A BETTER WAY TO BE RELIGIOUS

A Sermon by Rev. Robert M. Eddy, M.Div.
delivered 26 September 1999
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Pensacola

 
Four years ago when I was interim minister in Indianapolis I preached three sermons on "UUism". I asked and answered three questions.
1. Is religion a social disease?
2. Is UUism a Religion? and
3. What is our peculiar way of being religious.
" I’m going to try to answer all three questions in about twenty-five minutes this morning. Texts of the original three are available if you’d like more detail. I felt it necessary to ask the first question because there were are some among UU’s there as there may be here who agree with Didrot, the French revolutionary. Dedrot wrote, about 230 years ago, "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest" That is not my attitude. I recognize that many religions (plural) that is establishments of religion - have been instruments by which power elites have enlisted the masses in their own subjugation. I also recognize that religion (singular) has often been the way in which courageous leaders have mobilized the oppressed to throw off their shackles. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are examples . So what is this strange characteristic of our species that can be used both to oppress and to liberate? It is, religion is, "The response of the deepest strata of human being to the exigencies of temporal existence." That’s a definition from depth psychology. There are other ways to define religion, but that is my definition. Religion is, "The response of the deepest strata of human being to the exigencies of our - apparently - temporal existence." On the individual level religion is what we do with our consciousness that we will eventually die ... temporal existence." On the sociological level a religion is a social expressions of a particular culture’s answers to the questions religious people ask. Why am I here? Why do I suffer? What is virtue? Why do the wicked prosper? And other such radical questions that go to the root of the meaning of life. Most individuals accept with relatively little thought the majority religion of their culture. In fact for many that religion defines their culture. They say, "Iran is a Moslem Republic" or "The United States is a Christian nation." an assertion which you could hear from many pulpits this morning. Of course, we know that America is not a Christian nation. The United States is a nation in which many religions can coexist with none given the imprimature of the state. Is UUism, one of those religions?
Well, six years ago the Unitarian Universalist Association launched a marketing campaign with the slogan, "UUism: The religion that puts its faith in you". The British Unitarian Association prints bookmarks which say, "Unitarianism, the creedless religion which says that people ought to think for themselves." If you dial up the UUA web site - UUA.ORG - and click on the link, "What is Unitarian Universalism?" You’ll read "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion, born of the Jewish and Christian traditions. . . . We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion." Now if one could cram four plus centuries of history into a few words, any of those brief statements might do. It’s true; we do put our faith in people. It’s true: we do believe that people ought to think for themselves . It’s true: we believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion. But all three of these summaries have a fatal flaw and it is this: "Unitarian Universalism" is not a religion. and for that I thank whatever gods or goddesses may be. The world doesn’t need another religion. What the world desperately needs is a better way for people to be religious. And that’s what, I believe, UUism is: a better way to be religious a way that encourages diverse individuals to be honestly religious in community. Each UU is developing his or her own unique religion, a religion built out of his or her own unique individual life experiences and his or her rational reflection thereon. We do not share a religion; we do share a very unusual - in fact a rather peculiar way - of being religious. My religion is not Unitarian Universalism. If I were to give my religion a name I might call it "Bob Eddyism" or better "BobEddyism 25 September 1999 at 10:?? a.m. My religion is constantly evolving - as is yours. My religion is unique; as a UU I don’t have to accept anybody else's religion to belong because UU congregations practice a way of being religious that is very different from the ways of all other religious communities
More than a century ago Edwin Markham, a Universalist poet, wrote: "He drew a circle to shut me out; Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win. We drew a circle that took him in."
That little quatrain expresses the essence of our way of being religious and what I have to say from here on out is simply an exposition of what Markham wrote. I’ll do this in two ways: first by contrasting our way of being religious with three other ways and secondly suggesting three important characteristics of this way of being religious
What are some other ways of being religious - ways that differ from UUism as it exists this last year of the 20th century.?
The first way of being religious is the Shaman’s Way, The second way of being religious is the orthodox Way The third way of being religious is the Latitudinarian Way. I do not view these other ways of being religious as without merit or more primitive, but I do believe in all honesty that "our way of being religious" is a better way.
