Religious Liberalism and Theology: December 2005 Archives

FUERZA is a diversified group of artists led by community artist and activist Mario Torero. Based in San Diego, CA, Grupo FUERZA grew out of the Chicano Park Art Movement of the 70's, influencing the cultural landscape of the San Diego region.

After 33 years of struggle, and considering the 500 years of Latin/Indian evolution, FUERZA is moving forward with the concept of re-joining the Aztec/Mayan Cultures of the North with the Inca Culture of South America, through the Concept of Aztlan. Aztlan is an Aztec/Mayan spiritual belief that the representation of our creator, Quetzalcoatl, would return to earth around this time as he has done every 500 years.

The legend conceives that the liberating spirit of Quetzalcoatl would arrive in the Promised Land of Aztlan, presently, the Southwestern United States. From there he would spread throughout the original anscestral lands, reuniting all indigeneous peoples of the Americas.

FUERZA's contribution to this reunification is to rejoin the indigenous peoples through an arts and cultural exchange.

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.

Despite all evidence to the contrary "secular liberals" continue to assert that freedom, genuine participatory democracy, and justice can be achieved by means that contradict those ends.  Our the liberal religious tradition has taught that we can not coerce freedom, nor can we browbeat a people into conforming to "Western style procedural democracy,"  nor cab we establish justice while enriching multinational corporations.  Yet secular liberals persist in the discredited idea that society can be rearranged by enlightened elites acting for good purposes, and that institutional power can used to achieve such a rearrangement.  The debate between Democrats and Republicans is entirely within the logic of secular liberalism.

On the other hand, that religious movement which is our heritage has taught that freedom arises when we become the change we would achieve.  In order to achieve peace, we must work for non violent solutions to conflict.  In order to achieve freedom, we must give others the right to make decisions.  In order to achieve a democratic world, we must respect the right of others to control their own destinies.

Universalist minister Olympia Brown expressed our the idea well when she wrote: " We can never make the world safe by fighting.  Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children or God, and must share the wealth of the world."  Now those whose minds are held captive by the logic of secularism might object, this religious ideal is utopian!  But Brown responded "You may say this is impracticable, far away, can never be  accomplished, but it is the work we appointed to do." 

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:  "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Edmund Hamilton Sears, Unitarian minister and anti war activist helped define the meaning of the Christmas holiday with his carol "It came upon a Midnight Clear." The last verse has shaped generations of religious liberals understanding: "for lo! the days are hastening on by prophets long foretold, when the ever circling years comes round the age of gold: when peace shall over all the earth its ancient spendors fling, and the whole world give back the song which now the angels sing."

Sears wrote his carol as an anti war song. The United States had invaded Mexico as part of a premeditated plan to seize resources and extend the system of slavery. The United States had been engaged in a war of genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land, and its racist contempt for the people of Mexico was a logical extension of the exclusive covenant upon which the nation had been founded. Sears wrote his carol to protest the violence and imperial arrogance of his government. Sears was a Unitarian, and a real patriot.

This carol was his Christmas gift to his faith community and to other real patriots of his time. (Abraham Lincoln resigned from the Illinois legislature to protest the vote to call up the militia for the invasion of Mexico. Henry David Thoreau went to jail rather than pay his taxes to support this war. Sears had lost his pulpit due to the vicious criticism from jingoists within the Lancaster, Massachusetts congregation, but had been welcomed by the Wayland, Massachusetts congregation

My anti war commitment began in Unitarian Sunday School, and I have no problem asserting that while Unitarian Universalism may not be a pacifist church, we are a faith community that has a long, and consistent tradition of opposition to unjust war. Our present stance of opposition to the racist and murderous war on the Iraqi people is not because we have strayed from religion into politics as some who don't know our history would assert, on the contrary we are continuing a long tradition.

How do we discern a just war, from an unjust war? First, we need to understand that the political elite who runs our government has a long history of lying, rationalizing, and spinning their policies. What do I mean by long? I would go back to well before Independence was declared. My Cherokee ancestors had experience with the lies.

But what about now? How do we put an end to the "two thousand years of wrong" [Sears was referencing the betrayal of Jesus teaching by his followers.]

Let me suggest one resource that exposes the lies and spin of the modern war making elite. War Made Easy by Normon Solomon analyzes the deceptions of the government and media to mobilize the people of this nation into war after war.

