"Are We a Religion, and If So, What Are We Gonna Do About It?"
Guest sermon delivered by
Beth Lefever
Unitarian Universalist Church of Muncie
Sunday, April 6, 2008

The class was liberal religion, and was more theoretical than practical, thus of a bit less interest to me than, say, preaching, or pastoral care, or methods of social justice. But the professor got my attention right away when he said, in his opening lecture, that Unitarian Universalism was not really a religion. Apparently he got the attention of a number of us, because in our next class, having read our emails of protest, he revisited the issue, as he – and we -- did periodically throughout the course.

It's not like we haven't heard it before. Most of us have been hearing the accusation that we are not really a religion, which usually comes hand in hand with the one that says we "don't really believe in anything" for as long as we've been involved in a Unitarian Universalist church – or fellowship or society. (Could our hesitation to call ourselves a church be part of the problem?)

We are used to either ignoring the comment, or defending it if we have the time, interest, and energy, and if we have given it enough thought to do so competently. And it does require some thought because, although we are most assuredly a religion, we are complex and hard to explain.

As we should be! As all religion should be! When you consider the ineffable nature of the subject matter, how could it be otherwise?

To answer the question, is Unitarian Universalism a religion, one must consider the definition of the word "religion." This, too, is not an easy matter. From what I can determine, there are about as many definitions of religion as there are scholars and theologians.

Perhaps the most personally appealing definition I came across in my delving is one put forth by Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician and philosopher who died in 1947. He said, "Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real, and yet waiting to be realized; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest."

Though Whitehead does not specify God in his definition of religion, he does mention God in his discussion of worship. He said, "The worship of God is not a rule of safety – it is an adventure of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable."

Whether or not we embrace the concept of God, (and I will hereafter be using the term God in the broadest possible context) what better could capture the specific, and yet elusive nature of the Great Mystery of life and meaning than Whitehead's definitions?

And what better could speak to the drive for communion with that great elusive Mystery than a religion that nurtures and nourishes the seeking, without (and this is important) in any way binding or limiting that which is sought, and which, by its essence, simply cannot be bound or limited?

Is there a religion that does this better than Unitarian Universalism? Not that I'm aware of. I know of no other religion that defines the sacred – or at least pathways and sources to the sacred – as broadly as does our tradition. I know of no other religion that elevates the search as thoroughly, and expands it as inclusively, as does Unitarian Universalism.

Some religions may come close. Because I view communion with the sacred, however we define sacred, as a highly personal experience, the eastern traditions which guide practitioners toward personal enlightenment largely through meditation techniques, may do so relatively purely.

But though individuals within these traditions may occasionally achieve some semblance of communion with the Infinite, the tradition itself is limited to its own methodology and scope of belief. While every religious tradition is, by reason of the infinite nature of that with which it deals, necessarily similarly limited, UUism is less so.

UUism is less limited because it very intentionally draws on all of the major faith traditions, including the eastern traditions, as well as on secular resources, personal experience, sense and reason, to nourish the countless, boundless, realms of the spiritual journey.

This inclusive, and yet individual, approach really authenticates UUism as a religion. For how could a religion that draws on many religions be less than that which it draws upon? And how can a personal relationship with God be forged without uplifting the individual nature of the search, as UUism does so insistently.

This individual nature of the search for, and experience of, the sacred has been uplifted by religious scholars through the ages. Nineteenth century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote, "...I must direct you to your own selves. You must apprehend a living movement. You must know how to listen to yourselves before your own consciousness." And in referring to what he called, "The Whole," he said, "...it is the first contact of the universal life with an individual."

Contemporary French scholar Luc Ferry believes that not only should the seeking be an individual endeavor, but -- that for which the individual seeks lies within her own being. Ferry writes: "...if the divine is not of a material order, if its 'existence' is not in space and time, it is in the hearts of human beings that it must... be situated, as well as in those kinds of transcendence that they perceive in themselves, as both belonging to them and always escaping them."

Whether the divine is within the individual or without, or, as I believe, both within and without, humans are relatively consistently drawn to search for it, and religions are ever attempting to facilitate that search.

The problems in how most religions respond, however, are that they attempt to make it a corporate rather than an individual search, and more, they attempt to make the Infinite small enough to be understood. They do this by definition and creed, formulations and truth claims, giving lip service, perhaps, to the unknowable nature of the sacred while still attempting to make it knowable – and similarly knowable – to every individual.

Unitarian Universalism's far broader and more individual approach better keeps the boundless and personal nature of the Infinite intact. Thus, it is truer to the nature of the Mystery. Thus it is a very true religion.

Some might say that our approach is so expansive as to dilute the nature of the religious experience, making it less a religion than others.
While that seems akin to saying that the parent of five children is a lesser parent than the parent of one, let us assume that it might be true.
Is it a greater concern than the concern of limiting the limitless, binding the boundless, trying to make God – or Spirit, or the Great Mystery – so small as to fit into any one, or only one, religion?

Not to my way of thinking. Were I to err, I would prefer to err on the side of an expansive spirituality than a small one.

And yet –

And yet, it is true that there are some both within and outside our tradition, and all along the peripheries, who simply do not find enough spiritual depth within our religious movement.

We hear it voiced, on occasion, within our churches, or by those who, though drawn to us, come occasionally without ever really immersing themselves in our faith. We hear it voiced in our seminary classrooms. We hear it intoned right alongside the commentary of those who would argue, shuddering at the implications, against a more directed or specific faith practice in our churches.

