|
| |
How We Left the Fold
A Sermon by the Rev. Douglas A. Taylor
May 21, 2000
Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Bethesda, Maryland
Reading
Excerpts from Theodore Parker's sermon, "The Transient and
the
Permanent in Christianity."
In actual Christianity -- that is, in the
portion of
Christianity which is preached and believed -- there seems to
have been, ever since the time of its earthly founder, two
elements, the one transient, the other permanent. The one is
the thought, the folly, the uncertain wisdom, the theological
notions, the impiety of humanity; the other, the eternal truth
of God. More is generally given to the Transient Christianity
than to the permanent therein.
Now it sometimes happens that people will take
their
philosophy of nature at second hand, and then attempt to
make their observations conform to their theory. Thus some
philosophers refused to look at the Moon through Galileo's
telescope, for, according to their theory of vision, such an
instrument would not aid the sight. Thus, their preconceived
notions stood between them and nature. Now it often
happens that people take their theology thus at second hand,
and distort
the history of the world and human nature besides, to
make
religion conform to their notions. Their theology stands
between them and God.
It must be confessed, with some sorrow, that
the transient
things form a great part of what is commonly taught as
religion. An undue place has often been assigned to forms and
doctrines, while too little stress has been laid on the divine
life
of the soul, love of God, and love to others. Religious forms
may be useful and beautiful. In our present state, some forms
are perhaps necessary. But they are only the accident of
Christianity; not the substance.
The end of Christianity seems to be to make all
persons
one with God as Christ was one with God; to bring them to
such a state of obedience and goodness that we shall think
divine thoughts and feel divine sentiments, and so keep the law
of God by living a life of truth and love. It allows perfect
freedom. It does not demand all people to think alike, but to
think uprightly; not all people to live alike, but to live
holy.
Such, then, is the transient and such the
permanent in
Christianity. What is of absolute value never changes; we
cling round it and grow to it for ever. The question puts
itself
to each soul. "Will you cling to what is perishing, or embrace
what is eternal?" This question each must answer for him or
herself. Choose as you will choose; but weal or woe depend
upon your choice.
Sermon
In our most recent newsletter, which hopefully arrived
at your
homes some time this week, there was an interesting article
from the
Cedar Lane 50th Anniversary Committee. Now I know
that you all
read your church newsletter from cover to cover the minute it
arrives,
but I must allow for visitors this morning and irregular postal
delivery,
and therefore I will read to you the excerpt of what caught my
interest. The article goes as follows:
Suggestions about things we should highlight in our
50th year are
still coming in and still welcome. This one comes from a Cedar
Laner
who has been here more than 40 years:
" . . . There's one subject I'd like to have presented
[the
person writes] . . . The subject is the way in which Cedar
Lane's theology has evolved over the years. When my
husband and I joined in 1958, ours was a humanist
congregation. In 2000, it has become increasingly theistic (as
has the denomination.) This is a sensitive, even controversial,
matter, but I believe it is a very significant part of our
history
that deserves attention as we look back over fifty years."
(Cedar Lane News; Vol. XLVI, No. 37; May 16, 2000).
I think there is more than a hint of accuracy in this
perception.
This church has long been a predominantly Humanist
congregation.
I believe it still is, though arguably a different kind of
Humanism from
the earlier generations. This is not to dismiss the statement
that the
author of the suggestion in the newsletter makes about how we
are
increasingly theistic. While I would very much like to answer
this
question, I lack the length of relationship among you to even
begin to
do so. My topic this morning, which explores some of the early
theological identity shifts in our broader movement, will
perhaps feed
into a better understanding of this congregation's theological
history.
I have seen through the history of our movement a continual
flux in
our theological identity and center. The original Unitarian
forbearers
of the early 1800's identified themselves as Christian of the
Unitarian
variety. Over time our Unitarian way of faith has expanded and
changed to include people who identify themselves as
Transcendentalist, Scientific Theist, Deist, Mystic, Humanist,
Agnostic, Theist, Atheist, Neo-Pagan, Buddhist, Jewish,
Universalist,
and now it seems we are letting the Christians back in again.
On that note, another bit of news I would like to
share, this one
not from our newsletter. Instead, this is a bit of good news
that
comes from the Universalist National Memorial Church downtown.
They have been in the precandidate phase of their ministerial
search
the past few months and have recently selected a candidate. At
this
very hour down in their church they are listening to the
candidating
sermon delivered by the Rev. Scott Wells, the young man from
Georgia who occupied our pulpit at the end of last month. We
had
served as the neutral pulpit for that process. I am sure you
join me in
wishing him and National Memorial Church well on what looks to
be
shaping into a good relationship. If you recall, when the Rev.
