Dear Maria,
I read your very thoughtful blog entry, UUA, Why Aren’t You Nurturing My Spirit? right after General Assembly. I hadn’t attended, myself, and I had plans to listen to the Service of the Living Tradition and Sunday morning service and Ware Lecture and other treats from the week. As a humanist, I read your piece with growing trepidation, especially when I got to your characterization of Marlin Lavanhar’s sermon in the Service of the Living Tradition.
In Marlin’s story . . . I am the oppressor. I am his oppressor because he did not feel comfortable being open about his authentic self.
After that, I was braced for a rough half an hour watching his sermon. But instead, in what I agree with you was a wonderful sermon, I didn’t hear “you are the oppressor” at all. I heard his discomfort, but I didn’t hear him blaming it on anything but his own failures of courage and integrity. I do think, and it’s clearly implied by Marlin’s sermon as well, that there is some blame to go around. It falls on each of us when we let it show in our faces: “you believe that?”
We are each other’s oppressors. We can try to stuff each other in the closet with a look, with a roll of the eyes, with a “maybe you should try the UCC church down the street,” or “the Buddhist temple,” or “the Unity church,” or “the Humanist community.” There’s plenty of blame to go around, sadly. But I was looking hard for a finger pointing at humanists for shooting down theists, and what I saw was a little different from this description from your article:
What is wrong with Unitarian Universalism and what is holding us back from growth is our failure to embrace those who embrace God.
I really tried, I really expected it, but I didn’t see quite what you saw. Marlin did focus particularly on how hard our congregations are for those who embrace God; we do focus on it quite a bit these days, and there’s a good reason for that. If I may use an even more loaded metaphor than the closet (Marlin used it glancingly also), affirming God-believing UUs is like affirming the value of black lives.
“Black Lives Matter!” a person declares.
“Why do you say ‘black lives matter’?” the reply shoots back. “Don’t all lives matter?”
Yes, all lives matter, and since our judicial system and so much else about our country keep saying that black lives don’t count in that “all,” I’m gently, persistently pointing out that they do. And I am saying “We need to embrace those who embrace God” (lovely phrase, by the way) because in my congregation, although we say all theologies are welcome, we do convey, too often, that theist theologies, in particular, aren’t included in that “all.”
Thus the pendulum. Though I’m pretty tired of it too. I agree that it would be lovely if the pendulum were to stop swinging. Where would we like it to stop?
When I discovered Unitarian Universalism after decades of being a “None”, I was amazed and happy. It truly was amazing to this former Catholic — a place where I could take my authentic self and my Humanist family and be loved and supported in ways that I thought were only available to theists or others who could accept the supernatural.
My experience too! It sounds to me like we’re in a pretty good stopping place for humanists. What else do we need to do to nurture your spirit? Well, you spell some of it out.
So, where are the GA sessions on Grief Beyond Belief? Where are the services that take their inspiration from our creation story, the universe story, and the truth that we are star stuff and part of a grand, magnificent, messy, wondrous, interconnected world? Where is the advice for what to tell my son when he can’t sleep because he’s afraid that he is going to die some day, or that I might die and leave him alone? Where is the training in UU seminaries of how to minister to people like me who need to rely on human hands and human love to find hope and purpose? Where is the sense of mission to reach out to people like me who have nowhere else to turn for solace and inspiration and community because we don’t fit the religious norm? Where is the joy, and the celebration of life and love from a humanist perspective?
I know the answer to your question, and I hope it makes you happy: these things are to be found in UU congregations. I don’t know about the GA workshops—I haven’t done more than scan those for a couple of years—so maybe we do need more distinctly humanist presentations at GA. But the rest? Either I am particularly lucky, or you are particularly unlucky, because I have found those everywhere. Not only in my own congregation, not only in my collegial gatherings with ministers whose theologies do not all agree with mine by a long shot, and in the nondenominational Christian seminary I attended, but in every UU congregation I’ve belonged to. In fact, I’ve never attended a UU congregation that made me feel as if my theology were unwelcome. They might have said the Lord’s Prayer or mentioned God, they might have sung a hymn whose theology I find irksome, but I’ve always found lots of room for my beliefs and my preferred language and symbols. And I know for a fact that the ministers were not always of my theological stripe.
