The Pageless Book

Photo Above by Angela Hopper.

Jules from a UU Deist in Texas has tagged me for yet another blogging meme. I’m suppose to provide ten weird, random facts about myself. I could do much more, but I think I’ll stick with ten. Also, I don’t think it would hurt to try to stick with the theme of my blog for this one, so I’ll try to choose facts that deal with religion or spirituality.

1) I taught myself meditation when I was elementary school. One would think that such early experience with meditation would make it a life long habit. Alas, no - I have become woefully lazy in adulthood, and rarely make time for meditation.

2) I used to peruse Wiccan, pagan, and occult websites during my programming classes in high school. Suffice to say, I no longer remember how to program in BASIC, but I’m still perusing those websites.

3) For Halloween one year, the church that my mother sent us to for Sunday School asked the children to dress up as Biblical characters. They took offense when my brother an I showed up with toy six shooters and ten gallon hats. Cowboys, apparently, do not appear in the Bible.

4) Same church taught that drinking alcohol and smoking were sinful, and unrepentant drinkers and smokers were going to hell. My mother, who used to drink and smoke, took offense to that. Needless to say, my brother and I were pretty much un-churched from then forward.

5) At one point in my childhood, my parents were toying with the idea of becoming Mormons. Yes, I’m well aware of the irony.

6) My mother, my brother, and I have had extensive conversations discussing the meaning behind Marilyn Manson, Nirvana, and Nine Inch Nails lyrics - particularly within a religious and moral contexts. My mother’s thinking was that if we were mature enough understand it, we were mature enough to listen.

7) I think I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again - I knew I wanted to become minister before even knowing what religion to become a minister of. Yes, that is a very backwards way to approach religion.

When I told my mother that I felt I was no longer a Christian, she remarked that she was more afraid that I was going to tell her that I was a homosexual. No, that didn’t sit well with me, but I let it slide at the time because it meant exploring new faiths without having to hide my activities.

9) Learning about The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley, Qabalah, and Gnosticism gave me a renewed respect for the Jewish God and Jesus Christ. Catholic Theologians everywhere are turning in their graves so fast that they are generating electricity!

10) Oh, and lets not forget that whole “Omnitheism” / “The Gated Emptiness” thing that this site has going for it. There is nothing stranger than an eccentric blogging about his beliefs…

I will forgo tagging others for now, seeing as I’m still getting back into the swing of things. Hopefully you’ve found this entertaining. Namaste.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Bible, Blogging, Christian, Meme, Occult, Religion, Spirituality

My lovely wife is currently writing a series of blog entries on the self improvement elements of the movie Labyrinth, which you can read by clicking on the link above. While researching for this particular project, Cathy came across another interesting post about the religious elements of the movie Labyrinth. Right up my alley, yes? Not really. Emily, the author of this piece, has tried to claim that Labyrinth is a Christian morality play. I can relate to the idea that the movie can be symbolic of a spiritual journey, but Emily tries forcing metaphors where they simply do not belong.

How so? Well, lets start with our protagonist, Sarah - Emily claims that Sarah is with child and is projecting her emotional confusion over what to do with her unborn child onto her little brother. It is made pretty obvious by the, er, uh… what proof of this exists in the movie? Are we so sure that it is not Ms. Emily who is projecting?

It gets worse, though. She claims that Hoggle is a personification of Jesus Christ. Hoggle, the coward - Hoggle, the gruff loner - Hoggle, the reluctant traitor, is Jesus Christ? If Hoggle is anything, he is the voice of Sarah’s own doubts and fears, playing a foil to her outward optimism and naivete.

When we first see Hoggle, he is just outside the gates of the labyrinth killing fairies with a pesticide. According to Emily, we are suppose to infer that these fairies are instead the embodiment of the homosexual culture, which Hoggle… er, um, I mean Jesus, is seeking to eradicate. Could it simply be that they serve as a lesson for Sarah that not all things are as they seem? Nah! That apparently isn’t Christian enough, so Emily projects her homophobia into this children’s movie.

And the article continues from there, drawing the conclusion that the talking door guards are symbolic of true and false religion, the cleaners symbolic of cults, and the wise man is symbolic of Eastern Religions. In an apparent fit of racism, she calls the fire gang “blacksploitation jive turkeys,” claims that The Bog of Eternal Stench is symbolic of an abortion clinic, and claims Sir Didymus is symbolic of the fallacies of science. At this point, it behooves me to ask whether this particular article is a parody or serious. I’m not entirely sure, to be honest.

