Language of Reverence

[J Bryson]

Interesting. Kind of like Ayn Rand's explanation of why she still said "My God!". She stated that it was the verbalization of the highest ideal, and required no actual belief in God.

Oh, and let's give a nod to Emerson: "Transcendent"

 

[bicker]

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.

I don't see that. While many UUs are reviving old religions, most are humanists, and perhaps now religious humanists, and therefore following paths that haven't been used for generations. Indeed, the principles, themselves, draw a picture of continually searching for truth and meaning, meaning that it is our intention to foster the trodding of new paths to get there, rather than continue to use the old paths.

 

[bicker]

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?

None of the above: Language is a systematic means of communicating. Consequently, the answer should be governed by nature, criticality and extent of the challenges we will face in communicating what needs to be communicated. Going back to what I said earlier... One thing that is a critical need, for any religious minority, is to communicate to society that we live in the grace of goodness. The ramifications of failing to do so are terrible. What is the constructive value added by failing to take the opportunity to assert the goodness of our beliefs -- for what? -- just the thrill of creating our own (and thereby secret) language? The UU principles foster an open search for truth -- they don't foster the practice of distorting sacred into secret.

The early Christians knew this. They co-opted whole practices to help the broader population understand the appropriate parallel to draw between something from within what could reasonably be expected to be the general public's frame-of-reference and what the early Christians were putting themselves forward as. They realized that in order to best communicate what they were all about you need to use language that can be understood by others rather than fostering an other-ness by creating a language that will only be understood from within. That other-ness breeds only contempt, persecution and conflict.

Going to the rest room is, obviously, something people need to do. When you visit a foreign country, the first thing you typically do is learn how to ask where the rest room is, in the native tongue. Unless we are the prototypical ugly American, we do not assume that the majority of people around us, the natives of the place we're visiting, will work to understand our language. Like it or not, a religious minority is always like a tourist visiting a foreign country: We know we need to work a bit harder to assert the validity of our own beliefs and values. We happily bridge the gap of communication to speak matters of importance among ourselves, but we know that the majority will not go the extra mile to try to understand us, our beliefs, our values. Maybe that would be a reasonable expectation, someday, when our goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all is already realized, but the reason why the principles specifically label that a "goal" is because it is not the case, today.

However, let's be very clear: There is no need to compromise values in the interest of communication -- we are only talking about 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.

The point is to reverse the nature of definition. This is an essential aspect of UUism: Instead of proscription from someone else dictating what beliefs and values are necessary to achieve some ultimate truth, we recognize the the ultimate truth is whatever sits at the end of any responsible search for it. So we're not changing the definition of God, for anyone else, but rather asserting that what any of us declare is God for ourselves, is. The only thing we're forcing on others is the expectation that they consider our belief in God (i.e., our religious truth) as equal of respect as their own.

 

[bicker]

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".

I appreciate your desire and intention to seek a compromise. However, you're negotiating in the wrong venue. It is not up to us, within UUism, to dictate to the broader society. Again, since the purpose of language is communication and since there are critical needs regarding communication in the context of the broader society, your negotiation must necessarily include "them", i.e., what we agree to must serve the necessary purpose with regard to communicating what we need to communicate to the broader society. Within UU, we are adaptable, flexible, and amenable to change -- that's what the word "liberal" in "a liberal religion" means. We know that the broader society is substantially not flexible with regard to these matters, at least not in deference to such a small minority as we are. We can choose to be stubborn, and refuse to be true to our nature (i.e., adaptable, flexible, and amenable to change), but we shouldn't. Another aspect of UUism is that we embrace reason, and reason says, I think, that for something as relatively inconsequential as language (at least as compared to things like beliefs, values, and especially peaceful co-existence), we can adapt, we can bend, we can use language that will communicate what the broader, often-reactionary general public needs to understand to come to better respect our rightful place in society.

And again, I have to underscore how language differs from beliefs and values. Language is relatively inconsequential; beliefs and values are earth-shakingly critical.

