Sermons

If I Ran the Zoo
9-26-04
Douglas Taylor

Theodore Geisel was a Unitarian Universalist author better known around the world as Dr. Seuss.  He revolutionized children’s literature with his early reader books like The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, and my personal favorite, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish.  My sermon title is a direct rip off from one of his book titles.  In his book, If I Ran the Zoo, a young lad whose name is McGrew is leaning against a fence dreaming about what he would do if he ran the zoo.  He imagines all kinds of attractions and animals that he would feature if he were in charge.  It is a great idea for a fun little book, and it turns out to be a great idea for a sermon about the first major step in a congregation’s Long Range Planning process: the dreaming phase.  The first step in planning out where we want to be in fifteen or twenty years is to lean back and dream for a little while about what the ultimate Unitarian Universalist Congregation would look like.  It is to see the glimmers of possibility and imagine them in their fullest potential.  It is to let go for a little while of what is really going on right now and contemplate what could be.  What would this zoo look like if they put you in charge?

A few years ago, my older son received a delightful computer game for Christmas called Zoo Tycoon.  In this game with its really good graphics, you build a zoo from the ground up, creating the cages, choosing the size of each exhibit, what trees to put in, and how many of each animal to adopt.  The game is more than just learning about different animals and what sort of exhibit would work best for them.  It also gives you a glimpse of what it would be like to run an organization of this nature.  You have to keep an eye on the happiness of your animals and of your guests.  Your guests restrooms and trashcans and hotdog stands, and you can follow them around a see what they think of your zoo.  You also have to watch your finances.  As witnessed by the trouble Ross Park Zoo is experiencing, a good zoo program is not cheap.  So you build your zoo and get it just right and then one of the lions gives birth to a few cubs and pretty soon the cage you built is too small and what are you going to do about it.  You have to keep your eye on so many different things.  You can’t just set it up and let it go.  Did you hire enough zookeepers to take care of your beasties?  And now look, you bought the wrong kind of fence for the monkeys and they just escaped, and they’re running all around the zoo!

They make an Aquarium Tycoon game and an Amusement park Tycoon game, and I got to thinking:  What if we had a “Church Tycoon” game.  I mean, ‘tycoon’ is just the wrong word there.  But if we could fix that glitch, I think we’ve got a potentially hot ticket here for the upcoming Christmas season!  Just imagine, great little computer graphics showing you the different sorts of pews and hymnals and carpets you could get.  You’d have to buy a couple of coffee urns but maybe forgo the little communion cups for now.  Where should you put your front door?  In the front, facing the street or in the back facing the parking lot?  Or forget the front door altogether and just have a bunch of side doors like most UU churches do!  You would want to hire a zookeeper, (I mean a minister,) and other staff.  Now think about your music program: should you get an organ or a piano or both?  How about a jazz trio?  What about your Education program and your Pastoral Care program and your Social Justice program?  You could fund a controversial justice ministry and watch to see if the neighbors come out with picket signs.  Just imagine the fun you could have with this little game!  Create the church you’ve always wanted!

I know computers and computer games are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I bet our Long Range Panning Committee would love to have a copy of “Church Tycoon” or whatever we end up naming it!  Our Long Range Planning committee was formed in the spring and have been preparing for this first major step in the process, which begins now.  They will be gathering your thoughts and ideas, your dreams and visions for our congregation using a delightful survey.  Not all surveys are delightful, but I think you will enjoy this one because it the midst of its questions about what you think about the current stuff going on it also asks you to dream a little and imagine new possibilities.

Imagine what the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Binghamton might be like in fifteen years.  What would you want it to be like?  What do you hope it would be like?  Perhaps you could imagine particular programs or events that you remember loving from the church of your childhood.  Perhaps you hope to see a program here that your friends from another church have told you about.  Perhaps you have a favorite group or event currently happening here that you could see growing into something more.

After the Long Range Planning Committee has gathered, complied, and analyzed the survey results there will be more steps involving the whole congregation such as expanding and developing ideas gleaned, focusing the ideas into an actionable 5-year plan, and then voting on the plan.  So your input at this and subsequent steps will help shape the plan we develop for the future, and indeed, you may find yourself creating the church you’ve always wanted.  Your input will help me, and the board of trustees, and the various committees, and indeed all of us to discern where to put our energy.

As you move through the survey and as you dream up ideas, I offer one guide to work from: keep an eye on our mission.  We do well to always hold our mission in mind as make decisions.  Our Mission states why this community exists.  We have a beautiful mission statement that has the tone and form of a poem.  I can sum up our mission statement in one sentence: “We gather in a supportive and nurturing community to create opportunities for all to grow and to serve.”  Our goal is transformation, both personal and social transformation.  This community exists to change lives.  When we forget that, we become a social club. Our reading this morning highlighted the danger of not being mission-focused.  I’m not saying I think we are in danger on that count, I’m just offering a guide you can use to raise your horizon and pull you toward more radical dreams and ideas

Ideas for programs and events will come out.  Ideas about how to best allocate our money will come out.  Ideas for new ministries and opportunities will come out.  The biggest (though maybe not the most important) idea that will come out centers around either moving from our current location or staying put.  The work of the Long Range Planning Committee is not to resolve that, but neither will it ignore it.  The fact is, in the near future we will decide to either leave 183 Riverside Drive or commit to stay for the foreseeable future by making significant capital improvements and modifications.  This has obvious implications on any strategic plan we develop.

I invite you to entertain both sides of this quandary.  One the one hand moving could be very exciting and invigorating and our current space is showing its age.  On the other hand, our current space has great attributes, and real potential hidden in those worn out spots.  But then again, moving would allow us to design and build a place that meets today’s needs rather than those of a few decades ago.  But on the other hand it would be very expensive to try to move.  Am I coming off as too diplomatic?  (I’ve heard that if you tie a minister’s hands behind his back you get a shorter sermon because there’s none of this “On the one hand …and on the other hand” sort of stuff!)  I must admit I am ambivalent about moving or staying.  I haven’t been here long enough to fall in love with the place or develop deep resentment for its limitations.  So at this point I haven’t formed a strong opinion, one way or the other.

