REFLECTION: “In The Middle" Rev. Dr. Elaine Beth Peresluha
Unitarian Universalism grew out of two differently liberal Protestant denominations. Unitarianism is a faith tradition that historically valued reason as a source of human understanding. Unitarians championed the rights of individuals to free thought and self determination in all things political and spiritual- Unitarianism emerged from a moment in time when human understanding and religious thought initiated a appreciation of our individual power to reason and define what is real.
Universalism is a faith that emerged more from the heart then the head. Universalists, believing in the concept of eternal salvation for all souls, grounded their spiritual beliefs in the benevolent presence of a loving God and universal salvation. Their communities were relationally structured in the physical locations they inhabited. Universalist, for the most part, were farmers in rural localities who believed that, as individuals, they each had a direct relationship with the divine, but they also related to an experience of the divine through their relationships with each other in community.
The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations covenants to affirm and promote respect for the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. There’s the rub. We the member congregations covenant together, (i.e.: in relationship to one another) to affirm and promote these agreed upon principles and purposes, that first and foremost of which recognizes and promotes the worth and dignity of the individual. At the same time that we covenant together, UU congregations are given and exercise what is called congregational polity, which gives us the right to act as individual communities, affirming and upholding the rights of individuals. So within each community as well as in our covenanted international association we have a relational and an individual viewpoint. Both individual reason and relationship add to the ongoing relevance and renewal of our covenant with each other. Sometimes the two viewpoints contradict- or compete with each other-
Social Constructionism teaches, “All that is real and good … emerges within our relationships and communities. Thus, values and beliefs are born out of relationships. Sheila McNamee, supervisor on my PhD told me that- I call it the soft sell of the Social Constructionist- the harder sell understands that there is not reality- no truth- no lower case truth- no upper case Truth- Listen to this cute conversation- from An Invitation to Social Construction
Social constructionists question the existence of any "self” or “reality” that is distinct or separate from all the relationships, conversations, and experiences shared up until the present moment. A constructionist viewpoint is one of understanding all that we are and have been or will be, as an integrated whole, of time, place and relationships that interconnect.
Establishing an intersection between spirituality and Social Constructionism creates a context for U.U. communities to reexamine possible imbalances created by overly focusing on individual freedom and the power of reason while neglecting more relational viewpoints. What if we practiced both respecting the dignity and worth of every individual, at the same time that we respected the dignity and work of our relationships to one another?
Post modernism asks us to explore the limitations of I think therefore I am--- and to consider another understanding of what is real.
Individualism without an alternative viewpoint, can limit the resources available to ministers and members of the community when divisive conflict erupts. Without a relational understanding of expectations for how members behave, engage with one another, or hold and appreciate differences, there is no measure of accountability other than the right of the individual. That means that any person who prefers to assert power over another can be the one who defines an outcome of any engagements rather than they’re being a transformative, relational moment that reveals new opportunities. Power and choice could go to the person who is the most aggressive, or manipulative, who may have a personal agenda rather than a communal one. Is there potential for spiritual and institutional maturation in affirming the relationships in a community in addition to the individuals within communities? Choosing to equally affirm the inherent dignity and worth of our relationships offers balancing alternative tool for constructing an effective response to institutional development.
Individual viewpoints without an equal commitment to relationships can allow one voice disproportional influence on the process of decision-making. She who yells loudest- or perseveres longest, wins.
While respecting and appreciating personal commitment, passion and initiative- can we also practice the same depth of relational responsibility that invites transformative dialogues- conversations that hold fears and anxiety and incorporates them so that new life changing possibilities and understanding occur.
Somewhere in between where we have been and where we are going, there is an opportunity for some new realization or creation to be revealed. In the relationship between what is and what can be, is our middle. The middle is fertile territory for anything to be imagined or to be discovered. When two or more people engage in a conversation, intentionally leaving space in between their differing understandings or beliefs something new, that neither one could have discovered on their own, can emerge. Both come away changed by the dialogue in which they have participated. Uncertainty surfaces in the environment of questions. If we can resist the headlong tumble into anxiety that begs our crisis oriented premature decision and action
WE human beings have learned to love and trust the secure, independent competence of the individual mind. To let go of our senses, our competence- our individualism is a huge leap- it destabilizes the familiar and we have not been socialized to appreciate instability.
How can we even begin to appreciate that an individualist, cognitively sourced abilities to solve problem is not necessarily or always the best response? It may be useful sometime- Does it need to be our first and only choice? Our ability to be patient, to remain in the middle without asserting power or authority long enough for something new to be discovered, is aided by a relational viewpoint. It is easier to be patient when one has the companionship of others.
We all find ourselves in middles. There is the middle in between the minister as expert and her congregation’s expectations; the middle between scholarship and practice; the middle between knowing how to facilitating an Appreciative Inquiry process and sincerely practicing appreciation. In each middle, a conversation between what has been and what can be is possible. The conversation I have initiated is about choosing the voice of creativity in human relationships, with each other, with our environment and with what we do not yet know rather than being right, smart, and competent.
Western culture sits in its middle between its dominant tradition of individualism, reason, and debate and the relational orientation of Social Constructionism. We are engaged in a process of shifting the dominant viewpoint towards relationship. If we can be patient with all that is unresolved in our hearts, if we can remain in relationship, Social constructionist to the academy, minister to congregations, Democrat to Republican- Oil consumer to Oil driller- then we invite a creative event, a transformative moment that may bring us to discover a new and unexpected dimension, a relational reality no one could have predicted or communicated on their own- trying to convince the other.
We arrive at this moment, all of us, in our own unique construction of reality carrying forward the genes of our fathers, the womb of our mothers or all their cultural stories. Our births and our development are relational. We are no less, no more than the magic that millions of eons, miles, and moments the universe has contributed, danced, and delivered. The spark of creativity that ignited sperm and egg into conception is relational. Foundational to all our unfoldment are the stories of relationships, mother with father, family with society, past with present; kingdom with phylum, genus with species; earth with air fire and water. We each carry in us the Peloponnesian war, Ghengas Kahn, the Holocaust, the discovery of radioactivity, and the extinction of the dinosaur. The oil spilling into the
In these eternal and universal connections lies the possibility of transformation. When we appreciate each moment’s connection with the one before, each moment invites a spark of newness growing out of what has gone before and what will come next. Nothing new is created without the place in between, past and present person and environment, person-to-person. The middles conceive newness whether it is a thought, an action, or an embryo. Our religious traditions give us a place to stand together. In that togetherness lies the possibility to choose new collective strength and wisdom, the possibility of aligning our lives with larger purpose, to ignite connections that expand us all.
We touch this strength, our power, who we are in the world, when we are most fully in touch with one another and with the world. There is no doubt in my mind that in so doing we are participants in ongoing incarnation- bringing God to life in the world. For God is nothing more than the eternally creative source of our relational power- our common strength; a God who's movement is to empower, bringing us into our own together; a God whose name in history is love.[1] - Rev. Dr. Carter Heyward
[1] Heyward, Carter Our Passion For Justice: Images of Power, Sexuality and Liberation
Copyright 1984 The Pilgrim
[1] Heyward, Carter Our Passion For Justice: Images of Power, Sexuality and Liberation
Copyright 1984 The Pilgrim