Belief, schmelief

Forget those beliefs, we do have a unifying theology.

I’ve decided I’m bored with the ongoing debate about whether Unitarian Universalists have a unifying theology or not. It bores me because all too often instead of getting into the really interesting areas of Unitarian Universalist theology, it winds up with someone declaring, “Well, I don’t believe there’s any unifying theology. I can believe whatever I want to believe in this church.”

Well — no. You can come up with counterexamples to disprove this last statement just as easily as I can. Obviously, we simply won’t tolerate outright sexist beliefs that proclaim men are superior to women. We have a low tolerance for charismatic authoritarian leaders who would control how we think and act. We would never require our young people to spend a year or two trying to convert people to Unitarian Universalism. If you want to believe these things, it will be easy to find you a church where you can believe ’em — but you can’t believe ’em in a UU church.

It is equally clear that we strongly affirm certain theological points. We strongly affirm insights of feminist theology, including that women are equal to men, that children are valuable, and that we are embodied beings. We affirm what William R. Jones has called the “functional ultimacy of humankind”; which is to say, whether or not we believe in God, we must act as if we have ultimate responsibility for our actions. We also remain strongly influenced by the insights of the social gospel movement of a hundred years ago, and we affirm that it is not enough for persons to try to save themselves, because in addition we all have a responsibility to save the world and make it a better place.

There you have three theologies which unify all us Unitarian Universalists: feminist theology, the functional ultimacy of humankind, and the theology of the social gospel. Bet we could come up with a few more, but that should be enough to get us started — and we do have to get started. All this boring bickering about beliefs is keeping us from acting out our theologies in the world.

Insider’s tip — and more on new religious movements

First, the insider’s tip for those of you who are part of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Geneva — don’t miss this weekend’s worship service. I think you’ll enjoy what Lindsay and I have put together. Oh, and I’d recommend Saturday evening because — no, I won’t say any more because that will spoil the surprise.

As for new religious movements, I found a delightfully snarky article from “Lingua Franca” that reveals how scholarship in new religious movements can be quite profitable for the scholars involved. You’ll find it at this online site for new religious movements.

Scroll down and look for the article by Charlotte Allen. Turns out some anti-cultist scholars pocket big money for serving as expert witnesses, and some of those who champion religious tolerance and acceptance for new religious movements are getting funded by the Unification Church and Scientology.

There’s also an excellent article on the same page by John Chryssides which attempts to come up with a good definition of “new religious movement,” and which uses Unitarian Universalism as an example of a movement that has been accused of being a new religious movement, but which is not. Since “new religious movement” is the politically correct term for cults, that means we’re not a cult. How about that.

Spring watch

Red maples are often one of the earliest trees to put out blossoms in this climate and ecosystem. I’ve been watching a little red maple on Second Street, down a few blocks from the church. While its buds are quite red, they aren’t showing any signs of busrting forth.

On my afternoon walk today, I happened to look up at a tree on Fifth Street near State — it was a red maple I’d never noticed before, and up near the top of the tree it looked like a few blossoms had opened up.

That’s good news and bad news. Those blossoms mean spring is getting nearer. They also indicate the beginning of pollen season for hay fever sufferers.

Uncomfortable conversations

OK, I admit it, I’m feeling smug. See, as a Universalist I always feel a little smug when someone else finally figures out that the most powerful force in the universe is love.

I’ve just finished reading Gulley and Mulholland’s book from 2003 titled If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person. Gully and Mulholland are two evangelical pastors from Indiana who finally spoke out publicly in this book as proponents of universal salvation — as universalists. While they have been savagely attacked for their views, their book is selling well, has even made it into paperback.

Needless to say, their universalism differs substantially from mine. Their God is entirely male, their book is the Bible, their vocabulary is that of conservative North American Christianity. As for me, it’s impossible to assign gender to transcendence, my books include Hebrew and Christian scriptures as well as the Analects, the Bhagavad Gita, and the I Ching, and my vocabulary is definitely Unitarian Universalist.

Yet while I found much in their book I do not agree with, I am glad to have found the book. As a Unitarian Universalist, I really am committed to opening up dialogue across faith boundaries. As a Unitarian Universalist living in this part of Illinois, I often have to try to explain my faith to evangelical and fundamentalist Christians — and these tend to be uncomfortable conversations for someone like me who doesn’t quote the Bible chapter and verse. I’m always looking for a place to meet such folks halfway — a place where we can at least start a conversation. Gulley and Mulholland’s book might just provide such a place.

How about that…

…a group of evangelicals has produced a new gender-inclusive Bible.

The bi-weekly magazine Christian Century continues to be my source of choice for news about liberal religion, particularly in the area of same-sex marriage, the intersection of politics and theology — and feminist theology.

In the most recent number (March 8, 2005), Christian Century reports that Zondervan, a publishing house with a bit of a tilt towards the evangelical side, has just issued a new version of the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), called Today’s New International Version (TNIV), which uses gender-inclusive language. Politely, Christian Century refrains from mentioning that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation of the Bible, used by many liberal Christians, accomplished the same thing years ago. (Christian Century also refrains from mentioning that the allegedly liberal New York Times has stopped using gender-inclusive language, but I am happy to point that out.)

The report adds that “The TNIV text… was produced by an independent committe of evangelical schalors whose members are associated with institutions such as Wheaton Graduate School….” Those of us who live in and around Geneva know Wheaton College well, in part as the alma mater of Billy Graham, and in part as our near neighbor.

The old New International Version used to be the Bible I recommended to Unitarian Universalist youth and young adults who were interested in reading the Bible on their own. I always thought the NIV translation was clearer and less academic than the New Revised Standard Version. But a few years ago, I stopped recommending the NIV because it didn’t use gender-inclusive language.