Now, I do have some opinions, some relevant ideas about this Long Range Planning that I will share with you.  I offer these ideas in the spirit of fostering your dreams rather than asking you to share mine.  What are my dreams for this community?  If I ran this zoo, what it would look like?  Let me offer five quick ideas.  I have many more, but I offer these five ideas and dreams in the hope of provoking your ideas and dreams.

1) Shift the entrance to the obvious spot.

2) Make the children’s chapel into a dedicated Chapel Space

(I’ll expand on these in a minute, let me just read them all out first.)

3) Spin off regular Social Responsibility projects such as the Rivermede Adoption

4) Create and maintain a Labyrinth

5) Increase the number and variety of the wonderful programs we offer here.

Let me unpack each of these briefly.  First off, my dream for our future is that we will 1) Shift the entrance to the obvious spot.  This is just one of my little pet peeves.  Most Unitarian Universalist churches hide their main entrance, leaving visitors to guess as to how best get in.  Right now, we do have a sign as you come up the steps from the parking lot that says “Welcome” and points toward the left, implying that the main entrance to the church is down the path to the left.  Imagine if we moved that main door to the arching wall directly facing the parking lot.  If you look, you’ll notice that behind the organ there is a wall with a window strip back there identical to this wall up front.  Under that organ loft is a spacious coatroom.  Imagine if that space were our foyer, our entryway, our greeting area.  As we have it now, people enter into a hallway that gets crowded too easily.  With minimal effort, we could create a warm and inviting first impression of our space.  This is assuming we don’t move, of course.

My second idea also assumes we stay here for a while.  2) Make the chapel into a dedicated Chapel Space.  In practice, the children’s chapel room is not used as a classroom or a meeting room very often.  Why not put some effort into making that space look like a dedicated worship space rather than a classroom converted into a worship space.  We have nice benches and a matching tree in there.  What if we could convert that room into a space where you might want to hold a small wedding or a private child dedication ceremony, or even just sit quietly and meditate.

3) Spin off regular Social Responsibility projects such as the Rivermede Adoption.  I really like the way this happened.  Members of this congregation noticed a problem out in our community:  The Rivermede Nursing Home is struggle in part because it accepts Medicare and Medicaid insurance.  Many of the residents are lonely and isolated and the nursing home administration has little resources to meet the needs of its own residents.  Members of this congregation looked at the resources we have among us to help this situation.  Members of this congregation decided to adopt this nursing home, which we did, meaning, several members visit people there and we bring magazines and other things of that sort.  We saw a problem in our local community, recognized the resources we have among us, and stepped forward to help out.  The Rivermede Adoption project is now more of a Caring Committee project then a justice project, but who knows yet what the next project will be: help at-risk youth downtown, or partner up with Lourdes hospital on an issue.  Who knows yet what the next project will be.  Perhaps you know.

4) Create and maintain a Labyrinth. The idea of a labyrinth has bounced around this community a couple of times.  I enjoy labyrinths.  A labyrinth is circling pattern laid out on the ground that you use for a walking meditation.  It is not like a maze, there are no dead ends or wrong turns.  As you wind your way into the center, you shed your worries and concerns and thoughts.  At the center you meditate or pray or bask in the glory of life and nature.  As you wind you way back to the outside of the labyrinth again, you “pick up” again all the pieces of your life that you let go as you went in.  The goal, of course, is that now you hold those worries and concerns and thoughts with a quiet center.  I think it would be powerful to go through the process of creating a labyrinth.

5) Increase the number and variety of the wonderful programs we offer here.  I would love for this congregation to be known for having a range of quality programs going on.  Creating and maintaining a labyrinth would be a program.  Programs are almost anything that happens around here that isn’t a committee meeting.  Choir, Parents group, Building Your Own Theology class, Intergenerational ice cream social, Viewing and discussing a video about depleted uranium, Coffee house, Small Group Ministry, Animal blessing.  That’s just what we have now.  I want to see more.  If I were in charge, if I were running this zoo we would have more music, more intergenerational stuff, and more adult religious education courses.

These are five ideas, five dreams of what I see in us, of what I believe we are becoming.  These are not all my ideas or even my five best ideas.  They are just a sample to provoke your ideas and dreams.  If I ran the zoo, this is what we would do.

But I don’t run this Zoo.  Such is the nature of our Unitarian Universalist congregations: there is no one person who runs everything.  As we saw in the Role Call we did early in the service, the mission of the congregation is made real by the work of a whole host of individuals.  It is not me, it is not the board, it is all of you who do the committee work who see to it that our mission is alive.  And it will be all you who take the time to give voice to your dreams and ideas who will see to it that our dreams expand into reality

Lean back against the fence and imagine what this place might be like with a few little changes or some monumental changes.  Lean back and dream our future into being.  Dream big.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

“War, Fear, and Forgiveness”
9-19-04
Rev. Douglas Taylor

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the Jewish year.  This year Yom Kippur begins at sundown on Friday September 24th.  It comes as the tenth day of the Days of Awe, the first day of which is Rosh Hashanah, the new year.  The Jewish new year is similar to the secular January 1st new year in that we spend time reviewing the past year’s faults and problems, make promises to be better, and then have a big party.  One difference is that the Jewish new year puts the party first, on Rosh Hashanah. Then the real work comes on the tenth day afterward.  Yom Kippur, is THE big day on the Jewish calendar.  Christians talk about church members who are “C & E Christians” meaning they only come on Christmas and Easter.  Judaism has the same phenomenon with “YK Jews,” members who only come on Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is a day of fasting and self-reflection and the seeking and offering of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the predominant theme throughout the prayers and readings during the services on this day.  I had a UU colleague who used to say every UU church should do a sermon about Yom Kippur every year because forgiveness is such a deeply religious topic with which most people typically have very little familiarity.  Forgiveness really involves three steps: confession, atonement, and repentance.

First you must admit to the errors you have made.  There is a cliché that “confession is good for the soul,” and generally this is very true.  It is good to articulate your faults and failings from time to time, self-reflection toward the end of self-improvement.  This is a very powerful step in and of itself.  And perhaps it is this point that is so difficult for most people.  How easy it is to see and lament the faults of others, yet to look and see clearly your own faults is an arduous task indeed.  Jesus said (Matt 7:3-5 &Luke 6:41-42) it is so easy to see the speck in your neighbor’s eye and yet completely miss the log in your own!  So, make a list of all you own specks and logs.  Make a list of situations you wish you had handled better, people you wish you had treated better, bad habits you wish you had corrected by now.

