It is my intention to develop a theologically based weblog that probes Unitarian Universalist identity, and purpose.

Mission Statement: It is my intention to develop a theologically based weblog that probes Unitarian Universalist identity, and purpose. 

By theology I do not simply mean speculations about the nature of the Cosmos, or explorations into what the theists call God.  I mean thinking about the deeper meaning and implications of our religious affirmations, and our shared "beliefs."    It is my contention that we express our shared religious values in our social and personal witness, it our ethical stances and how we justify them. 

For example, most Unitarian Universalists would agree that they are for world peace.  We have put that idea into one of our seven principles.  Yet, when we examine our behavior, both in the present and in history we find that contemporary Unitarian Universalists and the historical Unitarian and Universalist movements have supported the use of arms in particular wars to achieve ethical and religiously justified ends.  I observe based on our practice that we are not a "peace church."  Again observing, we justify participation in armed struggles and condemn them on the basis of  certain core religious values and ethics. 


We could be called a "just war" church, but we have our own distinct theology relative to this question, different from Roman Catholic and Protestant "just war" theologies.  Our theological tradition in the United States has a close relationship to American Civic Religion, and that in itself is a interesting topic for theological exploration.  We seek to have a prophetic relationship to power, and that is another topic entirely.  The justifications, and reasoning that Unitarian Universalists do relative to armed conflict, and our relationship to our own small but principled pacifist contingent involve practical theological questions.  Some might say, that what I am talking about is "social ethics!"    And I would agree, what I am talking about is theological social ethics, but this one topic has implications for our public theology, theology of religious education, and or our pastoral theology ( for example, counseling young people in the military who develop questions about the justice of a particular war.) And in the end, this too is a question of theological identity, who we are relative to violence is a question of who we are as a religious people.


We can extend this approach to all sorts of questions facing contemporary Unitarian Universalism.  For example, the "language of reverence" discussion is not just about words. Not just about religiously charged words that some people crave, and some people detest.  The discussion involves our theology of common worship and therefore  our identity.  For many years, we (Unitarian Universalists) attempted what I call the least common denominator approach.  We tried to use language that was non-offensive to everyone in the community, it was assumed that the theist, the Christian, the Buddhist could all agree on humanistically expressed language.  We would "gather in the light of mystery, guided by reason and shared concerns" assuming that all could come together with such a formula.  But it never worked, those who were seeking spiritual meaning and expression often did not experience our worship services as growth experiences.  For decades, members have expressed the concern that Unitarian Universalist worship was not spiritual enough!  Our youth made this criticism, as did many long term Unitarian Universalists.  And so it came to pass, about twelve years ago it was noticed by many that "God talk"  was becoming increasingly used in many congregations as a part of common worship. 


Last year, William Sinkford, the President of the UUA in a very tentative sermon raised the question of whether we couldn't be a little more open to the metaphor and poetry of religious language , just as many ministers had done for decades.  The question became a subject of denominational debate, because the media picked it up (and distorted) some of the ideas a sermon.  People in congregations still operating under "the least common denominator" worship style reacted because it was the UUA President.  The cry went out that the UUA is going to impose God talk on us!  So now, the controversy has been joined, and there are theological questions that needs to addressed.  As I see it, the controversy is about who we are and what we stand for, that is, Unitarian Universalist identity and purpose.

I believe that we must probe the theological underpinnings, of our work for racial justice, and those of our work against systemic oppression.  For example, some Unitarian Universalists say that "anti racism" is just ideology, that what the association-wide commitment to this work is really all about is "political correctness." We must confess that sometimes "anti racism" has been presented as ideology and self righteous moralism.  But how does this work relate to our deepest values, to our evolving covenant of right relations?  To the theological question of who we would be as Unitarian Universalists, rather than simply who we are and what we have been.

This is simply a beginning, and I have raised more questions than I can explore in this essay.  For example, I have raised the question of the role of our tradition, our heritage of religious liberalism.  How does "who we have been" shape "what we would become."

It is my intention to develop a theologically based weblog that probes Unitarian Universalist identity, and purpose.  I suppose I could just accept that as a short mission statement.  But I have observed that we write missions statements and list our principles almost as a substitute for thinking about mission.  In the light of that observation, I will think of this as an tentative statement.