So I’m one of the people who welcomes this new version of the Bible — and if a young Unitarian Universalist in your life decides he or she wants to read the Bible, it looks like the TNIV would be a good translation to recommend.

I can’t resist adding that our little church here in Geneva has been working on including women in positions of prominent leadership at least since 1893, when the church called its first woman minister. I also can’t help but wish for a gender-inclusive translation of the Bhagavad Gita, but maybe there is one out there that I haven’t found yet.

Theodore Parker online

On my reading list for today is Mary Daly’s Beyond God the Father (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973/1985). I know, I know, I should have read it years ago. But that’s not the point.

While reading Daly, I remembered that Theodore Parker wrote some prayers that referred to God as both Mother and Father. Now where did I see those prayers? — I couldn’t remember, so I tried searching the Web. And I found a complete edition of the 1862 printing of Parker’s prayers online at this University of Michigan site.

This is a University of Michigan Web project of publishing American literature online. Pages are viewable as graphic images of the actual pages from a book, or as html text. Many of Parker’s other books are also available through this same Web site, along with many other 19th C. books that might be of interest to religious liberals today.

Alas, Parker’s prayers were not nearly as progressive as I had remembered. He made a good start, but he didn’t completely break away from patriarchal imagery (see e.g. pp. 59-60). Nonetheless, I thought you might want to know about this incredible online resource.

Spring watch

Transcendentalist that I am, I’m always watching for signs of the turning seasons. Yesterday I was walking along the Fox River here in Geneva, near the wastewater treatment plant, when I heard a dozen or more male Red-winged Blackbirds giving their familiar “konk-a-reee” song. While these are undoubtedly birds that have wintered here, that was the first time this year I have heard them singing. It’s too early for the males to be setting up breeding territories, but their songs said that spring is not all that far off now.

Today I watched as a wintering Eastern Bluebird foraged along the river behind the Kane County office building. He was hawking low to the ground, flying out from a series of low perches, but I couldn’t tell if he was feeding on insects or some other invertebrates. He also spent some time feeding on Staghorn Sumac berries left over from last summer. He made a pretty picture, the rusty red of the berries matching his breast, and contrasting with his bright blue back and wings in the late afternoon sun.

A guide to “new religions”

Most Unitarian Universalist ministers get four weeks of study leave each year. I’m taking a week of my study leave through Wednesday, March 2, to work on a couple of writing projects. But this also means I have a little time to catch up on my reading list.

At the top of my pile of books right now is New Religions, A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects, and Alternative Spiritualities, edited by Christopher Partridge, and published in 2004 by Oxford University Press. There are entries on some 200 new religious movements, as well as essays on relevant topics like “Contemporary Sufism,” “Fundamentalisms,” and “Astrology.”

I’m especially fond of the overall organization of the book, which groups new religious movements together based on the traditions out of which they have grown. Thus there are sections on new religious movements with roots in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Indian religions, religions of east Asia, indigenous and pagan traditions, western esoteric and New Age traditions — and, best of all, new religious movements which have roots in modern western cultures. In this last section, you’ll find entries on “Thee Church ov Moo,” Scientology, and the aforementioned essay on fundamentalisms.

You’ll find the Swedenborgians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists included in the chapter on new religious movements with roots in Christianity. However, Unitarian Universalism is not considered a new religious movement. No real surprise — from the point of view of sociology or comparative religions, we Unitarian Universalists look very much like mainline Protestant denominations.

This could be a useful book for Unitarian Universalists, especially those of us living in regions where the Christian conservatives dominate. Read this book to get a precise definition of what a “cult” is, so that next time someone tells you your Unitarian Universalist church is a “cult,” you can explain why that is not true — and furthermore, why we are not even a new religious movement.

(By the way, there’s an essay in the book on “Prosperity Theology” as an alternative spirituality — guess Rick Warren isn’t quite as mainstream as some had hoped.)

The power of Universalism

No doubt you’re already aware that this is a big year — the 200th anniversary of the first edition of Hosea Ballou’s monumental Treatise on Atonement, still the most influential of all books of Universalist theology. But you may not realize that Universalism still has the power to stir up quite a ruckus. Turns out two evangelical Quaker pastors from western Indiana, Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, published a book titled If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person back in 2003.

Just as happened with Hosea Ballou, Gulley and Mulholland’s thoughts on God’s love provoked lots of hate. Chuck Fager tells about the ruckus Gulley and Mulholland have raised in a review of their book in the online journal “Quaker Theology.”

I know you’ll want to read the whole article, but to whet your appetite, here are the opening paragraphs:

“Almost two hundred years ago, Hosea Ballou foretold what would befall two Quaker pastors in Indiana, Philip Gulley and his good friend James Mulholland, in 2002: ‘To profess universal salvation,’ Ballou wrote, ‘will subject some to excommunication from regular churches; others to the pain of being neglected by their neighbors; others to be violently opposed by their companions . . . and a man’s enemies will be those of his own house.’…

“Ballou wrote this about his own time, and the controversy generated by the ideas contained in his magnum opus, A Treatise on Atonement. In it Ballou, an early New England Universalist, made a case that Unitarian-Universalists [sic] today claim as one of their founding classics.

“That was in 1805. But Ballou’s words were indeed prophetic: Since Gulley and Mulholland put forth their work, all hell has broken loose in the Hoosier state….”

I’ve just ordered If Grace Is True, and their new book, If God Is Love, just out last year. Needless to say, I bought both books from the Seminary Coop Bookstore — thus supporting co-ops and independent booksellers!