Unitarian Universalists as Post-Christians?
There’s an interesting debate in the UU blogosphere going on right now about whether or not Unitarian Universalism is Post-Christian. The most activity seems to be on Radical Hapa and Boys in the Band. The whole debate started because of this Washington post article about the recent events in Knoxville.
Personally, I tend to agree with those who argue that Unitarian Universalists are Post-Christian. I imagine that most sociologists of religion would place us in that category. I would challenge those who don’t like the term Post-Christian to come up with another that they find satisfying and that doesn’t suggest that all Unitarian Universalists are Christian, because I do not believe that we are.
I’m of the camp that no matter the theological accuracy of the term, it sounds really snotty.
The comparison I used at Radical Hapa was the word “Niggardly.” Now “Niggardly” comes from Norwegian, means “stingy” and is a perfectly grammatically correct term to use if you want to describe, say, Uncle Scrooge.
That said, it is a term that SOUNDS offensive to the average audience and spokespeople shouldn’t be using the term because it distracts from the message by drawing a lot of attention to itself because it sounds like it means something offensive even though it doesn’t.
Much like you can say “niggardly” all you want in Oslo, the term “post-Christian” is perfectly OK in theologically educated company that knows what it means. (There are smart people on both sides of the question of whether it applies to UUism, but it is, at least, something that can be argued.)
But if you’re using the term, say, in an interview with reporters, and not explaining it, you are likely needlessly pissing people off and if you’re a spokesperson, you shouldn’t be doing that.
CC
Comment by Chalicechick — August 14, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
I think I would agree that it doesn’t really belong in the comments of a spokesperson. I am not certain though that it is an offensive term.
Comment by Administrator — August 14, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
So just what makes something offensive then?
Folks clearly have stated they are offended.
Are we to tell them they have no right to be offended?
((and admittedly sometimes people don’t have that right - but if draw that line there, it will mark the line on how we treat other groups in and out of the UUA as well))
Comment by Steven R — August 14, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
CC wrote:
-snip-
“But if you’re using the term, say, in an interview with reporters, and not explaining it, you are likely needlessly pissing people off and if you’re a spokesperson, you shouldn’t be doing that.”
CC,
I’ll agree that a UUA spokesperson should not use the term without explaining what Post-Christian means.
Fortunately, she did explain as one can see with the following quote from Janet Hayes in the Washington Post:
“We include the teaching of Jesus and we appreciate the wisdom of the Bible, but we don’t limit our sources of inspiration to the Christian faith.”
Since she explained what the term means and it appears to be an accurate description of who we are theologically today, why exactly are you upset?
:^)
Comment by Steve Caldwell — August 15, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Mostly that ““We include the teaching of Jesus and we appreciate the wisdom of the Bible, but we don’t limit our sources of inspiration to the Christian faith.”” includes, I believe, every Christian I know.
Or at least if some of the Christians I know DO limit their sources of inspiration to the Christian faith, they’ve done an awesome job of hiding that, appearing to be as capable of being inspired by, say, great art or secular wisdom, as anyone else.
Thus a Christian reading Hayes’ words gets to think “Not only do these UU folks call themselves by this snotty name that suggests they have transcended what I believe, but they justify doing so by saying they do something obvious that everyone does. What a stupid religion!”
Again, people with better theological heads than mine are arguing whether the term post-Christian applies to us. That’s fine. I just don’t think any salvos in the argument should take place in the Washington Post.
CC
Comment by Chalicechick — August 15, 2008 @ 3:14 pm