The term Sodomites which is often used as a pejorative in our homophobic culture has its origins in the account in Genesis of the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah.  So what was so sinful about the denizens of Sodom.  Read this post by The Prodigal Sheep which examines the distorted interpretation of the historical church as compared to the understanding of the Hebrews.  Original intent always trumps plain meaning of the text in my book.  The Prodigal Sheep writes: Traditional (i.e. post-medieval and modern) discussions tend to focus on a narrow interpretation of the violence intended by the men of Sodom against the two visiting angels, concluding that the violence had something to do with homosexual intercourse, and that for such an abomination God destroyed the city. But the biblical prophets themselves, up to and including Jesus, always understood the 'sin of Sodom' as something quite different.

Read the rest of this post.

Many argue that people of color are more likely to be executed than white folk, and there is some statistics that confirm that observation.  Others argue that the racial differences that are evident in conviction rate for capital crime might be a function of class, rather than race.  The argument goes that white folk have more access to lawyers, and that is what makes the difference.

But lets look at it differently,  what if Tookie Williams had killed four African Americans?  Michelle Kroll writes that in California no one has been executed for killing an African American.  He goes on: "the fact that not a single person has been executed in this state for killing an African-American is consistent with studies across the country that show the death penalty is reserved primarily for those who kill white people. The California study, 'The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-'99,' found that 80 percent of executions in California were for killers of whites, though non-Hispanic whites make up just 47 percent of all Californians, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Those who kill whites are more than four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Latinos, and over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill African-Americans."

The United States as a society places more values on the life of some people than it does on the life of others.  Most white people are not even aware of this reality and coach their arguments about the death penalty without reference to that the justice system is not, and never has been "color blind." Many African Americans support the death penalty because they are terrorized by gangsters and drug users, but "Black on Black" crime is not a priority for the police and the prosecutors.

Inherent worth and dignity of every person!  That is an idea that not a part of the calculus of the District Attorneys of this country.  The death penalty can not be applied in a way that compatible with the first principle of Unitarian Universalism in a society that is racist.

Unitarian Universalists are open to the wisdom of all the world's religions, so I thought I would share some Christian wisdom. One of the myths of Christianity is the anti Christ, which I am a Christian Too! links to the the Biblical archetype of the False Prophet. Extending this metaphor with all its associated connotations as a tool for social analysis allows us to see how false prophecy is a part of our contemporary experience. So arise ye soldiers of righteousness, let us rally to defeat the anti Christ.

I am a Christian Too writes: But let's just look at the Anti-Christ/False Prophet imagery for a second. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be a leader that deludes us into thinking that bad is good and good is bad.

He would charm us into following him into doing unspeakable acts, say, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, ghost detainees, or murder. The Anti-Christ would be supported by the False Prophet, who would create a false religion to pervert God's will. This false religion would make us hate instead of love, applaud war instead of peace. It would paint its enemies, say, homosexuals, Muslims and liberals, as undeserving of God's love, nor ours. This religion would wreak death (the death penalty, war, poverty, disease) instead of life (peace, compassion for the imprisoned, food for the hungry, health care for the sick).

The religion of the False Prophet would become intertwined with the governmental power of the Anti-Christ, quite the opposite of the historic separation of Church and State in the U.S. Government leaders would be qualified for their roles by virtue of their religion (Harriet Myers anyone?). The false religion would defend the immoral actions of the government, while the government would enforce the false morality of the false religion.

Thanks to The Prodigal Sheep for link.

The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) periodically updates the classifications for disabling mental disorders, Shanker Vedantum writes in The Washington Post that "Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis." One set of proposed guidelines written for discussion by California psychologist Edward Dunbar would classify those people whose functioning is paralyzed by persistent fears and worries about other groups as a form of psychosis.

Not all mental health clinicians agree. "I think it's absurd," commented psychiatrist Sally Satel. She objects that such a classification would allow hate-crime perpetrators to evade responsibility by claiming they suffered from a mental illness. "You could use it as a defense." But Gary Belkin, deputy chief of psychiatry at New York's Bellevue Hospital pointed out that pedophilia is considered a disorder by psychiatrists, but that does not keep child molesters from being prosecuted.

The word psyche is the Greek word for soul, and so with all due respect to the psychologists and psychiatrists, I have some observations as a theologian. The psychiatrists seem treat all mental disorders with medications. Would including bigots in the DSM mean that mental health workers would treat racism, misogyny, and homophobia with talk therapy or would we simply medicate bigots and pretend that the ideational systems and their institutional structures have been solved by treating the designated patients? In traditional theological terminology are the haters of others individual sinners, or are they participating in a culture of sin?

