Three little words

The author of the Christian scripture, 1 John 4:8, wrote succinctly:  "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."  The Universalists, one of the two lineages of heretical Christians who birthed the religious tradition I serve, took this idea and ran with it.  "God is Love," they declared.  Over and over and over again they said it, "God is Love."

Several years ago I had a bit of an inspiration and took the well-known passage from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and substituted the word "God" for the word "Love."  After all, as written this idea that "God is Love" is a tautology -- a logical, rhetorical structure in which the argument is true "forward and backward," you might say.  A = B, so B = A.  Or, in this case, "God is Love," so, "Love is God."

God is patient, God is kind.  God does not envy, does not boast, and is not proud.  God does not dishonor others, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, and keeps no record of wrongs.  God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

God never fails.

Not the kind of God that is held up by so many -- the God of judgement, wrath, condemnation, who revels in our fear and shame.  A very different God, indeed.

Recently a member of the congregation I serve offered another example of how those three little words -- God is Love -- can open up new meanings in old teachings.  In this case, a passage in the Book of Matthew (22:36-40).  Jesus is asked to name the "greatest commandment in the Law," and he replies, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

When you really grasp the depth of meaning in the assertion that "God is Love," though, this man pointed out that what Jesus was really saying is, "Love Love with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."  We are called on, he said, to "love Love" -- to focus our hearts and minds on Love, to commit ourselves to Love.

Doctrines kind of melt away if your focus is on loving Love.  Distinctions blur.  Divisions cease to matter.  We will be looking everywhere for signs of Love, opportunities to celebrate Love, and ways that we can make Love more manifest in the world.  If we love Love, if we focus our hearts and minds on Love, then we are going to do all that we can to increase Love.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

Being Christian in a Non-Christian Religion

This Sunday I had the opportunity to offer my  reflections at the worship of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship in the congregation I serve.  This is the text:

There are the jokes, of course:  The only time you hear the name “Jesus Christ” in a Unitarian Universalist church is when the minister stubs their toe.  Unitarians believe in one God … at most.  Unitarian Universalist prayers begin, “To whom it may concern …”

Then there are the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, suggestions that if you really think of yourself as a Christian … you might try the UCC church down the street where you might feel more comfortable.  (UCC, you may know, stands for Unitarians Considering Christ.)

And sometimes there is outright animosity.  Unitarian Universalist Christians – or Christian Unitarian Universalists (and there really is a difference, if only a linguistic one) – often report being told that one simply can’t be a Unitarian Universalist and a Christian at the same time.  Or dismissed with a single broad brush-stroke that declares that there is only one kind of Christian – the conservative, judgmental, hell-fire-and-brimstone kind who, as I recently saw it put by a UU on a colleague’s Facebook page, "spend their time spreading a doctrine of shame and guilt."

For many who identify themselves as Christian UUs – or UU Christians – it has seemed that Unitarian Universalism is an anti-Christian religion.  In fact, as I wrote the first draft of this sermon that’s what I thought I’d said I would talk about this morning, “Being Christian in an Anti-Christian Religion.”

To my great relief, though, I’d said that I would talk about being Christian in a non-Christian religion, and that’s a lot easier to do.  Because whereas the sense of Unitarian Universalism being an anti-Christian religion is one of subjective perception, the idea that Unitarian Universalism is a non-Christian religion is simply a fact. 

Our religious parents, Unitarianism and Universalism, were both part of the body of the Christian church, although not all of the other parts recognized them as such.  (They were, after all, both branded heresies only a couple of hundred years after it all began.)  In the 20^th century Unitarianism became increasingly open to, and embracing of, Humanism and, then, Atheism to the point that you could say they had almost become synonymous.  Universalism, at the same time, had largely moved from the theological teaching of universal salvation to a celebration of the universality of human experience and the goals of universal kinship, universal peace, universal prosperity, and universal justice (among other things).  Their union, which gave birth to us, reminds me of something a comedian once said:  “We’re in a mixed marriage,” he said, “I’m Jewish and she’s Christian, and we don’t know which religion to not raise the children in.”

