Stepchildren in Our Parents' House
Stepchildren in Our Parents' House
by John C. Morgan
I ask my community college students to write their core belief in less than five hundred words,
reminding them of the “elevator exercise” which asks you to imagine yourself coming down on an
elevator from a top floor with a co-worker who turns to you as the door shuts and asks: “So what
do you really believe?” A few of my students may have struggled with the exercise, but all
articulated what they believed in less than three minutes
I have not had the same kind of experiences when Unitarian Universalists were asked to come up
with their core beliefs. Most had a very difficult time. Those who did respond usually did so with
variations of the theme that Unitarian Universalists believe in “individual freedom of belief.”
There are a number of reasons I suspect Unitarian Universalists have a difficult time simply
stating what they believe in fewer words than a doctoral dissertation. It may be that they don’t
know or never had the opportunity to state what we believe. It may also be that they don’t
organize themselves around beliefs at all. With another minister, I once wrote a short booklet for
the Unitarian Universalist Association, “Mission-Covenant” to use with new congregation leaders,
in which we argued that covenants, not creeds, bound us together. A covenant is more in the
way of a promise, not a creedal statement, which made it more relational and in some ways less
binding. It may also be Unitarian Universalists can argue what they are against, but seldom what
they are for. Others would cite the denominational principles and purposes for what they held
to be most important, but no one that I knew could name more than a few of the principles and
even less the sources of the “living tradition.” This might be because the principles and
purposes really are a political, not religious document, pointing to the reality of diversity in our
midst over twenty years ago. “I don’t know anyone who wants the principles and purposes read
when they are dying,” a seasoned minister once commented.
If the core affirmation or commitment we hold is that of individual freedom of belief, this may point
to some intriguing observations I have made over the nearly three decades of being associated
with Unitarian Universalism.
First, while respect for religious differences is an important value, it does not necessarily lead to
the deep bonds of community needed to sustain people, especially during times of great stress
or loss, or, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once wrote: “It’s hard to be religious all by yourself.”
Ultimately, it’s the “we,” not the “I,” which brings and sustains people in community. Yes,
protecting the individual right to believe whatever she wants is important, but it does not follow
that it leads to a sense of community. All too often what passes for toleration of differences is
really about refusing to deal with them.
Second, emphasizing freedom often means de-emphasizing responsibility. Protecting individual
freedom belief means finding it quite difficult to give up a little of yourself to the greater good, the
needs of the whole community. Perhaps that is why jokes about Unitarian Universalists getting
organized have a basis in the reality of trying to do so. For example: Leading Unitarian
Universalists is a little like “herding cats” or “wrestling alligators.” Or, why are Unitarian
Universalists such poor hymn singers? Because they are always reading one verse ahead to
see if they agree with the words.
Third, it may be that most Unitarian Universalists are downright suspicious of any common
affirmation and resistant to anything smacking of the religious traditions we abandoned. They
don’t want anyone telling them what to believe. They know why they left a spiritual tradition but
not always why they arrived at Unitarian Universalism other than they are free to believe
whatever they choose short of advocating intolerance. Since many Unitarian Universalists came
out of Christian traditions, is it any wonder that the few remaining Christians in their midst feel so
left out or why in the rising influx of earth centered traditions these days so many Humanists feel
the same way?
The lack of clarity about core beliefs often leaves outsiders confused. I remember one visitor
saying to me after a number of visits: “ I like the people here, but I can’t for the life of me figure
out what you folks really believe other than liking to get together and arguing about your
differences.”
That’s a sad but often repeated refrain. It reminds me of an old song sung by Peggy Lee which
has
these words: “Is that all there is?” A newer version of the same assessment might be: “Where’s
the beef?” What is lacking is spiritual depth, knowing and feeling what moves not only our
minds but our hearts as well. When I did workshops or training, I would often ask a question I
had heard among more the more evangelical, but with different words: “If you were arrested for
being a Unitarian Universalist, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not sure I would have gotten near any religious movement were it not for
a small Unitarian Universalist fellowship which let me express who I was decades ago. I was an
agnostic if not atheist in those days. Had I been a Christian I’m not sure I would have been as
welcomed. However, I am still grateful for being accepted.
