Filed under: Adult Enrichment and Group Meetings, Comparative Religion, Comparative Religion, Graduate Theological school/PSR, International, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Politics, Elections, and Government, Reflections, Religious Studies: History, Social Action & Social Justice, UU Denomination and Pacific Central District News and Views
[If you just got here or stumbled into this blog, this is the last installment of sections from a term paper about the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Philippines. I think if you go backward to read all the posts, you'll find all the sections except those I have chosen not to post.]
Appendix IV: Reflections on Our Colonial Involvement and Our Post-Colonial Distance
It is worth noting that the UUA is an American Mainline Protestant denomination long dominated by elites. We claim several dead presidents and have at least two buried in our churches. (Though the Universalist Church of America did have more class diversity from the Unitarians ever since their separate origins in America, as a movement the Universalists had been in decline and had much less wealth by the 1961 merger.)
According to Stanley Karnow, the Spanish American War had been “masterminded” by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (a Unitarian), among others, and the senator then advocated annexation.[ii] In 1900, William Howard Taft (also a Unitarian) became the first American governor of the Philippines; later he became the U. S. President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Given our contemporary UU self-understanding of the UUA as a justice-oriented denomination, it is worth noting that American religious liberals were involved in the running of the Philippines, and hence from prospering from it as a colony. Perhaps the ambivalence about admitting the Philippine church arose in part from a reluctance to look at our own movement’s connection to the colonial depredation of that nation. These architects of the annexation of the Philippines leaders apparently kept their liberal theological values separate from their careers as advocates for colonial power.
Have we kept our distance from the Philippine church—either in not thinking Filipinos could find anything in our tradition that speaks to their experience, in not wanting to admit the UUCP to the UUA, or in not wanting to share, give, or “impose” our American church practices and theologies on a marginalized group? Perhaps, in the names of avoiding renewed colonialism and promoting the Philippine church’s authenticity and autonomy, we have been endeavoring to distance ourselves from our connections to the American colonial era in the Philippines. Whether we can answer them or not, we carry such complex questions into new and ongoing relationships between UUs there and UUs here.
For further information: The subjects of American colonialism and the Unitarians involved in the Philippines is addressed in Frederick John Muir’s book Maglipay Universalist: A History of the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Philippines (Annapolis: Unitarian Universalist Church, 2001).
Muir in particular describes the early contacts between the American Unitarian Association (AUA) and the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, the Catholic breakway movement led by Father Gregorio Aglipay. Aglipay visited the Unitarians here in the early 1930s, and the AUA president tried and failed to lead a strong relationship with that Philippine movement, which later affiliated with the Anglican Communion.
This paper keeps the focus on the later movement (the UUCP) with which present-day North American UUs have a living and growing relationship.
[ii] Stanley Karnow, “The Philippines,” Dissent Magazine, Winter 2009. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1326
Filed under: Adult Enrichment and Group Meetings, Advice, Children and Youth, Family Ministry, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Social Action & Social Justice, UU Denomination and Pacific Central District News and Views | Tags: campus life, dating, dating skills, lonelliness, Our Whole Lives, OWL, romance, sex, sex education, sexuality and spirituality, young adults
This article, and the accompanying one about sex on campus and among young adults, is quite haunting and sad. It reminds me why the age-appropriate sexuality and values curriculum that we offer is crucial. It provides life-affirming, life-enriching, and life-saving skills and support to young people. Our Whole Lives is jointly published by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ. We offer it nearly every year at church.
Read the article at this link:http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-01/courage-date
Filed under: Becoming and Being Part of a UU Congregation, Comparative Religion, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Stewardship & Finances, Trends in Religion | Tags: congregational democracy, congregational health
What is Leadership? What is Followership? Both have to do with trust and participation.
I’ve enjoyed many articles about ministry and healthy congregational dynamics by the mainline church consultant Anthony Robinson.
This article is especially good. If you are in any church/denomination whose polity is congregational, or even one with a fair degree of congregational decision making, I think it’s relevant. If you are a Humanist, Buddhist, Pagan, or Jew then the Christian language and context of some of the paragraphs may not be to your liking. If you can’t translate into your own faith idiom, that’s okay, just read them and move on to the other paragraphs.
If you are allergic to words like “follower,” I beg your patience with the gist of his article. In fact, there’s a good definition of the term followership, as coined by my UU colleague Paul Beedle. And no less an authority than Harvard’s Ronald Heifetz is quoted in defining leadership NOT as solitary authoritarianism but in the skill to be present and help the community face its big questions and its big challenges–together.
If you can’t open it, let me know and I can lend you the paper copy.
Filed under: Comparative Religion, Comparative Religion, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Politics, Elections, and Government, Religious Studies: History, Social Action & Social Justice, Trends in Religion | Tags: anti-religious, atheism, Christopher Hitchens, Iraq War, polemics, progressive religion, religion
Hitchens was the British-born immigrant American journalist, critic, and polemicist who died last week.
