Gary Kowalski writes: "Which is More Dangerous; science or religion?" I did a double take when a friend handed me a newspaper clipping with that headline. It was an ad from an organization called the The Great American Think off, which posed the question as the subject for its annual Philosophy Competition. Reading more, I learned the contestants were invited to submit opinions in the form of an essay of 750 words or less, with a monetary award and book contract promised to those with best answers.
Maybe my friend thought I might want to enter the contest. But while the idea of a philosophy competition has a quaint appeal, this one seemed deliberately misleading. Isn't it possible that science and religion are allies rather than antagonists? Doesn't the real peril arise when the two are seen as stark alternatives rather tan as natural partners? The timing of the contest, on the edge of the twenty-first century, was an alarming indication that the warfare between science and religion - a running skirmish for the past four hundred years - is still unresolved and spilling over now into a whole new millennium.
Gary Kowalski serves our congregation in Burlington, Vermont as its minister and his most recent book Science and The Search For God argues that the antagonism between science and religion stems from an argument between bad science and bad religion, and he writes convincingly the most recent scientific research and theory compels us "to move beyond materialism toward an understanding of the world that includes the realities of consciousness and spirit. In the twenty-first century, human beings have less reason than before to feel they hold a privileged or special position in the cosmos, but more cause than ever to feel connected and akin to all that is."
Gary Kowalski provides his readers a wise and thoughtful guide to wrestling with one of religion's perennial problems, what do (we think) we know and how do we know what (we think) we know. Don't do a book reports sermon on this book, but ponder it and it may give birth to a dozen reflections over the years.
Religious Liberalism and Theology: October 2005 Archives
Several weeks ago I wrote of cliché book report sermons.
Books make good jumping of points for sermons, even reports can help frame a sermon. But the sermon should be more than what one has read.
I offer an example of a preacher using written material as a jumping of point, but also using personal experience and theological reflection to bring the message home. but John Cullinan writes about Engaging Our Theological Diversity. But John uses stories from his personal experience to discuss his understanding of theological diversity, check out a audio file of his sermon How We Walk Together.
This is no book report sermon, Preacher John speaks from his own authority!
There is also a written manuscript.
If you think that religious humanism is an invention of dominant culture intellectuals rooted in the European enlightenment, then you might be surprised by this anthology of writings. Anthony B. Pinn has assembled a collection which includes slave narratives, selections from novels, essays, and theological analysis that shows a religious humanism that arose out struggle for liberation of African Americans in the United States, a religious humanism that is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with African American Christianity and earth centered spirituality. By these hands: A documentary history of African American Humanism is essential reading for Unitarian Universalists who seek to understand the intellectual history of the United States, and the contribution of African Americans to that history. Discover a rich, engaged religious humanism in the writings of Frederick Douglas, James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston, Alice Walker, William Jones, Richard Wright and many other writers. The writings reveal a different struggle than the one usually raised by Enlightenment based "scientific humanism." The struggle for African American religious humanism is not "does God exist given science," but rather "is God an old white man." This humanism does not seek to liberate from "superstition" as much as it seeks freedom from submission to the dominant culture's God game. Reading these writers one receives the gift of a liberating theology not imported from another land, and not rooted in an alienating supernaturalism.
The publishers blurb sums the book up in this manner: "The Black church is often praised for its contribution to Black culture and politics. More recently Islam has been recognized as an important force in African American liberation. Anthony Pinn's new anthology By These Hands demonstrates the crucial, often overlooked role that Humanism has played in African American struggles for dignity, power and justice. Pinn collects the finest examples of African American Humanism and shows how it's embrace by a variety of prominent figures in African American thought and letters has served as the basis for activism and resistance to American racism and sexism."
"Pinn uncovers little known treasures of African American Literature such as The Slave Narrative of James Hay, where an abused slave decides to rely on himself, rather than God, for deliverance from the horrors of slavery, and a letter from Frederick Douglass which scandalized his religious friends by proclaiming that "One honest Abolitionist was a greater terror to slaveholders than whole acres of camp-meeting preachers shouting glory to God."