But when it came time to move from saying what I didn’t believe to what I did, I found little
support, and remember thinking to myself: “Is this all there is?” T.S. Eliot, the poet often
quoted from our pulpits, once said of Unitarian Universalists that they “play at religion,” yearning
for the depths of spirituality but afraid to express them in ways that move beyond our intellects.
And, if truth be told, while Unitarian Universalists show a variety of religious views in their midst,
in many ways they are strikingly alike in terms of race, education, and economic status.
Some decades ago, Professor Robert Tapp wrote a remarkable book, Stepchildren in the Father’
s House, about Unitarian Universalists which I believe is still valid:. His thesis then was that
many Unitarian Universalists then had moved beyond their founders who were mostly Christians
and often liberal Christians to a more generic religion that tried to incorporate many different
religious views without demanding allegiance to any one. Stepchildren in the father’s house was
a metaphor pregnant with meaning then. Today, I suspect the parents’ house has been left for
most but not replaced by another home, which explains a great deal of the confusion and lack of
depth and also the need ironically for a greater dialog about theology and what binds the
apparent diverse religious views into a community other than a vague sense of religiosity and
fellowship.
There comes a time for many, myself included, in which we need a deeply moving spiritual
community in which we can grow. We’ve spread our wings but now need a place to feel
connected to others with roots that are deep. It’s not enough to say what we don’t believe. We
need to say what we hold to be true and, more still, what we as a community share with one
voice.
I am very grateful for the halfway house of a Unitarian Universalist fellowship which welcomed
me, doubts and all. Perhaps that transitional phase might be a key to the better angel of
Unitarian Universalism—a place to rest for awhile before moving on. This is an important
mission—to be a stopping point but not the final destination of a lifetime spiritual journey. But I
need more than fellowship and individual religious expression. When it comes time to die, I don’t
want to have the principles and purposes read or wonder to whom or what I was most deeply
committed with others. “To Question Is the Answer” may make an interesting bumper sticker,
but it doesn’t respond to the deep need for genuine and deeply felt spiritual depth in a
community of people who at least face in the same direction.
John C. Morgan is our Contributing Editor and for almost thirty years a Unitarian Universalist
Minister. He now teaches ethics and philosophy at a community college.
by John C. Morgan
I ask my community college students to write their core belief in less than five hundred words,
reminding them of the “elevator exercise” which asks you to imagine yourself coming down on an
elevator from a top floor with a co-worker who turns to you as the door shuts and asks: “So what
do you really believe?” A few of my students may have struggled with the exercise, but all
articulated what they believed in less than three minutes
I have not had the same kind of experiences when Unitarian Universalists were asked to come up
with their core beliefs. Most had a very difficult time. Those who did respond usually did so with
variations of the theme that Unitarian Universalists believe in “individual freedom of belief.”
There are a number of reasons I suspect Unitarian Universalists have a difficult time simply
stating what they believe in fewer words than a doctoral dissertation. It may be that they don’t
know or never had the opportunity to state what we believe. It may also be that they don’t
organize themselves around beliefs at all. With another minister, I once wrote a short booklet for
the Unitarian Universalist Association, “Mission-Covenant” to use with new congregation leaders,
in which we argued that covenants, not creeds, bound us together. A covenant is more in the
way of a promise, not a creedal statement, which made it more relational and in some ways less
binding. It may also be Unitarian Universalists can argue what they are against, but seldom what
they are for. Others would cite the denominational principles and purposes for what they held
to be most important, but no one that I knew could name more than a few of the principles and
even less the sources of the “living tradition.” This might be because the principles and
purposes really are a political, not religious document, pointing to the reality of diversity in our
midst over twenty years ago. “I don’t know anyone who wants the principles and purposes read
when they are dying,” a seasoned minister once commented.
If the core affirmation or commitment we hold is that of individual freedom of belief, this may point
to some intriguing observations I have made over the nearly three decades of being associated
with Unitarian Universalism.
First, while respect for religious differences is an important value, it does not necessarily lead to
the deep bonds of community needed to sustain people, especially during times of great stress
or loss, or, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once wrote: “It’s hard to be religious all by yourself.”
Ultimately, it’s the “we,” not the “I,” which brings and sustains people in community. Yes,
protecting the individual right to believe whatever she wants is important, but it does not follow
that it leads to a sense of community. All too often what passes for toleration of differences is
really about refusing to deal with them.