“The Christian Themes of Labyrinth” does one thing right, however unintentionally. It shows how easy it is to ignore obvious explanations in favor of rationalizing the interpretation we expect to be true. We each see what it is that we want to see. Unless we make the truth that which we most desire, we will only see the contrived metaphors of our imagination. If I may suggest, perhaps the lesson we are supposed to learn from Labyrinth is the importance of balancing the imagination of childhood against the required clarity and purpose of adulthood in order to seek truth over fantasy. Then again, it now might be me who is projecting.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Metaphors, Morality, Movies, Religion

Photo Above by ButterflySha. Photo Below by Steve Evans.

“If the only prayer you ever say in your whole life is ‘thank you,’ that would suffice.”
- Meister Eckhart, 1260– 1328.

I don’t remember the exact time it first happened, but I do remember it was during a gathering with my in-laws. My wife was seated on my right, and her grandmother was on my left side. On one end of the table was my father-in-law, and on the other end was my mother-in-law. Across from us was my brother-in-law, his wife, and between them sat Samantha, my niece and god-child. Food, glorious sustenance, was set out before us. Before anyone could lay one hand on a roll, Samantha said, for the first time of what would become a tradition at such gatherings, “We need to say the words!” My wife and I looked at each other in mild displeasure.

Why displeasure, you may ask? What exactly was it that I have against saying grace? It is because I felt excluded. Many non-Christians feel singled out when called upon to pray in public. Think of the position we are placed in: we can either pretend to pray with everyone else, betraying our own beliefs while insulting the integrity of the beliefs of others, or we can stand there in awkward silence, feeling out of place and perhaps a little bit ostracized. That may not be the intention of the practice of public prayer, but it is often the effect.

Non-Christians often develop a negative attitude in regards to prayer in general, due to our Christian brethren’s insistence on public prayer. In all honesty, this negativity may be part of what fuels the debate on school prayer. It is this reluctance to pray that concerns me - not only my own resistance to prayer, but the lack of prayer among non-Christians in general. The problem is that prayer is so much apart of the Christian experience, than when a person leaves the Christian religion, they feel they must leave behind this deeply spiritual practice as well.

The truth is, prayer has always been a meaningful method of communing with the Divine and has existed since the dawn of civilization. No one group of people can lay claim to this practice as being exclusively their own. As people of alternative spiritual paths, we need to recognize that it is everyone’s inherited right to communicate with the Divine through prayer. We need to reclaim prayer as our own and find a meaningful way in which people of all faiths can pray together.

So how will I reintegrate prayer into my spiritual practices without alienating my Christian in-laws? By requesting a silent prayer when in public, and praying in earnest when alone. Ironically enough, that is exactly how Jesus recommended that his followers pray. In Matthew 6:5, Jesus instructs his followers saying, “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.”

This passage in the Bible leads me to believe that perhaps even the early Christians felt excluded because of the practice of public prayer in ancient Rome. It does no one harm to gently remind them of that possibility. Next time I am at a gathering with family, perhaps I will do just that.

Originally posted September 29th, 2007.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Faith, Family, Prayer, Religion, Ritual, Tradition

Above Photo by Steven Keys. Photo Below by Maria Ganessas.

“Young man—Young man—Your arm’s too short to box with God.”
- James Weldon Johnson, 1871–1938.

The above famed quote, often reiterated by Christians and other mainstream monotheists, is assumed to mean that you cannot fight against God’s will, or defeat the universal truth of God. It has been used as a condescending way to counter the arguments of those that fall outside the bounds of mainstream religion. Yet, I feel that the full extent of meaning behind the quote is lost to those who use it in arrogance as a verbal parry. The irony of the situation is that it is the religions themselves who provide the target with which to box - not God.

How so, you might ask. After all, the greatness of the Divine is beyond the reach of men and women of this world. How then can I fault monotheistic religions for making this claim? How can I point and show that it is they who are the cause of this conflict? The answer - another ironic twist. The fault that I find with the mainstream religions of the western world is the same fault that they had found with the fallen polytheistic religions - idolatry.

