"Beyond
Theological Diversity"
a sermon by Rev. Felicia
Urbanski
December 17, 2006
First Unitarian Congregation
of Waterloo
(Rev. Urbanski, a friend of mine, is now a minister with the United Church of Canada in Erin & Inglewood, Ontario)
First Reading: 1. Encountering
God in People of other Faiths -
By
Diana Eck
Several years ago I spent an afternoon in Nairobi with the parents of a
Muslim colleague. They were followers of
the tradition of Islam led today by the Aga Khan. We visited the large mosque and Islamic
center in Nairobi and enjoyed a meal at Gujarati restaurant before they put me
on the evening train to Mombassa. Just
as they were getting me settled in my compartment, we heard the evening call to
prayer. My friend's father glanced at
his watch and said to me, "It is time to remember God in prayer. Excuse us." We closed the compartment door and as he and
his wife sat down to pray, I sat with them.
"In the name of God the Almighty, the Compassionate, the
Merciful…" -- I recognized the first few lines of the Qur'an in Arabic. I bowed my head and entered into the spirit
of prayer with them, although I did not know the words they spoke. Is our God the same God? Frankly, the question did not occur to me
then. I simply took it for granted.
What we take for granted in
our experience is the very stuff of theological reflection. What allowed me to feel so natural in
entering into a spirit of prayer with my Muslim friends? When I preached not long ago at a church on
the green of Lexington, Massachusetts, just across from the famous statue of
the Minuteman, I reflected on the matter.
I spoke of the common monotheistic tradition of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. Allah is not "the Muslim
God," I said, but simply the Arabic word for God. Allah is none other than the one we know as
God and is the name Arabic-speaking Christians also use when they pray.
After the service a
parishioner insisted it was wrong to equate the Christian God,
Father-Son-Spirit, with Allah. As we
discussed the matter together over coffee, the parishioner and I concluded that
there were at least three alternatives.
We both rejected the idea that there could be two Gods, the one we call
God and the one Muslims call Allah, so the first possibility was that there
could be one God, ours, with Allah being a false God. This would be a form of exclusivist thinking: our way of thinking about God excludes all
others. That did not seem to account for
the vibrant faith of the fifth of humankind who worship Allah.
The second alternative could
be that we see God in God's fullness and that the Muslims see the same God less
clearly. Muslims no doubt would see it
the other way around. This would be an inclusivist view -- our way of thinking
includes the other, somewhat less adequate conception.
The third and perhaps the
most satisfactory alternative would be to insist that there is only one God
whom Christians and Muslims understand only partially because God transcends
our complete comprehension. As Muslims
put it, "Allahu akbar!" It means not only "God is great,"
but "God is greater!" That is,
greater than our understanding, greater than any human idea of God. This would leave room for the
self-understanding of both Christians and Muslims and would be a pluralist view.
Second Reading: Corporate Merger Announced: Christmukkah
- from an unknown
source, shared with me by Rev. Stefan Jonasson in an email.
Continuing the current trend of
large-scale mergers and acquisitions, it was announced today at a press
conference that Christmas and Hanukkah will merge. An industry source said that
the deal had been in the works for about 1300 years. While details were not
available at press time, it is believed that the overhead cost of having twelve
days of Christmas and eight days of Hanukkah was becoming prohibitive for both
sides. By combining forces, we're told, the world will be able to enjoy
consistently high-quality service during the Fifteen Days of Chrismukkah, as
the new holiday is being called.
Massive layoffs are expected, with lords
a-leaping and maids a-milking being the hardest hit. As part of the conditions
of the agreement, the letters on the dreydl, currently in Hebrew, will be replaced
by Latin, thus becoming unintelligible to a wider audience. Also, instead of translating to "A great
miracle happened there" the message on the dreydl will be the
more generic "Miraculous stuff happens" In exchange, it is believed
that Jews will be allowed to use Santa Claus and his vast merchandising
resources for buying and delivering their gifts.
