REVERENCE

October 19, 2003

Rev. Jennifer Brooks
2nd Congregational Meeting House Society,
Unitarian Universalist
Nantucket, Massachusetts

Autumn is the time for the traditional “ingathering” service that celebrates a congregation’s coming-together again after a summer of separation. This service developed because many of our churches close up shop for the summer. Others carry on with services but reduce the number of events. Many, like this congregation, have a schedule that is full but different in the summer.

Today we are returned to our downstairs sanctuary, Hendrix Hall. We come together after an immense summer. Some of us have been away. Others have been engaged with the business demands of summer in a vacation destination. After a season of many changes and transitions, we are returned here for the winter, leaving our historic but unheated upstairs sanctuary for warmer days to come. So now we are downstairs. Not so much an “ingathering” as an “undergathering.”

In this smaller, more intimate space, there is immediately a feeling of community. This feeling is enhanced by the brisk weather we’ve been having: we are warmer here than we were upstairs. Warmth, one of the central benefits of community, is not just metaphorically but actually part of our congregational life in this downstairs space. We are especially grateful to come together and be warm.

Autumn, ingathering, and coming together: the change of seasons prompting a change in our communal behavior. The approach of winter, when the green of summer has given way to dead leaves and hard earth, can be a lonely time. Each of us, in our separate ways, may mourn the shortening of the light and the coming of the cold. In our second reading for today, Rainer Maria Rilke’s “Autumn Day,” the poet transmits winter’s metaphor, the chill of loneliness and death.1

So we come together. We meet with eagerness and delight in this warm place.2 We are a community of individuals who have shared values, interesting ideas, and many questions. We do not recite—or even subscribe to—a creed setting out shared theological beliefs. In our Unitarian Universalist tradition, we are content to allow each person the freedom to articulate life’s meaning in terms that are personal and unique.

Our commitment to this principle of “free inquiry” has a corollary. If we are to encourage each other to spiritual and personal growth, if we really mean to allow each person to develop a unique and personal understanding of life, then when we come together as a congregation we have an obligation to speak collectively in terms that are inclusive. We come together as the beloved community, but while we are together we are also separate. To allow each other that gift of separation, of independent growth, we must be attentive to what we say and what we do collectively.

Last winter Rev. Bill Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, initiated a public dialogue about developing and using “language of reverence” in our worship services and congregational life.3 Bill’s comments have provoked controversy, partly because they have been misreported and misunderstood. Bill is a theist who prays every day. He is not suggesting that all Unitarian Universalists adopt his point of view. He is suggesting, instead, that we develop language that "allows us to capture the possibility of reverence, to name the holy, to talk about human agency in theological terms." 4

In the months since Bill Sinkford invited dialogue on this proposal, his words have stimulated debate expressed in news articles, sermons,5 Internet bulletin boards,6 and informal conversation. We Unitarian Universalists welcome to our congregations people of all religious backgrounds. Within our Unitarian Universalist Association, there are interest groups organized around a wide diversity of theological perspectives.

“There are groups called Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship, the HUUmanist Association (with the word humanist spelled with two U’s), the Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship, the Covenant of UU Pagans, the UU Women’s Federation grounded in feminist theology and there is even a group called the Unitarian Universalist Infidels for atheists, agnostics, skeptics, free thinkers and secular humanists.”7 This is our denomination.

Can we find common ground with language that "allows us to capture the possibility of reverence, to name the holy, to talk about human agency in theological terms"? Can we find common ground?

There are two aspects to Bill Sinkford’s suggestion. One involves our relationships with members of other faiths. In meetings of the Nantucket Interfaith Council, and in other ecumenical gatherings, traditional religious language is commonplace. As a minister who believes in the importance of interfaith work, it is essential that I have a comfort level with words like “God”; “angels”; “redemption”; “sin”; and “salvation.”8 I can’t be flinching or wincing every time someone says a word that carries theological meanings I reject. It behooves me to consider and understand my own meaning for these words, and to make those meanings available to others who may be interested. Rev. Fred Muir has done exactly this in his remarkable book, Heretic’s Faith, which I commend to all of us as a way to begin exploring what meanings we might bring to some of these old religious words.

