Steve Caldwell made a really interesting point about the seven principles and the word "God" in the comments on my last post:
While it's true that the most current version of the UU Principles adopted in 1985 and revised in 1995 don't mention God, we do mention God in the "sources" portion of the UUA Principles and Purposes.
http://www.uuworld.org/spirit/articles/theuuasprinciplespurposes19853644.shtml
I would suggest that anyone who suggests that we voted to make our Principles totally non-theist should re-examine this claim in light of the "sources" portion of our Principles.
When one views the Principles in their full context (with the sources of our living tradition), it's factually inaccurate to say that our Principles are totally non-theist.
I had a long night and am not 100 percent functional yet, but that makes sense to me, and indeed, makes me wonder why I didn't think of it myself.
CC
3 comments:
What I admire about Steve is that he tends to go right to the source.
Steve is right. The problem is, while UUs are starting to embrace the 7 Principles as one way to explain who we are, the Sources just sit there at the bottom of the page, and are far less known.
I personally believe that the Sources are a great way to arrange an RE curriculum and know that a lot of RE folks agree with me. But the general UU doesn't know the Sources very well, and we certainly don't invoke them in public the way we do the Principles (and particularly the first one).
Ah... (gleefully), but PB... it's only appropriate. It's right, correct and proper.
After all, God is in the details.
(chortle)
The Principles leave room for those who have god-problems to come right on in and be with us... and work on those problems (I've seen it happening). The Sources invite it right back on in.
Since one of my preferred terms for the divine is "The Source," I think it apropos....
Talking about principles in a vacuum seems to be one of those philosopical no-nos, anyway. One is supposed to--required to--at least state one's fundamental presumption(s) and understanding(s) from which one then derives...
I know, I know, PB. You just want us all to be better than we are, to sit up straight, brush after meals, keep our hair cut in an attractive manner and not wear jeans to church. We're working on being better. You're holding up a standard. Namaste. Just judge us gently while we fumble towards living up to such high standards.
(It's a dirty, thankless job, but someone has to do it, right?)
Post a Comment