Unitarian Universalist Association Symbol and Link

* WUU Home
* Minister
* Welcome!
* Religious Education

*
Newsletter 
* Calendar 
*
Contacts   
* Sermon Library
* WUU Choir  
* Bed and Breakfast 
* WUU History 

* Photo Gallery
* WUU Discussion List
* WALT
* Links to other UU Sites
* Live Off Five! Concert Series
* Members Only 

* Ministerial Search

 


WUU Church Address:

3051 Ironbound Road 
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone: (757)220-6830 
Need a Map?

 


What Do Unitarian Universalists Believe?  

 Rev. Dr. Shirley Ranck
10/08/2005

Readings

          William Ellery Channing was minister of the Federal Street Church in Boston from 1803 until his death in 1842.  His sermons set forth the Unitarian theological position of the day, but he is loved and remembered today especially for his eloquent words on the supreme dignity of human nature and his unfailing advocacy of the free mind.  He wrote:
          "I call that mind free which jealously guards its intellectual rights and powers, which does not content itself with a passive or hereditary faith: which opens itself to light whencesoever it may come; which receives new truth as an angel from heaven.  I call that mind free which is not passively framed by outward circumstance, and is not the creature of accidental impulse: which discovers everywhere the radiant signatures of the infinite spirit, and in them finds help to its own spiritual enlargement.  I call that mind free which protects itself against the usurpations of society, and which does not cower to human opinion: which refuses to be the slave or tool of the many or of the few, and guards its empire over itself as nobler than the empire of the world."          Regarding the religious education of children he said:
          "The great end in religious instruction…is not to stamp our minds irresistibly on the young, but to stir up their own; not to make them see with our eyes, but to look inquiringly and steadily with their own."
          The century-long life of Sophia Lyon Fahs spanned the theologies of both the 19th and the 20th centuries.  She was born in China in 1876 and became our leading religious educator and one of the 20th century’s most provocative theologians.  She respected the child’s ability to think, and she offered everyone a broad new definition of what is religious.  She wrote:
         "The religious way is the deep way, the way with a growing perspective and an expanding view.  It is the way that dips into the heart of things, into personal feelings, yearnings and hostilities that so often must be buried and despised and left misunderstood.  The religious way is the way that sees what physical eyes alone fail to see, the intangibles at the heart of every phenomenon.  The religious way is the way that touches universal relationships; that goes high, wide and deep, that expands the feelings of kinship…When such a religious quality of exploration is the goal, any subject, any phenomenon, any thing, animate or inanimate, human or animal, may be the starting point."
          With this greatly widened definition of what is religious, we have become more and more inclusive in our theology.  UU minister Kenneth Patton collected writings from all over the world and from many religions for use in our worship.  He also wrote many beautiful words of his own.  Of the church he wrote:
          “It is a house of freedom, guarding the dignity and worth of every person.  It offers a platform for the free voice, for declaring, both in times of security and danger, the full and undivided conflict of opinion.  It is a house of truth-seeking, where scientists can encourage devotion to their quest, where mystics can abide in a community of searchers.  It is a house of art, adorning its celebrations with melodies and handiworks.”
          In recent years we have emphasized the importance of community as well as the worth of the individual.  Today our ministers often look to our everyday lives for metaphors which can help us articulate our own living tradition.  UU minister Jane Rzepka offers this meditation:
          “Roller World is a typical roller rink that rents foul-smelling skates with fragile laces, and then pounds your ears senseless with hard-driving rock music.  Roller World caters to people with no standards, no taste, and no class.
          “Like my family and myself.
          “I love Roller World.  No one was born to skate, but there we all are, a roomful of unlikely skaters, doing our best.  A few of course are hot shots, whizzing around on one foot, backwards half the time, breezy as you please.  And another bunch, sad to say, is hopeless—their eight little wheels completely ignoring mission control.  But round and round the rest of us go, steady and solid, one foot and then the next, in careful time to the Beastie Boys or Twisted Sister.
          “Folks look pretty darn good out there.  I suppose I do too.  No one knows that if even one word is spoken in my direction, I will lose my concentration and hit the floor hard.  No one realizes that if they come up behind me too fast I will panic and crumble into the wall.  No one can see that this steady skater is so precarious that the act of skating, just skating, takes everything.
          “As we roll around the rink, uncertain of our stride and rhythm, may we yet see the instability of those who surround us.  May we help when we are steady, holding those who falter; may we calm the reckless and urge the timid forward; may we keep gentle company with the skaters at our side.  Let us move with the spirit of love, and may some quiet presence help us with our laces at the end.”

