Comments on: liberal v conservative religious

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:13:38 +0000

I was going to a UU church for a while, partly motivated by disenchantment with churches that weren’t open to worshiping with people that didn’t believe the same core beliefs. I had come to doubt a great many things, but, for lack of a better turn of phrase, I still wanted a place to encounter the Spirit (under whatever name people chose to call it) without the doctrinal trappings.

One thing that stood out to me at the UU was that there was a similar thing going on – only the core beliefs that I felt I needed to have to “belong” were those of the political Left. I have more affinity for the Libertarian party than the Republican party, but there was more left-wing ideology at the UU than there was right-wing ideology at the evangelical church. And there was a negative attitude toward religion that revolves around a personal experience with “the God of the Bible.” The minister even had a sermon in which she discussed this as a problem confronting the UU churches at large: people too conservative or evangelical feeling unwelcome.

The other thing is that there wasn’t really an openness to a shared religious experience. It was more of a nice comfortable meeting for people with similar cultural values. The spiritual journey was mainly activist where it wasn’t internalized. I suspect that the uproar Rev. Sinkford’s “vocabulary of reverence” has a lot to do with this. If the forum has to be neutral enough for atheists, maybe there is simply no room for a Holy Spirit by any name. But inviting a shared presence is not just a thing for Bible-belters. As an aside, the churches that are most open to these shared experiences (charismatic/pentecostal) have a long history of multi-racial membership. I was struck by the fact that, in spite of preaching diversity, I saw little racial diversity at the UU church — which I think has a lot do with their idea of worship. It seemed like a people united by social values rather than a shared attitude of seeking.

This isn’t just a “UU thing”, but it seemed more pronounced at the UU church. I don’t think that the UU church is wrong simply because I didn’t fit in there. I think the UU association tries a little too hard to have something for everyone as it is. But I also see it as ignoring an enormous part of religious experience.

What I’m trying to get at here is that I don’t believe in closed revelation. If one takes the Book of Acts as a serious (if inaccurate) account of the effect of Jesus’ teaching, I don’t see how that is tenable. Peter’s vision on the rooftop runs counter to that claim. There are a lot of things in the Biblical canon that defy rationales for a coherent view of an unchanging God. Such rationales become a defense mechanism for holding on to an “inerrant” guide to truth. And I think such rationalization does lend itself to rationales for various status quos, just or unjust.

Outside of the churches that protect themselves from “progressiveness” eroding their religious culture, where are the churches where heretics (like myself?) can seek the Transcendent regardless of our political affinities, and where the Transcendent is allowed to be personal and (God forbid) supernatural? Is that “variety of religious experience” only to be experienced by “Bible-thumpers”?

By: serenityhome

serenityhome — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:47:51 +0000

Bill: There is a group that could possibly fit your definition, perhaps not as far back as Arian heresy but a group that is seeking to promote Unitarian Christianity as it was known in the 19th century. Here is their website: http://www.americanunitarian.org/AUCChristian.htm

By: Bill Riggs

Bill Riggs — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:35:34 +0000

I have a perhaps stupid question to ask. It has two immediate sources, but I have considered it off and on for some time now. I am a conservative Episcopalian aligned with the American Anglican Council, but has yet to secede from that denomination. I am working through the recent reprint of Rauschenbush as well as Gustav Niebuhr’s “Beyond Tolerance” and am doing a side project researching the signatories of the SIECUS statement that Deborah Haffner sponsored just before she left that organization and became a Unitarian minister.
So here is the dumb question – is there anyone in the UU Church that is actively seeking to revisit the movements initial tradition – which in the beginning seems to have been little more than a revival of the Arian heresy. As an outsider, I look at the polyglot syncretism and liberal civic religion that dominates the UU denomination these days, and have to wonder if there are in fact any (ironically stated) “paleo-orthodox” tendencies, which have asserted themselves as a kind of counterrevolutionary force in almost every mainline Protestant denomination. This is not, in fact, a form of fundamentalism, although liberals tend to mislabel it as such.