 

[J Bryson]

I don't see us as dictating to larger society, but I don't think that society at large should be able to dictate to us, either. If we did that, we wouldn't be calling ourselves a religion.

Language is anything but inconsequential. It is through the words that we use and the phrases that we employ that we present ourselves to the world at large. It is through the same means and methods that we present ourselves to ourselves. Language is how we communicate our beliefs and values, and how we negotiate the best ways of putting them into practice. Language is HOW we speak with this "reactionary" public, and the words that we use will determine how we deal with them for years to come, not to mention how many choose to investigate and become contributing members of this church (or choose not to).

If the language that we use seems to indicate that there is no room for the sacred experience (an all-too-common complaint), then we will not be attracting those for whom a connection with the divine is an important part of the religious path. On the other hand, if we use certain loaded words, then EverChanging's skepticism regarding the use of such terminology will prove justified.

I'm not talking about having a set of beliefs forced upon us from the pulpit. I am saying that we can come to an agreement on an inclusionary use of language, decide for ourselves as congregations and individually how we see the terminology, and not let society at large dictate to us what they mean.

 

[bicker]

I don't see us as dictating to larger society, but I don't think that society at large should be able to dictate to us, either. If we did that, we wouldn't be calling ourselves a religion.

I was extremely meticulous about being very clear about what I was talking about:

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

However, let's be very clear: There is no need to compromise values in the interest of communication -- we are only talking about language.

Language is anything but inconsequential.

No one said it was. Let me remind you again, what I wrote:

Another aspect of UUism is that we embrace reason, and reason says, I think, that for something as relatively inconsequential as language (at least as compared to things like beliefs, values, and especially peaceful co-existence), we can adapt, we can bend, we can use language that will communicate what the broader, often-reactionary general public needs to understand to come to better respect our rightful place in society.

The word "relatively" is about as far from absolutism as you can get. My point was precisely that there was not an absolute lack of consequence for language, but rather that there are some things that are more consequential.

Let's be clear: Are you saying that language is as important, or more important, than beliefs, values, peace and safety? If not, then, with respect, your comments about what I said were off-target.

... if we use certain loaded words, then EverChanging's skepticism regarding the use of such terminology will prove justified.

No, it wouldn't. Why would you even suggest that? :-? These words are loaded with significance. There is practically nothing we can do to change that. That significance has importance, and (very specifically) relevance to us: We are good. So if we hope to have a chance at communicating that, we have to use the words that connotate goodness. We can hope and pray that different words would be understood to have the same significance, but we cannot impose it, and therefore it is foolish to expect it/to rely on it.

I'm not talking about having a set of beliefs forced upon us from the pulpit. I am saying that we can come to an agreement on an inclusionary use of language, decide for ourselves as congregations and individually how we see the terminology, and not let society at large dictate to us what they mean.

Let's go back to the reality of the situation: Because we are a small minority, society-at-large will dictate what they will comprehend words to mean. We can choose to ignore that reality, to our detriment, or we can choose to embrace that reality, and make the most of what we can.

 

[J Bryson]

I was extremely meticulous about being very clear about what I was talking about:No one said it was. Let me remind you again, what I wrote:The word "relatively" is about as far from absolutism as you can get. My point was precisely that there was not an absolute lack of consequence for language, but rather that there are some things that are more consequential.

Let's be clear: Are you saying that language is as important, or more important, than beliefs, values, peace and safety? If not, then, with respect, your comments about what I said were off-target.

I am saying that they are inextricably linked, not that one is more important than the other.

No, it wouldn't. Why would you even suggest that? :-? These words are loaded with significance. There is practically nothing we can do to change that. That significance has importance, and (very specifically) relevance to us: We are good. So if we hope to have a chance at communicating that, we have to use the words that connotate goodness. We can hope and pray that different words would be understood to have the same significance, but we cannot impose it, and therefore it is foolish to expect it/to rely on it.

I'm sure that this isn't what you mean, but it's far too short a step from there to "And therefore there's no point in working on it."

Let's go back to the reality of the situation: Because we are a small minority, society-at-large will dictate what they will comprehend words to mean. We can choose to ignore that reality, to our detriment, or we can choose to embrace that reality, and make the most of what we can.