In fact, we have very few congregations in which the dominant theology is liberal Christianity. I’m glad they’re there, anyway—King’s Chapel should remain its badass high-church Christian self—even though I wouldn’t want to attend every week and they would certainly not want me as their minister, nor would I want to serve there. It’s fine that we have a few congregations that are explicitly atheist, pagan or Christian. But all in all, I much prefer the ones that try to be a home to all of those folks and more, and that is the kind in which I always hope to serve.
Will all humanists feel welcome in such a multitheological congregation? I fear not, because what I hear from a few humanists—not most—is that what they need for their spirit to be nurtured is to be in a place where everyone appears to believe as they do. I’m sorry to report this, because I’m a humanist myself, I don’t believe in God except in the sense of religious naturalism, and I most emphatically do not want people like us to die out. But from a few, particularly outspoken folks, I hear: “You have to stop using that ‘language of reverence’ or I don’t feel welcome here.” “Why use words like ‘God’ or ‘spirituality’ at all? Why not just use words we can all agree with?” “That was a great sermon except for the bit about Indra’s net. I don’t know why you need to talk about gods.” In other words, in order for these folks to feel “nurtured” in our congregations, we must all act like humanists all the time—and, more than that, we must act like a very particular strain of humanist, one who does not use any term that sounds “religious,” including the term “religious,” and also “sin,” “grace,” “redemption,” and indeed, “spirit.”
Like the great humanist Universalist Kenneth Patton, I like all those words and find them deeply meaningful. Others, I would rather leave out. You may not like any of them, and I’m not going to compel you to. But Maria, when you ask, “Where is the nurturing of my spirit that is in my language of poetry and nature and human relation that isn’t based on traditional religious words and symbols that have no meaning for me?” I have a question to ask you in response. It is “Why is your spirit only nurtured when you are spared all words and symbols that have no meaning for you?”
See, I get the nurturing of my spirit in the language of poetry and nature and human relation in a place where it’s mixed right in with the traditional religious words and symbols that have meaning for other UUs. That mix is how it has always been—which doesn’t mean it’s how it has to remain, of course, but let’s not rewrite history. The mythical time when you could spend a lifetime in Unitarian Universalism without ever hearing the words “Jesus Christ” except when the sexton tripped over his bucket, is just that: a myth. It never happened.
And even if it had, all those words and symbols belong in our congregations because all of us belong in our congregations. Oh sure, there are theologies that will probably never belong there. But do you flunk the UU test because you believe that there is a creator of this universe who can appear to us in human form and save us from our worst tendencies? Do you flunk out for believing that there is some kind of life after this one? Do you flunk out for believing that the universe is just, an idea I criticized in no uncertain terms in my most recent sermon? I hope to _______________ not (fill in the blank with the term of your choice). I want to be in community with all those people. I’ll come back to why in a few paragraphs.
I love that you want an option besides “organs and pews, hymns and sermons.” We might need to set them aside for liturgical reasons—that they don’t resonate with the practices people find most inspiring. However, we don’t need to set them aside for theological ones. There is nothing, nothing at all about a sermon or a pew that is incompatible with humanism or atheism.
And I love this: “You are not serving my needs, UUA, by having the only two options be gospel or classical, speaking in tongues or reading a science journal, listening to a sermon or listening to NPR.” Amen! These wouldn’t serve my needs either. But are these really the only two options you’ve found at UU churches? Please, come to services at my congregation. But more than that, come to services in Santa Monica, CA, Brewster, MA, San Francisco, CA, Warrington, PA . . . all of them have offered me a third alternative.
