A House for Hope: The Promise of Progressive Religion for the Twenty-first Century

In A House for Hope, the reasoning behind a call for a more progressive religious stance, one that is evolving and open as opposed to static and unchanging, is offered. Some history and background are supplied along the way, as well as some of the ethical principles that are crucial to such a religious stance, and a strong advocacy is put forth. It is acknowledged that it might be difficult to turn some people who have been raised to believe that only their religion and only their god is the correct path, and thus all others must be converted. An appeal, however, is also made to the millions who feel "spiritual" but have been hesitant to become involved in "organized" religion. The failures of advocates of this more progressive religious stance are noted, and suggestions for moving forward offered. My only criticism of the book is a common one to this genre, the often seemingly inherent equating of religious liberalism with political liberalism. At one point in the book, the recent devestating horror of a gunman opening fire in a UU church and targeting a children's theatrical production is described. The authors, however, take time to point out that conservative books were found in the gunman's home, and that he specifically noted that he was targeting liberals. Those facts are not in dispute. I'm sure, however, that the authors don't mean to say that conservatives generally attempt to murder liberals or that the millions who have read such books will now take up weapons and attempt to murder children in churches. So why note it? Otherwise, one would have to examine the reading lists of mass murderers in the name of leftist political thought. Liberalisim in politics is not equivalent with liberalism in religion (e.g., Owen-Towle, in Free-Thinking Mystics with Hands (p. 16): "we must be vigilant against equating our free spirit with doctrinaire social, economic, or political liberalism." He goes on to quote Roger Greeley, "we are not a liberal movement for liberal causes, let us leave those choices and courses of action to political parties and organizations specifically designed around those principles be they liberal or conservative." As a UU and libertarian myself, I believe it is this often inherent political bias that keeps many political conservatives and libertarians (and they are very different things) from attending progressive churches, even though they may share the progressive religious vision. That criticism aside, the book is an excellent read and time well-spent. The sections on how we must put our beliefs into concrete action, even when extremely socially unpopular, particularly stand out.

A House for Hope doesn't bill itself as a book of theology for Unitarian Universalists much less a book of Unitarian Universalist theology. It is subtitled "The Promise of Progressive Religion for the Twenty-First Century." Both of the authors are identified with Progressive (Liberal) Christianity -- Parker is (also) a United Methodist minister, Buehrens is a frequent speaker at events of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. Both authors have identified themselves as students of Process Theology which appears to be the theology of choice of Progressive Christians (witness the Process and Faith website).In spite of the above -- and in spite of the occasional reference to Jesus -- I don't think this book could fairly be considered a work of Christian theology. It is, however, theistic in tone -- albeit not theistic in a supernatural sense -- but not at the expense of being anti-Humanistic. Still, it would take a very openminded Humanist to find this book congenial. Then again, it would take a very openminded Christian as well.By not pointing A House for Hope specifically at UUs, Parker & Buehrens are sidestepping the question of whether such a theology (and in spite of differences they do present mostly a united theological position) could address a real constituency within the UUA or if their intention is to shape one. I think the answer is both. With a Humanistic wing that itself has a classic (rationalistic) as well as an innovative (nature-centered) side; a Christian wing that has both a neo-Protestant and a post-modern component; self-identified Jews, Buddhists, and Pagans; the theology of A House for Hope seeks to address a theistic center which may or may not be the future of the denomination.I have no reservations recommending this book with the above caveats for those who reject a theistic premise altogether, or one which is clearly rooted in Unitarian (and to a lesser extent Universalist) theologies of the past.

If you like reading positive sermons, this book is for you. My concern is that it glosses over the difficulties of progressive religion. Liberal churches are a place of refuge for people escaping from the prison of conservative churches where they were found guilty of sin by a judge/god and their peers... condemned to a hard and difficult life sentence. That said, few others are running to liberal churches and few second generation members stay in them. I have talked to a number of members of liberal churches who say they are not sure why they keep going. Regarding the Bible, I think the authors do not understand the difficulties in holding on to such near demonic books... read it. Thomas Jefferson had the right idea... a cut and paste bible. For example, read "slave" where translators use "servant." Read the genocidal passages of the Old Testament. The authors put on some peculiar rose colored glasses to make everything look so beautiful. I wish the rest of society saw religion and holy books this way... churches would have to turn folks away. Religion is more and more being seen as a problem; not a solution in secular society. And if you think society is going to distinguish liberal from conservative religion, you are asking too much. All the evils of religion rain down on liberals and conservatives alike. This book does little to change what the future holds for liberal religion. The 21st century will challenge progressive religion and we need to prepare and change... the same old story does not lead us anywhere.

The new vision on liberal religion is a great contribution for the theological transformationwe need for the Remonstrant tradition in the Netherlands, with its foundation in the early 17e century.Important for my PhD research - comparing the christian Unitarians of Transylvania and the Remonstrants in the 20the centuryalong the time table of the main IARF conferences. Rev. Tina Geels. You can find me on Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter..