I'm back

As you probably figured out, I've been taking a sabbatical from UU, both church and blogging. After all I'd been through in two different congregations, I needed time to get back to my spiritual roots. While I'm not ready to commit to another congregation, I am ready to pick up the pen again, and talk about the things I get from UU- even if only from a distance, for the nonce- and my life.

I thought I'd begin my return by bringing your attention to a blog post that made me laugh because it reflected perfectly how intertwined the two major influences in my spiritual life are. Though written by a Pagan, any UU will recognize the writer's dilemma- the difficulty devising an "elevator speech". He comes up with an elegant solution he calls The pagan sensibility "Not a statement of the True Pagan Nature or an explanation of the Pagan community, but a description of what kind of thought and action makes things pagan flavored. I think that one can describe that briefly and clearly, including everything one wants while excluding everything one doesn't.

The pagan sensibility sees the divine in the material world ... and so regards the human as sacred. 

The pagan sensibility apprehends the Cosmos as composed of a multiplicity of different interconnected forces ... and honors all of those forces." 

This naturally got me thinking... is there a UU sensibility? If so, how would you describe it?

Of Deepities, the Gambler, and UU

Deepity is a term coined by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference. It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless. I had that experience, with no word to attach to it, when Kenny Rogers had a monster hit with “The Gambler”. Here are the words that drove people to tears, and a series of movies:

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em

Know when to walk away and know when to run

You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done

Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin'

Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep

'Cause every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser

And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep

And when he finished speakin', he turned back towards the window

Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep

And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even

But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep

I remember wondering if I was the only person in the whole country who realized that the Gambler had not said a damn thing for all his profound sounding words... Well, duh, HOW do I know when to hold them? What are the indicators that I should fold instead? What tells me that this card should be kept, and that one thrown away? Is there a formula for knowing whether to stand pat or run? For all those deep, profound words, there wasn’t a bit of practical advice I could actually USE- no ace to keep. I was reminded of that irritation when listening to Colleen Kessler - What do Unitarian Universalists Believe? Can anyone point to an ace worth keeping in all of that?

Church as school

In her most recent post, Kim Hampton asks Are we afraid of religion? Her thoughts had been inspired by this quote from the GA-listserve: "Advocacy has always been..and will always be…at the core of UU…", and she asks, "Really? ADVOCACY has been, and always will be, at the core of UUism? Really?" I know that many UUs believe it to be. Indeed, if you read the comments to The UUA Presidential Election and The Point of Our Faith at Elizabeth's Little Blog, you'll see that there are people who get incensed at the very idea that anything else could be at the core of our religion.

I was thinking of this when I read the following passage from a story by Neil Gaiman:
Rose Walker's Journal:
I've been making a list of things they don't teach you at school.
They don't teach you how to love somebody.
They don't teach you how to be famous.
They don't teach you how to be rich, or how to be poor.
They don't teach you how to walk away from someone you don't love any longer.
They don't teach you how to know what's going on in someone else's mind.
They don't teach you what to say to someone who's dying.
They don't teach you anything worth knowing.

It struck me hard, because I had made the same list myself many, many years ago. Not in exact detail- for example I did not yet need to know what to say to someone who's dying; at that age, I was more concerned with questions like "How do I accept the responsibility for my actions without being paralyzed by fear of consequences". But the spirit of the list, including the fact that I actually wrote it down, was the same. And I knew, even at that age, that this was the purpose of religion: public schools are the schools where you learn what you need to know to earn a living; churches are the schools where you learn what you need to know to live. And I knew, even then, that the lessons that are the most important are on how to live- Simon and Garfunkel taught me that.

What I didn't know then was that there were two philosophies of religion, just as there are of schools: one teaches you answers, and the other teaches you how to find answers. Religions such as Christianity and Islam are of the first sort; UU and a number of Pagan religions are of the second sort. Or at least that's what I had thought when I first discovered, in order, Paganism and UU. But as I got to know more people in my congregation, and then people from other congregations through travel and the internet, I learned that there was a third school of thought: church was where you went to learn the status of House Joint Resolution 234, and who the committee chair overseeing it was.