One of the sticking points holding up the
agreement for at least three hundred years was the question of whether Jewish
children could leave milk and cookies for Santa even after having eaten meat
for dinner. A breakthrough came last year, when Oreos were finally declared to
be Kosher. All sides appeared happy about this.
A spokesman for Christmas, Inc., declined
to say whether a takeover of Kwanzaa might not be in the works as well. He
merely pointed out that, were it not for the independent existence of Kwanzaa,
the merger between Christmas and Chanukah might indeed be seen as an unfair
cornering of the holiday market. Fortunately for all concerned, he said,
Kwanzaa will help to maintain the competitive balance.
He then closed the press
conference by leading all present in a rousing rendition of 'Oy Vey, All Ye
Faithful'!
Sermon:
We could go on and on, couldn't we?
It is humorous -- as well as ludicrous -- to imagine such a merger of
distinctive religious holidays, as much as Judaism and Christianity and even
Islam share certain common elements, such as certain foundational stories from
the Hebrew scriptures. This time of year
especially, there are a great many symbols which use the imagery of light,
including that of the sun's eventual return as marked by the celebration of the
Solstice. Light triumphing over the
darkness, hope in a time of struggle, and peace being possible in a world
consistently besieged by some kind of a war, somewhere on the planet.
As Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists, we will often look to the
similarities rather than the differences between various religions and
philosophies. We will try to honor them
all in our worship and in our educational gatherings. Like Diana Eck, we will look to becoming a
pluralistic religious body -- one in which participants are invited to explore
a variety of paths, all equal in their validity.
As Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists, we often will look at
ourselves as a unity created from a diversity.
We frequently pride ourselves on the great variety of expressions of
spirituality that are represented in the majority of our congregations. In fact, during the time before I came here
to be your Interim Minister, I was deeply involved with the process known in
ministerial circles as "the search".
A minister in search within our free association of congregations gets
to go to his or her computer and "click on" the name of any
congregation looking for a minister.
Then, he or she can "click on" up to a total of 15 at any one
time of congregations which seem like good places to apply after reading their
"congregational record".
In these rather long documents, each congregation has to answer a
series of questions. One of these
is: "To what degree does the
congregation possess a dominant theology?"
How we define the word "theology" perhaps needs a bit of
explanation here: Theology includes the
full range of religious and philosophical beliefs, not just theistic ones, as
well as our human understanding of the meaning and purpose of life and of
Ultimate Reality.
So…to what degree does the congregation possess a dominant
theology? Better get ready now -- you'll
be needing to help your ministerial search committee to answer this and many
other tough questions beginning about six months from now! Think of all those potential permanent
ministers clicking on the First Unitarian Congregation of Waterloo. What can they hope to find?
Hmm…a dominant theology? Perhaps forty or so years ago you could
confidently state "Humanist".
Perhaps not so now! I can well
imagine how this question puzzles a great many search committees. My question is: Do any of our congregations have one
particular theology which dominates all others?
I have to say that in my experience of reading dozens of congregational
records, I learned that they all say pretty much the same thing! That is, that their congregational has no dominant theology. That they are all eclectic and
diverse. Their congregational surveys
may reveal a higher percentage of people in one theological category or the
other -- such as those who self-identify with humanism, or atheism, or paganism
or Buddhism. But overall, every
congregation I looked at indicated some kind of an eclectic mix of philosophies
or theologies. Many congregations which
began in the period of the fellowship movement, similar to the historical
beginnings of this one, observed a rather big shift away from a primarily
humanist centre to this very interesting, well, stew! They each have distinct ingredients, yet
these are all blended at the edges to create what now I see as the typical
congregational make-up today.
Is this a good thing? Perhaps
only time will tell. For now, many of us
are enjoying the ride. Many of us are
also leery of being involved in a denomination -- or technically, an
association of congregations -- which in a relatively short time seems to have
almost forgotten its historical roots in Christianity. But that is a topic for another day!
