|
The Seven Principles
Rev. Brian J. Kiely, Unitarian Church of Edmonton,
October 8, 2006
Friends, we who are members here or who come along as interested
listeners and fellow travelers are guided by the seven core ideas
contained in the Unitarian Statement of Principles and Sources.
They are powerful ideas!
They are liberating ideas!
And like every other critical religious document, they have stood
the tests of time!
Oh yes, they have been assailed and assaulted since they were first
set down, but they have withstood the storms and come up glistening
in the bright light of day.
Why, my friends, these seven Principles and six Sources have been
our guiding light, our cornerstone and the foundation of our Unitarian
faith since…well…ummm...well since 1984, actually. But
they’re based on the ideas first promoted some 500 years ago
by a bunch of deeply religious guys, who, umm either died at the
stake, died in prison or got chased out of their homelands for being
heretics…and who probably wouldn’t recognize very much
of what they believed in the Principles and Sources anyway.
Oh… yeah, and these cornerstones are up for a denomination
wide review on both sides of the border to see if they still speak
for us.
Hmmm. 22 years old and facing a possible rewrite. Some cornerstone.
Some foundation. And yet, if you are part of the majority of Unitarians
and Universalists who have joined this religion of ours in the last
22 years, they are the core. I have been hanging around a bit longer
than that. As a layperson, I even got to help in the congregational
workshops that led to the adoption of these Principles and Sources.
I know when I first read them in their adopted form, I felt they
spoke for me, touched me. They are part of the reason why I am a
minister. And in 18 years of New U orientation classes, I have heard
many people say that reading this statement was a kind of homecoming
for them. In these short phrases, people find the articulation of
a set of values they had been trying to define and live by for a
long time.
Maybe the problem here is in those rock solid words like ‘cornerstone’
and ‘foundation’. Those are the words associated with
buildings and monuments dedicated to those who want to prove they
are important in a tangible way. Such structures are solid, unyielding
and often dead. And you know what happens to buildings that surmount
cornerstones? 50 years later they are either torn down because they
just don’t work anymore, are renovated into something that
is not the original, but not really new, or they are preserved as
historical artifacts of a time that no longer exists.
Maybe it’s not so bad that our Unitarian Principles are only
22 years old. Does a religion have to be 1,200, or 2,000 or 6,000
years old to be true? Certainly there are human and spiritual understandings
that retain a degree of freshness across those spans of time in
the same way that Shakespearean plays can still move us to laughter
and tears. But literature did not end when Shakespeare died. The
written pondering of the divine did not cease when John completed
his Gospel or when Mohammed finished taking down the Qu’ran.
Like Lao-tse in his time in China, like Buddha in his time in India,
like Hildegard of Bingen in her time in Germany, we are able to
wrestle with the great questions of existence. Those of us who find
a home in the Unitarian church have often tried other churches,
other foundations, and found them lacking in some way. Those religious
edifices are fine, and offer things of great value. But for many
of us centuries of piecemeal renovations have provided poor additions.
New and frequently ugly wings have been added. Clear passageways
have been blocked by inexplicable walls. Stunning original woodwork
has been painted over in the service of some political or personal
preference. It all feels a little overwhelming, out of date and
drafty to boot.
We Unitarians seem to be comfortable with something more modest
and more reflective of our design tastes. If fact, we prefer to
have a hand in designing our faith, for we want it to be a reflection
of our values. We don’t want to force ourselves into some
value and belief system that does not have meaning for us, that
has words we can not say.
Over time, various Unitarian and Universalist individuals and groups
have taken stabs at describing what we “believed”. But
in 1960, the Unitarian and Universalist religions merged and the
idea of forging a Statement of Principles began in earnest. It was
a contentious question with highly charged unscheduled debates running
long into the night. After all, the ministers and lay people involved
were debating the future of the churches that had so long cared
for them. Compromise was not easy. The key sticking point was the
degree to which we would acknowledge our Christian roots. Some cherished
them with all their heart. Others, just as deeply committed to rationalism
and the power of the intellect, felt we had moved beyond Christianity.
You can only imagine how hard it was to bring those camps together.
What finally passed said that the association was formed to support
this Principle: “To cherish and spread universal truths taught
by great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition,
immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love
to God and Love to man.”
Okay, historically accurate, reasonably concise but not exactly
poetic or awe-inspiring. Probably the greatest quality of this statement
was that it offended the fewest number of people.
Once written and approved, it was promptly forgotten. The statement
appears nowhere in contemporary literature nor was it a tool for
preaching our message. In fact, I don’t recall ever reading
that particular passage until I looked it up in a history book this
week.