Most monotheistic religions believe that they know the difference between an idol and the One True God. The God they worship is, of course, assumed to be correct, while the God that everyone else worships is implied to be the idol. Just what does it mean to worship an idol? The practice of literally bowing before a statue in reverence has not been common in western culture since before the colonization of the Americas. In this society, idolatry has come to mean the worship of ideas as God.

What ideas do we, as a society, worship as God? There are no lack of choices; we as a society have chosen to venerate sex, money, movie stars, musicians, and athletes as the end-all and be-all. We are a society of vices and it has long been the mainstream religious establishments that have fought against our idolatries. So, what gives me the right to say that they, too, are idolaters? Their idols are their ideas of what God is or is not and their presumed exclusive access to the “Truth.”

Let me give you an example of how these faiths set up idols on God’s throne. Were I to claim that only adherents of my particular faith will receive God’s heavenly reward, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to give the heavenly reward to all people. If I were to claim that only the literal interpretation of a particular holy text is the correct and final word of God, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to speak freely with whomever listened. The moment I told you that your concept of God is incorrect, I would presume to tell God what God can and can not do. Your arms are too short to box with God, but I could claim God is small enough to fit inside a box? We box not with God, but instead with the mainstream religions’ narrow concept of God.

Trying to force something as great as God to conform to the limits of mortal intellect and ego is like trying to bottle sunlight - it’s absurd. We must stop trying to define the undefinable, limit the limitless and measure the infinite. What we are then left with is a spirituality that does not contradict science, never becomes dated or irrelevant, and is always the source of unity and brotherhood.

Originally Published September 25th, 2007.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Faith, God, Holy Text, Religion, Spirituality

“Nail in my hand from my creator,
You gave me life - now show me how to live”
- Audioslave, Show Me How To Live (2002)

Photo above by Tom Rolfe. Photo below by Pixsellr.

Recently, I responded to an article on Internet Monk.com about the movie Cloverfield (which I highly recommend, by the way) and the impact that world-spanning natural disasters would have on the meaning behind the Book of Revelations. I was clear that I wasn’t a Christian and was just putting my two cents in for discussion purposes. One of the other readers of that article noticed my comment and moseyed on over to my About Me page to read about my journey towards becoming a minister. Under the pseudonym “Texan,” he then directed a comment to me under the same article that read:

“I just read your blog & your ‘about me’ section. I hope you find what you are searching for, and I pray it is Christ. “Unitarian Universalism” is not the answer I’m afraid.”

Now, I can appreciate that he was hoping the best for me, or at least what he considers to be the best, but there are several things that bother me about this comment. First of all, he didn’t have enough common decency to say this on my blog instead of hiding it on someone else’s. Not only was it an off-topic comment and thus disrespectful to Mr. Spencer, but it was also very telling as to this person’s true perception of non-Christians. Did he think I wouldn’t let the comment stand if it was posted on my blog? I’d like to think I’m pretty welcoming of criticism and debate as long as it’s constructive and respectful.

And, of course, there is the casual dismissal of my denomination and the patronizing tone; meh - I could let that slide to be honest. No, what bothered me most of all was the implication that because I am still searching, that I had not “found Christ.” I don’t think this gentleman quite understands what religion and spirituality is really about. He’s missing a vital piece of the puzzle and doesn’t even realize it. If he had, he would know that finding Christ has nothing to do with being Christian.

Simply put, religion is about learning how to live with meaning. That is the sum of all religious experience boiled down to six words: “Learning How to Live with Meaning.” If you are a Christian, it means you follow the teachings of Jesus on how to live. Buddhists, on the other hand, follow the suggestions of Buddha on how to live a good life. I call myself neither simply because I don’t think it is necessary to follow one teacher in exclusion to all others. You wouldn’t go to school to just learn math to the exclusion of all other subjects. Why learn how to live from only one spiritual teacher?

I think the biggest mistake, however, is the assumption that searching can only be for those who have not found Truth. Quite to the contrary, searching is Truth. If you’ve stopped asking questions and settled on one particular list of beliefs, you haven’t found the Truth, you’ve given up on it. Revelation is on-going, Genesis is still in process, and there is always something new to learn. Perhaps I should pray that Texan comes to this realization, although I doubt he would see this as a blessing. It is more appropriate to let him find his own way, as we all should.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Blogging, Christian, Individuality, Religion, Spirituality, Unitarian Universalism

Photo above by Sarah Cartwright. Pentagram Photo by Epimetheus. Witch Photo by Helena.

