What's in a WordThis monthly fact-sheet explores today’s meaning and significance of some important religious words from the Christian tradition. These are words that UUs sometimes find hard to understand and/or accept. However, when reexamined they often turn out to be less difficult and perhaps even intriguing. ~Al M. The topic of the afterlife curiously supplies an instance of close agreement between UUism and Christianity. Many UUs and most Christians agree that human life continues after death but are not sure what this life consists of, where it is or what (if any) kind of activity it involves. For all this uncertainty, UUs with some of their current roots in Native spirituality and New Age thinking seem to have a better intellectual grasp of this phenomenon than traditional Christians. For example, the current 1995 catechism of the Roman Catholic Church contains no entries for immortality, eternal life, everlasting life or afterlife. Jesus himself mentioned eternal life but provided no details. Hence the Christian church officially maintains an agnostic we-don’t-know attitude when questioned about the details of the afterlife, although it does not question its existence. On its face this attitude is somewhat paradoxical since one of the prime objectives of the Christian faithful is to gain entry into eternal life, a goal about which even its founder would say or maybe even knew very little. The Bible and other major religious texts are of little help since most of what they contain is metaphoric or highly speculative. So what do we really know about the afterlife? We typically have no direct personal evidence of the afterlife while we are alive. After death, people usually don’t return to tell us about it. The words typically and usually are used in the previous two sentences because some individuals, such as seers, mystics, mediums and shamans, do claim to have experiences of the afterlife before their deaths or to be able to return in other forms after their deaths to communicate with the rest of us about what they have found out. It is difficult to verify these occurrences and most have to be taken on faith if they appear to be genuine and believable. Some individuals claim to have had near-death experiences and to have returned with information about how the afterlife appeared to them in the brief time they experienced it. The information provided by these sources is not especially illuminating. For example, mystics of various traditions speak about being “bathed in love” on their trips to heaven, being absorbed in a “great light” when encountering the divine or “becoming one with the universe” as they merge with the infinite during meditations. Individuals who communicate with the dead will describe most of them as “happy,” “full of joy” and in “constant motion” as they travel about in spiritual bodies trying to help all of the rest of us with our daily trials. (They also say that some of the dead are still “troubled,” but that is a subject for another column.) All of this data, while interesting and possibly reassuring, still provides us with little detail. In the end, fortunately or unfortunately, we are left with the poets, the only ones who provide glimpses of what our afterlife might be like, not in the matter of detail, but in the process of experience. Witness Wordworth in his Intimations of Immortality: Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! No 12: AngelsThe belief in angels, or guardian spirits, has lately come back into fashion, even apparently for some Unitarian Universalists. According to a recent Gallop Poll, as many as sixty- eight percent of individuals surveyed who expressed some attraction to spiritual concepts said they believed in the existence of angels. In addition, such polls have also found that such believers are generally young and well educated. Further evidence of the current growth of such beliefs are a growing popular literature on angels (one recent book has a bibliography of twenty-five titles) and the increasing presence of angels in movies and on the stage (for example, Tony Kushner’s epic, Angels in America ) . What can account for the growth of such a belief in this so-called secular age? Angels, after all, have always been viewed as God’s representatives or messengers. If God — or belief in a supreme being — is dead or tenuous, how can individuals then rationalize a belief in spiritual beings who supposedly emanate from the divine? Could it be that even secular individuals still long for a divine presence in their lives and that angels, who are perceived as friendly, helpful and attractive, thus exert a strong appeal? Whatever the reasons for the current upsurge in the popularity of angels, it doesn’t completely square with the track record of angels in the past. Historically, although angels have always been prominent in the religions of ancient Egypt , Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they have typically been presented as both good and evil (for instance, Jesus and his angels vs. the Devil and his angels), friendly and terrifying (the Angel Gabriel vs. the Angel of Death), as both supportive and destructive (guardian angels vs. the warrior angels of the apocalypse). In our current fascination with the cult of angels, however, the evil or destructive side of angels has been almost totally suppressed, and they are usually viewed as harmless, nurturing and supportive beings who wish nothing but good for humankind. Could this change in perspective represent the emergence of an intense desire on our part to view the workings of the divine in our lives as always beneficial and never threatening or vengeful? If so, the ancient God of Wrath has been completely whitewashed, and we are left helpless in explaining life’s disasters, threats and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (to quote Shakespeare) that daily assail us. What then is a UU to make of angels today? A superstition? A wish fulfillment? A childish survival of our infantile past? Or are they instead intimations of immortality, as the poet Wordsworth noted long ago, that creep into our daily crises and peep and tug at us from behind the shutters of our minds? No final judgment is possible yet, of course, but the puzzling question remains.
