Them'uns and Us'uns 

A sermon by Rev. Robert M. Eddy, M.Div.

Delivered before the UU Fellowship of the Emerald Coast 3 October 2004

Composer Lou Harrison. who died in January 2003, drew from musical traditions in every part of the planet.  He was the father of so called "fusion" music.

 In  an interview with national public radio, some years ago, he commented that in his wanderings around the planet he’d found, "there's no ‘them’ there

anymore. Just we’s".  My wife who was an English major, when she read this pointed out that grammatically he should have said,  "There’s no them any more

just us’s"  or "there’s no they any more, just we’s"  I defer to my wife in matters of grammar, but to avoid being pedantic, I’ve rendered the thought in

panhandle dialect,  "Them'uns and Usn’s.

Whatever the grammatically correct pronouns, creating  in-groups and out-groups seems to be a universal human characteristic.   Humans, it seems, evolved

to feel close to the people they consider "us" and to be  hostile to people they  consider "them."   In fact, in some groups this disparity has become so

great that "them" can be treated as animals or worse than animals.  It’s not just a characteristic of historic peoples like the Huns under Attila or  the

Mongols under Gengus Kahn  or the Hebrews under Joshua.  We’ve seen it in our own day Christian  killing Jews in Europe, Muslims killing Christians in Sudan,

Hutu killing Tutsi in Africa.  And so it goes.  Modern war involves just this kind of them and us process.   We would not think of bombing one of our own

cities to kill a few  terrorists, but we as a nation supported the bombing of Iraqi cities first to remove a dictator and his henchmen and now to subdue

insurgents.   Without dividing the world into "us" and "them"" this would not be possible.

But is it avoidable?   Is there something hardwired into our brains that makes it impossible to consider all people our brothers and sisters? Are we all

wolves at heart?   Was Oscar Hammerstein right  when he put into the mouth of that young sailor, these words, "You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, 

You’ve got to be taught from year to year.  It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear. You’ve got to be carefully taught."

"You’ve got to be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made and people whose skin is a different shade. You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late; before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You’ve got to be carefully taught.

you’ve got to be carefully taught ! "

"To hate all the people your relatives hate."  That seems to be a universal human way. Can a human group survive without a "them?"  Must we teach our children to

hate – someone? The evidence seems to be that  no human group has survived into historic times that did not make the distinction between them and us.

Does that mean that humanists like you and me are engaged in a fool’s errand?   Are we stupid to sing - as I tried to make you sing each Sunday while I

was your half time minister  - "break not the circle of enabling love, where people grow, forgiven and forgiving.  Break not the circle, make it wider

still, 'til it includes embraces all the living."

There  are many who would say that trying to "embrace" all living humans  is an invitation to suicide whether you’re talking about individuals or groups.

I disagree and I think that conviction – that it is possible to continually widen the circle -  is at the heart of our UU way of being religious.  In fact I

think the term Inclusivists  would be a better term than  UU’S - more descriptive and no more difficult to pronounce than Unitarian Universalist.  Inclusivists – isn’t

that what we claim to be?    But sometimes I think we UU’s may be just one more kind of "usn’s"

I recently read a book titled  Darwin’s Cathedral by  David Sloan Wilson. The book is basically an answer to the question "do groups evolve like species

according to Darwinian "laws."  Do groups obey the law of "the survival of the fittest?"  Wilson has a lot to say about this amity/enmity issue; "them-uns"

and "us-uns."   He analyzes the historical success of -   Judaism and Christianity in the first century, of Calvinism in the 16th century and of Hinduism in

Bali in the last - that is the 20th - century.   He talks about "the secular utility of religion" that is it’s usefulness in helping a group survive and

reproduce as a group.  He  and concludes:     "Us/them thinking is a part of normal human psychology.  Most of us, perhaps even all of us, are capable of restricting our moral conduct to a subset

of the human race and of behaving instrumentally toward outsiders."

Do we do that? Do we "use" outsiders?  That what he means by "instrumentally."  I hope not.  It’s against my religion.  I hope it’s against yours.

I’m a Humanist which I define as, " a person who refuses to treat people like things."  I subscribe to the "things generally believed among us."   I’m sure

you know them all by heart but if not they’re found in the front of your hymnal – before the numbering starts.  They’re called the UUA’s principles and

purposes.  My friend David Loehr derides them but I think they’re a useful description of  things Unitarian Universalists generally believed when adopted in

1985.  The very first of them is "The Inherent worth and dignity of EVERY person."   Do you have to believe that to be a UU?  No.  To require you to believe

would make the principles and purposes a creed and we are a non creedal religious community.    Many people use these eight principles as a test as to whether

a person is a UU or not.  I hope none of you do that. Still it is good to remind ourselves occasionally of those things that are generally believed among

us.

LETS READ THEM TOGETHER

"the inherent worth and dignity of every person,

Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations,

Acceptance of one another and encouragement

        of spiritual growth.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning,

The right of conscience.

The use of the democratic process with in our congregations

         and in society at large.

The goal of world community

        with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence

        of which we are a part.