Despite rumors to the contrary, Unitarian Universalism is not a "religion light," but a profound and deeply spiritual way of being religious.
Just one example: there is tradition among Unitarian Universalists that every person can have religious insight based on reflection on their personal experience. Our liberal religious tradition teaches us that we can share our experiences. It teaches us that by sharing in community we become a religious community. Our tradition asserts that congregations are always in the process of becoming such covenanted, intentional religious communities. To become a "congregation" is for us not so much a sociological achievement as a religious attainment. A congregation is more that a gathering of people united by self-interest and mutual admiration. A congregation is a community whose purpose is spiritual growth and transformation.
Some of the ways we can share our experiences include reflection, study, discussion and deep listening to one another. In the process of sharing we gain new perspectives on our own insights and understanding. In congregation we grow by the process of sharing insights.
In order for this to happen, we need to hold the insights that we've gained by personal experience and community exchange without being dogmatic. We need to remember that they are the result of our very human processes of testing and judgment. They may appear true to us, but that does not mean that another person's truth isn't true to them. Thus we need to be open to the insights of others. Just because we find a particular belief held by another person or another religion difficult to accept does not mean that it is not true by other standards.
It's always possible that people who believe in things that we can't grasp have had experiences that have led them to that belief. Experiences we haven't had. And it is also true that our own beliefs are shaped by our own personal experiences. Another person may not understand our beliefs because they haven't had our experiences. For example, my personal religious experiences have informed and shaped my understandings of what I call "God," and the transformative power of this "God" that I leads to what I call wholeness (salvation). I can not assume that everyone has had similar experiences, nor drawn similar conclusions. Our way of being religious teaches me to share my insights, with humility and appreciation for others insights as well.
In summary: Our liberal way of being religious is a process; not a set of dogmas. This process allows us to become more and more open to our own experience, at the same time to become more and more appreciative of the limits of our own experience, and more understanding of others people's experience even when it isn't our own.
That is a lofty spiritual goal, and it isn't easy. It sure isn't "religion light."
Ministry is changing. Change isn't new, but there is less anxiety when we take note of the changes before they are too advanced.
While there is controversy about just what is the oldest profession, it is clear that nearly all human communities set aside some individuals for religious leadership, shaman, keeper of wisdom, priest, sage and more recently the professional clergy. In the United States, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Unitarian Universalists have similar credentialling requirements for professional clergy. Undergraduate education, a graduate level professional school that contributes to formation, a selection process supervised by the faith community, and various kinds of supervised practical experience.
Unitarian Universalist ministry three decades ago was made up mostly of men, mostly of white men, mostly of men who went to theological school soon after graduating from college, and mostof these ministers would then serve congregations of small to middling size. A few had careers as teachers, denomination officials, and chaplains, but it was not a large number.
All of that has changed, and our ministry continues to evolve. We are increasing the number of ministers of color, over half of our ministers are women, our theological students more often than not have had a previous career, and a significant number of ministers will never serve a congregation as the sole pastor.
The Unitarian Universalist Minister's Association has just completed its fall meetings, which included discussions with the U.U.A. staff most closely concerned with ministry. There are changes ahead for our ministry, we discussed some of those changes, and at future meeting we will discuss others. Our whole minstry will be involved in those discussions.
I will post my thoughts on this subject in a series of posts. I would welcome your thoughts.
Robert Williams writes:
At the dawn of Renaissance Europe's discoveries in the New World and conquest of the American Indian, Europeans already enjoyed the singular advantage of possessing a systematically elaborated legal discourse on colonialism. This discourse, first successfully deployed during the medieval Crusades to the Holy Land [and , I should add, eventually to the English colonization of Ireland] unquestioningly asserted that normatively divergent non-Christian peoples could rightfully be conquered, and their lands could be lawfully confiscated by Christian Europeans, enforcing their particular vision of a universally binding natural law. This is to say that for centuries our churches have been involved in the colonization and conquest of the world on behalf of Europe.
