PeaceBang

27 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I don’t know how I feel about that slogan. Something about it doesn’t feel right to me, even though I agree with the statement.

   What I want is something like “When the question is as important as the answer”.

   Comment by Kim Hampton — March 28, 2008 #

2. If “God” can be assumed to refer to that which is ultimately true, reliable, and sustaining, then the slogan is deeply disturbing. (The truth is optional, you are not; ultimate reality is optional, you are not; etc.) And if “you” can be assumed to refer to a person’s own ideas, preferences, assumptions, and prejudices, even worse.

   Of course, rather than take an expansive interpretation of God and a skeptical interpretation of the integrity of the individual, the slogan takes a very narrow view of God and a truly magnanimous view of “you.”

   The best spin I can put on the slogan is that this church is really trying to say: “We don’t ask for the willful suspension of disbelief in doctrines you don’t understand.” Your orthodoxy isn’t required.

   Theologically, though, I wonder what it means to suggest that I’m not optional. Surely my membership in a church is absolutely optional: it’s a voluntary association. And I’d interpret my presence on the planet in the first place as good fortune or sheer luck, but it’s certainly not necessary. In some ways, I can feel profoundly optional. But I appreciate the sentiment that a church would put individual human beings ahead of dogmatism. What I have a hard time with is the either/or quality: It’s you or God.

   The Universalists had a much richer way of affirming the integrity and value of the individual: God loves each of us and loves the world into which God placed us. The church tries to live up to that mandate.
   [*Huge whooshing sound as PeaceBang is blown away by this wonderful comment.* THANKS, Chris.]

   Comment by Philocrites — March 28, 2008 #

3. As an atheist, that line (God is optional; you are not) doesn’t draw me in. It sounds clever at first blush, but it’s one of those things that catches my ear … and then five minutes later I’m left wondering, “Hey … what …?”

   Comment by h sofia — March 28, 2008 #

4. Oops, did I really forget the emoticon in my comment on the prior post? Of course my comparison of the UUA to God was with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

   I’m glad that it prompted these further thoughts though. See, God is still speaking!

   Comment by Ian Lynch — March 28, 2008 #

5. BTW, yes, I am a fan and a friend. Christianity is my paradigm for meaning-making, so the UCC is a more comfortable fit for me that the UUA, although I would not be terribly uncomfortable among you I’m sure.

   Comment by Ian Lynch — March 28, 2008 #

6. I don’t like the first half of the line. God isn’t just an option on a menu; those who have changed their definition of God have done so in great seriousness and struggle usually. The line makes both faith in God AND atheism sound flippant and wishy-washy.

   It is actually lines like that–along with the UUA’s recent ad campaign– that have made me TAKE BACK the word “God”. For a long time, I used simply ‘grace’ or ‘goodness’. But I’m reclaiming the word because it expresses the weight and depth of my faith.

   Comment by Terri — March 28, 2008 #

7. The slogan “God is optional, you are not” appears on a banner hanging outside the San Francisco UU church. It is impossible to miss as you drive down Franklin Street.

   I remember attending that very church a couple of years ago, when I was first exploring my renewed interest in religion. It was the first church I set foot in as part of this process. I never went back.

   They were between ministers at the time, so instead of a regular sermon that Sunday they had a couple of people from their young adult group deliver some talks about their own spiritual/life journeys. I remember one of them talking about his work with the homeless as a kind of “ministry”. Yet he never once used the word God in that entire talk. I found it jarring to even hear the word “ministry” used that way. I concluded that this is a strange, secular sort of UU definition of “ministry” that is devoid of religious or spiritual content.

   I decided I was more willing to go to a mainline Protestant Church where they actually used the word “God” as an object of worship, even if I had problems with the rather orthodoxy Trinitarian language that was used to express their theology, than to go to a UU church where God was rarely, if ever, referred to, except perhaps as a subject of a dry intellectual analysis. I was more drawn to a sense of wonder and an appreciation for the value of the myths and poetry of a faith in God than to a “God is optional” kind of religious service.

   Comment by Mysical Seeker — March 28, 2008 #

8. I think the slogan is selling a product that is outdated. All the “real life atheists” I know have no interest in communal religion, and progressive theists don’t generally believe God is a wrathful old man in the sky with a lightening bolt in hand. Like much of our culture, it’s a shallow attempt at being clever.