The next part of forgiveness is Atonement: You need to follow through on your list.  Call up those people you have injured or hurt and say, “I am sorry.”  Call up people who have hurt you and say, “I forgive you.”  Now is the time of turning.  Now is the time of reconciliation.  The word “Atonement” does not have a fancy Greek or Latin origin.  It is simply the mushing together of the phrase in English “At One.” To atone is to be at one again with God, the universe, your neighbor, or yourself.  Atonement is about being in right relationship with the world.  To do that we may sometimes need to do more than just say “sorry.”  Sometimes we need to make amends.  Often during the Yom Kippur season people will perform service to atone with God and the world; service such as donating money to charity, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked.

Finally, the third step to forgiveness is Repentance.  We confess our faults and failings, we atone for them with apologies and amends.  And then we repent.  We promise ourselves we will return to the path of goodness.  We promise ourselves to not repeat the wrongs that were on our list this year.  We promise to return to our best selves.

This work of repentance and atonement leading toward forgiveness is not meant only to repair our personal relationships but also to renew and rebuild the world.  Judaism teaches that our personal actions contribute either to the good that upholds the world with peace and justice or to that which destroys us.  “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.  Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”  Lucinda Duncan, a UU colleague, recently wrote that, “The tradition invites self-reflection [and] offers a release from self-centeredness that allows people to turn toward a fresh consciousness of universal redemption.”  Yom Kippur is not only a time for repairing our personal relationships but also a time to renew and rebuild the world through our acts of forgiveness and atonement.  And let me tell you, the world could certainly use some help.

My children are learning geography this year with a curriculum called “Mapping the World by Heart” which is very interactive and creative.  For example, yesterday they drew map lines on a grapefruit before peeling it and trying to lay the skin flat so as to experience the problems inherent in two-dimensional world maps.  Earlier this month the whole family sat down to do the very first lesson of the curriculum, which was to draw a map of the world from memory.  Artistic ability aside, I drew a pretty comprehensive map.  But I noticed that most of what I know about geography comes from the news and from history lessons about wars.  Afghanistan, for example, would not have even made it on my map three years ago, now I have a pretty good idea of where it fits, thanks in no small part to the news coverage of that war.

While searching through the internet this week, I discovered a website with several “Top-Ten” style lists on the topic of wars around the world today: “The top ten most violent wars today,” “The top ten civil wars today” “The top ten wars you should worry about today.”  It felt like all the world was at war in one way or another.  The litany of locations was a little overwhelming to me: Kashmir, Israel, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chechnya, Haiti, Congo, Albania, and Iraq.  Iraq usually appeared low on these top ten lists if at all.  But from what I hear on the radio and read in the paper lately, there seem to be only two wars that matter: the war in Iraq, the war in Vietnam.

Why is the war in Vietnam featured so prominently in our election banter?  Certainly there are a few similarities between it and our current Iraq conflict such as the division of public opinion, the demonizing of opposing opinions, the public awareness of military and civilian casualties, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security (although the bulk of the blame for that last one really lies with the War on Terror and the Patriot Act rather than the war in Iraq.).  I remember a political cartoon that hit the Washington Post about three weeks into the Iraqi war that showed a weary looking man behind the wheel with the kids in the backseat shouting, “Is it Vietnam yet? Is it Vietnam yet?”  Vietnam was Vietnam and Iraq is Iraq.  Yes there are obvious similarities, but there are also obvious differences

I don’t want to digress to far into Vietnam but one interesting possibility as to why it has become a hot issue in the elections, could be that we have not done the hard work of forgiveness over this issue.  Remembering that there are three steps to forgiveness, I don’t see that much of a problem today with step one, admission and confession of the errors.  There has been lots of information out there about what happened and what went wrong back then and what it was like.  A generation has come and gone since Vietnam and the general attitude toward that war seems to be fairly negative.  Our communal consciousness leans toward remembering the errors and failures of that war.  How about step two, atonement?  Have there been apologies and amends made?  What about step three?  Have we put any work into repentance, into stopping that situation from ever happening again?

To demonstrate a striking contrast, some of you may recall that as we reached the end of the Second World War, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars – yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.” He was saying, we must promise to not repeat the wrongs of our recent past; we must promise to return to our best selves again.  He was saying we must repent.

War is an atrocity that a government should inflict upon the world only as a last resort if ever.  The cost is far greater than simply the number of people killed and the gain is far less tangible or lasting than freedom and liberty.  My biggest fear, however, is the irresponsible way in which we now wage war.  I call it irresponsible because as we stand knee-deep in the quagmire that Iraq has become I look back and find the reasons for entering this war were fear and suspicion rather than real imminent danger.  I call it irresponsible because there seems to have been little preparation for the entrenched fight against insurgent forces we are now seeing, as if it were an unforeseen possibility.  I call it irresponsible because there has been no recognition of even the first step of forgiveness, which is confession where in we admit to the errors we have made.  By “we” I mean “We The People …” not we in In this room today.  I bet we in this room today could confess the errors of this war with ease.  But We The People continue to be speechless on that count. How can we repent and change our ways when We The People will not even admit there is anything wrong.  And of course something went wrong; if nothing were wrong we would not be at war.  War only happens when something has gone wrong.

In the reading this morning there was a line that read, “When we invite the power of forgiveness, we release ourselves from the destructive hold the past has on us.  Our hatred, our anger, our need to feel wronged – those will destroy us.”  If we cannot actively work to rebuild our relationship with those we have injured, we will be destroying ourselves, our hatred and our anger will destroy us.  The risk of continuing along our current path in this war includes the possibility of our destruction, not by those we call our enemies, but by our own eating away ourselves.  It is high time for the United States to remove itself from this situation and allow a truly international peace-keeping body go in and help Iraq rebuild.

I read in the paper recently that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has described the war in Iraq as illegal by the U.N.’s charter standards.  I say the war in Iraq is immoral and unjust by the standards of religious conscience.