Contemporary religious liberals too often disparage systematic thinking, rationalizing their retreat from the task of articulating their values to the vagaries of post modernism. But as Lakoff and others have pointed out unless those who hope for a more open, and humane society begin to articulate where they stand on moral and ethical questions, those who advocate authoritarian. sectarian and corporate values will win the battle of "framing" the big questions of the day. The moral value expressed above, a.k.a. Christian triumphalism is alive and well in our country today. What is the religious liberal response?
The churches of New England preached the rationalization that Williams cited above to justify the genocide of the Natives that the Pilgrims and Puritans encountered. These Christians saw themselves as the children of God coming into the Promised Land, and the indigenous people of what they called the New English colonies as "Canaanites." Such is the first chapter in the history of the "free church" in America.
Williams quote is from his The American Indian in Western Legal Thought; The Discourse of Conquest (Oxford University Press, 1990) and can be found on p.1. I followed a foot by George Tinker, whose article in Soul Work: anti-racist theologies in dialogue refers to Williams.
The Civil Rights movement was attacked for extremism, many "friends of the Negro' advised a gradual, moderate approach, and argued that mass demonstrations and boycotts would only alienate moderate "white" opinion. Meanwhile the Klu Klux Klan and the White Citizen's Councils were organizing violence against men, women and children who stood for voter's rights and access to public institutions.
Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged his listeners with this response; "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or the the extension of justice?"
Given our cultures capacity to marginalize those who stand against its oppressive norms could you be an extremist for love? Institutionalized religion tends to be a mechanism for conformity, and submission to the "way things are." This despite the fact that most significant religious leaders in all traditions urged non conformity to the prevailing standards of an unjust world. We recall Paul of Tarsus "be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind."
How does liberal religion help us take a personal stand for justice? How does it hinder us in taking that stance?
Since the publication of the Commission of Appraisal's Engaging Our Theological Diversity we have experienced a renewed conversation about what is the core of Unitarian Universalism. The conversation has been energized by the Commissions provocative question; with so much theological diversity are we danger of imploding, exploding, splitting, or otherwise suffering adversely from our decades long celebration of theological diversity?
Jeff Wilson over at The Transient and The Permanent has answered no, he "predict[s] that UUism will not implode, that it will not fracture into a bunch of Balkanized groups, that it will keep marching on toward a future of squabbling and coffee hours and social justice work and revelation of beauty. Because what holds us together isn't really coffee or politics or any specific religious language, it's a belief in love and freedom." Matthew Gatheringwater began an extended discussion at Coffee House with the provocative question whether a changing Unitarian Universalism will drive some people to leave. He asked what is your Tipping Point? Many of the participants argued that for them, they prize Unitarian Universalist "diversity" and if it was threatened they would leave. Since the Unitarian Universalist community consists of multiple spirituality's, and multiple theological orientations, it seems unlikely that we will become less "diverse" in the near future.
Richard Grigg has made the distinction between exclusive pluralism, and inclusive pluralism. The United States is religiousily plural, but Grigg would point out that that is exclusive pluralism. Each religious community is in competition with all the others, and members of a particular religious community identify with their own religious community exclusively. While liberals Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Unitarian Universalists may function in alliances relative to the Religious Right, we recognize boundaries between say ourselves and the United Church of Christ. But at our best Unitarian Universalists practice inclusive pluralism; we are not like an interfaith coalition, we support each others spiritual development and members see such support as good for their congregations as a whole. I know of many non-Christian UUs who helped to develop fellowship groups for UU Christians, and non Pagan UUs that have helped develop activities for pagans. It is essential to our way of doing ministry that theists ministers find ways to minister to non-theists, and vice versa.
It is my contention that Unitarian Universalism is a religious movement that arose out of interaction of the humanist tradition as it [re]emerged during the Renaissance and by (heterodox) Protestants during the Reformation. Those North Americans whom we associate with the early emergence of Unitarianism and Universalism in this country were simultaneously humanists and dissenters from orthodox Protestantism.