Just wondering.

Bill Riggs
Fredericksburg, VA

By: J. Farley

J. Farley — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:13:24 +0000

One more thing…I should also explain further what I mean by “defense of the status quo”. It does not mean absolutely no change because sometimes change is forced upon conservatives. In that instance, conservatives will advocate the most moderate amount of change possible. Sometimes conservatives do proactively advocate change, but it is often change to take things back to the way they use to be (i.e., let’s go back to the 1950s).

Who knows? I could be completely wrong however:)

By: J. Farley

J. Farley — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:46:40 +0000

Serenityhome- perhaps you are trying too hard to find a perfect definition. Remember that when dealing with humans and human institutions, you will always find inconsistancies. So, while Unitarian Universalism is generally theologically liberal, there can be elements within the denomination that are more conservative. Just as you will find liberal elements within a generally conservative evangelical Protestant denomination…like the organization Evangelicals for Social Action.

I would also argue that each aspect of a denomination can be more or less liberal or conservative. Politically it might be liberal; theologically it might be conservative; organizationally it might be liberal; socially conservative; yet liberal in how it chooses to worship. So I can see how it would be difficult to assign a single label to an entire denomination without first determining what aspect of the denomination you are trying to characterize.

By: serenityhome

serenityhome — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:34:19 +0000

Yes, I agree that there are other denominations and religions that would fit a liberal religion definition. I am not sure that your definition applies well to religion however. I know too many Unitarian Universalist congregations who do not accept change too willingly. The ol’ argument that ‘we have never done it that way before so why should we try to now.’ comes to mind. And I know of too many Conservative congregations that have been on the forefront of the most innovative worship and structural styles that we have seen in recent decades, they certainly are not defending the status quo.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition pertaining to Religion: “A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.” While this pertains to a specific time period the specific groups you mention certainly fit under the second part of this definition as well as Unitarian Universalists.
Blessings,

By: J. Farley

J. Farley — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:39:38 +0000

Generally, I think “liberalism” in any sense means “willing to accept change”. So, religious liberals are willing to accept change in historical religious thoughts and practices. “Conservatism” means “defending the status quo”. So, religious conservatives accept the old ideas, beliefs and structures of their religious tradition.

Using these definitions, I would include UCC, the Episcopal Church and some other denominations in my definition of “liberal religion”. There are some denominations that are more liberal than others (UUs) but Unitarian Universalism is not the only liberal religion or denomination.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:41:58 +0000

Here are the words of Ayatollah Borujerdi when arrested in Iran. They're very UU like yet you wouldn't hear Rev Sinkford raise a word in a fellow Cleric's behalf. It's a huge shame we let this slide simply because of our own politics at home I fear. …Tell the world that Boroujerdi did not fear death…. He defended an Islam which promotes love and kindness not the Islam that these lot advocate which has brought poverty, corruption, prostitution, addiction ….I don’t want you to risk your lives for me, I just want you to tell the world what happened here,. Ours is a pretty narrow sort of Liberalism if we can't show solidarity with a noble man like Boroujerdi. And we as a Church don't. Maybe we ought reconsider our Liberalism.

By: serenityhome

serenityhome — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:37:46 +0000

I wouldn’t say that liberal Islam “receives little acknowledgement from any UU’s.” On the contrary when the media portrays Islam as only being about restrictive dress and behavior codes and violent jihads; UU’s have been very vocal in pointing out that this is an extreme conservative approach to Islam. Not all Muslims interpret Islam in this manner. There have also been some wonderful coalitions forming in the States between UU congregations and Islamic centers.

Yet, when I look for Liberal Religion as a category with many subsets, I don’t find many references beyond Unitarian Universalism.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:11:15 +0000

I follow Liberal Islam do the extent there is one. It’s small and receives little acknowledgement from any UUs.

Liberal Religion is basically us.