What I like about the UUniverse

The U.S. guarantees freedom of religion and some churches in the U.S. take strong stances on political subjects. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, it just so happens that on this little blog that is hardly ever read, a link was made to one of my posts which had been written in response to the blog of a well-known UU minister. As a result at least a few hundred people read that post. So on the off chance anyone might see it, I decided to follow that post up with this post on why I bother visiting UU congregations, reading books about UUism, following UU bloggers, and sporadically giving critiques of aspects of UUworld*.

To summarize and add a little to what I wrote in the aforementioned blog post, UUism aspires to be non-sectarian and non-creedal in an effort to provide people who are uncertain of what they believe or who are hesitant to ascent to a particular statement of faith the comfort and freedom to explore their spirituality in a more open environment. This is in part a historical issue, as creeds have been used as litmus tests to divide those who were committed to the "right" views of a particular religious or politico-religious institution  from those who were heretics and outsiders. As a result, many UUs jokingly refer to their religion as being founded upon the heresies of Western religion, particularly Roman Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity.

In addition, UUism has a strongly progressive/liberal bent to its culture which is reflected in its social justice programs. This is in opposition to the more conservative "fundamentalist" varieties of Abrahamic religions, especially North American forms of Protestantism. This, along with the very wide and open approach UUism espouses in spiritual seeking and study, appeals to people who have been wary of or who abandoned forms of religion which try to force a single, unquestionable set of beliefs and assertions about the ultimate questions of human existence. For many of these people, religion has been presented as a list of things which must be feared and obeyed upon pain of eternal torment. Often these things appeared to them as incongruous with their knowledge of the world, their sense of joy and compassion, and ultimately their ability to accept these things as true.

Thus, as mentioned, many who have been wounded by some forms of religion, or for some other reason have become jaded or cynical toward religion, are immediately put off by anything that sounds too religious, that sounds too specific or too sure of itself and its answers. For those who still desire some kind of spiritual connection, or some kind of healing beyond secular medicine, a religion which sounds in many ways like the opposite of the kind of religion they have either avoided or left sounds like just what they are looking for, and so it isn't uncommon to find such people attracted to UUism. While the UUA has a list of principles that are kind of like statements of faith, they aren't really (again, with the emphasis on not trying to impose beliefs on people). Thus, intentionally or unintentionally, UUism can give the appearance of being heavy on liberal politics through social justice, while its spirituality may come across as a far lighter (both in seriousness and tone) and less focused, with its religious elements in some cases seeming very superficial.

The end result is that one can on some level come away with the impression that in trying so hard to not be like what some fear, dread, or despise in other forms of religion, UUism is trying to replace it with a form of positive thinking spirituality (which I abbreviated as "pop" spirituality) and liberal activism. I outlined this overall impression and its contributing elements in my previous post emphasizing these qualities and using the more extreme examples of the same. In doing so, I stated that this should not be taken as a overall general impression of the UUA or UU congregations as a whole, and that there are many inviting, affirming, inspirational, and uplifting aspects to UUism as well. I noted that many people find a warm and comfortable place in UUworld in which to sort out their spiritual questions, and while many who want something more deeply spiritual or more firmly committed to a vision of something greater (God, Spirit Tao, Dharmakaya, etc.) may eventually move on, there are those who are raised within or choose to remain in UUworld as their religious home.

So, while it's all well and good to say that there are things I really like and respect about UUism, just what are some of these positive qualities of UUism that I find appealing or worthwhile?

Seeking more than humanist religion or spiritual atheism

English: Happy human Humanist logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This post is composed of an attempt to reply to this comment from a thoughtful reader responding to my recent critique of the UUA. After putting my own comment(s) up in response, it seemed clear it would work better as a new stand-alone essay. I have previously written about secularism and humanism (including a follow-up) and why I am not anti-religious,  but this seemed like a good opportunity to update and expand on such themes given that he generously offered a link to one of his sermons about atheist spirituality and morality.

Over a decade ago I am certain I sounded very much like him as I was transitioning from an anti-religious atheist to a slightly more open-minded non-theist. Things have changed a bit since then, but I can appreciate where he is coming from. (All subsequent links are to things written on this blog but in no particular order, and my original comments upon which this post is based have been edited slightly for clarity.)

Here is my response:

Hello Michael and thank you for your reply and the link about your thoughts on morality and spiritual atheism. It is true that if one has certain beliefs about God or religion, then shedding the outer shell of those beliefs can seem like a major release and give a sense of liberation.

Breaking out of one paradigm and worldview involves adopting another, but often at a deeper level things are still framed in the (ontological) categories of the old assumptions. Atheism is predicated on the assumptions of particular forms of religious theism, and thus sets itself in opposition to that which is seen as crucial to religion, sometimes in an aggressively dismissive or derisive way. When embracing atheism some people come to see mocking the view of others on ultimate questions as acceptable and humorous by claiming whole belief systems are unworthy of respect because of the claims or actions of some of its adherents.

From the perspective of psychology and the sociology of deviance, this can be seen at least partly as a defense mechanism against perceived rejection or hostility. Shouting matches posing as debates erupt over conceptions of perspectives such as materialism and supernaturalism. Exploring topics of spirituality and religion can become an exercise in provoking a reactive volatility to particular ideas or an outbreak of a semantic allergy toward certain words that hinder any real dialogue or insight. Little progress is made in such circumstances.

This environment hinders thoughtful and extended reflection on important questions: Is there meaning to existence? Can there be such meaning without God? Is God an inferior or superior hypothesis to be accepted or rejected as such? Does it make sense to believe in God? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is God a person or just a vague cosmic force? Should we rely on God or the self? Is some outside force going to save us? 

For Mizz Bang on her critique of UUism

The version of the flaming chalice currently used as the logo of the Unitarian Universalist Association. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Having read PeaceBang's critique of her own denomination and its general disposition toward religion (hostile), spirituality (shallow), and visitors (pandering), I decided to write a comment on her blog. Then I realized it would be too long. I have too much writing to do right now, and I am way behind on my own blogging (which is a great hobby for someone like me), but I decided it might be worth it to punch out a response anyway over here and send the link over there.

This blog isn't new to a critical "you could and should be more" stance towards UUism. Just check out the somewhat in need of updating selected archives about two thirds of the way down under the heading "UUism and spiritual potpourri..." The one about the Whopper might be a good place to start.

I agree with much of what PB writes in terms of my own experience with UUism, limited as it is, and I am going to give some caveats first. Most of the UUs I have encountered in UU services have seemed very pleasant and friendly and my sense is that they were good, decent people.

Second, I've only had very limited exposure to a small handful of congregations, all of them in the eastern United States. I've never attended more than, say, three to six services at any particular UU congregation. While that may not qualify me to talk about the "real" feel of a congregation as seen by its members, it does give me perspective on a short term visitor's experiences and reactions.

Third, I have my own biases and issues when it comes to religion and spirituality. I came from a Christian background that I consider a mixed blessing, which I became thoroughly disenchanted about and severed ties with early in my adulthood. I drifted through agnosticism, anti-religious atheism, open and sympathetic non-theism, and then moved into a place where I'm a kind of spiritualist without an actual sense of spirituality who has practiced and draws upon Mahayana Buddhism and contemplative Christianity. My experiences with UUism started from the period of moving from "anti-religious atheism" toward "sympathetic non-theism" onward.

