Showing posts with label Function of religions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Function of religions. Show all posts

Saturday, November 7, 2020

How religion and the concept of sin came to be.



The emergence of the first large settlements triggered a seismic shift in religious life. Seeking to explain the catastrophes suddenly befalling us, we began to believe in vengeful and omnipotent beings, in gods who were enraged because of something we’d done.
 
A whole clerical class was put in charge of figuring out why the gods were so angry. Had we eaten something forbidden? Said something wrong? Had an illicit thought?37 For the first time in history, we developed a notion of sin. And we began looking to priests to prescribe how we should do penance. Sometimes it was enough to pray or complete a strict set of rituals, but often we had to sacrifice cherished possessions–food or animals or even people.
 
Bregman, Rutger. Humankind (p. 105). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
 
If I understand Bregman’s idea correctly, he states that nomadic people had a cosmology but no religion as we know it today.
 
Religion, he states, arose when homo sapiens began to settle down and possess property. It was the possession of property by individuals that gave rise to inequality and created conflicts which called for some adjudication process.
 
The first adjudication process created was religious in nature with imaginary gods as the sovereign who judged, and rewarded or penalized. The sovereign was manifested in the bodies and roles of a clerical class. These clerics became the intermediaries between the gods and human beings which imbued the clerics with a tremendous authority up to making decisions about life and death.
 
This belief and surrender of authority to sovereign gods by human beings is a form of social control which rather than nurture spiritual development actually hinders it. It seems almost an oxymoron to say that religion is antithetical to spirituality, but it appears that this is often the case.
 
Osho has taught that the first step onto a spiritual path is to rebel against one’s religious training and participation.
 
 In Unitarian Universalism, members covenant together to affirm and promote seven principles the  fourth of which is the free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Francis David, one of the Unitarian founders in the sixteenth century, taught that we need not think alike to love alike. And it is Unconditional Love which is the fundamental belief of Unitarian Universalism. This belief in the Universality of the Transcendent seems closer to the cosmology of the nomadic peoples than the subsequent capitalistic peoples.
 
  1. To what extent do you think religion has been a positive influence or a negative influence on human well being?
  2. To what extent have you found that religious beliefs have interfered with spiritual development?

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

What is the function of religion in your life?

In Simler and Hanson's book, The Elephant In The Brain, chapter 15 is entitled "Religion" and they describe some of the social functions of religion. If you are a student of the sociology of religion there probably is not much, if anything, here that is new, but if you are not a student of the sociology of religion you might find some of their observations very interesting.

Simler and Hanson seem to write that the two main functions of religion are social status and community building.and maintenance. Religion has very little to do with beliefs and a great deal to do with social behavior. In other words, religion has a great deal to do with ego and very little to do with spirit.

James Fowler wrote a great book about the stages of faith development and pointed out that people at different stages of religious development use religion for different purposes and in different ways. 


  1. How have you used religion in your life? 
  2. What has it mean to be a part of a faith tradition and participate in a church? 
  3. How aware are you of your own motivations and those of your fellow believers?

Untitled document - Google Docs - Watch Video


Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The subjugated story of our spiritual life

James Griffith writes in his book, Religion That Heals, Religion That Harms, :
“Reduced to simplest elements, most psychotherapy consists of four steps: helping a person (1) to notice his or her emotional experiences, (2) to find language for them, (3) to have conversations about them, and (4) to make experientially informed changes in perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors that lead to a more gratifying life. What has been too often missing from psychotherapy, however, has been the moral context for this decision making.” P. 148
It is this moral context for the understanding of one’s joys and sorrows that draw people to religious organizations. People want to be “spiritually fed” as people proclaimed in a former church I belonged to that was going through a crisis in the turn-over of church leadership. What does this phrase mean “to be spiritually fed”?

