Today we are going on a snipe hunt. Some of you may have
had this experience during your youth, because the snipe hunt
is a time-honored initiation rite. Toward the beginning of the
camping period, the counselors gather all of the first-time campers
around a bonfire at night. They explain that the activity for
the evening will consist of sending small groups of campers out
into the woods to search for the elusive, nocturnal creature known
as the snipe. The camp counselors take turns describing the appearance
and habits of this rare animal. Actual sightings of this creature
are rare, yet some of the counselors and even a few of the more
experienced campers swear they have caught glimpses of it. Their
accounts of its physical features differ widely, and sometimes
seem to contradict one another. Is it brown or dark gray? Is its
tail short or long? Is it furry or sleek? Timid or aggressive?
Does it live underground or in trees? No one seems sure, but they
all agree that there are snipe out there in the dark woods. Armed
only with flashlights and burlap sacks for retrieving their quarry,
the new campers are sent out into the night. As soon as they are
out of earshot, the counselors and veteran campers burst into
laughter and wait for the confused and demoralized rookies to
return empty-handed. (By the way, the fact that there really is
long-billed bird called a snipe has almost nothing to do with
this ritual hunt.)
The Unitarian Universalist Association has its own unique
ritual for initiating candidates into the ministry. It is called
the Ministerial Fellowship Committee-the MFC. The one-hour interview
with the MFC is the final and most dreaded hurdle in becoming
a UU minister. When I appeared before the MFC in May 1996, 1 approached
the interview with the same perverse self-confidence that had
carried me through my Ph.D. oral exams at the University of Chicago
several years earlier. I said to myself, "If they don't approve
me, they are making a big mistake!" But I also benefited
from some inside advice from a former member of the MFC, who told
me to prepare for the "elevator question." Suppose that
you encounter a friendly stranger in an elevator on the first
floor of a hotel where a UU conference is being held. Noticing
the affiliation on your name tag, he asks, "What do Unitarian
Universalists believe?" while he pushes the button for the
fifth floor. In the time available, how would you answer this
question? What I share with you today originated as my response
to the "elevator question."
It seems to me that we are still searching for our identity
as a movement. What does that search entail? The concept of identity
is central to the work of Erik Erikson, who concluded that
individual identity involved two overlapping processes: who
am I and what am I committed to. The first process
involves integration: pulling the different strands of
one's history and the different and often competing roles each
of us plays into some sort of coherent whole. If a person is unable
to achieve integration, the result is what Erikson calls identity
confusion. It is difficult to answer the second question,
"What am I committed to?" without having first wrestled
with the question, "Who am I?" The combined internal
and external pressure to resolve these two questions can produce
an identity crisis, a kind of paralysis that interferes
with moving ahead in life. I would like to use Erikson's ideas
about identity as a framework for understanding where Unitarian
Universalism is right now and where I think we need to go, while
at the same time acknowledging the limitations in applying his
theory of individual development to a collective movement as diverse
as ours.
One of the ways of resolving an identity crisis is to adopt
what Erikson calls a negative identity, which says in effect,
"I will define myself by opposition to some alternative
identity." Our movement has a long history of defining itself
by opposition: the Unitarians by opposition to the Trinitarian
view of God and the Universalists by opposition to the idea of
eternal damnation for unbelievers. Even today, there is no surer
way to unite Unitarian Universalists than to target a common opponent,
whether it be racists, sexists, gay-bashers, or the religious
right. If you comer most Unitarian Universalists, the odds are
they will be far more articulate about what they don't
believe than what they do believe. But an identity that
is only negative is not adequate. At the individual
level, it is a shaky bridge over troubled waters. Knowing what
you don't believe is not likely to sustain you through
the crises and adversities none of us can avoid. At the collective
level, a negative identity will not support a sustained commitment
to the ongoing work of a congregation. A community of disbelievers
is an oxymoron--a self-contradiction.
It seems to me that a positive identity for contemporary
Unitarian Universalism revolves around three core areas, which
I believe provide the foundation for our identity as a movement:
(1) Regard for Nature (2) Respect for Differences, and (3) Reverence
for Life. At last, a new version of the three R's: regard,
respect, and reverence. Of course, any one of these topics
is worthy of a sermon unto itself. Thus, one final word of caution:
what follows is only a first step. If this were an artistic
creation (which it certainly is not!) this might be considered
an artist's first rough sketch. So, into the woods we go!
(1) Regard for Nature
Ever since the days of Emerson and Thoreau, Unitarians have
professed a profound appreciation for the natural world. Unlike
the deists, for whom nature was revered because it bore the imprint
of the divine creator, contemporary natural. theology regards
nature as inherently sacred. The core metaphor is that
of the organism, which is continually changing through the process
of evolution. Our relationship to the whole of nature and our
sense of interconnectedness is based on both our common origin
and our common evolution, not necessarily on a divine plan imposed
on nature by an external creator God. One of the most systematic
and productive attempts to relate evolutionary science to theological
issues is process philosophy. Process philosophy's emphasis
on the interconnection between events, between the whole and its
parts, is highly compatible with the UU principle concerning "respect
for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a
part." Because it views reality as constantly evolving, process
philosophy also stresses creativity and human responsibility.