But it did exist with its reference to God and man. By the late
1970’s the ‘man’ reference was rankling the UU
Women’s Federation who were growing strong and vocal in our
faith. They said the Principles failed to affirm them as women and,
“They fail to indicate a respect for the wholeness of life
and for the earth.” This last passage would become a key new
idea .
The UUA leadership responded constructively. They took the concerns
seriously and voiced another problem. The statement spoke about
what UUs did, but not about who we are or how we might try to live.
In 1979 UUA President Eugene Pickett wrote:
The deeper malaise lies in our confusion as to what word we have
to spread. The old watchwords of liberalism – freedom, reason,
tolerance – worthy though they may be, are simply not catching
the imagination of the contemporary world. They describe a process
for approaching the religious depths, but they testify to no intimate
acquaintance with the depths themselves. If we are ever to speak
to a new age, we must supplement our seeking with some profound
religious finds.
The UUA created a serious commission to study the larger question
of how we saw ourselves. In all, it took four years that included
two massive all congregation consultations and two years worth of
debate at continental General Assemblies before we finally agreed
on the seven principles we now have.
The contentious question of Christian roots was made easier by
a clever solution to separate the Principles from the Sources thus
placing the references to roots into an inclusive and less controversial
historical section. It also served to give the principles more respect
as a religious document in the world community, for it fit into
a more traditional model of theological conversation.
Even so, there was a great deal of debate on the floor of the General
Assembly, again about the place of our Christian roots. Finally,
in 1984, the question came to a vote. The UUA World reported, “A
resonant chorus said, ‘Aye.’ There was a scattering
of ‘No’s’. Suddenly, like a burst of sunlight
after rain, the delegates realized what they accomplished.”
The next year, as bylaws require, the draft was voted on again
at the Atlanta General Assembly. It was the first time I had attended
the GA. I had been asked by my minister to lead the Principles sessions
in my Toronto congregation, so I was deeply interested. There were
more than a thousand delegates in the Grand Ballroom of the Peachtree
Plaza hotel. When the call came they roared ‘Aye.’ A
single male voice at the rear of the hall was heard to vote ‘No’.
– It wasn’t me – Then pandemonium broke loose
with applause and cheering. I remember holding hands with a colleague
feeling shivers run up my spine and tears run down my cheeks.
And what soon made these Principles matter was that they were not
allowed to sit on the shelf. The association promoted them with
an adult course and with distribution of copies in many forms. They
are cited in every denominational social justice resolution in the
US and Canada. They appear in the first few pages of the hymnbook
produced a few years later, and an increasing number of ministers
took to preaching the Principles. Why? The language was beautiful,
the sentiments are liberating and universal and the document wisely
stops short of being a creed or test of faith.
I have often thought that these Principles do not give us the answers
to life’s tough questions, but rather give us the tools we
can use to seek our own meaningful answers.
In 1995 we added a sixth Source recognizing the “spiritual
teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred
circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms
of nature.” In 2002 the Canadian Unitarian Council received
permission to attach a Canadianized preamble to fit our then new
degree of autonomy, but otherwise the Principles are unchanged.
Both the Canadian and U.S. churches are in the middle of multi-year
reviews, but I don’t anticipate many changes. The surveying
so far has demonstrated that we find these words to be both meaningful
and moving.
This morning Marguerite Robbins, the Intern Minister serving Westwood
congregation and I, decided to preach on the Principles on the same
day. She practiced her sermon for me this week. I am borrowing her
idea of going though the Principles and Sources now as an extended
meditation. I will read each statement and offer a brief personal
reflection. Then will come a question for you to ponder in silence
for a moment. Please, relax and join me.
The preamble states, “We, the member congregations of the
Canadian Unitarian Council covenant to affirm and promote:”
This is important. This is an agreement among congregations. It
is up to individuals to decide if what follows speaks for you. It
is covenant not creed, a freely embraced agreement, not a required
set of beliefs.
Is this a covenant you can make?
The seven principles begin with the individual and grow towards
an ever expanding sense of community.
The first principle calls us to affirm, “the inherent worth
and dignity of every person”. Over the years, the most critical
question I have been asked, in many variations is, “Even Hitler?”
Good question. I believe that each person comes into this world
with a dignity worthy of our respect. Sometimes illness or abuse
or genetic defect can take away a person’s ability to distinguish
right from wrong. Like Hitler or other people committing evil acts
on a less grand scale, they spend their dignity. We have to take
firm action. We must stop them. But once they are stopped, we must
guard against spending our dignity in the way we treat them. Hate
the crime by all means, keep people safe certainly, but let us not
become like them by seeking vengeance.
What does affirming inherent worth and dignity mean to you?