Unitarian Universalism is well positioned to cry out at the injustice of this war.  If we were in Old Testament times we could all be prophets, tearing our clothes, sitting in ashes, and lamenting loudly to repent for the sins of the people.  Today we will have to settle for writing letters to our elected officials and the local newspapers and marching in peace demonstrations.  Of course before all of that we will need to talk through this a lot.  To help with that discussion, however, allow me to point you toward our principles and purposes.

If you survey our Unitarian Universalist principles you will find it hard to see anything in there that could support this war.  There are a few mentions of justice that could be used, but in the principles they are balanced with peace, equity and compassion.  I saw little peace, equity, or compassion leading us into this war and see less as a result.  For that matter, I don’t see much justice either.  What I see a lot of is fear.  Last time I looked, fear was not in out list of guiding principles.

Fear is another errant visitor traipsing though our election landscape.  Fear is one of those characteristics that accompanies war so well and yet stands in such stark opposition to forgiveness and reconciliation.  Fear will freeze us hopelessly in our anger and complacency.  Forgiveness will free us to move forward to heal the world.  “Physical strength can never permanently withstand the impact of spiritual force,” another quote from FDR.  Physical strength can never permanently withstand the impact of spiritual force.  Or as Martin Luther King said, “No lie can live forever.”  And “the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice.”  There is no room for fear in that.

And of course you will remember the ever-powerful FDR quote, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Despite what the current climate would have us believe, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.  We must move forward by setting aside fear and opening ourselves up to the possibilities of forgiveness.  We are now in the Days of Awe.  Rosh Hashanah has past; the party is over.  The work of Yom Kippur approaches.  The time to seek and offer forgiveness as individuals and as a nation is upon us.  For us to move forward we must confess to the errors and failings that brought us to this situation, we must atone for those failings, and then we can repent.  Then we can promise to not repeat the wrongs of our past.  Then we can promise to return to our best selves as individuals and as a nation.  Until then we are called to speak out against the injustice of this war.  Until then we are called to meet the rampant fear around us and within us with spiritual force.  Until then we are called to do what we can to repair and rebuild the world through our acts of peace and forgiveness.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

More Than One Answer
Rev. Douglas Taylor
August 28, 2004

I’m taking an informal poll.  By a show of hands I want to know which is your favorite Source.  For this survey you will need to either flip to the principles and sources in the hymnal, (we were there last week, you may recall.  The page is near the front, just ahead of the first hymn.) Or just glance at the back of the order of service where I’ve printed them out.  The list of sources is about halfway down the page, they start with the line, “The Living Tradition We Share Draws From Many Sources:”

Most of this list of Sources were created in the early 80’s along with what is called “the Seven Principles” or “The Principles and Purposes.”  This list of sources was intended to be viewed as a part of the seven principles describing of our faith tradition.  As such, they are a part of our UUA bylaws.  These Sources expand on what is stated by the Seven Principles by making explicit the plurality among us. I also like the way that section begins by speaking of Unitarian Universalism as a Living Tradition.  That phrase implies that we do have a tradition, a history, but that we are open to change, growth, and movement.

                        The Living Tradition We Share Draws From Many Sources:

*Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

*Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

            *Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical

            and spiritual life;

*Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

*Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;

*Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions, which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

If you were reading along in the hymnal, that last one may have surprised you.  For about ten years (including the year these hymnals were published,) there were five Sources on the list.  That last source was added by process of amendment in 1995.  The delegates of the general assembly that year voted to accept this source into our bylaws.  I mention this not only to clear on any confusion, but also to impress upon you that these words, these Principles and Purposes, did not just drop out of the sky.  They were thoughtfully created and amended through the democratic process.  (Because that’s the kind of people we Unitarian Universalists are.  We’ll use dialogue and democracy to discern the sources of our living tradition, and if a couple of years later we find another one, … well, by gum, we’ll use Robert’s Rules of Order to the fullest to get it on our list!)

So, I’m taking a poll.  By show of hands, which is your favorite Source?  This is very informal, it doesn’t commit you to anything.  I’m just curious.  How many of you would say the first source, “Direct Experience” is the one you like best?  How about the second source? …

(After this informal show of hands I noticed many hands for the first source, “direct experience” and the fifth, “humanist teaching.”  Few hands were up for the second “Prophetic words and deeds” and the third “world religions.”  Also, a number of people voted for more than one, indeed one person mentioned that he voted for all six because he felt all of them were valuable to him.)

Many of us make the ready connection of these six Sources and the various theological labels we sometimes affix to ourselves.  Theist and Pagan, Mystic, Christian, Humanist and Jew all find themselves represented within this list of sources.  This is, however, much more than just a list of possible labels you may latch on to, it is a statement affirming the variety of religious experiences accepted among us.  It is a statement declaring the expanse of authority we can appeal to in our search for truth.  It is a statement in favor of the plurality of beliefs, a statement declaring that, as one UU theologian put it, “Revelation is not sealed,” that more light and more understanding is about to break out in unexpected ways

It is a statement that recognizes there is more than one answer to the deep religious questions in life.  Why are we here?  Is there a purpose to life and if so, what is it?  Is there a God and if so, what are the characteristics by which God is known?  Why is there suffering?  Can there be justice?  How shall I treat other people?  How shall I know what is good and right?  What is evil and how can I stop myself from getting caught up with it?  There is more than one answer to these deep religious questions in life.  To pretend otherwise is to oversimplify life in dangerous and harmful ways.

With such a commitment to being open and allowing more than one answer, we do have difficulty defining ourselves to the rest of the world.  Our reading this morning came from a book entitled A Chosen Faith.  The forward of that book was written by author and Unitarian Universalist minister Robert Fulghum.  The whole forward is presented as part of a conversation in a bookstore in which Fulghum tries to answer someone’s questions in good UU style:“Mr. Fulghum, I’ve read all your books. Is what you write a sample of what Unitarian Universalists believe?”

“Yes and no. I would expect, and hope, that most Unitarian Universalists would not agree with everything I think and write.”

“You mean there’s no party line – no dogma?”

