Skip to main content

Called Out



My experiences and musings recently have caused me to think about what my religious community really is - in theology-speak - ecclesiology: the study of 'church.'

In an evangelical Christian understanding the community is united by faith in Jesus: and a particular understanding of what that means.

In our Unitarian communiy I believe we understand the Divine Mystery as infinitely complex, and can choose to follow whatever spiritual teacher speaks to our condition. Rabbi Jesus remains my primary teacher, but this is not true for all of my fellow Unitarians.

So what unites us? What defines our community? What makes our gatherings of conversation and prayer unique?

The problem can be that very little unites us. Very little call us out to be different from the surrounding society. Often we can be a mirror, or microcosm, of the surrounding world. We are no different from the world outside. There are advantages to this. We are not limited to a conservative agenda tying us to the past, so can keep up with the changes in the relationship between women and men, and understandings of sexuality, and experience of religious diversity. But there are also big disadvantages.

Can you run a church the same way you run a society? I ask the question, because this is what I see happening. We use words like 'freedom' and 'tolerance' but can these things mean the same thing is greater society that they do in a church?

In society I am prepared to tolerate offensive opinions. I am prepared to tolerare racist and sexist opinions in the sense that I don't think people should be arrested, removed from society, just for having those opinions. We should try to convert them, but if we cannot, they should not be removed from our secular society.

But in religious community I think we are called to a higher standard. I think we are called to be more accountable to the damage we do to each other. That is what community means. If someone expresses offensive or hurtful opinions in church then they can expect to be called to account for those opinions, and ultimately I believe could be asked to leave if they are doing real harm to our community. In church our freedom is much more moderated by our responsibilities and our dedication to tolerance is moderated by our dedication to love.

I am beginning to run out of patience with the argument that our Unitarian community's dedication to tolerance means that we have to tolerate expressions of opinions that are deeply out of step with our community testimony. We do not. We must call people to be responsible for words they use that are dangerous and hurtful. This is difficult, very difficult. But we need to do it, with as much love as possible.

If our faith community stands for something, if it exists at all, it must representing a call to a deeper, more loving, more chanllenging way of life. We are called to love each other, and we are called to be accountable, and we are called to listen to the witness of the community. I have no patience with Unitarians being rude to each other, arguing in the letters pages of the Inquirer. We are called to be better than that.

Our lives must preacher louder than our lips.

Whether we like the words 'God' or 'Christian' or not is entirely irrelevant if we do not love each other.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It is all well and good promoting freedom and tolerance but as you say, there is a limit.

However, when defining that limit, the power will lie ultimately with those who are offended and those with the position to do something about it.
Bill Baar said…
Can you give some examples?

Of what should be called out?
Anonymous said…
Satanism? Fascism?

Not these even exist within Unitarianism.

Liberal ramblings?
PeaceBang said…
I'll answer for myself, in case Stephen doesn't want to. Some things that should be "called out" in our congregations: Catholic-bashing, smug self-righteousness and claims of uniqueness that are based in ignorance and willfull misunderstanding of other religious traditions, sexism, backstabbing, snide, half-veiled homophobia, nasty politics and dirty play around money and church assets, unkind, voiced assumptions about people's motives... are you all telling me that the only thing way for a Unitarian to sin is to dabble in SATANISM or FASCISM? You don't think we have our own liberal fundamentalism and fanaticism? And other besetting sins?
PeaceBang said…
Stephen, I also wanted to mention that I've been working on a sermon about Love as a primary value even over Freedom, and you've helped me shape my thoughts. Thanks.
Robin Edgar said…
Well said Stephen.

Needless to say I concur. . .

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th