The discussion about theology that began over at Philocrites has stimulated much thought in the weblogs of Unitarian Universalists. For a week I observed rather than jumping in, although the question of the "theological core" of religious liberalism is central to much of my writing here at People So Bold.
I thought I would write several small essays on this thread rather than one long one. There are two basic reasons for choosing this strategy: first, I have observed many disparate themes in the thread, and second, if I concentrate on one isolated aspect of what has become an expanding critique of our intellectual culture, I might contribute to finding a solution.
So, I start small. Philocrites began the discussion with the taking note of Rosemary Bray McNatt's review in the winter issue of UU World : "she is nevertheless disappointed with its vague recommendation that the Association "mobilize a denomination-wide effort . . . to develop and articulate a deeper understanding of who Unitarian Universalists are as a religious people and what shared commitments the UU faith calls us to affirm as well as what challenges we face." If not the Commission on Appraisal, which denominational body will take up this task?"
If not the commission on appraisal, who? Rev. Bray McNatt is right, the UUA's elected Commission on Appraisal set out several years ago to examine the "core" of common values and beliefs that united Unitarian Universalism, and several years later it comes back with a report that hints at certain common values and beliefs yet makes no definitive statement. The commission then calls on the UUA to continue this work because it is important, it claims that not articulating the core has weakened us, and limits our ability to fulfill our potential. The lack of closure is a serious failure on the part of the commission to do its work.
The Commission on Appraisal did a lot of work and brought much of its research and thinking to bear on the central question of its study. For the moment, no Unitarian Universalist can discuss the "common core" of Unitarian Universalist theology without reference to the report of the Commission Engaging Our Theological Diversity. Both its success and its failure need to be analyzed, because together they illustrate some lessons of how we can do theology in the future as well as some of the difficulties we have encountered since the merger when we attempt to "do theology."
The Commission shows that one doesn't have to be an academic theologian to do theology. The commission's members were lay Unitarian Universalists, and working parish ministers. They were not specialists, yet over several years they tackled a big question. They studied it, and they became "a community of scholars" who interviewed people, read books, and engaged the question. Conclusion: we can do theology, we need create "communities of scholars" in the form of congregational and regional study groups.
The ministers have created a network of such study groups, much good work is done in these groups, yet they are hardly known or little supported by the Association of Congregations. For many ministers, these tuition free, self governing efforts at maintaining our culture of intellectual discourse sustain them in their work. There are problems in the study groups, I have witnessed elitism and defense of narrow privilege. But they provide a model for what we could do which I will return to in a subsequent essay.
The commission shows that ordinary lay folks and working parish ministers can do theology, but it raise another question: why couldn't the commission arrive at closure? Why did it avoid coming to a conclusion? Because the members of the Commission were divided on their vision for this faith community, and rather than confront their differences, they decided to provide a wishy washy report.
Are you surprised! We have been avoiding our differences since the merger. We have become masters at issuing compromise reports. Thus the commission discovered we have much in common, but they all didn't agree on what it meant. So in order to have a report that included all members of the commission, they presented us with hints and a recommendation for further study.
My conclusion for now, based on examination of the Commission on Appraisal.
First, We can do theology. For an individual to become a participant in this work might take several years of part time study, but potentially thousands Unitarian Universalists have the education, curiosity and dedication to "do theology" in study groups (if there was a vision that such an effort would benefit their faith community.)
Second, we can't do theology in a community of scholars by compromise and consensus. In order to arrive at a unifying vision, or at an understanding of our "theological core" does not mean that we can avoid that there will be a majority and several minorities. We have to study, debate, engage and then we must have the will to decide "this is our common ground" (that most of us, but not all agree to affirm.)
Leave a comment