wizdUUm Blogs on Theology

Every Sunday, I arrive at church an 1-1/2 early in order to attend a discussion group that meets before service.  The group serves as my covenant group of sorts, providing a safe place where we can explore issues in depth, with people whom we know well.  One of the things I most love about the group is our diversity of beliefs - from Christian to Pagan to atheist, and as we discuss theology I try to be always mindful of how it could pertain to everyone.

This morning the discussion turned towards our inherent worth and dignity.  For those of us who do not believe in a divine creator, what is the source of this worth?  Are non-theists stuck with a sort of relativist answer? - "we have inherent worth only because we say that we do."  Ethics based on tit-for-tat.  The problem with that kind of answer is obvious. What happens when someone refuses to agree?  In the realm of ethics, it would be nice to be able to point to a higher source of moral authority than just one's own preferences.  Otoh, someone pointed out that what is right/good should be right/good independent of the existence of God.

Even tho I am a theist, I see no need for a belief in God per se in order to avoid moral relativism.  One can get to "inherent worth of each person" without a concept of God.  Our worth is inherent in our interdependency. Our seventh principle is the basis for our first.  Interdependency goes beyond tit-for-tat.  Tit-for-tat is still too atomistic a framework for ethics.  It assumes that people act as individual agents who can choose whether or not to engage in beneficent reciprocity.  Interdependency says you don't really have a choice.  If you don't respect the worth of others, it will be to your own detriment.  Ultimately the ONLY way to benefit oneself is to be of benefit to others.

In fact, from the Buddhist perspective, interdependency says there is no difference between the other and yourself.  As you value yourself, so value others.  As you value others, so value yourself.  It adds another layer of meaning to Jesus' words, "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself."

Interdependency also bypasses the whole question of whether what is right/good can be separated from God.  As a panentheist, my God is in the connections between all sentient beings, and indeed between everything.  My God is the higher source of moral authority than just my own preferences, and my God is not separate from goodness itself.  They are mutually interdependent.

Since I've been co-facilitating a class on liberation theology at church, it's been on my mind a lot these days.  And since it's been on my mind already, we decided to do a theological reflection on it in the office today.  While going over some historical background and explaining liberation hermeneutics, the main thrust of my presentation was the difference between liberal theology and liberation theology.  To illustrate the difference, we looked at the concept of sin.

In traditional Christian theology, sin is going against God's will.  God defines what is right, and therefore going against God is always wrong.

We all agreed that liberals have difficulty with the concept of sin, with many rejecting it outright.  But if we were to formulate one, Adam came up with one that was both an accurate assessment of the liberal/UU framework, and the perfect foil for the liberation conception of sin. "Sin is going against my own conscience."

In liberation theology, one definition is this: For those who benefit from systems of oppression, sin is to contribute to the maintenance of these systems both actively and complicitly.  For those who suffer under systems of oppression, sin is to accept this without resistance.

Upon hearing this definition, EB pensively offered her thoughts.  Maybe, she said, this difference is the source of why we run into so much resistance when we do anti-racism work.  Because we're coming from a liberation (ie - systemic) point of view while most people are looking at racism from a liberal (ie - personal) point of view.  We're telling them that they still are complicit in racism because they participate in racially oppressive systems.  But from their point of view they are not racist because they have no personal feelings against people based on race.

I had known the difference between systemic and personal views of racism for a while now. Anyone who's taken ARAO (anti-racism/anti-oppression) training knows it, as had everyone in the office.  But it wasn't until today, and EB, that I tied it directly to theology.  It brought another dimension to the conversation that Joseph and I had had in March - that our goal is to move Unitarian Universalism from liberal theology to liberation theology.