|
The Language of Reverence
Reverend Brian J. Kiely, Unitarian Church of
Edmonton, September 12, 2004
“The Language of Reverence” a sermon by Rev. Brian J.
Kiely
Unitarian Church of Edmonton Sept. 12. 2004
Discussion, debate, negotiation and compromise are key elements
of any democracy. They are tactics designed to bring polarized groups
together. They focus on emphasizing common ground instead of difference.
They are used to find workable solutions acceptable to all parties.
But in the end all of these approaches, especially compromise are
just tools. And so far, Canadian Tire has been unable to develop
a single tool that fits all jobs.
There are times when compromise is simply the wrong tool. A thug
walks up to me, points a gun and says, “Your money or your
life!” A compromise would be to offer him half the money to
only shoot one arm or leg. It’s not a useful solution. A firefighter
extinguishing the blaze in only three rooms of a four-room house
would not be thought to be doing the job properly. Sometimes compromise
leaves us with solutions that are frustrating and inadequate. Like
all tools, it can only be effectively used in the right situation.
So what to we do with this curious tool when we come to the topic
of religion and especially religious belief? Our Principles state
or imply that we are a group of people who celebrate the ideas of
free thought and discussion, debate and compromise. But how well
has compromised served us when it comes to basic matters of faith?
Unitarianism and Universalism in Canada have grown only slightly
over the last 20 years since we adopted the Statement of Principles,
and we have declined in proportion to the total population. We seem
stuck.
Some have suggested that our lack of creed is partly to blame, that
we have a hard time defining ourselves, much less explaining ourselves
to newcomers. To misappropriate a famous Gertrude Stein quote, when
someone comes looking for our center, well, “There is no there
there.”
Now I have argued in the past in support of what some have labeled “donut
theology”. I likened our church to one of those sweet cakes
suggesting that the real church, the community, the people are what
surround the donut hole. We leave the center open deliberately in
order to allow for the presence of the divine, the fire of inspiration
or for the growth of individual belief. To name that belief too precisely
is to box it in, to steal the life from it. We don’t have to
name that center in order to gather round it and feel closely held
in community.
I still believe this is a pretty good description of what our church
is today. But, is that how we want to continue?
UUA President Bill Sinkford voiced that same concern in our reading
when he described our reluctance to use religious or reverential
language in describing ourselves. “I realized that we have
in our Principles an affirmation of our faith that uses not one single
piece of religious language. Not even one word that is 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.”
Former UUA President Gene Pickett observed of our Principles, “they
describe a process of approaching the religious depths but they testify
to no intimate acquaintance with the depths themselves.” Is
that something we need to change?
Sinkford correctly notes the source of this non-reverent language.
The Statement of Principles and Purposes is a compromise document.
It was debated by congregations across the continent and finally
brought to the floor of a General Assembly where roughly 2,000 delegates
had a chance to shape and amend the final form. People of boldness
and passion spoke eloquently for and against religious language.
And in the end there was compromise. We came away with a beautiful
document that talks about how we do religion, but one that, fearing ‘creeping
creedalism’, shied away from religion itself.
At the time, it seemed the right thing to do. I know. I was one
of the delegates, only a few years removed from the heavy doctrines
of Catholicism. I luxuriated in the freedom and felt strongly negative
towards anyone who would try to tell me what to think. Most of the
time I still feel that way.
But lately, I have also been feeling the frustration that comes
from compromising all the time. In the last 20 years I have discovered
new things about my own self. I have learned, somewhat to my surprise,
that I do believe in God. Oh, I’m not talking about the old
guy who looks over your shoulder and helps the Angels beat the Devil
Rays in baseball. But I do believe in a divine presence in the universe.
Personally profound turning points such as the deaths of my parents
and the chance of gazing into my minutes old daughter’s eyes
taught me that. I can’t say those moments brought me to a new
and fixed belief. I can say that they taught me that what I had believed
was inadequate to the task of explaining the experience. I found
I needed something more, something beyond the merely and purely human.
I can’t say what it is exactly. I can’t define it, give
it limits, shape or colour. Nevertheless I can feel it, and I choose
to call it God.
And while our Unitarian open-mindedness and tolerance allows for
my belief (along with many others) to reside in the center of our
donut, there is nothing in our Principles to suggest that mine or
any other belief is suggestive of Unitarian Universalism. That may
be causing us problems.