   Comment by NDM — March 28, 2008 #

9. I don’t love it either. That said, in defense of the young people in that church, I’ve always understood the meaning of “minister” in the sense those folks were using it to mean “to care for.”

   Even in my Presby church when I was a kid, “ministering to the homeless” meant giving them blankets, not talking to them about God. The spiritual aspect was what you got out of it, and apparently the young adult felt that too because he/she was talking about it in the context of a spiritual journey.

   CC

   Comment by Chalicechick — March 28, 2008 #

10. Re: “ministry” - What CC said.
    I do believe think ministry IS a secular word. That happens to be used quite a bit by Christian people in their institutions. Which might explain why neither Tony Blair nor his successor, Gordon Brown, are the spiritual/religious leaders of the UK - despite their title.

    Comment by h sofia — March 28, 2008 #

11. As a panentheist, I believe that God underlies every moment of existence. But I also believe that God continues to do this regardless of whether you believe or not.

    I think the sign means (Belief in) God is Optional; You are not.

    Actually, I think it’s kinda cute.

    Comment by shaktinah — March 29, 2008 #

12. Dear PeaceBang,

    I’m usually more of a lurker than a commenter, mainly because it takes time for me to figure out how to express what I want to say clearly and accurately, and time is a precious commodity… but I feel I have to comment on this post.

    I’m an atheist and a secular humanist. But not an “angry” atheist, reacting against dogma force-fed in childhood; I was raised with no religion, but allowed the freedom to think about religious matters. And not an intolerant atheist; religion is personal, and if I want you to respect my philosophical beliefs, I had better respect yours.

    I never particularly liked the various atheist and skeptical magazines that I found over the years. Even in high school I could feel and regret the mocking of the religious that underlies some of the writing in these publications. But on the other hand there’s plenty of distrust and dislike flowing the other way as well. American society clearly doesn’t allow for the possibility that someone can be an atheist and yet be moral; an atheist and yet a good citizen; an atheist and yet unselfish; an atheist and yet a good Samaritan.

    So as I go about life trying to be moral and unselfish and a good citizen, it is very important to me to identify myself, if people ask, as an atheist. Unfortunately, this seemed to mean that one convenient avenue for working for change in the world &emdash; organizing with members of one’s church &emdash; was off limits to me. And I was having trouble finding other avenues. After four decades on this earth, I was not finding ways to connect with like-minded people to get involved with important issues.

    A few years ago, my wife decided that she was interested in attending a church. I could see that being part of a larger community could be a good thing, but I absolutely could not go to a place where my participation would be understood to acknowledge a belief in God. My wife and I talked this over for some time, and we were having trouble figuring out how to square this particular circle. Then, remembering the common caricature of UUs (”they don’t believe anything!”), we deciding to look online for information about Unitarian Universalism.

    We read the seven principals of the UUA.

    We agreed with them all.

    Without reservation.

    Without having to think, “Oh, well, if we interpret `God’ to mean `human goodness’, then it all seems OK.”

    We went to the large UU church in our town. We liked the sermons given by the lead minister, who self-identifies as Christian and Buddhist, but who acknowledges that the people listening to him may have different beliefs, and that the truth as he sees it can be expressed in different philosophical languages.

    We found a congregation of people of many different beliefs &emdash; Christian, pagan, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, … &emdash; who could work together to try to make the world a better place, despite their differences. (And, in the same spirit, a “welcoming congregation” in the UU sense, explicitly inviting GLBT people to participate.) We found a place where we can contribute.

    So: “What or whom are you worshiping?” I think that “worship” is not necessarily the right word. I go to Sunday services to think about my role in the world; to consider how best to be a whole person; to acknowledge that many flawed people, joined together in community, can overcome their individual imperfections and accomplish great things.

    Is “God is optional. You are not.” a good slogan? Well, I have to say that it does speak to me. It says that you don’t need to believe in God to join this church, but if you want to accomplish anything good in this world you had better get to work.

    We are builders of that city,
    All our joys and all our groans
    Help to rear its shining ramparts;
    All our lives are building stones.

    I wouldn’t want it to be the only slogan, precisely because it’s not very welcoming to those for whom God’s presence is an important part of their spiritual life. But as one slogan among several, I think it is fine, and it lets atheists and agnostics who are thinking about life’s big questions know that they are welcome too.

    So, PeaceBang, to turn the question back to you: Is God not optional in your congregation on Sunday?