People are not looking for the sociobiological systems of organized religion, they are looking for facilitating experiences that will help them develop, grow, and enhance a personal spirituality which gives their lives meaning. When people are going through difficulties and tragedies in their lives  from where do they draw strength to get through times like these? It is this source from which a person draws strength that is the basis for a personal spirituality. Does a person “have a narrative coherently composed, spoken, and witnessed by others that can be recollected and incorporated into one’s identity.” as Griffith puts it.p.156

What is the narrative which Unitarian Universalism is composing, speaking, and conveying that a person can recollect and incorporate into one’s identity? Is the narrative so muddled, disjointed, and incoherent that the average person can find very little to identify with? With its six sources, Unitarian Universalism attempts to be all things to all people and winds up meaning very little to most people so that it only appeals to a small group of 160,000 Americans.

A vibrant, relevant religion provides guidance for how to live life at important life transitions such as birth, the age of reason about 7, the coming of age in adolescence, in finding a life partner, in bringing up children, in finding meaningful work, in dealing with illness and losses, in facing and dealing with death. Does Unitarian Universalism provide such a moral context? It seems like it does in its seven principles, and they need to be more fully developed into a coherent theology which resonates with people in an empowering way.

And yet if we look at the situation from the point of view of a life long spiritual development model we might find that most people do not resonate with the narrative of Unitarian Universalism because they have not matured yet to the point where the narrative is relevant in meeting their needs.

Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist, is famous for developing his six stage model of moral development. These six stages fall into three categories: pre-conventional when people’s moral decision making depends on whether they will be punished or not, conventional when people rely on a code like the Ten Commandments or the constitution or a code of ethics, and post-conventional when people have a sense of a universal understanding that some societal norms and laws while legal may be immoral. It is this post conventional stage of development which most Unitarian Universalists have attained having grown disenchanted with the pre-conventional and conventional views of the world.

In our culture the story of the post conventional moral context has been subjugated below our conscious awareness and even though we intuit its existence we find it difficult to name our thoughts and feelings let alone connect the dots in a coherent landscape of meaning. Charles is a seeker who comes to visit at a UU congregation and John helps him become more aware of and articulate his subjugated story of his spiritual life.
Charles visited with a Unitarian Universalist congregation one Sunday while “shopping” for a church. Charles was in his 50s and had been raised in a fundamentalist, Bible believing Christian Church and had been married and raised his family in the church. When his wife died at 45 of breast cancer and his two children had left home and married he became more and more an infrequent church goer and at the time of his visit had not been church in over 1 ½ years.

After the service, Charles had a conversation with John who asked him what inspired him to visit. Charles responded that he had not been to church in some time and had decided not to return to his old church because “I don’t believe in most of the stuff they teach any more.” And yet he still felt a need to somehow be connected to a faith community where he would feel respected and accepted even if he didn’t believe what he had been taught for many years he was supposed to believe.

John asked Charles what he would call this “inspiration”, could he put a name to it? Charles responded that we wanted to be honest and truthful about what he thought and felt and no longer have to keep his deeper thoughts and feelings to himself. John responded that it sounded like honesty and genuineness were important to Charles. Charles said, “If we can’t be honest and truthful with each other we wind up being fake and phony and pretending we believe and feel things when we really don’t and I can’t build my spiritual life on that.”

John asked Charles if he had ever felt he could be honest about his deeper thoughts and feelings before? Charles responded, “Oh, yes, when my wife was alive we talked about these things, but never told anyone else. We liked the people at our church and thought it was good for the kids so we continued to attend, but when she died I was devastated and in addition to dealing with her death, I also lost my confidant, the one person I was able to be honest with.”

“And it is your quest for relationships where you can be honest and truthful that has brought here to visit with us today,” asked John?

“I am not sure exactly what I am looking for,” said Charles, “but I think you have put your finger on probably the main thing which has inspired me to find a new church.”

“You are most welcome here,” said John. “One of our seven principles of Unitarian Univeralism is to covenant to promote and affirm a person’s free and responsible search for truth and meaning which means that we UUs aspire to be honest with each other. There are people here from many walks of life and with many backgrounds and I hope you will find what you are looking for and feel comfortable here.”

