Thank you, Katlin, for reviving the opportunty to discuss UU Theology!

I believe that the inherent worth and dignity of every person is something that we can find and nourish in ourselves. Certainly, one does not have to look far, around oneself or in history, to see the enormous range of behaviors of human beings, and I am aware of a wide range of possible behaviors and attitudes within myself. It seems to me that people understand that by the very act of telling someone that he or she possesses inherent worth and dignity, one sows that idea in the person's mind, or waters a plant that is already growing in the mind and life of that person. When the family, religion, and society in which that person lives also plant and then water that same seed, the belief that one has inherent worth and dignity can live, grow, and bloom.

Needless to say, the combination of individual, family, religion, and society does not always work in favor of the individual, and what may pass for a belief in oneself may be a primal urge to survive on any terms, even the most debased. Indeed, the word "debased" tells us something--if something is debased, it has lost something integral to it, such as its foundation. That can and does happen for many reasons, from body chemistry to social inequality, but it is not possible to be debased if there is no base, no integrity of being, in the first place. It seems to me that it is that base, that integrity of being, about which the first principle speaks. It speaks about it because the people who created the first principle perceived worth and dignity within themselves and others, and because they knew that they were offering a type of pastoral care to current and future UUs simply by saying those words with conviction.

I believe that while we cannot lose our inherent worth and dignity as human beings, we can lose sight of it, or never form the concept in the first place. There may not be much point in having inherent worth and dignity if you are being routinely sexually abused by one of your parents, or are chronically ill because due to maknutrition. Some people have so little regard for the concept of individual worth and dignity that they routinely damage or destroy those qualities in others--while being unable to find them in themselves. That is why the spiritual and social action arms of UUism need to work together--to give people a chance to discover the fullness of themselves as human beings.

Erik Felker

Namaste Erik and thanks for your response!

The question that I posed stems from an Adult Spiritual Development class where we are exploring the theology that is inherent in our seven principles - both the values that they affirm and the action that is required from affirming them. (ie - how do we promote?) Our 7 principles have been criticized by some both inside and out of denomination for being too secular, not having enough "religion" in them. To be honest, when I read words like "with peace, liberty, and justice for all" (from our 6th principle) I think more of civic documents and Superman than I do of faith.

The first inkling that I had that there might be something deeper there was during a discussion in a "roots and wings" class (our intro class to UU and our church), especially about the 5th principle. Because I had been reading about James Madison and his views on church and state, the phrase "right of conscience" held special meaning for me. But I could see how such phrases could easily be glossed over. And indeed our entire seven principles could be glossed over. They sound nice. Who would object to the idea that everyone has inherent worth and dignity?

But what does that really mean? What does affirming and promoting it require of us? What we're learning from our discussions on the seven principles is that they demand a great deal from us if we really do affirm and promote them. One of the workshops that was held at General Assembly last year was called "Is Hitler in Heaven?" Talk of heaven aside, the question here is whether someone as "evil" as Hitler still has inherent worth and dignity. (I didn't have time to attend that workshop - too many good ones! - but I appreciate the question it raises.) What is the nature of our worth? Can someone actually lose it through evil acts? What is the nature of evil? Is that inherent too?

If I understood you correctly, I agree with you that a person never loses their inherent worth. That whatever harmful actions they might commit is due to not being able to see the worth of the other person, nor see their own worth. (And I hope I would still believe this if I ever had to face someone who tortured and killed someone that I loved.) I think I also got some sense of what you think the basis of our inherent worth is, but could you please elaborate on that?

thanks,
-kat

Hello again!

In relation to the reason for our dignity and worth, I simply cannot imagine not having them! When you see people who are pressured not to think of themselves as having value, you almost always see manipulation, such as slavery, the creation of an underclass, or people who are dealing with the fear they experience by arranging the society so that they are on top. (He is gay, that makes me feel strange, so something is wrong with him, so let's beat him up and yell "Faggot" at him...). When issues of destuctive power are not uppermost, I think that people tend to think of themselves as having value as a simple function of mental health. UU's and some others take that a step farther to make people aware that even those people who dare not to be like ME...ME...ME can also have dignity and worth.

By the way, I agree that the priciples are humanistic that seems to exclude what most people, including me, would call religion. Our theistic/atheistic split is still there! I am fortunate to be in a church in which the split has not caused bitterness. Perhaps that is because we are growing fast, and a lot of our energy is focused on that. In any event, I don't feel uncomfortable expressing theistic views there.