I agree with Kim; I hope that the core of our church is not that third sort, "Cuz if it is…friends…we are dead." Not merely because we're not really very good at it, (though as she says, and I have written many times, we're not) but because we'll have forsaken what religion and only religion can do- help us learn how to live. There are a hundred places where one can learn about community organizing, but only one school where you can learn the things on that list- church. And if we aren't there to provide the Montessori school of religion, then where is one to go if the fixed set of answers school of religion doesn't satisfy one's soul? Do we really want a country in which the only school offering the lessons of life is the Religious right? I think that being an alternative religion is the ultimate social service we can perform.

On the UUAWO and staff cuts

Scott at "Boys in the Bands" has two posts on the announced staff cuts at UUA HQ, Bad day for the UUA, and Thinking about the UUA staff cuts, and we had this exchange of comments: "Joel Monka wrote: Why “oh crap?” I was calling for the elimination of the UUAWO years ago, before the fiscal crisis. Scott Wells wrote: And you were wrong. But more about that later."

I think from the second post that he may have misunderstood the nature of my disagreement with the UUAWO. My argument is neither from political policy reasons nor from polity reasons- nor is it anti-democratic. My primary complaint is that the UUAWO, and our other social justice organizations, for that matter, often do not take their stands strictly on principle but on political expediency. For example, does anyone remember this UUAWO mass emailing?

"JOIN US TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER! MONDAY MAY 23 4:15 PMEMERGENCY RALLY AT ‘SENATE SWAMP’ (corner of Constitution & Delaware Aves, near the Russell Senate Bldg) AND TUESDAY MAY 24 7 - 9 AM INTERFAITH SPEAK OUT ON SUPREME COURT STEPS
For information on the “nuclear option” and judges, including UUA letters of opposition, Visit www.uua.org.
WHY NOW??
With a vote expected on the “nuclear option” on Tuesday afternoon, religious people committed to protecting the rights of the minority to speak on issues that effect all Americans, must publicly stand for pluralism and democracy. We are committed to a pluralistic society with respect for the beliefs and rights of all people. Our Unitarian Universalist faith guides us on a path of affirmation of difference and preservation of the democratic process.
WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
“To claim that minority-party senators and their supporters are acting ‘against people of faith’ because they wish to preserve the Senate filibuster is an affront to millions of devout Americans."— Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association"

That was five years ago- fast forward to today: the president is calling for majority leadership in the Senate to abuse the budget reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster, and Senators Begich (AK); Bingaman (NM); Brown (OH); Durbin (IL); Harkin (IA); Johnson (SD); Kerry (MA); Lautenberg (NJ); Lieberman (CT); Shaheen (NH); Udall (NM) and Rep. Jim McDermott have all introduced or cosigned legislation to eliminate the filibuster. Where's our outrage now? Where's our "Save the Filibuster" campaign? If the filibuster is that central to democracy, don't we believe in democracy anymore? The answer, of course, is that then it was a Republican majority and we disapproved of what they were doing; today it is a Democratic majority, and we approve of Democratic Party policies. It was never about the filibuster per se, nor our democratic principles; our outrage was cynical political manipulation then, and our silence is cynical now.*

But my objections to the UUAWO go beyond the fact that they make us appear to be not an independent church, but merely the Democratic Party's chaplain office. They are a complete waste of resources. And no, Scott, I am not whingeing about how expensive the UUA is to run, and I agree that if anything, most are underpaid. Nor do I wish people who have served loyally to be tossed out in the streets- they are capable people who could do useful work elsewhere in the UUA. My point is that even if I agreed with the general principle of church as lobbyist**, our efforts are so ineffectual as to be a waste of resources. There's no reason to believe that our efforts have ever changed a single vote in Congress. There's more evidence for the existence of God than for "...the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration."*** Even if a lawmaker has ever heard of us- by no means a guarantee- he's unlikely to be impressed by our efforts. In fact, the more he knows about us, the less likely he is to be impressed by our efforts.