Each moment of experience represents a new and unique pattern
of interacting forces, and therefore calls for a novel response.
In process philosophy, God is but one of the many factors influencing
a particular situation. This feature should make it more attractive
to non-theistic Unitarian Universalists. Indeed, it is interesting
to replace the word "God" in process theologians' writings
with the word "evolution." Thus, an alternative to the
biblical assertion that humanity occupies the center of all creation
is the belief that we have co-evolved with the changing
and very specific conditions of the tiny fraction of the universe
called Earth. We have arrived at our place in the cosmic scheme
not through a divine plan hatched before the creation of the universe,
but through the nearly infinite set of accidents and trial-and-error
experiments we call evolution. With our enormous capabilities
for altering the very face of the earth, we are the co-creators
of the future. This does not render us gods and goddesses.
Rather, it makes us partners in evolution.
Process philosophy arises from a scientific understanding
of nature. There are other approaches that draw from so-called
primitive traditions-what might be called the mythical approach
to nature. They remind us that being at home in the universe includes
feelings as well as facts. The current popularity of neo-pagan,
Native American, and other earth-based traditions among Unitarian
Universalists illustrates the yearning for expressions of spirituality
that are not limited to Western rational thinking. This is not
the time or place to plunge into the disagreements between the
humanists and paganists within our denomination. The revival of
interest in ancient myths and legends serves as a counterbalance
to the sterility and repetitiousness of everyday life for so many
of our contemporaries. How appealing are stories about our relationship
to the forces of nature that are pre-scientific, even magical!
Indeed, most of the celebrators of ancient myth and ritual do
so in a playful spirit--a suspension of disbelief.
However, one of the greatest dangers of the mythical approach
is misappropriation, by which I mean the superficial acquisition
of a spiritual belief or practice without taking the time to learn
about the cultural context from which it emerged.
The scientific and mythical approaches to nature are not
mutually exclusive, despite the claims of extremists on both sides.
Even though they offer very different ways of discovering and
validating our relationship with the natural world, both rely
heavily on metaphor and analogy for describing it. Consider, for
example, the use of metaphors like "Big Bang" and "charmed
quarks" in modem physics. Science and myth begin and end
on common ground. As Albert Einstein once said, "The religion
of the future will be a cosmic religion. Covering both the natural
and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising
from the experience of all things, as a meaningful unity."
Whether it is expressed by a scientist or a mystic, that core
experience continues to be one of mystery and wonder, a sentiment
often expressed by the world's greatest scientists.
(2)Respect for differences
The difference between the scientific and mythical views
of nature is perhaps the best example of our struggle with the
issue of pluralism. We want to be inclusive, but we also
want to be cohesive. The danger we face as a movement, in Eriksonian
terms, is identity diffusion, being so overwhelmed by alternative
identities that we cannot choose among them. Our whole society
faces this dilemma, as we are exposed to an ever-expanding variety
of worldviews. One of the most enlightening discussions of religious
pluralism I have found is in Diana Eck's book, Encountering
God, published by Beacon Press. Eck argues that pluralism
is more than just the "celebration" of diversity; it
involves active engagement. Pluralism involves not just tolerance,
but the seeking of mutual understanding. In a statement particularly
relevant to Unitarian Universalists, she maintains that pluralism
is not simply relativism, which "becomes a problem when it
means the lack of commitment to any particular community or faith.
If everything is more or less true, I do not give my heart to
anything in particular. . . . The theological task, and the task
of a pluralist society, is to create the space and the means for
the encounter of commitments, not to neutralize all commitments."
(p. 195) Pluralism is based not on syncretism, the search for
the "lowest common denominator" pieced together from
different religious traditions, but rather on respect for the
differences as well as similarities among them. Pluralism requires
dialogue. This is as applicable to the conflicts between humanists
and paganists within Unitarian Universalism as it is to the conflicts
between Jews and Moslems in the Middle East. Diana Eck writes:
The truth seeking of the pluralist, however, can be built
on no other foundation than the give-and-take of dialogue. There
is something we must know--both about the other and about ourselves--that
can be found in no other way. We do not enter into dialogue with
the dreamy hope that we will all agree, for the truth is we probably
will not. We do not enter into dialogue to produce an agreement,
but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premised
upon mutual understanding, not upon agreement. (p. 197)
The spirit of dialogue with mutual respect was very much
in evidence during the discussion of the proposed name change
yesterday in Charlotte. Opponents listened and responded respectfully
to one another. After the final vote was announced, there were
no cheers, no high-fives, and no walk-outs. After a period of
quiet meditation, we stood, joined hands, and sang "Spirit
of Life" in unison. The quiet sense of pride and comfort
in being a Unitarian Universalist brought tears to many of our
eyes. We had neither ignored nor abolished our differences. We
had simply transcended them. Even though we did not share
a common opinion, we shared a common identity.