Let's look at an important study which was completed quite
recently. The findings were published in
this book called Engaging our Theological
Diversity. From 2002 to 2005 there
was a group of dedicated and knowledgeable Unitarian Universalists who worked
hard to try to answer the basic question of "what is it that holds us together anyway"? The Purposes and Principles are not the
answer, although they are a good statement of some of our commonalities in the
area of ethical values. But what about
theology? What about our human
understanding of the meaning and purpose of life and of Ultimate Reality? What holds us together, if anything?
Well, you can imagine the difficulty in answering this question,
especially for a religious movement with people who hold such a variety of
strong opinions. This group, called the
Commission on Appraisal, said this:
"Three years of study and conversation have not brought us
to a complete consensus about a common core to our faith."
Okay…so are we back to where we started, I wonder?
They continue to say, "Yet, we have found much common ground along
the way, in the material we share."
Okay, that's a nice concession.
But frankly, I'm disappointed! I
thought that for once we might be
able to pinpoint exactly what lies at the centre of our faith!
Well, the Commission did come up with a good set of twelve statements
which attempt to at least describe
who we are theologically. I'd like to
share these with you now:
We
are a grounded faith. We are a faith
with roots, however lightly held, that go back two thousand years and
more. Unlike other more recently
evolving nontraditional faiths, ours is solidly grounded in both the realm of
history and the realm of ideas.
We
are an ecological faith. The
"interdependent web" concept of our seventh Principle is not new to
history (the "net of Indra" in Hindu and Buddhist thought has been around
for several thousand years). But in the
West this vision of interconnectedness has had an uphill struggle to displace a
more hierarchical vision of the nature of the cosmos. We have placed the web squarely at the center
of our shared worldview.
We are
a profoundly human faith. Whether we see
our charge as loving our neighbour or ending the suffering of all sentient
beings, whether a transcendent dimension is part of our worldview or not, our
primary focus for religious action is the well-being of this world. We wrestle with our ideas about human
limitation and human power and acknowledge that our understandings are
imperfect.
We
are a responsible faith. At our best,
we are able to respond to our deep sense of interconnectedness with both the
natural and human worlds. Whatever our
source of religious inspiration, we understand that humanity must take its
responsibility for the state of the world seriously. We humans have created many of the ills from
which we and all creatures on this planet suffer. We have the ability to ameliorate suffering,
if only we find the will to do so. Our
diverse sources of religious inspiration power our will to act.
We
are an experiential faith. We are focused more on experience (our own and that
of trusted others, past and present) than beliefs. We do not hold with beliefs that contradict
our experience, although we recognize that there are realities that can draw us
beyond the present limits of our knowledge.
We
are a free faith. We are free
both as individuals and as congregations.
We recognize the authenticity and integrity of each individual's life
journey, and concepts such as "building your own theology" or
"composing a faith" resonate with us.
We are a faith of heretics (from the Greek hairesis, "to choose").
We
are an imaginative faith. We engage
with image and story, garnering wisdom from many traditions and building
bridges between them, making a place where creativity can flourish.
We
are a rational faith. While we
support the individual journey, we ground it in caring community. Relational language occurs more frequently
than any other in core-of-faith statements shared with the Commission.
We
are a covenantal faith. We are held
together, from our Reformation roots, by our chosen commitment to each other
rather than by creed, ecclesiastical authority, or revealed truth. We began to reclaim that heritage with the
language of our Principles. More
recently, we have come to recognize ourselves as a dialogical faith; the
explosion of covenant groups (which we call "Chalice Circles") in our
midst reflects this. We are reminded of
Francis David's admonition over four centuries ago: "We need not think
alike to love alike".
We
are a curious faith. Freedom and
tolerance have been central to our tradition at least since the
Reformation. The psychological
characteristics and values of people drawn to our ranks suggest openness is a
compelling characteristic, even if we do not always live our values of
tolerance, acceptance, and respect as well as we might. We acknowledge that our perspective is
limited, that we could be wrong, that we live in the midst of uncertainties,
yet we are ever open to new insights.