OK, with that out of the way, here is my reaction to what PB wrote.

OK UUs, more unsolicited advice

Image via Wikipedia

So I've made some past critiques (see here and here or use the search box for this page for additional entries) and the suggestion that UUism would benefit from adopting the Snowmass Conference's Guidelines for Interreligious Understanding as part of "what they believe". I've expressed concern that UUism has too often mistaken radical inclusiveness for bland inoffensiveness and a dissing of its Christian roots. Online or elsewhere I've compared it to an incomplete sandwich, a picnic basket rather than a kitchen, and other analogies of incompleteness, disappoint or lack of depth. I will add another recommendation: The Case for God by Karen Armstrong. It gives an excellent overview and summarized examples (supported by a detailed and documented historical analysis) concerning what religion is about and what makes it work (or fail). If you want just read the intro and epilogue to get the gist. It helps me better appreciate my frustration with certain aspects of UU liturgy and its capacity (based on my experience) to create a sense of the sacred or initiate an experience of humbling mystery. Here's hoping UUism will move toward more of a conscious and sustained effort to emphasize such things.

Oh, and while you're at it...

Concerns with the i-Religiont/UUA style of spirituality

You may be surprised, if you are even partially familiar with the history of what I have written here, but I have very serious reservations concerning what Clark Strand has referred to as the i-Religion approach to spirituality, an approach which is frequently expressed by those embracing Unitarian Universalism. There is risk, depending on how this method is approached, of eventually subverting and even inverting what I hold to be the core purpose and values of religion and spirituality.

There is a reason why fundamentalists react so harshly to secularism and modernism and the idea of valuing individuality above everything else. I don't agree with a majority of the views of religious fundamentalists, but I do share their concern about the contemptuous dismissal of tradition that is increasingly common in the modernist/secular sphere and the dangers of setting up the individual as the end all and be all - the measure of all things. No, I am not accusing Strand or the UUA of doing this, but rather wondering where the approaches mentioned are vulnerable to such pressures.

There is no way I can replicate everything I have written that is relevant to this issue here. I don't deny that we should be free to choose what we believe or whether to practice a religion or how to practice it. In that sense I am definitely in opposition to the radical wing of the fundamentalists. Nor do I deny there is value in going out and learning about/trying out different sacred traditions and experiencing spirituality from various perspectives (for more examples of my thinking on this look here, here, and here). And I have personally found that insights gained from one faith helped open my eyes to previously unseens wisdom in another (see examples of how Buddhism has helped me appreciate Christianity here, here, and here). So let's get that clear from the start.

I do object though to ideas like "religion divides/spirituality unites". I admit and embrace the benefits of but also challenge the biases and flaws in positivism and modernism, particularly when taken to extremes: presenting a flat view of the world where everything is fixed in knowable patterns just waiting to be discovered; that technological progress is always inevitable, desirable and beneficial; that religions are failed primitive science or psychology and that they can only be useful if its stories are reduced to allegory. In particular I am disturbed and frustrated by how this tends to play out between the flat-thinking members of the atheist and theist camps and their holy war against each other (more here, here, and here).

For example, I think we can embrace the lens of science without being dismissive of other lenses or possibilities, including those suggested or hinted at through sacred traditions and the impact of stories using supernatural elements (more here, here, or here). Unlike many Western Buddhists, I don't see Buddhism as (nor do I think it should be reduced to) a mere humanist philosophy or just a form of empirical investigation. As I've written before:

Which takes us back to so-called Western Buddhism and what it should or should not be. And the aforementioned desire I suspect to be at work in some circles to "cleanse" Buddhism of any non-rational elements, with the caveat that rational often means what we think makes sense, hence what fits our current "paradigm", which for a number of potential or actual Western Buddhists is, again, the so-called empirically based rationalism which is often associated with the methodology of science but which is often co-opted into what is sometimes termed ontological naturalism, which means anything that smacks of supernaturalism is out. Which makes for an interesting dilemma.


In the end, are we just making a new, secularized, empirically-safe finger to latch onto? Does the nature of the Dharma change whether we call Shunyata (emptiness) the Tao or even God? Or if we fail to name it? Does it change if we believe in magic? If we do not? If we pray or do not? For who or what do we need to reinvent or reconstitute Buddhism "in the West"?

There is more to the figures, liturgies, and devotional practices in Buddhism than many recognize. I feel the same is true of those who casually dismiss these aspects of other sacred traditions as well. In fact, it was learning to appreciate the nuances and value of religion in a "safe" novel environment like Buddhism that has helped me in appreciating other sacred traditions.

It may seem odd for someone like me who is floating adrift and untethered between Buddhism and Christianity to have problems with religious or spiritual do-it-yourself-ism. So with a better understanding of where I am coming from generally, let me add a little more texture. I've recently written (emphasis newly added) that:

I see religion is the shared, ritualistic experience of spirituality and the collected insights of a culture's attempts to deal with existential concerns. In traditional societies religions weren't separate from other spheres of life and in fact offered a blue print for living a full and meaningful life. They still do for billions of people.

What each tradition offers (including the newer ones) is a unique story that speaks to certain people, echoing their pain, their joy, their confusion, and their hopes. Each story paints a picture and offers a path leading to surrender and transformation, complete with rituals to commemorate and reaffirm one's journey. Each tradition offers a common history and presents a vision of the future that resonates with those who embrace it. Each tradition challenges preconceptions, egos, and a self-centered view in its own way. Each tradition provides a complete working system that can assist us to see and fully embrace its received wisdom, like having a coach and teammates working toward a goal, to encourage or carry us when we are tired and when we stumble.

Religions aren't just philosophies or social groups. They are living traditions. No one can be debated into understanding that. It would be foolish to try. But the truths and practices which are purely about getting closer to appreciating the Divine have been effective for thousands of years. They have molded and nourished the very saints and gurus whose spiritual wisdom many revere.

Then there is this nicely summarized concern:

If we do a little of one kind of practice and a little of another, the work we have done in one often doesn't continue to build as we change to the next. It is as if we were to dig many shallow wells instead of one deep one. In continually moving from one approach to another, we are never forced to face our own boredom, impatience, and fears. We are never brought face to face with ourselves. So we need to choose a way of practice that is deep and ancient and connected with our hearts, and then make a commitment to follow it as long as it takes to transform ourselves.

- Jack Kornfield, A Path with Heart

In other words, many "spiritualists" who like to collect quotes and practices from this or that saint or guru may fail to realize that these quotes and practices have a context within a larger religious framework. As I have heard or read so many times from and about accomplished practitioners of various religions who are engaged in interfaith dialogue, while it is true that their language may sound more and more similar as they progress deeply along their paths, having a path and following it was essential to reaching this point of seeming convergence. And these systems are internally consistent and designed by trial and error and inspiration to help people transcend their ego (not reject it) and their false sense of alienation from the ground of Becoming. Or in religious shorthand, to "find God".

Because of the unwanted cultural baggage or the failure to take an expansive view of religious language and practice, there is a temptation to try to be a junk dealer who searches through the "garbage" of received tradition to find the occasional treasure. Taken too far, this kind of thinking loses sight of the forest because of a few objectionable trees. Is it really the forest we want to clear or just a few rotten timbers?