“Are the coffee and bagels free,” asked Charles with a big smile.

“Free for now,” said John, “but when you join, you’ll pay one way or another” with a big laugh.

An observer might conclude, using Kohlberg’s model of moral development,  Charles has grown past the conventional stage of moral development which had served him very well for all the years of his life up until his 50s. The death of his wife, the one person he states with whom he could be honest, has created a vacuum in his life and he is looking for relationships in which he can be honest and truthful to further his spiritual development. This development requires cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual support. When a person has matured to a post-conventional stage of moral development this kind of support is difficult to find in an institutionalized organization and rarely in a church which meets the sociobiological needs for attachment, peer affiliation, kinship recognition, social hierarchy, and social reciprocity, but these sociological functions come at the price of normative compliance which is threatened by the movement for the development of a personal spirituality.

Charles, developmentally, is at the stage where the development of a personal spirituality is taking precedence over normative compliance and he is looking for relationships which will provide this understanding and validation. He may have found it in a religious denomination which supports a free and honest search for truth and meaning within the context of covenantal relationships. These relationships are very precious and something not usually found in more conventional church organizations. Jesus says in Matthew 19:29, “And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life.” When Charles lost his wife to death and his two children moved on to form families of their own, he is freed from householding concerns and begins to search more consistently for a spiritual understanding and experience for his life. He has come to a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Will he find what he is looking for there?   Will he be helped to find a vocabulary to name his experiences? Will he be offered the opportunity to connect the dots of his experience in a coherent way? Will the story of his spiritual development be thickly developed over time so that it is able to be articulated by himself and recognized and acknowledged by others?

When the subjugated narrative of the Unitarian Univeralist faith is surfaced, storied, conveyed, and lived, the post conventional faith will move the American people, and people of the world, to a more mature spiritual level, and we will come to love and respect each other at unprecedented levels recognizing that our spiritual interests are universal. May it become so………                          

Monday, April 2, 2012

Where is the mystical element? - If we do not have love, we have nothing.

James Griffith notes in his book, Religion That Heals, Religion That Harms, “When religious life ceases to function as a medium for individual expression, risks enter for potential harm to persons.”p.33

Griffith states further in a later chapter, “… beliefs matter nor for their truth but for their consequences”. P.66 These consequences imply power relationships between people and one’s belief and faith in a transcendent entity or process that provides meaning for one’s experience in life. Myths, stories, rituals, ceremonies, art, music, and behavior not only have an element of entertainment but also instruction usually in the moral realm. Religious ceremonies which have lost their artistic power to entertain and instruct are empty operations which lose their audience because they are devoid of any meaning for the audience/participants they were enacted for. St. Paul puts this very well in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13, verses 1-13:
1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The sociobiological systems of religion often do not operate in loving ways. They operate to protect the organization often in self serving ways at the expense of the individual. The examples are numerous from the institutional protection of pedophile priests to the financial exploitation of the poor in fundamentalist churches who pressure members to tithe with the promise of being rewarded in what has been called the “gospel of prosperity.” When the religious institutions and its ministerial class exploit individuals for sex, money, and political power, religious organizations can do great harm to individuals and society. The individual is then left to pursue one’s spiritual journey on one’s own.

The personal spiritual journey consists of making meaning out of the major existential questions: why was I born; what is the purpose of my life; what happens to me when I die; what is the purpose of pain and suffering; what moral principles should I follow if I am to live a good life? When tragedy and suffering impact a person how does that person draw strength to get through it in a constructive way? How does one interact with those closest to him/her, and what does this tragedy and suffering say about one's identity and social status? These are profound questions with huge significance and Unitarian Universalism has little to offer, itself, other than referrals to its six sources. Unitarian Universalism could have more relevance in our postmodern society if it were to articulate a crystallization of the universal experience of how to manage suffering in an optimal way. Unitarian Universalism encourages the free and responsible search for truth and meaning by the individual but offers little substantive ideas of its own other than to refer the seeker elsewhere.

