Could we not begin to envision a transcendence that enters our life but also calls us beyond
the limits of our humanity, not toward an external being but toward the Ground of All Being
including our own, a transcendence that calls us to a new humanity? Is there not a new maturity
that can be claimed by human life when we cease the search for a supernatural being who will
parent us, take care of us, watch over and protect us? Is there not a new human dignity that
can be found in the rejection of those groveling patterns of our past through which we attempted
to please the theistic deity in the early years of evolutionary history? In place of that
groveling, are we not now able to open ourselves in new ways to discover the Ground of Being
that is met and known in the self that is emerging as expanded consciousness? These, it seems
to me, are the profoundly religious questions of the new millennium.
John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity for a New World
What is this world, really?
My world is beauty, loving, being loved.
It is longing and striving, resting and sleeping.
It is trees and running over moorland;
and birdsong.
It is the glitter
of quartz rocks and the yellow of butterflies
in the heat of the summer sun.
My world is crafting theories to crystallize appearances,
and penning songs to sing them.
It is listening and speaking.
Your world, I see it in your eyes,
is much of these as well.
For the loving, and the rocks,
and the birdsong are ours as well as mine;
the theories and the songs the heritage
of our crowded culture.
Chris Clarke, Living in connection, Theory and practice of the new world-view, 1998
Lucy says: "Engagement groups" are found across the Unitarian movement (as well as in other
churches and social networks of all kinds). The term is really used as an alternate for
"special interest groups" but there is the additional slant, in that the people who join are
involved with and to some degree committed to each other, as well as with the subject they share
an interest in. We call ourselves a Fellowship, not an engagement group. The self-evident
idea that that conveys is very important to me. We travel together as fellows, and we care about
each other.
Looking back over the meetings since we decided to call ourselves a Fellowship (May 1999) we
clearly have a range of different approaches and a range of different expectations and wishes
that our meetings must fulfil. In particular, as our meetings have grown as large as eighteen
with the potential for more (some key regulars have been absent for our recent gatherings), it
is always going to be hard to have any time together focussing on a narrow range or style of
expression for our Unitarian or Unitarian Universalist beliefs. There is therefore room, I
suggest, for an expansion of our well-established monthly activity into the forming of
engagement groups.
That pre-supposes, of course, that among us there are enough who share an interest in specific
topics for study or practice! And it also would be important that these engagement groups be
not seen as a threat to commitment to the full Fellowship on which they would be grounded and
from which they would take their life. But I am confident that our open and honest talk
together would prevent this risk from becoming real.
I observe that we have members who relish the arts (fine art, poetry) and those who love dance
and never seem to get enough of it. We have an earth spirit strand too, and a dedication to
ecological matters. All of these topics would lend themselves to engagement groups.
But for my own part, worship of the Divine is key and I would like to ask if anyone would be
interested in establishing a Prayer Engagement Group. I am fairly certain that we lost one
stalwart from the early days because she felt our worship practice was too light for her, and
I sometimes feel the same way.
Jo says: I tend to use Thandeka's definition of 'engagement group' as used in her 2002
Essex Hall Lecture, part of which is printed above. She spoke of a group of six to a dozen
people who wish to find more intimacy in a large congregation. Because we are such a small
Fellowship, with a democratic attitude and opportunity for participation, I would claim that
we already have a large degree of engagement. However, there is no reason why smaller groups
should not meet, in person or by phone to pursue particular interests. I suggest that if anyone
wants to meet between Fellowships let this be known. Those interested, and able, can, together,
arrange a time and place.
Personally I would be interested in Lucy's 'prayer and worship of the divine' and could
sometimes offer our house as a venue. The reason I have hesitated up to now is because I have
difficulty with some religious language. I may well have experienced the divine in meditation
and in religious experience but hesitate to give it such a definite name. 'Prayer' and 'worship'
on the other hand have implications of entreaty of a supernatural being. I find it difficult
to believe in that concept, although I find much that is called prayer helpful. I suppose I am
afraid of giving the wrong impression to people looking for a congenial movement. We do, after
all, claim that people of all faiths and no faith are welcome to our meetings. To me that
doesn't just mean that we tolerate them but that we probably share many attitudes.
Perhaps, all this suggests we should be questioning what different people want from our
meetings and trying to provide it as far as we are able. Many of us might be willing to include
more prayers in the meetings we lead, for instance.