Most of all, what they offer me is connection to other people, whose hearts are so close to mine even when their theologies, practices, and beliefs are not. There’s a passage from Kurt Vonnegut—then honorary president of the American Humanist Association–that’s been rising up in my heart recently, and so when Marlin began his sermon, my eyes welled up as I recalled it again. It’s from Timequake, in which Vonnegut appears a great deal as a character—the author as Himself–and he is speaking of his real-life first wife, to whom he remained close all of their lives, even after their divorce. She was a devout Episcopalian and she died of cancer. He writes, “She died believing in the Trinity and Heaven and Hell and all the rest of it. I’m so glad. Why? Because I loved her.”
I am so glad Marlin walks with God. Why? Because I love him. I would like to hear about his experiences, his attempt to have just a closer walk with his god, for many reasons: because they would undoubtedly illuminate my own spiritual path, because I would learn so much to help me in my own struggles to walk more closely with my own deepest highest realest best thing (which I do not call God except when translating to another’s theological language). I hope he will preach from that experience and that longing, because when preachers preach from their longing, I hear my own and that helps me. But most of all, I want it because I love him. I want him to be able to bring his full spirit for its own sake: that he may thrive, that he may live fully, that our congregation may be a place of wondrous transformation for him.
Sometimes I don’t feel quite so welcoming. I’m uncomfortable with others’ longings. Oh dear. Marlin walks with God? Is he going to be telling me he speaks in tongues, too? Or believes that there’s a grand design to this universe and that there’s a starring role for our species? I worry that I won’t be able to listen to those cherished beliefs with an open heart. I worry that my inner judgment will appear on my face.
But there’s one thing I don’t worry about; I don’t worry that Marlin is going to tell me that I should believe in a God who walks with us, that I should speak of my longing for the holy with the anthropomorophic language that he uses himself, because it’s all over that sermon and his ministry that he doesn’t want to do any such thing. Bless him, he wants to welcome me exactly as I am. So what’s really uncomfortable is the challenge to me as a minister, as a Unitarian Universalist, as a humanist, as a person trying to live out the promise of love: will I do the same for everyone who crosses our threshold with a thirsting spirit?
Let’s keep talking. I hope to meet you in person sometime soon.
Be well,
Amy
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Andrew Hidas
Powerful stuff, Amy. A friend recently posted this in the comments of my blog: “I always fall back on how struck I was reading Scott Peck’s “The Road Less Traveled” many moons ago where he asserts that love is not simply an emotion or feeling (these come/go, rise/fall) – love is a verb , love is as love does… it is fundamentally about one’s commitment to spiritual growth/well being of the beloved…
This “commitment” seems to me to be one of the reasons and requirements of us coming together in community, and whether we use “God” or “Love” or whatever else to denote the ultimate within that community, or use them all interchangeably, the point is that love is the alpha & omega, and however we talk about and symbolize that in the Big Tent that is supposed to reflect Unitarian Universalism ought to be fine pretty much by definition, I would think (and hope…).
Rich conversation here; I hope Maria responds. Meanwhile, did “The mythical time when you could spend a lifetime in Unitarian Universalism without ever hearing the words ‘Jesus Christ’ except when the sexton tripped over his bucket…” come from you? Can I steal it? 🙂
LikeLike
July 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Amy Zucker Morgenstern
The joke is far older than I. The claim that it’s based on a myth, that’s mine. Go right ahead and steal it. That way, when some savvy UU historian proves it wrong (“from 1880 to 1891 several ministers were booted out of the AUA for theism”?), I’ll have someone else to share the blame. –Amy
LikeLike
July 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm
Dawn Fortune
you are ever so much more eloquent than I. Thank you for speaking this.
LikeLike
July 16, 2015 at 6:04 pm
donsevers
Thanks for your thoughtful piece, Amy.
>What is wrong with Unitarian Universalism and what is holding us back from growth is our failure to embrace those who embrace God.
