Comments on: Would being many be harder than being one?

By: Matthew Gatheringwater

Matthew Gatheringwater — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

“Have you noticed that Unitarian Universalism, for a group that’s putatively interfaith, is indifferent to theological developments outside its own borders�?”

Preach it, brother!

It is ironic that most UUs are no longer meaningfully engaged with the doctrinal positions for which they were named. Any doubt about this can be removed by considering the lack of interest expressed in last summer’s unitarian heresy trial scheduled for Andrew Furlong, a Church of Ireland minister, or the African-American minister who recently had to leave his church for preaching universal salvation. There are still lively debates in religion about unitaianism and universalism, but Unitarian Universalists de-emphasize theology so much and replace it with cultural and political identification to such an extent, that many of us no longer find these debates relevant - which is a shame, I think, because we miss opportunities to invigorate the religious thought of our movement by failing reach out to people who could teach us something about our own theology.

By: Revsparker

Revsparker — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Hey Scott,
Just checking here–your position is that Unitarianism and Universalism were intentionally changed in order to be more palatable? To each other? To society at large?

Was this an intentional theological movement away from God for some purpose? I’ve always thought of it as a response to social movements in the academic and secular realms–in other words that U and U theologies changed as people’s views about science, religion, and God changed.

While I can understand that the Charles Street Meeting House was not your cup of tea, I’d hate to think of it as some sort of manipulative experiment. I think the people involved found something there that sustained them and captured their religious imagination. Sure, it may have been misguided in it’s attempts to create a “melting pot” religion. But that mistake was being innocently made in nearly all realms of human endeavor…

I have to admit here a real discomfort with what sounded like a way of recasting all of 20th century U and U history as something shallow and pretentious. And I think my knickers get in a twist because I don’t hear anything that passes as respect or affection for Unitarian Universalism in your posts. It’s as if we’re all out to exclude and revile Christians.

So what I’d like to hear is what you love about Unitarian Universalism and why you give so much to minister among us?

By: David

David — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Very elucidating. I’m going to let this seep in a while for further reflection but my initial reaction is that in this dialogue is where I want to be. I am curious to hear your response to Rev. Parker’s comment, but here are some initial thoughts on your first two points:

I think this is Pres. Sinkford’s point as well. We have lost a language of reverence, therefore we have fallen out of dialogue with other denominations and theological public debate.
This point will probably be the first to spark a trackback on my own blog, because I agree with you. I would just like to explore my own points of reference. I feel I have substantial depth in more than one, but have concerns about my state of current practice…