Covenant, blasphemy, Ted Kennedy, and more

Covenant, non-theism, and "some spiritual force greater than ourselves"

Make yourself comfortable for quite a lot of reading. The Rev. Victoria Weinstein set off a flurry in the UU blogosphere by writing:

I was very happy to see Rev. Thom Belote’s article on covenant vs. creed in the Church of the Larger Fellowship’s newsletter, Quest.
The article is here.

Thom does a good job at differentiating between covenant and creed, and I think he does an excellent job making clear why the typical creedal questions don’t work well for Unitarian Universalists.

However, when Thom says that a covenant is an spiritually binding agreement made “between people and the source of life itself” (what I would jokingly refer to as “The Deity Formerly Known As God”), he’s got it wrong in one significant way: The ancient covenant tradition that comes to us from the Hebrew Scriptures through the Christian Scriptures and to the congregational Puritan church that established our polity is one wherein the covenant is ALWAYS initiated by God, never by God’s people.

You will excuse my passion on this point, I hope, as you consider that I have spent the past four years studying the covenant tradition and am currently writing a Doctor of Ministry dissertation on the subject.

What does this mean for humanist UU’s? I think it’s possible for non-theists to accept that some spiritual force greater than ourselves calls us out of our individual concerns to do the work of growing, healing, serving, learning, celebrating, grieving and repenting. ("PeaceBang," August 24)

"Goodwolve" asks "Why must we change to your needs? I am a second generation UU, my daughter a third and it feels like that might be the end of the line for our family."

I think it is a huge leap for members of my denomination to expect me to warp my view of both humanism and atheism to accept a "force greater" in our lives. If I were to suggest that they move their idea of God to the realm of fairy tale I think they would be offended. And so these two parties are supposed to gather together each Sunday - a difficult thing indeed. ("MoxieLife," August 24)

Goodwolve also writes a related post about prayer and living in a Christian country:

Would it bother me if it was Buddhist, Islamic, or even Pagan? - The knee jerk reaction is, yes - but the reality is no. I think my strong reaction to the God language that is being used in our Unitarian churches is because it comes from Christian theology. (August 26)

Patrick Murfin reflects on passion and the use of language and responds to both Weinstein and MoxieLife:

Peacebang is a superb scholar, as well as a gifted minister and prolific writer. She is currently engulfed in writing her doctorial dissertation on the topic of covenants. After spending four years on the subject she has STRONG opinions on the subject. And that’s fine.

But, whoa! In her passion, she has stepped off the deep end. To wit: “We cannot create covenant without reverent hearts. To attempt to do so is, in my opinion, a blasphemy. I just said BLASPHEMY! But dern it, I mean it.” ("Heretic, Rebel, a Thing to Flout," August 25)

Weinstein has a followup post on August 25:

1. You can see why, after working for two years during my doctoral program to try to gear my dissertation toward Unitarian Universalist congregations, I gave up. I am writing for the Christian Church, although certainly with the hope that some UUs may find my work of use.

2. A point of clarification: when I suggested a concept for the transcendent, vertical dimension of the covenant that I thought might appeal to non-theists, it was a suggestion, not a prescription. If it doesn’t resonate for you, reject it. Simple as that. ("PeaceBang," August 25)

John Franc asks:

Can the many spiritual traditions within Unitarian Universalism ever agree on anything of any religious importance? . . .

Murfin says the only way we can live together is through covenants – covenants that originate with us, not with “somebody’s idea of God.”

That we can do. But is it religion? Can a covenant create a spirituality capable of inspiring and sustaining us through the trials and tribulations of life? Can a covenant connect us not just to each other, but to something truly bigger than ourselves – whether that 'something' is a being or just the ideals of humanity? ("Under the Ancient Oaks," August 25)

Chalicechick makes a connection to the "language of reverence" and different definitions of sin, asking, "When does redefining a spiritual concept and using it for oneself become appropriation?" ("The Chaliceblog," August 26)

She also has a follow-up post:

