Jeff Wilson over at Transient and Permanent writes:
I see a similiar dynamic in the conflicts that roll within contemporary UUism. In certain ways, some who hold to a particular truth (be it Christian or Neo-Pagan or Humanist or whatever) are trying to make their understanding central to UUism, for the benefit of all UUs , because they honestly think they've tapped into something of genuine value. It's like the salvation Universalists, who believed they had access to the real thing and that everyone would be better off if they got onboard: not because of malice toward anyone, but because they were so joyful at awakening to the fact that they AND their opponents were all one in receiving a gift of unestimatable value.
Jeff in his essay makes a distinction between salvation Universalists (who witness to Universal Salvation), and fellowship Universalists (who assert that is a common vision behind all world religions.) Jeff generously argues that fellowship Universalism evolved out of salvation Universalism. Its a good read, even if I am not convinced that latter day fellowship Universalists were that concerned with their own continuity toward the historic gospel of Universalism.
But I feel called to write about Jeff's statement above. In recent years, I have not observed UU Christians, or UU Humanists "trying to make their understanding central to UUism." I think that may have been true in the past, but I can't recall a time when either the Christians or the Humanists have broken out of their bunkers in decades. I agree with Jeff that both Christians and Humanist believe that they have discovered a good thing, both are devoted to the good and welfare of Unitarian Universalism but in my opinion both seem to have adopted a defensive posture.
And the pagans? If they are trying to speak for that elusive empty core of Unitarian Universalism, I have missed it. The pagans I have spoken to are still seeking acceptance.
But the idea is a provocative one. If each of these groups would even try to make their understanding central for UUism, a conversation would begin. Soon after the merger, the UUA committed itself to being officially distant from both the Christians and the Naturalistic Humanists. The leaders some who had ties with the Christians, and some who had ties with the Humanists let their affiliations lapse, and the Christian and Humanist organizations became alternative theological centers in a UUA that practiced "hands off" theology. The Commission on Appraisal is saying that we have not done "the hard work of finding common ground to build a strong, effective religious voice. What is at the center of our faith? What occupies the focus of our common loyalty?" Chapter one, Engaging Our Theological Diversity.
Is it time for a revisit the decision to avoid theology made over forty years ago? Perhaps Jeff's essays on Universalism are harbinger of things to come, and we join in the conversation to establish a common ground.
۬
As I see it, a "common ground" theology for UUs cannot come from hyphenated UUs (Christian-UUs, Humanist-UUs, Pagan-UUs, etc.), unless they decide to drop their hyphenation for the higher purpose of developing a religious approach that includes and supersedes all previous religious labels and doctrines. We must be aware of our roots, celebrate our history and identity, and build a religion for the kind of society and humankind living in the 21st century. I don't this can be done looking at the models provided by religions from our pre-industrial past.