We
are a reasonable faith. We do not
ask people to check their rationality at the door, and we encourage the
practice of disciplined inquiry toward personal and societal assumptions. We challenge idolatries, especially our
own. We are positive toward the findings
of science, while questioning the values that at times motivate choices in that
area as in every other.
We
are a hopeful faith. We are a
faith of possibilities, aspiring to be (though we often fall short) a
transformational faith, a justice-seeking faith. We would create a space for the realization
of possibility, whether we call it the "commonwealth of God" or the
"Beloved Community".[i]
Well -- perhaps this vision can
be claimed by all the various strands in our theologically diverse circles.
These 12 statements use the word "faith" over and over again,
and like the word "theology", I think an explanation is needed.
Many of us have a deep affection for our in-house musical group here at
First Unitarian, a group who named themselves "Blind Faith and the Lost
Crusaders". The humour implicit
here of course comes from the fact that blind
faith -- giving away one's own authority to another person, or to a doctrine,
or to an organization -- is not
genuine faith. Real faith helps people to stand on their own two feet, to embrace
life in times of both joy and sorrow,
and provides the courage to step through darkness into the light.
Authentic faith is not about believing in something that someone says
you should. It is not about memorizing
and parroting the teachings of a religious leader or of a sect. It is rather about becoming who you really
are. Faith requires reflection and
self-examination.
The late James Luther Adams, perhaps our foremost Unitarian
Universalist theologian, took the words of Socrates, "An unexamined life
is not worth living," and reframed this to say, "An unexamined faith
is not worth having". In other
words, there is no genuine faith that is not an examined one.
Remember that faith is not a set of beliefs, especially beliefs not
grounded in scientific evidence. It is
the act of deciding to live in the way required by the source of all human
good. An authentic faith is one which
calls us to reshape our lives.
James Luther Adams said that faith is not fundamentally about one's
beliefs, but about one's choice of commitments. He asks what do you love with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all
your mind, and with all your strength?
Whatever that is, where is it calling you to meet the demands of this
challenging time in which we live? What
are you truly committed to?
"An unexamined faith is not worth having."
When we truly engage in
examining our personal commitments -- our own faith -- that then we can truly
remain open to the expressions of faith which we find different from our
own. We can be truly open-minded, and
non-defensive when we hear someone else describe their personal faith
stance. We can then engage our theological diversity in a healthy, affirming
way.
Like Diana Eck, we can even pray with someone else who is different
from us. We can at some point comprehend
that what another person loves with all their heart and with all their soul and
with all their mind and with all their strength is greater than any human understanding.
We can begin to move beyond
the traditional labels, and accept that the labels themselves have soft
borders. The labels themselves are
shifting.
Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists love using theological
descriptors, such as telling people, "I'm a UU Pagan", or "I'm a
UU Buddhist", or "I'm a UU Christian", to name only a few
examples. These hyphenated UU's follow a
particular religious discipline within the community and values of Unitarian
Universalism. Some people say that there
should be no such thing, and just simply people who are UU's. To which I say, that may be fine for you
personally, but just look at the reality of the situation. Is it such a bad thing that people want to
plumb the depths of a specific tradition?
To go deeper rather than to expand ever wider?
This is the key: We are able to
look at the other religious traditions and have them inform our Paganism, or influence
our Buddhism, or change our
Christianity. Yes, true religious
dialogue opens us up to gaining information, being influenced, and even
changing! And change is how we grow.
May we encounter God in others, not only in the religious traditions
they choose to follow, but in the core of the human being who embodies
them. May we see into one another's
souls and be truly able to say that although we are different, we are still
one.
[i] Engaging Our Theological Diversity, A Report by the Commission on
Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association, May 2005, pp. 91-93.
No comments:
Post a Comment