I don’t see this at all. I see everyone in UU embracing each other, almost without exception.
What we can’t do is embrace all beliefs. They aren’t all compatible with the 7 Principles. Those who claim to embrace all beliefs are practicing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell regarding belief.
UUs are courageous in calling out troubling beliefs in the wider culture, but wilt when a troubling belief is found inside the congregation.
>Oh dear. Marlin walks with God?
This is an entirely warranted attitude unless Marlin can tell us how his God fits with the 7 Principles. In fact, we must ask him about it, or we are looking the other way, we are not taking him seriously, and we are not loving him enough to really engage his belief.
Humanists need not be elitists. We’re just the ones who take your beliefs seriously enough to ask about them. We try to do this with love, but many UUs reject any inquiry about their beliefs as an attack.
It’s not. It simply shows we care about what people believe, because beliefs matter socially.
LikeLike
July 17, 2015 at 5:55 am
Amy Zucker Morgenstern
Questions posed out of genuine curiosity will deepen everything about our communities. However, be warned: they lead to learning and surprises, and often change the questioner.
From previous conversations, I know you think that a belief in anything one calls one’s god is ipso facto in contradiction with the fourth principle. Even if I agreed, it wouldn’t bother me–I don”t much care whether every UU adheres to the principles, let alone my personal interpretation of the principles. In any case, we UUs have wisely forbidden them from being used as a credal test.
LikeLike
July 29, 2015 at 9:54 am
Donsevers
Well, credal test or not, we have to care about whether other people value equality if we value equality ourselves. Equality is a social value. So it makes no sense to say we don’t care of others hold it.
And to clarify, I don’t reject any God without knowing the traits of that God. But I haven’t yet heard of a God that fits our values. When someone says they have one, I simply want to know which one it is so I can tell whether it fits our values.
LikeLike
July 17, 2015 at 8:02 am
irrevspeckay
Amy, this is a wonderful, thoughtful, attentive response. Thank you for it. (From another religious naturalist, though flavored with Buddhism) ~ Karen
LikeLike
July 18, 2015 at 9:23 am
slabonne
Another hearty “thank you” from a UU religious naturalist. As has already been said, you speak for many of us, but far more eloquently.
LikeLike
July 22, 2015 at 11:49 am
Maria Greene
Hi, Amy! Thanks, very sincerely, for engaging in this conversation. I have to agree with you on most of this except the reference to #BlackLivesMatter. Using this is an analogy, my point was “who is black” in this situation? In the larger culture, it is atheists who are discriminated against and UU congregations were and still are one of the few places where we are accepted.
I understand that it is not right to disrespect theists in our congregations, but I agree with donsevers above that I haven’t seen much evidence of that myself (though I know there are infractions on both sides). I agree with him that it is loving to engage and to fight the impulse to act defensively or to not truly listen — and be open to change as you point out. (I have no opinion about his interpretation of the fourth principle, of course, though I do express my opinion in a new blog post, below.)
The problem I have is the one-sided scolding at GA (not just Marlin’s sermon, but I do not want to make a list of complaints) and the lack of any effort to include the humanist perspective. Those who are comfortable with using religious language metaphorically may think that worship services are inclusive of humanists, but that’s not how I feel and that is not what I am told again and again by people who come by the UUHA booth at GA and complain to me (like I have any say in the matter, LOL!) I would like more balance. Maybe it’s too late and the pendulum has too much momentum. I certainly don’t want it to swing back to the underly-emotional, overly-intellectual style that some people contrast it with. But was that truly how the best services were in the past when everyone agreed our movement was more humanist in style?
And I agree, I would very much enjoy meeting you in person. Look me up if you are ever in Boston!
Here’s the latest blog post I alluded to above:
http://www.uuhumanists.org/blog/201507/naturalism-discussion-moving-beyond-humanist-theist-debate
LikeLike