When we appreciate that religious stories and practices are meant as much if not more so for the heart than the intellect, and are meant to be heard and felt as much if not more so than analyzed, we can see that they really are universal, with value at the literal level, the metaphoric level, and beyond as we continue to grow. The problems arise when people try to firmly tether these stories and practices to a strictly 17th century understanding, or a strictly 18th century understanding, or 19th or 20th century understanding. Their power and relevance become diminished and dependent on a particular philosophy of the material universe or social agenda. Why would we want to compound and continue such errors by limiting these stories and practices to a secular, individualistic 21st century understanding?

No, you don't need religion to "find God". Yes, you can find the wholeness and peace of the Divine without it. Are you as likely to do so without religion? I doubt it. Can the history and institutional aspects of some religions obscure and interfere with that goal of helping people "find God"? Of course. But finding God, to continue to use the same shorthand, isn't the same as growing in God or serving God. And for that, a hodge-podge of one's favorite inspirational hymns, sayings, or practices may not be adequate. Moreover, such an approach runs the risk of superficially appearing beneficial but underneath may still be feeding and puffing up the lesser self. With no teacher or community or the wisdom of tradition in which such obstacles may be more readily identified and corrected, one can become complacent. That isn't to say one cannot borrow or learn from other traditions, but it does suggest there are things that religions can offer that private, self-serve spirituality cannot.

I know a lot of people like the idea of flying solo in their spirituality, but I am realizing that if I want to experience or discover God or to serve or to have any gratitude it cannot be in isolation. That is the gift and challenge of a spiritual/religious community. Nor can we fill this void just with discussion groups or only by participating in public charity. This is not to downplay or devalue these aspects of spirituality, but they are not a replacement for gathering to share in a sense of the sacred through ritual. This is why I have so often found the UU congregations I have run across frustrating - when you become so generic as to say nothing and so shy of conviction as to mean nothing, out of fear of offending someone in the congregation, what is the point? How is that a foundation for a serious approach to transformation? These congregations strike me more like picnic where people who already have a path bring a different dish, but just enough to sample. It's nice if you are being fed somewhere else but if you are really hungering and in need of a substantial meal, then in my experience you may be out of luck.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't be a solo flier, or an i-Religionist, or a UU! If that fits where you are, I am not in any place to judge you. I myself am spiritually homeless, despite my long philosophical and practical search for meaning (especially in regard to suffering). But what I wish to convey is the importance of religion and sacred tradition, to plead that we don't kill the geese that laid all of the golden eggs that we have the good fortune to have access to in our pluralistic society. To advocate in strong terms that we understand the importance of the legacy and continuation of major sacred traditions as a unique and priceless treasure of humanity.

The larger moral questions provoked by the Knoxville church shooting

Right now, I still believe that the focus concerning the church shooting in Knoxville should remain on the human, rather than the political. There are many websites and organizations pouring out love and sympathy for those affected by this tragedy...

The words "The sun'll come out tomorrow - bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be sun!" rang through Second Presbyterian Church sanctuary. Children and adults wiped tears, hugged and blew out candles lit minutes earlier at a vigil held in the wake of the Sunday morning shooting at neighboring Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

Members of both churches, which stand adjacent on Kingston Pike, attended. Also attending were Westside Unitarian Universalist Church members. Members of that church also were shot Sunday. But the sanctuary pews, balconies and aisles were filled with Knoxvillians from all - and sometimes of no - organized faiths. Some latecomers were soaked by a summer rainstorm; lighting flashed and thunder boomed during parts of the service. The message was one of comfort and strength in times of crisis and pain.

knoxnews.com

But there are also attacks on what are seen as the far-right roots of the shooter's hatred and agitated responses from defensive conservatives. Based on some of my own recent experiences with this, I wanted to share something to help us see one of the bigger pictures brought into relief not only by this tragedy but by the political and ideological responses it has provoked.

If you read the collected reports in the Knoxville papers the evidence collected, from eye witness accounts of the attack to the gunman's "manifesto" to interviews with neighbors and acquaintances, Adkisson strongly identifies with the many of the popular messages of radical conservatism, particularly the more intolerant ones such as "Liberals are evil", "Liberals are dangerous", "Liberals are traitors", "Liberals are more of a threat than those scary Muslim terrorists", and "Liberals should be eliminated". The evidence for that doesn't just go away because someone doesn't like it or thinks that the killer doesn't fit with their conception of what a conservative should be or because they don't want to share the same ideological label as a murderer. Liberals would feel the same way if someone who claimed to "hate the conservatives" went in tried to shoot up a politically conservative congregation. Yet it is has been noted (here and here, for example) that the description of Adkisson's four page "manifesto" recalls an extreme anti-liberal rhetoric one can hear on the radio or read in popular books and blogs.

There are at least two forms of naive oversimplifying that can occur when discussing the revelation that Jim D. Adkisson, the gunman who assaulted a Unitarian-Universalist congregation, owned books by conservative talk-show hosts and attributed his violence to a hatred of liberals. One form of naivety is thinking that the shooter was simply following verbatim the instructions written in the books containing anti-liberal sentiments found at his home, the other is to assume that such books, corresponding comments on talk-radio and the internet, etc had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. I can understand the desire on the part of those who consider themselves to be conservative to do this in this particular case, it is a mistake.

The fact is that just because one doesn't "blame" conservatism or all conservatives for what happened in Knoxville DOES NOT mean that we shouldn't seriously consider to what degree the social/political climate contributed to this tragedy. And this is not an attack on conservatism, nor a defense of liberalism. I believe this can be a problem for religious folks and non-religious, theists and atheists, etc. So please bear with me through the whole thing.

Consider a different context for a moment other than conservatism. Imagine a situation in a community where some folks start making racist jokes to those they think will appreciate them. Some don't think they are funny but say nothing. Others chuckle a bit. So some of the jokers start making even more hardcore jokes, including ones involving suggestions of violence. No one stands up to it, even those who aren't as comfortable with the new harsher tone. Some ignore the jokes or only laugh at the lighter ones, but a growing hardcore is really into it.

So now we have an atmosphere that is somewhat toxic. That is, it is fairly offensive and sickening to those not used to breathing its fumes. But as this atmosphere goes relatively unchallenged, those at the sickening edge go further, inciting hatred and intolerance. Someone with a lot of frustration and rage has been soaking in these toxic fumes, which are now a poisonous cloud, for some time now and buys into the whole thing in a very concrete way. When some event happens that causes him to become unhinged and plunge over the edge, he puts this rhetoric into action.

Some folks didn't like the racism at all, but said nothing. Others thought the lighter stuff was funny, and just ignored the harder stuff. Some were secretly enjoying some the harder stuff but really didn't take a lot of it seriously. And some were just enjoying the derisiveness and how it pumped up their egos too much to care either way. Yet to some degree all of these groups contributed to an increasingly toxic atmosphere which became poisonous. And when that poisonous atmosphere came into prolonged contact with someone whose moral, emotional, mental, or other defects allowed this poison to get deep into his system, all that was needed was a spark, some stressful event, to set him off.