If the 160,000 Unitarian Universalists in the United States all have their own theologies the only thing that binds them together is the agreement to covenant to affirm and promote the seven principles, but these are process goals which say nothing about the mystical, transcendent reality that most human beings intuitively experience especially in times of duress and distress. This makes Unitarian Universalism a very anemic religion that differs little from an ideology and which is described even by its highest leaders as a movement rather than a religion. How is an individual to nurture one’s interior spiritual life by being the member of a “movement”. Social movements come and social movements go, and what is spiritually facilitating about being a participant in a movement is what I want to know.

People have stated who have fallen away from the Unitarian Universalist church that there are many social movement organizations they participate in and join. They aren’t looking for a church to provide that for them. There are other social movement organizations which do a much better job in their area of focus. If Unitarian Universalism aspires to be a religious institution which facilitates the spiritual life of its members it must deepen and expand the mystical element of its faith. Otherwise, it will drop by the wayside being irrelevant to the spiritual lives of seekers who thought they saw something in UU but then realized that it was nothing but a mirage.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Personal spirituality vs. sociobiological functions of religion

James Griffith writes in his book Religion That Heals, Religion That Harms:

Religion is perhaps so powerful because it activates many different sociobiological systems simultaneously. Religion recruits not only attachment behaviors between an individual and his or her God but also social processes of peer affiliation with attendant alliances and coalitions; social hierarchy with dominance, submission, and status seeking; kin recognition with demarcation of an ingroup apart from outgroups; and expectations for a just social exchange that includes reciprocal altruism. P.27

And yet, in our postmodern age when people increasingly are rejecting organized religion but continue to value a spiritual life, we find that while the sociobiological functions of religion may hold less importance, the spiritual functions continue to be studied and practiced. As Griffith points out the spiritualities associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism thrive. Unitarian Universalism proclaims that it draws its spirituality from six sources: direct experience, the words and deeds or prophetic men and women, the world’s religions, Jewish and Christian teachings, humanism, and earth centered traditions. There are a lot of roads to Rome as they say and even more vulgarly, a lot of ways to skin the cat. Unitarian Universalism focuses on the “perennial spiritualities”. What are they?

The perennial spiritualities can be enumerated, as they are by Griffith, as a whole-person relatedness, compassion, hope, purpose, joy, love, encounters with the sacred, and recognizing the importance of the well-being of individuals over the group.

Religion and spirituality are two different things. Some people are religious but not spiritual and some people are spiritual but not religious and then there are some people who are both spiritual and religious. Some would argue that it is very difficult to be spiritual if one is not religious. In fact, some would say that people who say that they are spiritual and not religious are only kidding themselves. To develop one’s spirituality requires a certain amount of knowledge, skill, values, and discipline. Spirituality to some extent is a social construction and human beings are social animals. We cannot achieve and enhance our awareness and consciousness without participating in social relationships and culture and reflecting on that experience. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living. However, when the development and enhancement of individual awareness is no longer supported by the group participation or interferes with it, then the individual must take responsibility for one’s growth and not be constricted by group loyalties.

This creation of one’s own spirituality requires a higher level of self awareness and consciousness than the average person in our current society and culture possesses. Perhaps this is why Unitarian Universalism is not the religion of the masses. Few people have the capacity and interest to consciously pursue the creation of one’s own theology and the ability to articulate it in any effective way with ones associates, and so the creation of a personal spirituality is a private affair and rarely shared except in the most intimate of conversations. 

To what extent do church congregations develop a level of intimacy in which an individual can drop one’s false self and be one’s real self? It is this experience of the real self that defines an authentic spirituality and because of all the sociobiological functions which religious organizations perform it is rare that they can afford to acknowledge their members’ experience their real selves.