Peacebang put it thus way: "I think Unitarian Universalism is a Humanist religious tradition that uses readings and teachings from various world religions, and which respects and remains enthusiastic about the diversity of wisdom sources available to us. We're not inter-faith, IMHO, unless we actually are congregations of Muslims, Jews, Christians, pagans, etc." I agree, and applaud her placing the question so starkly. We share a religious humanist orientation, and that we manifest in a plurality of spiritual preferences. And, while many will find this controversial, I observe that we are continue to function as a Protestant denomination. Most of us can identify with Unitarians, Universalists and other religious liberals going back to Renaissance and Reformation, because we share in a common tradition.
We share a common framework and that framework is both humanist and Protestant. We have allowed the word humanist to defined in a way that excludes many, if not most Unitarian Universalists. We have allowed the conflict to be defined as "Humanist" versus UU Christian, versus UUs who use the word God, and versus those who just love the universe and want to use poetry to describe their exuburance. We have accepted a definition of humanism that is militantly secular and which scorns all religious language. The result has been that in the reaction to this arrogant secularism, humanism has acquired a bad name within our movement. Thus we have become divided over words, rather than over differences of substance.
I believe we must renew our understanding of the humanist tradition, so that god loving humanists, humanists who don't do god, Christian Humanists, Cosmic Story humanists, and "naturalistic" humanists can learn to talk to one another once again. Because we share a core religious humanism and because most U.U.s continue to draw inspiration from our formative Protestant tradition we have been enabled to explore the wisdom of the world's religions.
We have not become an interfaith organization in the process. While there is a small number of individual members of in many of our congregations who do not share in this core orientation, that orientation has both a history and a momentum that has prevented us from flying apart, or any of the other dire predictions that some perceive to be the consequences of our diversity.
There are social, religious, and political forces in this world that oppose the values and world view of humanism, liberalism, and Progressive Christianity, and while we are fighting with each other we may lose this world.
George Lakoff writes: "Today's right-wing conservative values are just plain un-American in this context. This is a country where people pull together in the face of disaster. They don't just tell one another to sink or swim. Sink-or-swim conservatism is not in the American tradition, or the American heart. Empathy, mutual responsibility, fairness, and community -- all progressive values -- are part of this heritage. As Katrina showed, Americans hold a deep sense of shared fate and want an effective government that represents these values, does its job, and serves the people valiantly. Americans want to act responsibly and contribute. Katrina proved it. Those are the central progressive values. Americans have them."
Lakoff argues that the Democrats are once again taking potshots at the Bush administration rather than engaging in "framing the values" around the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He outlines an approach to understanding the catastrophe and making sense of the wrong headed policies that he argues are based in conservative moral values.
Religious liberals need to wrestle with Lakoff's analyis of metaphor and values, it might help us move away from the destructive controversy within Unitarian Universalism that pits a narcissistic search for self which we call "spirituality" against a blatantly partisan politics which we call social action. We are a religious community and we are about values, and meaning, and there is an organized movement in our country that opposes our values. Our response must be about articulating the values that flow our religious perspective, rather than looking for a messiah among the current crop of Democrats who would be king.
I am one of those old fashioned religious liberals that has a high regard for the teachings of Jesus and a low regard for many of the teachings of the historic Christian Church. It occurs to me that Jesus was more interested in getting "heaven" into people, and while the Church has made getting people people into heaven central to its mission. Heaven was for second Temple Jews a mystic state of "being in God", and it became in the centuries that followed a place to go after we died. While followers of Jesus yearned for the realm of God, where the beatitudes would be realized in human interrelatedness, the Church saw fulfillment is an eternal bliss to come.
American Universalism was born in the context of the American revolution, and it rejected the notion an aristocracy of souls who had already been selected for salvation. God's love included all, and all would be saved. But the 19th century Universalists did not wrestle with the nature of salvation, to be saved was to go to heaven, and heaven was in the words of that old wobbly song "we'll have pie in the sky, in the sweet bye and bye."
Its otherworldly visions of salvation have had less appeal among religious liberals in the twentieth century than they did in previous centuries. Unitarianism which placed ethical living central to becoming "whole" created a way of being religious that is a modern version of "putting heaven into people." But eventually, Unitarianism with its "salvation by character" has revealed its shadow; self reliance became relationship denying self sufficiency, and progressive character development has became the self indulgence of self help fads and the novelty of new "spirituality's." Religious liberalism is being renewed by an emphasis on "salvation through quality relationships ." Can we be saved, that is can we become "whole" alone?