“Yes and no. We agree that individuals must work out their own religious conclusions. We agree that we will disagree on those conclusions. We agree to respect those differences. We agree to learn from one another through dialogue about our beliefs. We agree on a process and the tools to be used in the process.”

“Give me some examples of the tools.”

“The principles of democracy, integrity, continuing education, and individual responsibility, to name a few,”

“It sounds more like NPR or PBS to me than a church.”

“Actually, the analogy is not far off. Public radio and public television are good examples of things that Unitarian Universalists support. We want to be exposed to a wide range of information and a broad range of viewpoints. We want each individual to have an influence on programming, and we want each individual to take responsibility for keeping the programs on the air. It’s not the easiest way to go about radio or religious community, but it’s the way we choose.”

“So if I’m open-minded and listen to NPR and watch PBS, I qualify as a Unitarian Universalist?”

“Let’s say you have Unitarian Universalist tendencies. There are, however, Unitarian Universalists who listen only to jazz or country-western music or opera, or those who watch only baseball on TV. I say again, we respect diversity in all things.”

“What about politics?”

“No exception. Full spectrum. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, and a few who are either Anarchists or just confused – it’s hard to tell. We share only the conviction that one ought to be active in the affairs of the world. We don’t dictate which particular party one ought to join.”

“Are Unitarian Universalists Christians?”

“Again, yes and no. Some are and some aren’t, and some haven’t decided. Same answer if you ask whether Unitarian Universalists are Buddhists. In fact, most of the specific questions you might ask have this kind of answer. Yes and no. Some are and some aren’t. Some do and some don’t. We’re known for respecting diversity of opinion and belief.”

“I’d like to come take a look at a church like that…”(by Robert Fulghum, from the Forward to A Chosen Faith by J. Buehrens & F. Church; 1998)

Yes and no.  Yes, no, maybe and even sometimes!  We uncover more than one answer if we ask any specific questions.  Everyone is different.  There is no one-size-fits-all answer to life.  Yes we can make some generalizations about life and its troubles as well as about faith and how faith helps, but it is very rare for those generalizations to be directly applicable to your life.  Everyone is different.  Your answer is not my answer.  But that is OK because we know there is more than one answer.  We uncover more than one answer if we begin with the raw experiences of life.  Some wise theologian once said “All theology is biography.”  Which is to say that all theology begins with life experiences.

I love it when someone wants me to read a particular book or listen to a particular piece of music or visit a particular workshop or conference center.  Usually the person is saying something like, “I just had this amazing experience and I think you should experience it too because it was so wonderful.”  For that person, the book, the place, the piece of music, the idea, or the event is suddenly sacred because it was transformative.  It lifted her or him into a new or renewed position in life.  That is one of the central purposes of religion: to give focus and understanding to those experiences in life.

Look, I remember reading the opening chapter of Annie Dillard’s book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek at least five times.  I could not get past that story about the frog being eaten by the water bug.  I was amazed.  Other people might read that chapter and think, “Ewww!  That’s gross.”  Or, “Ho-hum. So, Annie saw a frog die.  Big deal!”

But I was transformed.  I was caught by a new or renewed understanding of life and of myself and of how this crazy amazing world is stuck together!  I had to read it over and over again before I could turn to the next chapter and continue the book. You guys need to read this book!  But I can’t make you experience the same thing I experienced when I read it.  And that’s OK because my answer is not your answer.  And that is OK because here we allow more than one answer.

Sometimes when someone asks me to read a book I am tempted to say, “Thank you, but first tell me, what happened to you when you read the book.  Tell me what experiences it touched in you and how you have been changed by this.”  Reflecting on the raw stuff of life is the root of religion.  The raw stuff of your life is not the raw stuff of my life or anyone else’s life.  Where that leads you is your own, and it

may be my job to support your search for that and to help you along that journey, but it is no one’s job but your own to tell you where you are going!

Imagine if our health care system worked on the premise that one answer and one answer only fits every situation.  It certainly feels like the health insurance companies would like it to work that way: If you’ve got symptoms x, y, and z than we’ll only pay for the preset treatments that match up.  But good doctors and nurses know that each body is different and will respond differently to situations and symptoms.  If you’ve ever visited a sick friend or family member you probably heard something about how this person recovered so quickly or that person’s body reacted negatively to some medicine.  Different bodies heal at different rates.

A stroke can effected you in one of so many possible ways and the medical responses vary and your bodies reaction to that medical response, be it chemical or surgical or something else, differently from the reaction of another person’s body because we are all different.  The more we understand about science and biology and medicine the less we are able to easily predict because we are seeing that there are as many variables as there are people.

There are as many variables as there are people.  You know what they say, if you have two Unitarian Universalist in a room together you are guaranteed at least three opinions.  That is where the medical analogy connects to our way of doing religion!  (I’m not saying religion is like a medication, or, at least you shouldn’t think of it that way.  If anything religion is more like vitamins you take before you get sick.  But that is another analogy for another day.  Today I am just saying every body is different and thus responds differently to life.)  It shouldn’t be that radical to insist that beliefs be built from the variety of our experiences rather than the other way around.

Allow me to add one final thought to this mix.  The fourth Principle of Unitarian Universalism (which leads us into the six Sources) calls for the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.  Lest I over emphasis the “free” side of that, I will say this:  Our acceptance of differences and our openness to a plurality of beliefs is by no means a statement that what we believe is unimportant or that we can choose to believe in practically nothing.  G. K. Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut is down again on something solid.”

In one of the pamphlets we give to newcomers, the red one titled “We Are,” there is a paragraph that reads, “We uphold the free search for truth.  We will not be bound by a statement of belief.  We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed.  We say ours is a noncreedal religion.  Ours is a free faith.”  I would add that we also uphold the responsible search for truth.  No one here is free to not care, or to give no thought for the complex questions of faith.  We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed, but we do ask that everyone believe something.  Here we are each asked to make an effort to search for the answers to life’s religious questions.  By reason, conscience, and experience, we search out, test, and affirm each for ourselves what is true.

