Engaging Our 3rd Principle: The Limits of Acceptance

Martha Hodges - 2006-12-03

This is the third is our series of sermons on our seven principles. Our third principle – acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations – in my opinion, raises more questions of interpretation and more possibilities than any of the others. And perhaps none is more relevant to a congregation in transition such as this one. For one of the tasks before an interim congregation is to define its unique identity – the center that holds it together – its cultural and theological personality.

In the coming weeks and months you will be asked by your leadership to help construct a covenant of right relations – a set of promises you can agree to about how you will behave toward one another. This kind of covenant is not supposed to be formed in reaction to any particular difficulty or conflict in a congregation. It’s an affirmation of hope and confidence in a shared vision of the future.

I mention this covenanting process because it’s been suggested that covenant is one possible answer to the question of what holds us together. A religion that is seldom inherited and is not determined by cultural tradition – a religion that is chosen by those who practice it – is often referred to as living in covenanted community. This idea of covenant dates back to our theological ancestors the Puritans, who freely determined the rules of community by which they would live. It is the basis of the congregational polity we practice.

But today we’re talking only indirectly about covenants of behavior. What about that other kind of covenant – one based on agreed upon beliefs? Is such a covenant even possible in our free-thinking and individualistic tradition?

This would require that we be able to articulate some core beliefs or values that define Unitarian Universalism. Is this possible or even desirable in a religion that defines itself by the very absence of creed or dogma?

Last year the UUA Commission on Appraisal published one of its periodic reports on the state of our congregations, called “Engaging our Theological Diversity.” The authors studied historical surveys and interviewed a variety of UUs, laypeople and clergy, to determine what, if anything, forms the heart of Unitarian Universalism.

The Commission’s answer to this, by the way, was inconclusive. They concluded that UUs need to talk more often and more openly about their theological diversity if they are to reap its benefits, namely, a deeper and more nuanced understanding of reality. They pointed out that one reason UUs are reluctant to talk about their theological diversity is the fear of offending one another. At worst, the tensions that exist among us, we fear, may escalate to the point of schism.

For the last half century, the Christians among us have often felt disrespected and discounted. In the last couple of decades, it has been the turn of the Humanists to fear marginalization as our congregations turn more sharply toward the spiritual and away from the strictly rational. Talk about our core theology raises anxieties in all concerned. Perhaps you, or I, may be in the group that gets left out of the picture, that gets left behind – that loses its church.

This is where the concept of covenant comes into play again. A number of UU ministers have proposed that only a mutual promise to stay together regardless of theological differences can make us feel safe enough to risk openly talking about what we believe. You in this congregation, on the other hand, have demonstrated in our theological roundtable services that such conversations can happen without intimidation or hostility. Yet this kind of open discussion of beliefs is rare outside of the occasional adult religious education class, and this is a shame. There are insufficient opportunities for UUs, especially longtime UUs, to develop their spirituality in our congregations. It has been observed that this may be one reason that a disproportionate number of born UUs who remain with us to adulthood end up going into ministry – there aren’t many other ways for a person to keep growing spiritually in our churches. We just don’t provide the stimulation or the challenge that so-called birth-right UUs need to stay fully engaged. It’s been suggested that this is also one reason that our teens seldom stay with us as adults.

Our lack of tools for spiritual exploration makes it hard to fulfill the part of our third principle in which we covenant to encourage spiritual growth in our congregations. On the other hand, to “encourage,” as the members of the Commission point out, means to endow with courage – and this is something we surely can do. We can give each other courage to explore our spirituality by assuring each other that we will continue to have a voice in our community regardless of the conclusions we may arrive at in the course of this search.

But can we, in fact, make such a promise? Is there no belief that would fall outside the bounds of what we consider Unitarian Universalism? Is there no belief that would cause us to reject a person’s beliefs as unacceptable and therefore to reject that person as unsuitable for membership in our congregations? It’s relatively easy to identify behaviors that would be inconsistent with our religion: disrespect of one another, threatening or abusive treatment, a message of hate or, paradoxically, intolerance of others’ beliefs. This points out a basic inconsistency in our UU culture. Is it all right to be intolerant of intolerance? There are clearly limits to what we will accept in each other’s behavior. Are there limits to what beliefs we will accept among us?