The Prodigal Sheep comments on this move to classify bigotry in the DSM: Maybe medication might make sense for some violent and extremely dysfunctional individuals who consent to treatment. But it also makes me wonder whether the treatment isn't worse than the disease. Pathological bias is a manifestation of a mind and soul not at peace with God and the world. Whether triggered or not by a neurophysiological disorder, it would seem that the most effective treatment for bias is not a prescription, but repentance. We are called by Jesus to turn away from our old thinking, to pour new wine into new wineskins, to love God with all our hearts and our fellow human being as ourselves, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

It's interesting to observe how society's view of homophobia and homosexuality are following opposite trajectories. Homosexuality has moved from sin to sickness to natural variation. Homophobia has moved in the other direction from acceptance as normal and even healthy, to a sickness. In my view we simply haven't gone far enough. Let's name patholigical hatred for what it is -- sin -- and develop an appropriate spiritual response.

This year perhaps as many as two billion people will celebrate at Christmas.  Not only in affluent North America and Western Europe, where we may think we own the holiday and have our special notions of how it should be celebrated.  It also will be celebrated in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America and among the poor Europe and North America.  In poor villages, in refugee camps, in soup kitchens, in homeless shelters, in prisons, in city slums, in the homes of financially strapped single parents in affluent suburbs people will hear the story,  sing the story,  and rejoice

Pearlbear writes about the Tookie Williams execution. The death penalty is wrong. Christians say it is wrong. Buddhists say it is wrong. So Unitarian Universalists can say it is wrong without be scolded for being liberals.

He might have been a gangster. He might actually have committed the crimes for which he was convicted. He might have protested his innocence to the end of his life because he was lacking in true repentance. He might have not have been "redeemed" even though he did lots of social constructive things. But Pearlbear is right, those things are extraneous arguments meant to convince people who have no qualms about their own government engaging in revenge murder. Violence begets violence, and the only way to break the escalating spiral of violence is to work toward an ethical preference for non-violent means. Religious liberals lose their moral authority when they engage in the rationalizations of secular liberalism.

Can we overcome crime in our cities without the death penalty? Of course we can, in fact it is the state's use of violence that legitimizes its use As Pearlbear writes "We used to know that, a while back, but we lost our way. It's time to find our way back."

This is one of several Christmas poem that I cherish.  I know that I can't read it to the same congregation every year, but I try to find a way to hold it up to those who may not have heard it during this season.  So one year it on Christmas eve, on another it is during on the Advent Sundays  This Sunday I will preach on the enduring power  of the nativity story (merging both Luke and Matthew since most people have both stories in their heads.)  It is laid out for me to read, which is probably different from the way Weems constructed the stanzas.  Enjoy.
€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“

Into the wild and painful cold of the starless winter night
came the refugees,
slowly making their way to the border.

The man, stooped from age or anxiety,
hurried his small family through the wind.
Bearded and dark, his skin rough and cracked from the cold,
his frame looming large in spite of the slumped shoulders;

He looked like a man who could take care of whatever
came at them. . .
from the dark.

Unless of course there were too many of them,
One man he could handle,  two, even. . . .but a border patrol, . . .
they wouldn't have a chance.

His eyes, black and alert,
darted from side to side, then over his shoulder,
then back again forward.

Had they been seen?
Had they been heard?

Every rustle of the wind, every sigh from the child,
sent terror though his chest.

Was this the way?
Even the stars had been unkind-
had hidden themselves in the ink of night
so that the man could not read their way,

Only the wind. . . . was it enough?
Only the wind and his innate sense of direction. . .
What kind of cruel judgement that would be,
to wander in circles through the night?
Or to safely make their way to the border,
only to find the authorities waiting for them?

He glanced at the young woman, his bride.
No more than a child herself,
she nuzzled the newborn, kissing his neck.
she looked up caught his eye and smiled.

Oh how the homelessness had taken its toll on her!
Her eyes were red, Her young face was lined,
her lovely hair matted from inattention.
her clothes stained from milk and baby,
her hands chapped from the raw wind of winter.

She'd hardly had time to recover from childbirth
when word had come that they were hunted,
and they fled with only a little bread,
and the remaining wine,
and a very small portion of cheese.

Suddenly, the child began to make small noises,
the man drew his bread in sharply:
the woman quietly put the child to breast.

Fear . . . .long dread-filled moments . . . .

Huddled the family stood still in the long silence.
                     
At last the man breathed deeply again,
reassured they had not been heard.
and into the night continued
Mary, Joseph and the Babe.