In a world without end,

may it be so

Seven Guiding Tenets
Rev. Douglas Taylor
UUCB
August 22, 2004

If you are new, or if you’ve been around for a while and just haven’t noticed yet, I must tell you – Unitarian Universalism is different from a lot of the religious options out there.  For one thing, we don’t have a creed or central doctrine that everyone must agree to before they can be a part of the congregation.  You are not required to believe in a particular thing to be among us.  What we do have is a set of seven principles that serve as a statement of what brings us together.

And I need your help this morning.  I would like you to turn in your hymnals to the page right before the first hymn.  (If you’re flipping from the front you’ll need to go past the two title pages, the table of contents, the preface and than one more title page.)  I want you to find that page which lists our Seven Principles.  It begins with the line, “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:”  Then you will see what we call our seven principles followed by our six sources.  It is really the top half of that page I’m interested in today: Our principles.

Scott Alexander, a colleague I met down in the Washington D.C. area, once wrote out a list I will share with you entitled “Seven Reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist.”  This is not an attempt to drive anyone away.  It was, of course, just a fun little rhetorical gimmick Scott used to talk about the seven principles.  Sometimes, however, it is enlightening to glance over to the negative version of positive statements to regain a perspective.  So, you may want to follow along with the real seven Principles as I share with you these seven reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist.

You should not be a Unitarian Universalist if you have AN ESSENTIALLY NEGATIVE AND PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF PERSONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR DIGNITY, DECENCY AND WORTH.

Secondly, you should not be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU THINK THE INJUSTICES AND INDIGNITIES OF OUR SOCIETY AND WORLD ARE EITHER INTRACTABLE…OR SOMEONE ELSE’S RESPONSIBILITY.

Thirdly, you should not be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU IMAGINE YOURSELF CAPABLE OF HAVING A FULL AND SATISFYING RELIGIOUS LIFE ALL BY YOURSELF (IN SOME SORT OF SPLENDID SPIRITUAL ISOLATION).

Fourth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU WANT SOMEONE (FROM SOME DOGMATIC, HIERARCHICAL PLACE) TO LAY OUT A COMPLETE, CUT-AND-DRIED, TRUE FOR ALL TIMES AND AGES FAITH SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES YOU TO BLINDLY FOLLOW AND OBEY.

Fifth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU FIND DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO BE A TEDIOUS AND FRUSTRATING WASTE OF TIME.

Sixth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU’RE ONE OF THOSE AMERICANS WHO FEELS THAT WE CAN (AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION) LIVE RESPONSIBLY AND SUCCESSFULLY UPON THIS PLANET BY ISOLATING OURSELVES FROM THE PROBLEMS AND PAINS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE.

Seventh, and lastly, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist if YOU THINK HUMANITY CAN BASICALLY CONTINUE TO LIVE (SANELY AND SUCCESSFULLY) ON THIS FRAGILE PLANET OF OURS, SELFISHLY DISREGARDING THE TENDER BALANCE AND VERY REAL RESOURCE LIMITS OF MOTHER EARTH.

(“7 Reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist” by Scott Alexander, River Road Unitarian Church, Bethesda, MD. Oct. 2000)

Sometimes when we look at the principles of our religion we can think, “Those are so obvious, anyone can agree to those.”  I’ve heard people say our principles sound more like the guidelines for public radio than a religious community.  When we think like that we are forgetting that there really are various other religious perspectives out there that do present a negative, pessimistic view of human nature, or that do suggest you can have a full and satisfying religious life all by yourself, or that do declare the earth to be the dominion of humanity.  There really are other religious perspectives out there that dogmatically and hierarchically lay out a complete, cut-and-dry, true-for-all-time faith system that requires you to blindly follow and obey.  Our principles are not just pretty words, they mark a distinctly different way of doing religion, and they describe what we as Unitarian Universalists cherish.

In our reading this morning, Ed Frost said “a religion needs to be able to say to the world what it is that its adherents believe.”  Unitarian Universalism is not an easy religion to explain to your neighbor, co-worker, or brother-in-law.  It is difficult to encapsulate our complex faith tradition in a few sentences.  And our non-creedalism, our commitment to the individual freedom of religious conscience, is in no small way responsible for a great deal of that difficulty.  How do you say what we all believe when everyone believes different things?  How do you describe the central beliefs of a faith tradition that has no creed or dogma?

Thankfully, about twenty years ago, the Unitarian Universalist Association voted during it’s General Assembly to adopt a very well put together set of principles.  The seven principles do not line out what all Unitarian Universalists believe.  If they did, it would be a creed and we do not have a creed.  Instead, these seven principles serve as guiding statements to help us in our attempts to articulate and understand what our religion is all about.

“We the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association covenant to affirm and promote The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; and Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”

I wonder how many people in the congregation could recite these by heart?  I bet some of the kids would try.  Maybe I should give out prizes to anyone who can recite the seven principles by heart!  The thing is, I’m not sure how long they will last.  This current set were drawn up about 20 years ago because people felt the previous ones were out of step with the times.  In large part it was a group of women in the late 1970’s who started pushing for gender-inclusive language and non-hierarchical concepts.  The previous statement had been a contentious and strenuous exercise to bring the two separate traditions of Unitarianism and Universalism together in 1961.   Apparently it took them twenty years to lay down some of those old issues and notice that the resulting statement was a bit stilted and clunky.

The Seven Principles you have in your hymnal were crafted over the course of a couple of years with the input of whole lot of people.  I think at least one member of this congregation, Ed Ware, was at those General Assemblies when people were debating and amending and voting on these words.

One of the most wonderful aspects of these principles is the way they come together as a whole.  These are more than simply a list of seven things we managed to agree upon.  These seven principles don’t read like something created out of a committee.  This list has both a logical and poetic structure.  The first of the seven, “the inherent worth and dignity of every person,” this radical statement declaring that every individual has an innate worthiness, is in several respects mirrored or balanced by the seventh principle, this remarkable call to honor this deep and varied connectedness we have with all life, “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”  These two, the resounding cheer for individualism and the deeply compelling assertion of our interconnected dependancy, balance each other elegantly.  Historically Unitarianism and, to a slightly lesser degree, Universalism have been very individualistic traditions.  Freedom of the individual conscience in matters of religious belief has long been a guiding tenet of both of the now merged traditions.  And this emphasis is echoed in the first principle.