Why should he or she be impressed? Our vast numbers? If every UU in the entire US moved to a single congressional district, they would still only represent one quarter of the vote for that one Congressman! Because of our famous independent streak? If they know anything about us at all, they know there's nothing whatsoever that would make the average UU vote for a Republican; if there's a Democratic candidate so bad a UU could no longer hold his nose to vote- and I've never heard of one- the most that UU would do is stay home. Because having a church behind him is good cover? The only reason a Congressman would need a church endorsement is if he's taking heat from the religious right, in which case our endorsement would do more harm than good- the religious right does know us, and doesn't like us; I know Southern Baptists who would grant more grudging respect to The Covenant of the Goddess than to us. Because of our unflinching realism in facing human rights issues? After the former president of our association said, “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.”?

The only kind of advocacy office that would be truly effective is one that serves as a resource, guiding members to organizations in their neighborhoods that can actually do something; a dollar given to an organization with a real voice and presence is worth a thousand dollars given to a group no one has ever heard of. And isn't that what the UUA is supposed to be- a resource to help the member congregations be more effective? Sure, it's an ego boost to have an official "UUA Committee to XYZ", but isn't actually accomplishing something more important than feeling good about being enlightened? I say, when it comes to "... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration.", leave it to the pros, and let the UUA Advocacy offices be our guides to these pros instead. Stop compromising our principles to no effect, put the members of the UUAWO into positions where they can use their time and expertise assisting the congregations, (you know, the raison d'etre of the UUA) and use the money saved in these lean times to make UU a religion that new people will want to join, and current members will want to stick with. Perhaps if we do that, we will grow to the point where we have the numbers and influence to make a Washington office worthwhile. (though I would still have philosophical problems with it)
　
*And before you say "You're a conservative and are just against our positions", I want to point out that the filibuster issue I mention above was over the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge. I am on record, in writing, that my position is that elections matter, and that the President gets whoever he (or she, hope springs eternal) wants, barring an objection high enough that it would cause impeachment if it were found after confirmation- I supported both Alito and Sotomayor on those grounds. I stood by my principles through Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, even when it meant backing someone I didn't like. I will further point out that Senator Byrd- hardly a right winger- opposes the plan to eliminate the filibuster; he is being consistent with his positions. The UUAWO cannot say the same thing. So much for democratic principles.

**I am firmly against the role of church-as-lobbyist. The first reason is that corruption is a two way street; many who think they've bought a politician find that they have too much invested in said politician to walk away from him when they disagree. Then the rationalizing starts- "hold your nose and vote for him because at least he's good on the important issues"... then "Hold your nose and vote for him because even though he can't be counted on, at least he keeps the Democratic majority"... then you realize you sold your soul and didn't even get your payment for it.

The second reason is more philosophical. There are two types of things lobbyist fight for- the first is to get an obscure, less than obvious problem that is nonetheless vitally important to those affected looked at by Congress. Perhaps it's florists wanting a two week quarantine on man eating orchids because they might carry a blight of some kind. This is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers were thinking of when they put the right to petition in the first amendment. I'm all for that kind of lobbyist- but that's not us. The other kind of lobbyist is fighting a social issue of some kind that he cannot get the general public to support- these range from prohibition to abortion to sexual issues. This sort of activist/lobbyist has discovered that you don't have to sway 150 million people to get your way- you only have to sway the right 268 Congressmen and Senators. Then the government will do your convincing for you, and use tax dollars to do it- it's the modern version of converting the king to your church, then gaining the whole country as converts. And it's so easy to rationalize... this is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (tm)- that gives us the right to sneer at those we disagree with, and cram our position down their throats by government fiat rather than listening to them, addressing their fears, and convincing them.