The discussion of pluralism leads me to the third and final
theme: Reverence for Life, which addresses the ethical
component of our identity. Unitarian Universalism has a long tradition
of translating words into deeds. How might the foregoing discussion
of process philosophy and religious pluralism be applied in the
realm of social justice? Frederic John Muir, minister of the Annapolis
UU Church, tackles this question in his book, A Reason for
Hope. Muir's goal is to develop a Unitarian Universalist
version of liberation theology. Liberation theology originated
in the poor Roman Catholic parishes of Latin America. Its main
ideas have also been applied to other historically oppressed groups,
including people of color, women, and religiously persecuted groups
around the world. One of its most important themes is "the
preferential option for the poor," which means, within a
Christian context, that God identifies with and therefore "prefers"
the poor and oppressed people of the world. According to liberation
theology, God's choice to become incarnate in Jesus, an unprivileged
member of an oppressed ethnic group, the Jews, is evidence of
this preference. Of course, many UU's object strenuously to a
conceptualization of God as a personal being who "take sides"
in human history. Muir and others argue that the concept of reverence
for life, rather than a personalized external deity, provides
the foundation for a Unitarian Universalist theology of liberation.
Such a social ethic is human-centered (anthropocentric) and earth-centered
(eco-centric) rather than God-centered (theocentric). It is based
on our respect for nature and our reverence for life. Where does
evil fit in this ethic? While evil continues as an active force
in human history, I view it primarily in terms of absence--the
absence of a capacity for empathy. People who are capable of intentionally
inflicting absence--the absence of a capacity for empathy.
People who are capable of intentionally inflicting suffering on
others are incapable of compassion for their victims. The homicidal
sociopaths roaming our streets and highways are filled with anger
unchecked by any reverence for life itself.
The Unitarian Universalist identity I have outlined here
challenges some of the sacred cows of our own tradition. The complementarity
between the scientific and mythical views of nature challenges
our over-reliance on rationality as a tool for understanding and
expressing our relationship to nature. The emphasis on pluralistic
dialogue between opposed viewpoints is aimed at relationship
building rather than the kind of argumentation so dear to
some UU's. And finally, social action is based not on a patronizing
"do-gooder" attitude but on the long-term survival
of our home the earth.
Meanwhile, back at the youth camp, the snipe hunters have
returned to the campfire. Their bags are empty, but they are full
of stories about near-encounters with their elusive quarry. With
eyes gleaming, they tell of strange and sometimes frightening
encounters in the night--with animals, with the darkness, and
with other snipe hunters. In the glow of the dying campfire, their
stories evoke the knowing glances of their more experienced companions.
A new generation of snipe hunters has been welcomed into the circle.
CLOSING WORDS
The blessing of truth be upon us,
the power of love direct us and sustain us,
and may the peace of this community preserve our doing out and our coming in, from this time forward, until we meet again. [Amen]
- Duke T. Gray
[Revised version of "In Search of a UU Theology"] TJMC 4/27/97
New River/Blacksburg 8110/97
(1) From Kenneth W. Collier, Our Seven Principles in Story
and Verse [pp. 1-21
1 have been a Unitarian Universalist for more than fifteen
years. Visitors and new members to my congregation often ask,
"What do Unitarian Universalists believe?" , . . All
too often I hear [the reply], "Well, I don't know what I
do believe, but I certainly do not believe . . ."--you
can fill in the blank with your favorite non-belief. We think
it is enough to be negative without ever being positive. Not only
is this a terrible way to define or even characterize something,
but, far worse, it is an incredibly effective way of being stuck
in rejection and denial and preventing spiritual growth. If it
is true that we do not stand for anything or ... that we can believe
anything we want, Unitarian Universalists would be just another
bunch of confused people milling around without center or edges
or substance. And if we can do no better than tell people what
we do not believe, then none of us would discover the beauty and
integrity of who we are.
(2) From Albert Einstein
In one of his letters, Einstein wrote, "I am a deeply
religious unbeliever." Elsewhere he wrote, "As to what
I believe in, I believe in the brotherhood of men [sic] and the
uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what
I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you would spend
a whole life time without being able to prove them. The mind can
proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes
a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but
can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved
such a leap. ... The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but
be in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of
life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one
tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.
Never lose a holy curiosity."
[quoted in Raymond J. Baughan, If The
Shoe Fits, pp.39-401
(3) "We Gather in Reverence" by Sophia Lyon Fahs
We gather in reverence before the wonder of life--
The wonder of this moment
The wonder of being together, so close yet so far apart--
Each hidden in our own secret chamber,
Each listening, each trying to speak--
Yet none fully understanding, none fully understood.
We gather in reverence before all intangible things--
That eyes see not, nor ears can detect--
That hands can never touch,
That space cannot hold,
And time cannot measure.
After earning a Ph.D. in Psychology of Religion at the University of Chicago, Reverend Piper spent nearly 25 years as a college professor and administrator. In 1996 he completed the transition to the UU ministry. He is currently full-time extension minister at the UU Fellowship of Waynesboro, VA.