Who We Are

I usually begin my sermons with an explanation of how the topic came to be the subject of our worship service and that’s probably not a bad place to start. First of all, having just returned from the December session this is my thrice-a-year post-Humanist Institute sermon. Our topic this session was Contemporary Culture and that as you can imagine gave us plenty to talk about and me plenty to think about. Additionally, two things happened recently that caused me to think a bit more critically about something that has long been a source of consternation. I am going to bet some of you struggle with it too. First, I’ll share with you the two situations.

Last month during a congregational response to one of Gregory’s sermons, a woman stated emphatically that she would be very uncomfortable in a church that had recently been recommended to her by Christian missionaries. I noticed what may very well have been a subconscious reaction, but physically detectable nonetheless. Several people cringed. I mean their shoulders tightened, bodies stiffened and I saw one facial expression that looked decidedly uncomfortable. Now it’s entirely possible this last individual was simply hungry, it was getting rather close to lunchtime, but I don’t really think that was it. What I think might have been happening, and I qualify it with a maybe because my mind reading skills are a bit rusty, was a reaction to what was perceived to be intolerance on the part of this woman towards the other church.

Not too many weeks prior to this, someone shared with me a concern that I might be exhibiting intolerance in the pulpit when I relayed a conversation I had with Mormon missionaries in the context of a sermon. I can see why some might have found the anecdote uncomfortable because it was delivered in a light-hearted manner and included some of my less than totally reverent thoughts. I think it should be noted, however, that the actual exchange with the missionaries was itself light-hearted and the version I shared with the congregation, including my thoughts, was absolutely authentic. Perhaps its authenticity is what generated the squirm factor.

Some might consider it unseemly for a minister to share such thoughts with others, but I don’t think so. I cannot in good conscience stand up here and tell you that I give deep and serious consideration to everything a missionary tells me at my front door. Perhaps more shocking, I do not give every religious belief the same amount of respect as I do others. And neither should you. That may seem counterintuitive given our principles, especially the first three affirming that all persons have inherent worth and dignity, acceptance of one another, and a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

What about the woman who said she would be extremely uncomfortable in another church? I imagine she might have generated clearly audible gasps if she’d said she would be extremely uncomfortable in a mosque or a temple. It’s always a bit tricky to generalize about UUs, but it may be fairly safe to say we have a tendency to extend a bit more tolerance to minority religions in our society than we do to majority ones. We also extend a bit more tolerance to liberal denominations within faiths than we do to conservative branches. If someone said they attended a service at Calvary Chapel and felt sullied we might nod and silently agree, but if someone attended a UCC church or a Reform synagogue and reported they felt icky throughout the service, we might question whether or not this individual was a truly tolerant person.

Many UUs find it unseemly to criticize other religions but that relativistic stance is irresponsible. All religions, including ours, should be open to challenge without fear of being considered intolerant. Tolerance does not mean unquestioning acceptance. We cannot engage in a responsible search for truth and meaning if we regard all beliefs as having equivalent validity. They must be examined both internally and in dialogue to weigh their relevance and consequence. This process does generate feelings of discomfort and at times true distress.

One of the ideas that permeated our discussions at the Humanist Institute, whether we were talking about racism, feminism, environmentalism, etc. was postmodernism. Now I’ve tried to grasp what postmodernism is all about in the past and even attempted to explain it to my son. It’s not easy. I was grateful to be able to explore it with my faculty mentor and fellow students because it provided me with an insight into Unitarian Universalism. Without launching into another sermon devoted to explaining postmodernism, I’m going to simply focus on the idea that it challenges the validity of metanarrative, offers criticism from the margins and casts a light on power differentials. Heady stuff, isn’t it?

What in the world is a metanarrative? It literally means “big story” and is basically a story that explains everything that happens in society. According to the advocates of postmodernism, metanarratives are stories that are told in order to legitimise various versions of "the truth."

Sociology.org says, “Sociological perspectives such as Marxism and Feminism are examples of what post-modernists call metanarratives, precisely because they attempt to account for all aspects of a society in terms of the perspective and the various theories it proposes. Outside of sociology / social science, various political and economic metanarratives could be noted. The concepts of "Capitalism", for example, or "Communism" and "Fascism" are examples of metanarratives, as are things like "Religion" and, probably most controversially, "Science" (and, in particular, the "Big Science" that argues, ultimately, all of the Laws governing the behaviour of matter in the universe can be discovered and, eventually, related to a single, unified, Law).

