American Unitarian Conference Forum

I wrote a piece the other day on a point that has been of interest to me. I have long noticed that many religious liberals insist on staying within the boundaries of traditional religion. This is a problem that I have long perceived among figures such as John Shelby Spong and much of the progressive Christian movement: Attempting to fit new wine in the old wineskins so to speak. It is at times almost comical to watch. I recently attended the national Call-to-Action conference (well last November, not exactly 'recently'), which is a "progressive Catholic" gathering. It was amusing to watch this group of people who have veered so far to left field the majority of the leaders are not even recognizable as Catholics.

I've never understood the desire of many to remain in the boundaries of the institutional churches. If you believe differently-I believe it would be healthier to leave and practice under a new name. After all traditional churches have no obligation to honor dissent that goes against their orthodox beliefs. Us heretics are free to leave.

Here is the post...

No Shame in this Heretic

Recently I was scanning blogs and was reading the debates between Chris (http://grkndeacon.blogspot.com/) and John (http://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/). While my own theological beliefs are far, far closer to those of John, I found myself surprisingly in agreement with Chris at a certain point: The relationship between heretics and the institutional "mother church". To briefly recap the matter at hand, Chris and John are both ordained in the Presbyterian Church but John is a progressive Christian who has, shall we say, "pushed the boundaries" a bit. OK, so a lot of his ideas are way out in left field. In some ways he reminds me of Father Jim Callan, albeit with a somewhat more well formed theology (Father Jim has admitted that he is "A pastor, not a theologian"). Chris, a classical Presbyterian, is considerably distressed by the fact that the institution of the church has stood by idly, while this heresy is preached from the pulpit.

I can relate a bit to this from a recent conversation I had with Reverend Mary. Mary and I were discussing the recent Call-to-Action conference and how many of the Catholics at this event were desperate to retain their Catholic label even though very little of the event was anything close to traditional Catholic (some of it veered too far to the left even for me). Mary commented that she didn't understand the desperation of some people to retain the Catholic label. "After all", she said, "once you stand up you become a schismatic. There's no way around it". It was this that led Mary to disassociate herself with the RCC and instead join up with the ECC (Ecumenical Catholic Communion). Father Jim, by contrast, has not.

To some degree I would have to agree with Chris's sentiments. I am a heretic-I make no bones about it. I am not anti-orthodoxy, contrary to how I may often appear. Nor am I anti conservative Christian. I believe that there is great truth in orthodoxy and that it grasped many things right. I also believe that most conservative Christians are good, loving people and that many, if not most, of their values are good. However I believe that orthodoxy has a tendency to become narrowing, to put a box on that which you cannot box up, and adopts various theological doctrines that simply seem too limiting. The Trinity is one for me-I believe that it grasped the fact that God is revealed in many different ways, but went too far (for me) when it insisted that God is ONLY this, this and this-that this understanding is "Absolute Truth", that it is critical to believe in this. Likewise I have issues with the Atonement, Incarnation and (to some extent) the Resurrection. I am iffy on issues of metaphysical speculation on the nature of Christ's divinity (make no mistake he was divine but I don't pretend to know how), and I hesitate to insist on the Resurrection as an absolute fact, as I cannot prove it. I believe faith demands mysteries and the acceptance that many questions will never be answered. It is also for me, however, necessary to admit that my heart, mind and soul will not accept many things as literal truths-yet I can still grasp their meaning.

I long ago gave up trying to fit into the boundaries of the institutional church. I have little use for the debates within the church-for apologetics, for debates between Catholics and Protestants, Evangelicals and cults, Christians and non-Christians. I find some of it interesting from time to time but I find it all useless in that it accomplishes nothing for me. They are circular debates with no end. And I'm tired of it. I stopped calling myself Catholic when I realized I wasn't-I didn't accept many of the things the church taught. Couldn't do it any longer. I decided I needed to be honest with myself. For a time I more or less became a Deist. Now I consider myself primarily a Unitarian, but also a Universalist in a sense. Am I a Christian? I would answer absolutely yes, but I always qualify it now with a "Depends on your definition of a Christian". I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus was the perfect moral and spiritual teacher-the archetypal perfect human being. And I believe he was Divine. I think Jesus was the moment when God-the Tao that cannot be named-was actually "seen" in a human being. I still love liturgical and sacramental worship, and I love many traditions and spiritual practices of the church.