Unitarian Universalists are known for being "nice". They bend over backwards to accomodate. I asked a staff member of the UUA one time why UU congregations tend to be so small and she said simply, "They don't know how to handle conflict." It seems that UUs are so busy empathizing that they rarely take a meaningful stand on anything. Perhaps it is the ambiguity, the amorphous seeming confusion, that is so unattractive to prospective members who are looking for knowledge, wisdom, guidance, meaning, and fail to find it when they stop at UU congregations on their journey. UUs are so nice, but seem to not stand for anything and so there is very little of substance to attach to. Unless one already has an interior spiritual life which could be nurtured by a UU congregation that congregation has little to offer the seeker who is looking for sustenance.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Sociobiological systems: Peer affiliation

Sociobiological systems: Peer affiliation

People join church organizations because they want to “belong”. They want to be part of a group. They want to join and become a member of a herd because there is safety in numbers and becoming a member of a group provides a feeling of safety.
People in church organizations sometimes call each other “brother” and “sister” and they recognize each other by their shared practices, values, and beliefs. People who join often have felt lonely and demoralized and are looking for validation and affirmation of group approval and support. After gaining acceptance there is often an experience of a “relief effect” which is the comforting experience of one’s dependency needs getting met.
Unfortunately, this acceptance and experience of peer affiliation is gained at the cost of the development of us/them dichotomy being created to strengthen the identification of the individual with the group thus as James Griffith writes, “…appears able to protect morale in the face of adversity.”p.25 Griffith goes on to write, “However, the strength of peer affiliation can depend on the management of a firm boundary between those in the religious group and others outside it. This has unfortunate consequences when this boundary becomes a barrier to empathy toward those outside, justifying stigma, or in worse cases, coercion, exploitation, or violence.”p.25

This boundary between us/them appears to promote a sense of peer affiliation and engagement by the individual with the group and vice versa. Unitarian Universalism, being a very inclusive organization, often does not have clear boundaries because it welcomes all comers from various religious traditions or none and thus presents itself as a very amorphous, ambiguous entity. This inclusiveness reminds me of the bumpers sticker, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

Perhaps the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism do create some sort of boundary which allows group identification especially in the preamble to the statement of the principles themselves when it states, “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: …….” However, some also object to the use of the seven principles as a creedal test. What the objection is, is not clear, but seems antithetical to have a clear statement of values which contributes to peer affiliation and identification.

When the subject of religion comes up and I mention that I am a Unitarian Universalist and the interlocutor then asks “What’s that?”, I often mention the seven principles and the six sources. People usually agree with the seven principles. On the face of them, there isn’t much that would be controversial or objectionable. The devil is in the details as they say and a further exploration of the application and meaning of the seven principles in daily life and organization policies raises questions and obstacles and so, in my experience, most people are reluctant to go to a deeper discussion of the implications of actually applying the seven principles.

Peer affiliation becomes desirable and perhaps necessary when a person or a group are faced with adversity and threats. When threats and adversity arise it often becomes us versus them and sides are chosen. Unitarian Universalists, as group, seem to be conflict avoidant because of their weak attachment style. There appears to be very little in Unitarian Universalism to be worth fighting for or sacrificing for because of its anemic theology, avoidant – dismissive attachment style, and amorphous peer affiliation which President 
Peter Morales points out in his January 15th, 2012 letter “Congregations and Beyond” where he acknowledges, “And, I am realizing in a profound way that congregations cannot be the only way we connect with people.” And then he goes on to describe the very weak or non existent peer affiliation and seems to be arguing that Unitarian Universalism promote itself as an ideology, i.e. a “movement” in order to capture financial contributions and some sort of social agreement on social justice issues.