I actually agree with what you're saying there to a certain extent. However, I do not see society as a monolithic entity, despite the fact that certain trends and mass behavior patterns can be described and predicted by using that perspective (One of my parents taught social psychology, the other experimental...it's in the blood). Yes, seen as a mass entity, society will always be the one in charge of the definitions. However, through patience, understanding, dialogue, positive publicity, communication on the grassroots level, and well-reasoned agreement, we can slowly begin to make headway towards a more inclusive and open society both inside and outside the church walls.

It wasn't too many years ago that the word "homosexual" was synonymous with "mentally ill". However, through actions both great and small, both aggressive and polite, society has slowly come around, and now the word does not automatically have that connotation within society at large.

We can do the same with a sacred language, drawing people into the pews while still retaining nearly all of our nontheistic sisters and brothers.

 

[EverChanging]

Bicker,

To get a better understanding of what you are saying, I need to ask some questions. First of all, in what way are we dictating to the broader society just because we don't use all of the same terminology? If that is not what you mean, feel free to correct me.

No, it wouldn't. Why would you even suggest that? :-? These words are loaded with significance. There is practically nothing we can do to change that. That significance has importance, and (very specifically) relevance to us: We are good. So if we hope to have a chance at communicating that, we have to use the words that connotate goodness. We can hope and pray that different words would be understood to have the same significance, but we cannot impose it, and therefore it is foolish to expect it/to rely on it.

Communicating to society that we are good can be done using diverse language, but it mostly comes through our actions, our kindness, our desire for social justice and to preserve the planet.

What are some examples of the kind of language you think we should use to communicate with society?

Instead of proscription from someone else dictating what beliefs and values are necessary to achieve some ultimate truth, we recognize the the ultimate truth is whatever sits at the end of any responsible search for it.

I'm not sure what you are defining as "ultimate truth." In fact, your definition makes it sound as though truth is anything someone comes to believe it is after responsibly searching for it: that's a really vague definition. What type of truth is this? Is it separate from the natural world? It seems to be because there are lots of beliefs I could have about the natural world that are flat out wrong no matter how responsible I was in searching for that truth. It may have seemed reasonable at one point in time to believe that the sun orbits the earth, but we now know that belief was wrong.

How can conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs both be "ultimate truth?"

So we're not changing the definition of God, for anyone else, but rather asserting that what any of us declare is God for ourselves, is. The only thing we're forcing on others is the expectation that they consider our belief in God (i.e., our religious truth) as equal of respect as their own.

This seems to imply that different Unitarian Universalists will have differing views/definitions of God/gods/goddesses/the divine, so when individual Unitarian Universalists use the word "God" to communicate to the broader society, how is society to know what they are talking about? They could all mean something different. It seems to defeat the purpose of communication.

Do you think that no belief in a god or irrelevance to the matter of a god's existence is also "religious truth" that deserves equal respect?

And I must ask: what is "religious truth?" This kind of goes back to the question about ultimate truth: is this truth separate from the natural world? Because in the natural world, mutually exclusive beliefs cannot both be true, and there are plenty of Unitarian Universalists with mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

[bicker]

I am saying that they are inextricably linked, not that one is more important than the other.

Okay, then you're saying that they're equal in importance, and I can wholeheartedly disagree with that.

I'm sure that this isn't what you mean, but it's far too short a step from there to "And therefore there's no point in working on it."

You're correct that it is not what I meant. What makes that step "too" short? The step is as big as it is; it is not an implication. We can work on it all we want, but like everything else, while we're working on it, we work within the context of the current reality we encounter.

However, through patience, understanding, dialogue, positive publicity, communication on the grassroots level, and well-reasoned agreement, we can slowly begin to make headway towards a more inclusive and open society both inside and outside the church walls.

See above. Today we deal with how things are today, and work to make tomorrow different -- but we still deal with how things are today, today.

It wasn't too many years ago that the word "homosexual" was synonymous with "mentally ill".