We honor the tradition of congregational polity, but the congregations that exist today are quite different from the congregations that existed several hundred years ago.  During the Protestant reformation,  there were two different ways of being Protestant.  In some places the local prince, or king asserted power over the church in favor of the Reformation, and Protestant ministers simply took over the function of the Catholic clergy.  The liturgy changed, the church was redecorated in puritan simplicity, but the way the church related to people was not radically different from the pre-reformed church

The other way of being Protestant was for people to form a covenant group usually based on the study of the Bible,  these groups were almost always illegal and politically in opposition to the establishment of church and state.  We call the way of being Protestant that derived its authority from the political rulers the Magesterial Reformation.  We call the way of being Protestant that derived its authority from the gathered members the Radical Reformation.

In some peoples minds, the world Radical implies an impatient attitude toward change and extreme tactics.  But the word meant "to go to the roots."  A radical was not impressed with tradition, which they perceived as corrupt and antithetical to the original purity of institutions, they wanted to return to that original purity,  Thus the radical Protestants advocated pacifism, common property, and non-cooperation with the state,  seeing these things as the way of the early Christian church.  Bishops, and non-elected clergy were also corrupt and they argued for the power of the congregation who called and covenanted with a religious teacher and leader.

For the magesterial reformers, the clergy were functionaries of Law and Order,  but for the Radical Reformers the clergy were teachers chosen to lead the covenant community.
Congregationalism,  the covenanted community that called and ordained its own clergy was an expression of radicalism.

Most but not all of the New England settlers had experiences with such radical, oppositional congregations in England before they came across the sea.  Some had been part of churches established by Calvinist gentry who functioned as little princes on their own estates.  So the English Puritan experience exhibit both radical congregational and more elitist magesterial experiences.    Moreover many of the Puritans clergy who came to Massachusetts read  John Calvin, who was a magesterial reformer.  Calvin's Geneva was Presbyterian in church governance, power rested in "elders" who were chosen for their orthodoxy.

Thus the church system that evolved in New England contained both a magesterial tendency and a populist radical tendency.  Officially, they established a congregational system out of deference to strong feeling of many Puritans, but one that recognized order and clerical privilege.  The legislature required each town to raise a meeting house, and to support a teacher.  The congregational church met in  the meeting house, and its called teacher was the teacher of the town.  This merging of the two tendencies of the Reformation created a conflicted dynamic.  New England Puritans produced many disputes, break away congregations and finally the baptists and universalist dissenters that challenged the standing order itself.

Congregations as covenant communities, that relate to each other as a community of covenant communities.  I don't think we have heard the last of this form of human organization.

I don't think the corporate megachurch is the product of the natural evolution of those house churches that met to study the Bible, and to hold each other accountable for renewing the church.  Rather I think the megachurch is "Geneva in the suburbs," another reincarnation of Calvin's magesterial vision of the church, and just as theocratic and clerical as the original.

Sometimes the ideas for sermons seem to come easily, at other times I feel that I have preached all I have to say.  What to do?  What to do?

Asking crazy questions about God,  about the divine/human connection often stirs the imagination.  When the imagination is stirred all sorts of interesting ideas result, sometimes far afield from the original sermon starter (the "crazy question" that started me thinking. 

What time was it before the world began?  Einstein tells us time is dimension related to the spacial dimensions, and thus before the coming into being of the world with its space, there was no time.  Hmmmm.  What do we make of the passage in Genesis that reads the "sons of God saw that daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."  Is this like the divine/human encounters that happened more frequently in the Greek myths.  Is this the source of the Nephilim that dwelt in the land?  And what about that flood narrative that begins verses later.  A final solution to Naphilim?  Were they the evil in the world.  Were they like the race of Heros in the Greek myths?  Now before we get too involved we say firmly three times, "this is a myth."  What do such myths mean?  Sons of God seem to have different meanings in different ages.

I have found a web site full of interesting and thought provoking "starters."  The reflection that results may or may not result in an affirmation of theistic solutions.  The sermons that are written and given may be quite sane.  But checking in with a little craziness is a good thing.  Check it out.

Sharon Welch quotes Vine Deloria, Jr. "We are in the process of establishing a new kind of American identity, apart from the Pilgrim tradition and it is a very painful process of sorting out our values. We must not take any easy or superficial answers."

