As promised, I've uploaded my paper on Unitarian Universalist theology for peer review and critique. I'm going to hold off sharing the professor's comments to get some others first. Let me know what you think and how it makes you feel. Thanks in advance.
Posted by dsoliday at June 25, 2005 01:17 AM | TrackBackHi,
Your paper is well argued and with interesting proposals. My main objection is its lack of historical sense. It does not explain where Unitarian Universalism comes from, how its distinct identity was built, and what is its position nowadays in the denominational map. Actually it does not even say why those 7 Principles ("The 7 Banalities" as UU minister Davidson Loehr puts it) and sources are formulated like this, or where it happened, or how. They look like a heavenly revelation from Mt. Sinai. So my best suggestion is that you include more historical background to support why those principles are the axis around which UUism is built.
David,
There were very few ideas in your paper which I couldn't find agreement with. As a Process Theist there were some ideas I would expand upon. I'm not sure that the exceptionality (is that a word?)- "Every person has inherent worth and dignity because human existence is exceptional amongst all other species." - is enough to ground "worth and dignity". I think it could be argued that every single creature is exceptional in some way. "Worth" or value can either be intrinsic or extrinsic. The dualistic supernaturalism which is still so much a part of our dominate culture holds that only humans have intrinsic worth because only humans have a "soul". Ecologically and ethically I think this is a terrible doctrine and is supportable only by myth.
Your understanding of Divinity is very similar to that of Process Theology (panentheism) except that the descriptor of the Divine as "omnipotent" in its classical sense is flatly rejected. It is also rejected by Feminist theologians as well as Humanists.
I'm not sure I would agree that "Paradox allows the faithful to know that Gd is immanent and transcendent at the same time." I think it was Charles Hartshorne who said something like, "Paradox in theology is simply a contradiction in any other field." I see no reason why we need 'paradox' when there are reasonable models which explain why the Divine is both immanent and transcendent.
Finally, although I believe there should be an openness to the concept of reincarnation, I remain skeptical and prefer the idea of "objective immortality". Are the "souls" of dogs, cats, crickets, and quarks, reincarnated? The "evidence" for reincarnation seems to me to be the same kind of evidence used by creationists to support Noah's flood.
Thanks for submitting your paper!!
Don
Posted by: Don Vande Krol at July 17, 2005 09:16 AM