SERMON
          When I was serving the UU Fellowship in Mobile, Alabama, one of our members decided to run for mayor.  When other candidates found out he was a Unitarian, some of them had flyers made up accusing him of not being a Christian and insisting that Mobile needed Christian leadership.  All during the campaign the Fellowship phone rang repeatedly every day with people wanting to know “What do Unitarian Universalists believe?”  The questions came in a variety of forms.  Are you the same as Unity Church?  Are you the 
same as the Moonies?  Do you worship the devil?  Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior?  Are you Buddhists?  What do you teach your children?  Do you use the King James Bible?  What are your doctrines?  Are you a cult?  Are you a New Age group?  If you received those calls here, what answers would you give?
          We are fond of saying that ours is a living tradition; that we are always reinterpreting tradition in light of our personal experience, always growing and changing.  I think we had in those phone calls a most interesting opportunity to look at ourselves and our religious in relation to the wider community.  Here in this city, how shall we interact with citizens whose very religious questions are so different from ours?  
         
During an interim year congregations often hold a mission/vision workshop.  Everyone is invited to spend a day with a facilitator trying to put into words who they are as a congregation and what they stand for.  What is needed is a short, crisp statement that everyone can live with, one they might be willing to put on a wayside pulpit sign outside the church for all the world to see.  When the UU church in Tulsa, Oklahoma went through such a process they came up with a very short one:  Our mission is to civilize Tulsa.  At the mission/vision workshop of the congregation in Olympia, Washington, one young man suggested:  Our mission is to save tots and trees.  That was not their final choice but I thought it said a lot about that congregation. 
          I’ve quoted four of our leading Unitarian Universalist sages today, but we must finally ask ourselves what we think, how we feel, what we believe.  Most importantly we must decide what it is we wish to say to our community.
          This morning I would like to offer you my personal view, what is important to me about Unitarian Universalism and what I think we have to offer to the community.
          I didn’t think I joined this denomination for theological reasons, probably partly because I grew up in a household where a great many  interpretations of religion were discussed.  My reasons for becoming a Unitarian Universalist were theological in a deeper sense, but I didn’t see that right away.
          I grew up in the Episcopal Church.  I went to a liberal Methodist theological school when I was in my twenties and I knew about all the old theological issues.  I didn’t take any of them literally or even very seriously for that matter.  Mostly I considered them quaint relics of past centuries.  Take for example the two issues which were central in the development of Unitarianism and Universalism.
          Historically Unitarians objected to the doctrine of the trinity.  They said it destroyed the one-ness, the unity of God.  So where was I on the question of the trinity?  No problem.  Just three ways of speaking about the divine.  The divine for me never had been a person out in space but rather a power or an ideal of love or justice.  That power could be labeled God, it could dwell within Jesus, or within any of us, and it could be described as a spirit of love among us—and there you have the trinity.  At least that’s how I thought about it.  So much for Unitarian vs. Trinitarian.
          The Universalists of course denounced the concept of hell and maintained that a loving God would save everyone.  So what about hell and heaven for me?  I would have said, come on, be serious.  I was taught by my parents not to believe in these concepts literally.  So heaven and hell to me were just descriptions of life here and now.  I never was able to be more than agnostic about the possibility of an afterlife.  I chose to live as if it didn’t exist.  So much for the issue of universal salvation.
          So I remained an Episcopalian for many years, translating the ancient liturgies into modern concepts gleaned from psychology or sociology.
          I kind of liked Jesus.  He was a man of the people.  Hung out with publicans and sinners, had compassion for prostitutes, held serious conversations with women.  Cared about people.  Liked children.  Broke the rules if he thought it would benefit someone.  I never liked his choosing to be a martyr though.  I always thought that maybe someday I would come to understand it but I never did.
          I loved Christmas, still do.  I can identify with the great event of giving birth, having done it four times myself.  It should be celebrated, because as Sophia Fahs says “Every night a child is born is a holy night.”  
         
Easter was no problem for a bright young psychologist.  We all experience new life when we struggle through some pain or suffering and rise again.
          In short, I had everything neatly psychologized and reinterpreted quite satisfactorily.  Except for that martyrdom issue.
          All along the way though in my adult life I kept bumping into the facts of my position as a woman.  In 1954 I was the only young mother in my neighborhood who was going to graduate school.  At the theological school I was the only woman in most of my classes.  I thought maybe I was odd.  Of course I was officially registered in religious education, but my big problem was how could I justify leaving my baby with a sitter?
          Later on when I decided to break some of society’s rules and conventions, I found that life as a single parent was not acceptable or even  acknowledged as existing in my church.  The women's group met during the day while I was working.  At night there was a men’s group and a couples club.  In the wider community I found that I could not rent an apartment without a male to co-sign the lease.  I could not get credit or buy a car.  There was no day care for my younger children and reliable baby sitters were expensive if available at all.  I was lucky though.  I had stayed in school, first in religious education and then in psychology, so I was able to get a good professional job as a school psychologist.  I was able to get that job because I had insisted upon being an odd ball—a young mother in graduate school.
          I began to read the literature of the women’s movement and I felt as if a huge burden of odd-ballness was lifted from me.  What I had been bumping into was a society not designed to meet my needs as a woman.  And I met other heroic single parent women who were having to start college while working full time as clerks and waitresses and raising the large families so popular in the baby boom years.
          I drifted away from the church.  But I worried that my children were getting a message that religion was not important.  Is it important I wondered?  What had kept me in church so long.  The ideals of love and justice and a community presumable committed to caring about each other and about the oppressions of this world.  I went back to visit the church and for the first time I noticed that little girls were not acolytes, that women were not priests and all the beautiful old liturgies were full of sexist language.
         