William Schultz writes: We affirm that every one of us is held in Creation's hand - a part of the interdependent cosmic web - and hence strangers need not be enemies; that no one is saved until we All are saved where All means the whole of Creation.
I find Schultz's affirmation to contain a new vision of Universalism, one that goes beyond the works righteousness of 19th century Unitarianism, and the problematic "pie in the sky" promise of 19th century Universalism. Creation's promise is yearning to be fulfilled.
Back in the day I would complain "if I hear one more book report sermon, I will scream." One of the most common sermonic methods for Unitarian Universalist ministers was to read a book and then tell their congregation all about it on Sunday.
I think we still find inspiration for a sermon in the books that we read, but we have learned to relate the contents of the book to our lives, or some national happening. I know I will read John M. Barry, The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Greatest Plague in History before I attempt a little prophetic preaching about the impending pandemic of "bird flu." One can read books, just don't do a book report.
But apparently there is a new cliche genre of Unitarian Universalist sermons.
Hafidha Sofîa writes: "I personally don't need to hear another Readers Digest sermon about appreciating the flowers in my garden. I want to hear from people who know and from people who believe. Even if I disagree with them, I will know more about myself after an hour with them, than a whole month of essays about 'celebrating spontaneity."
I have been trying to think about the "flowers in my garden" sermons I have heard. I know I have heard quite a few, but save for one, they all have slipped into the depths of subconsciousness where most sermons on normative virtues tend to go (including my own best efforts.) One of those garden spirituality sermons was very good, but it would be rejected by Readers Digest for creativity and depth. Alas, most were nice, set pieces on appreciation. Appreciation is virtue and must be taught, I assume, but to hear a sharing of convictions is memorable.
If Ralph Waldo Emerson were to come as a visitor, would he know I ever lived? Like most preachers, I think the honest answer is, it depends on what Sunday he came to visit.
Is it possible? Is it possible to preach one's convictions, and passions week after week? Not just when the spirit moves and inspiration happens. It would take a different kind of energy than a real good book report, or my current favorite, tell a provocative story, and talk about its meaning for today. That worked for me today. They loved it. It engaged them. But I don't think I revealed any depth of soul, they knew more about my message, but not more about my convictions.
Maybe someday, I'll send out the memo: Cancel the meetings, Cancel the memorial services. Got to do some pondering, wrestle with some big existential questions!
Meanwhile, I plan the November calendar. Hmmm. Stewardship. Pulpit Exchange. Thanksgiving. Global Warming.
Maybe in January.
Why do I love Howard Thurman? I remember hearing him preach when I was young and he was powerful, he inspired my spirit and moved my soul. Many years have passed, and I return again to his writings and find new and deeper meaning. I know I am not unique in my admiration, but I love Howard Thurman.
Howard Thurman wrote:
"There must be always remaining in every life some place for the singing of angels, some place for that which in itself is breathlessly beautiful and - by an inherent prerogative, throwing all the rest of life into a new and and creative relatedness-something that gathers up in itself all the freshets of experience from drab and commonplace areas of living and glows in one bright light of penetrating beauty and meaning, then passes. The commonplace is shot through with new glory, old burdens become lighter, deep and ancient wounds lose much of their old, old hurting. A crown is placed over our heads that for the rest of our lives we are trying to grow tall enough to wear. Despite all the crassness of life, despite all the hardness of life, despite the harsh discords of life, life is saved by the singing of angels."
Rabbi Lawrence Kushner writes:
The "burning bush" was not a miracle. It was a test. God wanted to find out whether Moses could pay attention to something for more than a few minutes. When Moses did, God spoke. The trick is to pay attention to what is going on around you long enough to behold the miracle without falling asleep. There is another world, right here within this one, when we pay attention.
Most religious traditions place "awareness," "attentiveness," and " being present" as central to spiritual practice. Whether it is praying, meditating, walking among the miracles of the natural world, or the revelation of the divine that we encounter in deep relationships with another we must be present and attentive "for more than a few minutes."
