A FAITH FOR THOUGHTFUL SOULS

a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 13th, 2005


There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, written by David Hacket Fischer, who is a professor of history just down the road here at Brandeis University, that I found so interesting and thought-provoking that I thought I'd share a little of it here with you today. It's called "Freedom's Not Just Another Word." "There is no one true definition of liberty and freedom in the world, " Fischer writes, "though many people to the left and right believe that they have found it. And, yet, there is one great historical process in which liberty and freedom have developed, often in unexpected ways...."

***
...Equally surprising are the origins of our English words liberty and, especially, freedom. They have very different roots. The Latin libertas and Greek eleutheria both indicated a condition of independence, unlike a slave.... Freedom, however, comes from the same root as friend, and Indo-European word that meant "dear" or "beloved." It meant a connection to other free people by bonds of kinship or affection, also unlike a slave. Liberty and freedom both meant "unlike a slave." But liberty meant privileges of independence; freedom referred to rights of belonging.

We English-speakers are possibly unique in having both "liberty" and "freedom" in our ordinary speech. The two words have blurred together in modern usage, but the old tension between them persists like a coiled spring in our culture. It has inspired an astonishing fertility of thought. Americans have invented many ideas of liberty and freedom. Some are close to independence, others to rights of belonging. Most are highly creative combinations. For most people they are not academic abstractions or political ideologies, but inherited ideas that we hold as what Tocqueville called "habits of the heart." They tend to be entire visions of a free society, and we seen them in our mind's eye through symbols and emblems....

The Civil War...was a conflict between visions of liberty, freedom, union and rights of belonging on one side; and ideas of states' rights, separation and liberty to keep a slave on the other. Many competing images of liberty and freedom appeared in the Progressive Era, and again in the 1930's when President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "broader definition of liberty" and "greater freedom, greater security" were fiercely opposed by the conservative Liberty League. It happened again in the 1950's and 60's, with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of freedom as rights of belonging, and Barry Goldwater's impassioned idea of liberty as independence from intrusive government. But perhaps the most fertile period of invention was the late 20th century. Through 16 generations, American ideas of liberty and freedom have grown larger, deeper, more diverse and yet more inclusive in these collisions of contested visions....

The catch, of course, is that people become more truly free only when the central ideas are respected: liberty as the rights of individual independence, freedom in the rights of collective belonging. Many on the right and left continue to call for one idea without the other, but the strongest ground is in the center, where they come together.... [New York Times, Feb 7, 2005]

***

Unitarian Universalism sometimes has a reputation of being kind of an "intellectual" religion -- perhaps because historically it has tended to attract a disproportionate number of highly-educated people, as well as numerous "free thinkers" and other independent spirits in general. But the faith itself is actually quite simple. I sometimes like to summarize it as "One God at most, and we're all in this together." These two historical confessions: that God is One, and All Souls belong to him (or her -- assuming God even has a gender) are the twin theological doctrines which gave "Unitarianism" and "Universalism" their names.

But what truly makes Unitarian Universalism a simple faith is the method by which we arrive at our beliefs. Most religions present the new believer with a complicated set of doctrines and creeds which comprise "the Faith" -- the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church, for example, is hundreds of pages long (not that too many actual Catholics actually think about that all that often). But for many religious denominations, Faith and Belief are considered one and the same. And if your beliefs deviate from "the one true faith" you are considered a heretic: someone who has rejected the faith (and with it the authority of the church) by choosing to believe a different way. But here at the First Religious Society (just like at every other UU church I know of) we are all basically heretics, because the basic premise of this religious tradition is that the authority for religious belief comes from within the individual rather than from some sort of external institution. Faith begins with our own human experience examined in the light of human reason, and thus we naturally expect our beliefs to change and evolve over time as we ourselves grow and mature in faith.

A few years ago now some clever advertising copywriter even put this idea in the form of a slogan: "Religion that puts its faith in you." I suppose there are a lot of other religions who can also summarize their core beliefs on a bumpersticker, but "Religion that puts its faith in you" has a very different feel to it than "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." In the place of an authoritarian hierarchy, Unitarian Universalists look to personal authenticity and mutual accountability as the ultimate arbiters of religious truth. It's this believe in religious liberty that makes us religious liberals: not only do we live our faith, but our faith emerges from our own lives. Our experiences both shape our beliefs and inspire our actions, not because we are told we should believe a certain way, but because we have discovered for ourselves the truth of what we believe. Which is a lot different from having no beliefs, or being free to believe whatever we like. There are lots of things I would LIKE to believe, but I can't believe them because I know that wishful thinking doesn't make it so. If you remember nothing else about this morning's sermon, remember this. Unitarian Universalists are NOT people who are free to believe whatever we want. We are people who are COMPELLED to believe what our reason and our experience tell us to be true.

But because of the respect we have for freedom of conscience, and the high degree of latitude and tolerance we try to practice with regard to any particular individual's set of beliefs, people who are accustomed to more rigidly authoritarian religious traditions sometimes have a difficult time figuring out just where Unitarian Universalism belongs in the taxonomy of religious denominations. Is it a form of liberal Christianity, or some sort of post-Christian eclecticism, or perhaps even an entirely new religion altogether? Depending on who you're talking to, the answer to all of these questions is a qualified "Yes." From an historical perspective at least, both Universalism and Unitarianism are solidly rooted in the broad Judeo-Christian tradition. The original founders of this church and others like it were very much inspired by the teachings of Jesus and the Hebrew prophets, and the questions they asked about God and the Bible, about ethics and morality, were very much informed by the religious culture in which they lived.

