've had a lot of fun participating in even simple pagan rituals to celebrate the turning of the seasons, etc. The pagans I know are a really fun group.

 

[J Bryson]

Rituals and the like are helpful, but most churches have some form of ritual involved, ranging from rather loose to "I Can't Believe It's Not Christian". I'm thinking of the language we use within the church to relay what I can only describe as experiences of the sacred, or even the divine. The sense of wonder. Emerson had it in spades. This is one of the things that many hope for when they sit in the pews of our churches. They come to us, I believe, because they were unable to experience these things in their previous religious communities, or were so resistant to the attached dogma that it simply wasn't worth it.

Personally, I'd love to see some sort of nod to the divine as part and parcel of the UU tradition. The history of the church shows that we once had it in a manner that unfortunately excluded too many, and we changed things so that more could be accepted. Now perhaps it's time to uplift those who hunger for something beyond.

 

[bicker]

The first step is recognizing the need (as some have already done in this thread). The second step is recognizing the means (which I outlined in my post, #3, i.e., utilizing existing language to label those aspects of our faith that are analogous in context). The third step is promulgation.

 

[J Bryson]

Yes, I agree with your post. My apologies: I should have made it clear that I was attempting to add my own points to that, and not make it seem as if I was ignoring your points.

 

[EverChanging]

Personally, I'd love to see some sort of nod to the divine as part and parcel of the UU tradition. The history of the church shows that we once had it in a manner that unfortunately excluded too many, and we changed things so that more could be accepted. Now perhaps it's time to uplift those who hunger for something beyond.

What do you mean by a "nod to the divine?" If you mean a reverence for life or an appreciation of what we call "sacred," this can include both theists and atheists, and the principle affirming "respect for the interconnected web of life" already gives support for that.

But if you mean some supernatural form of the divine, I strongly disagree: if it becomes "part and parcel of the UU tradition" how is it different from a creed? Shouldn't it be up to individual UUs whether they acknowledge or revere a supernatural form of the divine?

 

[J Bryson]

What do you mean by a "nod to the divine?" If you mean a reverence for life or an appreciation of what we call "sacred," this can include both theists and atheists, and the principle affirming "respect for the interconnected web of life" already gives support for that.

But if you mean some supernatural form of the divine, I strongly disagree: if it becomes "part and parcel of the UU tradition" how is it different from a creed? Shouldn't it be up to individual UUs whether they acknowledge or revere a supernatural form of the divine?

I'm not talking about the supernatural. I am, however, speaking towards an underlying interconnectedness between all things, the very thing that has caused people to attempt to describe the mysteries of the universe in admittedly imperfect terms since we started wondering why the same glowing orb traced over the sky each morning, or why the mammoths were plentiful at some times and not at others. I'm speaking of something that connects us in a common thread of humanity, and a web of existence that relates every single part of the universe to every other single part of the universe. Whether one gets this from physics, Taoism, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or some combination is irrelevant. We need to speak to this urge to transcend what we are, and connect with something greater, whether we see this in theistic, atheistic, or other terms.

 

[EverChanging]

I'm not talking about the supernatural. I am, however, speaking towards an underlying interconnectedness between all things, the very thing that has caused people to attempt to describe the mysteries of the universe in admittedly imperfect terms since we started wondering why the same glowing orb traced over the sky each morning, or why the mammoths were plentiful at some times and not at others. I'm speaking of something that connects us in a common thread of humanity, and a web of existence that relates every single part of the universe to every other single part of the universe. Whether one gets this from physics, Taoism, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, or some combination is irrelevant. We need to speak to this urge to transcend what we are, and connect with something greater, whether we see this in theistic, atheistic, or other terms.

Okay, that makes more sense to me. It is the word "divine" that confused me because, as I said, it has so many different meanings to different people and in different religious traditions. That's why I don't use words like "god" or "divine" to describe my feelings of reverence or wonder for the universe or reality.

 

[J Bryson]

And I'm thinking that maybe it's time to reclaim these terms from the narrow meanings they've been given by those who have hijacked religion in the media. and in the American mindset. They've taken wonderful concepts and ideas that help people in their day to day lives, and said "You're only really experiencing the divine if you swallow everything else that we give you." It's a pernicious lie, and no wonder so many atheists now see theists as the enemy. It's because so many God-believers are saying "This is our experience, and not yours. This is our sense of wonder, and you can't experience it." And the worst part? Many atheists have bought into this argument, and automatically act with scorn (as opposed to mere healthy skepticism) to any concept of the divine, the eternal, the transcendent.

It's like what the political right did to the noble word "liberal" back in the 80s. It took me years before I could proudly use that word to describe myself without fear that I'd get a response of "Oh, I'm not liberal. I'm progressive." or some such thing.

The Universalist concept is that salvation is open to everybody. For me, it logically follows that divine and transcendent experiences are equally open to everybody who wishes to experience them.

 

[bicker]

To be fair, though -- these things have meant what they want them to mean, and haven't meant what they should mean, for at least as long as anyone alive would remember -- probably ever. That's really the whole point behind a liberal religion -- ever-changing. We are effectively asserting new meaning (and we have an unequivocal right to do so).

 

[J Bryson]

I don't think that we are asserting new meaning. I think that we're simply respecting the paths that others have used for generations in order to get there.

 

[EverChanging]

They've taken wonderful concepts and ideas that help people in their day to day lives, and said "You're only really experiencing the divine if you swallow everything else that we give you."

When people tell me that their god (which is their idea of "God", whatever that is) helps them from day to day, they are almost always talking about a being, an entity, with supernatural powers that created the universe, or a higher power with consciousness.

If we're going to refer to our experience of awe and wonder, that sense of the sacred, as "God" or "the divine," that is what most people are going to think. I don't think that by changing the definitions that we're really taking anything back from anyone, we're just changing the meanings. That's okay with me, but I find it confusing.

I have read about various ways to re-define the word "god," but when I begin to read about these other definitions or heretical doctrine, I find myself wondering how the word "god" is even relevant to what they're talking about. I have tried various ways of conceptualizing "God" myself and find it futile. Mostly, I lean toward pantheism, but even many pantheists have stopped using the word "god."

And here is yet another problem: while some UUs are going to gravitate toward god-language because of their inclinations (Christian, deist, Muslim, panentheist, whatever), other UUs who gravitate toward a different spiritual path (not only atheism, but Buddhism, which is largely nontheistic) are going to use different language: words like "god" or "divine" may mean nothing to them. Should the language of reverence be drawn mostly from Christianity? or Buddhism? or Hinduism? Or should we come up with an entirely unique language?

Even if we do change the definition of "God," not everyone will agree on the definition or be happy with the word the definition is attached to, and that won't do anything to help outsiders understand what we're talking about.

James

 

[J Bryson]

I see your concerns as justified. However, bicker's point regarding analogous language is a good step towards finding something that will work for a vast majority of our membership. I agree that "God" is probably out as a term that will satisfy the non-theists and atheists who have brought so much of value to our church, including those who follow Buddhist, Taoist, and other religious practices that do not pay homage. However, terms such as "The Sacred", "The Source", and the like have some potential. Also, since our ministers already have (at least) Masters degrees in Divinity, we might as well negotiate on "The Divine".

 

[EverChanging]

"The Sacred" or "The Source" will probably work -- these terms can also encompass a wide range of things, but I think people would perhaps have a better idea of what can fall under these terms, even if they aren't specific.

"The Divine" may work, depending on what "divine" means. One definition offered that might work, from dictionary.com:

8.of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine.