Religion, we are told, is a private thing, a concern between the individual and God. His neighbor or the community must not meddle with it. . . . I would maintain that religion is eminently a social principle, entering into social life, having most important bearings on the social weal . . . (cited in Richard Gilbert's, The Prophetic Imperative, p. 22)
from essay: "Principles for Building and Sustaining a Unitarian Universalist Church Community" by Tom Owen-Towle
While tolerating differences of theology, orientation, and race in theory, we gravitate, in practice, toward homogeneity of lifestyle, social behavior, and rituals.
Our efforts at authentic inclusion are flawed and foibled. UU humanists, mystics, Christians, and pagans join in frustrating dances, clumsily stepping on one another's toes or bumping into one another, especially in our smaller societies. We sometimes even question whether a visitor of a different background (class, race, political persuasion or sexual orientation) really belongs in our group. Our buildings telegraph ALL ARE WELCOME signs, but the bathrooms and sanctuary are oft-inaccessible to the physically handicapped. Additionally, if we aren't careful, our passion for inclusion can grow thoughtless, plunging us headlong into the pit of Jonathan Swift's "anythingarianism" where we stand equally for everything, without limits or boundaries, thus standing for nothing.
Three Reminders:
What religious leaders have to preach and teach is that our lives are in danger - not so much from others as from the fear and hatred we carry in our hearts; for we cannot deny another's humanity without diminishing our own. As I said at the outset, homogeneity is an illusion, diversity a reality. What religious leaders have to preach and teach is that diversity is at once the most threatening thing to social unity, and the one thing most damaging for a society to be without. And religion's primary strength is that it can generate the love that alone can conquer fear and bring diverse people together.
SERMON
I had never felt anything like it before. In a rough hewn pavilion in the Northern California redwoods, I had chanted the Sufi Zikr, La illah ha, Il allah, there is no relative, limited, finite God but rather only the infinite all inclusive, all expansive Allah, swaying gently back and forth with over one hundred people shoulder to shoulder in a circle. In the background drums, keyboards, guitars, flutes and other instruments blended creating an ethereal accompaniment to our chanting. Being, a skeptical UU, I'd never experienced the intense feelings that arose in me. The only word that came to mind to describe that constellation of thoughts and emotions was the word `religious.' That experience changed me forever.
At a Buddhist meditation retreat, I remember doing very slow walking meditation with a quiet, tranquil mind, feeling the light touch of a cool breeze caressing my cheek. In the stillness and silence, there was no future or past, no desire to be any place but where I was. The sun was out and the colors of the tiny flowers along the path I walked delighted my eye. I was filled with gratitude for the privilege of being alive at that moment. The moment felt positively religious.
I attended Pacific Central District Leadership School for the first time in 1985. I remember vividly sitting around a table with six other students working on a task while practicing group facilitation techniques. For the first time, I started seeing the dynamics of the group process unfolding that I had never seen before. I started seeing the emotional level to what we were doing that was completely separate from--yet connected to--the task we were trying to achieve. I felt like I was having a religious awakening as a new way of understanding opened up for me.
These are just a few illustrations of my associations with the word religious. They are very positive associations. These associations were part of my desire to become a minister.
So when I attended the Albany neighborhood potluck, I was interested in what I heard. Bob Blank asked people to speak about their personal associations with the word spiritual. I was fascinated by people's responses. Of those who had a positive association with the word, most were careful to add a rejection of the term `religious' to describe their association.
All of a sudden I understood better the negative reaction Rev. Loehr received to his pronouncement that this congregation was too socially centered and wasn't religious enough. To bring those of you who are new more up to date, the April issue of Windows had a column by Davidson and a chart. On one side of the chart was the word social and the other side was religious. He set up this continuum between social and religious to analyze what kind of institution this congregation is. He measured the difference by the centrality of "Ultimate Concerns", the importance of religious identity, the expression and strength of religious beliefs, and the role of the minister. Davidson encouraged the members to analyze where they thought we belonged on this continuum. Liberally religious congregations, he said, probably would be found at the more social end of the spectrum and conservative churches more on the religious end. He loaded the question a little by this analysis, by the way.
Davidson's "social institution" - "religious institution" continuum stirred up lots of feeling in our congregation. Some felt he had put his finger on their own feeling of dissatisfaction. Others rejected his analysis. In the May issue of Windows, Sigrin Newell wrote, "I think Davidson's model is fundamentally wrong. It is another example of the male tendency to think in a linear fashion...Since I believe that the holy is immanent in every individual ... I can't separate the religious and the social." Abby Jones wrote, "I am convinced that the social times we spend together have just as much religious meaning as the Sunday service." Bill Batt organized a congregational discussion in June to address the topic with Davidson which I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. As I listened to people speak passionately with each other, I was having my own religious experience feeling so grateful to be coming to a congregation who could discuss such a topic with respect, civility and insight.
Part of the underlying problem in this conflict is the word religious itself. As Abby Jones points out in her Windows article, Webster's defines the word religious as being "devoted to the service and worship of God or the supernatural." The definition I found was slightly different but of the same meaning: "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity." These definitions make complete sense if we were to attend a Catholic Mass, morning prayer in a mosque or the Friday night Shabbat service in a synagogue. Whatever we do here that is religious is likely to be a little different.
Davidson defines the word religious this way: "that which reconnects us to those "ultimate concerns" that make life deeper, more integrated, more responsible, and ultimately satisfying." He reclaims the word skillfully in a more meaningful way for most Unitarian Universalists but I think there is still something missing that is central to the word and the reason many of us have trouble with it. What is missing is the devotional quality of the word.
The Latin root of the word religious is `religio' which translates as reverence. I experience reverence as a quality of feeling rather than an intellectual process. Rather than feeling reverence in traditional houses of worship, many of us experience resistance because the words we hear offend us. The patriarchal, anthropomorphic understanding of God, the deification of Jesus, the belief in transubstantiation and miracles and regressive social values all go against our modern scientifically based understanding and world view. As long as religious is framed as a devotion to a jealous, angry god, such definitions and associations with the word taint it and diminish its meaning for many of us.
Still, even if we dislike with the word religious, we know in our bones that what we do here is much more than social. We are not a country club. If I were to ask Bruce Becker who manages the Albany Country Club, I suspect he'd be able to tick off a number of differences. Yes, this congregation does indeed have a rich and enjoyable social life which knits it together. Yes, the pleasant togetherness, and good feeling cultivated here is one of this congregation's great strengths. And we also provide regular opportunities to explore ultimate concerns and values.
The reason for our strong social unity has to do with our sense of identity. In a fascinating essay by John Alexie, or Lex Crane, a Unitarian minister for more than forty years, titled, "The Passionate Enduring Center," he proposes that what holds us together is a unique mindset. He writes:
[Our] sense of community springs, not from a body of shared beliefs, but from the underlying mindset we hold in common. It springs from the tacitly held set of values, conceptions, assumptions, ideas, ideals, and goals we carry within us, which generates resonances in us when we come together. We are a community of seekers, committed to the search for truth. We are joined at the level of our existential roots, at the deep level of the mindset.
We recognize this mindset connection when we hear people say when they find us that they feel like they have come home. The feeling of being alone in the world vanishes upon meeting others with the same mindset. It is a visceral feeling of discovering one's tribe.
This Unitarian mindset was analyzed by Robert L'H Miller in 1975 in a comparative value survey. Miller found that unlike Catholics, Protestants, Jews and the unchurched, our values were fairly consistent over the range of age, income and length of membership.
These values Miller separates into terminal values such as self-respect, wisdom, inner harmony, mature love, a world of beauty and an exciting life," and instrumental values: "largely focused on competence, [and] also ranked uniquely high: loving, independent, intellectual, imaginative and logical." Miller suggests this "paradigm reflects a religion of personal realization, individual self-fulfillment, and self-actualization."