Wells
was here, he preached from a passage in the gospel according to
John.
He identifies himself as a Christian Unitarian Universalist.
And
National Memorial is the only Christian UU church in the
greater
Washington area. The Universalists, as a movement, have held
onto
their Christian Identity much longer than did the Unitarians.
And that is basically what I would like to talk about
this morning.
How did we change from a group who had identified itself as
Christian to a group for whom the word Christian is too small a
definition to fit most of us here? How is it that after all
the disputes
over doctrine, after all that happened in the Reformation,
after all the
numerous splits within the various denominations within
Christianity,
all of those groups still call themselves Christians. But the
Unitarians
Universalists do not. We started out as Christian. But
somehow
somewhere along the way, we left the fold.
I'll share a little story with you as we get underway
here. I was
sitting in an adult R.E. class. This was some time back when I
was
considering the idea of entering seminary. We were discussing
a UU
book (Buehrens & Church; Our Chosen Faith, 1989)
that expanded
on our six sources. Our six sources, real quick, are: direct
experience,
words and deeds of prophetic men and women, wisdom from the
world's religions, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Humanist
teachings,
and earth-centered spiritualities. We were in the
Judeo-Christian
heritage chapter that week and one of the reflection questions
that
went around the room was, "Do you consider yourself a
Christian?"
Now, today I would have to answer "No." But back then I was
still
trying to sort everything out. I pondered on just how Jesus of
Nazareth was a part of my beliefs. I saw him as an itinerant
preacher
and teacher (and some say healer) who challenged the
conventional
wisdom of his day. I decided that I agreed with the majority
of his
teachings. I said, "Yes, I consider myself a Christian." That
is when
I was pounced. She was sitting to my right and she looked at
me
down her nose and said, "No! As a UU you can not call yourself
a
Christian!" She had a valid point in that no Christian
denomination
would accept me, and I did not believe in Jesus as my Lord and
Savior. When the others in the room each answered the question
in
turn and it came around to her, she offered a most inconsistent
answer. She who had disallowed my answer came out with this
one:
"I don't consider myself a Christian, but I do consider myself
a
Protestant in the original sense of one who protests
Christianity."
This was my first real encounter with the anger that some
people in
our churches carry toward Christianity.
I want to acknowledge that there are probably some
among us
today who are carrying such anger. I want to also acknowledge
that
there are probably some among us today who consider themselves
Christian. With that now out in the open, I want to focus back
to my
question: How did we change from a group who had identified
itself
as Christian to a group for whom the word Christian is too
small a
definition to fit most of us here?
So I'm going to dive into some history here. I think
it is important
to look first at the beginnings of each movement, both the
Unitarians
and the Universalist, to see what the prime motivation was to
begin to
break away from the established paths. I'll try to keep the
history
lesson brief and painless. Let start with Universalism.
Historically,
Universalism's primary opposition to the Christianity of the
day was
in the theology of salvation. They believed that a loving God
would
not condemn his children to eternal damnation. It didn't fit
to say that
God loves you so much that he is going to punish you with
eternal
damnation for the sins of humanity. The really radical notion
here is
of God as a compassionate and loving father. This notion arose
not
entirely from scripture or from within culture, as had happened
with
other doctrinal changes in the history of Christianity.
Rather, this
notion arose in opposition to the prevalent culture and from
personal
experience. Many of its adherents had heard from other
main-line
churches of that time that God was an angry, vengeful God who
wanted his children to turn from their wicked ways. It was a
relief
for the heart and soul to hear of a loving God who did not
behave in
cruel and hurtful ways. The implications of the Universalists'
belief
system pan out when we press on with a few poignant questions.
If
there is no Hell and God is not a vengeful and punishing God,
what
happens to sin and evil? It is in answering this questions
that all of the
Christian doctrines begin to fall apart because personal
salvation is
right at the heart of Christianity.
Let's see if I can articulate how this worked. It was
Hosea
Ballou, the first theologian of Universalism, who claimed that
"Sin,
rather than being infinite in the sense of original sin
tainting all
humanity, was instead finite. Adam's sin was Adam's alone.
Therefore, if sin is finite and we do not all suffer for the
sins of Adam
and Eve, then there is no need to think of Jesus as having died
for our
sins. Jesus was no longer the central element necessary for
salvation."