But the tougher task, it seems to me, is to discuss what it might mean to use “language of reverence” in our communal worship.

Whatever meanings we might bring to some of the old words—whatever meanings we might bring to new words—it is foundational in our approach to the religious community that we do not force these meanings upon one another. Just the opposite. As individuals and as congregations we covenant to encourage each other to grow in our (often unique) understanding of the meaning of life. Encouraging growth is most certainly not the dominance of one understanding over another.

In the debate that has flowed from Bill’s proposal, there seems to have been a certain amount of instant polarization. Some humanists have stated in news reports that, “If I feel God is part of the necessary language, then I'm probably going to leave."9 Some theists have openly criticized humanists, calling their aversion to the use of traditional religious language “liberal fundamentalist censorship" that implicitly excludes theists.10

In all of the charges swirling around the notion of “language of reverence,” there is an underlying shared understanding. It is that many in our denomination have rejected traditional language—most prominently use of the word “God”—because their childhood religious environments insisted on meanings that are oppressive and painful. Theists and non-theists alike admit to rejecting conventional definitions of “God.” For the last two centuries, in fact, Unitarians and Universalists who accept the idea of God have distinguished themselves by re-defining the term.

One of the great Unitarian thinkers, Henry Nelson Wieman, is emblematic.11 He used the word “God” to describe a process of positive creativity. He believed, as many in our movement do, that humans have a responsibility to work for the good, to make the world a better place. He believed, in essence, that the good humans do extends the being of God. This is a very different idea of God than the Pilgrims had. It is one not officially shared by most religious groups.

But thinking goes on, regardless of official positions, and I imagine that in other denominations as well as ours there are people who quietly embrace Wieman’s freethinking, process-based understanding of “God.” The difference is that in our denomination, Wieman’s ideas are public, discussed, and accepted—or not accepted—as we choose.

As our denomination embarks upon a discussion of “language of reverence,” the risk to our denominational and congregational unity is that polarizing language will continue to be used to describe differing views, and that aggressive use of terminology will cause some to feel excluded. Just as the word “God” can trigger uncomfortable associations for theists and non-theists alike, over-emphasis on secular language can leave theists feeling excluded and rob non-theists of a rich and expressive vocablulary.

William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA and a former President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, views himself as a religious humanist but supports efforts to use a "wide lexicon" of religious language. He says: "I've long been critical of the position of some humanists that would sanctify secular language and lock us into a calcified rationalism."12 This is a good thought for a professed humanist to contribute to the discussion. But think how polarizing it would be for a professed theist to characterize some forms of worship as “calcified rationalism.”

In our communal worship, we have a responsibility to craft and use language that is inclusive. The choices we make in our worship life have the power to include or exclude. It is not sufficient to say that the use of traditional language shouldn’t offend people who wouldn’t use it in private; the action itself, taken in a worship service, leaves them out. Nor is it sufficient to make no use, ever, of religious language; failure to do so, ever, implicitly leaves out people who are comfortable with it.

This is roughly the same dilemma our nation faces under the US Constitution: the government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion; nor is there to be any governmental establishment of religion. It is not sufficient to say that people can “choose not to participate” in public prayer or the public use of some faith’s religious language. The Government’s use of religious concepts is implicitly coercive. In our communal worship we encounter similar issues.

We have an obligation, in our congregational worship life, to find common ground. Whether or not this is what Bill Sinkford means by “language of reverence,” finding ways to worship inclusively is important, if not essential, to what we are about. We describe ourselves as the people of a chosen faith. We must give all our people the spiritual “elbow room” to make their choices.

Bill Sinkford’s phrase, “language of reverence,” recalls for me Albert Schweitzer’s term, “reverence for life.” Schweitzer was a Christian theologian who later in life adopted a humanist position. In response to his theological understanding of life, Schweitzer went to Africa to toil in a medical clinic. His reverence for life was expressed in deeds more than words: his was a faith and philosophy of positive creative engagement with life.

If Unitarian Universalists share a common theological view, it might be best expressed as “reverence for life.” From our principle affirming the individual worth and dignity of every person to our principle affirming the interconnectedness of all living things, we share a reverence for life. I believe we will find ways to express this shared reverence for life in our congregational worship services.