Interestingly the seven principles seem to move as if along a continuum from the integrity of the individual to interconnectedness of all existence.  The second and third principles speak of values to be used in one-to-one human relations and within our congregations.  The fifth and sixth principles speak of processes and goals for society at large and indeed the world community.  Both sides of this balance reach toward the middle where we find our fourth principle: the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

One colleague, Barbara Wells, suggested in her workbook Articulating Your UU Faith that the seven principles could be visualized as an arch supported by two pillars.  The first and seventh principles serve as the supporting pillars for the other five principles, with the center principle about the search serving as the keystone to the arch.

These principles embody the central guiding tenets that bring us together as a religious community.  Take a look at them again and think about your life.

Looking at these principles, do you hear the message that you are accepted and welcomed?  Do you see the basic worth and dignity within yourself?  Can you see it in others, even when it is deeply hidden or denied?

In thinking about the relationships you are in, is there compassion and equity?  If not, can there be some justice?  What would need to change for to have justice equity and compassion in all your relationships?  What can you change?

How are you doing at accepting other people and encouraging them?  Are there roadblocks that keep you from helping others become the best they can be, and is one of those roadblocks an inability to be truly accepting?  What does it look like to be truly compassionate and accepting?  How does that fit with having justice and equity in your relationships?

Do you exercise your freedom to uncover meaning in your life?  Have you been held back from seeking out truths and meaning that make sense?  Have you held yourself back?  Do you ever find yourself squandering that responsibility to figure some of these important things out?

Have you ever found yourself frustrated with the messy process of democracy?  Do you speak out?  Do you add your voice to the rich patterns of conversation and debate, or do you hold back?

What can you do to promote peace and justice in the world?  Does it help to know that there are a couple of hundred people just in this congregation alone that are doing this work with you?  Has your life and action brought us closer to that goal?

Do you feel the tug on the web when you act for peace and justice?  Can you sense that there is a grand system around you and that your life and love impacts that grand whole in countless ways.  Can you feel your impact along the lines of connectedness?

Do you hear the message that you are accepted and welcomed?  Do you hear the message that your voice and your deeds matter?  Do you hear the message that the gifts you have to offer the world are desperately needed?  Do you hear the message ringing out from these lofty and beautiful principles that were written a generation ago for you?

In a world without end

may it be so.

The Tao of Doubt

by Rev. Douglas Taylor

6-20-04

Unitarian Universalism has got to be about the only religious option that encourages doubt.  Skepticism and Agnosticism are prevalent in our congregations, and are certainly here at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Binghamton.  I see this as a good thing.  Doubt helps us to steer clear of many idolatries.  We do well to have a touch of agnosticism, a dash of doubt, if you will, in all of our religious statements.  After all, “The surest way to lose truth is to pretend you already possesses it.” [Gordon Allport Becoming, p. 17]  I have also heard it said that doubt is the handmaiden of truth.  On the whole, I find many Unitarian Universalists to be “happy agnostics” willing to consider differing perspectives, though a little hesitant to commit entirely to only one perspective, always leaving ample room for doubt.

Unfortunately, our high comfort level with doubt comes off in the eyes of others as a cheap abdication.  It looks like we lack enough conviction to take a stand.  While I strongly argue against this perspective as uninformed at best, I continually bump into it.  I wonder if any of you have experienced this?  “Unitarian Universalism?  That’s not really a religion, right?”

As a religious movement, Unitarian Universalism is constantly pushing itself beyond narrow definitions of religion.  We are perpetually searching for a better way to see and a better to describe what we experience as religious people.  We recognize that revelation is not sealed. We know that insight and growth can and often do come from unexpected quarters.  We are a community of people in the search.  We do not claim to have all the answers and do not demand of anyone to adhere to even a specific set of questions.

Because we are willing to doubt, willing to admit we do not own the corner on religious truth, we find that we are therefore willing to look to other world religions as often (if not more often) as we do to our own Judeo-Christian religious roots or our Unitarian and Universalist forebears.  Of the Eastern religions, certainly Buddhism has made the most inroads into our churches.  Buddhist meditation groups are common and I think there is a national Buddhist-UU group to help any who self-identify that way.  I would like to suggest some interesting connections I have found with another one of the traditional Eastern religions.  I want to consider Taoism, particularly as it relates to the ideas of certainty and doubt.

Lao Tzu is the first teacher of Taoism and the author of the book the Tao Te Ching.  Lao Tzu was supposed to have been born around the 6th century B.C.E.  With the decline of the reigning dynasty, Lao Tzu decided to leave to the uncivilized West.  However, at the frontier the guard demanded that he leave behind all the treasures of China that he may have with him, including his teachings.  So Lao Tzu sat down and scripted over five thousand Chinese characters and left into the wilderness, never to be heard from again.  This teaching he left with the guard has been passed down through the centuries as the Tao Te Ching, the Taoist holy text.

The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching states: “The Tao that can be expressed is not the true Tao.  The name that can be named is not the true name.”  This statement seems to say to me that if I think I know the power that creates, sustains, and transforms my life, I’m probably wrong.  If I think I’ve grasped a corner of what we call the Ground of Being, I am most assuredly mistaken.  This is where that agnostic dash of doubt comes in.  The Tao Te Ching begins with a statement that it is impossible to name or express the Ultimate Reality, the fundamental core experience of life, and yet, this is precisely the effort we undertake in our congregations.

Tao is typically translated as “the way.”  This is not altogether inaccurate, but neither is it a complete rendering of the concept.  A closer interpretation of the word Tao is “a person running along a path.” (Everyday Tao, Deng Ming-Dao. P 2) This translation makes Tao more like a verb than a noun.  This idea echos the way we speak of being on a spiritual journey.  We talk in Unitarian Universalism about being on a faith journey or a spiritual journey.  We sometimes even talk about God as a process, an event that happens, rather than a pseudo-being or thing.

A decidedly more complex interpretation of the Tao  (from Dao De Jing by R. Ames and D. Hall, 2003) says that it is best translated as at least three nuances.  It is “the way” and it is “movement along the way” but it is also “way-making.”  It is a complex concept that almost necessitates a course in Chinese culture before a fair understanding can be formed.

