The Language of Faith
A sermon by Rev. William G. Sinkford as preached at
First Jefferson Unitarian Universalist Church, Jan. 12, 2003
Let me first bring you greetings from the larger family of faith of
which this congregation is part. The Unitarian Universalist Association
is nothing more than the coming together of now 1050 free liberal religious
congregations like this one. And I'm very pleased to tell you the state
of the association today is strong and vibrant. Unitarian Universalism
has grown in numbers in each of the last 20 years-but far more important
than that growth in numbers is a growing ability for Unitarian Universalism
to claim its good news and to live out a ministry in these troubled
and troubling times which can help to heal our hurting world.
I believe that Unitarian Universalism is growing up. Growing out of
a cranky and contentious adolescence into a more confident maturity.
A maturity in which we can not only claim our Good News, the value we
have found in this free faith, but also begin to offer that Good News
to the world outside these beautiful sanctuary walls. There is a new
willingness on our part to come in from the margins.
I spent some time in early November in Dallas with the President's
Council, a group of staunch UUA supporters who serve as advisors to
the Association. The evening keynote presentation was given by Marlin
Lavenhar, the dynamic young senior minister serving at All Souls, Tulsa.
In his talk, Marlin wrestled with finding a way to describe and talk
about Unitarian Universalism. He told us about a painting he had commissioned
to describe our faith, a painting which now hangs in the vestibule of
All Souls. The painting depicts a colonial table, representing the roots
of Unitarian Universalism in this country. And there are some books
on the table: the Bible, recognizing the Judeo-Christian origins of
this faith; a volume of Emerson, who taught that individual experience
was a key source of religious faith and life; and one unnamed volumn
indicating that, for us, revelation is not sealed. There's a spray of
flowers representing the diversity of persons who call themselves Unitarian
Universalist and the diversity of spiritual paths we follow. Marlin
is clearly trying to find another way to talk about our faith, and this
works for him.
The next morning, Jim Sherbloom led the worship-he's a successful business
person who is now, in midlife, a divinity student. He tackled the same
subject, but from a liberal Christian perspective. The interesting thing
was that neither speaker drew heavily on our Purposes and Principles,
which is where most of us turn when we are asked to describe Unitarian
Universalism. So I went and reread the Principles and Purposes. I know,
I know
I'm supposed to know these by heart. But as I re-read them,
I realized that we have in our Principles an affirmation of our faith
which uses not one single piece of religious language. Not one.
Not even one word that would be considered traditionally religious.
And that is a wonderment to me; I wonder whether this kind of language
can adequately capture who we are and what we're about.
Our Purposes and Principles date to the merger of the Unitarian and
Universalist movements in 1961, when the effort to find wording acceptable
to all-Unitarian and Universalist, Humanist and Theist-nearly derailed
the whole process.
The current revision of our Purposes and Principles dates back to 1984.
It deals with the thorny question of whether or not to mention God,
or the Judeo-Christian tradition by leaving them out of the Principles
entirely, but including them in the section on the sources from
which our living tradition draws. It was here that we placed reference
to "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to
God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves," as well as "Humanist
teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results
of science, and warn against idolatries of the mind and spirit."
And even that compromise went too far for those in our movement who
feared "creeping creedalism," and not far enough for those
who would have preferred more explicitly religious language.
Given the differences of opinion that needed to be bridged in one document,
it's really not surprising that the wording adopted completely avoided
anything that smacked of traditional religious language. And the Purposes
and Principles have become an integral part of our denominational life.
Many of our congregations print them on their orders of service. They
open our hymnal. They hang in our vestibules. Many of us carry them
in our wallets.
They serve us well as a covenant, holding out a vision of a more just
world to which we all aspire despite our differences, and articulating
our promise to walk together toward making that vision a reality, whatever
our theology. They frame a broad ethic, but not a theology. They contain
no hint of the holy.
Now while Unitarian Universalists reject any hint of a creed, we do
affirm the importance of the individual credo: we are all charged, individually,
to pursue our own free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
And I wonder whether the language of our Purposes and Principles is
sufficient for that purpose. UU Minister Walter Royal Jones, who headed
the committee largely responsible for their current wording, wondered
aloud how likely it is that many of us would, on our death bed, ask
to have the Purposes and Principles read to us for solace and support.
I fear, in words borrowed from former UUA President Gene Pickett, that
"they describe a process for approaching the religious depths but
they testify to no intimate acquaintance with the depths themselves."
I would like to see us become better acquainted with the depths, both
so that we are more grounded in our personal faith, and so that we can
effectively communicate that faith-and what we believe it demands of
us-to others. For this, I think we need to cultivate what UU minister
David Bumbaugh calls a "vocabulary of reverence."
Now David is a Humanist. And he believes that Humanists, who "once
offered a serious challenge to liberal religion, now find [themselves]
increasingly engaged in a monologue," largely because of a vocabulary
inadequate to engage other people of faith. "We have manned the
ramparts of reason and are prepared to defend the citadel of the mind,"
Bumbaugh writes. "But in the process of defending, we have lost
the
ability to speak of that which is sacred, holy, of ultimate importance
to us, the language which would allow us to enter into critical dialogue
with the religious community."