Acerbic, smart, wide-ranging and extreme in argument, he was noted for going after Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, and religious believers of all kinds. Formerly a Marxist and still a leftist, he nevertheless was a strong advocate of invading Iraq in 2003. In the cause of opposing “Islamofascism,” he would attack anyone who seemed to promote tolerance toward Islam as a religion and as a movement. While he may have done significant muckraking journalism about Mother Theresa (but I don’t know), his attitudes about religion left no room for nuance, complexity, and contradictions in the diverse world of religion.
This is an interesting short article from the Rev. Marilyn Sewell of Portland. It’s posted on the Beacon Press “Broadside.”
http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2011/12/was-christopher-hitchens-religious.html
See what you think, and feel free to add a comment here.
Filed under: Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Elections, and Government, Social Action & Social Justice | Tags: economic inequality, linguist, non-violent protest, Occupy, social justice, social movement, word of the year, word usage
this 5-minute commentary was on a recent Fresh Air program on National Public Radio. Nunberg is always interesting.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143265669/occupy-geoff-nunbergs-2011-word-of-the-year
Filed under: International, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Elections, and Government, Reflections, Social Action & Social Justice, UU Denomination and Pacific Central District News and Views | Tags: care for Veterans, Progressive Christianity, PTSD, Unitarian, Veterans Day, war wounds, wounded soul
I read this post on Beacon Broadside, the blog from Beacon Press, a publishing house owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association. You can read it, and other posts at this link: http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/
Filed under: Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Politics, Elections, and Government, Social Action & Social Justice, Special Events, UUA General Assemblies | Tags: Occupy Movement, Occupy Sacramento, Unitarians and Occupy
Peter Bowden’s UU Growth Blog covers this very well, so start there!
Filed under: Adult Enrichment and Group Meetings, Comparative Religion, Comparative Religion, Graduate Theological school/PSR, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Elections, and Government, Religious Studies: History, Social Action & Social Justice, Trends in Religion | Tags: abortion, choice, death penalty, faith and politics, faith and values, gay rights, homeless, hungry, Martin E. Marty, Maureen Dowd, media mistakes, right-wing media, Roman Catholic, social activism, the poor
The Rev. Dr. Martin E. Marty, an ordained Lutheran pastor, is professor emeritus of American religious history, University of Chicago Divinity School. He is a prolific author and commentator on PBS and other broadcast networks. I took a course with him while in seminary in 1993. This comes from the online journal Sightings 10/17/2011.
Martin E. Marty writes:
Maureen Dowd wrote an almost innocuous column in the New York Times in which she noted, or argued, that “American bishops have been inconsistent in preaching their values.” Any reader who is up on the teachings of the company of bishops should not be surprised that they are inconsistent or that Ms. Dowd caught them in action. Such a reader who is up on the parties in play can also expect that the columnist is zeroing in on a zone of teachings about sex, which are of a different nature than are the rest of the social teachings. Someone had to notice her generalization.
Someone did. An authoritative if informal response came in the Letters to the Editor column from Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany who wrote on “The Values of the Bishops.” He argued that Ms. Dowd and so many like her were not paying attention, so he cited all kinds and degrees of interest they had shown in focusing on the social teachings. Since we don’t often hear about almost all of them, it pays to note his list.
Bishop Hubbard pointed out that the bishops consistently raised grave moral concerns regarding the decision to invade Iraq back when that stance was unpopular, before the war became unpopular in the mind of the larger public. Who noticed? The bishops have been consistent supporters of efforts to repeal the death penalty, and have held this position for decades. They challenge the capital punishment culture and routinely request clemency for death-row inmates, in low- and high-profile cases alike. Who noticed?
The full body of bishops in 2007, Bishop Hubbard argued, overwhelmingly adopted “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a document which showed them “preaching their values.” Who noticed it? Bishop Hubbard listed some of the specific “values” positions, e.g., against torture, racism, and the targeting of non-combatants in acts of terror or war. These were “intrinsically evil.” Facing up to the need to deal with the suffering “from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigrations policy” also escaped public notice among many. “Today, we bishops are exercising our leadership in advocating for the protection of poor people at home and abroad in the continuing budget debates.” Notice, anyone?
Included in the values list were condemnations of “abortion, euthanasia,” and he could have added, “homosexual” activity. Now, check these three as “noticed,” “noticed,” and “noticed” by much of the Catholic public which likes to ignore all the other “values” here, and by non-Catholic publics who never heard of other parts of the “seamless” or consistent ethic about which we heard some years ago. Now we are left to ponder: which zones of values get noticed by Catholics (including “by which Catholics?”) and which not? Who praises the bishops for what they put on the extensive values lists which are as old as 1893 or 1917 or other times of the formulation of social ethics? And is “consistency” among them to be valued? Also, which consistent instances help the Catholic “values” cause, and which are counter-productive? An election year is a good time to ponder some answers to the questions. One hopes that the whole range of issues will get noticed.