That's not on-topic. You've veered off onto a matter of beliefs and values, not language. Rather, the more appropriate analogy would be "queer" for "homosexual". However, even that isn't right, because society-at-large isn't actually unable to understand the more apppropriate word ("homosexual") -- some just preferred the nasty slur.

 

[bicker]

First of all, in what way are we dictating to the broader society just because we don't use all of the same terminology? If that is not what you mean, feel free to correct me.

Without knowing what words you're referring to, I cannot know from where you got this mistaken impression.

Communicating to society that we are good can be done using diverse language, but it mostly comes through our actions, our kindness, our desire for social justice and to preserve the planet.

Where is your proof of that? My impression is that many people don't care about the quality of people's hearts -- they care about whether they share each other's beliefs. Atheists have it worst: ABC News: Who's Counting: Distrusting Atheists However, I'm sure you recognize that the problem doesn't stop there.

I think you're confusing what you wish with what is -- confusing what should be with the unfortunate reality.

What are some examples of the kind of language you think we should use to communicate with society?

As applicable (not every word will work for every belief system held by every member of a UU church, but they do all apply to UUism, as per its stated principles): God, religion, faith, church, pray (though worship is a good substitute, for that one), ministry.

I'm not sure what you are defining as "ultimate truth."

The point was that it doesn't matter.

In fact, your definition makes it sound as though truth is anything someone comes to believe it is after responsibly searching for it: that's a really vague definition.

No, not vague. Actually it is very specific -- just specifically defined by the manner in which the truth was arrived at, instead of what it actually is, as per:

Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

And this fits with what I've said earlier, that the key to UUism is that many things which Judeo-Christian denominations would dicate hiearchically, are instead determined by each Unitarian Universalist for themselves.

How can conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs both be "ultimate truth?"

Because they have limited scope of applicability, each person's beliefs and values being applicable only with regard to themselves.

This seems to imply that different Unitarian Universalists will have differing views/definitions of God/gods/goddesses/the divine, so when individual Unitarian Universalists use the word "God" to communicate to the broader society, how is society to know what they are talking about?

Because they know what the word God means to them, and so when Unitarian Universalists use the word, others can know it means the applicable analogy to what they understand the word God to mean.

If I started talking to you about the relationship I have with the IRS, would you have any trouble with the idea that it is my relationship with the IRS that I'm talking about, instead of the relationship you have with the IRS -- that even though we both have relationships with the IRS, that they may be completely and radically different in nature?

They could all mean something different. It seems to defeat the purpose of communication.

Not at all, since what you're confused about is actually not the context of what needs to be communicated.

Do you think that no belief in a god or irrelevance to the matter of a god's existence is also "religious truth" that deserves equal respect?

Absolutely. I respect "the inherent worth and dignity of every person".

And I must ask: what is "religious truth?" This kind of goes back to the question about ultimate truth: is this truth separate from the natural world? Because in the natural world, mutually exclusive beliefs cannot both be true, and there are plenty of Unitarian Universalists with mutually exclusive beliefs.

Obviously, people disagree about the nature of the entirety of reality. I'm a naturalist -- a pantheist, specifically -- but I wouldn't accept the arrogance that would suggest that no rational person can believe in the supernatural.

 

[EverChanging]

I was referring to these words:

I appreciate your desire and intention to seek a compromise. However, you're negotiating in the wrong venue. It is not up to us, within UUism, to dictate to the broader society. Again, since the purpose of language is communication and since there are critical needs regarding communication in the context of the broader society, your negotiation must necessarily include "them", i.e., what we agree to must serve the necessary purpose with regard to communicating what we need to communicate to the broader society.

 

[EverChanging]

Where is your proof of that? My impression is that many people don't care about the quality of people's hearts -- they care about whether they share each other's beliefs. Atheists have it worst: ABC News: Who's Counting: Distrusting Atheists However, I'm sure you recognize that the problem doesn't stop there.

I think you're confusing what you wish with what is -- confusing what should be with the unfortunate reality.

And you think we can counter such attitudes with mere language?