Back when Christianity was first forming, most cultures had their own religions or Gods, and no single religion was considered “universal.” Although the Romans attempted to equate the Gods of other cultures with their religion and enforced a state sponsored religion, these efforts were far from being uniform in application or success. For the most part, folks worshiped the Gods their parents worshiped, and gave the religions of conquering cultures as little attention as they could get away with. The alternative was to join a mystery religion - cults whose membership remained secret and whose worship was not always acceptable by the rest of society.

Christianity was lumped together with the mystery religions, as an off-shoot of Judaism. However, this religion, was different than the other mystery religions. The fledgling religion was forced into secrecy instead of choosing it, did not allow their adherents to worship other Gods as most mystery religions did, and appealed to all people, regardless of race or culture. With it’s message of salvation regardless of heritage, Christianity represented the first truly universal religion. As the religion grew and became more centralized, the spiritual leaders emphasized the universal appeal of Christianity by calling their church “Catholic” - which means “universal” in Latin.

Two thousand years after the birth of Jesus Christ, one could hardly call the Catholic Church universal anymore. Not only have the several schisms with Christendom given rise to the Protestant religions, but Christianity as a whole is shrinking as a result of religious freedom in Western culture. While it is still the most popular religion in the world, Islam is quickly closing the gap between itself and Christianity. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but does tend to give rise to the question of whether Christianity was as universal as it purported to be in the first place.

The loss of the universal appeal of Christianity could only be attributed to one important truth of the modern world: the desire for creativity. Modern conveniences and ample leisure time has given rise to a greater focus on individual creativity. Traditional forms of worship and social structure within Christianity seems stifling in comparison to the new egalitarian social structure and mutual artistic evolution of the internet. The only religion that I know of which shares these egalitarian and creative elements in Wicca.

Only having emerged in the last fifty years, Wicca is the newest of the world religions. It is a particular blend of European folk lore which focuses on the rhythms of nature and cycles of life instead of theology. Drawing heavily from the ancient Pagan beliefs, Wicca takes the Roman attempt to consolidate deities of different cultures to a new extreme by reducing all Gods into one God with two aspects (God of Darkness and of Light), and all Goddesses into one Goddess with three aspects (Maiden, Mother, and Crone). They also practice ritual, which they call witchcraft, with the intent of influencing reality in a manner that mirrors modern occultism.

Wicca’s greatest strength; however, is in its structure and liturgy. Wiccans usually worship in small groups of 3-13 individuals, called a coven. Even though one man or woman serves as the head priest, all of the individuals in a coven are considered priests in their own right. This puts each individual on equal footing - there are no “followers,” only leaders who allow someone else to lead for a time. The social structure is more akin to family than in Christianity; no one person is more important than another.

This is reflected in the way in which Wiccans worship. Although one member of a coven serves as the lead, the actual rituals, prayers, and practices need the input of each member. Even those rites which are considered “tradition” are up for reinterpretation by an individual coven. Theology, preaching, and passive participation are absent from Wiccan worship. For those looking for worship to be a creative outlet, this religion seems custom made.

These qualities, found in Wicca, make this religion potentially more “Catholic” than Catholicism. Everyone can identify with family, with nature, and with the cycles of life. Any individual can look at the God or Goddess and see a deity that looks like themselves and represents humanity as a whole. More importantly, there is no authority to appease or to declare you heretical simply because you choose to do things a different way. Is it truly any wonder this is the fastest growing religion in the world?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Catholic, Christian, God, Humanity, Individuality, Occult, Occultism, Religion, Ritual, Tradition, Wicca

“Humor distorts nothing, and only false gods are laughed off their earthly pedestals.”
- Agnes Repplier (1855 - 1950)

Psst. Hey pal. Yes, you! … Do you have a sense of humor? Are you sure? Not everyone has the chutzpah to laugh about religion. Even fewer are the brave men and women who make laughing about religion into a religion. I’m not just talking about a parody of a religion, but a religion that is a parody of a religion of a parody of a real religion. So would that be a real religion, you ask? Well, if you don’t know, then you are already apart of the joke.