These are things generally affirmed and promoted by us as individuals and as a group.   But they are not binding on any one of us.  What is binding is the

covenant that each congregation adopts for the UUA is not one big church  it is an association of congregations.   It is our covenants that defines each

congregation; it is like semipermiable membrane between "us" and "them." No I don’t know the covenant of this congregation so you’ll forgive me, I

hope if I use the Pensacola congregation’s covenant as an example.  We recite it every Sunday morning.  The covenant is preceded by two declamations: I wish

they were statements of fact but they are in fact aspirations: namely:  Love is the Spirit of this church and service its Law.  Then we say: "this is our

covenant: to dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love and to help one another."     Members of the UU Church of Pensacola  have different responsibilities to

fellow members than they do to others   I have made no covenant with the hitchhiker standing on I-10 in a driving rain to pick him up as I would a fellow

member.  I have no covenant with the Mormon missionary to "seek the truth in love."   And I most certainly do not have any obligation to "dwell together in

peace" with the  bigot  or fool.  I can choose to have nothing to do with her or him.  But I cannot ignore or walk away from a fellow member of the UU

congregation to which I belong.   Whether I am ‘the’ minister or just another member.  Most of my obligations to those outside my group, "them-uns" are

obligations to refrain from certain actions: I can’t kill them, I can’t enslave them, I can’t steal from them, I can’t rape them.  I must refrain from these

behaviors with "usn’s" too.  There are many other behaviors from which I must refrain with fellow members: I can’t even express rage with them

 "love is the spirit of this church"  I can’t manipulate them to do what I want if they are unwilling.  I can’t use my friendship with them to exploit them

sexually.  I can’t refuse my help if they are in need.

I think it is important that we keep these distinctions between "them-uns" and us’ns in mind.   I also think it important to keep the distinction

between "things generally believed among us" and our  covenants clearly in mind. We should also keep in mind that we are  part of a very long universalist

tradition.  That’s an adjective not a noun.  Long before there was any church that called itself Universalist or Unitarian there were people who shared the kind

of covenant we recite each Sunday.  Not all called themselves Unitarian or Universalists;  in fact most didn’t.   But some did.   William Ellery Channing

was one.  His 1830 words about the function of religious education is as  a fine a statement of what it means to "seek the truth in love" as was ever written.

  It guides UU religious educators even today.  But this view of   religious education seems a   radical idea even today to most residents of the "redneck

riviera".  Here  there are many who send their children to religious schools that do all the things that Channing said should be avoided.  And there are

many of those who send their children to public schools would have religious education taught there in the manner Canning  rejected - 175 years ago.

Yes there is a difference between "usn’s and them'uns."   And if we are to protect ourselves and our children from "them" we must maintain the existence of

ourselves as a group.   That requires some very practical, and not always comfortable decisions, on the part of each of us as members.    One of those

decisions is financial support.   Nuf said.  It’s no longer part of my job to harangue you annually to pledge generously.  That’s Rodney’s job.

    We have survived as liberal religious congregations  for over 400 years as I reminded you the last time I was in this pulpit.   But the Fundamentalist

groups survive too and they are growing faster not only in numbers as you would expect from their much larger base, but percentage wise.   Many of our

neighbors seek certainty in a world where there is no certainty and personal immortality in a universe that apparently - actually I believe - denies it.  Many of

our neighbors are willing to sacrifice rationality and autonomy in large areas of their life, for reassurance and encouragement.   Can we offer reassurance

and encouragement with intellectual integrity and universal values?   I think we can.   We can show that despite the dispiriting chicken-little cries of

the media there is such a thing as progress in human history.   Of course there is more crime and chicanery and political collusion with the rapacious rich.

There are more people! And every dastardly act is broadcast.   But I believe that if we will objectively examine history and evolution and the contemporary

world we will see that there is a progression toward peace and freedom and compassion.  Instead of focusing on  the terrible scenes of innocent victims

jumping from the twin towers or being crushed in their collapse, we should focus on the way that hard shells of disparate groups dissolved after  September

11th as we came together as a nation and as other nations expressed their solidarity rather.  Let us remember that all for a few glorious weeks Americans stood

together in shock, but resolute; wounded but determined to stand together whatever the future held.     Disillusionment inevitably comes after overly optimistic periods in any

nation’s history - Periods like the late 90’s when we were ready to spend projected surpluses before they materialized. Disillusionment  inevitably comes

after periods  when we think that mere scolding will deter tyrants and that international institutions can be neglected;  disillusionment inevitably comes when

 we think that nearly every other nation admires us and find as we did so graphically on September 11 that many hate us.  We are learning that lesson anew

with each report from Iraq and with each refusal of our historic allies to support the occupation of that tragically divided nation. 

 Our country is, I fear, about to enter a dark night of its soul.  The moral landscape will become barren and in Kenneth Boulding’s words, "Violence,

decay, starvation, need" will continue to be the content of the evening news. In those circumstances, what can endure?  Kenneth Boulding gave the right

answer, "only the living seed!" We are the keepers of the seed   We may be tiny compared to most religious communities but we can, here in our little piece of America nourish universal

values  and seek for every person, wherever she or he may live the right to exist and the right to seek the good the true and the beautiful as  you seek it

here in the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of the Emerald Coast.

Paradoxically, the worse things become outside our "sanctuary" the more important it is for us to hang together - lest we hang separately.

We are the keepers of the seed.  We are the singers of the songs.  We need to be here to give hope to the discouraged and disillusioned.  We need to be

here for those whose gods have failed.    We need to be here for those who - like nearly everyone of you -  for years thought you were alone - that there were

no other people like you .   We need to be here so we can evolve and find better ways to live out our values in our community.  We need to be here as to

witness to the timid that there are people who really believe in peace and liberty and justice for all - whatever their race or religion or ethnicity or sexual

orientation.   We are here and we are a beacon of hope to many in the community - and for one another.

So let us celebrate "us’ns" while refusing to  denigrate or fear "them'uns." "Inclusivists groups are the species of the future.   Exclusivists are the

dinosaurs.