|
A Matter of Principle
Rev. Brian J. Kiely, Unitarian Church of Edmonton,
September 9, 2007
“The Principle in human nature, from which religion springs, is the desire to establish relations with a Being more perfect than itself.... If there is one principle, indeed, that may be declared to be essential in human nature, it is this unwillingness to shut itself up within its own limits, this tendency to aspire after intercourse with some Divinity...."
— William Ellery Channing
William Ellery Channing, author of those words, founded the American Unitarian Association in the 1820s. For most folks less enthused about history than I am, he is just another DWG who wrote in a style that seems foreign to us today. DWG ?…Dead White Guy. And if we don`t look too closely, his words may seem just as dead today, stuffy and airless. Yet Channing was dubbed “The Reluctant Radical” by biographer Jack Mendelsohn, himself a 60s firebrand in our movement. As we can see from the reading John shared, Channing was a liberal with great faith in humanity, but he remained a Christian with a deep belief in the purpose and existence of God.
Today his words may cause some discomfort... but then they did that in the 1830s just for a different reason. In his day, the passage and the essay from which it was drawn was shocking in its liberality and rationalistic humanism. 175 years later, it’s the ‘godliness’ of the words that no doubt leaves some of us cold. If you are feeling that way, I invite you to take a second look with me. When we unpack the language a little, I think we find in Channing’s words the core of Unitarianism today.
For example, I doubt any will have trouble agreeing with the statement that the human spirit has an “unwillingness to shut itself up within its own limits.” Everything Unitarian Universalism has become in the last two centuries is captured in those words. The seven Principles we all read a while ago radiate with an optimism about humanity and an encouragement to pursue the possibility of human growth in every aspect of our being. Of course that’s the part of Channing’s statement that got him in hot water in his own day... that human beings might be able to do something constructive without God’s help.
The second part of the sentence, “this tendency to aspire after intercourse with some Divinity…” would have only raised an eyebrow in 1830 in that he said ‘some Divinity’ instead of ‘God’. But today that’s a phrase some of us will trip over. I invite you to ignore that metaphorical framework — for that’s what it is — and consider instead the meaning.
The Unitarianism of Channing’s day was a Bible-based faith. Each sermon began with a Gospel text as was traditional, though he was often far away from that text within a few paragraphs. His was a rational approach to Scripture. He had little patience for miracles. Today we have moved away from that biblical framework altogether. We are a non-creedal church, choosing instead to follow a set of seven democratically formed principles. Those principles tend to define how we approach religion, rather than set boundaries about how we must practice it. Our Principles shape our faith, they do not define it, for within Unitarian Universalism, it is the individual who defines and decides for themselves what their faith will be.
When I reread Channing today, I see a 19th century minister who preached a very similar message for his community: We have the power to change ourselves and our world if we agree on and live by some common core values.
That passage I read to begin this sermon can be paraphrased, “It (the religious impulse) springs from the desire to connect with some value greater than itself, for the human spirit will not be bound by our physical limitations. “It (Religion) springs from the same desire for whatever is more perfect than our own nature and our present life....”
I suggest that this is exactly why we gather here today, to connect with something greater than ourselves.
How many of you walked into a Unitarian church for the first time seeking something you could clearly define? I didn`t. I came at the invitation of my girlfriend and approached very cautiously. I`m not sure I was even looking for anything at all. Yet after a few visits, I began to warm to the ideas I heard, the causes I saw being supported, and the people who were speaking and doing. I would suggest that most of us came, or at least came back, because something here awakened or fed that religious impulse that was within us, the very same impulse Channing described. What links us is that we ultimately want to connect with something greater than ourselves. The exact definition of that greater thing is up to you.
Some years ago I was invited to preach at Frances Dearman’s ordination; she had been an Intern Minister here. I equated Unitarian Universalism to a Tim Horton’s donut...a circle of wonderful, comforting deliciousness but with nothing in the middle...no creed, no required beliefs, just a wonderful empty space that defined the pastry as a donut. We are the ones who decide what the meaning of that apparently empty center is..