You see, friends, we have a wonderful and open approach to the realm
of religion, an approach that I prize above all other choices available
to me. But we must admit also that we have no coherent shared theology
on which we stand.
The great thinker and Meadville/Lombard professor Thandeaka thinks
this is a serious problem for the long-term future of our faith.
“No one is more aware of the fallout from this problem than
our children. They grow up and leave our church because they find
little within it that makes sense or sustains them. And so our congregations
survive as a church of strangers, the place of dissidents who have
left their original traditions for doctrinal reasons and for those
seeking a religious tradition in which indefinition is a defining
attraction.”
We have long accepted or excused the drifting of our children as
a by-product of our free faith. Typically we say things like, “I
raised my children to think for themselves…and they are.” And
so they leave. Some find other churches, the majority none at all.
Most claim some fondness and give high regard to their church school
time and especially to youth group time, but few come back except
to sit with their parents once a year on the holidays.
Now, is that a success? Or have we lulled ourselves into accepting
the old mistakes as ‘tradition’ that are good enough.
If we are as open as we claim to be, can we not make room for a discussion
of what we truly believe? In our radical tolerance are we so afraid
of words like God, sacred, belief and faith? Or is there a place
in our donut hole for those concepts too?
A few months ago I picked up a slim volume at the Unitarian Universalist
General Assembly entitled, “A Language of Reverence”.
Sara read from Bill Sinkford’s sermon that opens the book and
indeed started the ball rolling. A local Forth Worth newspaper misquoted
the sermon suggesting Sinkford was calling on all UU’s to add
the word God to the Principles. In fact, Bill did not ask for any
such revisions, but rather challenged UU’s to reclaim a, “vocabulary
of reverence” that included the word ‘God’ among
others.
Well, the story and subsequent correction “had legs” as
they say in the media world. And so a movement wide debate began
eventually leading to this book of six essays.
While Bill Sinkford chose to not call for revisions to the UUA Principles,
here in Canada we are in the middle of a multi-year program revisiting
those very Principles. A Canadian Unitarian Task Force has been asking
us if the Principles still serve, and if not, how should they be
changed. This, then, is exactly the time to be asking these kinds
of questions.
Do we have common beliefs we should celebrate? Do we want to publicly
state something more than, “a process of approaching the religious
depths”? Do we dare risk offending some of our members at either
end of the faith spectrum by speaking about “the depths themselves”?
Frankly, it’s a scary question to contemplate. But, you know,
as I embark on my seventeenth year of ministry and my first as President
of the Canadian Unitarian Council, it’s more frightening to
avoid contemplating the question.
I am beginning to think – though I have not firmly convinced
myself yet- I am beginning to think that we need to shake of the
fear of creeping creedalism. I am beginning to think we have to take
some small steps toward actually articulating what the majority of
Unitarians believe instead of naming what we will not believe. I
am not advocating for the creation of a creed. I never will. Creeds
are too limiting. A creed would let us become intellectually lazy.
It would drive away some of our best minds and sap the vitality that
comes from being a questing and questioning group of co-religionists.
But perhaps we could venture towards a collection of ideas entitled
something like “Things Commonly Held to Be True”. Oh,
there is still a terrific diversity of ideas among us as we range
from Christianity Lite through to Atheist and all points in between.
But I bet we could name some values and even beliefs that the vast
majority could accept. I wonder if the exercise would be worthwhile?
This document would not replace the Principles, but it could stand
beside them as a further articulation of our faith.
At the very least, I agree with Bill Sinkford as he voiced this
cautious wish, “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 start calling itself a religion.”
Friends this topic has tickled my brain from time to time over the
years. I have only begun to engage it. Later this fall I am planning
a couple of services wrestling with some of the critical roadblocks
that get in the way of naming what we are. And later this year, the
CUC Principles Task Force will be sending us material for discussion
and debate. Let us, over the year, engage in constructive conversation
about our faith.
Starting in October, I will lead a six session reading course based
on this book, “The Language of Reverence”. You can get
registration details from the church or on our website. How do you
feel about a language of reverence? Would more such language put
you off or attract you more? Let’s take the pulse of this group
and see where things stand.
Amen
Back to Sermon Archive
|