Whether they realize it or not, I think most UUs are predisposed to reject broad explanations that ignore the glorious intricacies of the systemic nature of society. Our congregations are examples of this when we recognize our differences and, with compassion, acknowledge one another’s equal worth without having to have the same beliefs. As we all know, this isn’t easy. Creating a safe holding environment for people with not only different beliefs, but also conflicting and directly opposed beliefs is extremely difficult. Feelings are going to be hurt. I have had UUs tell me I cannot be an effective pastor if I am not a theist. I have had UUs tell me I cannot be an authentic humanist if I perform a Christian wedding ceremony.

I have to weigh these statements and decide if I am going to be offended or use them as an opportunity for both personal growth through reflection and relational growth through dialogue. I have to say I am arguing for the posture of the benefit of the doubt. If we are going to have a caring community than we have to assume the best of motives from our fellow congregants.

Unitarian Universalism is criticism from the margins. Stemming from two historically heretical sects that may go without saying, but we challenge metanarratives when we advocate from the perspective of the powerless—when we engage in social justice and give voice to those whose voices are being drowned out by the powerful. We are far from immune to the institutional nature of oppression however. I believe our denomination is still struggling with the effects of Black Empowerment Controversy that occurred from approximately 1967-1970. By and large most of us do realize our society favors the Christian, the white, and the male. If you’re still not sure about living in a Caucasian patriarchy I recommend you spend a bit of time perusing our advertising. The female body is looking more and more male with every passing year and black bodies are looking more and more white.

We know there are many stories that explain society and the world we live in, not one grand narrative that explains everything to every one. Knowing it doesn’t make it automatic in practice. Susan Bordo could have been speaking about me and for me in her book Unbearable Weight. I know all of the photos in print advertising are touched up and I know the skinny models are ruining their health. That doesn’t stop me from wanting to have flawless skin and shed ten or fifteen pounds. Acknowledging the existence of local narratives does not mean they all hold equal standing in terms of morality, ethics or truth. No one will ever convince me that honor killings should be legally defensible because of their cultural and religious basis. Yes, I saw that argument in the newspaper over the Thanksgiving holidays.

So if we are rejecting the idea of grand narrative, but also accepting that not all petit narratives are equally valid, who are we? I entitled my sermon “Who We Are: Tolerance with Boundaries” very carefully. We are tolerant, but we are also discriminating. We must be or we are not being responsible. We have to be honest and admit that most of us would be rather uncomfortable sitting through some types of worship services. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who would be decidedly uncomfortable sitting through our service no matter how warm and welcoming we are as individual people and a community.

I know there are UUs and potential UUs who yearn for a higher spiritual content in our services. There is something comforting in the routine of a ritual that removes us from our daily concerns. But I also think this may be an unrealistic expectation because of Who We Are. Very few UU services are going to generate a transcendant religious experience. That is more easily accomplished in a congregation governed by a grand narrative rather than a beautiful mosaic of petit narratives.

Dr. Walter Fluker is the executive director of the Leadership Center at Morehouse College and a Christian. I like his definition of spirituality and think it applies very well to who we are. He says, “Spirituality is also a discipline that places emphasis on practice—spirituality is something that we do. …Spirituality demands you cultivate and nourish a sense of self that recognizes the interrelatedness of life or a sense of community. A sense of community refers to the larger extended ecological sphere made tangible by nature, defined as the universe and the cosmos, but in its final essense is spirit. He notes that for Robert M. Franklin, spirituality refers to a Person’s sense of identity in relation to other people and that which is conceived as ultimate concern…Spiritual health is reflected in a person’s ability to trust and care for others.” (Fluker, p. 39)

That is our challenge as Unitarian Universalists. It isn’t the worship service that defines who we are, we all know that some Sundays are better than others and no two people are going to rank our services in the same order of personal import. If you are looking for a spiritual experience you’re going to find it, not sitting here listening to someone else speak, but relating to the people here. The most spiritual moments I have had at UUCB have been holding someone’s hand who was lying in a hospital bed, listening to the kids wrestle with a topic during a religious education class, marching in a Martin Luther King day parade, sharing food with others at a Circle Dinner, and yes, cleaning up trash along Minton Road because I did it walking alongside someone I didn’t know very well and she shared her story with me.

So don’t be afraid to disagree, be disagreed with, offend, be offended, laugh, cry, sing, pray, dance. Be authentic and there you will find transcendence. Peace be with you.

Who We Are

Ann Fuller, December 2009

Cited Resources

Our Vision is to cultivate a sanctuary for diverse beliefs, committed to providing peace and love, personal spiritual growth, and service to the larger community.