As to the first question -- why am I talked about God and Jesus in Church? Because I have faith that Unitarian Universalists are large enough in heart and mind to hear about God and Jesus, especially during certain times of the year -- like Springtime, when people in our culture and around the world celebrate Passover and Easter.
There are those of us, even within this Congregation, to whom these are meaningful celebrations, and I think there's a certain maturity of mind and spirit when we are able to consider what many of our friends, families and neighbors are taking to heart, even if we do not agree with the literal interpretations of their sacred scriptures. It is good for us to practice the tolerance that we preach.
Additionally, when we consider sacred texts from world religions, I respectfully use the names in those texts . For example, we recently considered our Fourth Source together, which specifically mentions Jewish and Christian teachings and since I am sourcing particular sacred texts -- Hebrew and Christian texts -- I will respectfully use the names used in those texts, such as God and Jesus.
There is integrity and respect in honoring sacred texts, and part of our work as Unitarian Universalists -- in the absence of a sacred text that is unique and particular to us -- is to hear and interpret the world's sacred writings in ways that inspire and challenge us.
It is also fun, sometimes, to consider all these enduring ancient stories in ways that help us learn something about our contemporary lives. That's what we do together, as religious people -- we help one another make meaning -- we have made this promise to one another, we are in covenant to engage in "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning" -- and in this journey of understanding, in this exploration of possibilities, there is always something to learn -- about yourself, and about the lives of those with whom your own life intersects. Also, here is always something to teach others about our faith -- and since covenant, not creed or doctrine, lies at the heart of our differences with most other religious traditions, it is helpful to be well versed in covenant and what it means to you, especially.
As I have acknowledged, there are times when we stray from our covenant, there are times when we break our sacred promises -- this has been demonstrated over and over again, in ancient texts and in modern life. But we learn from our stumbling and our soaring; we don't give up on each other -- this is what it means to have faith. We stick with it, and we keep at it -- and it is here, in this intimate space and time of revelation that we create and sustain together, that we tend our sacred promises to one another.
In a world of convenience and performance, when entertainment has replaced thoughtfulness and we are so deconstructed as to flit from event to event, from channel to channel, from electronic device to electronic device, from text to text (even while driving!), it is worth our attention to figure out what is worth a promise, and what our promises are worth!
In your lives, here and now -- not in an ancient story but in the here and now -- what is worth your promise, and what are your sacred promises worth? Are you in covenant with any other community that invites you into the intimacy of such revelations, that lets you strip yourself right "down to the bone" as you figure out the kind of person you want to be, the kind of life you want to live, and the contributions you want to make to the world during your brief tenure here?
Being the person who asked, I thought I would respond here.
ReplyDeleteThe question being asked is, "Do these texts deserve respect?"
Or has so much harm been done using these stories that it's impossible to unravel the damage from the sacred?
When someone says, "I would prefer not to hear Abrahamic religions, they make me cringe with fear and disgust, " it's not fair to respond, "well just don't feel that way, you need to respect them."
No I don't. I don't owe them respect. I would add that it's a sign of maturity to realize when it's time to shelve a story because it has caused so much harm to people.
When someone says to me, "I'm a Christian," I often recoil. I've begun to immediately ask back, "Oh really, what charity do you work for?"
Further, a religion foundation that has a heterosexist paradigm can not ever totally include people outside of that paradigm. God the Father? How about God the promiscuous, sex positive, gay man? God the woman who prefers not to marry and instead studies the sciences.
The Abrhamic texts condones all manner of oppression, from slavery to rape to murder. Of course, one can choose the maneuver around the icky parts and only select the nice parts.
But that doesn't mean that others won't embrace what you passover. (Ha ha get the joke!)
The stories are intrinsically damaging, thus, after thousands of years, those who abide by these stories, live in a damaged society.
Then, they ask, why is this so? And the answer is, "There's this angry deity up there who watches our behavior and if we don't do what He says, he makes life miserable. However, he never really tells us what he wants, so we're just guessing most of the time. We have this book, but that's got four thousand versions, and it's full of contradictions, but it's the best we can do. We have faith in it."
Meanwhile, each day, more people die and starve and get hurt by people trying to not piss off this deity.
I don't owe respect to people who do not respect the basic tenets of civil rights.
I think as we continue to move into the digital era, these stories become more and more absurd, and their damaage becomes more and more obvious.
The younger generation is already creating new stories. Science is creating new stories. We move towards a melding of digital and biological technology and that is the story of the day.
I think religions forget that eventually all religious stories are forgotten. Every church will be torn down eventually. The one certainty in life is that it all changes.
Well that's my story!
Hi, Jim - thanks for replying here, which echoes so much of what we talked about in coffee hour yesterday after the service. I agree with much of what you say (especially about the need for new stories)...but, I'm unwilling to throw out baby and bathwater. Any text, sacred or not, can be twisted to justify one's most evil deeds, selfish choices, and oppressive impulses. There are people (including UUs) who find meaning in these texts, approaching them with reason and insight, mining them for contemporary meaning. For me, the meaning is in the relationships between people, between people and the holy (however they picture the holy to be), between people and Earth (as subject, not object)...people trying to live their best under the circumstances of their lives (the circumstance both within, and beyond, their control). I want to use every possible source to help people with this work -- old stories, new stories, science, nature, poetry, music, technology. I enjoy our lively conversations, and maybe we could brainstorm soon, or host a Sunday afternoon forum about the power of stories. See you soon! -cme
DeleteA couple of things:
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand how a person can "convenant" with a community or institution. The Jews were able to convenant with Jehovah because Jehovah was a sentient being. Institutions, such as Churchs, are not sentient beings but are, for all practical purposes, collections of individuals (clergy, lay leaders, staff, members, etc...). These individual may change over time, so the question becomes: "When I convenant with a Church, who am I convenanting with?". I think of UU Churches as collections of people who accept the 7 Principles and have formed a community for sharing, learning, etc... I have never understood the need for "covanenting".
Secondly, regarding sacred texts. Books are simply vessels for ideas, and have value only inasmuch as they provide value. The idea of "respect" seems to imply you are giving value to a book simply because it is valuable to alot of people or has been valuable for a long time. If a text, sacred or otherwise, no longer provides value, it should be thrown away. The Muslim idea that a Koran is somehow inherently worthy of respect (even from non-believers) is ridiculous. As Jim points out, the Bible is full of stories that, if viewed with modern eyes, glorify hurtful practices and belief. Some of these, such as the concept of atonement (the idea that blood sacrifices must be made to atone for "sins" committed - even the sins of ancestors), cause suffering even to this day. But, even given that, if you can find value in these sacred texts, by all means use them. I'm not sure you need to "respect" them though.
Les Canney
For me, it is all about relationship, and covenants are made person to person, person to community. (Churches as an institution cannot covenant, just as corporations cannot/should not vote...but I digress.)
ReplyDeleteMy favorite "definition" of covenant comes from the great UU minister and scholar, Alice Blair Wesley: "We promise to walk together in the ways of truth and affection, as best we know them now or may learn them in days to come, that we and our children may live fulfilled." Acknowledging the inevitability of change, we promise to stick with it, through the unpredictabilities beyond our control and the predictable and inevitable changes that happen as we grow older and wiser as we move through live. I remember MPH describing this once as "fidelity to change" and I think that is an efficient understanding of covenant.
Thanks for commenting, Les. (Good talking with you on Saturday, and we continue to miss you and Susan!)