Now let me be clear. I am not suggesting a defense for the shooter. I am not suggesting he isn't responsible for his actions. I am guessing a psych evaluation will determine that. Nor am I suggesting by some back door that all conservatives are guilty of causing this tragedy. I realize that this subtle distinction can be confusing because it takes a broader view of the potential influences leading up to an event and includes factors which may not have directly and decisively affected the outcome. It also introduces a moral standard beyond the strict legal standard concerning liability. This can be illustrated briefly with another example I have used before.

Suppose a madman is holding some small children hostage with a machete. Two police officers were caught off guard when the incident began. One is dead and the other is bleeding to death. EMS workers can't get to the injured officer without setting off the killer, who is not providing the SWAT sharpshooters with a shot. Because of the killer's position, however, the killer cannot see you. You are next to the dead officer and have taken his firearm. You have a clear shot at the killer, who is raising his blade and getting ready to attack one of the children. In this version of the classic "Is it ever OK to kill?" hypothetical, most people would shoot the killer. I would too. Yet for me, that isn't the end of the hypothetical, because I don't think I did a morally kosher thing.

I don't believe there is a right thing in that scenario, just the lesser of two wrongs. I find this important because it keeps clear the fact that harm did come of my actions, whether or not others would find them justified or legal. There was a whole host of wrongs over many years on the part of many, both actions and inactions, which would have led to that scenario, and while the killer bears the primary responsibility, especially in the legal sense, his life didn't happen in vacuum. The moral failure didn't start when the man with the machete started hacking people, that was just its horrifying fruition. Neither did the life of the violent nut in my racism hypothetical. Neither did the life of Jim D. Adkisson.

If our lives don't occur in a vacuum, then the atmosphere to which we are exposed, be it social, political, religious, etc, cannot be ignored just because of a preference for emphasizing personal responsibility in moral and legal judgments. The two are not mutually exclusive. Is that not one of the conservative argument for not allowing gay adoption - that homosexuality is an unhealthy atmosphere for a child? Is that not the bipartisan argument for going after video game designers and producers who market games with realistic violence to kids?

Hate is not generated or sustained in a vacuum. And I don't believe it is wise to limit the scope of the discussion, in the case of the Knoxville shooter, strictly to particular talk-shows or the books by their hosts. Those are just a couple of examples of particular media echoing a particular kind of poisonous thinking that has settled over what I referred to as the radical right or radical conservatism and which is seeping into more popular conservative outlets. The fewer people who support such a toxic atmosphere, either casually or generously, the better. For those conservatives who reject it, awesome. For those who vocally criticize joking suggestions that the only way to talk to liberals is "with a baseball bat", bravo.

Which brings us back to Adkisson. Does anyone really believe his rants and tirades against the evils and dangers of liberals just came from nowhere? That the similarity, from what we know so far, of his beliefs about the specific damages he felt liberals are doing to the country and those from the far right talking points is just a coincidence? That there is no connection between the poisonous atmosphere of the radicals on the right and Adkisson's hatred of the "liberal movement"?

FYI, this is why I am against the tone of some who identify with the "new atheists". I am not concerned with their arguments, which have been widely criticized as a selective reading history coupled with a poor understanding of theology and tedious over-generalizations, but rather with the attitude (see the recent actions by PZ Meyers and a response from a member of the community Meyers set out to antagonize and offend). Their demagoguery helps push the atheist dialogue to a more disrespectful place and opens up (additional and more visible) space for potential extremists who could then create their own poisonous atmosphere of repugnant rhetoric which vilifies and scape goats religious people in the same way I fear that some conservative commentators are creating space for or in some cases echoing such rhetoric with regard to "liberals".

The same can be said of the the hateful speech on some liberal blogs, such as comments rejoicing in the Tony Snow's diagnosis of cancer as well as his death, which can also generate and sustain an offensive atmosphere that becomes poisonous. It can happen any time someone goes from criticizing or lampooning the ideas or agendas of a group targeting people who are identified with a particular label. We all need to work to clean and prevent further pollution in the public square, starting with the groups with which we ourselves have the most influence, which are generally those who tend to otherwise share our outlook and values.

Addressing tragedy and trauma

What one might consider a tragedy occurs daily in places all over the world, often silently and anonymously and typically outside of the consciousness of those not directly involved in such events. Sacred traditions and their scriptures and prayers offer a medium and a language to express what cannot be adequately expressed in other terms. They reflect our limitations and our triumphs - they follow us to our heights and to our depths.

While the following selections are dedicated to those who touched by the recent events at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, it is offered for all who may be swallowed by confusion and despair. I don't presume they will be a magic bullet for deep pain, but rather an indication that there are those who are willing to join the hurting in their misery.

A selection from The Book of Lamentations (portions of chapter 3)...

He has driven me away and made me walk in darkness rather than light; indeed, he has turned his hand against me again and again, all day long.

He has made my skin and my flesh grow old and has broken my bones. He has besieged me and surrounded me with bitterness and hardship.

He has made me dwell in darkness like those long dead. He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains.

Even when I call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer. He has barred my way with blocks of stone; he has made my paths crooked.

Like a bear lying in wait, like a lion in hiding, he dragged me from the path and mangled me and left me without help.

He drew his bow and made me the target for his arrows. He pierced my heart with arrows from his quiver...

He has filled me with bitter herbs and sated me with gall. He has broken my teeth with gravel; he has trampled me in the dust.

I have been deprived of peace; I have forgotten what prosperity is. So I say, "My splendor is gone and all that I had hoped from the LORD."

I remember my affliction and my wandering, the bitterness and the gall. I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me. Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope:

Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

And the Peace Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi...

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;

Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Keep the G-word out of Church

I want and need to feel God and to worship how God is moving in my life on a Sunday morning. For the past couple of years I haven't felt that at a UU church. Even the mention of God often gets gasps or eyerolls (which, to be honest, may have been part of the problem with the minister, but no one admits that). Church often feels dry. I mean, I am very much a believer in environmental issues and social justice issues and I believe those things are exactly what we are called to do. However, I can attend a lecture on carbon emissions or the life of Martin Luther King Jr. at one of the local college campuses. On Sunday mornings I'd rather be moved and feel closer to God.

And so I don't feel compelled to stay at our church or even to seek out another UU church. I still feel very strongly that I support the 7 UU principles and in theory I will always be a UU. But in practice, I need more.

-from Mom to the Left

Another example of how the rush to give the appearance of inclusiveness has lead some UU congregations to have an amnesia about their roots by excluding... (you know). I know bloggers such as Peacebang have written a lot about this issue, but even if you are not sad at some congregations excluding (significant) references to the Divine, it does smack of spiritual confusion or possibly even emptiness (and not the cool Buddhist kind of emptiness). After all, both Unitarianism and Universalism were based on the idea of a Source that gave light, life, and love to all and that various traditions were all valid paths to knowing/recognizing this Source, which the old timers of a few decades ago still called... (you know). I'm still hungry. And apparently I'm not the only one.

We want to worship a living God. I have not seen anything but God all my life, nor have you. To see this chair you first see God, and then the chair in and through Him. He is everywhere, saying, "I am." The moment you feel "I am," you are conscious of Existence. Where shall we go to find God if we cannot see Him in our own hearts and in every living being?
-Vivekananda

Who would want to be UU?