Like the UU way of being religious, each of the other ways of being religious has been expressed both positively and negatively . And each of these other ways of being religious has contributed to our institutional history, but none of these is our contemporary, way, the UU way of being religious:
The first non-UU way of being religious is the Shaman’s way. A shaman is a person who believes he or she has a message directly from the God or a god or goddess The Shaman hears a voice feels compelled to say, "Thus Saith the Lord." In the Jewish traditions these shamans were called "Prophets". The shamans of the ancient Hebrews - like the shamans of non-literate societies today - heard a voice; sometimes a ‘still small voice’ sometimes a roaring from the whirlwind but a voice nonetheless; a voice that ordered them to proclaim "The Word of the Lord". Then as now there were true and false prophets. By "true prophets I do not mean those who really heard a god or goddess and by "false prophets". I do not mean those who didn’t really hear the god or goddess. By "false prophets" I mean those who told people what the people wanted to hear. The true prophets, whose sayings have been preserved in the Hebrew Bible "spoke truth to power". True prophets condemned the iniquities and injustices of the Kings of their day. Sometimes the Kings repented. More often the kings simply killed the prophets. Jesus of Nazareth was a true prophet. He "Spoke Truth to Power" The history of Christianity is filled with people who believed they had heard the voice of God, or the Virgin Mary, or one of the Saints - and they felt compelled to "speak truth to power" - nearly always to the dismay of the religious establishment of their day. Examples could be drawn from all the world’s religions.1 for Shaman’s way is found in every religious tradition. In fact, most religious reformers were shamans; they heard which they believed to be a divine and said, "Thus saith the lord".2 People have always heard voices. Sometimes we call these people crazy. Sometimes they are crazy; that is their brains are damaged. But sometimes they are listening to what I sometimes call "the God within". Now let me be clear. When I use the term "God within" I am referring to a function of human consciousness; something deeper than the individual ego; something that says for example, you don’t deliberately hurt people. You might call it conscience. You can be an atheist and believe in that kind of "God within" even if you prefer not to call it "God." There are literally thousands of women and men today who practice the Shamanist’s way of being religious. The best are traditional Quakers. The worst are some of the so-called Charismatic Christian preachers. In between are new age "channellers." Lets look at a second way of being religious: THE ORTHODOX WAY Shamans say. "Thus says the lord"; present tense. The orthodox say "Thus said the Lord"; past tense. Those who practice the orthodox way of being religious insist that revelation is sealed. They make of one shaman person the last. the ultimate shaman. Islam is a good example. Bahai is another.. Christianity is a third. Instead of trying to hear the same voice which their shamans heard, the orthodox take the teachings of a shamans and use them as a guide for believing and acting. Our way is not the orthodox way though Unitarianism and Universalism both started out as orthodoxies. Both claimed to be the only correct interpretation of words of the last prophet, Jesus. Several positive things can be said for the orthodox way of being religious: 1. Through a common set of beliefs, rituals and religious authorities it allows a disparate collection of individuals to come together as one people. avoiding alienation and narcissism. 2. The orthodox way is often the means by which a people survives when under attack. orthodox Judaism is the most venerable example. It has enabled the people Israel to survive for twenty-five centuries. Catholicism in Poland is an example from recent history . 3. The orthodox way of being religious gives scope and shape to the creative impulse. How much poorer would we be without the music of J.S. Bach or the paintings of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. But there is a pathology of the orthodox way of being religious about which I can say nothing good. It is called Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists say not only that that their prophets proclaimed the truth. Fundamentalists also say, "Any one who does not believe as I do is evil and should be denied the rights that we, enjoy." Fundamentalism is found in every orthodox religious community. We read of examples of Christian and Moslem Fundamentalism in the newspapers every day but Fundamentalism exists in Shinto, Hinduism. even in Buddhism. Fundamentalism is a cancer on the soul of orthodox religion It must be distinguished from the more common, the more tolerant forms of orthodoxy. We Unitarian Universalists need to join hands with the tolerant orthodox of all religions in fighting Fundamentalism. To lump the tolerant orthodox with Fundamentalists only does harm to the causes both Universalist and orthodox persons support. The orthodox are sometimes our best allies. The fundamentalists are our common enemies. There is much to said for the orthodox way when it escapes the temptation of Fundamentalism. But the orthodox way is not our way. Though some confuse the principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association with a creed; the hallmark of orthodoxy. But that’s another sermon. There is a third non UU way of being religious. I call it: THE LATITUDINARIAN WAY Shamans say, "Thus Says the Lord" The orthodox say "Thus said the Lord through his Prophet". Latitudinarians say," Thus said the Lord through his prophet, ... but what he really meant was ......" Practitioners of the latitudinarian way of being religious take a tradition and stretch it to mean something the thoughtful individual can believe though he or she disbelieves the literal content of the tradition. A Latitudinarian can say "Oh yes, l believe in God", but by "God" she will mean something very different than what the questioner assumed. The ground rules for Latitudinarians, is, don’t ask and don’t tell . A Latitudinarian Christian is able to say the Apostles Creed without believing in the literal resurrection of the dead or even in a transcendent god. Latitudinarianism is a way of avoiding intellectual indigestion while sitting at a great feast with the orthodox. Episcopalians do this with great style3. Much good can be said of the Latitudinarian way of being religious, but Latitudinarianism can be dangerous to one’s integrity. When I was a Methodist minister I practiced Latitudinarianism every day. Eventually I came to experience myself as a hypocrite. When I could do that no longer I left the Methodist ministry. Most latitudinarian clergy in orthodoxy churches do not have the problem I did. They feel Latitudinarianism serves a higher value and they may be right. They say, "After all, in these matters it’s all metaphor anyway." They may be right and I certainly do not accuse my latitudinarian friends of hypocrisy. However the Latitudinarianism way is not the UU way of being religious.