Erik

By the way, I agree that the priciples are humanistic that seems to exclude what most people, including me, would call religion. Our theistic/atheistic split is still there! I am fortunate to be in a church in which the split has not caused bitterness. Perhaps that is because we are growing fast, and a lot of our energy is focused on that. In any event, I don't feel uncomfortable expressing theistic views there.

Hey Erik, namaste.

As I said my first impressions were that there was nothing inherently religious in our seven principles. But after some time reflecting on what our principles demand of us if we take them seriously, and also reexamining what I think it means to be religious, I now think that our principles are indeed religious.

As for the tension between theists and atheists within UU, we've been discussing that in our Seven Principles class. Our third principle calls us to accept one another and encourage each other to spiritual growth. When we take this seriously, those of us who are atheist do not react negatively when theists talk about God, and those of us who are theist do not try to convince nontheists to believe. We focus on the values that we share in common. From my own experience, I'd say that when we forget to do this the result is extremely frustrating for me (and I imagine frustrating for the others as well). But when we remember to do this the result is amazing, much much better than just being with people who all agree with each other.

Glad to hear your church is growing. Ours is too.

I think that the seven principles can be interpreted in a spiritual way without stretching things too far, and perhaps many UUs (for example, this one) need to give that some thought. At the same time, I find that UUism spends a lot of time being concerned about social justice without appearing to put any emphasis on what I would call the formation of the inner being. If I am a victim of social injustice, the first things I need are a self-view and world-view that allow me to survive with my humanity intact. Social action can take a long time, and sometimes it just doesn't happen. In the meantime, people need to know how to keep themselves functional and have reasonably normal emotional and spiritual lives in spite of the social injustice.

Many spiritual paths approach the issue of the nature, meaning, and care of the self, but UUism does not seem to me to do so. I think that we need to view social issues as actually being social/individual issues that have individual spiritual aspects. Those individual, spiritual aspects need attention as much as structural, economic, racial, etc. issues do, and religious bodies are the natural groups to take that on by asking questions about the meaning of life, the meaning of being human, the concept of ethical living, etc.. When people are in pain, just telling them that they are free to come to their own conclusions within the guidelines of the principles is not enough. I think that we need to give guidance, perhaps by examples of real lives being lived.

Duuude! I couldn't agree with you more! We've spent too much time looking outwards and not enough time looking in. And if you don't know what it is that sustains you, then you can't be very effective helping others. You'll burn out.

That is what our 7 principles class was designed to begin to do. The full title of the course was "Exploring UU Theology Through Our Seven Principles. We tried to reflect on each of the 7 principles, discuss what they require of us BUT ALSO explore the underlying beliefs - our shared core values.

In class I say that only two of our seven principles are really "belief statements" - the first and the seventh ones. Principles two-six, as important as they are, are really just ways to implement principle one. What does the inherent worth and dignity of each person really mean? It's not just a call to social justice. It's a view of the world. If one really believes that each person has inherent worth, that will play out in our relations with people every day, in every interaction, not just when we go volunteer at the soup kitchen. It requires "mindfulness" as the Buddhists say. AND we tried to remind ourselves that inherent worth applies to us as well. Sometimes we UUs are incredibly arrogant; we act as if we're the only ones doing social justice and we're smarter than everyone else. But other times, we are so incredibly fragile. I see that a lot of times; we do social justice work out of a need to reaffirm our own value. Sometime we think that everyone else has inherent value except ourselves, and that needs to be addressed.

Similarly with the 7th principle. We just wrapped up the class last night with the 7th, and one of the things we stressed was that this isn't just a political statement about environmentalism; this is again a view of the world. If everything is interconnected this again plays out in ALL of our interactions. And again we stressed that it's not just how we affect the rest of the world, but how the rest of the world affects us. And how our own actions affect ourselves.

Faith isn't just a matter of thinking something is true, the way that I think it's true that the earth orbits the sun. Faith needs to be lived, not just thought. It is a daily spiritual practice.

In a mystical mood, I'd suggest that the recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of every person is really another way of recognizing the fundamental unity of all persons and all reality. Such a unity precludes "greater" or "lesser", "good" or "bad" - all is One, and such unity is whole and "worthy" unto itself, being all that there is.

From another angle, I'd say that a statement such as "We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person" constitutes a "speech-act" - which does not address some objective (impersonal) truth, but is itself a "constitutive" act in the same sense that every act of faith strives at the integration of the person into an internal and external whole (Tillich). It is an exercise in person- and community-building, which is sufficient unto itself, quite apart from considering the "truth" of such an affirmation.

