[Violence] ..not Christianity, is the real religion of America," writes Walter Wink. He continues:
Violence is the ethos of our times, It is the spirituality of the modern world. It has been accorded the status of a religion, demanding from its devotees absolute obedience to death. Its followers are not aware, however, that the devotion they pay to violence is a form of religious piety. Violence is so successful as a myth precisely because it does not seem to mythic in the least. Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It is what works. It is inevitable, the last and often the first resort to conflicts.
(Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Powers. (Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 1992) p.13-4; p.54-5.)
Violence is not simply a matter of disturbing the peace. Violence is way of relating to others, and ultimately to "interdependent web of all existence" as some of us are fond of saying. The Latin root of violence is related to violating, to breaking right relations with the other by making that other an object for our own manipulation. Thus, we can violate the other by any act that does not treat the other with ultimate respect, with unconditional regard. I think we made a principle about that idea as well.
Unitarian Universalists think of ourselves as an alternative religious response. When I was young we thought of ourselves as an alternative to orthodoxy and authoritarianism in religion. Lately the notion seems to have become normative that we are intended to be an alternative to Christianity. Most Unitarian Universalists have discovered that posing themselves against Christianity is problematic, and limiting. When Unitarian Universalists create a caricature of Christianity, and then pose as "an alternative" to that caricature, they become insubstantial, sectarian and irrelevant as a result
Wink writes our "entire social system has become an ˜economy'." The economy brings us into relations of mutual violence, power over, and privilege. The failure of secular alternatives to the dominations system, such as Marxism is that they adopt the interpersonal and relational logic of domination system as expedients to liberation, and exploitation free future. Only by right means may we achieve right ends.
What might this mean for Unitarian Universalist identity? If we define ourselves as a religious alternative, why not become an alternative to the real religion of America? If we were such an alternative how would that define our mission, how would it shape the ethic we offered for living one's life, and our vision as a faith.
What if we could articulate an alternative to violence? What would it mean for our nation? for our world?
Children in the United States 1937, playing a game of war.
One Sunday last fall, I was fortunate enough to drop in on the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, NY, and hear an excellent sermon> by the Rev. Scott Tayler on exactly the same point.
I couldn't make a link work on this page, so copy and paste this address into your browser to read the sermon:
http://www.rochesterunitarian.org/2004-05/20041024.html
Hey, it got published as a link anyway! You can just click it.
I understand the intentions behind the point ... but, IMHO, popular Christianity is founded upon, if not a direct contributor to, the very violence pointed to by Wink as "the real religion of America." Folks like Rebecca Parker, in works such as "Proverbs to Ashes," seem to credit a religion - in this case Christianity - which celebrates things such as Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, and God's endorsement of the violent murdering of his son as important building blocks leading toward a culture of violence. I think there's something to consider in such thoughts.
Besides, religion is full of violence, which is celebrated as "righteous deed," (e.g., a tent peg through the temple anyone?). The Bible is full of violence.
Cyde, you then go on to write: "We are discovering that posing ourselves against Christianity is problematic, and limiting; by creating a caricature of Christianity, and then being "an alternative" to that caricature, and we become insubstantial, sectarian and irrelevant as a result."
We may be irrelevant because of organizational snafus, but not because we set ourselves up as an alternative to a poor and popular version Christianity. I'm not so sure I buy into the "irrelevant" charge anymore, which may mean that your statement is itself an attempted alternative to a created caricature, at least from my own perspective.
Everyone is sectarian, some versions are just better done, more honest, and more reasonable than others.
Again, after reading your above statement, I have to ask just how close to Christianity should I snuggle up? How much should UU NOT pose against Christianity. Also, isn't it a huge presumption that Christianity would actually reciprocate relational intentions? The majority of Popular Christianity would not, absolutely. I suppose a very small fringe of Progressive Christians may, but what good would that do the larger UU institution? Not much, IMHO. Entering into relations with a Christianity that would not have us, unless we converted, just doesn't make much sense to me. So, what would you suggest? Also, is the Christianity you cite free of the detrimental violence which i s the topic of this post?