Witness the meeting of two great figures, Confucius and Lao Tzu, in this legendary account:

When Confucius went to Chou, he asked Lao Tzu to instruct him in the rites.  Lao Tzu relied, “… When a gentleman lives in favorable times, he hastens to court in a carriage; but when he lives in unfavorable times, he drifts with the wind.  I have heard it said that a good merchant hides his wealth and gives the appearance of want; if endowed with a rich supply of inward virtue, the superior man has the outward appearance of a fool.  Get rid of that arrogance of yours, all those desires, that self-sufficient air, that overweening zeal; all that is of no use to your true person.  That is all I have to say to you.”  Confucius withdrew and told his disciples, “I know a bird can fly; I know a fish can swim; I know animals can run.  Creatures that run can be caught in nets; those that swim can be caught in wicker traps; those that fly can be hit by arrows.  But the dragon is beyond my knowledge; it ascends into heaven on the clouds and the wind.  Today I have seen Lao Tzu and he is like the dragon!” (Lao Tzu and Taoism, by M. Kaltenmark; p 8)

So even the great Confucius had a difficult time understanding Lao Tzu and the Tao.  I have turned to another great philosopher to aid me in my understanding, one who is a little more current.  I look to Winnie-the-pooh, in the book The Tao of Pooh.  (“The Tao of who, the Tao of Pooh”)  It’s a fun book, and a helpful one, too.

It talks about the way Pooh is in comparison with the other characters in the Winnie-the-pooh stories.  “While Eeyore frets and Piglet hesitates and Rabbit calculates and Owl pontificates, Pooh just is.”  Pooh is effortless and simple.  He just does stuff and it seems to work.  As Piglet once said, “Pooh hasn’t much Brain, but he never comes to any harm.  He does silly things and they turn out right.”

Pooh spends much of his time just being Pooh and not doing anything in particular.  Christopher Robin once asked him “What do you like doing best in the world, Pooh?”

“Well,” said Pooh, “What I like best —” and then he had to stop and think.  Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better that when you were, but he didn’t know what it was called.

The truth is, sometimes there just are no words to describe what is going on.  And yet there are so many books on the topic.  Wittgenstein observed that the limits of our language are the limits of our world.  And yet, as it was written in the passage I offered during the reading: “The most profound levels of life are so enormous, so deep, and so mystical that they are unnamable. When we are dealing with this most difficult and yet most meaningful part of the Tao, we have to accept that there are no words in our dictionary to define our experiences.”  “The Tao that can be put into words is not the true Tao.  The name that can assign fixed reference to things is not the true name.”

Another popular book on the subject of Taoism which recently came out in a 25th anniversary edition, is The Tao of Physics.  Taoism is a philosophy about being in the rhythm of the universe, like Pooh.  To say that Physics is the study of the rhythm of the universe may be a touch more poetic than most textbooks would allow, it is still a fairly close explanation.  The best example of the connection between physics and Taoism is found in the work of Werner Heisenberg.  Heisenberg was the first to formulate that when dealing with a subatomic particle, there will always be a level of uncertainty built into the very nature of the process.  This concept is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  Most scientific process prior to this concept was structured under the presupposition that if you were uncertain about some aspect of your new formula, later scientists would eventually refine the formula into perfection.  Heisenberg said that old notion was all wrong.  There will always be that dash of doubt.  When you study these particles, there is no way to not be involved with them.  If you try to study what is happening, if you try to name what is going on, you participate in what is going on and therefore create uncertainty in the situation.  This is not a flaw in Heisenberg’s formulations, it is the nature of subatomic particles.  It is the nature of life.  It is Tao.  (Capra pp. 140, 158)

Ultimate Reality is a mystery to which we have clues, but will never fully understand. Words are helpful, but they also get in the way.  Heisenberg once said “that every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.”  The natural world and our experiences of it are complex and varied.  We live and move in a complex, multi dimensional world.  Words are like maps that represent our experiences.  And it was Alfred Korzybski who coined the phrase, “the map is not the territory.”  We are like cartographers faced with the task of creating a flat map of a curved earth.  Words can be close approximations at best, never exact representations.

One of the most captivating lines from the Tao of Physics book states, “because our representation of reality is so much easier to grasp than reality itself, we tend to confuse the two and to take our concepts and symbols for reality.” (P 28)  One of the first tenets of Taoism is rid us of that mentality.  Taoist sage, Chang Tzu wrote:

Fishing baskets are employed to catch fish; but when the fish are got, the men forget the baskets; snares are employed to catch hares, but when the hares are got, men forget the snares.  Words are employed to convey ideas; but when the ideas are grasped, men forget the words.”

Words get us there, and words get in the way; but they are all we have.  I firmly assert that anything we can say about the deepest, most profound levels of life must necessarily be filtered through our human language.  As a means of discussing all that is Holy, human words and concepts are hopelessly inadequate.  However, we must try because spiritual growth is important, and it can only be accomplished through dialogue with yourself, with your neighbor, and with your God.  We need words  for this.  After all, “the turtle only gets where it is going by sticking out its neck.” [James B. Conant]

My dilemma is this: if I were to try to articulate what I experience of God, it could only be like trying to catch running water in my bare hands, and then bring it in to the sanctuary to show you what running water is.  I simply do not have a firm enough grasp of how to communicate mystery.  It is not for lack of something to say, it for lack of words to properly articulate the experiences.

The ineffability of the Tao is the first principle of Taoism.  It demands that before we begin talking about this, we admit that there is nothing we can say.  But we are Unitarian Universalists, we like to talk.  We are a verbal and verbose religion.  Witness the fact that I have been standing here talking on and on about how mere words can’t get us there.  Mystery is a cornerstone of my theology, likely that of many UU’s.  Unitarian Universalists are sometimes seen as people without beliefs.  I think it is closer to the truth to say we have beliefs but they are coupled with the realization that mere words too often fail to express the experiences we know.  It seems to me that we are at our best when we recognize that dash of doubt, and admit that there is nothing we can say which can finally nail down any knowledge of Ultimate Reality.  And yet we shall share together what we can of what we know thus far, and trust that we shall continue to understand more tomorrow.

In a world without end,

May it be so.