So here we are – a dogmatically non-dogmatic religion which teaches emphatically that there are no creeds.  And from the early days of our existence we identified ourselves largely by what we were not: we were not the kind of church that asked you to believe things you found unbelievable; we were not the kind of church that condemned you for who you are, or whom you love, or how you express your identity; we were not the kind of church that had perpetrated some of the most ghastly of acts in the name of our God; we were not the kind of church that denied the insights and discoveries of modern science; we were not, in other words, the kind of church you had experienced in your past and which you saw all around you.  And given that the various Christian traditions were by far the most common in our country, we were saying (implicitly if not explicitly) we are not a Christian church.

And yet, as we have grown we have really become not only a non-creedal church but a multi-faith tradition.  We say it a lot – in our pews theists sit next to atheists, pagans share potlucks with physicists; Jews, and Muslims, and Sikhs coexist not just as religious neighbors but as members of the same religious family.  Yet still, there are the jokes, and the jabs, and the old not-church mentality persists among many individual Unitarian Universalists but in many of our congregations as well.

So what’s a good UU Christian – or Christian UU – to do?   I have a few suggestions.

First, let’s keep in mind that whatever kinds of anti-Christian sentiment we may have encountered, or are encountering, or will encounter for that matter, it ain’t nothin’ compared to those early Christians who were literally being thrown to the lions because of their faith.  And it’s been said that it was the moment when Christianity stopped being an underground cult and became the religion of the Empire that it all began to go to hell in a handbasket.  Some would say that Christians did their best work while operating under the radar.  Perhaps our position today offers some opportunities …

That said, let’s revel in our evangelical opportunity.  There is good news that the Christian tradition speaks to more clearly and with more power than any of the other of humanity’s religions.  I’ve often said that I think religions are, in many ways, like languages, and just as there are some concepts that can really only be fully grasped in Russian, let’s say, or that only a native speaker of Italian will fully comprehend, so, too, I think that there are some religious or spiritual concepts that can really only be fully articulated in Buddhist, or Christian.  We have good news to share and we should not keep that light under a basket but should put it up on that old lamp stand so that it can shed its light.

Yet let us remember, too, that while we may want to claim our calling to evangelize, that’s not the same thing as going out and seeking conversions.  Remember, as the stories come down to us Yeshua be Miriam did not require either the Samaritan woman nor the Roman Centurion to convert to Judaism before praising their faith as greater than any he’d seen among his own people.  The Centurion worshiped completely different Gods, and the Samaritan woman worshiped the same God differently, yet Jesus affirmed that that was alright because he could see that they got it.  He could see that they understood the good news he’d come to share even though they may have, as it were, spoken a different religious language.  And remember that at that Pentecost described in the Book of Acts, the spirit of God made it so that everyone heard the Message in their own tongue.  So, can we share the good news that we have to share so that non-Christians can hear it in their own native language?   That’s certainly a challenge, but it’s also – and here’s that word again that I keep using – an opportunity.

So what is this good news?  I don’t think I can articulate it all, but here are pieces of it that came to me as I was writing this last section this morning:

We are not alone, and existence is not meaningless.  There may be – there are – all sorts of ways of saying it, but we do not live in an indifferent universe.  Does that mean that there’s a God?  That’s what I’d say, but that doesn’t mean it’s how I have to express it to folks who aren’t open to hearing the G-word.  Modern science has shown that there are forces, fields, that connect us to one another and to all things.  Everything is literally made from the dust of stars and, so, share an atomic connection to everything else that is, was, and ever will be. 

And although this may not be scientifically verifiable – which not everything is, of course – we declare that the foundation of our existence, at least, is Love.  Perhaps it’s a choice, perhaps it’s an ontological fact, but Love is what’s real.  Love is what’s real.  (And remember, our Universalist ancestors said simply that “God is Love.”  That’d mean that “Love is God.”)

And because of this we are called to live out that Love with care for one another and for the world in which we live.  In this we agree with the Humanists and the Atheists (which are not the same thing no matter how much it may sometimes seem that way).  Although there are certainly some theists and some Christians (also not the same thing), and some of us, who believe in an intercessory God, yet we also all agree, I think it’s safe to say, that, as it’s famously been said, “we are the hands and feet of God.”  There’s a well-known saying that I’ve seen attributed to everyone from Ignatius of Loyola to Dorothy Day:  “Pray as if it all depends on God; work as if it all depends on you.”