    [Dear Everett, thanks for de-lurking to post this wonderful reflection! To answer your question, my congregation’s covenant expresses all that we are and try to be. It can be found at our website, http://www.firstparishnorwell.org. The last line says that we covenant to “honor the holiness at the heart of being.” So while the traditional God-concept is dead for many, we are committed to cultivating reverence, which includes invoking a transcendent referent on a frequent basis (and I use God-language a lot — it’s a 1642 New England congregation, so the history is very different!). I am fairly certain that “God is optional, you are not” would be roundly rejected as a slogan to put as a banner across our front doors. - PB]

    Comment by Everett — March 29, 2008 #

13. Further reflection on this here:

    http://uuintersections.blogspot.com/2008/03/word-in-spirit-god.html

    Comment by Terri — March 29, 2008 #

14. Thanks for the link to your congregation’s site, PB. It would be interesting to collect the covenants of many UU congregations together sometime, to compare and contrast.

    I was surprised to find that our congregation’s covenant is not on our website. (I did find other UU congregations using variants of it.) Here’s our version:

    May love be the spirit of this church,
    May the quest for truth be its sacrament,
    And service be its prayer.
    To dwell together in peace,
    To seek knowledge in freedom,
    And to help one another in fellowhip,
    This is our aspiration.

    I totally dig reverence and transcendence; I just prefer not to call those things — or `that which is ultimately true, reliable, and sustaining’ — God. Maybe, from being unchurched in youth, I take a stricter definition of the word than those who have had to find ways to stretch its meaning.

    As Terri notes, it’s a tricky word, and it means vastly different things to different people.

    Comment by Everett — March 29, 2008 #

15. Bravo, Everett! Your words brought a smile (and the inkling of tears) of recognition to my face. Thank you, thank you for articulating so much of how I feel!

    Comment by Louise — March 29, 2008 #

16. The word “ministry” may indeed have a secular meaning, but to see it used in that way within a church service was what struck me.

    Comment by Mysical Seeker — March 30, 2008 #

17. I don’t actually think “ministry” was being used in a secular way. That was perfectly normal church usage in the UU congregations I’ve belonged to. Furthermore, I’ve heard the word “ministry” used this way among Protestant family members in the South. Several have gone on “missions,” for instance, to Latin America that involved no evangelizing whatsoever. Rather, they were service missions, wherein they lived out their Christian commitments by providing much needed aid to people in disadvantaged communities. Some have told me these were the most meaningful religious experiences of their lives. Likewise, those UUs in San Francisco were living out their religious commitments by providing aid to the homeless–that was their mission. My parents and others from my home congregation are getting ready to go on a service mission to New Orleans, they’ve been partnering with a church down there ever since Katrina and are now going in person to help with the rebuilding. They certainly see this is an authentically religious act, and I think most Christians I’ve known would agree.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Catholic friends use the term “ministry” this way too, but I’m having trouble remembering a specific instance.

    Comment by Jeff W. — March 30, 2008 #

18. Actually, I think that the word “ministry” was in that case being used in a secular sense. As I mentioned, the word “God” never even came up in this discussion. There was never any religious basis for this social work that even came up. Mind you, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who engage in social justice work without there being any religious basis for it. I think social justice work is great, regardless of whether one is religiously inclined or not. But in this case, it appeared pretty clear to me that this work was not infused at all with any religious sensibility.

    If I want to be involved with a secular social justice mission, I don’t have to go to a church to do that. I was seeking something more transcendent. It just wasn’t for me. I am not saying that there is anything bad about it; obviously the congregation of the San Francisco church likes it there, or they wouldn’t attend. But it isn’t for me. I was looking to attend a church where the word God was actually used, and not just as the source of postmodern analysis, but rather as an object of awe, wonder, mystery, poetry, transcendence.

    Comment by Mysical Seeker — March 30, 2008 #

19. Mystical Seeker, one visit to a UU church can’t possibly reveal to you how people in the congregation relate to God. It takes more time than that, since these are noncreedal communities with diverse Sunday programming. But more to the point, I don’t understand how the fact that “God” wasn’t mentioned somehow prevents this from being a religious activity. After all, these were young people in a church, motivated by the religious teachings they’d received, talking about how they’d been stimulated to go forth in what they felt was a ministry. It might not be for you–though again, it takes longer than one visit when the minister is out of town to tell what a UU congregation is really like–but there’s no reason to characterize this as areligious from the standpoint of the actual people involved. A more likely explanation might be that you as a visitor were unable to discern the religious underpinnings of their activity, not that they weren’t there at all.

