Liberalizing = Weakening?
In studying the 17th century church, it's a little upsetting to realize that it was after the liberalizing trends of the second generation of Puritan Congregationalists (like the Halfway Covenant) that the New England church kind of had the ginger taken out of it and was never as powerful again.
Of course some of that diminishing was due to the increasing religious pluralism of the later 17th and early 18th century (now you had your Catholics, you had your Baptists, you had your Anglicans, you had your Scottish Presbyterians, etc.), but it's quite clear that once the church stopped requiring a true conversion experience as a condition of full membership in the church, things got notably whimpier in the Standing Order.
This is a gross simplification and I'm sure that the Boy In the Bands and Fausto and Adam and Chris and LT and others will correct me -- and they should -- but it all makes me think that the liberal church makes a huge mistake in requiring pretty much nothing of its new members. Sign your name, get a nametag, come to a newcomer's dinner, attend an orientation or two... get applauded in church.
What if the minister or some church elders asked, "Why do you want to be a member of this church? Why do you want to join with this faith tradition? What promises will you make to us, and are you ready to hear our promises to you? Are you ready to enter into this covenant with full commitment, joy and preparedness to be changed by the religious life we share here?"
You know how we always scream, "You can't have creedal requirements for membership! Ayiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!"?? Well, that's not a creed. It's not even signing onto the Seven Principles. It's a series of questions designed to weed out the folks who aren't ready and need to be further nurtured or mentored in some way, who don't know what they're doing and need to take a ride on the clue bus, or have no intention of really sticking around.
Someone I really like and respect said to me today (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "I don't think Unitarian Universalism will disappear entirely. There is always going to be the type of person with an interest in generic spirituality who wants to have the intensity of their ethical commitments validated in community."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Living Tradition of our future, but an honest one.
Of course some of that diminishing was due to the increasing religious pluralism of the later 17th and early 18th century (now you had your Catholics, you had your Baptists, you had your Anglicans, you had your Scottish Presbyterians, etc.), but it's quite clear that once the church stopped requiring a true conversion experience as a condition of full membership in the church, things got notably whimpier in the Standing Order.
This is a gross simplification and I'm sure that the Boy In the Bands and Fausto and Adam and Chris and LT and others will correct me -- and they should -- but it all makes me think that the liberal church makes a huge mistake in requiring pretty much nothing of its new members. Sign your name, get a nametag, come to a newcomer's dinner, attend an orientation or two... get applauded in church.
What if the minister or some church elders asked, "Why do you want to be a member of this church? Why do you want to join with this faith tradition? What promises will you make to us, and are you ready to hear our promises to you? Are you ready to enter into this covenant with full commitment, joy and preparedness to be changed by the religious life we share here?"
You know how we always scream, "You can't have creedal requirements for membership! Ayiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeee!"?? Well, that's not a creed. It's not even signing onto the Seven Principles. It's a series of questions designed to weed out the folks who aren't ready and need to be further nurtured or mentored in some way, who don't know what they're doing and need to take a ride on the clue bus, or have no intention of really sticking around.
Someone I really like and respect said to me today (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "I don't think Unitarian Universalism will disappear entirely. There is always going to be the type of person with an interest in generic spirituality who wants to have the intensity of their ethical commitments validated in community."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Living Tradition of our future, but an honest one.
posted by PeaceBang at 8:56 PM
4 Comments:
Hmm. Then there is the problem (?) of people such as myself. I heard about UU a few years ago, and several months later I did the online course using the book A Chosen Faith. I keep up with the UU issues on the UUA homepage and like to read UU-themed blogs. I think that UUism is not only a postive force in social issues but a critical voice in the country for appreciating religious pluralism, religious tolerance (both against the radical fundamentalists and hardcore irreligionists), and helping people find a living tradition of faith not bound by creeds and dogmas. And there are half a dozen UU congegations within 30-35 minutes of my home.
Hm, the liberalizing influence in our tradition began with the Half-Way Covenant, and so did the dissipation of commitment and fervor? Intriguing. I'll have to chew on that.
Of course, if we hadn't gone that route, today we'd be a collection of what are now called "non-denominational" churches, preaching fervent and exclusive "born again"-ism, and we all know what those kinds of churches look like.
If that was the alternative, I'm happy for the Half-Way Covenant.
Hey, arent most UUs these days products of conversion?? So does that make UUs less liberal than Methodists or Congregationalists? :-)
And of course, its no secret that modern UUs do have creedial tests, you yourself complain about them! (well, we dont call them creedial tests... but...)
More seriously, I suspect that my going to a high school where the mascot was cavaliers and in history class we booed (literaly) the roundheads, does color my views.
But - I dont see why someone would want to live in a world where the Church holds that much power and ginger - even if everybody else shares my religious views (although I admit - that would make it easier! but it's always the question of who's religion will prevail over others). Of course, I live in a state where buisness arent allowed to open to 1:30 on Sunday... and I dont mow the grass on that day, so it's still pretty powerful here.
If I understand her correctly, though, that's PB's point. The churches accommodated members whose dedication was waning, in the interest of appealing to a wider constituency, and perhaps they shouldn't have.
On the church/parish distinction: In many of our old parishes, when the "Unitarian Controversy" broke out, the smaller body of orthodox "church" members withdrew, leaving the remaining larger, broader "parish" with the building and the silver. The withdrawing churches thereafter typically called themselves something like "First Congregational Church" and the remaining parishes typically called themselves something like "First Parish, Unitarian". So if we as UUs were to revive the idea of having a "church" within a "parish", for us it would really be creating something new, rather than reviving a successful older model that once served us well. I wonder, however, if the new model might not eventually succumb to the same sorts of polar tensions that the older one did, since just as in old times the "church" and "parish" bodies might not necessarily share the same motivations and purposes.
As an alternative, perhaps reviving a model of leadership by a body of deacons or elders (which are two other neglected but authentic practices from many of our older congregations) might be more appropriate than trying to divide congregations into distinct bodies of "church" and "parish". Depending on how it is practiced, that sort of leadership model also might be useful in helping reconcile our currently unresolved disparity between the competing principles of personal spiritual authority and collective submission to a common covenant. (And if there's one thing that's sure to improve almost any UU congregation, it's another committee.)
Post a Comment
<< Home