Second, emphasizing freedom often means de-emphasizing responsibility. Protecting individual
freedom belief means finding it quite difficult to give up a little of yourself to the greater good, the
needs of the whole community. Perhaps that is why jokes about Unitarian Universalists getting
organized have a basis in the reality of trying to do so. For example: Leading Unitarian
Universalists is a little like “herding cats” or “wrestling alligators.” Or, why are Unitarian
Universalists such poor hymn singers? Because they are always reading one verse ahead to
see if they agree with the words.
Third, it may be that most Unitarian Universalists are downright suspicious of any common
affirmation and resistant to anything smacking of the religious traditions we abandoned. They
don’t want anyone telling them what to believe. They know why they left a spiritual tradition but
not always why they arrived at Unitarian Universalism other than they are free to believe
whatever they choose short of advocating intolerance. Since many Unitarian Universalists came
out of Christian traditions, is it any wonder that the few remaining Christians in their midst feel so
left out or why in the rising influx of earth centered traditions these days so many Humanists feel
the same way?
The lack of clarity about core beliefs often leaves outsiders confused. I remember one visitor
saying to me after a number of visits: “ I like the people here, but I can’t for the life of me figure
out what you folks really believe other than liking to get together and arguing about your
differences.”
That’s a sad but often repeated refrain. It reminds me of an old song sung by Peggy Lee which
has
these words: “Is that all there is?” A newer version of the same assessment might be: “Where’s
the beef?” What is lacking is spiritual depth, knowing and feeling what moves not only our
minds but our hearts as well. When I did workshops or training, I would often ask a question I
had heard among more the more evangelical, but with different words: “If you were arrested for
being a Unitarian Universalist, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not sure I would have gotten near any religious movement were it not for
a small Unitarian Universalist fellowship which let me express who I was decades ago. I was an
agnostic if not atheist in those days. Had I been a Christian I’m not sure I would have been as
welcomed. However, I am still grateful for being accepted.
But when it came time to move from saying what I didn’t believe to what I did, I found little
support, and remember thinking to myself: “Is this all there is?” T.S. Eliot, the poet often
quoted from our pulpits, once said of Unitarian Universalists that they “play at religion,” yearning
for the depths of spirituality but afraid to express them in ways that move beyond our intellects.
And, if truth be told, while Unitarian Universalists show a variety of religious views in their midst,
in many ways they are strikingly alike in terms of race, education, and economic status.
Some decades ago, Professor Robert Tapp wrote a remarkable book, Stepchildren in the Father’
s House, about Unitarian Universalists which I believe is still valid:. His thesis then was that
many Unitarian Universalists then had moved beyond their founders who were mostly Christians
and often liberal Christians to a more generic religion that tried to incorporate many different
religious views without demanding allegiance to any one. Stepchildren in the father’s house was
a metaphor pregnant with meaning then. Today, I suspect the parents’ house has been left for
most but not replaced by another home, which explains a great deal of the confusion and lack of
depth and also the need ironically for a greater dialog about theology and what binds the
apparent diverse religious views into a community other than a vague sense of religiosity and
fellowship.
There comes a time for many, myself included, in which we need a deeply moving spiritual
community in which we can grow. We’ve spread our wings but now need a place to feel
connected to others with roots that are deep. It’s not enough to say what we don’t believe. We
need to say what we hold to be true and, more still, what we as a community share with one
voice.
I am very grateful for the halfway house of a Unitarian Universalist fellowship which welcomed
me, doubts and all. Perhaps that transitional phase might be a key to the better angel of
Unitarian Universalism—a place to rest for awhile before moving on. This is an important
mission—to be a stopping point but not the final destination of a lifetime spiritual journey. But I
need more than fellowship and individual religious expression. When it comes time to die, I don’t
want to have the principles and purposes read or wonder to whom or what I was most deeply
committed with others. “To Question Is the Answer” may make an interesting bumper sticker,
but it doesn’t respond to the deep need for genuine and deeply felt spiritual depth in a
community of people who at least face in the same direction.
John C. Morgan is our Contributing Editor and for almost thirty years a Unitarian Universalist
Minister. He now teaches ethics and philosophy at a community college.
 |
 |