Is there more to our Unitarian Universalist Christianity – or our Christian Unitarian Universalism – than that?  Maybe so.  Probably so.  And can we affirm that in our own lives and our own practices?  Absolutely.  And can we – should we – be willing to share that in places and situations in our congregational life where it seems appropriate to do so?  Again, I’d say absolutely.  It’s important that we all challenge one another to live out, or live into, the values of openness, curiosity, and affirmation that we espouse.  Yet let us also remember that the most important thing is that we live our lives in Love so that others might see us and wonder what it is that would lead us to live in such a way.  That’s our calling as people who identify as followers of Yeshua.  That’s also our calling as Unitarian Universalists.


Pax tecum,

RevWik


If you're interested in learning more about Christians within Unitarian Universalism, I recommend two resources.  There's a fabulous anthology titled Christian Voices in Unitarian Universalism.  It is worth reading.  (Several times, actually.)  Then there is the website of the national Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship.  

I Really Can't Understand It ...

If you have gone virtually anywhere in public lately you know that we are already being pushed over the precipiece into the "Christmas Season."   We haven't even finished our first helping of turkey (not to mention all of the leftovers to come), and it's carols in the air, bell ringers outside of grocery stores, and in a completely incomprehensible move people are being encouraged to buy their trees.  And along with the usual holiday hoopla come the cries of a "war on Christmas" and the adament assertion that we need to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

At the same time, many of the same folks who want to assure Christ's place in Christmas are turning their backs on a humanitarian crisis of an overwhelming proportion.  More than half of the governors in the U.S. have declared that they would close their boarders to the resettling of Syrian refugees within their states.  This is not something they actually have the authority to do, of course, and it is most certainly not "what Jesus would do."  Perhaps they've misplaced their WWJD bracelets.

I find it important to remind myself -- and I do need reminding ... a lot -- that people with whom I disagree are, for the most part at least, no doubt good people who see the world differently than I do.  The conservative and liberal worldview are fundamentally different, and the beliefs and actions that flow from these worldviews are of necessity different as well.  Just because I disagree with someone, just because I cannot understand their position, does not mean that they are stupid, or misguided, or evil.  They may be stupid, misguided and evil, of course, but if I look at what they say and do through my lens I am in no position to judge.  I have to try to remind myself to try my best to look through their lens to see if what they're saying and doing makes sense within the context of their own worldview.  Hence, the need to remind myself of the need to at least try to comprehend before I condemn.

When I look at the reactions to recent terrorist attacks in Bomako, Paris, Sharm el Sheikh, and elsewhere around the world, I see inconsistencies.  For instance:

It's been said that these extremist Muslims hate the United States because they hate our freedoms and our way of life.  And yet the responses -- closing our boarders, refusing to give refuge to people in need, increasing surveilance of our citizenry, closing mosques and putting people on watch lists -- all seem to have the effect of limiting our freedoms and contradicting the fundamental principles of "our way of life."  It is, of course, conceivable that such actions will make a miniscule difference in our safety -- and I don't see how it could with any seriousness be argued that any of these, or even all of these, measures would make much of a difference at all -- yet if they cause us to effectively reject the very thing the terrorists are accused of denouncing, haven't we essentiall declared their victory?  "The terrorists want to destroy our way of life," it's said, and yet our response is to do it for them.  An inconsistency.

These Mulsim terrorists hates us because we're Christian, is another assertion.  Let us set aside for a moment that the United States is not now nor has it ever been a Christian nation.  (No less than George Washington explicitly said so!)  Still, let's let that stand.  What are Chrisian values?  Love, even to loving those who hate us.  Serving the needs of "the least of these," those who are most in need of care and comfort.  If Islam is, as is declared, a religion that teaches intolerance and hate, while Christianity teaches acceptance and love, why is it that the response of so-called Christians -- the same ones who want to ensure that Christ stays in Christmas -- is more like the marginal and extremist expressions of Islam than mainstream Christianity?  Again ... if they hate us because of our Christianity, why don't we respond as Christians?

And then there are just facts.  Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness" for that brand of thinking that prefers things that sound like truth, that confirm our own beliefs, to actual verifiable facts, but here are some nonetheless.  (And I thank a member of the congregation I serve for this comparison of fact to fiction)

1) "The attackers in Paris were refugees from Syria."

The attackers were French and Belgian nationals, none of them were born in Syria or Iraq or any Daesh (The Arabic abbreviate name for ISIS, which they reportedly hate being called) occupied countries. One of the attackers was found with a Syrian passport which authorities have determined to be a fake, according to a report by the BBC.

