Albert Schweitzer observed that each generation projects their own theological understanding onto Jesus, and he gave up the search for the historical Jesus. I respect his observation but cannot follow to his conclusion. If one respects that Jesus was a second Temple Jew who spoke in the metaphors of his time, and responded to the violence and oppressions of his time, then we can "meet Jesus" and gain some insight from his wisdom. It may not be the wisdom we would have him speak, but it is wisdom nevertheless and we can learn from him. If his culture had set up a religion that worshipped the Buddha, I suppose Schweitzer could have given up on the search for the historical Siddhārtha Gautama as well.c
Peacebang observes Unitarian Universalist ministers quote Buddhist sources a lot, I confess to doing that myself. But does that make me a Buddhist? No, It makes me a Unitarian Universalist who is quoting Buddhist sources when they help illustrate a Unitarian Universalist sermon. I have observed that Catholics quote scripture to preach Catholicism, and Baptists quote scripture and come to Baptist conclusions. The original meaning of these scriptures are not impossible to discern, but teaching the wisdom of a Second Century Jew doesn't interest Baptists or Catholics, any more than it does to the average wisdom borrowing Unitarian Universalist trying to be inclusive. We have learned to quote just about anything that helps us make the point we want to make, and we don't become Taoists, Buddhists, Jews, or even Christians by our choice of readings or sermon illustrations.
Many Unitarian Universalists share in a faith tradition that has a humanist orientation and is informed both by liberal Protestantism on the one hand and Transcendentalism on the other. This tradition has taught us to be open to the wisdom of the world's religions, but from what I observed that means retelling some stories, holding up some compatible ideas and maintaining our distance from some of the "harder" teachings of these religions. I have heard many a Buddhist story in our churches and very few mentions of hungry ghosts, and the miraculous birth narratives of the Buddha. We love the Dalai Lama but we don't want to talk about the feudal hell hole that his monks ran in Tibet.
I don't think we are vague humanists because we don't tow the American Humanist Association line. Our humanist orientation includes James Luther Adams, who reminded us that God wasn't God's name, but was our ultimate commitment nevertheless. Our humanist orientation was informed by Emerson, who insisted that we would worship something and what we are worshipping we are becoming (which this Christian humanist took to mean I should worship something enduring.) Our humanist orientation was deepened by Hartshorne and Weiman who in different ways attempted to understand God as part of the cosmos and experienced in our ordinary lives. The impact of process thinking and empirical approaches to the divine on our movement can not be underestimated, and is reflected in the World magazine and our devotional materials. Our humanist orientation includes non theistic theologians like Sharon Welch and William Jones whose contributions to our movements theologies of transformation is ongoing and profound. They both claim humanism but are hardly classical Humanists.
From my vantage point our ministers are reading these thinkers, as well as other varieties of humanist thought including existentialism, critical theory, and varieties of feminism. That none of these thinkers are part of the classical Humanist canon is more a commentary on the limits of the Humanist canonizers than the death of humanist thinking among us.
Overcoming colonialism through faith and action.