Ralph Waldo Emerson put it this way:
"These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or better ones; they are what they are . . . There is no time for them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence . . . But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tip toe to forsee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present."
We become aware by paying attention to that which is set before us by existence. We learn to pay attention by being present to this moment of time.
"I hope you will go out and let stories happen to you, and that you will work them, water them with your blood and tears and your laughter till they bloom, till you yourself burst into bloom."
Clarisa Pinkola Estés in Women Who Run with the Wolves.
I have been working with listening to stories lately, and I have been telling stories as well. I have been told that people come to church to hear familiar stories, as well as new stories. They come to hear new stories, so that they can reflect on their own story and maybe even share it with someone.
Let stories happen to you, and share them with others. And listen to stories, let other peoples stories happen to you as you reflect on your own.
Back in 1990 then UUA President William F. Schultz wrote an article entitled "Theology According To Newsweek" It seems that the magazine had "quoted" the UUA President as saying that UUs believe that "the individual is the ultimate source of authority." He said that statement was only a snippet of what he had said. It was accurate, but incomplete. He wished they could have found space for "an additional phrase or two."
According to Schultz, Unitarian Universalists do posit the individual conscience and decision maker with authority. Our faith tradition recognizes and encourages each of us to exercise our considerable freedom to choose that which we hold sacred, and of ultimate concern. But there are consequences. , Emerson once said that "we should be careful what we worship. for what we are worshipping we are becoming."
But he goes on to say that there are other complimentary sources for authority in our religious tradition. I think these are sources of authority for Unitarian Universalists, and thus I offer his list with some of my own thinking for general discussion. I have used his categories but the arguments not quoted are my own.
1. The tradition. We honor certain norms within our community which are grounded in what Unitarians and Universalists in previous generations held dear. Some examples: our association of congregations is guided by traditions of congregational polity; our association of ministers asks its members to abide by ministerial standards that arise from that polity; we call and ordain ministers by methods that have evolved over time; and many of our congregations have historic covenants that root them in a heritage of the free church and open them to the future witness.
2. The community. We are individuals, but we individuals who are enriched by creative interchange with others. Schulz writes "the love and nurturance, the feedback and critique, which we find in a healthy congregation are invaluable resources in the shaping of religious pilgrimage."
3. Reason. We use reason and verify the evidence so that our ideas are grounded in community experience. We apply the critical method to so that we do become infatuated with our own intellectual constructions.
4. Nature. Shultz writes "if we posit as we do, the value of the earth, then the natural rhythms of Creation provide authoritative echoes of their own. In an age of global warming, ozone deletion, rapid destruction of arable land, wetlands, and critical habitat, we should listen to Mother Nature.
5. The Holy. "The final and most idiosyncratic source of religious authority is whatevery we call Holy. Be it God or Good, Jesus or Jeremiah, the Bible or Bhavada Gita, that which commands our highest loyalty commands our hearts.
According to Shultz "this last source requires testing against the previous four. But then those must be judged also in reference to the fifth."
The Holy? As a source of authority for Unitarian Universalists. Schultz wasn't the first to assert this claim. Some folks think Bill Sinkford invented "the language of reverence" but long before Sinkford became President "boy Humanist" Bill Shultz was openly inviting us to renew our acquaintance with Unitarian Universalism and to use religious language.
Unitarian Universalists respect the wisdom of ancient thinkers and peoples, but are always open to new insights, a new manifestation of the HOLY. This is a story as told by Bearwalker
The Ancient One by Bearwalker
Ancient One sat in the shade of his tree in front of his cave. Red People came to him and he said to Red People, "Tell me your vision."
And Red People answered, "The elders have told us to pray in this manner, and that manner, and it is important that only we pray as we have been taught for this has been handed down to us by the elders."
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
Then Black People came to him and he said to Black People, "Tell me your vision."
And Black People answered, "Our mothers have said to go to this building and that building and pray in this manner and that manner. And our fathers have said to bow in this manner and that manner when we pray. And it is important that we do only this when we pray."
