Kim Hampton, a UU seminarian studying for the UU ministry at Earlham School of Religion, a Quaker seminary in eastern Indiana, blogging at East of Midnight, has been pursuing UU RE questions insatiably recently. In response to her question about what the content of UU ARE should be, prolific UU blogger Chalicechick responded:
Our current adult RE program is pretty evenly divided into 1/3 “learn from the leader about meditation or Hinduism,” 1/3 let’s all read this religion-themed book (or watch a series of movies with a religious element) together and discuss, and 1/3 more practical “How to make a living will/how to deal when your kid goes off to college” sorts of things.With respect to Chalicechick, for she certainly is a committed, knowledgeable, and very intelligent UU, I would like to pick at that a bit.
Seems to work for everybody as far as I’ve heard.
Let's start with her third third. Her examples for this grouping of topics, making a living will and coping with being an empty nester, are, to my mind, the farthest thing from ARE material. As a service to our members and people in the community, we may well decide to host a workshop to help people with these and similar issues. But if we don't have the resources or the expertise, they can get what they need from a non-religious institution such as a community college or from the community outreach program of a hospital. This is not essentially religious content. And we might not be the most qualified group to deal with such matters.
Her second third? Essentially this amounts to a religion-themed book club. Now I'm in favor of such a club, both in the UU setting and in an Interfaith setting. But what about such a club amounts to ARE? This is not to say that a book from outside any normal UU curriculum could not be used when applicable to a UU ARE class. Indeed, it would be good to agree to read and discuss a book that addressed particularly well some issue or content that was part of the ARE curriculum/ plan, but that is something completely different than following the book of the month pattern. On top of which, if ARE is for everybody rather than for a self-selected interest group, what is the likelihood that "assigned reading" will actually be read by other than a small minority of an actual ARE class?
Her first third is more difficult to address. To learn from a leader about a World Religion or a Spiritual Practice. These may be ARE material. But having disposed of the other 2/3 as non-ARE material, this is hardly sufficient justification for a UU ARE program since they tell us little or nothing about being a UU.
No, when I think about a UU ARE program, I envision a program that centers on those areas of understanding that one needs to engage with (and to some degree learn) to be a "good" or effective UU or, perhaps more correctly, a person of faith in a UU context. I would want an ARE program that worked toward equipping members more fully to deal with these questions (among others, most certainly):
- What does it mean (what is the value) to be a person of faith/ a religious person?
- More specifically, what does it mean (what is the value) to be a UU?
- What must we do to be “saved”? How can we nourish our "souls"?
- As UUs, what obligations do we have to our congregation? to our denomination? to our community/ nation/ world? to persons we are in relationship with?
But I could be wrong. Please respond below if you have an idea about what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be a part of Adult Religious Education in the UU or religious liberal context.
9 responses:
We say that the UUA-UCC developed "Our Whole Lives" curriculum when used with the UUA/UCC supplemental materials is a religious education curriculum.
I do a bunch of trainings for adolescent OWL (grades 7-9/10-12) and elementary OWL (grades K-1/4-6) -- typically around 4 adolescent trainings and 1-2 elementary trainings per year.
Since 2000, I've only done 5 adult OWL trainings (4 adult OWL and 1 adult/young adult OWL). These adult OWL curricula are used much less often than the younger age/grade levels.
Adult OWL curricula are often overlooked by UU congregations because we assume that all there is to talk about sex is "technique" (aka "how do we have sex") and adults assume that they have competency for this matter.
But the Adult and Young Adult OWL programs spend very little time looking at "how do we have sex" topics. Most of the curricula explore social, cultural, and ethical issues related to sexuality with the use of faith-based UUA or UCC resources as appropriate for one's class setting.
The topic of sexuality as it relates to culture, religion, and one's personal values is a rich topic and it's a shame that more UU congregations are not teaching Adult OWL.
WHat you envision sounds pretty reasonable to me, Paul.
My internship supervisor's asked me to plan to teach an ARE class for spring on UU Polity and History.
We of course have BYOT (I and II). I know this church does BYOT annually.
I've taught UU Spiritual Practices as an ARE class; it got very good reception--my home congregation has people who would like it taught again sometime. Maybe...
I'm not familiar with (but applaud the idea) any ARE programs aimed at ecclesiology--and I think it's a great need.
The following response was left at Paul's Facebook page by MK:
Here are some random thoughts:
I think that it might make sense, first, to discern the goal (or goals) of providing Adult Religious Education. Is it to deepen an individual's spirituality? Is it to welcome and educate new (or beg...inner) UUs? Is it to give the enrollees tools to be able to spread our faith?
When started attending services, and when I first became a UU, I would not have attended anything labeled UU Adult Religious Education. That was unapproachable for me at that time, and might be for other newcomers, as well.
I think that a program labeled "deepening spiritual practices" or other similar language might be intimidating to beginners. On the other hand, having a series discussing some of the works of Emerson, presented in a religious context (rather than an academic one) or a movie night might be more welcoming.
