A conversation with an acquaintance the other day made me think of another myth. We were talking about our religious backgrounds. He was raised Catholic but now attends a non-denominational Baptist church with his wife (from talking to them and visiting the church's website, it seems fairly moderate). We got to talking about Unitarian Universalism and I asked him how much he knew about it. He said that he doesn't know much about it, but that his understanding is that in UUism and other "ultra-liberal" faiths pretty much "anything goes." I sort of chuckled at that and took a few seconds to think about how to respond. I don't remember exactly what I said. Something about how Unitarian Universalism is in fact not a strict religion but that that does not mean it doesn't ask a lot of its adherents. I also mentioned that while conservative faiths tend to emphasize personal purity and morality, liberal faiths have an eye toward social problems and social justice.
But I've been thinking a lot about our conversation since then. The more I think about the "anything goes" myth the more disturbed I get. I think it should bother UUs that this idea exists. I think the "anything goes" idea becomes ridiculous if you understand the seven principles of UUism and the ideal of living ethically, responsibly, lovingly, and actively engaged in bettering the world.
I did mention to my friend that I wouldn't be surprised to hear a minister or conservative Christian repeat that idea, since it would be in their interest to disparage other belief systems that don't agree with theirs. But it's not just religious conservatives that would repeat the "anything goes" myth. In their popular and widely-read book Acts of Faith, two leading sociologists of religion place Unitarian Universalism in the "ultra-liberal" niche. Faiths in this niche exist in very little tension with the surrounding society and ask little to nothing of their adherents. Tension or strictness has been shown to be strongly related to denominational growth and vitality, so this has obvious consequences for liberal and mainline churches, which generally have not done well over the last century (and even longer).
I think they're wrong on tension. I've actually spoken with one of the authors about this (he's my advisor). I think that on the liberal end of the religious spectrum, tension with society increases again. Are Unitarian Universalist ideas about marriage equality and full acceptance of LGBT individuals not at odds with society? What about Unitarian Univeralism's inherent religious pluralism? What about its openness and acceptance of atheists and agnostics? Its strong stances on war, the environment, and other issues?
There is one sense in which the "anything goes" idea is right. There is no one checking up on you at church. You can do all sorts of awful things and still comfortably sit in a pew on Sunday morning. But in my experience, this does not make UUs less insistent upon living moral, decent lives. And it's just flat out wrong that anything goes in a UU church. It's not OK to hate, to belittle, to exclude those with whom you disagree, or to discriminate based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.
We can't control what other people think. But let's not give them any reason believe the "anything goes" myth.
UPDATE (4/10/08): I've really appreciated all the comments I've received. It's been interesting to read them. Just today Philocrites made a great comment that I think everyone should read:
UUA President John Buehrens, speaking in Salt Lake City at the General Assembly back in 1999 on an interfaith panel on religion and sexuality, made a similar point. He drew a contrast between religions that define sins as particular acts and religions that define sins as failures to live up to principles. Applied to human sexuality, the point was that UUs don't judge the righteousness or sinfulness of a particular relationship by the specific sexual behaviors involved, but by the relational qualities the relationship embodies. A relationship of respect, mutual accountability, faithfulness, etc., gets the UU stamp of approval -- whether it's gay or straight.
I think he was getting at the difference between trying to orient your religious life around principles (which require critical application) and trying to orient your religious life around specific practices or commandments. Now, obviously, such a distinction doesn't have a very bright line down the middle: Commandments require interpretation, too, and principles can be applied in default modes that look an awful lot like unreflective obedience. But still, there's something to it.
10 comments:
One could say that UUs have ethical standards and hold themselves and each other accountable. Where things get hairy is that when UUs do try to hold each other accountable to certain standards, there is often lot of push-back: "Don't judge me. I'm a good person. Who are you to say ..." etc. etc.
And it can get hairy when people disagree about social justice causes. (And charges about being unethical---or just beyond the pale---because someone disagrees about a political issues.) But that's pretty rare in my experience.
i tried writing a response to your concerns, but after thinking hard about it, the comment is so vague that i'm just not sure you have enough context of it to say the remark is even a valid critique of UU.
it sounds to me like your friend was uninformed--he said he was, and i think the 'anything goes' comment is way too ambiguous to really create constructive conversation out of.
a person uninformed about mormons might say, "yeah didn't those guys practice polygamy and have a different bible?" however true that comment is, anyone genuinely interested in have a good understanding of that faith could then be 'sold' on the importance of learning what that tradition is. so if a person makes a careless remark like that, that gesture could be used as an opening to draw him out (what do you mean? why do you think that?) and lead into an informative discussion about UU with a focus on addressing their lack of information (again, only if they appear genuinely interested).
While I agree that my friend's comment showed how uninformed he is (and your Mormon analogy is right on!), I don't think that kind of attitude toward UUism is all that uncommon. That's why I cited that book, to show that even scholars of religion feel that way.
I definitely tried to address his comment when we were talking, but I think I'd probably be able to address it much better now if it happened again.
