I'm the only person I know that makes New Year's Resolutions. And at one point, I used to ask about about 50-60 folks if they made any. As noted, they ddin't.
There are actually good reasons not to make any, the most common being that folks feel bad about themselves when they can't live up to them. As the joke goes, breaking the resolution before noon on January 1.
To be honest, sometimes it's ok to feel bad about yourself. It's a good tool for growth and wisdom. Just don't overdo it. You did something wrong, feeling bad helps you motivate for change.
Some folks pick a resolution that is unrealistic. yes,like "I will become a rock star this year" and "I will become God's gift to women" not that somebody won't succeed on those resolutions, but they are ones of limited success.
If one wanted to really be "God's gift to women", then the first thing one might want to do is to find out what women want - and then go to congress and start lobbying. Ok, that's probably not what the person who wants to be GG2W would do, but that's at least a plan toward that goal.
Want to lose weight? what's the first step? exercise more - when will you do that - the goal should be "I will exercise for a half hour when i get home from work, despite how tired I am on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday" or "before I eat out, I will remind myself that i no longer have a reason to 'clean my plate'" or "after I eat, I will not have seconds or more food for at least 1/2 hour' or something that fits you, and that if you forget (you will), you can easily start over ago.
or if you resolution is to give more to charity, or save more; then you say things like "I will give $20 a week to a charity. I will do this Sunday morning" or "I will put $200 in savings when i get my paycheck". Concrete steps with the first step first.
Happy New Year
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
UU Salon - Universalism
I'm behind on my blog reading, so I missed the UU Salon's May 31st request for blogging about Universalism until today. Since I am so far behind, I haven't read blogs (I did read the beginning of Scott Wells and the UU Salon).
I see that folks are still confused about what Universalism is. That doesn't surprised me, I know some Universalist theologians who are confused about what Universalism is today. That's been the case for long time, for as Lewis B. Fisher wrote, back in 1921 "Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move. or again we are asked to state our position, Again we can only answer that we are not staying to defend any position, we are on the march."
If that is indeed still true, what is universalism, and how do we catch a snapshot to show what it is today? Can all those different things be universalism?
Putting aside the issue of universalism in the early days of Christianity, Universalism was reborn as part of the revolutionary spirit of the 1700s. It was a radical idea for radical times. Dwell on that for a little bit, it believed that there was no elite in the eyes of God, that the prodigal son was as worthy as the obedient son. Is it any wonder that the same congregation included rich and poor, white and black, and that Universalists were pioneers in ordination of female clergy, and prisoner rights. And any wonder that universalist churches sprung up unconnected in many places in the USA.
Universalism was never a faith for the complaisant or those needing a impressive and status church home - Various locals kept trying to made it illegal for Universalists to give testimony in court; other churches gave sermons and wrote books on the disrespectability of belonging to such a radical faith. Even Unitarians.
Universalists reached it's peak in the 1830s, with the change of the mood of the country, and some folks knocking on spiritualism's door. It was one of the few religious denominations that did not split prior to the Civil War. However it had trouble dealing with the cynicism of the 20th Century. And various theories of
Universalism was advanced. A humanistic Universalism in the 1910s - 1920s, a pan-religious view of Universalism in the 1940s-1960s.
To a certain extent, part of modern day Unitarian Universalism has adopted the pan-religious part of 1940s-1960s Universalism. However while we embrace the idea of Radical Inclusion, it is - as you may expect - hard to implement. Who is our brother (and sister)?: How do we treat those who persecute us? How do we treat people who aren't as successful or rich or educated as us? Or eat meat, or watch TV or shop at Wal-mart, or like Praise songs? Tough going to be inclusive.
There's more to Univeraslism than that - lots more. And you note I haven't done any of the theological steps to Universalism, I didn't even mention the J- or G- names (hey, I know the audience here) --but just to remind us, that Universalism of any kind is a difficult and still radical faith.
I see that folks are still confused about what Universalism is. That doesn't surprised me, I know some Universalist theologians who are confused about what Universalism is today. That's been the case for long time, for as Lewis B. Fisher wrote, back in 1921 "Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move. or again we are asked to state our position, Again we can only answer that we are not staying to defend any position, we are on the march."
If that is indeed still true, what is universalism, and how do we catch a snapshot to show what it is today? Can all those different things be universalism?
Putting aside the issue of universalism in the early days of Christianity, Universalism was reborn as part of the revolutionary spirit of the 1700s. It was a radical idea for radical times. Dwell on that for a little bit, it believed that there was no elite in the eyes of God, that the prodigal son was as worthy as the obedient son. Is it any wonder that the same congregation included rich and poor, white and black, and that Universalists were pioneers in ordination of female clergy, and prisoner rights. And any wonder that universalist churches sprung up unconnected in many places in the USA.
Universalism was never a faith for the complaisant or those needing a impressive and status church home - Various locals kept trying to made it illegal for Universalists to give testimony in court; other churches gave sermons and wrote books on the disrespectability of belonging to such a radical faith. Even Unitarians.
Universalists reached it's peak in the 1830s, with the change of the mood of the country, and some folks knocking on spiritualism's door. It was one of the few religious denominations that did not split prior to the Civil War. However it had trouble dealing with the cynicism of the 20th Century. And various theories of
Universalism was advanced. A humanistic Universalism in the 1910s - 1920s, a pan-religious view of Universalism in the 1940s-1960s.
To a certain extent, part of modern day Unitarian Universalism has adopted the pan-religious part of 1940s-1960s Universalism. However while we embrace the idea of Radical Inclusion, it is - as you may expect - hard to implement. Who is our brother (and sister)?: How do we treat those who persecute us? How do we treat people who aren't as successful or rich or educated as us? Or eat meat, or watch TV or shop at Wal-mart, or like Praise songs? Tough going to be inclusive.
There's more to Univeraslism than that - lots more. And you note I haven't done any of the theological steps to Universalism, I didn't even mention the J- or G- names (hey, I know the audience here) --but just to remind us, that Universalism of any kind is a difficult and still radical faith.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Still moving, but almost home....
"Herb and Jamaal" make a good point, and one that if i had the time to get into, I would.
Why do we do certain things? To please ourselves or to please others? or is that to think we are pleasing others? what is doing the right thing?
if we have not love in our doing something, is it worthless?
I'm still moving, but getting close to the end, and getting close to starting this blog back up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