(Ballou, Hosea; A Treatise On Atonement, 1805)
Now these early historical shifts are not the moment
when
Universalism finally stopped seeing itself as Christian group.
Jesus
remained an important figure in Universalist churches for quite
some
time. But without Jesus as the central character in the act of
atonement and one's personal salvation, Universalism adherents
began
to look within themselves for the Kingdom of God.
Now the character and function of Jesus was an issue
among the
founders of Unitarianism as well. Let me shift gears and run
through
the same set of questions for Unitarianism. Like the
Universalists, the
Unitarians saw themselves as reforming Christianity back to its
original state. Unlike the Universalists, however, they went
about it
through reasoned study of scripture. Theirs was an effort to
get to the
essence of Christianity. William Ellery Channing, the man
considered
to be the founder of American Unitarianism, outlined in his
founding
sermon entitled "Unitarian Christianity" the radical notions of
Jesus
being exclusively human in nature and of God as one, not three
in one.
He based these doctrinal stances on his own intellectually
vigorous
study of the Bible, finding therein the unity of Jesus and the
unity of
God. He began that sermon with the Biblical quote, "Prove all
things,
hold fast that which is good." (Thes. 1:21) In the body of his
sermon,
Channing wrote, "God gave us rational intellect, we will be
held
accountable for our use of it." (Channing, William;
Unitarian
Christianity, 1819)
The early Unitarians' primary statement of motivation
was "Think
about it!" It doesn't make sense to fit it together the way it
has been
done so far. Think about it. Where as the early
Universalists' primary
statement of motivation was "Can you feel it?" It is God's
overwhelming love for us. Can you feel it?
O.K. Step number two is to look at the implications of
this. What
was the result of this initial identity-forming stance for
Unitarianism?
With an initial statement that "We are the people who apply our
rational intellect to uncover the essential element of
Christianity," it is
not hard to see how that leads to a process of inquiry that
goes deeper
and deeper into religious questioning until we enter the realm
where
boundaries and labels become hindrances.
William Ellery Channing and Theodore Parker both saw
themselves
as Christians. But those Unitarians of the next generations
who
inherited their belief system fought over whether to remain
true to the
truths their founders espoused or the process of uncovering
truth that
they espoused. I read once, and haven't been able to find it
again, a
quote by Channing in which he said (and of course I am
paraphrasing),
"The heresies of yesterday are the doctrines of today, and will
be the
orthodoxies of tomorrow." Channing would not have wanted
Unitarianism to go only as far as he had envisioned it could
go. And
it's a good thing too, because such is the consequences of the
system
he helped establish.
Here again, I will say that this early historical shift
noted so far is
not the moment when Unitarianism finally stopped seeing itself
as
Christian group. But it does pave the way for when it did
come. In
fact, it was within the space of one generation that the
debates began
and a few young radicals Unitarian ministers felt compelled to
question whether or not they could pledge themselves to a
Christian
statement of faith.
So that's it. You've got a general sense now of how we
left the
fold. The Universalist remained committed to a doctrine of a
loving
God and all it's implications. The Unitarians remained
committed to
a process of religious inquiry and all it's implications.
Now then, other than the general rubric that knowledge
is it's own
reward, what use is this information to us today? Well,
because
historical knowledge it is particularly good that you might
have
perspective. It is helpful to be able to recognize the echoes
of earlier
incarnations and the effects they have on the way we operate
today.
There is both an undercurrent of Christianity and an
undercurrent
of resentment toward Christianity in a lot of what we do as a
movement. Whether you come from a Christian background
yourself
or not, Christianity has been a part of this denomination all
along.
And even though we are no longer have an overt Christian
identity,
even though we generally now have a religious humanist
identity,
Christianity is still effecting this movement and not just from
it's
outside pervading cultural pressures. So it is good to have
perspective.
Because therein we will find ourselves better able to
sort out the
permanent and the transient of our way of faith. For "the
question
puts itself to each soul, "will you cling to what is perishing,
or
embrace what is eternal?" This question each must answer for
him or
herself. Choose as you will; but weal or woe depend upon your
choice."
In a world without end,
May it be so
.
Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
9601 Cedar Lane
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4099
Tel: 301-493-8300
Fax: 301-897-5713
e-mail:n cluuc@his.com
Sunday Services at 10:00 a.m.
(one service only throughout the summer)
© 1998-2000, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
The web site is being maintained by
Maury Merkin
and Joe Perry
Last modified: Sun Jun 4 18:17:39 EDT 2000
|