Assuming PB's idea that one cannot have a covenant per se without reference to God catches on, and it might well do that as she is a well-respected and convincing person, then I assume that covenants will not be used in UU churches much as most UU churches have at least some atheists and for the church to think of itself as "A people covenanted with God...and those guys" probably wouldn't work. (August 28)

Jeff W. further reflects on the conversation so far:

There’s much talk at the moment about how covenants, sin, baptism, God, and other aspects of religion typically associated in the West with Christianity (especially, in this context, North American Puritan Protestant Christianity and its descendants) may or may not have an organic connection with Unitarian-Universalism. One argument says that these things are Christian, and UUism is not Christian, so UU use (and especially transformation or redefinition) of such things risks misappropriation. Another argument says that UUism is a direct descendant of Puritan Christianity and thus it legitimately “owns” these things, such that UUs are empowered to use them and to alter them as they see fit. ("Transient and Permanent," August 26)

"PolityWonk" places the discussion of covenant in the context of Unitarian and Universalist history.

Writers of the Cambridge Platform recognized the two different levels of passion about God. They acknowledged that some folks have more passionate needs for traditional Christian worship forms, while others mostly want a place to gather and talk about big subjects. In order for the two groups to coexist, they called for two different covenants within each parish: one for the society and one for the church.

That did not work in practice, and here's why. Living in an era of social control through official worship, they wanted to see everyone in the same services of worship at all times. They said it would be for mutual edification, but in practice, each covenant culture thought the other was attacking its fundamental definition of the sacred.

And here we go again... this time over the internet.

For most UUs, I would rather not get into the issue of two covenants. Rather, I would like us to reclaim the idea of separate worship services within a single congregation. ("PolityWonk," August 27)

Steven R. sums it up:

Living with people who arent the same as you, with different cultures, different classes, different races, different musical tastes, different theological orientation is not an easy task. One has to look at core values - one has also to want to live with the diversity. That's hard to do - it is possible. Many families now contain much diversity, from musical tastes onward. If a blood family can survive, so can a congregational family. It does take work; and to some, it might not be worth the work. Is there strength in our diversity? Do we have to always be right in everything to be loved? Can we put up with the folks in the next pew over? Time will tell. ("UU-ing: thoughts about being a Unitarian Universalist," August 27)

Edward M. Kennedy

Many, many UU bloggers posted about Senator Kennedy. You can find links to them using this search on UUpdates.net.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently voted to allow ordained ministers in committed same-sex relationships.

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner celebrates, but laments how the non-partnered are ignored.

We're celebrating with this step forward by the ELCA, which echoes the decisions made at the Episcopal General Convention earlier this summer. These votes are major steps toward recognizing the humanity of gay and lesbian persons in the life of the Protestant churches.

But, the emphasis on "committed, lifelong relationships" leaves out the single minister, the divorced minister, the widowed minister -- whether gay, straight, or bisexual -- who are held to a standard of celibacy unless their partner status changes. ("Sexuality and Religion: What's the Connection," August 24, followup post August 26)

Around the blogosphere

Jeff W. at "Transient and Permanent" asks, "What are the Most Liberal Denominations in North America?"

Of course, the answer is somewhat determined by how we choose to define “liberal.” So what do you think: which are the most liberal denominations in North America today? How do you come to that conclusion? ("Transient and Permanent," August 22)

Joel Monka fills out the story of President Woodrow Wilson, who was included in the murals of "liberal saints" in Chicago's Third Unitarian Church.

Liberals usually give two reasons for considering Wilson a saint- primarily for his League Of Nations, and secondarily for establishing the first federal income tax. How can I possibly dislike the man who showed such idealism in foreign policy, and gave us the mechanism to do a little social engineering and soak the evil rich? Easily... let's start with the fact that he was a virulent white supremacist that destroyed what progress we had made so far in race relations since the Civil War. ("CUUMBAYA," August 24)

Kari at "Chalice Spark" writes about the experience of being married to a trans-racially adopted partner. "It's been really hard having my whole immediate family in Asia. It scares me. I worry that they will all decide that having a white wife and a white mother does not support their identity as Asian and Hapa men." ("Chalice Spark," August 22)

The Rev. W. Frederick Wooden is "tending toward both long and short term pessimism" because of current U.S. political discourse.

