while there are still those people who want to do systematic theology, those people typically live in the world of academia, or wish they were living in the world of academia. Systematic theology has become theology for other theologians and scholars. From where I stand, it is theology that has lost its connection with the reality of my world.
So where do I stand?
- In the Buzzard’s Bay watershed in southeastern Massachusetts. (Systematic theology ignores watersheds and bioregions because it grows out of assumptions that theology applies in the same way to every watershed.) We are a postindustrial landscape where parts of the landscape contain intense concentrations of toxic wastes. We are in a postagricultural landscape where sprawl eats up farms and cranberry bogs. All this shapes the theological tasks of healing and redemption.
- In a diverse community of human beings who don’t always fit neatly into the binary American categories of race. (American systematic theology, when it recognizes race at all, has a tendency to divide human beings into black and white binaries.) The Native and African American communities blend together. The Cape Verdean community may be Black, or it may be Portuguese, depending on who’s doing the looking and the talking. A White person could be an Anglophone or a Lusophone or a “Hispanophone.” All this shapes practical theological anthropology in ways seemingly foreign to the academic theologians.
- In a place where religious discourse is divided between by conservative Catholic rhetoric on the one hand, and conservative atheist rhetoric on the other hand. (Systematic theology never seems to touch on the realities of the religious discourse in which we engage in the workplace and the wider community.) Our few liberal religious groups have silenced themselves by morphing into social groups who do not talk about religion. All this shapes theological discourse — talking openly about liberal religion is a radical act because doing so is a refusal to accept the generally accepted rules of religious discourse.
So how do you do theology when you’re so far away from systematic theology? A few academic theologians give us ways to do theology that matters. I have found Anthony Pinn particularly useful. Pinn writes as an African American humanist theologian who sees through the usual stereotype that “all African American religion is Christian.” In his essay “Rethinking the nature and tasks of African American theology: A pragmatic perspective ” (American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, May, 1998) Pinn writes:
…[M]y effort [is] to move beyond a strictly polemical discussion of Black Theology toward a more constructive and pragmatic posture that is based on three pragmatic moves. The first movement entails my rethinking conceptions of religious experience in ways that recognize the multiplicity of religious experiences. Thus, theology is done with a knowledge of and acquaintance with the variety of religious expressions. In this regard, the reader will recognize the intellectual shadow of both William James and Charles Long within this first move. The second move seeks to think through theology as empirical and historical discipline. Understood in this way, theology becomes a way of seeing, interpreting, and taking hold of African American experience. This thesis is expressed through an examination of theology’s objective and goals, using in large part Victor Anderson’s notion of “cultural fulfillment.†The third move entails reflections on methodology within African American theology. I argue for a critical, pragmatic commitment that gives priority to experience (and the objective of fulfillment) over “tradition.†William R. Jones and Gordon Kaufman provide the framework for this third movement in my pragmatic critique of African American theology.
Recognize multiplicity of religious experience: know how religion is actually done in the world around you. Understand theology as empirical and historical: observe, then interpret, before you theorize. Give priority to experience: leave the academy behind and get out into the world.
I think all this feeds into “UU Emergence,” that is, getting religious communities to deal directly with postmodern realities. There is no grand narrative any more. Instead of timeless systematic theology, tell stories about who and where you are now. There is no one religious movement that will take over the whole world. Instead of universal religious forms, let locality shape liturgy. There is no single genius who can speak for all humanity. Instead of trying to find a top-down authority that knows all and sees all, observe and feel and describe and build networks of mutuality with others. There is no one book of theology that will solve everyone’s theological problems. Instead of trying to write universal systematic theology, write ephemeral blogs.
Maybe it all comes down to getting out and walking around the place you live (I do mean walk, and not drive). I think I’ll do just that, right now.
This is all so interesting, and hitting me right at the right time. Two things that have been on my mind:
a) Could there be a UU-costal community? I am combining UU and Pentecostal somewhat tongue in cheek. Perhaps not the most respectful, but I’ve heard this used in other denominations — Metho-costal and such. Refers to a church where the sermons are energetic and charismatic, often with responses from the congregation — “Amen!”
b) What are the real concerns in my home church? When I talk to fellow church members about what worries them, what causes them stress, it is usually the day to day … too many charges on the credit card, not enough time in the day, too much clutter in the house. They worry about the war, racism; they think and explore theology. But what causes the stress, what causes that tightening in the gut, is more close to home
It sounds like these issues might be related to emergent theology …
Taking into account the realities of today’s post-modern world is sufficient so long as there is some mutually agreed upon framework. That’s where the universality element comes into play. Certainly, though, developing unique strategies that address each individual and each individual gathering is essential to stay current with today’s world.
While it may be unrealistic to expect any one strategy to address these times, there are constancies to human behavior and human interaction that are universal but the key is being able to balance these with tailor-made solutions that take into account the dynamics of region and proximity.
I got to the last paragraph of this post and wanted to cry! That is what I want UUism to be today – I feel that’s where the treasure is, as well as our future.
Lizard Eater — I’m not sure I’d use the phrase “UU-costal.” We already have this strong heritage of empathic, emotion-rich worship from our Universalist heritage — the Universalists used to have camp meetings and revivals, etc. I’ll also add that once in a while when I have an on-fire sermon, the congregation will engage with me vocally — so yes, it can happen in UU circles. As for the stress — yeah, we really need to be addressing the personal crises we’re all facing, instead of just talking about saving the world — it’s a both/and situation, whereas too many UU congregations ignore the personal crises in worship settings.
Comrade Kevin — You write: “Taking into account the realities of today’s post-modern world is sufficient so long as there is some mutually agreed upon framework.” While I tend to agree with you, please be aware that there is a robust philosophical tradition that would violently disagree with you — a robust enough tradition that we can’t just dismiss it out of hand, but have to engage with it critically. I’m in something of a middle ground: while I acknowledge universals in human behavior, in practice the universals offer us a lot less coherency than has commonly been assumed in UU circles (indeed, talking about “universals” has often been a way of engaging in a kind of religious colonial project, as in Kenneth Patton’s “Religion for One World,” which was a white person’s humanistic faith to be imposed on all persons regardless of cultural differences). In my direct experience, Unitarian Universalism as practiced in the Midwestern United States is significantly different than Unitarian Universalism practiced in New England, and the Unitarian Universalism of the Bay Area in California is still different — or think historically, so that in the late 19th C. the Western Unitarian Conference was so utterly different from New England Unitarianism, or in the early 19th C. Universalists in Ohio were doing full immersion baptisms while Universalists in Boston were doing child dedications. In my opinion, we really need to pay much more attention to the stark regional differences among us — not try to bulldoze them into some uniform Unitarian Universalism, but go with them.