So far I’ve been defining our way of being religious negatively - by saying what it is not. Can we be more positive and say what it is? Our hymnal contains literally dozens of attempts to describe succinctly "Our Way of Being Religious". Earlier, we sang one of my favorites written by Ed Wilson. The words that we sing to the tune "onward Christian Soldiers" is another. We’ll sing yet another in a few minutes and the choir will sing a fourth to close our service. Let me to lay out for you one more vision of what our way of being religious, what the Unitarian - Universalist way really is; in positive not negative terms. I can describe it with three adverbs - yes, adverbs for religion is a verb, - you know - How are we religious? We are religious inclusively, dynamically and covenantally . The Universalist way is INCLUSIVE. Ours is a way of being religious that cherishes, celebrates and cultivates diversity. Each UU states what he or she believes individually but as clearly and unequivocally as possible. It is proper to say many UU’s believe this way, or most UU’s believe this way or few UU’s believe this way. It is never proper to say or imply that "all UU’s believe this way." If you study Unitarian and Universalist history you find each generation doubting the wisdom of the last generation. It is so even today. Most of us came into the movement in the 60’s We challenged the Theism of our elders with our non theistic Humanism. Within a few years we non theistic humanists were in the majority. Now that we are elders, our non theistic Humanism is being challenged by Pagan UU’s and post modern Christian UU’s. So has it always been. So, I hope, will it always be. Every religious community has its doubters, its heretics. What distinguishes our way of being religious from most others is that we do not expel our heretics That is a most significant difference. That is what has made us what we are today: fellowships of tolerant - well mostly tolerant - seekers who practice their diverse religions honestly. We have kept our heretics and learned to cherish them- well most of them. That’s the first characteristic of our way of being religious that I’d like you to remember - We are inclusive.
Historically the first characteristic led to the second characteristic. Because we do not expel our doubters, our way of being religious is dynamic We are always moving on. There has always been resistance to this moving on. There have been and there always will be those who say, "We’ve gone far enough; there are certain fundamentals that must be believed for a person to become or remain a member of our religious community." Let me give you just one historical illustration: In 1886 a Unitarian minister, Jabez T. Sunderland circulated a pamphlet among his colleagues in response to a proposal which another Unitarian minister, Rev. Gannett, had made at the previous annual meeting of the Western Unitarian Conference. Gannett’s proposal was that belief in God should no longer be required of Unitarian Ministers. Rev. Sunderland was horrified. He wrote: "Is Western Unitarianism ready to give up its ...Theistic Character? Are we ready to declare that those great [beliefs]: in God, [in] prayer, [in] immortality and [in] the spiritual leadership of Jesus , which have always in the past been at the very heart of Unitarianism, [Are we prepared to say that these] are no longer essential to our movement? ... Rev. Gannett tells us that the denomination first took its stand on ‘reason and revelation," but it had to move on. Later it took its stand at the supernatural or the miraculous; but it had to move on Later still it made another stand at the Lordship of Christ, but again it was compelled to move on. Now the stand is made at Christian Theism, but once more, he says, we must move on. Move on where? .. If I am faced toward the edge of Table Rock, Niagara Falls, I can safely move on for a distance - move on until I am within 20 feet of the edge, 15 feet, 10 feet, 5 feet, one foot - but if I move on much beyond that it will be the last moving on I shall be likely to do in this world."
