I give Regaining
Balance – the Evolution of the UUA, by Michael Werner, two stars out of
five. The first star doesn’t count. To submit a rating on Amazon or Goodreads the
first star is just a way to ante into the system.
The book deserves the second star for presenting a
perspective on the movement of Unitarian Universalism from a denomination which
was predominantly a humanist tradition to one that lacks a theological majority
and is pluralistic. The way Werner sees
it, reason was the leading value for Unitarians in the middle of the 20th
Century and membership was growing at the time of the merger and beyond. Membership reached a peak of 177,431 members
in 1968 with a “focus on humanism”.
Since that time reason has become less valued in favor of a radical
tolerance which has led to increasing numbers of theists and other non-humanist
views. This set up the conditions where
he claims that, “It is unequivocal that Humanism was deliberately and purposely
pushed out of the UUA.” Since that time
membership has been declining.
The book argues that Unitarian Universalism is headed for
extinction and that a return to a focus on humanism is the best hope of
reviving our tradition. The perspective, which is too polemic to be taken for a
history, does illuminate how frustrating and maddening it must have been for
humanists to see control and success slip from their grasp.
The book does not receive a star for charitable treatment of
non-humanistic views. New Age beliefs
are summarily dismissed as “fanciful optimism based on ungrounded feelings” and
the “ugliness of a toxic retreat to a neo-romantic utopianism.” The contribution of Feminism to Unitarian
Universalist theology, according to Werner is an open disparagement and
hostility to reason. Process Theology is characterized as a “muddle of words
and enigmatic distinctions.” Even a
theistic approach which acknowledges the importance of scientific knowledge is
ridiculed as “intellectually untenable” “God of the Gaps” or just plain “fuzzy
theism.” The argumentative technique of
the book is to push any competing worldview to extremes and then ridicule it. In an ironically narrow-minded claim, he
says, “Frankly, today there is no credible, open-minded intellectual position
other than Humanism.”
Reason is presented as the sole evaluative tool for
assessing beliefs. Werner does not ask
how various beliefs support the congregant, how the belief adds coherency to
meaning or which behaviors manifest from the belief.
Then there is the question of what really happened in the
UUA. While there is no denying that UUA
leadership, Meadville Lombard and Starr King each influence the language and
theology within the congregations, those congregations are non-creedal and
have, through polity, the authority to call or not call ministers. Regaining
Balance would have us believe that the UUA made congregational life for
humanists unbearable and they left to be replaced by theistic immigrants from
other denominations. While it is true
that membership in UU congregations turns over, I do not recall some kind of
wholesale replacement of members. While
Werner argues that Humanism was the victim of UUA leadership energized by trendy
waves of cultural vacuity, a perspective that deserves equal time would ask why
Humanism failed. The people in the pews
must have drifted away from Humanism because it failed to satisfy in some
significant way. The book blames
intellectual laziness, but there may be a better answer and the book does not
even raise the question.
The book does not receive a star for political acumen. Based
primarily on personal anecdotes, Werner ridicules the clergy. Even though I have found sermons in which a
minister recounts some personal struggle to be among the most moving, the book
mocks the idea of the “wounded healer” as a therapeutic rather than a religious
model. He paints a portrait of the
minister as a worship leader lacking religious and intellectual integrity,
lacking the nerve and courage to speak with a prophetic voice, lacking
“critical intelligence” and using “emotionally manipulative” modalities to
placate parishioners. “Critical thinking
skills largely have been lost,” he says.
He further claims to have seen “far too many toxic personalities” in the
ministry. Finally, with his repeated
refrain, “Follow the Money,” he implies that the theology of UU ministers is
shaped by financial concerns, including the prospect of winning the Templeton
Prize.
When Werner claims that he “saw a number [of ministers] pass
through our church in quick succession,” it is hard not to feel compassion for
those religious professionals who were called into such an anti-clerical
atmosphere.
If Regaining Balance
were written by an unknown humanist, it could be taken as just another
rant. But since Michael Werner is a past
president of the American Humanist Association and a former board member of
HUUmanists he speaks with apparent authority.
From a political perspective, if the congregations in the UUA are to
become more welcoming to humanists and other non-theists, then it will be
important to have ministerial buy-in.
Humanists will want clergy as allies.
The book alienates clergy in the name of humanism. As a result the relationship between clergy
and humanists will suffer. As a
non-theist with a naturalistic worldview, I am concerned that this book reads
as a contemptuous breach of covenant and threatens my standing in the community.
The book does not receive a star for its conclusion. There is the recitation of the three
historical values attributed to Unitarianism: Freedom, Reason and
Tolerance. Freedom is ignored. Then Reason and Tolerance are ideally
presented as being balanced. With a
tipped scale on the book cover as an illustration, Werner argues that the value
of reason has diminished while the value of tolerance has gone overboard
reaching organizational dysfunction with “radical pluralism.” If the UUA is to be revived, the book argues,
then we need to collectively assign greater value to reason and to become less
tolerant of views which are irrational. Of
course, Werner argues, the only credible worldview is humanism.
The Principle behind Regaining
Balance is the 4th, which affirms a free and responsible search
for truth and meaning. The conjunct
“free” is ignored and the only responsible way to search for truth turns out to
be the scientific method. Ironically,
given the title of the book, the result is a disproportionate or unbalanced
priority of the 4th Principle at the expense of the first
three. The 1st Principle
honors the autonomy and ultimate authority of the individual. The 2nd
asks us to regard each other with compassion.
And the 3rd doesn’t ask us to tolerate each other; rather we
covenant to accept each other. We
tolerate someone when we “put up with them.”
When we accept one another we commit to our relationship and association.
This polemic does raise issues only to shortcut a balanced
discussion. We are told that the lack of
an articulated identity of our faith is a weakness. And while there are many voices expressing
concern about a missing UU identity statement, in our non-creedal tradition the
description of our commonality should recite our deepest values, such as those
expressed in the Principles, rather than a particular belief or non-belief in
some divinity.
The book also alleges that the
theology of members is left unchallenged by clergy who lack the skills of
critical reasoning. The image rising out
of the text is a preacher pointing an accusatory finger from the pulpit at the
pews saying, “The God you believe in is not supported by the evidence.” (I further imagine Werner rising in applause
and exclaiming, “Finally!”) On the other
hand, and despite my caricature, the 3rd Principle not only asks us
to accept one another, but also to encourage one another into spiritual
growth. I agree with the author when he
objects to the statement, “You can believe anything you want.” While undoubtedly true, unbounded permission
is essentially unhelpful and an abdication of 3rd Principle
responsibility.
There is no real limit to the views one might hold on
important and wide-ranging religious questions.
But every belief that matters has psychological and behavioral
implications. Every worldview carries
assumptions and priorities. Every worldview has strengths and weaknesses in the
way it informs meaning. What would be
both helpful and encouraging, in my opinion, would be more effort toward
helping members discover and articulate their beliefs and then providing parishioners
with the tools for self-critique.
If you can get past the diatribe, this is a story of grief
and sadness over opportunities lost. Unfortunately the text is filled with anger,
bitterness, contempt and ridicule.
Instead of pointing out the gifts humanists have brought and continue to
bring to Unitarian Universalism and asking that our place at the table be
treated with respect, Werner upsets the table and calls for intolerance of
others. As someone with a similar
worldview I am disappointed that Mike Werner decided to go “All-In” as a stereotypical
“Angry Humanist.”
9/4/14