A good post over at PeaceBang caught my eye - here is an excerpt:

But since we’re still allergic to evangelism, and because our ad campaigns and too many of our members and our outdated promotional pamphlets and books still frame us as the alternative TO religion, we’re bound to stay teensy beensy. If there are so many interesting, intellectually provocative, or just relaxing alternatives to religion that I can do on my own, why in the world would I join a congregation or church so that I can pledge my money to, give my volunteer hours to, and send my children to Sunday School (or religious education) an institution that is still trying to convince the world that it’s a legitimate religious institution … but not really religious?

Is this, for example, really the best statement we can make to seekers who want to know who we are religiously? Why wouldn’t I just spend the afternoon at Barnes & Noble skimming through the religion section if that’s all these people are offering? I can sit in a comfy chair and sip coffee while I’m doing it, too!

Somewhere God is laughing.

We might look at some variations of how Buddhism is presented in the West and ask something very similar - who would want to be a Buddhist? (And why?)

Whopper, hold the bun (Whither UUism?)

Or - whither UUism?

I don't know. To be fair, I am not a member of a UU congregation. I've visited one of the local congregations for a couple of Sunday services and participated in peripheral activities, but I have not made any real commitment. So, it's easy to say "OK, looking in from the outside, I don't like the looks of this and that from the window." Getting involved in the solution is always more effective than merely pointing out the problem. Yup. On other hand, sometimes what you can see from the street or the window can be enough to let you know "I don't think I want to call this place home."

So onto Burger King.

Yes, the fast food franchise. Burger King has long used the motto "Have it your way." For those under, let's say, hmmm, twenty five, you may not recall what fast food used to be like in some places. Not that it's a big deal, nor did you miss much. You would go in and they would have rows like little slides for each main sandwich. And they were made with standard toppings. All the regulars knew precisely what came on each sandwich. You could order one without this or extra that, yes, but mostly the idea was, here is our product, sitting here ready to go under a heat lamp. Special orders took extra time. As someone who got everything plain, I was very aware of how much of a pain fast food folks often found my request. Sometimes they would make a new sandwich, but often they would just toss out the top half of the bun, scrape off most of the toppings, and pop a new top on. I could still taste the remaining ketchup and mustard and the juice that had trickled down from the pickles. Most people just took what was there.

So it was a big deal to advertise that at BK your sandwich was always made to order and the burger meat was fresh off the grill. Now everyone makes the sandwich to order every time. So now let's take that image and use it as analogy for UUism.

That's right, I just called UUism the Burger King of religions and religious groups. I really do think that the motto fits - "Have it your way." Now, in the case of fast food, that motto set a level of service that other chains eventually adopted. It was a positive innovation. Rather than the same old pre-formatted, rigidly formulaic religious traditions in their bland wrappers, the comparison between UUism and Burger King suggests that UUism can give people what they really want, hot and fresh with the Spirit, to suit their own experiences and tastes.

Now onto the punchline I used as a title for this post. OK, there was a joke about just how far one could go with BK's "Have it your way" policy. What if people took it to an extreme? The original Bloom County comic adopted this idea in a strip where the main character orders a Whopper, "hold the bun". After finally getting the employee to honor the company motto and call back to the fry cook for a whopper minus the bun, without missing a beat the customer then asks for a milkshake, sans the cup.

So now we are getting to it - just how much can UUism (which in the form of the UUA is a collection of affiliated, localized congregations) honor the concept of "Have it your way?" before becoming a Whopper without a bun or a milkshake without a cup? In some extreme cases, one can imagine a new version of the above routine in which the customer asks for a Whopper without a bun... or cheese... or any condiments... or any veggie toppings... or any meat. The hapless employee looks up and says "Uh, so you just want the wrapper?" The customer says, "That's right, and make it snappy!" Without missing a beat, the employee asks "You want a fry box with that?"

Just what is it that makes a Whopper a Whopper? How much can we take away and still rightfully call it a Whopper? If a sandwich is a meal made by putting something edible between two slices of bread, then does a Whopper sans the bun qualify as a sandwich? And however we finesse and parse our definitions and their implied religious counterparts, what is it that people are hungry for?

I don't know that I speak for anyone else, but here is my order. I don't want a pre-made sandwich with the toppings mostly scraped off. But I also don't want an empty (or even mostly empty) wrapper. I want a filling sandwich that is tasty and nutritious. Of course understanding what that might mean requires a clearer idea of what I think the sandwich should look like in general.

To me, a large part of religion is going to church. Obviously we can substitute in mosque, temple, synagogue, etc, but we go for a shared experience. But what kind of experience? I would say one primary feature is expressing the values and principles of the religion through its symbols and imagery to address the urgent questions of our lives. Some are existential - who are we? why are we here? where are we going? what is it all about? Others are more practical - how should I deal with a particular kind of emotion or ethical dilemma? how do I handle a crisis or other stressful situation? Some are a mixture of both - does my past make me a bad person? what can I do to make my life more fulfilling?

Now, from a "Have it your way" perspective, this might seem like we are saying, "OK, let's draw on a number of different insights from various sacred traditions to really scrutinize and examine these questions."

Another important aspect of the church experience would be a celebration of a shared vision of something transcendent in which we are united. This celebration would include joyful songs and hymns and various other liturgical elements such as lighting candles and incense, making offerings of flowers, water, or fruit, prayers and meditation, etc.

In Have-it-your-way-ism, this might sound like speaking in many ways of One Truth beyond any one sacred tradition but which can also unite them all.

So, if we put these elements together, it would go something like this: Addressing the urgent questions of life and creating a sacred space in which to open ourselves in common liturgy and private reflection to the transcendent by drawing on insights from various sacred traditions pointing to (the) ineffable Ultimate Reality.

It's not complete - the description could be fleshed out a little more, but it certain is a good start for outlining the parameters in which our individual tastes can operate. In other words, these are like the bun and the cup. We may quibble about what goes in each, but they are the basic necessities. The liturgy or order of service in and of themselves are simply the wrapper.

So looking at things such as the current and upcoming themes for services in most area UU congregations, the large majority of what I see is about social justice, social justice, learning about other cultures in general, social justice, what it means to be a UU, what it should mean to be a UU, what it could mean to be a UU, social justice, and important figures in UU/social justice history. Maybe it's just timing. I don't know. Maybe there is more to it than what it looks like. I can't say for sure. But the impression I am generally left with, and not just from a survey of current service topics, is that the stuff I am looking for is there mostly for show, perhaps given lip-service, and certainly played up on the UUA website and promotional materials.

I am not knocking social justice, by the way (nor the UUA!). If we are humbled and uplifted in our encounter with Ultimate Reality, and if we take the expression of principles and values told through religious language and imagery to heart, then yes, the outcome should be a commitment to make a practical application of that vehicle (principles/values) and that fuel (our encounter). That's the gist of the whole "by their fruits shall you know them" litmus test of genuine spiritual growth. But to change analogies for a second, it's important not to focus so much on the fruit that we neglect the roots, trunk and branches.

So that brings us back to the subtitle of the post - whither UUism? I don't know the answer to that. But what I do know is that I am hungry.