More and more I see us heading toward our two preferred paths over time - denial and destruction. The former always leads to the latter. We denied the danger of slavery for a century, and it led the the destruction of the Civil War. We denied the cost of unregulated business for most of a century and it led to the Depression. We denied the lasting sin of racism for a century after the Civil War and it lead to the riots of the 1960s. ("Aside from the Obvious," August 23)

The Rev. Dan Harper asks "What do kids need to know about religion?" and has begun generating a list of specific things to be covered from ages 3 to 18. He is asking for comments, suggestions, corrections, and additions. ("Yet Another Unitarian Universalist," August 24)

Elizabeth J. Barrett wonders how many members are enough to make decisions.

At my huuge congregation of 1,565 members, a "quorum" is 50 -- as long as fifty members sign in at a Parish Meeting, all the decisions made are valid. Fifty has been the quorum for the last 60 years at least, while the congregation has grown steadily from 175 all the way up to 1500 adult book-signed members. ("ExUUberance," August 24)

Death panels, UU identity, and bad music in worship

Healthcare debates

The Rev. John A. Cullinan weighs in on "death panels" (caution, strong language).

Many in my vocation train for these sorts of moments working as hospital chaplains, standing in the cross-currents of love and death on a daily basis until our souls have been shattered into a billion little pieces and we’re left to construct something called a “pastor” out of the shards that we’re able to recover. I’ve seen bodies mangled and brains withered. I’ve stood at the sides of grieving families as they identified the bodies of lost loved ones. I’ve been in the room with people as they’ve drawn their last, rattling breath. This is all, of course, just a long and fancy way of saying that I and my colleagues know a little something about death, or at the very least living amongst the dying. . . .

I am a pastor. I am with people when they die. I am with people when they lay their dead to rest. It is my job to soak up the truth of our mortality, to be the shoulder that is cried on, to be the bringer of tissues, to be the clear eyes on chaotic waters. Every time you utter the phrase “death panels” you cheapen what I do. You cheapen the work of doctors and nurses and hospice workers and health care professionals of all stripes.

You cheapen the experience of everyone who has ever lived through the death of a loved one.

Know that when you utter the phrase, “death panel,” you are lying. You are a liar. I’m not going to equivocate on the point so you can feel better about yourself. The phrase “death panel” is not “controversial.” It’s not something “some people say.” It is not an equally weighted “side” in the debate. It is a lie. Do some basic homework before you speak in public. You are entitled to your informed opinion, but not to your own set of personal facts. I don’t let my twelve-year-old get away with that kind of crap, I’m certainly not going to put up with it from people supposedly older and wiser. I’ll respect my “elders” when they’ve earned it. ("Returning," August 17)

ChaliceChick posed a question about boycotting Whole Foods over a Wall Street Journal op-ed by its CEO, and the comments section took off with a debate about "death panels," Ezekiel Emanuel's academic writing, and Chicago-style politics. Oh, and a few responses to CC's question about boycotting Whole Foods. ("The Chaliceblog," August 17)

There's also spirited discussion at "CUUMBAYA" on a post about the healthcare debate.

There has been an endless stream of bloggery denouncing the anti-crowd for the tone of their rhetoric. President Morales sent out a letter about it, with some serious charges, like "We are witnessing cynical demagoguery that plays on fear in order to defend privilege". (At first I thought he was referring to Obama claiming your trusted family doctor would saw your feet off for profit if you showed a high fasting blood sugar, but evidently he meant something else) and "There is no place for intimidation in our public discussion." (And no, he didn't mean the White House requesting that you turn in the names of friends and relatives who say something "fishy" about healthcare in casual conversation). ("CUUMBAYA," August 17)

The Rev. Cynthia Landrum shares two personal healthcare stories.

