Chutney writes:
I wouldn't necessarily limit the set of stories to liberation stories, which would ... tend to be perceived as "too Christian." (Or too political, depending on how it was done.) Going with the "sources of the living tradition" we could also have narratives of transcending wonder, spiritual wisdom, ethics, reason, and harmony with creation. This diverse set of narratives would make it a distinctly UU set of narratives.
Chutney in the quote above is developing a powerful and compelling point concerning the power of narrative in creating community. He is extending and deepening a comment that I had made on Thom Belote's post on Emergent Churches on the weblog Philocrites. I did comment to Chutney on her weblog myirony relative our substantial points of agreement.
Nevertheless his post stimulated my thinking in another direction. I thought I would devote some of my own "blog space"* to my understanding of the political in our faith community.
Gandhi once remarked
"To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love
the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life.
That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."
*(I'm too old to write jargon like that without quotes and laughing at the inner young man who once wrote like that as a matter of course.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now Gandhi is welcome to his humble, but very pointed opinion, and the contemporary Unitarian Universalists who argue that our religion should not be "too political" are welcome to theirs as well. But let me suggest that the differences between Gandhi and those who perceive our faith as "too political" may also involve a different understanding of the political as well.
For me, one of the achievements of the religious life is a wholesome realization of our own power. We do have an impact on our world, we are relational creatures. We impact the natural world in which we live and breath, we impact our intimate circle of family, friends and workmates, we impact our society, and allowing a gigantic and perhaps poetic leap of imagination we have an influence on God herself. We gather in groups, including congregations. Congregations exercise power: including but not limited to the power of intellectual influence; the power of moral persuasion; and the power of spiritual transformation.
(Some of my readers may have figured out that I once listened to James Luther Adams.) Politics is the exercise of power, it is conscious use of our power to achieve objectives in the society, in human community. A minister praying with her congregation for courage in the face of anxiety, and for authentic being in the face of banality is performing a political act.
I think what contemporary Unitarian Universalists ought to find objectionable is partisan wrangling, and facile moralizing. The games that Democrats and Republicans play in Washington and in the state capitals are often thought of as "politics." And it has become a mark of "the hip" to object to attempts at linguistic inclusion as just people being "politically correct." I surmise because "the hip" seem to assume that only a moralizer would care about the power of language.
But we are heirs to a heritage that includes religious leaders and thinkers who understood the moral power and social impact of their message. We continue to be an religion that understands that its core involves authentic and relational ethical response. So, I for one can't imagine Unitarian Universalism without well considered political dimension.
Leave a comment