As of right now, there are three religious parody religions in existence; Discordianism, The Church of The SubGenius, and Pastafarianism. Each of these three religions have several important similarities. First, it is important to note that all three religions hold a great debt to Al Gore, whom you all know created the series of tubes otherwise called the internets; Gore is cut a check every second Tuesday of the month for his contribution. Second is the fact that each of these religions get proportionately funnier as the jokes age, unlike stale 80’s comedies, which were probably never funny having all been written by Chevy Chase and Steve Martin - but I digress. Finally, there is the astonishing coincidence that all three religious parody religions existed at the time this article was written, which of course is the hallmark of any true religion. Any other religious parody religions are false, heretical, and probably not as funny as the before mentioned three.

Discordianism, the oldest of these three religions, originated in the early 1970’s and was first popularized by the late Robert Anton Wilson when he wrote about it in his Illuminatus trilogy. The Principia Discordia, the holy book of this religion, has been described as a postmodern treaties on Zen Buddhism, a revival of an ancient Greek Chaos mystery cult, and ‘the hell if I know, now leave me alone.’ It is written by the prophet Malaclypse the Younger in the 1950’s, after having been exposed to an exploding chimpanzee at a all-night bowling alley frozen in time/space. He and his fellow prophet, Omar Ravenhurst, founded this religion based upon the worship of Eris, the Goddess of Discord, which would later grow to become the hidden power behind every U.S. Presidency since Benjamin Harrison, fnord.

The Church of the SubGenius is considered to be an off-shoot of Discordianism and is centered around the worship of J.R. “Bob” Dobbs as well as the acquisition of slack. Currently headed up by it’s founder, Rev. Ivan Stang, the Church is seems to be lampoon of fundamentalist Christianity and Scientology drowned in copious amounts of 1950’s kitch. Don’t let the appearances fool you - The Church of the SubGenius is a genuine religion, complete with extensive tithing, alien space ships, and a mail order ministry ordination. Get your slack while it’s still hot.

The newest of these three religious parody religions is Pastafarianism, which emerged in 2005. Also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pastafarians believe that the ultimate creator of the universe is a… Flying Spaghetti Monster. They also believe strongly that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are directly related to the falling number of pirates since the 1800’s. This is due to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is angered that pirates are going extinct and is exacting revenge on earth for the falling number of his chosen people.

Regardless of which of these three religions you adhere to, you can rest assured that your beliefs will not be scoffed or laughed at by those who can’t take a joke… Then again, they don’t laugh at much of anything, so these greyfaces deserve the slackless, stale-beer hell that’s reserved for them. RAmen.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Buddhism, Christian, God, Humor, Ministry, Religion, Reviews

DNA rendering by Ynse

I believe that there is no contradiction between science and spirituality; both speak of different truths. Science speaks in regards to the verifiable truth of empirical research, while spirituality speaks in regards to the truth of the human condition which we can only know in our hearts. Yet many people find the two incompatible, based upon literal interpretation of religious scripture or practice, and it’s conflict with scientific discoveries.Like myself, Dr. Francis S. Collins sees no contradiction between science and spirituality and attempts to show those on both sides of the argument why. Unlike myself, Dr. Collins has an advantage in that he himself is a former atheist who converted to Christianity and was the head of the Human Genome Project. With having been on both sides of the argument, as well as being one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, one would think that his reasoning would be sound and solid. Unfortunately, I found this not to be so in his book The Language of God.

While I liked The Language of God, I found it lacking in several areas. Most important of these, as it is central to the book’s theme, is his use of apologetics to explain his belief in God. The very first chapter of the book, which attempts to show the reason he came to believing in God, argues that altruism could not be the result of evolution and so must be considered evidence of God’s Moral Law inherent within humanity. However, this argument is based upon what I would call soft logic - that is logic that has no basis in concrete physical reality.

Altruistic behavior has to be defined and quantified, observed and studied in order for even the suggestion to be taken seriously. What you might define as altruistic may not be strictly without evolutionary benefit. Those examples of altruism that cannot be explained as being evolutionary could possibly be explained as psychological anomalies or the result of social conditioning. There are simply too many variables to make that claim; if I were an atheist, I wouldn’t accept this argument.