I'm not driving polemics, just asking for more information concerning your above charge. Peace!
I don't think most UUs are sectarian or irrelevant, just those who spend their time posing as an alternative to their own one sided caricature of Christianity - a religion which is too diverse, complex and deep to fit into any caricature.
My experience with the non sectarian and relevant majority of the UUA is that it is involved in many coalitions with progressive Christians around questions of importance to our people, including war. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so inclusive in my "we are learning..." Most of us have learned, some haven't yet learned.
Channing tried to tell us to avoid sectarianism a century and half ago but some UUs think they wiser than Channing.
Parker and Brock think of themselves as Christian theologians, Check out Brock's ministry http://www.faithvoices.org/index.html. Parker and Brock are not polemizing against Christianity but rather images/doctines of violence in the Jewish/ Christian story, and their audience is progressive Christians (which number in the millions, hardly a small fringe.)
Wink (a progressive Christian read by hundreds of thousands) argues that Violence is a religion, some Christians are devoted to that religion, some are decidedly not. People worship violence...that is Winks point. People become what they worship, that was Emerson's point.
In the United States the conservative evangelical form of Christianity among White folks isn't Christian at all, it acts more like the state cult. But that isn't true in the rest of the world. A Latin American church doesn't like Pat Robinson, nor does an African Church. They see him as representative of all that is violent and imperious about the US...not as a disciple of Jesus.
I work with Christian clergy who accept me and my congregation, my spouse is a minister and she does as well, and our experience is more common than an anomoly, so I am unconvinced about your assertion that Christians won't work with UUs.
Christianity is a inherently dedicated to the violent death of Jesus Christ (rather than the ethical life of Jesus of Nazareth). The cross is interpreted as the divinely ordained "point" of Jesus, while what put him there (i.e., his life's message) is demoted to a secondary position. This is Popular American Christianity, and it dwarfs Progressive and/or Emergent Christianity in size, scope, and influence. UUism may be accepted by the Progressive Christians, though I suspect this acceptance will be done at a distance of sorts too.
You wrote, "Parker and Brock are not polemizing against Christianity but rather images/doctrines of violence in the Jewish/ Christian story, and their audience is progressive Christians (which number in the millions, hardly a small fringe.)"
If the image, doctrines, and/or stories foundational to the movement are inherently violent, then the movement is founded upon violence, isn't it? Also, in relation to the size of the popular Christianity which is dedicated to these images, doctrines, and stories of violence, Progressive Christianity is still a fringe.
My reading of Brock, Parker, and a few others suggests that the violent images, doctrines, and stories inherent to Christianity actually contributed/contribute to the violence prevalent in our country and world today.
The majority of Popular, Evangelical Christianity will not embrace Unitarian Universalism as a "partner in ministry." I have no idea where one would get such an idea. We are even listed in most of their cult books and apologetic resources. All this talk about changing to be accepted as partners with the prevalent form of Christianity in this country baffles me. We may become closer with a few progressive Christians here or there, and perhaps with the UCC, who is having growth problems of their own; fine, great, wonderful. I see a move dedicated to such realistic partnerships as healthy indeed, but not a institutional priority.
I did not write that we would become "partners in ministry" with that minority of White Evangelicals that you so oppose. But the UUA will continue to work with mainstream of Protestantism, the Black church, and the Catholics on a many areas of common concern. We have, we do, and we will.
The point of non sectarian work with others is to create mass coalitions to accomplish important realingments. The point of sectarianism is to form an isolated inner santum and feel good about oneself. I choose to embrace the world, and work with those who are willing to embrace the world as well.
LOL. The only aspects of religion I oppose are those aspects that are founded upon and help perpetuate the very violence you and Wink accredited to non-Christian America. A religion built upon violent imagery, doctrines, and stories, will help create, or at least help substantiate, a violent people. This is what I took from Brock, Parker, and others.
Also, my father is a White Evangelical (church planter with the Brethren in Christ). We break bread all the time, at least when we are not on the phone catching up with one another. : )