If Unitarian Universalism is merely a social movement, I think President Morales’ strategy could be appropriate, but if Unitarian Universalism aspires to be a post modern religion, it dilutes and trivializes the deeper spiritual core of what Unitarian Universalism has historically developed and attained.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Sociobiological systems: Attachment

Editor's note: I apologize that the article is late this week. It is my intention to post a new article every Monday, but this week I am two days late. I am sorry for any disappointment for those who were expecting an article on Monday when it was promised.

James Griffith describes 5 sociobiological systems that operate in religious organizations: attachment, peer affiliation, kin recognition, social hierarchy, and social exchange. Considering these systems one at a time might help us understand at a deeper level the functioning of Unitarian Universalism in our society and in our personal lives.
Griffith writes, “Attachment systems evolved to ensure that mothers and their offspring would bond securely and protectively.”

In psychology a great deal of research has been done by Harlowe, Bowlby and others on attachment behaviors and dynamics. Attachment systems are described by proximity, secure base, safe haven and mutual awareness of each other’s well being. Attachment involves identification with the nurturing object to the extent that physical, emotional, and social survival depend on the availability of the object for need fulfillment. Griffith writes, “When God is an important attachment figure, these themes of proximity, secure base, and safe haven are lived out in relationship with one’s personal God.”

Marya Hornbacher points out in her book, Waiting: A Nonbeliever’s Higher Power that this attachment need not be to a personal God as we usually think of Him in our culture. Hornbacher is writing for people in recovery and she writes: “Finally, someone pulled me aside after a meeting. He said,’Here’s the thing. I don’t know that God is, or if there is a God. I only know that there are moments when I feel spiritual. I can be in a church or a mosque or a temple or a grocery store or the woods. And I get that sense of being spiritual. Of something alive in me. It’s not necessarily a sense that something outside me is present. It’s the sense that I am present. Completely present. Alive.’” P. xvii
This intuitive sense that there is something more than our small selves and the surface phenomenology of the world is an experience to which we can become attached as well as a personified object.

Griffith describes three attachment styles: secure, anxious, and avoidant. Griffith further divides the avoidant attachment style into two types: the fearful-avoidant where the person keeps a distance from God for fear of retribution and punishment, and the dismissive-avoidant in which the person perceives his/her God to be unreliable and a disappointment or outright unfair. The anxious attachment style is characterized by ambivalence fueled by a sense of inadequacy and unworthiness or hesitation based on confusion and lack of intuitive integrity.

It would appear based on UUA President Morales’ observation in his 01/15/12 letter “Congregations and Beyond” that 4 times as many people (650,000) identify with UU values than actually join congregations (160,000)that people attracted to the Unitarian Universalist denomination probably have an anxious or avoidant attachment style as this personality characteristic is expressed in religious affiliation. How can people be provided with experiences that would facilitate a more secure attachment style? The provision of proximity, a safe haven, a secure base, and mutual awareness leading to reciprocal consistent interactions that meet fundamental physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs would be necessary.

Increasingly, mainline churches are not meeting the needs of their congregants and they are leaving. “Nones” is the fastest growing religious group in the U.S. today. The days are past when churches need to provide educational, health care, and social services. People are looking for something more and the common complaint is that they don’t feel “spiritually fed”. I have heard this complaint often and I am very interested and curious in learning about what specifically this yearning is.

Perhaps Joseph Campbell gives us a clue when he describes the 4 functions of mythology in a culture and in universal human experience. Campbell teaches that the four functions of mythology are: mystical, cosmological, social, and pedagogical.

As I consider Unitarian Universalism in light of Campbell’s four functions, it seems to me that the “feeding” which Unitarian Universalism provides is anemic and barely satisfying. Unitarian Universalism appears to be incoherent and so ambiguous and amorphous that it is hardly helpful in clarifying the existential questions which a spiritual seeker might have. Unitarian Universalism appears to have potential, but its possible potential dynamic qualities have yet to be articulated and manifested.