Here’s what I think. We have no creedal requirements in this religion. As long as a person honors our commitments to love, diversity and the right of all of us to arrive at our own understanding of the truth, he or she is welcome in our congregations. But our acceptance of one another’s spiritual paths does not mean that we should ever compromise our own beliefs to accommodate our call to tolerance. As the Reverend Keith Kron said in his recent visit, “Not everyone is a Unitarian Universalist.” We need to be clear enough in our own minds what it means to be UU that those whose belief systems are incompatible with our tradition will be able to discern that fact. We need to become proficient enough in expressing our beliefs so that those encountering us for the first time are not left guessing: “Who are these people and what are they all about?”

So, how do we begin to answer that question?

The UUA Commission on Appraisal, noting that the historical core beliefs of Unitarianism and Universalism – the unity of God and the availability of salvation to all, respectively – no longer have much relevance to our self-understanding. So they propose several alternative frameworks for looking at what has defined us over the years.

Liberal religion, the umbrella concept that covers Unitarian Universalism, was described in 1959 as characterized by this-worldly concerns; the development of character; ethical responsibility; democracy founded on a commitment to brotherhood and the individual right to dissent; and a community built on a vision of inclusivity.

I think these characteristics continue to define certain boundaries of our faith. A belief that what one does in this life is insignificant because one’s true calling is in heaven, for instance, sounds distinctly non-UU, as do conformity and exclusivity. But are these theological values? Couldn’t they just as well describe the United Nations or the ACLU? The dominance of Humanist thinking in this period is apparent in this list.

The free exercise of intelligence and reason as guides to the truth; the paramount importance of individual moral convictions; concern for social justice and faith in a rational universe – these have also been proposed as core UU values. This seems to be getting closer to who we are, but are hardly indisputable by UUs in good standing. The insistence on a rational universe is especially problematical to me. This particular list dates from 1936 and reflects pre-war sensibilities. No one who is familiar with the destruction of 20th century wars and genocides can fail to question the rationality of the universe.

The Commission lists a variety of spiritual values that UUs have more recently identified as the heart of our faith: First and foremost is what it calls relational values: love, which includes the need for connection and community; service, the inevitable expression of this love; and diversity, founded on acceptance and inclusivity, also motivated by love. Next it identifies the search for meaning as a core value: quest, transformation and learning; the truth that is the object of our quest is understood as ever-unfolding; and our commitment to search presumes the freedom to grow, change and think for oneself. Under the heading of “wholeness,” UUs place an essential faith in the human potential for goodness or right action; and in the value of inner harmony. UUs find connection with the transcendent through beauty and the natural world, including the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life; and finally, harmony with the divine, or that which lures us toward our best selves; and a location of the Holy, the potential for wholeness and reconciliation, within the natural world.

The source of our beliefs, the question of what we base them on, is also central to our religious identity: these religious convictions are derived from personal experience, freedom of conscience and freedom of choice; the deepening wisdom that is available in dialog; the use of reason to interpret experience and test our religious convictions; and finally, respect for our seven principles and six sources.

It is not true that we can “believe anything we want,” as these values demonstrate. Nevertheless, the question of what we do believe must remain open. As long as we believe that each of us has access to only a fragment of the truth, we must welcome diversity; as long as we treasure diversity and individual experience, our answers to the question, “What lies at the heart of Unitarian Universalism” will inevitably vary. They will vary within and among our congregations, and they will vary over time, as our knowledge evolves and our world keeps changing.

The president of Starr King School for the Ministry, Rebecca Parker, asked a question during her interview with the Commission on Appraisal that can help each of us define for ourselves, in conversation with others, what Unitarian Universalism is: “What features of Unitarian Universalism, if you took them away, would leave us with something that is no longer Unitarian Universalism?” Just as useful is the related question: “What, if you added it, would make Unitarian Universalism no longer Unitarian Universalism?”

In the time we have left, I’d like to invite you to answer one or both of these questions. Take a few minutes to think, and then raise your hand if you’d like to say something. Again, the questions are: What feature of UU, if you took it away, would leave you with something that was no longer UU, and what could you add to UU that would make it no longer UU? In other words, what is essential to the heart of UU, and what defines its boundaries? No one of us will have the complete answers to these questions, but together, we can challenge and enrich our understanding – which is, after all, what we are called by this religion to do – what our embrace of diversity challenges us to do.