I was stuck with this formulation. What is the Pilgrim tradition that Deloria argues is the source of the "old American identity?" It was a racialist identity. It was based on voluntary association with a covenant community, and by extension to society (Mayflower Compact was the Pilgrim's attempt to bring the non-convicted majority of Mayflower passengers into a covenant with the faithful who spearheading the venture. They had hired skilled workers, servants, and soldiers to support their colonizing effort.)

The limits of the traditional American understanding of democracy and who is part of the community is contained in the Pilgrim identity. And that identity is very much a part of the historic Unitarian identity. It is not uncommon for a Unitarian Universalist minister to talk of the Pilgrim's and Puritans as "our spiritual ancestors." And while we may be selecting only the covenant congregation, and the tradition of a learned clergy as worthwhile for our own time, there is a shadow side to that claim. The founders of New England believed that God had privileged them with a destiny, and they believed that the community that they were founding was a "City on a Hill." Much mischief has been done by Americans to this world as a result of those illusions.

Welch is arguing for an inclusive democracy, which she argues requires a move beyond "speaking for others." Liberation theologians assert that the spokespeople of the dominant culture assume that their values, and ideas are universal and apply to everyone. Men can speak for women. White people can speak for humanity. Americans can speak for the world.

I have seen communities transformed when participants begin to grapple with the question of identity, to see the limits of their old way of thinking of themselves, and begin to stretch themselves toward a new more authentic self. A new American identity? A new way of being a nation in the world? Beyond grandiosity and racialism? That is a vision that stretches the mind and the heart.

Check out:

"After Empire: The Art and Ethos of Enduring Peace" (Sharon D. Welch)

Yesterday I wrote about congregational polity in response to a comment by Steve Caldwell. He wondered whether the UUA's web site lacked a good interface for seekers because of congregational polity. He alluded to what he called "congregational polity purists" who seemed to be saying that any approach to seekers that did not come through a congregation was inappropriate.

Peacebang commented on that entry "Clyde, I'd love it if you'd tackle Steve's remarks even more directly. He isn't talking about congregations gathering, he's talking about complaints against UU folks who don't attend (or don't much attend) the local congregation but who consider themselves UU from their involvement with camps, conferences, etc."

So who is a Unitarian Universalist? In our polity the Unitarian Universalist Association consists of member congregations. While there are Associated and Affiliated organizations, the only members of the UUA are the member congregations. In addition to the member congregations there are about a number of gatherings of Unitarian Universalists that are covenanted, have regular programs and provide a means for participation of their members, but because they are too new, or too small are not officially recognized as member congregations.

Each of the congregations defines its own membership, and while there are no written standards for congregations to follow, the membership requirements are similar from congregation to congregation.

So from a polity point of view, the Association consists of recognized congregations, and the membership in the congregations consists of recognized members. So, does that mean that the only people who are Unitarian Universalists are those recognized members of recognized congregations? What about children? Should the minister instruct her youngest congregants that while they are beloved by the community they are not Unitarian Universalists? What about the staff who can not join the congregation because that congregation has a rule that staff can not be members? What about youth and young adults who grew up Unitarian Universalist and have not yet become a recognized member of a recognized congregation?

I suspect we are confusing two different things. On the one hand we have polity; our association consists of congregations and our congregations consists of members. And on the other hand we have the elusive question of identity within a religious community. There are members of the congregation that I serve who do not identify as Unitarian Universalists, but they do identify and participate in our local congregation. And there are folks who for one reason or another have come to think of themselves as Unitarian Universalists, but do not identify with a local congregation.

Thinking back on my youth and young adult years, I joined my first member congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Association when I was twenty five. I had identified as Unitarian and then a Unitarian Universalist since I was 12 or 13. I had participated in my parents home congregation, and was considered one of the flock, I had been a regular attendee at five other congregations before finding one I wanted to join. I had gone to Liberal Religious Youth conferences. I had been an officer in the Student Religious Liberals. I was in theological school!!!! I had a strong self identity as a Unitarian Universalist and apparently the Unitarian Universalist community thought of me as a Unitarian Universalist because they asked me to preach, teach, and serve on committees. But I was not a recognized member of a recognized congregation until I joined that congregation.

Not too many years later, I like many other young adults considered the actions of the UUA administration against the Black empowerment movement to be racist and a betrayal of Unitarian Universalism. Being young and strong in my convictions, I ceased to identify myself with Unitarian Universalism for several years. I continued to be a recognized member of a recognized congregation, albeit a congregation that agreed with my anger against the UUA.

Identity is a complicated and intense religious commitment. Polity is the theological rational of how we associate with one another to govern our community. They are not two different things. They are not the same thing either.