2) "The vetting process for refugees is too easy."

The process for vetting refugees is quite thorough, and takes around 18-24 months to complete. For Syrians, the application process can take longer due to security concerns. A terrorist would have a much easier time applying for a tourist or business Visa. Even still, Visa requirements are waived for up to a 90 day stay in the U.S., if originating from a country such as France or Belgium, from where the attackers had passports.

Before a refugee even faces U.S. vetting, he or she must first clear an eligibility hurdle. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO (non-governmental organization) — determines which refugees (about 1 percent) should be resettled through its own process, which can take four to 10 months.

Once a case is referred from the UNHCR to the United States, a refugee undergoes a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. This all happens before a refugee ever steps foot onto American soil.

There is a concern for how much background information can be collected on an applicant, since it is very difficult to get background records from war torn Syria. This could potentially create a security concern, however as noted, there are much easier and quicker ways for a terrorist to enter the country and do harm.

3) "The Syrian refugees are mostly military age males."

The Syrian refugees, according to the UNHCR, are 50.5% female. Children 11 years and younger account for 38.5%. Conservative sites have been quoting misleading numbers about the percentage of males, putting them usually around 72%. However this accounts for refugees from 9 other countries as well, and only for Mediterranean Sea crossings, half of which are Syrian. "Single men of combat age" represent only 2% of those admitted to the U.S.

4) "The Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon were refugees"

The Tsarnaevs were children of asylees whose parents did not go through the refugee processing system. Asylees and Refugees have similar but separate legal distinctions according to the U.S. government. A Washington Post headline did once say that they were refugees, which according to the legal definition is incorrect and misleading. Refugees are selected by the UN, an embassy, or by an NGO, while asylees are people who have already arrived in the U.S. and want to apply for asylum status.

The Tsarnaevs came here as young men and were radicalized in the U.S.A., as opposed to being terrorists who came to the country disguised as refugees.

5) "We are taking in too many of them already"

There are 4 million refugees displaced from the Syrian conflict that are registered by the UNHCR. The president has vowed to take in 10,000 of them this year.

6) "Muslim countries don't even take in any refugees, why should we? They should help their own people."

Turkey (1.9 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Jordan (629k), Saudi Arabia (100-500k), Iraq (247k), and the United Arab Emirates (242k) are the top countries with hosted Syrian refugee populations. The next closest Western country is Germany, with around 200,000 registered refugees. The U.S. has so far taken in 2,200.

The Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia are not perfect in their treatment however, since they have limited to no means of obtaining citizenship, permanent re-settlement, or work visas for refugees. Many seek refuge in Europe and the US as a result.

7) "Most terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by Muslims"

Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-government fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims.

Sources:

• Jeb Bush: 'It takes almost a year for a refugee to be processed in the United States'  (PolitiFact)

• Amid Syrian Refugee Crisis, Asylum Seekers In US Face Much Different Process Than In Europe  (International Business Times)

• Tsarnaev brothers’ homeland was war-torn Chechnya  (The Washington Post)

• How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? Explaining the process  (CNN)

• Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees  (FactCheck.org)

• Paris Attacks:  Who Were The Attackers?  (BBC)

• Refugees of the Syrian Civil War  (Wikipedia)

• Visa Waiver Program (US State Department)

• Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11  (NY Times)

• Gulf States Fend Off Criticism About Doing Little For Syrian Refugees  (NPR)

Even when I try to understand the thinking of those who are saying such things, even when I try to look at the world through the lens they do, I still can't fathom who their responses make sense.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but I feel certain that they are.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

Does the Government Have an Obligation to "The Least of These"?: a response to Rush Limbaugh

A few days ago, during the visit of the Pope to the US, Rush Limbaugh asked a question on his show.  He said that he wasn't asking it rhetorically, that he really was curious and wanted to know.  I assume that the people who read through what must be a tremendous volume of correspondence will never pass this on to him, yet I'll send it to him nonetheless.  I thought I'd post my musing here, too.

Limbaugh's question was this, "Is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that the government should help people?  Or does he say that individuals should help one another?"  I've heard other conservative pundits ask this same question and, obviously, their implication is the same -- that the moral argument of the government doing anything to address income inequality (and its related social consequences) is fundamentally misguided.  Jesus told people to help one another.  He didn't tell people to ask the government to do it.