I have trouble with the idea that "anything goes" is wrong because we stick to the 7 Principles, which is common in many sermons on this very subject. First of all the 7 Principles are not a creed, and therefore we are not forced to accept them. Second, I have seen interpretations of some of the 7 Principles that are so opposed that they have nothing in common but the original wording of the principle. And then, do we really think that we are the only ones who believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, peace and justice for all, etc.? All major religions do! Another thing is whether their members actually practice them. But do we practice them to the point that we can give lessons to others? I don't think so. Therefore the "anything goes" criticism is particularly poignant and it deserves a deeper reflection than a routine invocation of the liberal spirit.
Jaume,
Thanks for your comment. I am most certainly not saying that the 7 principles are a creed, or that we have a monopoly on truth or goodness or anything at all. You're definitely getting into territory that I am not. I simply wanted to make a point about this idea that in UUism "anything goes." I am a UU precisely because I do not believe that anything goes. The idea that in UUism "anything goes" is fundamentally at odds with my understanding of this faith and what we seek to accomplish in the world.
Yes, while the seven principles are just "principles," doesn't their mere existence suggest that not just anything goes in UUism? That we feel the need to set out something of a path or a direction for our faith?
I am not claiming in any way that UUs have some edge on everybody else in goodness or ethical living, or that we perfectly live out our principles. I hope you didn't get that from my blog post.
UUA President John Buehrens, speaking in Salt Lake City at the General Assembly back in 1999 on an interfaith panel on religion and sexuality, made a similar point. He drew a contrast between religions that define sins as particular acts and religions that define sins as failures to live up to principles. Applied to human sexuality, the point was that UUs don't judge the righteousness or sinfulness of a particular relationship by the specific sexual behaviors involved, but by the relational qualities the relationship embodies. A relationship of respect, mutual accountability, faithfulness, etc., gets the UU stamp of approval -- whether it's gay or straight.
I think he was getting at the difference between trying to orient your religious life around principles (which require critical application) and trying to orient your religious life around specific practices or commandments. Now, obviously, such a distinction doesn't have a very bright line down the middle: Commandments require interpretation, too, and principles can be applied in default modes that look an awful lot like unreflective obedience. But still, there's something to it.
'Anything goes' might refer to the lack of required theological beliefs/creeds UUs have, and the phrase may also reflect the strong connection your friend holds between beliefs and principles.
It strikes your friend as odd that UUs are not required to 'believe', and by that I mean, to stake your eternal destiny on a set of statements about the most important realities (i.e., the Trinity or the Resurrection). These statements are scientifically unprovable, but your friend believes they accurately reflect what exists despite a lack of tangible evidence (which could be considered the ‘faith’ element of believing). From this reality, and with the assistance of authoritative messages from that reality (i.e, the Bible), your friend has also established derivative beliefs about what the world should look like and how people should act, a.k.a. “principles”.
I'm classifying principles as instructions on how to live and treat others, and beliefs or creeds as statements about a scientifically unprovable yet ultimate, metaphysical reality. For example, the UU principles are both instructions on how to live and what to value, much like the 10 Commandments. But neither makes an explanation or tries to accommodate what exists beyond our control and knowledge, such as questions about our origin and the consequences of death. UUs do not require members to come to conclusions about these questions to participate. To your friend, these questions must be definitively answered first. I believe the desire for definitive answers to these questions reflects the common phenomenon that people are dominated by the fears of death and pain (i.e., eternal damnation).
These fears and desires are satisfied in Pauline Christian doctrine, since belief is the sufficient cause of eternal destiny and escape from these conditions—what you believe about Christ saves you, not your conduct before or after your leap of faith. But belief is also a sufficient cause for accepting a code of ethical conduct that is (arguably) logically drawn from and congruent with that reality—true belief naturally leads to godly conduct.
So to follow a set of principles but not insist on a specific ultimate reality belief makes no sense to a Christian mind. 'Anything goes' might then be an appropriate way for your friend to describe someone without a perceived set of ultimate reality beliefs and therefore no authoritative source for establishing principles.
I think the questions UUs should be considering and ready to discuss are then:
What is the authority (or authorities) underpinning the Unitarian principles? How are these principles tied to our views on scientifically unprovable realities/possibilities? Why (or why not) should our principles be based upon these views?
Stephen, what I wrote about the 7 Principles was not aimed at you, but at some sermons by other people on this topic, so do not worry about the territory I am going into. Nevertheless I think that my point is well taken. I recently read in another blog an interpretation of the 7 Principles in which "peace... for all" actually means "war is a necessary evil". This is so contrary to my notion of what "peace" means that I have increasing qualms about the validity of the 7 Principles as a moral compass.
jaume,
Thanks for the clarification, and I think you have a good point. The key is understanding the difference between principles and commandments or dogma. I think there is a big difference, and while the 7 principles are certainly open for interpretation and application, I don't think any one of us can speak for all of us when we do so.
Post a Comment