I know my stories are not nearly as horrible as others out there. But having experienced these myself, it is clear to me that we are desperately in need of healthcare reform. I believe we need a "single-payer" system. I will settle for a strong "government option." But leaving it all to private insurances will leave us with a system as immoral and unethical as the one we have now. ("Rev. Cyn," August 20)

After news reports carried footage of Rep. Barney Frank responding to a question about the "Nazi" health plan by asking the questioner what planet she lived on, two blogging ministers weighed in. The Rev. Eric Walker Wikstrom "reposted that video when it showed up on my FaceBook wall and did so with glee. At last, I thought, someone talking some sense. But now I regret my response. I regret it because that woman—and the people who think as she does—is not as stupid as a dining room table." ("A Minister's Musings," August 20) The Rev. Victoria Weinstein, however, thought Frank did exactly the right thing:

When we take community time to indulge the complaints of hostile people who don’t even have basic facts right, it simply wastes the time of the majority who have come to learn or to accomplish something. Good leaders have a sense of when someone is genuinely confused or simply trying to hijack a group process. Bravo to Barney Frank for knowing, and acting on, his instinct that this woman was in the latter category. ("Peacebang," August 20, and continued on August 21)

Considering the nature of Unitarian Universalism

Thomas R. Beall writes about his passion for justice and the place of social action in Unitarian Universalism.

It is easy to get angry these days. Those who dream of the Beloved Community on Earth see its realization a long way off. In the United States, since September 2001, we have witnessed great injustice. In our foreign affairs we have witnessed machismo trumping statesmanship; leading to unjust war, “shock and awe” bombing of hapless civilians, torture of war detainees, and many other injustices. In our domestic affairs, we have seen how a conservative, wealthy, mostly white minority uses its wealth and power to subvert our political system to enrich itself and serve its own ends while practicing demagoguery; appealing to religious zealotry, nativism, race hatred, and fear to sustain massive distributive injustice. Perhaps most disheartening, because of widespread complacency, injustice is thriving and, despite the good works and good intentions of many, its march in our society proceeds unimpeded.

Like many religious liberals, I have experienced this anger but I have come to understand how such anger can consume one, damaging relationships and diminishing one’s quality of life. ("Living the Prophetic Imperative," August 17)

Kim Hampton continues her questions about what UU identity is, especially as it relates to seminaries. Again, the comments have substance. ("East of Midnight," August 18) Paul Kent Oakley takes up her question with a summary of some of the comments, asking "Is it possible to answer Kim's question in a meaningful way?" ("Inner Light, Radiant Life," August 20) Hampton then returns again to the subject:

I’ve heard the term “UU identity” for a while now. The reason I asked the question about exactly what IS “UU identity” is because I have a very bad feeling that the term is used as a code to talk about who is “one of us” and who is “not one of us.” ("East of Midnight," August 20)

"A Honey-Dipped Gnome for Eris" responds point-by-point to a 2004 sermon by the Rev. Davidson Loehr, "Why Unitarian Universalism Is Dying."

Let's say that, for the purpose of this discussion, Unitarian Universalism is dying. I'm not at all convinced that we can lay the blame for the alleged death of the UUA where Rev. Loehr says we can. Mostly, I'm not convinced that these things are to blame because I'm not convinced they're true, or at least not true across the board. ("Chalice Circle," August 21)

Around the blogosphere

The Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell shares a personal story with an important point: "Depression is a disease, and it is too often a fatal one. We need to understand it as such and do all we can to help those sufferers heal." ("Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell," August 21)

Lizard Eater tells why she says "Happy Sabbath" on her Facebook page:

I need a day. We need a day. Focus. On. What’s. Important. Life moves so fast … slow down, for a second please. Open my eyes. See it, as it’s happening. Turn off the tv, the busy work. Stop. Breathe. Make time for what is important. ("The Journey," August 15)

Jeff W. muses on the quality of music in UU services:

After basting silently in an intellectual atmosphere for most of a UU service, it may be hard for people to suddenly shift gears into a few minutes of emotive singing. If that is the case, then greater attention to emotional balance throughout the service would likely yield greater singing. The point here is not just to make UU singing sound aesthetically pleasing, but to make it more effective (for instance, as an emotional expression) by making it more natural and comfortable. The emotion many get out of current UU singing seems to be embarrassment, which is certainly not the intention. ("Transient and Permanent," August 16)