We affirm:
“Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;”
These three values sit in tension in a triangle. The Principle
calls us to seek a balance point between all three. Justice represents
the rule of law and policy. Equity speaks to seeking justice in
a fair manner. Compassion reminds us that no human can craft laws,
even fair ones, which take into account all the human factors in
every situation. We need to look at each case from a humane perspective
as well. In every judgment we make, there is place to consider all
three values. Is one value more important for you? What is justice?
What is equity? What is compassion?
We affirm:
“Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
growth in our congregations;”
Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. It asks more of us. To
truly accept the other members of the congregation, we have to be
open to them, willing to hear their stories with open minds and
open hearts. We have to be willing to accord them their inherent
worth and dignity. Is that something you can do easily? Is it a
challenge? Can you find it in yourself to encourage the spiritual
growth in another, even if they believe differently from you?
We affirm:
“A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;”
No creed will limit out thinking, our exploring. We are free to
follow our own inclinations. But our search must be a responsible
one. We must respect the views of others and avoid making claims
we know to be self-serving and outrageous. Sad as it seems at times,
I cannot responsibly claim to be God. Is this freedom to search
for your won truth a gift? Or is it a burden?
We affirm:
“The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
in our congregations and in society at large;”
It is always our right to disagree with the majority. In this church
it is also a right to expect to not be penalized or abused for that
disagreement. At the same time, we choose a democratic decision
process. The challenge is to remain loyal in opposition, to stay
with the congregation even if we disagree with a majority decision.
How do you respond to the tension between conscience and democracy?
We affirm:
“The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice
for all;”
In this Principle we move beyond the boundaries of our church community
and into the wider world. Today’s global tensions suggest
that this noble vision faces a real challenge. The people of the
world world are not yet amenable to the idea of forging one community.
This dream seems impractical. Do you see the value in a single world
community? How would such a thing accommodate our differences?
We affirm:
“Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which
we are a part.”
Remember the 1979 words from the UU Women’s Federation? “They
(the Principles) fail to indicate a respect for the wholeness of
life and for the earth.” When this seventh Principle was added,
it became the first time in western religious history that any faith
placed humanity in creation and not over it. It was a giant leap
for the time. How do you understand yourself to be part of the interdependent
web? Does acceptance of this Principle imply responsibility or action
for you?
“The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:”
“Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,
affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit
and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;”
What a breath of fresh air the first time I read this! After a
lifetime of being told what to believe, here was a religion saying
you are the arbiter of our own faith. Your experience matters. You
have as much right to know and define the transcendent as any other
creature.
Consider your own beliefs. Is personal direct experience the most
important factor in determining those beliefs?
“Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge
us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion
and the transforming power of love;”
Some Unitarians trip over the word ‘evil’ in this source.
It has traditional religious connotations. Do you believe that evil
exists?
This source also asks you to consider your role models. Whose values
do you emulate? Whose judgment informs your decisions?
“Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us
in our ethical and spiritual life;”
The banners of many world religions hang in this room as reminders
of the wisdom already in the world. Is there a tradition that speaks
to you?
“Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond
to God’s love by loving our neighbours as ourselves;”
The 1960 debate over our history continued in the 1980’s.
Some argued that recognizing wisdom from the world’s religions
was enough. Others wanted special mention given to the Jewish and
Christian tradition from which our church emerged. This was the
compromise. What do you think?
“Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance
of reason and the results of science, and warn us against the idolatries
of mind and spirit”
I often think that the realm of faith begins one step past the
limits of knowledge. But for others, even hard science cannot shake
their faith. How do you balance the values of humanism with the
values of faith? What is your standard?
“Spiritual teachings of Earth centered traditions which celebrate
the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with
the rhythms of nature.”
This source was added 11 years ago after a great deal of lobbying.
Again some argued against it saying it was covered under world religious
teachings. Advocates countered that for too long this natural, earthy
wisdom had been harassed and demonized by the major religions. The
emerging environmental consciousness and the call of our own seventh
Principle demand that we pay respect to these long abused traditions.
Does the addition of this source warm your heart or leave you cold?
There is no right way to understand or interpret these Principles
and Sources, for they are guidelines only. They are there for us
to use as aids to thought, meditation and prayer. This last few
minutes was just one way of considering these statements. 27 years
ago the UUA President lamented that the old Principles, “…describe
a process for approaching the religious depths, but they testify
to no intimate acquaintance with the depths themselves.” I
think that’s true of this current statement, too. I believe
these words were crafted by people who had visited those religious
depths. They were wise enough to know that each one of us would
have to find them in our own way. These Principles and Sources can
help us find our way.
Amen
Back to Sermon Archive
|