But as that culture grew more theologically diverse, those early Unitarians and Universalists diversified right along with it...indeed, often leading the way. Because the only limitation on the freedom of belief is the integrity of one's own thoughts, 19th century Unitarians and Universalists were pioneers in both the academic study of World Religions, and ecumenical dialogue with non-Christian religious believers. Of course, more orthodox Christian missionaries also often attempted to learn everything they could about the cultures where they served in order to be able to more effectively convert "the natives" to Christianity, and often found themselves profoundly transformed by that process instead. But the Unitarian belief the God is One, and the Universalist belief that All Souls are equally loved by their Creator, made this sort of interest in mutual conversation rather than conversion especially appropriate.

The basic intellectual congeniality of both Unitarianism and Universalism to the notion of inter-faith dialogue was further reinforced by an idea know at the time as "Natural Religion," which essentially held that whatever is Ultimately True about Religion continues to be true whether anyone actually believes it or not, and that the various "religions" of the world simply represented humanity's historical attempts to understand and articulate this more universal "natural" religion in terms appropriate to a particular historical and cultural context. Scrape away these cultural overlays, and the "thoughtful soul" will discover the same basic set of beliefs...which are true simply because they are true, and not because they have been revealed to a particular group of people through some sort of miraculous, supernatural Act of God. Faithful Seekers of Truth should therefore feel completely uninhibited about taking inspiration wherever they may find it, realizing that ultimately all Religious Truth originates from the same Divine Source.

Of course, over time this practice of "sampling" from all the world's religious traditions led to two very obvious additional questions. First, how much non-Christian content can someone assimilate into their personal belief system and still call themselves a Christian? And second, is it really possible to "borrow" a particular religious belief or practice from another cultural faith tradition without unavoidably changing it (some would even say degrading it) into something entirely different? Put another way, can religious faith exist by itself, WITHOUT a cultural context? Or do we, as human beings, unavoidably live within specific "belief communities" which shape our worldviews in ways so pervasive they remain essentially invisible to us? Issues of cultural appropriation and cultural exchange take on a particular relevance in an era when economic globalization threatens the integrity of indigenous and non-Western cultures in ways unimaginable to 19th century Christian missionaries. And it has also led some to suggest that Unitarian Universalism's theological commitment to religious liberty, the free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and the inclusive use of the democratic process in congregational governance make it particularly well suited to emerge as a new, Universal religion for the Third Millennium.

And who knows? It may happen someday. But personally, I'm a lot more interested in what happens a lot closer to home. This congregation has been meeting Sunday mornings here on this hill in Carlisle for nearly 250 years now. Naturally, a lot of things have changed in all that time, but a lot of things have stayed pretty much the same as well. Our worship service, for example, continues to be the center of our life together -- a time when we set aside the more "worldly" concerns of day to day living in order to concentrate on the "spiritual" things that give life meaning. And it still consists of music, readings, prayers and a sermon...just as it has for generations. We continue to place a great deal of emphasis on religious education: not only for our children, but also for ourselves, teaching and learning from one another. We still enjoy fellowship with one another -- eating together, enjoying one another's company, taking an active interest in the lives of our fellow church members. We continue to care for one another pastorally, looking out for one another at times of illness or other kinds of personal crisis. And we continue to reach out into the larger community, both in the attempt to be of service to our neighbors and fellow creatures, and also to invite them to become our partners in our continuing efforts to do God's work in the world, so far as God has given us light to understand the meaning and intention of that work.

And in this regard, the First Religious Society looks a lot like other churches, who also "believe" in Worship, Education, Fellowship, Pastoral Care, and Community Outreach. This is what churches do -- it's the reason they exist, their "mission" in the world and "Good News" for human kind. It's no great secret; it's not rocket science -- but it does require a certain amount of discipline, and commitment, and devotion to values and principles larger than ourselves. Jim Wallis says that "the left doesn't get it, and the right gets it wrong." But I like to think that there are still a few liberals left at least who do kinda "get it," at least most of the time, even if we don't always get it perfectly right on every occasion. Humility, repentance, accountability -- the willingness to listen as much as we talk, and to take a genuine interest in the lives of those different from ourselves, especially those less fortunate than ourselves, "the poor, the vulnerable, the left behind." Are these "liberal" values -- the progressive values of freedom and liberty -- or "conservative" values, which we seek to sustain and preserve from generation to generation, as time-tested vehicles of spiritual progress? And why can't it be both...since both are obviously important to human happiness, and meaningful lives in community?

I can't begin to tell you how much joy, and pride, I feel at being able to step into this pulpit Sunday after Sunday, here in this beautiful white-steepled New England meeting house, knowing that I am part of a living tradition that for more than two centuries has affirmed and defended both the liberties of individual conscience, AND the God-given right of All Souls to participate fully in a free society. And if at times I seem a little outspoken it's because I know, like Barry Goldwater knew, that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." And I also know that "All Souls" means ALL Souls" -- no exceptions, no reservations, no excuses.... And while we may often fall short of those spiritual benchmarks -- we are, after all, only human -- that doesn't mean we should give up on them, or that our aspirations are somehow without merit. This church is not a sanctuary for perfect people. It's a place where we can come, just as we are, in order to encourage and support one another in our efforts to go out from this place better people than we were when we came in, knowing that the One God (at most) who gave us life loves each of us just as much as we love our own children, and that come what may, we are ALL in this together....