    Not trying to argue into going back, just saying that your impressions of this group’s religious convictions might not be accurate after one visit. Personally, I have never visited that particular church. Did you happen to ask anyone there about whether they saw God as an object of awe and wonder?

    Comment by Jeff W. — March 30, 2008 #

20. I do find myself puzzling over whether focusing on God as optional is missing the boat. Many people arrive at a UU church because we have problems with hierarchical churches, sexist language, boring sermons and worship. I am not sure God is the problem so much as religion, and especially the calcification we see in Western religion.

    If we consider God as Ground-of-all-Being or Being-Itself or the deepest Self, in Tillich/Jung terms, then maybe the average person might welcome an opportunity to explore who God or the divine might be for her. This is quite different from discarding God, the way one might pick the onions off a sandwich.

    Comment by Wonder and Wondering — March 31, 2008 #

21. Concerning the term God, it can be problematic, but let’s also recall that panentheistic notions of the Divine are not uncommon within or outside of Abrahamic traditions. It is true that the Reformation and the Enlightenment, as well as early forms of “Modernism”, provoked a narrowing of how God was presented in mainline Christian churches, a view which we inherit as “traditional” but which in the larger historical picture is anything but! So ironically many people discussing an expansive view of God often end up quoting mystics and contemplatives and theologians who pre-date these events. If anything, Chrisitianity and other traditions would seem to be reclaiming much of their heritage as well as looking toward the future by accepting God as more than a temperamental, judgmental superbeing concerned primarily with purity and justice.

    However, one could argue that whatever the longer history or whatever the personal revelation, the current conventional wisdom tends to have this very narrow view of what God is supposed to mean. So narrow, in fact, that many theists and atheists would agree that any other view is a cop-out or a watering down of the “true” meaning of the word. I came up with a handy way of dealing with this confusion by rejecting the validity of the premise behind the question, “Do you believe in God?” If the person identifies as an atheist, I say “Yes”, because I don’t reject the God she rejects and I am open to other ways of Being. If the person identifies as a theist I (often) say “No”, because I don’t accept the God she accepts and I am open to other ways of Being. I would agree with Tillich that it is silly to “believe in” God because that places God as an object alongside other objects rather than as the ground of Being. Hence, my position is that “I do not necessarily accept or reject any particular form of God-talk.”

    Which then brings us to the sign. I don’t find it offensive, but I do think that it raised the question, “What’s the point?” Atheists are clever enough to know that there are people who see God as “more than a person/more than not a person”. But what is binding this community together, calling it to a purpose greater than individual satisfaction but caring intimately about each individual? Whether we refer to this Ultimate Reality, or a Common Heart, or Spirit, or the Divine, or whatever we feel comfortable calling this Source of unitive experience of compassion and selflessness, is it the very concept of an immanent presence that transcends our intellectual understanding that we object to or is it the associated baggage of expectations, requirements, and images that we associate with our culture’s concept of this presence- that is, God?

    That is the problem I have with the sign. It isn’t clear which of these is being made optional. In my humble opinion one of these is essential for a successful congregation. For what it’s worth, I think the banner/slogan would work better if it read “The term God is optional. You are not.” Of course, that sounds too academic, so perhaps a more clever phrasing is in called for, but that is the point that needs clarification.

    Comment by tinythinker — March 31, 2008 #

22. Jeff,

    I had visited that church a couple of times in the last decade or so prior to my most recent visit. The difference with respect to my last visit was that I was involved in a concerted effort at trying to find a church community, whereas the previous visits years ago were more casual in intention. It did, however, reinforce my earlier impressions. I also made an effort to read the newsletters and look online to get a better understanding of what the church was like.

    Again, I’m not knocking the church. I’m just saying that it is not my cup of tea. It might be true that the church membership in their private reflections feel very spiritual, and if so, that’s great. It just didn’t work for me.

    Comment by Mystical Seeker — March 31, 2008 #

23. One of the great ironies about that sign is that i came into a UU congregation because I was sensing the presence of God in my life. I just did not want anyone to tell what shape that relationship with God would have to take. I was seeking God without the limits that so many religions have placed upon God.

    Had I seen that banner on Sunday morning, I definitely would have walked away without ever entering the building.