It is my perception that the argument for greater depth or focus within UUism is coming more from younger members than older. If this is so, it may be the product of an increasingly consumeristic society in which cultural meaning emanates more and more from accumulating material possessions, and in which acquiring ever bigger homes results in family members becoming increasingly isolated, often with their technological gadgets of choice at hand. It may be the product of an increasingly technological society that draws us in from outdoors and away from the nurture of nature and a rich and regular communion with lawn and beach and earth and breeze and the scent of ozone in the air after a warm summer shower. Young people who have had less experience with a pre-commodification culture, and less time becoming rooted in outdoors earth experience may be particularly hurting from that lack, and so, searching more frantically for substantive depth.

But while it may be a more common complaint of the young, it is not only the young who seek spiritual depth.

Part of that longing has to do with the failure of religions, including, even, Unitarian Universalism, to adequately enough lift up the okayness, indeed the "rightness" of not knowing. Religions have so sought to ascribe definition to meaning, that they have failed to effectively and joyously proclaim the unknowable nature of the Mystery; the joy that resides in not knowing, the joy of living in the question. Religion has failed to celebrate the fact that we don't know, can't know, maybe even shouldn't know; that it's okay, and perhaps even preferable not to know.

Our joy should be in the vastness of all things possible, which would be diminished – is diminished – when we attempt to constrain the Infinite via the concrete.

This is where UUism outshines other faith traditions.

While imperfect in this regard, it seems to be the only religion that attempts to worship in this broad fashion of uncertain potentiality. It is the only religion I know that builds its tradition around the fact that the Infinite is unknowable, and delightfully so, but that the coming together for the journey toward further understanding is a rich and rewarding trek; or, as UU minister Richard Grigg says, "a humble walk suspended above the Mysterious Depth."

Grigg, in his book entitled To Re-Enchant the World: A Philosophy of Unitarian Universalism, uses the metaphor of a many-sided polygon to illustrate the transcendent nature of our inclusive spirituality.

He explains that a one hundred-sided polygon, symbolizing the countless spiritual perspectives of UUism would be almost indistinguishable from a circle. And that the more sides, or spiritual perspectives, added to the polygon, the more circle-like (or infinite) the polygon becomes.

He writes "...the more spiritual perspectives we encounter and in which we can participate, the closer we approach genuine spiritual wholeness without ever perfectly reaching that state. "Many-sidedness – in other words, pluralism – points us in the general direction of the consummation of the spiritual quest, consummation as an ever-unattainable but eminently worthy goal."

Indeed. How can any religious approach exceed that in the stretching reach toward the Infinite?

Is Unitarian Universalism a religion? Absolutely.

It is a religion whose expansive nature is, in and of itself, more in keeping than most with the expansive nature of the Infinite – surely a holy way of being religious. It is a religion which flows freely rather than pins down, which wonders rather than knows, which lives vibrantly in the question rather than sedately in the answer. It is a religion that prefers hoisting sails onto uncertain seas rather than anchoring in safe harbors, and in so doing, gives Infinite Mystery its powerful due. And purely speaking, giving Infinite Mystery its due is at the core of every religion.

But right alongside saluting the Great Mystery, in defining authentic religion, is serving the creation of the Great Mystery. And few who know us could doubt Unitarian Universalism's commitment to service.

From the beginning, Unitarian Universalists have been on the front lines of countless social justice efforts, including prison, healthcare, and educational reform, campaign reform, environmental efforts and civil rights endeavors, as well as caring for the poor and working for peace. Love is the spirit of our church, and service is its law.

So, yes. In the two most definitive aspects of what I believe constitute a religion -- that is, service and an expansive approach to the ever wondrous and infinite Mystery, Unitarian Universalism is a religion; maybe the religion among religions.

So what are we gonna do about it?

That's a tougher, more challenging question. It involves both keeping on and beginning brand new, in ways that aren't always easy.

We need to keep on with what we do so well even when it's hard and we are tired – as it so often is, and we so often are. We need to keep on living our spiritual lives, personally and socially, in accordance with the Seven Principles which so succinctly and powerfully inform our mission, our ministry and our unique liberal faith.

We need to keep on affirming and promoting:

We need to keep on living our principles; they are comprehensive, culturally astute and spiritually rich. We need to keep on marshaling our energy and determination to bring these principles to the broader community and make them part of the global landscape. We need to keep on teaching them by word and deed to our children, our friends, our families and neighbors.

But more than keeping on, we need to do something brand new, something distinctly uncomfortable for Unitarian Universalists, and something I've discussed with you before.

We need to get UUism out there in the world, and bring the world into our churches. We need to become more assertive in sharing our tradition, more aggressive in soliciting others into the fold, more intentional about putting ourselves, as Unitarian Universalists, out there.

We need to do this for other seekers who have not yet found an acceptable route for their own compelling spiritual journeys, and who long to do so. But more, we need to do it for a bruised and hurting world so in need of our tolerant ministrations, our wise discourse, and our firm but gentle guidance.

We are a prophetic religion, the likes of which could set the world on its misguided ear, and effect dramatic change -- were we to become more broadly known.

That is the task I believe we must be about.

William F. Schulz says, "Too often in this world, religion has been the agent of division and fear. Unitarian Universalism seeks to heal a fractured world and the broken lives within it by calling every one of us to the best that is in us. Beyond nationalism and ethnic prejudice, beyond materialism and greed, beyond the petty and the shallow – we invoke a global loyalty, an ecological ethic, and a deeper mercy. In the last analysis, our UU mission and the faith that sustains it are clear and straightforward: We would treat the wounds of a narrow spirit with the salve of a generous heart. How better than that to eradicate fear?" he says. "How better than that to honor life's mysteries?"