Because they know what the word God means to them, and so when Unitarian Universalists use the word, others can know it means the applicable analogy to what they understand the word God to mean.

And yet not all Unitarian Universalists attach a particular meaning to the word "god" or even find that word relevant.

You know, we could go on and on with this, but I really just find it futile. Not every Unitarian Universalist is going to use the same language to describe their incredibly diverse views and beliefs, and I see no way to get around that. I am not even altogether sure that developing such a language would even draw people into this religion. If some Unitarian Universalists want to develop this language and see if it builds connections, that's cool with me, but the fact is, Unitarians tend to be very individualistic, and I don't think we will ever agree upon the language.

So go for it. I still don't see all Unitarians adopting this language, especially with loaded words like "god." Perhaps a language of reverence will draw in some people, but it's also true that the absence of such beliefs like theism in the Unitarian principles drew other people in, people who would not have a spiritual community otherwise.

 

[bicker]

I appreciate your desire and intention to seek a compromise. However, you're negotiating in the wrong venue. It is not up to us, within UUism, to dictate to the broader society. Again, since the purpose of language is communication and since there are critical needs regarding communication in the context of the broader society, your negotiation must necessarily include "them", i.e., what we agree to must serve the necessary purpose with regard to communicating what we need to communicate to the broader society.

in what way are we dictating to the broader society just because we don't use all of the same terminology?

No one has said we are dictating to the broader society. What I said was that it was not up to us to do so, so as to get the broader society to accept our words as the foundation of their understanding of us. So we don't. We must use the words that they will understand, or we shall suffer the consequences (and there are serious consequences, mostly negative for us) from refusing to communicate with them using the words that they will understand.

And you think we can counter such attitudes with mere language?

I think we cannot counter such attitudes without language. Language is just one of many steps, each of which is necessary.

And yet not all Unitarian Universalists attach a particular meaning to the word "god" or even find that word relevant.

However, it is reasonable to expect that members of a religious minority would come to understand the need for a language of reverence, as the President of our association of congregations has outlined those needs, in precisely the same way it is not reasonable to expect that members of the broader society, the vast majority of people, would not come to understand some language that is the strictly the politically-correct product of a syncretic process.

You know, we could go on and on with this, but I really just find it futile. Not every Unitarian Universalist is going to use the same language to describe their incredibly diverse views and beliefs, and I see no way to get around that.

Luckily, there are many with our faith who haven't lost faith in our fellow UUs, as you claim to have.

I am not even altogether sure that developing such a language would even draw people into this religion.

I believe that it will, though I'm not sure when that aspect came into the discussion.

If some Unitarian Universalists want to develop this language and see if it builds connections, that's cool with me, but the fact is, Unitarians tend to be very individualistic, and I don't think we will ever agree upon the language.

Again, I have more faith in our fellows.

 

[J Bryson]

Okay, then you're saying that they're equal in importance, and I can wholeheartedly disagree with that.

No, I'm not saying that, either. If words are the map and belief or experience is the territory, then what I am saying is that they are linked in an inability to navigate the territory or describe it to others without the map.

You're correct that it is not what I meant. What makes that step "too" short? The step is as big as it is; it is not an implication. We can work on it all we want, but like everything else, while we're working on it, we work within the context of the current reality we encounter.

Agreed.

See above. Today we deal with how things are today, and work to make tomorrow different -- but we still deal with how things are today, today.

Agreed. And in order to do so, we must present a map of tomorrow if we are to make changes today.

That's not on-topic. You've veered off onto a matter of beliefs and values, not language. Rather, the more appropriate analogy would be "queer" for "homosexual". However, even that isn't right, because society-at-large isn't actually unable to understand the more apppropriate word ("homosexual") -- some just preferred the nasty slur.

No, that's not an appropriate analogy at all, and I think that I may have been communicating my meaning poorly. My apologies if so. To the United States medical community itself, homosexuality was considered a mental illness until the early 1970s, and the word therefore had certain connotations. Through negotiation and study, this was eventually changed.

 

[lilithu]

How could one person develop a language of reverence to fit everyone?