No 17: CommunionThis word has undergone significant changes in Christian usage. UUs, however, use the word communion in much the same way it was originally used in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, which is to signify sharing one’s life, belief, hopes with others in order to participate fully in joint activities in order to build fellowship and a common experience. The well-known UU flower communion is an example of the way modern UUs attempt to symbolize this activity by incorporating it into a type of religious rite. Christian churches also originally used the word in this sense, but over the years it became narrowed to signify being in or taking communion with a particular sect or denomination. In other words, the concept developed into a test of membership or belief instead of a simple acknowledgement of commonality. The original concept of communion was hardened into a religious test by Christian churches because of its association over the years with doctrinal struggles over the meaning and significance of what came to be known as the Lord’s Supper, or the religious reenactment of the final meal Jesus had with his disciples. In fact, as time went on the notions of communion and the sacred meal became synonymous in Christian churches. In this way communion became not a simple act of sharing but a rigidly prescribed rite that allowed no deviation. Emerson’s final break with traditional Christianity occurred because of his disapproval of the ways in which the concept of communion had, in his view, become debased by conservative Christian doctrine. It is interesting to note that because the efforts of Emerson and others in UU history have helped to preserve the original essence of communion, Christian churches are now trying to restore this quality to their church lives as they seek to broaden their appeal and their genuine understanding of their own traditions. It is intriguing to note that despite Emerson’s disapproval, UUs may have something to learn from the more traditional Christian notions of communion mentioned above. As we have seen, for better or worse in traditional Christianity communion has become all about eating. It’s true that the word is used in such settings to describe supper at the Lords table, but the Christian idea of eating with the Lord is much richer than this description might indicate. Although the actual religious reenactment of the Lord’s Supper can appear plain and somber, the actual Christian ideal of eating at the Lord’s table is joyous and implies happiness, complete satisfaction, and, above all, feasting. Therefore, the notion of communion as eating with (and feeding) one another also functions as a wonderful metaphor for a way to grow and enrich human intimacy and relationships. It is a Christian metaphor that UUs, with their love of culinary delights, could easily adopt to fill out their own current concepts of communion. No 19: DemonsThe subject of demonology is largely unknown in UUism today and, when mentioned, is usually dismissed as a primitive artifact of the Dark Ages when the world was ruled by superstition and magic. However, demonology was alive and well in the early ages of the Christian tradition and is a prominent feature of the New Testament. In classical Greece before the advent of Christianity, a demon signified an inferior deity, whether good or bad. The term meant a knowing one. However, in the New Testament, the meaning was changed to signify an evil spirit, usually mistranslated in the English Bible as a devil or devils. In the New Testament the term is usually used to denote an inferior pagan diety or spiritual agent active in all idolatry. The idol itself was seen as nothing, according to these writers, but every idol had a demon associated with it who disseminated errors among people and sought to seduce believers into abandoning the true faith (in this case, Christianity). Demons also were believed to afflict humans with bodily disease, unclean thoughts and spiritual possession, in which they actually took control of an individual’s body, thoughts, behavior and sometimes entire personality. These spiritual enemies, acting under the command of Satan (the prince of demons), were both male and female and differed in degrees of wickedness. According to the New Testament writers, such demons had the single goal of making war against God and his Christ so that in the end Satan and not God could rule all humankind and the world. There are numerous recorded instances in the New Testament in which Jesus strikes back at demons and Satan by curing unfortunate individuals of disease, possession and madness. Strangely, Jesus’ adversaries in Judaism accused him of being possessed by demons because of his startling ability to effect such cures. His famous retort was to say that if Satan casts out Satan then his House cannot stand. What