Is someone who identifies with Unitarian Universalism through his or her participation in a camp a Unitarian Universalist? That is for them to define. Are they participating in our polity? No.

Dogma is a word Unitarian Universalists don't use often. But the word dogma means the authorative teaching of a religious community. Our by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Association enshrine congregational policy as the guiding principle of the Association. No other theological idea is mentioned, outside of the By-laws statement of the "Principles and Purposes." The Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association asks ministers to uphold congregational polity as part of the Code of Conduct along with taking care of oneself and being honest with congregants. Unitarian Universalists are known for their theological diversity, and their non dogmatic attitudes but one would be hard pressed to find a Unitarian Universalist leader who would express doubts about congregational polity. Congregational polity is our dogma.

On the other hand a dogmatist is person who is fanatic or inflexible in how they apply dogmas. I wonder if that is what Steve Caldwell was witnessing when he commented: Maybe the abundance of congregational leadership resources and the paucity of seeker resources on the main uua.org page simply reflects our congregational polity? I've heard some congregational purists suggest that the only appropriate outlet for Unitarian Universalism is the local congregation.

In the eyes of these congregational purists, any expression of Unitarian Universalism directed towards individuals that doesn't come from a UU congregation is inappropriate within our tradition. For example, I've heard some ministers in my region complain about "camp and conference Unitarian Universalists" who have some spiritual needs met outside congregations and district YRUU youth who also have some spiritual needs met outside congregations as forms of Unitarian Universalism as two examples that are incompatible with our traditions. Perhaps this relative lack of "seeker" resources directed towards individuals (and not congregational leaders) on the uua.org main page reflects that view of our polity?

First of all congregational polity means that each "congregation" is a self governing religious gathering and does not require an external theological authority to authorize its religious functions. Second, each congregation will determine its own membership and its own leadership, including calling and authorizing ordained ministry. Third, congregational polity means that each religious community is a covenant relationship with other religious communities working for mutual support and accountability. The theology of congregational polity is that the church is a body of covenanting believers, in contrast to top down polities which congregationalist assert infantalize the believer, and corrupt the community of the faith.

Nothing in our polity prevents a community of congregational churches from associating for any purpose. Congregationalists have long formed mission societies for outreach to people outside the local area of congregations. They established colleges, created publishing companies, and institutionalized charities all without bishops or presbyterian oversight. So creating an Association and authorizing it to advertise to seekers is not outside congregational polity. Congregational polity may be our dogma. But let us apply it with wisdom and a vision that moves beyond dogmatism.

Bishop Sprong writes in his December 7th newsletter.

"I think that we have in recent years entered a "New Dark Age" in the Western world. It is marked by the rise of religious systems that seek to build security by encouraging prejudice against a designated victim. Both evangelical fundamentalism and the kind of ultra-conservative Roman Catholicism that is at present installed in the Vatican are publicly defined by their visceral and uninformed hostility toward homosexual persons. What the heretic was in the Middle Ages, the black in the days of slavery and segregation, and the Jew in Nazi Germany, the homosexual has become in the religious hysteria of our day. This kind of behavior is always a response to fear and to a rapidly changing world. Security-providing religion, which always requires a victim, is like a drug that carries us over the rough places of life. It is certainly not the wave of the Christian future.

Dark Ages do not last forever. . . ."

In fact Spong argues that the majority of religious people are already beginning to reject this fear based theology. As I see it reactionaries in the Religious Right are desperately trying to reassert power as the United States becomes increasingly more pluralistic and detached from old forms of social control. The majority of our fellow citizens will support progressive options if these are presented to them, in a way that respects their spiritual convictions. Religious liberals have a role to play in articulating a vision of our country that is both deeply inclusive of all people, and progressive in finding ways to overcome racism, cultural domination, classism, sexism and heterosexism.

RELIGIOUS BODIES IN THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES
ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION,

668 Congregational churches; 588 Presbyterian; 494 Baptist; 310 Quaker; 159 German Reformed; 150 Lutheran; 65 Methodist; 31 Moravian; 27 Congregational-Separatist; 24 Dunker; and 16 Mennonite churches.

The Anglican Church had 495 congregations, making it a decided minority in America at the time of the revolution. About 75 percent of all Americans belonged to churches of "Puritan" extraction. When dissenting Protestants and Anglicans are combined, we find a religious composition in America that was 98.4 percent Protestant, 1.4 percent Roman Catholic, and three-twentieths of one percent Jewish.'

Compiled by Benjamin Hart.