    Comment by Larry — April 1, 2008 #

24. I don’t know that UU’s should have any sign relating to our theology; it’s just too diverse in language, and slogans cheapen it’s depth. My church has a “Standing on the Side of Love” equal marriage banner on the side of the church. (This banner was vandalized when it was first hung–so it definitely made a statement, and got attention). But it was a statement based on principle and action, not theology. Attempts to sloganize our theology only end up focusing on what we are NOT, rather than what we ARE, I think. Our beliefs–and the language we use to describe them– are just too diverse. It is important that people experience God (or transcendence and holiness) when they come to church– but I don’t think that experience can be sloganized.

    Comment by Terri — April 1, 2008 #

25. Well — I would think that the “Standing on the Side of Love” slogan is chock full of implicit theology.

    It’s an example of the implicit ethical eschatology that one sees in Unitarian Universalism.

    Comment by Steve Caldwell — April 1, 2008 #

26. I’m a member of First UU San Francisco, and while I have mixed feelings about Rev Stewart’s recent “God is optional” slogan, I have a much bigger problem with your “What or whom are you worshiping?” question.

    I have mostly reclaimed the words god, worship, prayer and church in my own mind but still struggle when using those words in discussing spiritual or religious ideas with non-UU others. I have to assume they will ascribe some meaning that is not what I intend. One of those meanings which is very wrong for me is the concept of god as a magic object or personhood outside myself to be venerated, which is the meaning I read in your question.

    That “god = deity object” and “worship = celebrate magic properties of deity object” and “prayer = ask deity object for magic help” meaning is what many unchurched adults think religion is about, which is why “god is optional” may speak to them. I believe many seekers are looking for god but don’t know it. They long for a connection with a deeper meaning, but don’t associate that concept with their childhood definition of god, which is possibly why so many people describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”

    Maybe the slogan should be “Magic is optional…”

    [Hi, Mike. Thanks for your comment. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you a bit here. Unitarian Universalists have a problem with “terminal uniqueness” that it’s high time we challenge amongst ourselves. We tend to think that we are the only church-going folk who are skeptics, scholars of religious ideas, agnostics, and not prone to “magical thinking.” That’s just not true. While our religious tradition is unique in that our liturgical tradition (ie, our worship) explicitly allows for (and celebrates) our skepticism and intellectualism, individual UUs are not at all that different than individual Catholics, Methodists, Jews, Muslims, Baptists, etc. etc. etc. who also harbor doubts about doctrine and supernaturalism. In my experience as a Christian UU in the ecumenical world, I find a lot of frustration towards UUs because other Christians are tired of our arrogant assumptions that “to worship” in the non-UU context means to blindly venerate some magic-working deity. It’s just not true any more. It hasn’t been true for a long time. Ask a garden variety Protestant some time what they mean by worshiping Jesus Christ or God and you’re likely to hear words like “reverence” and “exemplar” and “holy” and “love” — they’re not any more into the idea of worshiping a Heavenly Traffic Cop in the Sky than you are. - PB]

    Comment by YesMike — April 7, 2008 #

27. Actually, we agree, PB. That is, when it comes to beliefs of church-going folk and clergy. Your points are very obvious to me in San Francisco where there are any number of liberal religious options, especially for those who don’t let a sort of wink-wink approach or outright defiance of denominational doctrine bother them and just want a sense of spiritual community. It’s difficult if not impossible for First UU to appear unique in that crowd, which is probably one reason we are just 450 members and the only UU congregation in a city where 750,000 people live within five miles of our church.

    However, I was referring to the out-of-touch ideas about religion held by many if not most non-church-going adults who I assume are the target of the “God is optional” slogan, as well as the UUA’s “Is God Keeping You Out of Church?” ads. My Presbyterian Sunday School concept of God and religion kept me out of all religious institutions for most of my adult life despite a strong spiritual longing. Now I have been changed (”saved” if you will) by my UU experience. If I hadn’t understood that God was explicitly optional I would never have felt comfortable in this church or come far enough on my spiritual path to feel as comfortable as I do now about the meaning of God in my life. Problem is, most non-religious people I speak with seem to assume I’ve given into magical thinking and making sacrifices to wizards if I mention worshiping God.

    If Christian leaders are frustrated by UU claims of being unique, they would do well to bring their litergy up to date with their proclaimed openness to doubt and skepticism, and we could all get on more honestly and cooperatively with the real purposes of organized religion. Otherwise they continue to give us all the taint of being either believers in magic or hypocrites.

    Comment by YesMike — April 7, 2008 #

Leave a comment