- What is it?
- Who gets it?
- How do you get it?
The UU religious educator and curriculum author Kate Erslev provided a descriptive summary of current-day Unitarian Universalist theology of salvation in her UU Identity curriculum for young adults:This view of UU salvation may sound just too simple, but I'm OK with that.Once again, in contrast to the predominant foundation of the theology of Calvinism, our roof was raised by the 19th century Universalists. Universalism gave us a roof that saved us all. They said that what saves us is the power of creative love made viable to us in the person of Jesus.The portion of Kate's curriculum that talks about UU theology and how we view salvation was based on Rebecca Ann Parker's talk that she presented at the 2002 LREDA Fall Conference on theology of religious education. Rebecca talked about how our current-day implicit theology of savalation or soteriology comes from our Universalist heritage.
Do we need to be saved from Hell? The Universalists said that we create heaven and hell on earth. We need to be saved from the Hells that we create.
One short and pithy statement describing current-day UU theology of salvation that I heard at this conference from Rebecca Parker was that we offer salvation from those things that deny life or make it less whole.
As an Our Whole Lives educator and curriculum trainer, this simple statement about salvation explains why we offer sexuality education in our congregations. We provide sexuality education because it offers salvation in a very real sense.
So ... here are my answer to the questions about salvation.
What is "salvation"? -- it's anything that saves us in the here-and-now from those things that deny us life or make that life less whole.
Who gets salvation? -- In theory, it should be more available than it currently is. Many of the things that deny us salvation are human-created. But there are some things that we cannot change such as incurable disease and natural disasters. It's our job as Unitarian Universalists to help create a world where suffering is reduced even if we cannot eliminate all suffering in this world.
How do you get it? -- Ideally, we would all get salvation. Given the imperfect world we live in and the reality that there are some things we cannot change, we should work to ensure that as many people as possible should experience salvation. As we learn more about the world and each other, we may find out that what we've done in the past may have denied salvation for some.
For example, the UU Committee on Goals published results of its survey on beliefs and attitudes within the denomination on sexual orientation in 1967:
- 7.7% of UUs believed that homosexuality should be discouraged by law
- 80.2% that it should be discouraged by education, not law
- 12% that it should not be discouraged by law or education
- 0.1% that it should be encouraged
8 comments:
I'm appalled by the 1967 survey. I suppose there were few homosexual Unitarians at the time.
I just learned this morning that our local UU church (I'm in Eugene, Oregon, although I hale from your part of the country) is to get an atheist minister, so, perhaps, I will check it out again. I just wish they would drop the word "church" and replace it with society or fellowship.
@Snowbrush: The survey itself was conducted beginning in 1965, and the results published in 1967.
It reflects a relatively liberal understanding about sexual orientation for its time, and certainly prompted many BGLT folks and their allies in the UUA to push for more education and action over time. Three years after this, the UUA would pass its first GA resolution in support of BGLT rights; and three years after that, the GA would call for the creation of an Office of Gay Concerns (now BGLT Concerns).
For myself: I wonder what the results would be if a survey were done now about UU attitudes and awareness about BDSM.
"I wonder what the results would be if a survey were done now about UU attitudes and awareness about BDSM."
Ha. Well, there you go down the the old slippery slope. Accept gays today, and, the next day, will come hanging people from the ceiling by hooks through their skin, and, the day after that, sex with our pets. Of course, it doesn't have to be so, but there is ever the pressure to accept more and more behaviors that were formerly considered outrageous.
I'd say the most "outrageous" sexual behavior is rushing into sex while intoxicated, with no discussion or consideration of consequences. How I bemoan hearing so many times: "Things just happen."
First off, it's a very blurry line between "kinky" and "vanilla" sex. So many folks will try a little slap 'n' tickle, a blindfold here, a costume there -- so long as "we're not like those perverts."
Second and more important: We "perverts" take more care about sexual expression and communication than many so-called "normal" people. So there's a case to be made to welcome more BDSM folks into our churches -- you could learn a lot from us.
And yes, there are plenty of kinksters in UU congregations, certainly in the hundreds and quite possibly in the thousands.
Desmond wrote:
-snip-
"Second and more important: We 'perverts' take more care about sexual expression and communication than many so-called 'normal' people. So there's a case to be made to welcome more BDSM folks into our churches -- you could learn a lot from us."
Desmond,
I've used an "extreme sports" analogy in the past when talking about the greater need for planning and communication in the BDSM and poly communities.
In the context of the "extreme sports" analogy, "vanilla" sex is the equivalent of taking a stroll around the park on a mild spring day. There are hazards but they are generally mild (e.g. sprained ankle, sunburn, etc).
In contrast, BDSM and poly would be the equivalent of extreme sports like hang-gliding, base jumping, mountain climbing, etc. The risks are greater but those who participate in "extreme sports" (sexual and non-sexual) may consider the rewards to be greater. And the sexual and non-sexual "extreme sports" require in-depth planning and more intentional communication between every participant.
If people approached the stroll in the park and the vanilla sexual encounter like their "extreme sports" counterpart, the milder activities would be safer.
Snowbrush wrote:
-snip-
"I'm appalled by the 1967 survey. I suppose there were few homosexual Unitarians at the time."
Snowbrush,
In light of what we know today, the results are appalling.
The good news is that we are not stuck with the 1967 attitudes in Unitarian Universalism. We have the freedom to change if we as a faith community discover that we need to do so.
Other religions may be less adaptable to changing social conditions.
If they rely on "revealed truth" and have to wait until their next prophet is born, they may be stuck with official church teachings that are based on 1967 and earlier attitudes.
As an example, the Bahai tradition is one that expresses wonderful teachings on racial and gender equality. But their official teachings on sexual orientation shows what happens when one depends on revealed truth and a limited number of prophets.
True, Steve. Even with the stroll in the park, there are tics and mosquitos carrying disease, so it makes sense to wear bug repellant or take other precautions against gettin' bit. Not to mention getting lost if you're going to an unfamiliar spot, sudden changes in weather, et cetera. "Safe" and "dangerous" are at ends of a continuum, not separate domains.
With sexuality, there is also the issue of emotional risk. I've had physically edgy encounters which carried far less emotional risk than your average singles-bar hookup. And I've even known other kinksters who employ different safewords to convey when the submissive or bottom reaches physical or emotional limits.
Steve said: "If they rely on "revealed truth" and have to wait until their next prophet is born, they may be stuck with official church teachings that are based on 1967 and earlier attitudes."
Damn right, Steve. I didn't know what you wrote about the Bahai faith, but I'm not surprised.
Post a Comment