What light through yonder window breaks?

"Imagine the world as a vast cathedral. Contemplate the windows. In the Cathedral of the World there are windows beyond number, some long forgotten, covered with many patinas of dust, others revered by millions, the most sacred of shrines. Each in its own way is beautiful. Some are abstract, others representational, some dark and meditative, others bright and dazzling. Each tells a story about the creation of the world, the meaning
of history, the purpose of life, the nature of humankind, the mystery of death. The windows of the cathedral are where the light shines through.

"The same light shines through all our windows, but each window is different. The windows modify the light, refracting it in various patterns that suggest discrete meanings. Even as one cannot believe usefully in 'everything,' to find meaningful expression Unitarian Universalism must be modified or refracted through the glass of individual and group experience (which by definition will be less than universal). One can be a Buddhist Unitarian Universalist, a Jewish Unitarian Universalist, a Pagan Unitarian Universalist, a Humanist Unitarian Universalist, a Christian Unitarian Universalist.

"As with all extended metaphors, this one is imperfect. The Light of God (or Truth or Being Itself) shines not only upon us, but out from within us as well. Together with the windows, we are part of the cathedral, not apart from it. Together we comprise an interdependent web of being. The cathedral is constructed out of star stuff and so are we." - excerpt from a sermon titled The Cathedral of the World by Forrest Church.

If you've read the book A Chosen Faith, which is an introduction to Unitarian Universalism, or if you have attended the right UU service on the right day, you have heard this analogy before. It has been used in a number of sermons and can be readily found in many places through a brief internet search. But the lesson isn't limited to UUism per se. Many in the interfaith and interspiritual movement who are not UUs will nonetheless recognize and in many cases agree with this sentiment. I think in particular this imagery is also very useful from a Buddhist perspective, regardless of whether one is a Buddhist and a Unitarian Universalist.

From Chan Buddhism, one can recognize the light as the illumination of Pure Mind. Seeing the illumination in each window is a way of expressing how Enlightened Beings see others as Buddhas and the world as the Pure Land. Nor is this insight of the power of perspective limited to Chan. The Shin layperson and poet Saichi wrote:

84,000 delusions
84,000 lights
84,000 joys abounding

From Sri Lanka to Thailand, from Mongolia to Japan, and now in the West, one can find Buddhist teachings which echo the lesson of the image of the Cathedral of the World.

May you recognize the Light.

Christian Buddhists? Buddhist Christians?

I have found the question of the compatibility (or lack thereof) of Christianity and Buddhism to be very contentious in certain circles, so I thought I might take the topic out for a spin. So can you be a Christian and a Buddhist? Of course. And absolutely not. Given the choice between the two answers, which would you prefer? But before you decide, let's take a closer look at how we can arrive at these two mutually exclusive answers.

Let's start with the rejection of compatibility. That's not too hard to understand. You start by presuming that being a Christian requires the following beliefs:

1. there is an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
2. this same God made the Universe at some point in the remote past and either directly created or set in motion the creation of human beings who were initially in total union with the divine will.
3. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God
4. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively or literally) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
5. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; this was accomplished by Christ acting as a substitute for all those who deserved eternal separation from God because of either original sin (which is inherited) or their own sins (acts separating them from/going against their sense of the Divine).
6. Jesus was crucified, laid to rest in a tomb, and experienced a bodily resurrection after three days, eventually directly ascending to Heaven, the realm beyond the mortal world where the heart of God dwells.
7. only by believing these stories and accepting the grace of God offered through Christ can a person's soul escape eternal torment/annihilation.

On the other hand, you assume that being a Buddhist means believing teachings which state:

1. everything is impermanent (so a changeless, eternal God as required above would not be compatible with this view) because everything is empty (of intrinsic existence); this is also argued to go against the concept of an eternal soul if a soul is also supposed to somehow be eternal and fixed.
2. even heaven and hell realms are temporary (and possible figurative/metaphoric) and reflections of our choices, i.e. karma; there is no appeal to a Supreme Being to change our karmic consequences.
3. everything is interdependent via the concept of dependent co-arising, so again, there is no existence outside of this connected web of causality and presumably no place for an eternal, changeless Being.
4. one may experience many lifetimes before being liberated from the cycle of birth and death (this can be seen literally or figuratively), which conflicts with the idea in traditional Christianity of living one life then being judged for eternity.
5. the narrow exclusivity of the previously described beliefs of Christianity doesn't fit well with the idea of following the teachings of a different religion.

The conflict, then, between a traditional Christian view and a common Western Buddhist outlook, is fairly obvious. A deeper or more comprehensive comparison and analysis is certainly possible, but even at such a superficial level as has been outlined here one can apprehend why Buddhism and Christianity are often said to be mutually exclusive. Yet there are people who write books comparing the saying of the Buddha and Christ, as well as those who claim to benefit from a syncretic belief involving Jesus and the Buddha (and perhaps other teachers). To appreciate why this may be so, let us consider the distinction of being a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian.

The distinction between a Christian Buddhist and a Buddhist Christian was not really relevant for discussing why the two sacred traditions are incompatible - no matter how you mix them it doesn't work. But what about those who do mix it up? Presumably, the latter label takes precedence, i.e. a Buddhist Christian would be a Christian first and a Buddhist second (and vice versa). A Buddhist Christian can still adhere to most of the aforementioned list of traditional Christian beliefs while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Buddhist teachings and practices, such as meditation. A Christian Buddhist can likewise adhere to Buddhist teachings (including but not limited to those listed above) while simultaneously picking and choosing certain aspects of Christian teachings, such as the admonition to love others as ourselves.

Then there are what may be called non-traditional Christians (which traditional Christians, and even many Buddhists, would likely not recognize as being "true" Christians). Many of their beliefs have been on the wrong end of history and have been declared heresies and false teachings, or in some cases are simply in the minority/ignored by most practicing Christians. Yet in the ongoing dialog with eastern mysticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, many of these beliefs are being reconsidered and in some cases resuscitated. Sounds good. Let's get a brief sketch of what that *might* look like:

1. "God" is a term for the endless potential from/in which which all existence/universes spring, known as I AM, as the Tao, as the essence of shunyata and tathata expressed as the dharmakaya, and other hopeless attempts to name the ineffable, which is simultaneously transcendent and immanent.
2. in an attempt to grasp and make this Source familiar, myths arose in which God was fashioned in our own image as an anthropomorphic Supreme Being, that is, a Creator God who has a will and a consciousness with a personality; more or less this God is like a human being without all the faults and with unlimited knowledge and power; as a perfect Being this God is changeless and eternal.
3. creation is a perpetual act of the Divine in which all of existence participates, arising and dissolving in a continuous flow of what can be and what is.
4. sin is separation from direct union with the mind/will of God; rather than a blood curse inherited from the disobedience of Adam and Eve, it is a description of how certain actions, speech, and thoughts lead one away from the truth of the fundamental inter-connection of all things and our own inherent completeness as an individual within a greater whole.
5. original sin is the story (interpreted figuratively) of how humanity became separated from God, that is, how they came to neglect an inherent awareness of the Divine.
6. the story of the Gospels is the story of how God became manifest in the human world as Jesus Christ in order to bridge the gulf that came to separate humanity from the Divine; it is an ahistorical (its value goes beyond its historical reality) story providing an exemplar of the the proper relationship of humanity and the Divine.
7. the story of Jesus being crucified, being laid to rest in a tomb, and experiencing a bodily resurrection after three days, is a part of the larger ahistorical teaching; the truth of the story lies in the heart, not in what cannot be verified or rejected empirically.
8. the message of Christ is one of reconciliation with God and the abundance of undifferentiated grace; the plight of the unsaved is a depiction of the suffering of those who have not been reconciled to God, whether it be through religion or not.