Unitarian Universalism will need to re-invent itself with more clarity and substance if it expects that potential seekers will “attach” to its congregational life. At the current time this is a local phenomenon based on the local circumstances of the cultures and leadership of local congregations. Whether Unitarian Universalism can provide the safe haven, and secure base that people yearn for remains to be seen. At the present time, it does not attract enough people to attach to the Mother Church so that those who might identify with UU values anxiously and avoidantly bond with a congregation if at all.  
   
On the basis of a personal spirituality, however, attachment is a much deeper and more fulfilling experience. I have begun asking my psychotherapy clients “What kind of interior spiritual life do you have?”, and I am pleasantly surprised that I rarely encounter any surprise or resistance to what I consider a very intimate question. People seem to readily and thoughtfully answer the question as they explore their more inner experience. This attachment to an inner world varies based on the level of self awareness of a person. It is this attachment which people refer to when they say that they are spiritual but not religious. It is very interesting to explore with people their description of this personal, inner spiritual realm unmediated but perhaps somewhat informed by religious organizations and culture.

This interior spiritual life always has a mystical element otherwise it is merely an ideology. The interior spiritual life is open heartedly willing to be receptive to the unconscious and intuitive experiences as they emerge into the consciousness. This activity is what Socrates was referring to when he said that an unexamined life is not worth living. Becoming aware of and creating an interior spiritual life has a mystical component as well as a pedagogical one. We become aware that there is much more to life than the superficial phenomenological experiences of our daily living and that this awareness teaches us how to live in an awareness that there is more to life, often mysterious, than meets the eye.

The principles of Unitarian Universalism point to this deeper mystical awareness in a very thinly described way when they are articulated as the “inherent worth and dignity of very person”, and “free and responsible search for truth and meaning”, and “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part”. Meditating on these principles and searching for an authentic understanding of them in their elementary and universal meanings creates a cosmology which could be very engaging, and create social organizations which are very fulfilling and rewarding at a personal spiritual level and in terms of the sociobiological functions which good religious organizations can perform.       

Monday, March 5, 2012

Join a UU congregation? What are the benefits?

As I have mentioned before on UU A Way Of Life I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has worked in the mental health and substance abuse field for over 44 years. As a Psychotherapist I have always been very interested in the role that spirituality and religion play in the lives of my clients. There is a great deal of research that demonstrates that religion can be a protective factor in enhancing a person's health and well being. There is also evidence that it can be a risk factor as well.

I have been reading James Griffith's latest book, Religion That Heals, Religion That Harms: A Guide For Clinical Practice. Griffith makes a distinction between personal spirituality and religion. Griffith writes, "Like many, I have been repeatedly puzzled by the strange disconnect between some person's religious beliefs that saluted love and compassion while their actions fueled hatred and violence, all the while feeling no conflict between the two." P.vii

Griffith goes on to explain that personal spirituality and the sociobiological systems such as attachment, peer affiliation, kin recognition, social hierarchy, and social exchange as they function in religious organizations explain heuristically this disconnect. Griffith says, "For example, religious behaviors that facilitate identification with one's religious group can also extinguish a sense of accountability to those outside the group. Religious beliefs can create such a totalizing, all-encompassing picture of 'what is real' that everything within its purview is defined, ordered, and assigned meaning, to the exclusion of any alternatives." p.7

Griffith writes "Sociobiological processes that enable a religious group to feel cohesive and its members to feel competent can also propel violence toward others, particularly when personal empathy is weak across the group boundaries." p. 8

Increasingly people in the first world countries are growing disenchanted with organized religion which they perceive as dogmatic, rigid, and dysfunctional. According to a report in Time Magazine in the March 12, 2012 issue the fastest growing religious group in the U.S. is the "nones", people who report no religious identification or affiliation. The "nones" have doubled since the 1990s and now stand at about 16% of the population. The "nones" are not necessarily atheistic but rather say they believe in some sort of god or higher power. Only 4% of Americans identify as atheists.