But I must be honest that I have problems reciting some of the Creeds. I don't sell out to some of the key doctrines (beliefs or spiritual truths, however you please). I just can't do it. I'm OK with that. But I believe in my honesty I cannot associate with a church that teaches things I disagree with. This is one of the issues I have with people like Bishop John Shelby Spong (who took an oath as a bishop and then essentially broke that oath), the CTA people (who are very, very far gone from the Catholic Church and are just in denial) and possibly John. If you have disagreements that strong than I think it may be time to resign from office in the church. It is a matter of intellectual and spiritual honesty-and credibility. It says something about standing firm and being decisive in your beliefs. Progressive Christianity too often has tried to waffle-clinging to labels while refusing to admit that their core has been stripped clean. I think this is pointless. Drop the label. Leave it behind. Move on. Come to terms with the fact that you don't belong.

I can't understand the mentality why some people who have such radical differences insist on staying with the church. The church (be it Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian or what have you) has no obligation to adopt your beliefs. If you want to stay and push for change you need to compromise. If you can't leave-become a Unitarian or whatever you want. Let the orthodox believers have their churches. I think that the reason why the mainline churches are beginning to crumble is their refusal to take a stand on anything. While I find Chris's beliefs repugnant (not him, just his beliefs) and the obsession of some people with doctrine, orthodoxy, etc to be ridiculous I also believe they are entitled. And technically, orthodox Christianity is their sandbox. Let them have it.

I felt a tremendous amount of freedom when I finally dropped the labels I had been carrying and embraced true liberal religion-a religion not attempting to force new beliefs into an old package, going against the grain almost 100% of its namesake but insisting on keeping the name, and not a simply "liberal bookend" of the original.

It was liberating.

I love being a Unitarian (of a Universalist stripe), and while I sympathize with people like Bishop Spong I must say this: If you don't like the religion you're in, leave it or be reasonable in working for change. Going off the deep end and keeping the name at the same time is not a solution.

Brilliant! Amen! I have long felt that those who reject the tradition and teaching of a faith should leave it...form a new one or go elsewhere.
I think if people explored the options...be it Unitarian Christianity or other versions etc. many religious liberals would find new homes.

Ed, I guess the question for me is: can you assert belief in the doctrines upon your membership ceremony yet quietly hold that you do not believe in them?  If you were raised Methodist, your membership probably took place before you could make an "informed" decision....but if you disagree today..are you still a Methodist?  Or, do you attend as a Unitarian?  Do you partake of the rituals / sacraments?  Do you recite the creeds?  These are issues that pose problems for many of us seeking a "church home"...how to be true to yourself.  I agree with your observation that the one true religion can be found in many places.  However, if more and more people within a denomination do not hold to the historic teachings that define the denomination....why not leave?
The orthodox will always cling to their position...a lot of bad blood and schism result over such fights.  I am glad you have a church where your  spiritual side is nourished regardless of the denomination.

In reading your intro again I understand your position from a pragmatic angle:

"No, I am quite content as a Methodist, despite the fact I disagree with virtually every essential doctrine of orthodox Christianity, (granted, the Methodists are much less vocal about such things than are the Baptists). Does this make me a living contradiction? Perhaps. But I am not alone. I think many so-called ‘mainstream’ Protestants feel and think as I do, even some Catholics, and yes, even some Baptists. But they, as I do, go to church for the sake of family and community and because it is there, surrounded by that same family and community, they can commune, not only with God, but with their fellow human beings. They can then walk through those huge oaken doors, which cost far too much by the way, and feel spiritually recharged, as I do, feeling both the love OF God and man and the love FOR God and man."

I was faced with this dillemma within the context of the Mormon Church. I ended up going to the Bishop and telling him that I could no longer accept callings that involved testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon. However great a piece of literature it might be, whatever the extent of its spiritual granduer, there was no doubt in my mind that it is a work of fiction.

I also told him that I have the greatest respect and affection for the church and wished to be considered a genuine "Friend of the Church", of which there are many in Church History who played important roles in the success of the church over the years. The Bishop was happy to extend his invitation to my continuing attendance and particpation in the life of the church community.