I have been involved anti-racism/multiculturalism training and programs that were structured in a religious framework (e.g., opening worship, chalice lighting, closing worship) that drew together the secular realities of racism and diversity on one hand, and UU values and spirituality on the other. I see those programs as adult religious education, even though they were not labeled as such.
I think that it would be helpful to identify "education" that is outside of the box. (For example, attending the National Day of Disobedience in Phoenix, as part of the Standing on the Side of Love initiative was, in my mind, clearly a form of Adult Religious Education--immersion at its best.) Our UU traditions tend to value the academic and the "learned" (in the traditional sense of the word). I think that we would be more welcoming as a denomination if we cut ourselves some slack.
UU ARE is where you find it!
ogre, I think that my home congregation's development of Wellspring (http://www.uuwellspring.org) takes a stab at it. Maybe not perfect, but definitely a step up from CC's perception of ARE.
A. I realize that the "how to make a living will" might theoretically be offered someplace else and people might theoretically attend, but to my thinking there's nothing wrong with offering such instruction, particularly relating to a sensitive topic like a living will, where one would be less likely to take it surrounded by strangers and more likely to learn in a supportive environment. In YRUU, we deal with a lot of practical realities relating to living an unambiguous life in an ambiguous world. (Teaching them about Islam is one way to broaden their religious understanding, helping them figure out how to deal when a good friend says racist things about a Muslim classmate is another, IMHO) I don't see why adults can't have some of that as part of their religious instruction.
And, of course, we get qualified people to lead a workshop on something like that. In the case of the living will workshop, a lawyer who specializes in that stuff. I don't know how one would do that workshop any other way.
B. I'm not sure what you're asking as far as this part. If someone doesn't do the reading, they won't have much to talk about in class. So, my guess is that people who attend the class are inclined to do the reading. And I'm not sure why, say, a group that all got together to read something by Elaine Pagels and talk about her ideas chapter-by-chapter (my favorite ARE class I've attended) wouldn't be doing adult religious education. One doesn't have to be following someone else's curriculem to be doing ARE, and a lot of adults are perfectly capable of both doing the reading and coming ready to talk with the group about what it means. FWIW, a lot of law school classes consist primarily of reading cases and discussing what they mean. If that's a "book club," it's certainly a damned expensive one.
C. We do offer classes on UUism, the History of UUism, UU polity, etc. I was just giving an example.
I think the difference here is that my church has, and I like, a variety of classes where people at different places and with different needs can pick and choose the classes that suit them, while it sounds like you're looking for a more general program that would be for everybody. Is that correct?
Grr. I wrote a long comment that blogger just ate.
A summary:
A. In YRUU we do a lot of practical religious education. (e.g. teaching the youth about Islam is one way to broaden religious understanding, talking about how to deal with a friend who makes racist comments about a Muslim classmate is another.) I really don't see why practical classes can't be a component of a religious education program and can't have some religious value. And yes, we would get an estate lawyer or other professionally qualified person to lead a living will class. Of course.
B. I have read cases for law school and come in to seminar classes and discussed what they mean. I have also read an Elaine Pagels book and come in and discussed her ideas chapter-by-chapter with a group of people who were doing the same. Neither felt like a "book club" and I learned a lot from both.
C. Yes, my church has offered classes on UU History, UU polity, UUism's relationship with Christianity. I was just giving examples there.
My impression is that you and I have two very different visions of ARE, namely, that I like my church's version where one has the option of a lot of different small classes and people can take a class or two that meets their needs, while you like what ARE was when I was a presbyterian, namely one big class for everybody. Am I correct there?
I don't view one as a "step up" from another, I think they are different.
CC
Blogger told me my comment hadn't gone through. Grr.
CC
Grin! Happy to have you weigh in, CC! (The miracle of the World Wide Web, and still technical difficulties... At least most of the time that doesn't result in a test pattern and an obnoxious noise.)
@ CC - Yes, you are mostly right about the difference between our two perspectives on ARE.
I'm coming at this beginning from the belief that worship should not be age-segregated. And since CRE in many of our congregations runs concurrently with worship, integrating worship means changing the scheduling of CRE. And if CRE is largely scheduled for an alternate Sunday morning hour, that hour is then also available for ARE scheduling as a simple matter of logistics.
I also started from the belief that adults need RE too. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about the self-selecting study, practice, and activity groups that meet through the week. But my view of RE has more to do with the understanding that there is a certain constellation of material we all need to engage with and that the stuff we all need to engage with fits into a somewhat unified or unifiable curriculum - regardless what the method of engagement with the material is or how loosely or tightly organized that curriculum is.
So while when it is scheduled is totally beside the point and depends on the realities of a given congregation, I do believe in doing ARE together, not in interest groups but in whatever grouping works to best advantage in the method of engagement decided on in the RE philosophy of a congregation.
So I see it. But I have a somewhat open mind. :)
Post a Comment