Presiding: Khoren Arisian
Speaking: the Rev. Wendy Jerome-Stern and the Rev. Kendyl Gibbons
Responding: the Rev. Dr. Sarah Oelberg

In this first of two meetings at General Assembly sponsored by the Friends of Religious Humanism (FRH), Khoren Arisian, outgoing FRH President, introduced the theme. Older humanists, as Arisian ironically described them "in advanced stages of dinosaur dotage," are passing the torch to younger humanists. In this gathering of humanists from different generations, the 60s and 40s age groups were represented on the panel; the 20s through 80s were represented in the audience who had come to hear where humanism is today and is moving in the next years.

Continuing in the FRH tradition of "exploring the religious factor in humanism and the humanist factor in religion," the panel addressed the question: Is a new humanist consensus emerging within the theological pluralism of the UUA? If there is, what sources will this new humanist consensus draw from? What would be its principal content, features, and benefits? Introducing the three ministers who would address these questions, Arisian described them as the "Minnesota Mafia" since all serve UU congregations in Minnesota. All three, it was also noted, were raised in UU humanist families and congregations.

The first speaker, the Rev. Kendyl Gibbons of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, MN, focused on the transition in today's world in how we know what we know, or, more precisely, that we no longer have the confidence that was once so easy that we knew what we knew. In the philosophical, scientific, economic and social realms, all of which have informed the liberal religious tradition including religious humanism, many people today are skeptical of truth claims, sometimes producing a moral cynicism and even a kind of crankiness. We are no longer sure that human beings are capable of genuine reason, we find that we aren't as nice as we supposed ourselves to be, we recognize that our motives are ambiguous and we glimpse that we should take our own claimed motivations with a grain of salt. Our ways of knowing are in transition, and we can despair – or we can hope.

She went on to describe two basic kinds of religious humanism that she observes in UU congregations: magisterial humanism and elementary humanism. In magisterial humanism, there's an emphasis on human control as a triumph over the messiness of nature. Science is seen as the way to make our way to the best of all possible worlds. The good life is a life that is free from error. The result of magisterial humanism in today's world, said Gibbons, is frustrated, cranky humanists.

Elementary humanism emphasizes that order is a natural evolutionary outcome. Science is seen less as "the answer" and more as experimental understanding. The future is seen as open and unpredictable. Mistakes are seen as essential to living, and as opportunities for learning. The vision of the "good life" is different for different people. The result of elementary humanism, according to Gibbons, is creative, playful, happy humanists.

Rev. Wendy Jerome-Stern, minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Minnetonka in Wayzata, MN, described her own roots in a humanist UU congregation. "I think that religious humanism is the most courageous faith." She recalled the simple words from her Sunday School years that helped to shape her thinking: "May we have eyes that see, hearts that love, and hands that are ready to serve." The holy center of humanism, Jerome-Stern continued, is that as human beings we are able to make commitments to other people and to principles.

"It's not necessary to be an atheist to be a humanist," Jerome-Stern said, "but to focus on the human responsibility to be the engine for change." We don't need to modernize or apologize for humanism: the strongest part of any of the religious faiths is that faith's humanist core, she told the audience. Humanism is what animates us and calls us to action in service of the future. We must all be teachers of humanism, by teaching each other to be the finest examples of human beings that we can be.

Rev. Sarah Oelberg, minister of UU churches in Hanska and Mankato, pointed to the gender and generational differences that often mark different humanisms. She divided humanism into three kinds: hard humanism, soft humanism, and mushy humanism.

Hard humanism is a blunt, no-nonsense rational approach, hard also because it puts responsibility squarely on us. This humanism, she pointed out, empowered many UUs to change themselves and the world. But this humanism has sometimes become arrogant and rigid, a new orthodoxy. And so another generation has looked for a more humane humanism: softer, kinder, gentler, willing to make in-course corrections and be adaptive. "Hyphenated humanists" are UUs who discard many humanist principles and keep a few, picking and choosing among UU theologies in an eclectic way, until they "melt together in a puddle or muddle." These she called the "mushy" or "melted" humanists.

A humanism that's true to its core principles, Dr. Oelberg urged, will give us back our enthusiasm and empowerment. She recommended that the audience respond with what they thought those core principles are.

Audience members spoke from many perspectives. One pointed out that the hard/soft/mushy typology fits with general social trends, and said that humanism could easily become firm again if the social conditions required it. Another urged that the primacy of reason and the unity of truth be maintained as core principles, while also affirming the importance of poetry. A young humanist spoke to the anti-humanist pressures on young people in today's culture, and an older humanist recalled the core principle of integrity: intellectual and emotional honesty that allows people to live with who and what they are.

Reported by Jone Johnson Lewis; formatted for the web by Kasey Melski.