Coffee Hour

Penny Michaels says:

I'm a thirty-year UU who no longer seems to fit. I want my church back! Social justice is a fine and noble cause, but I'm not willing to trade basic spirituality for it, nor should I have to. I don't know what's happened or what to do about it.

Joyce says:

I'm new to CoffeeHour and don't know if Penny will get this reply, but I think it's a shame no one has responded. If this topic was re-directed somewhere else, couldn't anyone remove this?

I'm a born Unitarian, so I have a strong belief in the movement which includes "the democratic process", "worth and dignity" of everyone and "justice, equity, and compassion" in relationships, so I expect that from any congregation I belong to, though I understand that sometimes individual members may not be very good at doing it. Every member helps to make the congregation what it is. If your congregation has no obvious method to give feedback or resolve conflicts, go to the committee in charge of the area in which you have concerns, such as the Worship Committee, or ask your minister how you should proceed or ask the board if you could address it to them. If you have this concern, it could be others do, too. Most areas don't have a choice of UU congregations, so get involved in the one near you and work for and keep up your hopes that your congregation can help fulfill your needs, though maybe not 100% all of the time, but at least a goodly amount most of the time.

BTW, the web site link I added is not a blog, but you can email me.

James Swan says:

I've been a UU for about 15 years. I'm a humanist and an agnostic. I am comfortable with 'churchy' things like lighting candles for joys and concerns, CUUPS-oriented services, sermons on Jesus, and so on. I have always questioned the terminology 'worship service' (it's not just what might be worshipped; it's also why any entity who might be worshipped would want to be), but given that many humanists accept it as appropriate, I don't gripe too much. As UUs, we do many things to embrace each others' diversity.

There are, however, several things to which I object:
(1) Being more like conventional churches: Somehow, some UUs seem to believe that this will help us grow. I find it untrue to who we are; and I cannot imagine why those UUs think we can compete in an arena where those 'conventional churches' are already experts in what they do.
(2) Seeking creedal unity for unity's sake: I was most uncomfortable when the Committee on Appraisal reported to the recent Fort Worth GA, feeling that their message was that we need to find something to believe in common lest we be doomed. I don't see any value, in fact I see harm, in 'finding' areas of agreement on belief where there is in fact much disagreement -- as there is in almost any area one can note. I especially disagree that the Seven Principles are inadequate to express our unity. No matter how they were arrived at, they are seven areas to which we as UUs are committed. Personally, I don't see them as creedal at all, nor would I find that desirable: I don't "believe in" the inherent worth and dignity of every human person, rather I am willing to commit to it and attempt to act accordingly.
(3) Simple-minded slogans, song lyrics, and so on. Many of the 'new' elements of worship seem to me to be incredibly dumbed down. Heaven knows that many older UU hymns are horrible things to sing, and that even lively hymns we often seem to sing a dirge tempo; but I much prefer some of those old things, including those laden with 'god language,' to lively repetition of simple-minded lyrics.
(4) The assumption that one's search for truth and meaning is the same as another's -- is the same as mine.

Jack Zylman says:

The discussion (I just found this site) has been intersting as people express their frustrations with the struggle for relevant language. Regarding this matter, I wrote the following in 2004:

(That year I wrote the first set of "Left Lenten Lines", and did so again this year. They go out daily during Lent of the internet and then I publish them. This is from the 2004 LLL)

The Seventeenth Day of Lent

He’s Everybody’s Jesus

Mel Gibson’s Jesus is a Caucasian, as are most of the depictions of Jesus that we see in churches. I once commented that the very commonly seen Salman’s Head of Christ looks a lot like an ad for Breck shampoo. Why is it that we want to make him an idealized version of ourselves?

It’s not just the conservative Christian denominations that do this. At a Unitarian Universalist Church this Christmas season, a “manger scene” was acted out. The participants did very well, and should be pleased with their work, both children and adults.

But the play, “Do You Want to Hold the Baby?” apparently obtained from the Unitarian Universalist Association, was very troublesome. In it, Mary has a husband, implying that they were married. They may not have been. We know that she became pregnant while “engaged,” according to scripture. Are we ashamed that these teenagers may have had a baby out of wedlock? That is basic to the story, and I learned it as a child in a Southern Presbyterian Church. Are unwed couples having babies too controversial for Unitarians? Has Dr. James Dobson taken over the Unitarian Universalist Association? We have to realize that, in a world in which many children are born to unwed teenagers, that we should have a message of acceptance to them – that their love is sufficient and their baby is to be praised. But not in this play. The couple was an idealization of the middle class dream, Ken and Barbie.

Then there were repeated references to the idea that they were like all of us. They were not destitute.

In fact, they were living under a bigoted Roman totalitarian empire and a local vicious king who sought to kill Jesus. But not in the play. No, he was just fine, and everybody wanted to hold him. The class and political issues central to Jesus birth were thrown out in this feel-good piece of suburban idealism.

Even when they came to the inn and were turned way, it was clearly said that it was because it was full. The scripture doesn’t say that it was full. It just says that they were told that it was full. A friend of mine here who is black and whose wife is white were recently traveling late at night and stopped at a motel in the Carolinas which had very few cars present. He went in and was told the same thing Mary and Joseph were told. Late at night, a motel with few cars present is not really full. At the next motel, the white wife went to check in, leaving him in the car, and they were admitted. Why did the play remove the possibility that some bigotry could have been present then? Even in Unitarian-land it has not been long since signs proclaimed “No dogs or Jews allowed.” Are we so delicate that we can’t see the viciousness and ugliness that tells the real meaning of life? Can’t we depict this impoverished, oppressed, angry, revolutionary family honestly and relevantly?

The play stated (if memory serves – I do not have the script) that we don’t know what Mary was thinking, or something like that. Actually, we do, unless she changed her mind from her pregnant visit to Elizabeth. Mary told her, in the Magnificat, that the poor are acceptable to Him and the rich are turned away. Tough stuff! Radical class-based economics! Clearly, Mary wasn’t some bland suburban kid totally into fashion and acne medicine. More likely, she was an active leftist who had possibly met Joseph in either a meeting of revolutionaries or in a demonstration. This play takes from Mary her anger and her class orientation. How pitiful, and how self-serving for this bland, middle class denomination. The play clearly is about us, not Mary, Joseph and Jesus.

Oh, it was a musical, sort of. The choir was involved, our excellent soprano soloist, and children singing beautifully. But the music was... how can I put it… well, bland, again. It was somewhere between contemporary Christian and New Age. It did not even use the dissonances that Mozart used! It had no tension at all. It fits the description I once gave to New Age music in a letter published in the New York Times, “New Age music is the opposite of 12 tone music. 12 tone music has been called music without tonality. New Age is tonality without music.” The music for the play, original music we were told, was also tonality without music. Aesthetics matters. We refer to the good, the true and the beautiful. We don’t refer to the nice, the acceptable and the pretty.

The play included the untrue story of the three kings who visited the child. More likely, three itinerant Iraqi traders stopped by. They may have been staying in the inn from which Mary and Joseph had been barred. They probably came back to get their animals and saw the little family. They may have given them some useless stuff: perfume, since they stank, and some spare change. But in this play, which asked no questions of anyone, they were the impossible kings.

It ended asking, “Does anybody want to hold the baby?” Our baby. Just like every other middle class, suburban baby. Cute. Dry. Good smelling.

Not born to die. To suffer. Not born homeless and hungry. Not crying. Definitely not crying.

He’s everybody’s Jesus. Except God’s Jesus. Except his parents’ Jesus. Except truth’s Jesus. He’s just everybody’s Jesus. Does anybody want to hold the baby?

(Anyone who would like to read "Left Lenten Lines 2004" and or "Left Lenten Lines 2005" may contact me at jzylman@bellsouth.net)

Each is $5.00 plus S&H.

Karl Bach says:

Matthew Gatheringwater is a member of our congregation, the Quimper UU Fellowship and we are his sponsor at the Meadville Theological Seminary. He recently returned for a brief visit providing our fellowship with a very fine sermon. He seems to get right to the point. With regard to his article here, he asks a good question. My feeling is that UUs too easily fall into the abyss of criticizing other denominations, other spiritual paths with which they disagree, failing to take into account the sincerity and sensibilities of those whose beliefs differ from their own. Admittedly UUisn is more intellectual in approach to religion or spirituality than say Christians, but there are a lot of good things about Christianity even if one doesn't follow the dogma couching the basic tenets of Jesus. It seems to be that there oftimes is a feeling of "elitism" within UUs which unnecessarily discounts the sincere beliefs of others. I think that Unitarian-Universalists need to be less judgemental about other belief systems and be open to the positive aspects in any spiritual/religious approach to life. I speak as a birthright Unitarian, whose father was a UU minister from 1933 until his death in 1999. I also consider myself a Quaker and still retain my membership in a Friends Meeting back in Virginia where I worshipped for 25 years or so. In my opinion UUs need to be open to the Light within one another, and to answer that of God in one another. This done, there would be more of an acceptance of the positive in one another, notwithstanding disagreements with another's approach to religion.