It'll be at "Beliefnet" from now on--under the name "MUUsings"--and it's at this address;


http://community.beliefnet.com/journals/sblog_id/7495


Come and join me there, won't you?

-- There's a section in our "Faith of the Free" board that focuses upon "UU-themed" movies...upon those which, in our opinion, express the premises, values, priorities and general temperament of our particular mode of liberal religion. So far, there have been posts about such movies as "Pleasantville," "A Christmas Carol," "Inherit the Wind," etc., but I don't believe there is any better example of a "UU-themed movie" than the Robert Redford movie "Brubaker." That may sound a little odd, given the subject-matter, but a deeper investigation I believe reveals something that goes right to the very heart of "what we're about" as UU's...as a liberal-religious movement.

-- The movie "Brubaker" is about life and conditions in a rural state penitentiary which has come to reflect the worst kind of "correctional" atmosphere and attitudes--and a new warden who comes to make systemic reforms within it. To me, the underlying (or overarching) theme of this movie is about some of the same identity-issues that also face Unitarian Universalism as a "radical reform-oriented" religious movement. Again, Robert Redford is "an outsider" who came to the prison to make real and fundamental changes...systemic changes...in spite of a system that sought to block his progress at any turn. It's a constant struggle between tradition...the status-quo, "business as usual" (no matter how corrupt and morally bankrupt) and, on the other hand, a perceived need to "blow the lid off" the whole infrastructure and build anew. Warden Brubaker even suggested that the most expedient way to solve the many problems facing that "Wakefield prison" would be to blow it up and start over.

-- The movie features an interaction between two opposing and sometimes incompatible forces--the radical approach to reform (which Brubaker passionately advocated), and a slower, more measured approach that was being advanced by several of his collegues. In religion, this same interaction can be seen in the thorough-going, radical-reform emphasis of Unitarian Universalism, and, on the other hand, the "modifying liberalism" of some of our friends who espouse other, "less radical" manifestions of liberal faith. As you may have noticed from some of my other posts, I believe our particular mission in religion is pretty clear. The world already has enough modifying religious movements, but there's a monumental calling for at least one "Brubaker-style" religious movement.

-- At the end of the movie, actor Yaphet Kotto, who had earlier repeatedly questioned the warden's methods, simply said to Redford "I'm gonna' tell you something now....you were right!" He meant, of course, that sometimes there is indeed a calling for that kind of radical-reform and systemic change. We UU's would extend that same belief also to matters of religion and religious community.

-- In reality, we need both the gradual reforms of the "modifying progressives" and the shock-reforms of the "thorough-going progressives," and in religion that means we need both the progressive Christians (and counterparts in other faith-traditions) and at least one movement where ongoing, systemic reform is a fundamental part of its very DNA. We currently are calling such a faith-community "Unitarian Universalism."

Quote:

"I believe I can offer one important testimonial; and that is, that having spent the last twelve years in public life, I've become more and more conscious of the importance of Unitarian groups, Unitarian communities. I don't mean just our church services, just our worship, but Unitarian people--who appear in my life constantly. They're the sort of people who do the advance thinking, who are, for the most part, rocking the boat, who are cutting the furrows, who are ahead of the procession in contemporary thought in our country about our great social and political problems, as well as our theological discussion. This is the active agent in the body politic that is most necessary. " "I think that one of our most important tasks as Unitarians is to convince ourselves and others that there is nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics, without which life would become lifeless. Here lies the power of the liberal way—not in making the whole world Unitarian; but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one's own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination. Thus we can learn to grow together, to unite in our common search for the truth beneath a better and a happier world" -- Adlai Stevenson, Jr.

-- As a "Brubaker-style" approach to religion, we occupy a distinct, arguably unique place along the religious spectrum. We have our own reason for being...simply because the ways of gradual reform are often insufficient, too little, too late. Sometimes even religion needs its boat-rockers...its "devil's advocates"...to point the way to new ways of looking at things, and of responding to the needs of this human race and this planet.

-- In the movie, Redford calls the "slow change from within the system" kind of liberalism one of "pseudo-reform" and "token liberalism"-- which I'll admit is at least a little overstated. However, I hope nobody will miss the fundamental point he's making. He's saying that sometimes there's a genuine need for radical, revolutionary, systemic changes, the kind that goes all the way to attitudes and mindsets as well as to bricks, mortar and infrastructure.