Unitarian Universalism offers an option for fulfilling the sociobiological needs of these unaffiliated people, but even if they are attracted to the lack of dogmatism, the de-centralized congregational governance system, they don't join congregations as UUA President Peter Morales pointed out in a recent letter "Congregations and Beyond" released to UUA members on 01/15/12. In his letter, President Morales points out that over 650,000 people on survey identify with UU principles and even contribute money to the UUA "movement" but only about 160,000 are affiliated with any congregations.

Reflecting on  Griffith's ideas about sociobiological systems it is more apparent why UU congregations are so small and fail to grow. Griffith points out that from a sociobiological view religious organizations perform 3 important functions: provide group security and sense of belonging, sustain and enhance morale of the individual and group, and provide physical, emotional, and social support that contribute to the cessation of suffering. If Griffith's ideas have any value, they lead to a further analysis of the degree to which Unitarian Universalist congregations provide a sense of security and belonging, an enhancement to morale, and assistance in ameliorating the existential anxiety of their members as individuals and as a group when they are met with events and circumstances that contribute to distress and suffering.

More specifically, to what extent do UU congregations foster and facilitate attachment, peer affiliation, kin recognition, social hierarchy, and social exchange, the sociobiological needs of human beings?

In addition, to what extent does Unitarian Universalism contribute to and nurture the personal spirituality which most Americans report having even if they are not affiliated with any religious denomination or church? It seems that one of Unitarian Universalism’s strengths, i.e. recognizing several sources for spiritual and religious understanding and acknowledging that there are many roads to Rome and multiple ways to “skin the cat” are both its strength and its weakness. It appears as President Morales writes in his letter that four times as many people report identifying with the “UU movement” than actually join congregations. In some ways they find their personal spirituality acknowledged and validated and yet feel no need to join and support a congregation. This has certainly been my experience in Brockport, NY where 3 years ago a new UU congregation was formed, the Brockport Unitarian Universalist Fellowhip. Many people have told me they are sympathetic to Unitarian Universalist ideas and values and they are glad the church exists, but they are not interested in joining or even coming on a regular basis. It would seem that these people’s spiritual needs are being met but there is no reinforcement or reward for their sociobiological needs. In other words the church serves no perceived function in our community that provides benefits that outweigh the costs of affiliation and membership.
Until Unitarian Universalist churches can re-design their services to meet the security, morale, and cessation of suffering functions of our society and appeal to people’s attachment, peer affiliation, kin recognition, social hierarchical, and social exchange needs, there will continue to be low appeal for joining and investing in a UU congregation. While participation in a UU congregation is not a risk factor for religious harm, it is a very weak protective factor. Being a member of a Unitarian Universalist church does not confer the social benefits that it once did in the United States. On the contrary it is often the butt of jokes because of its anemic theologies and lack of social structure and cohesiveness. As a result, Unitarian Universalism appears to have little to offer in meeting people’s sociobiological needs and to nurture a coherent, meaningful spiritual life.

The fact that President Morales refers to Unitarian Universalism as “a movement” when he writes in Congregations and Beyond, I am also convinced that our movement has enormous potential to involve more people and have a greater impact.” implies that Unitarian Universalism is a social movement and not an authentic religious organization. As one person told me, “I don’t need to join another social movement, there are plenty of those and I am a member of some already. I am looking for something that will nurture me spiritually and address my needs to be a member of a religious community where there are people who share my values and deeper yearnings for an understanding of the transcendent experience of life.”

Is Unitarian Universalism a religion or a movement? If it is merely a movement, I can agree with some its values and activities, but I have no need to join. I might send a check to support the work of the social movement organization, but I have no interest in getting actively involved in its activities. On the other hand, if it is a religious organization that would expect something of me if I were to join, it is something I would have to take more seriously and decide whether the benefits of membership would outweigh the costs and it appears that for several hundred thousand people Unitarian Universalism congregations don’t offer enough benefit to make the investment personally satisfying.
Print Friendly and PDF