Because of that hole, some people, even some Unitarians, claim we’re not really a religion. After all, religions are supposed to be about worshiping god and affirming creeds and rules and rituals. I disagree. First, it’s an inaccurate understanding of what makes religion. Islam has no creed beyond `there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his Prophet’. They have no rituals, just a requirement to pray at certain times. They have no single approved theology or uniform clergy training program.
Buddhism only has a semi-divine figure in the Buddha and few formal doctrines or practices.
What most links those organizations that call themselves religions is what Channing named as `desire for whatever is more perfect than our own nature and our present life’.
I believe we are a religion because we do search the center for that which is greater than us as individuals and because we are a Principled people... that word Principled is capitalized.
That is to say that we share a common ethical and moral decision-making framework that is at least partly described by the seven affirmations in our Unitarian Statement of Principles.
Huh? What’s that mean in plain English? How does that fit into the real world, please?
It means that while we might not believe in doctrines formulated by others, we still want to believe in something. Perhaps it is God or the divine however you wish to use those terms. Perhaps it is human nature and thought and our amazing ability to grow and develop in all ways. Perhaps it is just the need to believe that living morally and well is just the right way to be human.
Whatever it is we may believe, we are believers. We have to be, otherwise none of us would ever get out of bed in the morning, for the world would appear only as depressing darkness.
Our seven Unitarian Universalist Principles are not our beliefs. Rather they are the guides and tools we use to formulate and refine those beliefs that we hold individually. They are starting points for thought and discussion, not end points of debate.
How so? Let`s look.
We affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Great. It`s a wonderful, positive sentiment. It can help us call ourselves on being too judgemental about the people who are different. In February I will be travelling to Kenya to join a team offering leadership training to African Unitarian leaders. This Principle reminds me to make sure I spend time learning about their culture before I go. I have to put aside my North American assumptions about how church works and try to help them develop leadership skills for their lands. The Principle reminds me that my way is not better than theirs, just different.
But at the same time, the Principle asks tough questions. What does this Principle offer when we face dictators who employ torture and mass murder? How should we deal with a Hitler? or a fanatical religious terrorist? Adding our second Principle, what should be the just, equitable and compassionate response to such criminal behaviours?
Principle 5 calls us to affirm the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large. Now that’s an interesting juxtaposition between democracy and individuality, between collective responsibilities and individual rights. The right of conscience is often about standing against the crowd and saying no to something on principle. Good enough. But how does that apply when we are on the losing end of a democratic vote? Does conscience say we must walk away from the community then? Or do we have an obligation to stay engaged even though we aren’t in a majority on a particular question? I imagine we each can reach a place where the internal pressure forces us to walk away and that’s fine. But sometimes the right thing to do is to stay engaged and move on remaining as a member of the Loyal Opposition. These Principles don’t hand us easy answers... but then I don’t think we really want easy answers.
If there is anything mandatory about our religion and our Principles, it is a requirement to engage with them and discern our personal understandings of their meaning. They won’t guide us to a predetermined set of responses or actions, but they will encourage us to take an inward journey of self discovery. Hopefully we will return with authentic moral decisions and deeds. There is no right way to interpret a Principle or an easily definable wrong way either. If there is a ‘wrong thing to do’, it might be ignoring them altogether.
The great gift of Unitarianism is the freedom to choose your own religious path. The only requirement for receiving that gift is that you exercise that freedom in a responsible and dare I say, a Principled way.
William Ellery Channing understood the Principled path. He had no interest in starting a Unitarian church, but in the end, no choice but to do so. He was unwilling to shut himself up within preconceived limits, and so Unitarianism gained a foothold in the United States. It was either that, or give up the passion for growth of self and spirit. Like him, we are both called to keep working and growing, and that is the Principled path.
Link:
The Six Sources, a sermon about the Statement of Sources for Unitarian Universalism.
Back to Sermon Archive
|