I may be the only one in the world happy with this sort of solution to this issue, but it seems to be working for me.

Fred

I've read several of Spong's books and have heard him speak about five times. He's a rather strange mixed bag. I'm impressed with his knowledge of the Bible and church history. He often states, in one way or another, that his mission is to liberate and update the Episcopal Church. It often seems odd to me that New Thought churches frequently schedule him as a speaker (he was the keynoter at last year's INTA conference), but I guess if they're looking for someone who opposes orthodox Christianity, including the hell fire bit, Spong fills the bill.

I often have the impression that Spong is a practical atheist and that his God sounds more and more like no god at all. I can empathize a lot with those who think that he should leave the Anglican communion. Of course, on some issues, much of the ECUSA is becoming increasingly Spongian.

John

Spong leaves me feeling kind of empty....some of his assessments are correct, but I do not get the impression that he is offering something that many people will flock to. I realize that most people need to retain some of the "mythic / magic" stage in their religion in order to feel connected to something greater. I would rather see contemplative practice emphasized and some churches are active with centering prayer etc.

I think Borg is somewhat better but again....I may not agree with everything he says.

Hi, Logan!

Why not stay AND go?

If you like a church or community, why not tell the Minister in a frank and cordial manner that you'd like to attend and share in the life of the community but you would like him(her) to understand that you can not use that lable to describe your belief system? I haven't found any problem with that and the Mormons are certainly a lot more of a "closed system" than most religious groups.

Fred

Hi Ed, I am glad you have a spiritual home that benefits your faith. I am sure you are not alone in questioning the orthodox statements of belief. Many of us face the absence of a tolerable church home, being unwelcome or having significant issues with the practices (both religious and secular.) of many UUA/Mainline Protestant churches. The question of attending as a friend of such a church...without claiming membership...is both an opportunity and a curse at the same time. It is an opportunity to take part in the life of a faith community, yet it is a curse because we cannot claim to accept the doctrine that is required with full membership. The issue of RE and expectations of your child's participation and eventual conversion are palpable.

Eruonen, you bring up a good point regarding RE and I can only relate my own experience.

Both of my children from my current marriage were brought up in the Mormon Church and both have the same very friendly relationship with it that I do but neither accepts its major teachings. Next year at college, my son doesn't plan to attend seminary (the Mormon On-Campus Ministry), but at this time he generally attends with his mom and goes to Wednesday Night Activity and enjoys it. I'd call him a Flatland Agnostic at this time - pretty compatable with his ambition to get his PhD in Nuclear Engineering, wouldn't you say? My daughter is in pretty much the same place, but is a little behind him in acting it out, being only 12.

My son told me that he felt great relief when I formally went inactive, saying that he was wondering whether he was the only one that saw through the church's doctrines and he had been skeptical for some time. He seems quite happy with my present stance, as is my daughter.

Now, if we can believe Ken Wilber, it is arguably highly beneficial for children to develop through all the stages that mankind generally has evolved through in its spiritual progression towards Modern Times. I do believe that has happened with mine and I am quite happy with how they have internalized many Mormon Standards and Norms in the course of their development. I'm quite proud af both of them and entirely willing to share the credit with the Mormon church and some of the extraordinary people belonging to that community has brought them into contact with.

Now, I'm not saying this way is the only right way to raise children or even the brst, but I feel it has served our family well.

Fred

I think there are a lot more people in churches who hunger for a change...yet have no options. I always wonder about the local religion section in the paper where each church is showing new members...many of these adults are church hoppers because they find something they cannot accept and go on the merry-go-round of denominations. The church I referenced in the another link....Christ Community Church..."looks" likes an example of a progressive church that could be successful all over. (However...no place is perfect and I see some probable political oriented sermons are listed...I guess those are sleep in Sundays!) Think how many more congregants the UU churches would have if they just did the simple things of keeping politics out of the pulpit and speaking of a real UU faith...God, prayer / meditation etc. Of course many in the old guard would not like it...but all faiths must evolve....then they will grow. However, too many liberal churches only address secular issues...they see those as their true calling....I guess only empty or graying seats will lead to change....or irrelevancy.