Did you hear much about devotion and reverence to a higher reality in that statement? No you didn't. What is there is consistent with Davison's definition of religious as a personal search for truth and meaning. This search is just fine ... until one starts finding answers.
What holds any group together is sameness rather than difference. In traditional churches, the sameness is supplied by the beliefs, rituals and practices. Thus the people can be very different in ethnicity, culture and language as long as the religious core is very strong. The Catholic church literally defines how this can be done in a way that bridges enormous difference through a strong, top down organizational structure.
We Unitarian Universalists do not have this central core of belief, ritual and practice. What holds us together is more of a mindset. As Davidson points out, it is our ability to articulate our beliefs and make our understandings central to our lives and living our values that make us, by his definition, religious.
This is where potential trouble can arise. The more clearly we define ourselves, the more we discover our differences. Differences tend to separate the individuals in a group rather than pull them together. Thus social unity is threatened by self-differentiation. Almost unconsciously, a group can resist its members exploration and self-definition for fear that it will divide them. I know this experience myself as I've listened to members of my congregation tell their beliefs. I've had to bite my tongue to stop myself from saying, "Don't go telling so and so you think this way. They'll bite your head off." Driven by the impulse to protect our social unity, we mute full expression of our differences.
This is the challenge of being Unitarian Universalist. We encourage individual searching and growth while at the same time maintaining strong social cohesion. Believe it or not it can be done. What is required is a great deal of maturity among our membership, an acceptance of differing views and beliefs and a willingness to listen and thoughtfully respond to those with whom we disagree. What is required is a recognition of the bond between us that transcends ideology. What is required is a passionate pluralism.
As I have deeply explored my own experience of consciousness seeking self-understanding and self-transcendence, I've grown increasingly grateful for being a Unitarian Universalist. The deeper I explore, the more connections I discover and the more appreciation I have of the unique path all of us must walk. As I experience that deep sense of connection, my heart opens to all beings. I feel reverence for life, all that supports it, all that creates it. It is a passion more of the heart than mind.
Reverence for life, for being, for becoming, is the devotion that we can embrace enthusiastically from our heart. This reverence can be found both at social occasions and on Sunday morning. This reverence can be found in sacred and secular time. This reverence can be found in the presence of the holy and the profane. It is the mind we bring to the moment that makes the difference.
It is my firm belief that the quest for self-understanding and self-knowledge, the quest for meaning and truth, has the potential to lead one to a feeling of reverence and devotion to that which is beyond ourselves. The great founding Universalist, Hosea Ballou, said it this way, "We must not look for religion in creeds or formularies of human invention. We must look for it in the honest, the pious, the devotional heart."
This is the genius of the union of Unitarianism and Universalism. From our Unitarian heritage comes a common mindset. From our Universalist heritage a common heartset. Bringing the two together builds a strong religious institution.
Whether we love God, love humanity, love nature, love the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, or love this community, the love we share stretches us beyond ourselves and connects us. The meaning we crave for our lives will be found in that ever expanding sense of connection. Cultivating wisdom and love within the context of intentional community, for me, is what religion is all about.
I recognize a great deal of wisdom and I feel a great deal of love in this congregation so in my book you are pretty religious. Again and again I hear how much this congregation means to its members. In circumstances that would destroy another congregation, you stayed together. And that network of mutuality is ever expanding and including one more as it has welcomed new members today.
Is there anything wrong with being social? Of course not. Can we become more religious? Can our depth of knowing and breadth of loving increase? Of course. That's my job as your minister. My ministerial leadership can uniquely help you achieve this goal. With your support, increasing our depth of knowing and breadth of loving will be my mission in your midst as I serve as your minister.
Benediction
Invaluable is the opportunity to be part of a religious community that cherishes individuality. Pluralism, I predict, will be the spiritual discipline for the 21st Century. If diversity is good for our ecosystem I hope you'll agree it's great for us as well. May we carry that message from this room and share it with a world hungry for meaning, appreciation and affirmation for the preciousness of peculiarity.
Go in peace, make peace, be at peace.
Copyright (c) 1999 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore. All rights reserved.