(Note: The initial plan had been to have individuals respond to two questions on index cards, then put the attendees into small groups for discussion with Commissioners facilitating, then have each group report to the whole. Such an unexpectedly large number of people attended the hearing that this plan clearly was unworkable.)
Introductions of the Commissioners were made by Janis Elliot.
Cards were distributed to the attendees, and they were asked to answer two questions: “What is the core of your congregation?” and then “What is the theological core of your congregation?” Some attendees questioned whether the questions were different, while others saw that they were clearly different.
Before the sharing began, some demographic information was collected by show of hands.
The schedule of future meetings was announced and the COA email address was given for future communications.
Attendees were invited to share the content of their cards. Each of the following paragraphs is a summary of one person’s comments.
“A supportive home for spiritual enrichment and psychological growth”
The center can be defined in terms of living in community; it doesn’t have to be theological at all.
The center is Universalist: that tradition’s commitment to love and service.
The distinction between the core of our community and the process of being in community is a purely semantic one.
It’s enough to be in wonderment at the universe.
From a Hindu UU: It’s important to be able to draw on many traditions. The Principles provide an ethical, not theological, core. We share common historical stories, but not common theological stories.
We do come out of the Judeo-Christian movement; it provides common stories. We do need a core: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
The core is coffee hour: talking and sharing in community.
The core is provided by our stories of heretics and activists, who left behind the dogma that creates contention. Theology isn’t a thing, it’s an event.
(Note: This one is quoted from his card since it was so long…)
We need to reclaim Christianity from the right-wing.
Unitarianism and Universalism were very different traditions.
From a born-inner: Interested in how people define their own individual UUism in terms of where they’re going versus what they’ve left behind. Some people emphasize one, some the other.
There is one faith that’s right for me, but not one faith that’s right for everyone. The core is our responsibility for our own faith and our respect for others.
It’s hard for people in the Western tradition to hold contrasting ideas at the same time. Other cultural traditions have an easier time with this complexity. We need to develop more comfort with encompassing opposites. The minister can’t minister to me every Sunday.
From a 6th generation Universalist: As a child, got very little explanation that articulated the faith. We used to do a really bad job of explaining to kids what we’re about rather than what we’re not (what we’ve rejected). We are better at accepting and seeking out (theological?) diversity. We can’t confuse that with thinking that any beliefs are OK – that’s a risk of tolerance. His congregation concludes every service with David Bumbaugh quote as a benediction.
[Note: This reference is to the quote, "This church is dedicated to the proposition that behind all our differences and beneath all our diversities, there is a unity that binds us together and makes us one in spite of time and death and the space between the stars. We pause now in silent witness to that unity." - Rev. David Bumbaugh]
Unitarian young people are very smart, but have poor Biblical literacy.
We have a common history or myth stories – We should remember that Jews were Unitarian before the Christian Unitarian martyrs. Jews were the original Unitarians. UUism is about radical inclusiveness; didn’t have to check a lot of things (previous beliefs?) at the door. We have the creativity to use language that goes beyond the word “God.”
We are a religion not a movement. Uncomfortable with the way the word “movement” is used. All religions contain paradox and mystery. The center is the transformative power of love.
Brought up the issue of the “elevator question.” We defined ourselves during the Reformation by rejecting the view of Luther and others that human nature is inherently depraved.
Many of us have rejected things we were raised with, like the idea of God. We have different frameworks because of how we were raised. For example, being comfortable with using the word “god” in some settings but not others.
What can we NOT tolerate within our group? 1) Can we accept all these diverse ideas? 2) Can we accept all these diverse activities and practices?
The cards were collected for compilation and review. People were invited to use the email address to communicate further with us, and to attend hearings if they live close-by.
Compiled by Jim Casebolt, with assistance from Mark Hamilton