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
Then Yellow People came to him and he said to Yellow People, "Tell me your vision."
And Yellow People answered, "Our teachers have told us to sit in this manner and that manner and to say this thing and that thing when we pray. And it is important that we do only this when we pray."
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
Then White People came to him and he said to White People, "Tell me your vision."
And White People answered, "Our Book has told us to pray in this way and that way and to do this thing and that thing, and it is very important that we do this when we pray."
"Hmmmm," said the Ancient One.
Then Ancient One spoke to the Earth and said, "Have you given the people a vision?" And the Earth said, "Yes, a special gift for each one, but the people were so busy speaking and arguing about which way is right they could not see the gift I gave each one of them." And the Ancient One asked same question of Water and Fire and Air and got the same answer. Then Ancient One asked Animal, and Bird, and Insect, and Tree, and Flower, and Sky, and Moon, and Sun, and Stars, and all of the other Spirits and each told him the same.
Ancient One thought this was very sad. He called Red People, Black People, Yellow People, and White People to him and said to them. "The ways taught to you by your Elders, and your Mothers and Fathers, and Teachers, and Books are sacred. It is good that you respect those ways, for they are the ways of your ancestors. But the ancestors no longer walk on the Face of the Earth Mother. You have forgotten your own Vision. Your Vision is right for you but no one else. Now each of you must pray for your own Visions, and be still enough to see them, so you can follow the way of the heart. It is a hard way. It is a good way.
Part of the collection of Indigenous Literature compiled by David Welker. http://www.indians.org/Resource/resource.html
Rabbi Lawrence Kushner writes:
We understand that ordinary people are messengers of the Most High. They go about their tasks in holy anonymity. Yet, if they had not been there, if they had not said what they said or did what they did, it would not be the way it is now. We would not be the way we are now. Never forget that you too yourself may be a messenger.
The prophet is one who points to the corruption and banality of the present moment and cries doom. The prophet details the betrayal and calls the people back to covenant.
Is there an implicit covenant that is framed by the promises and ideals of the U.S. national tradition? I taught history before I choose to go back to theological school. I know that the ideals of the Declaration of Independence did not extend beyond white male property owners, and that the "we the people" that constituted the Constitution did not include the nations of Native Americans or the African American people. Yet over time we extended the promise, and "we the people" enter into a covenant to create a national community based on ideals of inclusive justice.
Can I critique the performance, the failure to honor the covenant and the same time believe in the promise enough to be call on others to renew the covenant? Will our descent in post modernist nihilism and narcissist aversion to bad news make our people immune to hear with ears that hear the good news that prophets are among us, and our local prophet may be ourselves?
Carl Jung gave us the terms extroversion and introversion, and people have been misusing the terms ever since. Being aware of the world and of people outside of oneself and at the same time being in touch with our inner lives of ideas and emotions are dual components of living a life of wholeness. If one were a total extrovert one could not stand to be alone, one could not think outside of a conversation, one would have no inner resources to handle the difficulties that humans are prone to encounter. Similarly a total introvert would have no relations with other people, and would be oblivious to their environment. Most of us balance introversion and extraversion, living both in the outer world of people and things and inner world of ideas and feelings.
When we use the term "spirituality" we are usually refering to our inner, and personal religious lives. Some of us have a spiritual practice, for example prayer, or mediation. Unitarians and Universalists had their own particular spiritual practices, such as journaling, and walking in nature.
When we use the term "religious" we are usually referring to our practices in the world, or to the practices of a particular faith community.
When people tell me that they are spiritual but not religious it reminds me of the misuse of the terms introversion and extraversion. Can one really be spiritual (seeking the inner and personal) and have no practice in the world? Can one find "inner meaning" and wholeness with no regard for the wisdom of the world's spiritual traditions (a.k.a. the world's religions.)
I think what these "spiritual but not religious" people are actually saying goes something like this: "I am aware of my need for a spiritual life, and I am oriented toward enduring values, but the organized religions that I have experienced are too dogmatic, authoritarian and/or hypocritical.
And they want to confess that to a Unitarian Universalist.