I've heard this assertion put forward enough times that when Rush recently did as well I found myself really musing over it.  He's right, of course, as far as it goes and as far as I know.  I do not believe that Jesus is remember as every saying that it was the job of government to take care of the people.  But here's what else I know:

First, it seems obvious to me that we don't really know what Jesus said.  He didn't have a stenographer following him around.  Instead, people told one another what they remembered him as saying.  Those people told other people and the telling of the stories continued for a hundred years or so until people began to write them down.  Those writings, then, went through a myriad of translations -- not just among various languages but also through the eyes of people with different understandings and purposes.  What we have to look at today, then, is the heavily interpreted memory of people's memories of earlier people's remembrances of what Jesus said.  While I know that this is generally identified as liberal interpretation of Scripture, I also don't believe that Rush and the others are among those who believe the alternative theory that the New Testament texts were originally dictated by God for inerrant word, and that God has since guided the efforts of all of the many translators.

Second, even if you do subscribe to the idea that the Christian scriptures are not just "God-inspired" texts but "God-written" texts, you still can't claim to know everything that Jesus said.  After all, in the Gospel of John (21:25) it is written, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."  So ... did Jesus ever say that the government had a responsibility to care for its citizens?  We don't know, and never will, because, "Jesus did many other things as well."

Third, the question itself is flawed.  The government of Jesus' time was the local branch, if you will, of the occupying Roman government.  It was not the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."  It was an occupying force that obliterated the governing structures of the Jewish people themselves.  When the Jews did have their own independent nation the Prophets did call the government to task for not taking care of the people -- especially the poor and the strangers among them.  And Jesus is remembered as revering the Prophets, and is remembered as chastising the closest thing the Jews had to their own government -- the Temple structure.  Remember his condemnation of the money changers, and the entire system that upheld the Temple hierarchy?  (If not, re-read Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, and John 2:12-25)  Think of the many times he called the Pharisees and Scribes to account for not caring for the poor and the suffering -- these stories are not remembrances of his just talking to and about individuals, but of his critique of those who held power.  So, it is apparently possible to demonstrate that Jesus is remembered as saying that it was the responsibility of "the powers that be" to take care of its people.  But if you want to be strict in your interpretation and limit yourself to whether or not he spoke of the official government, the government of Rome, it is a false parallel to whether or not he would call our own government to account.

Fourth, there is not only the fact that the occupying Roman government is not an appropriate analog to our democratic government today, there is also a difference of scope.  Jesus lived his entire life in an area smaller than the state of Vermont.  It is one thing to expect the poor and the suffering to be cared for by individuals alone in such a small geographic area, but when we're talking about the entire United States?  Our problems are incredibly larger, more complex, and more intimately intertwined than could possibly be handled on a local lever alone.  The reasons people are hungry, and homeless, and in a myriad of other ways in need are national in scope.  Whatever Jesus is remembered as having said he said in and to his own people in his own time and place.  A community the size of the United States was never, could never have been, imagined.

Fifth, the closet followers of Jesus, those whose stories are told in the Book of Acts, organized their communities with care for one another a foundational principle.  It is written of them that,
  "all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need." (Acts 2:45).  Further, it is remembered that, "[T]he congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. ... there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.…" (Acts 4:32 & 34)  Apparently this egalitarian, some might even say "socialist," approach so seriously that we have the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) in which two of the community who decided to hold back some of their wealth for themselves were struck dead as a result.  If Rush and the others are really suggesting that we look to the teachings of Jesus to inform our social structures, this is the way those who are remembered as knowing him best organized themselves.  

Finally, after the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 C.E., and the formation of what, by the 13th century would come to be called "the Holy Roman Empire," we did see a government that at least in name was rooted in Christian principles.  In a book called Germany and the Holy Roman Empire the author notes that there was imperial legislation in 1530, 1548, and 1577 that, "obliged all rulers to take care of their poor," and that, "even in times of crisis, measures that almost all governments had in place undoubtedly brought relief to many.  The deserving poor were neither demonized nor criminalized."  Did Jesus say, specifically, that governments should take care of the poor?  Not that I can tell if we're being strictly precise, but it does seem that those governments that claimed to be following his teachings and example felt that they should do so.