The failure of Dr. Collins’s “Moral Law” argument puts a large dent in his other arguments, as he repeatedly refers back to this throughout the book. In addition to that issue, Dr. Collins relies far too much on C.S. Lewis and not enough on his own understanding or experiences to promote his views. I hate to say it, but if I wanted to read C.S. Lewis, I would have picked a book authored by him. I did say that I like this book, didn’t I?

I do like The Language of God… but not for it’s intended purpose. His personal stories and explanation of the current struggle between science and religion is where this book truly shines. His disarming demeanor serves him well in bringing a better understanding of science to the religious community, which all too often looks upon the scientific community with suspicion. As it is the religious community that is instigating the argument over evolution, his goal of ending the disagreement would better be served by concentrating his efforts on that audience.

So while I feel that The Language of God is worth reading, the chances of an atheist reading this book and having doubts over their non-belief in God is very slim indeed. If you are going to read this book, read it for one man’s story from atheism to Christianity, his growth as a human being, and to understand the science behind the controversies. Don’t look here for irrefutable proof of God’s existence - you won’t find it.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Christian, God, Growth, Humanity, Reason, Religion, Reviews

In my last entry, I wrote concerning the origins of Unitarian Universalism (UUism). I also noted that in 1961 C.E., the Unitarian and the Universalist churches combined to become the UUA. Now that the foundation has been laid, I want delve into answering the original question that I so artfully dodged last time.

The Union of Two Faiths

During the 1950’s, a great number of similarities between the Unitarianism and Universalism became apparent. The church leadership of both denominations began to investigate the possibility of merging into one denomination. I can’t claim to know exactly what was going through the minds of these leaders, but I’m sure that theology was one of the issues they discussed.

What happens when a single Christian organization adopts the stance that Jesus was not God incarnate and that all humanity will be admitted into Heaven? Questions are raised that break down the importance of being Christian over any other religion. If Jesus was a prophet of God, and not his literal son, all reasons to worship Jesus as God incarnate evaporates. When paired with the doctrine of universal salvation, the importance of being Christian over any other religion becomes trivial. What remains important is that each person conducts themselves in a moral manner and have a spiritual component to their life.

Concerning Non-Theists

The problem that this particular view of UUism is it doesn’t allow for non-theists. If this definition of UUism is to remain true to Christianity, we would still exclude agnostics, humanist, and atheists. Obviously, we do not exclude non-theists, as they make up a good 30 to 40 percent of our membership. So how do we theologically justify their inclusion into the fold?

Through the words of Jesus Christ, of course. When we choose to take the words of Jesus figuratively rather than literally, a lot of things change for Christianity. First of all, it makes a lot more sense, but more importantly we can see his insistence in our salvation through him as being through his example. A non-theist who is concerned for the welfare of her fellow human beings, refrains from harming others, and sincerely apologizes for her own bad decisions, is following Christ’s example. When we carefully consider Jesus’s words in light of UUism, we cannot in good conscious exclude these men and women from our organization.

Still Christian?

While UUism may have originated from protestant Christianity, I can understand why some Christians may view our faith as being outside of Christendom. If you define being Christian as believing Jesus to be the literal son of God and that we can only be saved through having faith in his divinity, than UUism is not a form of Christianity. However I believe that being a Christian simply means an honest attempt at being “Christ-like.”

I would even go so far as to suggest that perhaps UUism is more like the religion that Jesus envisioned than what our conservative brethren practice. Consider for a moment the origin of the doctrines of UUism; were they not both present during the founding of Christianity? It wouldn’t take much of a stretch to think these were Jesus’s original teachings. Will anyone besides fellow UUists accept this suggestion? Doubtful. I realize that in order to make this claim, I have taken a non-literal, non-inerrant view of scripture, which doesn’t sit well with most Christians.

So, What is UUism?

It is a liberal religious tradition firmly rooted in the origins of Christianity that has evolved to accept any moral person regardless of their actual beliefs, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or economic status. We worship, teach, and act with the purpose of making the world a better place for all people by following the example of Jesus Christ and other great moral leaders.