A last question: how do these values differ from those of most humanist, mainline Protestant, and Jewish choices? Believers and unbelievers are in much of this together. Do the old lines and definitions still serve? It’s time to notice.
References
Maureen Dowd, “Cooperation in Evil,” New York Times, October 1, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/dowd-cooperation-in-evil.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd
Howard J. Hubbard, “The Values of the Bishops,” New York Times, October 5, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/the-values-of-the-bishops.html?ref=howardjhubbard
Martin E. Marty’s biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.
Filed under: Becoming and Being Part of a UU Congregation, Comparative Religion, Comparative Religion, Family Ministry, Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Reflections, Trends in Religion | Tags: trends in religion, younger adults in church
http://www.faithandleadership.com/blog/09-22-2011/carol-howard-merritt-five-cultural-shifts-should-affect-the-way-we-do-church
I found this article very interesting. She is a Mainline (Presbyterian) minister in a city (Washington). Some of her points relate primarily to the Mainline moderate Christian context, and the fact that some former Evangelical young adults are finding there way to the moderate churches. Most newer folks in UU churches did not leave Evangelical churches, though some may have grown up Catholic, and some Mormon. But some of the class-based issues and the technology changes are relevant. If you find this interesting, leave a comment for other UUs to read. Or just tell the comment directly to the author on the website.
Filed under: Magazine & Newspaper Articles, Politics, Elections, and Government, Social Action & Social Justice | Tags: disappointment, election 2012, Obama, primary challenge, Progressives, Ralph Nader, Senate candidates
You can read about this idea at Common Dreams.
Pastor Cranky is a Democrat and is not happy with the Obama administration. He admits to troubling thoughts… that he erred in giving his money and primary vote to Obama and not Hillary Rodham Clinton. If she could have won the general election, she might have handled this economic challenge more like a progressive. Pastor Cranky also admits to fantasizing about a primary challenge to Obama. But he’s changed his mind. It’s a bad idea. So is a third-party challenge. Let’s count the ways:
1) Third-party challengers usually have the effect of making a main-party candidate look more middle-of-the-road. Ralph Nader made Al Gore look more beholden to the moneyed interests and more right-wing than Gore’s campaign rhetoric would have led you to believe, and more beholden to the establishment than Gore publicly has been since losing the 2000 election. In many ways, Gore has been a social prophet since 2000.
2) Third-party challengers can weaken a strong main candidate. This happened to Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush and then Al Gore. Of course, I respect the right of those who vote for a third party candidate (I voted for John Anderson, have friends who voted for Ross Perot, and have known patriotic Americans who voted for Ralph Nader). But I accuse Ralph Nader of being disingenuous in his campaign arguments about Gore. I blame him for George Bush’s becoming president. Without the Nader distraction, Gore would have won enough electoral votes outright. Florida would not have been in dispute. I blame Bush and Cheney for the disasters of their regime from 2001-2008, but I blame Nader for Gore’s loss.
3) No kind of primary challenger can wrest the nomination from Obama.
4) The primary is not the time to pressure the President to be progressive. We should have out-organized both the Democratic conservatives and the Republicans in the past two years; we should have pushed him even harder to be more progressive and bold. Knowing that many of us did that, or thought we were doing so, I understand the urge to punish him. Yet it’s a waste of effort.
5) Left-wing primary challengers could make Obama look reasonable, middle-of-the-road, agreeable and presidential. Progressives should not give him that cover.
6) Left-wing primary challengers could, on the other hand, make Obama look like a weak leader in general, and make him come across as even more unpopular. The media would be talking non-stop about the horse-race aspects of the Primary, not the arguments a Progressive candidate is making. The media would not focus as much on Bachmann, Perry, Romney, and Paul. (This weakening of the incumbent happened when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter and when Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford. I forget what happened before then.)
7) Left-wing primary challengers would distract Obama’s campaign strategists from winning the 2012 general election. They would cause him to spend campaign money on a primary challenge as well as time. They would would draw donations from Progressives who might otherwise put their money into campaigns that could be won in the general election.
So, what to do?
This is what I want to do: I want to give the lion’s share of my donations–early and often–to Progressive Democratic candidates for U. S. Senate and the U. S. House. If we can regain a majority in the House, it can either press Obama or hinder a Republican president on issues like economic fairness and environmental protection. If we can enlarge a progressive Democratic majority in the Senate, it will be able to pass progressive legislation, or if necessary, fight against any Republican president’s terrible nominees for Supreme Court and the many other Federal court seats, as well as nominees for important cabinet positions.
I want to give my campaign contributions to Democratic incumbents and those challengers who have a chance of winning. I want to give it to those who are not already millionaires. (Harder to do in Senate campaigns.) I’ll let Obama vacuum all the money he can from his business and banking friends and those progressives who won’t give up on him.
But I’ll give my money to House and Senate candidates who deserve it, and whom we need in the Capitol, no matter who is President. Your comments are welcome. Also, your suggestions of Senate and House candidates who need and merit support.