-- I hope all of you will consider taking advantage of any opportunity you may have to see the movie "Brubaker," or to go back again and consider it from the standpoint of the current state of religion and of religious reform. I obviously believe pretty deeply in this particular reform-oriented religious movement that we have come to currently call Unitarian Universalism. I believe in both its rich, inspiring legacy and its present calling. And, like Yaphet Kotto, I believe the legacy and calling of this "Brubaker faith" are "right"--not that we're the only ones who are "right," of course, or that we are in any way perfect in what we try to accomplish; and not that our reform-work is ever finished, or that we're ever allowed to settle back and rest on past reforms--but because we, too, have a legitimate and vital "reason for being"--at this unique place on the religious spectrum. Like Warden Brubaker, we, too are engaged in doing something thoroughly worthwhile, and in speaking with a progressive voice that could not be more important in this fast-moving society and ever-changing world...a work which, yes, extends even to meaningful prison and corrections-system reforms!

So...have you seen the movie lately? What do you think?

Ron

There's been quite a discussion on the "UU blogs" recently about just what is the role of our congregations in "this thing we call UU." How important are they? Why are they not adequately meeting the needs of the majority of those people who identify themselves as Unitarian Universalists? It's a healthy conversation to have, but some of the angst is unwarranted, IMHO.

While some UU bloggers are just now coming to this realization --that UU is more of a movement that extends beyond our institutions, arguably even beyond UUA--some of us have recognized it for years. UUA has itself struggled with this fact (and continues to do so, it seems to me). There's even a hint of authoritarianism in its assumptions that it can somehow speak for an entire movement...for all UU's through a common set of "principles and purposes" (as admirable as they may be, and upon which I voted favorably as a delegate back in 1985, by the way).

The tendency to conflate this particular mode of liberal religion that we currently are calling Unitarian Universalism with any one single religious institution or denomination is a fundamental error. This "movement" is older than the UUA, and I would argue is much, much larger. Surveys have only recently begun to reflect the fact, having discovered that people are (by the hundreds of thousands) adopting the name Unitarian or Unitarian Universalist who have no personal relationship with any UU organization. This thing that we call Unitarian Universalism--largely for the sake of convenience, and the lack of any better name at the moment--reflects a "whole 'nother way" of looking at religion, a far different paradigm of progressive, dynamic, non-dogmatic, radical-reform oriented and Enlightenment-spirited religion, which simply refuses to be confined by the old boundaries, or to be judged or measured according by the old rules and standards. Yes, it has--and will continue to possess--both communal and individual aspects, as it sees religion itself to be an expression and embodiment of both diversity and unity.

There will, no doubt, be room for "congregations" in some form, but the old rules need not apply any more--should not apply. Ours is a "new wineskins of ongoing-reformation" kind of faith--one which, by its very nature and DNA is tasked to respond to the new needs of an ever-shrinking, ever-changing, faster-moving world. The "new paradigm" will inevitably give birth to new models of community, of networking, of extended family. Rather than bemoan that fact, we should learn how to accept this new mode of religion, and adapt ourselves to its different "new world" demands and expectations...to its different rules and standards.

As our liberal prophets have been insisting for centuries, the ways of the fifth and fifteenth centuries will simply not do for ours. Whether intended or not, we've hitched our horses to something distinctly different...to a "whole 'nother way" in religion, a way of critical questioning; of nondogmatic, inductively-reasoned, "free and open marketplace" scientific discipline; of democratic human relations which respect both diversity and unity; of personal free-agency in matters of conscience and ultimate truth and meaning; of radical belonging and of an inextricable cosmic connectedness with the very heartbeat of the universe...with the "interdependent web" of life. The sooner we come to grips with just how distinct is this particular legacy in religion...of this still-emerging new paradigm of "thorough-going liberalism," of sound reasoning and utmost personal honesty applied even to matters of the spirit, the sooner we will begin to meet the needs of a world that simply refuses to comply with the dogmatic, authoritarian, patriarchal constructs of religion which we humans have sought to impose upon it for far too long. The universe itself is calling for a different mode of human relationships...for a different kind of civility...a different set of standards...a different mindset. As a Universalist once suggested, we who call ourselves Universalists have an obligation to either "improve the premises" or step aside and allow others to do it.

But...I could be wrong. What do you think?

Ron