In the case of such Christians (or those who share at least some of these variations from the traditional views), at least for those who will allow them to use that label, it is fairly clear that they can not only find compatibility with Buddhism but even a deep connection between the fundamental principles of Buddhism and their faith in Christ, especially the life of Jesus and the idea of the bodhisattva. It is just as clear how Buddhists might also find a connection with this form of Christianity. As I am not an expert in the history of Christian theology, I cannot argue whether the more traditional view is somehow more authentic to the original teachings of Christ as opposed to the panentheist/universalist view, but I am aware that there is a long thread of such thought in the Church, especially in the more contemplative orders/traditions which practiced mysticism to experience conscious union with the Divine. From what I have heard, there are contemporary theologians/philosophers which have explored such ideas of Christ and God (Paul Tillich comes to mind), so whether or not it is considered orthodox, it is a view that has both a history, is relevant to modern theology, and is actively practiced (see for example the works of Thomas Merton or Wayne Teasdale).

Speaking of being outside of conventional/"traditional" Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists were essentially founded in such an extreme ecumenical revelation and expansion of Christianity and now embraces members who identify as everything from Wiccan to Jewish to Buddhist to atheist. So I will let a UU/Christian have the last word here on the concept:

Who is Jesus Christ to me? He is both a teacher of the Way, and the Way itself. For one who has always had a hard time grasping the concept of God, let alone developing a working definition of God, Jesus both points me toward a definition of God and then lives that definition. Jesus Christ is the freedom that laughs uproariously at the things of this world, while loving me dearly for being human enough to lust after them. He is my soul’s safety from all harm. He is the avatar of aloneness, a compassionate and unsentimental narrator of the soul’s exile on earth, and proof of the soul’s triumphant homecoming at the end of the incarnational struggle. He is not afraid to put his hands anywhere to affect healing. He mourns, and weeps, and scolds, and invites. He is life more abundant and conqueror of the existential condition of fear.

“By their fruits ye shall know them,” Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. There are indeed degenerate branches on the tree of Christian life, but this does not keep me from Christ. There are even disagreements among Unitarian Universalist Christians about the appropriateness of this or that perspective, practice, or teaching—debates that I regard mostly with affection, if occasionally with irritation. We have so much else to do.

My daily Christian practice, although it changes frequently and is augmented by wisdom and practices from other traditions, consists mostly of clumsy efforts to love my God with all my heart, all my mind, all my soul, and all my strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. That’s work enough for this lifetime.

I call myself a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ—not just Jesus-that-great-guy-and-teacher-with-the-long-hair-and-sandals but Jesus the living avatar of the great God and Jesus the Christ of Easter morning.

How Jesus claimed me

One Unitarian Universalist's religious journey.
By Victoria Weinstein

Contemplating death gives gratitude for life

The contemplation of death is vital for the clarity and enthusiasm for living fully. In particular, reflection on death can be a source of a virtue that helps greatly improve one's peace of mind and quality of life, namely gratitude. [There was a great article recently in UU World on why gratitude should be the defining element of Unitarian Universalism by the way] The Buddhist readers may have heard about various practices for contemplating death, and Christians just recently did so for Easter. I am not sure what elements in other faiths, such as Judaism and Islam, specifically focus on the ramifications of death, but I would be greatly surprised if there were none.

In contemplative mystical terms, including the Buddhist perspective, from the historical perspective, we are born, we live, and we die. In the historical dimension these things are spread out in time and space, and because of this gap, there is a possibility to either not think about death or to not accept that one will die. Those who believe in a literal Second Coming could talk themselves into believing that Jesus will return before they must endure physical death, and besides, they won't really die in a permanent sense anyway. Even those who believe no such thing could believe that genetics and medicine and technology might find some way to use gene therapy to affect the telomeres and somehow makes select people immortal. For those less versed in developmental genetics, there is also the "hope" of cryogenics. But whatever one does, physical death is inevitable. We can slow it, but it will eventually occur, and there is no credible alternative on the table.

And we must die. Why? Well, the answer is deceptively simple - the Buddha is reported to have said that we die because we were born. In Buddhism, the cause and effect are seen as being created simultaneously - however, the effect may be delayed until the proper conditions cause/allow it to manifest itself. Another way to say it is that the price of life is death, the consequence of being born is dying. Again, from the ultimate perspective, that is, taking a "God's eye " view of everything, there is not much distinction. I will be/am being/have been born and I will/am/have died. I may not know the exact point at time in space at which the latter will happen, but for all practical purposes, it's a done deal.

If, indeed, I am (to borrow a phrase) "living on borrowed time", then what about the contemplation of my eventual death? I can visualize myself at a cemetery in front of a headstone, a marble slab with my name craved into it. Tracing the letters with my fingers, the stone is smooth and cold. There is an epitaph, and I can smell the freshly dug soil under my feet. The mist is burning away as the sun rises over the horizon leaving the morning dew on the neatly manicured grass nearby, and a bouquet of flowers is starting to drop a little at the base of the headstone. I have lost everything. My relationships, my health, the use of my body, my money, my career, my possessions - everything. I am just a memory dwelling at the site of the final interment of my remains. Somewhat like Scrooge when visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future, I am faced with the stark reality of my mortality. Eventually even my remains will decay and perhaps be part of other life forms, microbes, or worms, and maybe eventually some of that matter and energy might even find its way into another human being.

And then I am back here, which seems so far away, and yet if these words outlive me, the relative illusion of that distance will be all the more apparent. Pondering this reflection and meditation, it is almost like time travel. I know that I will become ill, and that I will grow old, and eventually die, if death does not not claim me before I become sick or infirm with age, and that the seeming gulf between my current situation and these states of existence is an illusion, a wish, a breeze that plays on my face for a brief moment and then fades away. A blink and I am at my life's end.

So how will I respond? What is my reaction to this realization? What does this mean for my life? I will be grateful. Should I lose my sight or other sense, I will be grateful for the time I had it and all of the things I saw and heard and tasted and felt. Should I lose my limbs, or their use, I will be grateful for the time I had them and the chance to run and jump and swim and climb and romp. Should I lose my health, I will be grateful for all the healthy years I've enjoyed. Each day I will not be upset about what I haven't had or what I've lost, but what I have had and what yet remains, seeing each day as a blessing. And as the moment of my death, if I am conscious, I will be grateful for the chance to live this life.

Just Making Up My Own Religion As I Go Along

I am not against people being interfaith (obviously!), or exploring various facets of different sacred traditions to see how they challenge and inspire them, but there are shortfalls to certain attitudes that often come with the "buffet style" of spirituality. And, as usual, when it comes to this kind of thing, there is no one better to rip off quote from in the interfaith/UU blogosphere than Peacebang...