***from the Draft Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking

Of themes and theology

Some themes in our lives will never go away until they're addressed- and this principle applies as much to organizations as individuals. Without anyone trying to guide the discussions, these themes will surface on their own, as Doug Muder noted in his UU World article, Message or culture? "Every year, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s General Assembly takes on some unannounced theme. Or at least I think it does. Maybe it’s just my mind’s unconscious habit of imposing order on the buzzing, blooming confusion of it all. But each year the talks I go to, the people I run into, the random blips of conversation I overhear all seem to point to some idea or issue or question that I didn’t think I was thinking about when I got there.
This year, it all seemed to point to this: At its core, what is Unitarian Universalism really about? Do we have a message we are trying to bring to the world? Or do we have a culture we are trying to preserve against extinction?" These questions are asked by Davidson Loehr's Why ‘Unitarian Universalism’ is Dying , which despite being five years old was invoked this week by Plastic Manzikert and Chalice Circle Other blogs have recently touched on similar, some more, some less directly. Like GA, the blogosphere also takes on themes, and it's hardly surprising if it's the same one.

The reason this question, also sometimes stated as "Is there a UU theology?", keeps recurring is because there has not been, to date, any answer. Or, there have been a thousand answers- one was presented in "UU University" at GA- and that's not much help; as Harry Nilsson noted, "A point in every direction is as good as having no point at all." The reason it is so difficult to develop a UU theology is that it must fit within our proud claim of being a creedless religion, a religion based on reason. We can have values, we can have principles, but we cannot have creeds.

But this claim is nonsense; it is not possible. One cannot have values without creeds, because values are not facts, they are subjective judgments that can be asserted but not proven. You can do without gods if you must, but you cannot do without beliefs. Reason, rationality, and logical syllogisms all start with a premise... and when you're dealing with the human equation, those premises are beliefs. Even the simplest "greatest good" argument stems from the belief that a great many people you don't even know being happy is "better" somehow than just you personally being happy. Try proving that to someone who doesn't already believe it. You cannot form values without beliefs; how, then, can you have shared values without shared beliefs? How, then, can you claim to be creedless if you claim shared values?

Now, regular readers will know I'm not a big fan of Rev Loehr, but he did capture this central problem. "It was time to ask hard religious questions, like ” What’s worth believing?’ ” Are there profound truths about life that make demands on people of character whether we like it or not?’ ” What beliefs can be used to fashion admirable people?” and so on. In a sentence, the question was “Are there deep and abiding truths capable of sustaining honest spiritual quests without supernatural underpinnings?"... The lack of anything worth believing was a religious crisis, which should have called for religious solutions. The mid-20th century was a time for religious liberals to claim the tradition of liberal religion – a tradition that can be traced in broad strokes back 2500 years – and educate themselves to be its new voice. It was a time to seek the legitimate heir to the form of liberal religion their parents and grandparents had inherited.
But none of this happened..."

It's easy to see why none of this happened; creeds and beliefs are things those awful fundamentalists have, so we weren't having any! Like many of the current crop of religious critics, we had fallen for the classic fallacy: we let them define our terms. For religious conservatives, the word "belief" is a prefix for "in God", and the word "God" means "the God of Abraham, as modified by John to be a triune being". Accepting their definitions, a majority of UUs figured that since they didn't buy someone who was both fully human and fully divine, and damned people for eternity, there were no gods. Since they didn't have gods, by the definition they accepted they didn't have beliefs. No beliefs, obviously no creeds. (besides, weren't creeds those things that got people burned at the stake?) We claimed to be a creedless religion. But since a creedless religion- or indeed any creedless organization- is impossible, (even a flash mob has a creed-"this is worth doing"), we were trying to live a paradox. No wonder we never developed a UU theology, despite having five decades to work on it- Hell, we haven't even come up with a decent elevator speech!

I think we should undertake the quest described by Davidson Loehr above. Not because Unitarian Universalism is dying; it isn't. As I wrote back in April, UU is a niche product ; there will always be a market for us. No, we should do it because it would be the intellectually honest thing to do. We should do it because it is a worthwhile project that would benefit all humankind- indeed, it may be the greatest service we are capable of rendering. We should do it because we are uniquely suited to the task- "because I'm the only one who can" is too noble a reason to be left only to comic book superheroes. And lastly, we should do it because it would give shape and direction to Unitarian Universalism. Yes, the UUA will continue regardless- mere inertia and endowments will see to that- but this will provide a reason for continuing.