And that, I suppose, is the ultimate response I have to Limbaugh's question:  even if Jesus did not specifically say that governments had to take care of the poor; even if he did intend to limit his overwhelmingly undeniable and inescapable emphasis on mercy, compassion, and "the least of these;" even if we capitulate to all of that ... why not do it anyway?  What is the government?  Representatives of the people, and, for that matter, a just a group of people.  Why should they not feel the same obligations that individual people are supposed to have just because they have come together as "government."  (Specifically, to quote Lincoln again, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people.)  Some may wonder if Jesus ever said that the government should be obliged to take care of its own poor and needy.  I'll just ask in return, "Did he ever say it shouldn't"?

Pax tecum,

RevWik

Across the Great Divide (epilogue)

I will be honest: this is not the essay series I’d intended to write.  My original intent, which you can no doubt see evidenced in the first part, was to present an argument for the use of “the language of reverence,” as Rev. Bill Sinkford called it.  I was inspired in part by an incident that occurred at the church I serve as Lead Minister.  The setting was a Sunday worship service celebrating the decision that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

I’d placed on the altar two placards I’d had made previously to bring with me to the courthouse to join other clergy performing the first legally recognized same-sex marriages in our state.  (I was not, unfortunately, ultimately able to be there that day.)  One sign, referencing our Universalist ancestors, and countering the religious opponents of marriage equality, said, “God is love; God is here.”  The other, recognizing that theistic language is not the only language of religion, said, “All love is equal.”  Both had images of joined wedding rings as well as a rainbow flag.  These two placards were on the altar together, next to each other, reflecting the diversity of religious expression in our congregations.

After the service was over I was told by some that the sign with the word “God” on it was deeply offensive and that, in fact, at least one member walked out of the sanctuary before the service began because simply seeing the word “God” on our altar was so disturbing.  The fact that there was an equivalent statement in support of marriage equality that did not include “God-talk” was, apparently, of no comfort.

I do not, for a moment, doubt that the discomfort and distress these people felt was real.  I do wonder, however, what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist and not be able to at least tolerate the appearance of the word “God.”   Along with the statement of Principles that our Association affirms there is also a list of six “sources” which are said to nourish our “living tradition.” There is an affirmation of Humanism:  “Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.”  Yet there are also these two: “Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; and, “Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.”  It seems quite valid to ask how one can affirm these later two sources while refusing to allow even the word “God” into our sanctuaries.

This essay series, then, was originally intended to be a defense of the appropriateness of “God-talk” in our communities.  As I wrote, though, I began to see that such a defense – while arguably still worth raising – really fundamentally misses the point.  There is an even bigger demand – both a challenge and an opportunity – to which we are called by our Unitarian Universalist faith. 

In his book Many Mansions:  A Christian's Encounters With Other Faiths, the Protestant theologian Harvey Cox wrote about the conversion, in the late 1700s, of Boston’s King’s Chapel from Anglicanism to Unitarianism, saying, “They teach us something important about the future of religion not by what they did but by the courage and initiative they showed in daring to do it.  We now have the chance to do the same thing,” he wrote, “— not to wait and see what religious forms will emerge in the next century, but to use our imaginations to shape them.”  Universalist preacher and teacher Clinton Lee Scott said, “We may set our hands to the task of building a new kind of church adapted to the new age, thus creating a demonstration center that will prove what can be done by a radical reconstruction.” 

We are called, through this grand experiment of Unitarian Universalism, to demonstrate to the world a new way of being religious.  We are called on to use our imaginations to shape the religious forms needed in this new age.  If we are to fulfill this calling, we must actively and creatively find ways to avoid being too tied to either the acceptance or the rejection of any particular religious identity or expression.  We must find ways to transcend – as individuals, as congregations, and as a movement – the more parochial perspectives of the previous paradigm and both discover and develop new means of discourse. 

I have come to realize that it is not a question of whether or not to use the "language of reverence," whether or not "God-talk" is to be acceptable in our communal discourse.  The question that really needs to be explore is how to find and make real the both/and that is essential to any real diverse inclusion.  This a question to which I will freely admit having no answers.  Yet I know that it's a good question. It's one  we can chew on and in the exploration of which we will find much benefit.  Through the writing of this essay series, attempting to answer one of the most long-standing and irksome questions with which our movement has wrestled, I believe I have discovered what E. E. Cummings described as, "the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question."

Pax tecum,

RevWik