Well, for better or for worse, we did move on. The Western Unitarian Conference said that it would let each individual decide whether the edge is really "Niagara" or simply a new embarkation point. They refused to eject any minister on the grounds that she or he had gone too far out in front of the majority. The same thing was happening in the British Unitarian Association. In the printed version of these sermons I will include some additional illustrations of this tradition but I too must move on to my final point. To review: The UU way of being religious is not the shaman’s way, not the orthodoxy’s way, the latitudinarian’s way. Our way is first of all inclusive. We do not expel dissenters. Our way is, secondly, dynamic; we are always moving on. And, finally, our way is covenantal. Our predecessors in this way of being religious, sought the good the true and the beautiful as all religious person do; but they did not do it in isolation. They didn’t go sit under a tree and wait for inspiration. They were members of a religious community. They committed themselves to one another through a covenant. 4 Some of you are old enough to remember adds that used to be run by the Unitarian Layman’s League headed, "Are You a Unitarian without Knowing it?" Many people are UU’s in the sense that they do believe in diversity and tolerance but at a safe distance. These people answer UU when asked by pollsters for their religious affiliation but they do not belong to a congregation. I have come to believe that one can’t really be a Unitarian Universalist without knowing it. One can’t really be a Unitarian Universalist without belonging to a UU congregation. Until one makes a commitment to a religious community and participates in it’s life, he or she isn’t really practicing our way of being religious Her or she is just admiring it. You see, I believe that our way of being religious requires commitment to community. When I entered the Unitarian Universalist ministry thirty six years ago, I gloried in the practice of having our membership book available every Sunday and inviting even first time visitors to sign if they wished. I now believe that was a mistake, an overreaction to the exclusionism in which I, like most of you, was raised. The result of this attitude has been the revolving door syndrome. Do you know what I mean by the revolving door syndrome? It’s where people join, stay a year or two then disappear while a core group stays on for years maintaining the bearings upon which the door revolves. Eventually they die or wear out and the church collapses. Hundreds of thousands of people joined our churches in the sixties and seventies, stayed a couple years and then dropped out. We made membership insignificant so people disjoined as easily as they had joined. I think of church member - ship in the Victorian sense. In those long gone days, the word "member" was used to indicate a part of the body. Becoming a member of a Christian Church meant becoming part of the body of Christ, a serious decision indeed. Joining a UU congregation should also be a serious decision. One should , I think, spend at least as much time deciding to join this church as one would choosing a new car. More and more of our congregations now require ‘informed consent" before allowing a person to sign the membership book. They make a great effort to be sure that all who join know what it they’re getting into. They know the difference between a member and a friend. I approve of this trend. Thus, with the help of your membership committee, I will offer a Membership Exploration Evening at least once a month. The first will be Thursday, October 21. If you’re interested in joining this congregation, plan to attend. No pressure will be put on any who attend. I don’t want anybody to "buy a pig in a poke". But I don’t want to give the impression that everyone who attends services or participates in other activities of the congregation are not welcome. If you are in that category you are more than welcome, friend. Lord knows we need all the friends we can get, that is people who belong to no religious community but who would belong here if they belonged anywhere. Some of our friends are even are generous in their financial support - but there should be a crucial difference between being a friend of the congregation and a member of the congregation. A member is one who has accepted the covenant that defines the congregation. In many religious communities, the covenant is handed down from the ancestors or from some central authority. Unitarian Universalist covenants are crafted by each congregation - and renewed periodically. The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is encouraging every congregation to reexamine it’s covenant or to write one for the first time in 1999 . I encourage you to undertake that process. A covenant is something different from an affirmation of things generally believed among us - another useful document. The covenant is far more important. It is what we promise one another and it deals more with behaviors than with belief. A Universalist congregation should be something more than a gathering of individuals; something more than an audience for a preacher, something more than a debating society. A Universalist congregation should be a loving Community of honest, tolerant and caring individuals who in the words of Shelly Jackson Denham’s hymn believe in life, and laugh and sing and dance together." If you agree, say with me the words to the verses and then sing lustily each of the choruses. The number in your hymnal is 354. Anne, would you play the music for the choruses for those who are not familiar with this music.
We laugh, we cry, we live, we die; we dance; we sing our song. We need to feel there’s something here to which we can belong. We need to feel the freedom just to have some time alone But most of all we need close friends we can call our very own. And we believe in life, and in the strength of love, and we have found a need to be together. We have our hearts to give. We have our thoughts to receive; and we believe that sharing is an answer.
A child is born among us and we feel a special glow. We see time’s endless journey as we watch the baby grow. We thrill to hear imagination freely running wild. We dedicate our minds and hearts to the spirit of this child. And we believe in life, and in the strength of love; and we have found a time to be together. And with the grace of age, we share the wonder of youth, and we believe that growing is an answer. Our lives are full of wonder and our time is very brief. The death of one among us fills us all with pain and grief. But as we live, so shall we die, and when our lives are done, the memories we shared with friends, will linger on and on. And we believe in life, and in the strength of love And we have found a place to be together. We have the right to grow. We have the gift to believe. that peace within our living is an answer.
We seek elusive answers to the questions of this life. We seek to put an end to all the waste of human strife. We search for truth, equality, and blessed peace of mind And then we come together here, to make sense of what we find. And we believe in life, and in the strength of love And we have found a joy in being together. And in our search for peace, maybe we’ll finally see; [that] even to question truly is an answer." Copyright 1980, Unitarian Universalist Association
Amen, let us make it so.