American Unitarian Conference Forum

Hi everyone: Here is another blog I wrote about what I perceive as the dangers of liberal religion. Let me know your thoughts!

'Liberal' Religion: What It Is (And What It Ain't)

I would like to offer a bit of a disclaimer on my definition of what constitutes liberal religion-or in my case specifically, Christianity. There are 3 definitions that are often associated with liberalism in a religion that I wish to distance myself from:

1. Secular Humanism
2. Narcissistic New Age-type spirituality
3. A liberal/progressive political agenda cloaked in faith

Let's discuss these one by one, shall we?

First: Secular Humanism. This is the plague that has corrupted the Unitarian Universalist Association. While I believe that the use of the mind is critical and that our God-given gift of reason is something we must never ignore I do believe that when reason becomes our only source of inspiration-when we ignore our spiritual impulses, leave no room for doubt, faith or mysteries, when we demand certainty in our answers instead of being comfortable just with the questions, we have left the faith. Some forms of "humanistic" or "rational" Christianity have embraced this secularized version of the faith. Bishop John Shelby Spong strikes me as an example of this. While I like some of Mr. Spong's work he is a bit too liberal even for me. Spong, IMO, has over-rationalized faith. Indeed, he has made God so abstract that there seems to be no personal aspect to the Creator (while I believe that God is less human like than we tend to think I also believe firmly that there is still a "personality" and an "intelligence" to Him-She is not just a force or "ground of being"). Common sense and reason are good in religion. But they cannot become the only source.

Second: Narcissistic Spirituality. This was coined by a fellow poster on the American Unitarian Conference online forum. Essentially, this incorporates New Age religion, spiritualism and all of the modern day forms of wishy-washy feel good spirituality that preach that we're all totally good, we're all God, we're all going to Heaven, yadda yadda. Within Christianity the Unity Church (not to be confused with Unitarianism or Universalism despite the similar name) is a prime example of this type of spirituality. It is way too positive (in denial about the darker aspects of human nature and the world) and is just...well, too good to be true. It's wishful thinking. Psychics, astrologers and men like Neale Donald Walsh (author of Conversations with God) may mean well but this shallow spirituality as selfish and narrowly focused as fundamentalism. It's a quick shot of spirituality. And please don't confuse it with Eastern religions. The old religions of the East were much more demanding and rigorous than the modern Church of Narcissism.

Third: The Church of Liberal Politics. This one really bothers me. Within liberal Christianity today there is an unhealthy marriage between politics and faith-even on the left now! Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics, while talking about moving beyond left or right is essentially a Democratic mouthpiece. The United Church of Christ, UUA and various other denominations are packed with liberal politics. "Salvation by legislation" is the motto now. Whether it's joining peace marches, liberal activists or demanding government intervention to help the poor, there is an unhealthy marriage of politics and faith here. I'm not anti-liberal but my own views are more libertarian and even conservative than most people at my church. I despise the Religious Right but I have no desire for the "Religious Left" to set up it's own version to make the opposite bookend. The values of liberal religion-Compassion, Inclusively, Love, working for justice-have a lot in common with values held by many liberals but it does not demand the welfare state (there are better solutions than big government-like the Grameen Bank), absolute pacifism or constantly joining forces with the political left. I'm not a fan of liberation theology and I believe that the agenda to help make God's kingdom a reality begins in many ways-much of which does demand working for justice and social change (in a non-partisan manner, preferably) but I believe most of the work is for the Church and for us as individuals. Government cannot help.

These are the three plagues of liberal religion. I wish to distance myself from each. I am a committed Unitarian Universalist Christian: Unitarian for the Mind, Universalist for the Heart and Christian for the Soul. I am not a secular humanist, a New Ager or a bleeding heart in a Christian's clothing. Nor do I want to be.

What do you think?

Logan, may I say simply that I find you to be one Hell of a young writer! Well stated! Very well stated!

Fred

Very well said.....the church of any politics is a problem...be it "fundy" or "progressive."  Secular Humanism seems to be a dead end.....why be religious in any common understanding?
Narcissistic Spirituality...seems to capture many seekers for a time but retains few for long.
The Church of Politics...seems to be alive and well(?)....but it may be slightly changing as many members become disillusioned...we shall see.

The church of liberal politics could perhaps be summed up in a phrase from the Protestant writer Hal Lindsay: "Come unto me all you who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you controversy."  

I was around during the mid '60s when several mainline Protestant denominations started embracing liberal political advocacy as the centerpiece of the gospel.  Now, some 40 years leter, all of those denominations seem to have one thing in common -- they're all shrinking. (This despite the fact that there are about 100 million more Americans overall today than there were then.)  The UUA, with a membership in the 150-200,000 range in 1960, is still hovering around in the same ballpark.    Conversely, those denominations which take their faith in God, Christ, and scripture seriously and endeavor honestly to answer the great questions of life, are the ones which are growing - in some cases by leaps and bounds. (Those denominations may also have significant scriptural and theological differences, but they share a desire for more basic answers than mere political advocacy.)

