When I was an undergraduate, a long time ago, my English professor related a story about a famous colleague. His intent was to help us understand the life of the mind. In an interview this famous professor was asked what he did at the University, and he answered "I read Joyce." It was as I had been served up a parable. I came back to that story again and again. I read Joyce myself, but by god, there was a limit! To spend a life reading Joyce! I couldn't get my brain around that.
I first read I and Thou in 1964, probably the same year I heard the above story. Buber was difficult then, and Buber continues to be difficult. I have read Buber a many times. I am beginning to understand that professor, but unlike me, I am sure he understood Joyce for all his efforts. Buber's work influences my thinking, but how can I explain it! Perhaps to explain Buber is not what I am called to do. I am beginning to think based on my latest read of Buber, that I am called to apply Buber.
Witnessing and celebrating the relating, describes how I do theology: it is what I preach, and what I teach. If all theology was classical theism, I would be an atheist. The worship of the totally other, a deity who acts of the creation and is not acted on in turn makes no sense to me. For me, God is met in the encounter, the personal and spiritual growth that we experience in deep relating to one another and to very ground of being informs my religious understanding.
How do I apply this relational theology to my work? It has been observed that the Unitarian Universalists place uncommon emphasis on ecclesiology, that is developing theologies of religious community. This makes sense, given the pluralism of theological orientations within our ranks. Perhaps the one thing that most Unitarian Universalists can agree upon is they want a community that respects persons despite differences. If asked why, the Unitarian Universalist might answer something like this: it is in community where we encounter the other, where we struggle with differences of belief and emphasis, that we are enriched by dialogue.
The same point has been put in many ways, one of the most frequent liturgical unison readings in Unitarian Universalist congregations is based on these words of William Shultz:
This is the mission of our faith, to teach the fragile art of hospitality.
To revere both the critical mind and the generous heart,
to prove that diversity need not mean divisiveness,
and to witness to all
that we must hold the whole world in our hands.
I would venture that the two pillars that holds this diverse faith together are: 1) mutual support for each individuals search for truth and meaning, or as it is more likely to be said in our time, for their own deep spirituality, and 2) that religious community, created by mutual covenant of the faithful is called to witness to a vision of community that is more the aggregate of the individuals who have assembled. The second is a reformulation in contemporary terms of the vision of the church universal. The most common language among Unitarian Universalists to describe this vision today is "the beloved community."
This has a certain sociological logic, the Unitarian Universalists are in their majority members of the credentialed middle class. H. Richard Niebuhr commented that: ". . .the psychology of the middle class contains certain constant features which are reflected in its religious organizations and doctrines. Among these, the most important are the high development of individual self-consciousness and the prevalence of an activist attitude toward life."
But unlike the traditional middle class whose ownership of a small productive property consisted of a farm, a retail store, a business, a practice, this credentialed middle class owns no fixed property that ties them to a place. Rather their property is their accumulated paper work3 which they "sell" in a labor market that is international in scope. They are extraordinary mobile and hungry for relational ties. They seek their "community" in voluntary organizations rather than in being a resident and citizen of a place.
For me, the sociology explains both the individualism, and the hunger for community found among Unitarian Universalists. Much of the thinking within Unitarian Universalists about the nature and purpose of "church" is indebted to Buber's thinking. But it has taken on a life of its own, and I am not sure how many of us know how much we owe to Buber. Part of our amnesia I think lies in the difficulty of "reading Buber. "One of the most helpful aids to a new reading that I have encountered is Carter Heyward. She writes: [t]hough often misread as a book simply about interpersonal relations, I and Thou is social philosophy . . . He ought not to be read through the lens of Christian piety but rather as a radically relational philosopher."
If I can extend her argument, for theology to liberate people from the bondage's that we experience in this world, it must ground itself on enabling deep relational knowing between people, people who bring their whole selves to the meeting, differences and all. But it must be more than an enabler of dialogue, it must empower people to challenge the powers that have create and perpetuate the bondages.
For me, that means the congregation must be alternative community, a countervailing power. It uses its power not to continue power-over relationality, but rather mutual shared power relationships. It must enable both transcendence of the self through dialogue, and empowerment toward liberation.
Thus the congregation works to reconcile an apparent contradiction; on the one hand the (middle class) search for self actualization, and on the other the authentic mutually empowering community. Inviting individuals into dialogue and meeting, using the means of an honest sharing of stories and a mutual support for each individual's search, celebrating a liturgy that emphasizes community and challenges the powers of domination is the beginning of a theology of congregation.
But again, the church must be more than the individual congregation. What of the ideal of the church universal? A recent Unitarian Universalist polity statement reads "the essential function of the congregation (the locally gathered, self governing religious community) is to link the individual to the universal religious community." [ "Interdependence, Renewing Congregational Polity. The Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association, p. 12] Thus the congregation based on dialogue and encouraging mutual empowering community can help people grow in relation to both their local religious community, but also the larger religious community. This growth will also enable the congregant to grow in relation based on empathy and empowerment to all creatures of the earth and sky.
Leave a comment