Our resistance to religious language gets reflected, I think, in the
struggle that so many of us have in trying to find ways to say who we
are, to define Unitarian Universalism. I always encourage people to
work on their "elevator speech"-for when you're on the 6th
floor and you're going to the lobby and somebody asks you, "What's
a Unitarian Universalist?" What do you say? You've got about 45
seconds. Here's my current answer: "The Unitarian side of our family
tree tells us that there is only one God, one Spirit of Life, one Power
of Love. The Universalist side tells us that God is a loving God, condemning
none of us, and valuing the spark of divinity that is in every human
being. So, Unitarian Universalism stands for: one God, no one left behind."
Now, as with every elevator speech, mine is still a work in process.
It says where I am right now; and it doesn't say anything at all about
where you are.
Many Unitarian Universalists, I know, are bothered by the use of the
word "God." And I understand that. When I came to Unitarian
Universalism I was an ardent, some might say even a rabid, Humanist.
If you had told me as a teenager that at age 56 I would be an ordained
minister, using religious language in this pulpit, and have a prayer
life that centered on thankfulness and gratefulness to God, I would
have laughed out loud. The Humanist tradition was mine for a long time.
But we don't have this all permanently figured out at any discrete
moment in time. In my case, it was direct experience of something I
hadn't counted on-the kind of "direct experience of transcending
mystery and wonder" which we also affirm as a source of our faith
tradition-that changed my mind. It was in the midst of a crisis-my son
Billy, then 15 years old, had overdosed on drugs, and it was unclear
whether he would live. As I sat with him in the hospital, I found myself
praying. First the selfish prayers for forgiveness
for the time
not made, for the too many trips, for the many things unsaid, and, sadly,
for a few things said that should never have passed my lips. But as
the night darkened, I finally found the pure prayer. The prayer that
asked only that my son would live. And late in the evening, I felt the
hands of a loving universe reaching out to hold. The hands of God, the
Spirit of Life. The name was unimportant. I knew that those hands would
be there to hold me whatever the morning brought. And I knew, though
I cannot tell you how, that those hands were holding my son as well.
I knew that I did not have to walk that path alone, that there is a
love that has never broken faith with us and never will.
My son survived. But the experience stayed with me. That is my experience,
and my vocabulary for that experience. But "religious language"
doesn't have to mean "God talk." And I'm not suggesting that
Unitarian Universalism return to traditional Christian language. But
I do feel that we need some language that would allow us to capture
the possibility of reverence, to name the holy, to talk about human
agency in theological terms-the ability of humans to shape and frame
our world guided by what we find to be of ultimate importance. David
Bumbaugh observes that a vocabulary of reverence is implicit in Humanism,
with its emphasis on human study and understanding of the natural world.
Listen to the language he uses:
Humanism
gave us a doctrine of incarnation which suggests not
that the holy became human in one place at one time to convey a special
message to a single chosen people, but that the universe itself is
continually incarnating itself in microbes and maples, in hummingbirds
and human beings, constantly inviting us to tease out the revelation
contained in stars and atoms and every living thing.
This is religious language, placing us in a larger context, whispering
of a larger meaning, and carrying with it implications for how we should
live.
"The power which I cannot explain or know or name I call God,"
UU minister Forrest Church has written. "God is not God's name.
God is my name for the mystery that looms within and arches beyond the
limits of my being. Life force, spirit of life, ground of being, these
too are names for the unnameable which I am now content to call my God."
I urge each of you to work on your elevator speeches. Put a name to
what calls you, and ask yourself what it is to which you find yourself
called. Do it often; you won't always necessarily come up with the same
answer. Practice telling it to others. This is an exercise that can
only help deepen our faith; and with a firmer grounding in those depths,
I believe we will be better able to reach out to others. We have Good
News for a world that badly needs it. But we may need to expand our
vocabularies if we are to be able to develop our faith fully in our
own lives, and if we are to be able to share it with others.
I want to leave you with a bit of a poem that came to me in an e-mail,
by Tom Barrett:
If I say the word God, people run away.
They've been frightened-sat on till the spirit cried "uncle."
Now they play hide and seek with somebody they can't name.
They know he's out there looking for him, and they want to be found,
But there is all this stuff in the way.
I can't talk about God and make any sense,
And I can't not talk about God and make any sense.
So we talk about the weather, and we are talking about God.
My growing belief is that, as a religious community and as individuals,
we may be secure enough, mature enough to find a language of reverence,
a language that can acknowledge the presence of the holy in our lives.
Perhaps we are ready.
Perhaps, this faith we love is ready to stop calling itself a movement,
and call itself a religion.
Religion: to bind up that which has been sundered. To make connections
in a world which would isolate us. To engage in the real journey toward
wholeness.
Who knows? Perhaps we're ready.
So may it be.
Amen.
|