Skip to main content

"Churchmanship" labels

Strange old word "churchmanship" isn't it? What about "churchwomanship"? It's kind of one of those quaint Anglican things. In Unitarian circles, one is much more likely to ask about someone's "theology." I suppose this is because there is more theological diversity. But I think a humanist or a theist could still have the same "churchpersonship" - with Unitarians its probably low-church-long-sermon-hymn-sandwich churchpersonship. In some ways I'd see my instincts as an emergent churchperson to be much more important than a purely intellectual humanist-theist identity. Anyway, with the prospect of going forward for ordination I expect I might be asked about these things, so I thought I would write a little about them.

I like to play with labels. I find labelling can be very empowering. Unitarians are all about reclaiming words nowadays, so here goes.

I am:
UNITARIAN: human nature is a location of divinity and religious truth
CHRISTIAN: following Jesus of Nazareth
CATHOLIC: affirming reverence, ritual and tradition in the spirit of Taizé
EMERGENT: believing in the reforming of the church to be missional, experimental, purposeful and relevant to today’s culture
LIBERAL: affirming reason and open free debate, generous and open to others
LIBERATIONIST: affirming faith is manifest in economic and political ways – particular working for the liberation of those oppressed by our society: women, the poor, non-Europeans and queers
UNIVERSALIST: God is love, and God's love, action and revelation extents to all people, everywhere
EVANGELICAL proclaiming and living my faith unashamedly and enthusiastically
TRANSCENDENTALIST: valuing nature, beauty and intuition
QUAKER: valuing spirituality, peace, simplicity, silence
CHARISMATIC/PENTECOSTAL: powerful, energetic, free spirituality
MISSIONAL: the church is open, welcoming and purposeful
RADICAL TRADITIONALIST: rooted in our founders, radical in the application of their truth to our times.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Fine. It may be OK to play with labels, but please try to remain sensitive to the fact that some of these words belong to organisations that have very long histories and are still very live and active within these historical contexts.

They cannot just be reclaimed or appropriated by anyone who decides to come along and dust them down and use them outside these contexts.

Some of these words are associated with hierarchies, doctrines, dogmas and attitudes that have been and still ARE profoundly oppressive towards many groups of people.
12:03 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...
4 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more