Skip to main content

Latest from Bill

While I was writing the last post I was listening to the latest sermon from Bill Darlison. Much worth chewing on as usual. How about this definition of Unitarianism:

"Liberal in politics;
Humanist in philosophy;
Anti-metaphysical;
Materialist;
Agnostic with regard to God and life after death."

Discuss...?

Now I think about it, it seems familiar, is that from somewhere?

And here's another one:

"The only scholars we have are historians."

There's a very perceptive observation. Very important thing to note, and to be concerned about.

Comments

Robin Edgar said…
:Liberal in politics

This pretty much confirms my comparatively recent epiphany that contemporary U*Uism is not so much a "liberal religion" as a "religions" for "liberals". . .

:Humanist in philosophy

This is certainly true of 20th century Unitarianism but may prove to be less true of 21st century U*Uism.


:Anti-metaphysical

Try on anti-religious. . .

:Materialist

Yup. Those who have the gold make the rules in contemporary U*Uism. . .

:Agnostic with regard to God and life after death

How about antagonistic with regard to God? This is certainly true of the Atheist Supremacist faction of "Humanist" U*Us.
Anonymous said…
I've just had a listen to Bill Darlison's sermon. A few thoughts:

1. "The only scholars we have are historians"

Is this entirely true? What about "Faith and Freedom"? I grew up in the United Reformed Church, which has no distinct scholarly community or journal attached to it; historical, theological or otherwise. This has impacted severely on the URC's identity and direction and has consequently created a lot of problems for its present and long term future.

By contrast, I reckon most Unitarians could name at least a few famous Unitarians from its history (Gaskell, Dickens, Darwin, etc). Most URC members, however, have no idea about any historically significant people from its present or parent churches' history (except perhaps Patricia Routledge!).

2. "Unwritten Orthodoxies". I think it's a widespread phenomenon where initially radical/dissenting movements become normalised and "settle down", even becoming stagnant or conservative. It can be seen in political movements, like Green Parties in many European countries, 20th century Communism, or nationalist parties like Ireland's Fianna Fáil.

Religious movements, like the Quakers and Mormonism, started out as radical movements subject to persecution, but latterly, while not quite mainstream, have established internal norms and practices, have a membership broadly assimilated in society, and a more conventional social agenda (yet differing tremendously between those two groups). Perhaps society has moved to accommodate these groups, the groups have set the agenda for society, or the groups have moved more towards society's norms. I think the reality contains bits of all three, with more of the latter.

I don't think the Unitarian movement in the UK should kick itself too much for having not been immune to this trend of establishing an "unwritten orthodoxy". Yet perhaps now that it's been said, and if Unitarians have an awareness of their history deeper than famous members, then something can be done to reinvigorate some of that "old" radicalism. How that'll be expressed is another debate entirely, and I've typed more than enough.

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

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