Translation: when people are looking for spiritual guidance, it just doesn't cut it to say, in effect, "Admire yourself in the mirror;" and when people are hungering and thirsting after righteousness it doesn't cut it to say "let 'em eat diversity."

I would agree with the assessment. I'm not a particular fan of Hal Lindsey (I believe he's the author of The Late Great Planet Earth and I'm not a big fan of dispensationalism) but his point here is well taken. I particularly like your translation.

However, I do think there is an essence that is (quasi) political to the Gospel: I do think that there is an alternative social vision presented in the Bible and there is a great deal about social justice (Marcus Borg has done a good job presenting this). However there are ways to seek justice and demand a better world that does not involve embracing a liberal political agenda. The essence of the Gospel vision is broad enough that is transcends the way we understand politics.

In the meantime, I think the church should put their heaviest focus on the soul-after all that is what the church is for is it not?

For me, I do believe that Spritual Understanding has political implications. However, the political implications are not immediately obvious. My own experience of life indicates that what is completely obvious at one stage in life can appear to be the height of foolishness at a more mature stage, leading me to a somewhat less degree of certainty in my own political conclusioins.

Fred

I went to an Episcopalian service on Easter. I could see why they are losing members. The minister just talked about what a messed-up world we live in.

Granted, the world is imperfect. But when ministers spend their time talking about Darfur or global warming or persecution in North Korea or whatever is the cause of moment, the implicit message to the congregation is "there is no problem worthy of discussion in your own lives. You're all fine. It's everyone else who has problems."

I'm not sure if that message resonates with most people. Everyone has needs, longings, sadness, and times of emptiness. It also leads to smugness and a dead religion.

When I think of Secular Humanism / Narcissistic Spirituality, I envision a group of atheist sitting a circle singing Beatles songs in a candle lit room. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It is just not faith or religion.

Jason your statement does resonate with me. I may have a bit of a different take. Sometimes get the feeling that minsters don't care what you do in your personal life, but if you feed the hungry God will forgive your all your transgressions in a quid pro quo fashion. Kind of like modern day alms for Indulgences.

I agree in principle with the three "plagues" presented here, but I do have a minor objection or two...

Secular Humanism: It's hard to see any use for a religion that doesn't even attempt to reach for the transcendent. However, I disagree with your assessment of J.S. Spong. His non-personal conception of God makes more sense than the exaggerated reflection of humanity presented in most churches.

Narcissistic New Age Spirituality: I can't argue with anything presented here. Sin and evil are real, and the new age approach glosses over them. There is a reasonable midpoint between focusing on evil (total depravity) and disregarding it completely.

Liberal Politics: Make no mistake: I am an unrepentant liberal, and I do think government has an obligation to promote social justice, but the kindest thing I can say about building one's faith around politics is that it places the cart before the horse. It's one thing to say that a person's faith led him/her to take certain political views; it's quite another to make those views the centerpiece of one's faith.

Hi KT:

I would have to say it's a matter of taste regarding conceptions of God. Personally I think Marcus Borg did a better job than Spong in developing an alternate image-Borg for instance believes that God is more a "You" than an "It", more of a presence than an impersonal force. I think Spong had the right idea in tearing down out of date and unworkable images but (IMO) he went too far. TO me his non-personal concept is so vague and cold that it just isn't something I can relate to. And, as Borg had suggested, there is little difference between a God you can't relate to and no God at all. The article under the Free Religion section of this site on 'Perfect Vs. Imperfect Theism' may be of interest-I'll have to post some thoughts on that one!

Re: Liberal politics, I agree. It is one thing to attempt to pour religion into pre-formed political views, another to build political views around faith. Nonetheless, I don't feel that Christianity carries with a specific political platform and any political views shaped from it-at best-are beyond left-right paradigms that we would easily understand. For me personally the commandment to love our neighbor is more of a personal commandment than one to run public policy with, as is turn the other cheek (terrific guide for personal living but not a good idea for foreign policy), and the commandment to care for the poor (the commandment was addressed for us to do, not pass the buck onto the taxpayers).

The failures and abuses of the Religious Right are a warning toward mixing religion and politics too closely. Trying to impose our own views-however noble they may be-via public policy is not something I would endorse. Not that I don't believe social justice or a social/communal aspect to faith isn't important-far from it-but simply that religion at its core is about spiritual needs primarily. Anything temporal about religion flows from that.

Just my thoughts!