It dawned on me that the authoritarian structures of the hierarchy were rooted not in the teachings of Jesus but in the politics of patriarchy.  And just as I was struggling to come to terms with these facts, my church, the Episcopal Church, voted down the ordination of women.  They have since reversed that decision.  They even have a black woman bishop now.  Episcopalians change too.  But at the time it was for me the last straw.  I saw with increasing horror what most of Western religion had done to women, excluding them from power and at the same time calling them to an ethic of martyrdom.  Not because Jesus taught that, but because he did it; and because the churches, composed as they are of human beings, had found it politically expedient to use that ethic to suppress people considered inferior or dangerous throughout history.
          I could perhaps have forgiven my church, recognized its human fallibility and worked within it for change.  But something had happened inside of me.   I realized that my neatly interpreted theology had never really touched the deeper issues of authority, of personal self-worth in the face of overt discrimination, of the psychological unhealthiness of the martyr ethic.  I needed to re-think everything.
          One night at a single parent discussion group we talked about churches and their general lack of acceptance of single parents at that time.  Someone mentioned that the Unitarian Fellowship was fairly open and accepting.  I went there the following Sunday.  They had a lectern there with the symbols of all the major world religions carved into it.  I liked that.  I found a place where there was acceptance and a great variety of religious ideas.  I began the long process of building a new personal theology.
          To express my deepest beliefs and yearnings a theology would have to value women as well as men.  It would have to be democratic in process, and in behavior.  It would have to be inclusive in its language and in its attitudes toward all sorts and conditions of people.  It would have to be caring in its work.  It would have to listen to the sciences and pay attention to what is psychologically healthy.  It would have to respect the earth and its creatures and not be about giving man dominion over anything.
          I’m not unique.  I feel sure that most of you have struggled with some of the same issues.   In the early nineties Newsweek ran a cover story on the return of Americans to religion.  They offered the opinion that Unitarian Universalism was the quintessential religion for the nineties.  I would suggest to you that we have a religion uniquely suited to a democratic and pluralistic society.  It is perhaps no accident that many of the founders and early leaders of this country were Unitarians.  They had faith in the potential of each person to participate in a democratic process.  They had the wisdom to insist on respect for all religions and to prohibit the government from establishing any one religion.  As for dominion, they tried to set up a system of checks and balances on power.
          Of course they had some blind spots.  They neglected to give the vote to women or African Americans or Native Americans, and they didn’t foresee our ecological problems.  But they had faith in us.
          UU minister Clark Olsen has suggested that we Unitarian Universalists look at ourselves from a new perspective.  We often perceive ourselves as a small group of people who tend to think differently from everyone else.  We see ourselves on the far left of the theological spectrum, completely outnumbered by the mainline center and the right wing fundamentalists.  This image makes us feel as if we’re on the periphery of our society and unable to be very effective in the community.
          According to Olsen we could just as well see ourselves at the center of present day society.  There is another spectrum today that ranges from those committed to religious creeds all the way to those multitudes who express no interest at all in religion.  On this spectrum we UUs would be in the center.  “Rather than be bound by creeds, we are committed to openness and tolerance.  Rather than walk away and ignore religious questions—staying home to read the Sunday paper or heading for the golf course—we choose to  wrestle with religious questions.  We could be the prophetic center, catalysts toward a new spiritual foundation for democracy.”
          Olsen points out that we have lots of experience with diversity.  In our recent history “when issues were drawn that might have divided us we have opted for the larger vision: in Christian vs. post-Christian we chose both; in theist vs. humanist we chose both; in church vs. fellowship we chose both.  Our worship combines traditional and informal forms.  Our religious education programs celebrate diversity, yet affirm Unitarian Universalism.  Our principles and purposes are a synthesis looking to the spiritual basis for world community: affirming the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”
          I think Clark Olsen may be right about our being in the center.  We tend to forget about the non-churchgoers and the tolerant and accepting churchgoers in some of the mainline churches.  Whether the image is true or not, I think we might benefit from trying it on.  How would it feel to see ourselves in the center, as catalysts in building a new spiritual foundation for democracy—here in Williamsburg, Virginia?  It might enhance our sense of purpose, give us an overall vision of what we are to do at this time and place in history.  We might see ourselves as helping to define a new spiritual basis for an inclusive, supportive democratic community.  We could create a new religious language; we could engage in public discussion and celebration of values and we could find ways to experience more community, more affirmation and support.  We could see ourselves as taking on a noble task, one with universal implications.





If you have a question about this page, contact webmaster Patsy Wells
To contact the WUUs, send email to our office


© 2005 Williamsburg Unitarian Universalists

Page Modified 010/09/2005