Beyond all that, I believe our sinfulness (falleness) is just as inherent as our dignity - but that would take us off into an extended tangent

Thanks Kat for getting all this rolling Smile

Namaste Grendel_Rex. Glad you're here!

grendel_rex wrote:
In a mystical mood, I'd suggest that the recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of every person is really another way of recognizing the fundamental unity of all persons and all reality. Such a unity precludes "greater" or "lesser", "good" or "bad" - all is One, and such unity is whole and "worthy" unto itself, being all that there is.

Exactly. The first principle leads to principles 2-6. They are the spelling out of the implications of the first principle, expanding out from the individual to interactions between people to congregations to society to the world, ending with the 7th principle. But the 7th principle is the basis for the first principle, thus closing the circle.

grendel_rex wrote:
From another angle, I'd say that a statement such as "We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person" constitutes a "speech-act" - which does not address some objective (impersonal) truth, but is itself a "constitutive" act in the same sense that every act of faith strives at the integration of the person into an internal and external whole (Tillich). It is an exercise in person- and community-building, which is sufficient unto itself, quite apart from considering the "truth" of such an affirmation.

Could be. Or it could be in recognition that "belief" in and of itself is meaningless without action. In that light, "We covenant to affirm and promote" is a stronger statement than "I believe."

Agreed... but wherefore sin (to address your Q2)?

Bonhoeffer, Act and Being: Sinfulness is the “heart turned in upon itself and thus open neither to the revelation of God nor to the encounter with the neighbor.”

Both mainline and liberal religionists can agree on the latter part of that definition of sin vis-a-vis recognizing - and acting upon - the inherent dignity and worth of every person.

But what about that first part - concerning revelation? Spun around and tied together: On what does that dignity of the person rest, this dignity we are so keen to affirm? Is this a revealed truth? Or a product of our own machinations? Do we believe solely in our own faculties to arrive at this "truth" - turning inward - or do we have faith in a revealed truth?

In being non-creedal in questions of belief, we yet approach having a "behavioral creed" as concerns our behavior (without irony, apparently).

So: We can clearly sin as concerns our outward behavior towards others - agreed. But are we (the non-creedal) spotless inwardly, because we are exempt from questions of revelation?

Warmly, J

The only concept of revelation that makes sense to me as a panentheistic UU is the continual revelation that we all receive via our conscience.  With respect to conscience I am held inwardly accountable.  And I would venture that conscience holds me to greater and more immediate accountability than a stated creed ever would.

In fact, I remember professor Tambasco stating that the Catholic concept of sin was to go against one's own conscience.  There were Catholics in the room who were shocked by this assertion but he brought in papers the next week to support it.

I think you have a rosier picture of the human person than I do - for I am quite certain that (my) conscience fails to hold one (me) to anything like immediate - or significant - accountability

I want revelation with teeth - grrrr!

And while I agree with your last post in large measure, I still find that self-reliance on my conscience is a bit self-indulgent (and convenient)...  that "turning inward" of the sort Bonhoeffer warned against.

It seems like a good start, the first half of a two-part revelatory scheme - the inward voice AND outward "received" revelation (of "this is the gospel of" sort, or whatever).

Seems to me that you need the voice of conscience and tradition (or external revelation) operating as checks on one another.

I believe in the inherent dignity of persons because of both inward (conscience) and outward revelation, and sin (for me) occurs when the two are transgressed concurrently (and I am wracked with questions - profitably - when only one is trangressed; such situations lead me to probe the disjoint).

Warmly, J

I understand and agree with your concern about the danger of being overly inward (tho I do think that our consciences hold us to the highest standard of accountability when we listen to them).  But as I said, the only revelation that I recognize is that of conscience.  Others are free to believe that God calls specific prophets via burning bushes and angels.  But that does not fit into my personal experience.  I believe that God calls everyone via conscience, and that what makes a person a prophet is that he or she responds fully to the call.

For external checks and balances to internal conscience, I think that reason, tradition, and community fit the bill.

Speaking of being overly inward, methinks you'll like this sermon.  It was given at All Souls by Rev. Alma Faith Crawford.  I was totally blown away.

I thoroughly enjoyed the sermon, thank you

On our thread: Significantly, a mystical dimension has reasserted itself in my life (or I should say, I no longer deny it) - so "burning bushes and angels" are very much a part of my experience... or rather, revelation: a Person, not a principle. "Leadings", above and beyond conscience.

[Tangent: Saw "Angels in America, part 1" by a local theatre company last week - amazing!]

I'd love to chat about that in length, in addition to notions of "prophecy". But that exceeds this thread, so I close for now.

In light and peace,
James
"Save the earth: bury a tree."