One person cannot develop such a language. Neither can a group. Tho we may be able to develop a language that serves most people most of the time.

I don't think language of reverence requires that UUs only use language that will suit all UUs. What I see as a requirement is that UUs allow other UUs to express themselves in a language of reverence even if it doesn't suit them personally.

So if I as a UU use the word God, I would expect that you as a UU will not get bent out of shape over me uttering "the G-word." I don't expect you to accept the word as your own.

Why should it be relevant when a person campaigns to become president of the UUA?

Are either Peter Morales or Laurel Hallman running on the language of reverence? I hadn't heard that. I associate that with Bill Sinkford's term. In fact, I think that it will be considered the main part of his legacy as president. John Behrens gave us the hymnal and Bill Sinkford made it socially acceptable to use words like "prayer" in UU circles again. If it were not for our two most recent presidents, I would not identify a UU. I could not.

 

[lilithu]

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).

In terms of what words like "God" and "divine" etc mean, I have not seen anything asserted by UUs that hasn't already been asserted in liberal Judeo-Christian circles.... and asserted all along, not just recently.

We UUs do not know enough about religious history and theology. Perhaps it's because we hold personal experience to be primary over tradition and revelation, etc. I too hold personal experience to be primary, but a knowledge of history helps us to realize that we are not the only liberal religionists, never were the only ones, and that there is a wealth of religious thought that would only make us stronger if we would be willing to learn from others. Imo, every UU should read Tillich, Otto and Buber. Heck, we should read our own, like Emerson, Parker and Channing.

 

[lilithu]

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.

Just a personal nit of mine: Buddhism as it is practiced in the West is largely nontheistic. I imagine that's because western Buddhists are mostly converts who gravitated towards Buddhism in rejection of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They naturally focused on those Buddhist traditions that they found most appealing. There is nothing wrong with that. It's human nature. But when they or others in the West forget that their Buddhism is only one kind of Buddhism and not the predominant kind, and characterize all of Buddhism as their kind, I find that to be problematic.

If you look at the Buddhism practiced by my aunts and uncles - Buddhism as practiced in most of Asia and in the Asian immigrant communities in the West - I defy anyone to claim that it's nontheistic. It's not the Judeo-Christian God, to be sure, but it's not non-theistic.

 

[lilithu]

Interesting. Kind of like Ayn Rand's explanation of why she still said "My God!". She stated that it was the verbalization of the highest ideal, and required no actual belief in God.

Ha! so there is one thing with which I and Ayn Rand agree.

Tho I'm sure that she got that from Tillich.

 

[lilithu]

I don't see that. While many UUs are reviving old religions, most are humanists, and perhaps now religious humanists, and therefore following paths that haven't been used for generations.

Where are you getting this information from? Humanism did not dominate UU until the 60s or 70s and even then has never been the only voice. My congregation, All Souls in DC continued to recite the Lords Prayer in service until the 70s (not that I advocate returning to that). The Universalist church down the street still reads from the bible every week and gives communion four times a year.

Furthermore, UU is a religion that constantly loses those who grew up in it and gains converts from the outside. Those converts come from other religious traditions. Our pews are full of ex-Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Jews... and even some who are not "ex" but identify as both.

Indeed, the principles, themselves, draw a picture of continually searching for truth and meaning, meaning that it is our intention to foster the trodding of new paths to get there, rather than continue to use the old paths.

Coherent systems of meaning are not created out of nothing. They build on what has come before. Our continual search for truth and meaning means that old traditions can and must be reinterpreted, as opposed to other religious traditions who think their meanings are sealed.

 

[lilithu]

If some Unitarian Universalists want to develop this language and see if it builds connections, that's cool with me, but the fact is, Unitarians tend to be very individualistic, and I don't think we will ever agree upon the language.

Yes, that is the great irony, isn't it? We are a liberal religious tradition and proud of it. In my mind, at least, "liberal" means a sense that we are all in this together. I cannot be concerned only for my own well-being and not concerned about yours because ultimately, our destinies are intertwined. And yet, UUs are extremely individualistic.