We gather together. We are a free religious community. Each day we choose a faith that allows all of us to live creatively within our own understanding of the universe. This is reverence for life: for each other, for our planet, for the tender and difficult task of living a good life.

We are Unitarian Universalists. We are the people of a chosen faith.

1 Rainer Maria Rilke, “Herbsttag” (Autumn Day):

Herr, es ist Zeit. Der Sommer war sehr gross.
Leg deinen Schatten auf die Sonnenuhren,
Und auf den Fluren lass die Winde los.

Befiel den letzten Fruechten voll zu sein;
Gib ihnen noch zwei suedlichere Tage;
Draenge sie zur Vollendung hin und jage
Die lezte Suesse in den schweren Wein.

Wer jetzt kein Haus hat, baut sich keines mehr.
Wer jetzt allein ist, wird es lange bleiben,
Wird wachen, lesen, lange Briefe schreiben
Und wird in den Alleen hin und her
Unruhig wandern, wenn die Blaetter fallen.

Autumn Day

Lord, it is time. The summer was immense.
Lay down your shadow on the sundial's face,
And loose the autumn winds to sweep across the land.

Command the last fruits to be full and ripe;
Grant them another day or two of southern sun;
Urge them to completion in the warming rays;
And press their final sweetness into heavy wine.

Who now is homeless will no longer build a house;
Who now is lonely will remain alone,
Will find no sleep, read, write long letters through the night
And pace on empty roadways up and down
Among the drifting, aimless leaves.

2 Patricia Shuttee, “The Winds of Summer”(Reading No. 729, for Ingathering).

You and I and all of us blew about with the winds of summer,

Following the sun in different ways of freedom and play,

Finding rest in the cool stillness of shadows, and moving to the slow heatstruck rhythms which turned the long hours of summer light.

Now it is time for gathering in. We come together at this time and in this place on the bridge of autumn.

Summer is fading backward into memory, and winter waits in snowy brilliance.

We meet with eagerness and delight, needing one another for sharing.

We have joys and sorrows and hopes to share, questions, things we care about and want to help make better,

Things that we would like to understand, ideas waiting to be heard.

Today, we are together in gladness, once more the special community that we call our church,

A community of all ages that sings its songs, tells its thoughts, asks its questions, and searches together with courage and love.

3 Rev. Bill Sinkford, “Share the Good News,” in the March/April 2003 issue of the UU World, on-line at http://www.uua.org/president/030115.html; “The Language of Faith,” Sermon presented January 12, 2003 at the First Jefferson Unitarian Universalist Church,
Ft. Worth, TX.

4 Richard Higgins, “A Heated Debate Flares in Unitarian Universalism,” New York Times (May 17, 2003).

5 Sermons collected at: http://www.uua.org/news/2003/vocabulary/sermons.html.

6 The UUA bulletin board is at: http://www.uua.org/programs/discussion/language/index.html.

7 Rev. Chris Buice, “Winning the Peace (in the Middle East and the U.U.A.)” (Sermon, May 22, 2003, Tennessee Valley UU Church), on-line at http://www.uua.org/president/030112.html.

8 Rev. Fred Muir, Heretic’s Faith (2001) (check his Table of Contents for a full listing of challenging words). Rev. Fred Muir is the minister of the Annapolis, MD Unitarian Universalist Church.

9 Michael Paulson, “Words of Reverence Roil a Church,” Boston Globe (June 28, 2003), page A1.

10 ibid.

11 See Henry Nelson Wieman, The Source of Human Good (1946), in W. Creighton Peden and Jerome A. Stone, eds., The Chicago School of Theology—Pioneers in Religious Inquiry, Volume II, The Later Chicago School, 1919-1988 (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1996); and "Theological Inquiry," 42 Journal of Religion 171-184 (July 1962), reprinted in H.N. Wieman, Seeking a Faith for a New Age: Essays on the Interdependence of Religion, Science, and Philosophy (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1975).

12 Richard Higgins, “A Heated Debate Flares in Unitarian Universalism,” New York Times (May 17, 2003).

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100