Of course if the liberal church was doing its job and showing people a deep, meaningful spiritual path and giving them unapologetically directive teachings on how to transform their inner lives through prayer, study and service, yoga people might be able to keep their Thursday morning class in better perspective. That is, those yoga people who attend liberal churches might. Hey, if the liberal church was doing its job better, I have to think that more people -- including yoga people -- would be attending.

Or maybe not. Maybe the idea of disciplined religion is so ruined in the eyes of spiritually liberal seekers that they'll never embrace it, and those of us in the liberal churches are presiding over a funeral. There's never going to be anything but a tiny market for floppy, "Gee-I-dunno-what-do-YOU-think" religion, no matter how much it dresses itself up in prophet's clothes and claims to be the Truth-Telling Group.

One Truth the liberal church has been telling for years is that conservative folks Just Want To Be Told What To Believe. That's so easy, so dismissive, so snotty and so mostly wrong. All people want a religious life that actually shakes them, demands something of them and transforms them. Liberals, unfortunately, join the effort with the attitude that while this process is occurring, they should be comfortable and even indulged. They join the project with the attitude that there are no rockbound truths, so everything is relative. Who can really be transformed with a permanent orientation of skepticism and self-preservation?

source

I would point out that I take this last bit to refer not to openness to new possibilities, but a kind of closed-minded non-committal cynicism. I also think all truth is relative, but that merely means it has a relationship to something else, not that it isn't grounded or could just be anything that one makes up or chooses to believe. But I think I get what she is getting at. Either there is something, a principle, a truth, a revelation, that one is guided by in their spiritual exploration and investigation, or it is just a form of ego-feeding consumerism, i.e. it devolves into a bland form of spiritual materialism.

Suggestion for religious and spiritually liberal people for outreach

What I am going to write here today isn't novel. It may even be a little tired. But sometimes you have to pick up that tired truism and carry it forward. And if there is a standard or banner for progressive politics and liberal religion/spirituality, it is inclusiveness. Unlike the characterization often made by those who oppose such a perspective, it does not mean having no standards or principles or accepting any standards or principles, nor that there is no discrimination. The issue is what is being accepted and what is being discriminated.

Quite simply, what is being accepted are people. That is where the inclusiveness comes into play. If you are a sentient being, a human being, then you are accepted. That is the liberal idea of inclusion, especially the religiously/spiritually liberal form. What is challenged, differentiated, and judged? Beliefs and behaviors. How is it judged?

My formulation for how people tend to use the concept of morality is as follows: An action that is voluntarily chosen which benefits others at a cost to the self is the epitome of good, whereas an action that is involuntarily imposed on others to their harm for a benefit to the self is the image of evil. It is this self-sacrifice that people call altruism, the far end of the "goodness" meter on the morality scale. The basis of morality then is in recognizing others as ourselves (self-aware beings capable of choice and imbued with feelings).

So beliefs and behaviors which permit freedom of choice/are freely chosen is the initial criteria. Part of freely chosen includes freedom from coercion, but subtle and gross, including fear and the threat of pain, violence, or death. The "benefit" clause is, of course, open to interpretation, but generally speaking it would involve upholding the dignity and welfare of those affected. Food for the hungry, medicine for sick, shelter for the homeless, education for the ignorant, companionship for the lonely - it isn't too hard to get the drift here.

I think many mainstream and even some self-labeled conservative religious denominations and congregations have an element of these liberal convictions, which is an opening for dialogue. The more extreme versions of conservatism, as it is practiced today, are rooted however in egoism. It is the idea that a collection of individuals each working for his or her own self-interest (or more accurately selfish-interest as this is how it is typically interpreted) is going to produce the best results and that morality is tied into the each individual's personal gain (generally measured in terms of power, money, property, reputation, etc). Hence unrestrained capitalism is seen as the mechanism for the achieving the highest good. Religiously this is tied into the Calvinist idea that those who are materially successful are somehow superior or have "done better" in the eyes of God. This is precisely the kind of belief and behavior to which I am opposed.

Just because it cannot be over-emphasized, let me repeat: The essence of morality is not survival or prosperity. Morality 1) rests on the empathy of seeing others as ourselves, 2) is shaped by respecting others as ourselves, and 3) is manifested in our choice to treat others are ourselves.

As for the code of rational self-interest as a basis for morality, what would happen if one's own self-interest seemed to suggest you should kill someone? Let's say you see everyone as a separate unit loosely affiliated with other units who are all in competition for material goods and social reputation. By killing the person, you would benefit materially. The only downside you can see is if you get caught, thereby losing material goods, likely losing your freedom, and damaging your reputation. But, you are very certain you have the means to make sure that this won't happen. According to rational self-interest, if I value material prosperity and my freedom/reputation, so long as I know I can get away with it, killing is right.

But, what if that isn't true? What if we are all connected to each other socially, ecologically, emotionally, etc? If that is the case, then "rational self interest" would say that when you help others, you are helping yourself. There is no difference. When you harm others, you are harming yourself. In this case, we are each others "means", in such that we are either each others' salvation or damnation. So, to harm someone else just for material gain, even though I could "get away with it" in terms of being caught, still diminishes us all, so therefore it would be wrong.
The point is, "rational self interest" is entirely dependent on how you define "rational" (it used to be very reasonable and quite obvious to assume that non-whites weren't fully human, for instance) and how you define "self-interest". It has no basis for making moral statements beyond those views (essential to) determining the value of others that one already possesses.

Which brings us back to inclusion. In the liberal religious traditions, God, or the Tao, or Higher Power, or Ultimate Reality, Supreme Dharma, nor those who represent it in human form, such as Jesus or Amida Buddha, turn anyone away. There is no condition or restriction on the embrace of the Divine. Whereas a system based on the idea of individuals as competing for "success" is going to operate on a principle of exclusion. After all, there must be a way to gauge this success, so the idea that we are all welcome in God's eyes (to use one form of imagery) is anathema! Rather than seeing sin or delusion as a self-made barrier or a recognition of our own shortcomings, it becomes a mark of shame and target of ridicule. That's why I saw many otherwise conservative congregations have a liberal streak, especially many Christians, because they at least acknowledge that none of them can boast of their virtue being superior to anyone else's and that they are redeemed by grace. Unfortunately, that tendency toward exclusion then too often takes over and that grace is then again reserved for those who are follow their particular views and perform their specific rituals, but still, it's another potential point for dialogue.

As political progressives and/or religiously-spiritually liberal persons, we should keep this distinction in mind. Our message is open to everyone, our practices and policies should benefit everyone, and our actions, speech, and thought should reflect an appreciation for the welfare and dignity of everyone, even as we may oppose beliefs and behaviors that do not.

Blog recommendation--PeaceBang

There's a lot of energy and activity over at Peacebang this week. Some really great discussion about the place of terms like 'God' and 'the LORD' in progressive religion (particularly UUism) as well as the 7 Principles of the UUA and other topics seemingly stirred up the UUA General Assmebly which wrapped up last week. Even if you aren't a UU or UU-curious, if you are just interested in conflicts and resolutions in (liberal) religion and spirituality, it's worth taking a visit.