The Future of Unitarian Universalism

So where are we, as a denomination, going from here? Last year, the UUA started making a push to grow our numbers with an advertising campaign. Not everyone thinks this is a good idea. In addition to this, many UUists are questioning the importance or wording of our seven principles, which serves as our creed despite not being called such. I’ve heard many reports that our congregations are aging and I am witness to it within my own church. There is a lot to be done and much to be discussed.

For my part, I’ve been trying to drum-up more exposure for UU blogs, with the theory that more exposure online may lead to larger congregations in the future. Dan Harper recently started his own push for further conversation into incorporating emergent theology within UUism. While we may be small, the Unitarian Universalist Church is full of individuals who are willing to ask hard questions and move towards strengthening our voice and making a difference. I suspect that there are people who just don’t know about UUism - those who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” - that would find themselves at home in a UU congregation. With the right leadership, I have no doubt that we can reach those people.

Flaming Chalice Image From The UUCE Website. Cross Image (Heavily Modified) by Drew McKinney.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Christian, Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason, Religion, Unitarian Universalism, UU Emergent

“God enters by a private door into every individual.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803 - 1882.

As I gradually have come to share my new found desire to enter ministry, I’ve found myself in the situation of trying to explain Unitarian Universalism. Friends and family want to know what Unitarian Universalists believe. When asked, I respond with an authoritative voice and a look of pride, then… admit that I have no bloody idea of how to explain it.

How do I explain to my mother that we occasionally sing hymns originally written and sung by The Beatles? Should I even mention that a large number of my fellow worshipers are agnostic or atheist? Would telling my friends that we use quotes from The New Testament, Buddhism, and English literature help them understand my faith, or just confuse them further? In an attempt to set myself straight as to the meaning of our faith, I thought it would be an excellent idea to write an article explaining the origins and evolution of Unitarian Universalist theology.

Unitarian Universalism (a.k.a. UUism) is actually the union of two different Christian denominations - Unitarianism and Universalism. As a result, in order to truly understand UUism you have to trace the history and understand the theology of both original denominations. Of course this makes any attempts to explain UUism that much harder, which is probably why the majority of us choose not to even try. …But I will try.

What is Unitarianism?

Unitarianism, first popularized by Arius in the early 4th century, is the belief that the Christian God is one entity as opposed to three distinct persons. While the Council of Nicea condemned this view in 325 C.E., it became so popular that it was dominant over the belief in the Trinity for a period of twenty years. In the 16th century, Unitarianism emerged again as a result of theologian Faustus Paulus Socinus and Doctor Michael Servetus. This was, of course, believed to be heresy, and resulted in the conviction and burning of Michael Servetus in 1553 C.E.

In removing the Trinity from Christian doctrine, the Catholic Church’s claim to absolute spiritual authority would be weakened. The implication of Unitarianism is that Jesus Christ was not God’s son in a literal sense, but accepts him as a prophet anointed by God. If Jesus was not the literal son of God, than what other sayings of Jesus were figurative? Most Christians would argue that the definition of Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God. Without that affirmation, the God of Abraham would be subject to new prophecy.

What is Universalism?

As with Unitarianism, Universalism has deep roots in the early history of Christianity. The belief that salvation is universal (hence “Universalism”) is first encountered in a number of early theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 200 C.E.), his student Origen (c. 185-250 C.E.), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-390 C.E.). This was, of course, eventually declared heretical in 534 C.E., but reemerged as a protestant religion in 18th century America.

If all people are assumed to be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, this would include those individuals who choose not to convert to the Christian religion. With the Kingdom of Heaven open to all of God’s creation, there isn’t much incentive to join the church. Additionally, Universalism could (and does) open Christianity to possibility of accepting the practices of other religions as valid. As with Unitarianism, this weakens the authority of the Catholic Church.

Avoiding The Question

In 1961 C.E. the Unitarian and Universalism churches combined to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. In combination of these two liberal Christian doctrines, I have to ponder the implications on the rest of its theology. Where do these two philosophies lead us when combined? Can UUism still claim to be Christian? What is the future of UUism?

In trying to define UUism, I’ve painted myself into a corner with questions. Don’t worry, I have a plan on answering these questions and more in the second part of this article. For now, however, I’m more then delighted to leave the initial question unanswered and allow you, my reader, a chance to mull over the possibilities for yourself.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Career, Christian, Faith, God, History, Ministry, Questions, Religion, Unitarian Universalism