is a modern UU to make of such bizarre sounding world views? Of course the popular media (the film The Exorcist comes quickly to mind) has capitalized on such notions for decades, as have The Lord of the Ring stories in book and film. But for those of us steeped in the scientific, naturalistic and rationalistic world views of Western society, these efforts of popular culture are seen as mere fantasy and/or entertainment, definitely not something to be taken seriously. Consequently, versions of human existence (like the Bible) that seriously promote the existence and activities of demons are seen as either pernicious or laughable. Nevertheless, Christian theologians have of late developed a broader and more nuanced approach to this issue. They now stress that the intent of stories like those in the Bible that describe demons and their activities are not meant to frighten or intimidate readers, but are instead dramatizations that illustrate the persistence and prominence of certain types of radical evil in the world despite our best efforts to combat and eliminate it. In addition, these authors say that such stories also try to highlight ways in which this evil could be either controlled or rendered harmless, such as by harnessing both divine and human action to confront, challenge and drive out these evil influences so afflicted individuals can then follow the Way or, in secular terms, develop fully and happily according to their true potential. Seen in this light, demonology thus becomes a wake-up call to all of us because it shows us the possibility that a shadow world we thought had long disappeared may still be around and may still require our attention before it bites us when we are least expecting it! No 27 ExorcismThe notion of exorcism, or the act of expelling through ritual and incantation an evil spirit or spirits who “possess” another person, is an idea that most UUs and religious liberals today find quaint and antiquated. The assumption is that modern medical science long ago disposed of such concepts and now views sickness, strange behavior, visions and mental aberrations as symptoms of physical disease, mental illness or mistaken beliefs, and not as evidence of diabolical action. Hence exorcism, once esteemed in traditional Christianity, is now generally viewed as mistaken, unnecessary, and a relic of past superstitions. However, popular culture, especially as evidenced by movies and gothic fiction, remains fascinated by the idea of exorcism. In these versions, exorcism seems to represent themes that point to an alternate and unsettling version of reality. Even some contemporary religious writers such as M. Scott Peck have lately revived the idea of exorcism and now see it as a valid approach in cases where individuals actually do seem to be possessed by unexplainable evil forces, which modern medicine and psychiatry seem powerless to treat. he Roman Catholic Church still trains certain priests to use exorcism on special occasions, where conventional treatment repeatedly fails and individuals seem to have no other alternative. Buddhism, earth-based religions and native traditions still encourage the practice of exorcism. It has even been noted that today the “practice of exorcism in one form or another is more prevalent the world over than is the practice of medicine”(Dean, Psychiatry & Mysticism,1975, p. 235). Given the current attention being given to exorcism, perhaps some reevaluation of the phenomenon is in order. The practice of exorcism has existed in most societies from ancient times. According to Josephus, King Solomon was famous as an exorcist, “a skill which expels demons (and) which is a science useful and sanative to men.” We know from the New Testament that Jesus achieved great local renown as an exorcist, although this fact is often obscured by applying the label of “miracles” to all his interventions, thus serving to sanitize his practices. It should be noted that although Jesus effected many significant cures through exorcism during his ministry, some of his attempts did go awry. Matthew relates that when Jesus was expelling demons from two men in the district of Gadara, the demons asked to be sent into a large herd of swine feeding nearby. When Jesus did so, the herd “went rushing down the bluff into the sea and were drowned.” The shocked swineherds tending the flock “took to their heels” and told the nearby townsfolk what happened. “The upshot was that the entire town came out to meet Jesus” and “begged him to leave their neighborhood.” Jesus, despite his successful exorcism, was not exactly a big hit in Gadara that day! What are we to make of reported instances of possession and exorcism today? Are these merely reoccurrences of outdated beliefs and superstitions, better explained away by employing current scientific procedures and modern medicine? Or are they instead, as Jesus and his followers saw such occurrences, evidence of a breaking through of divine power to control and eliminate the evil that seems to possess so much of the world and its inhabitants today? There is no easy answer to such questions, and such phenomena are actually not easily explained away. Perhaps it is best to simply accept, as did the great anthropologist Sir James G. Frazer, author of The Golden Bough (1922), that such events are like “primaeval rock rising from a smooth-shaven lawn” and represent deep seated forces that reside in our natures, our world, and our universe that we cannot completely comprehend but which we must respect and reflect upon in order to better appreciate life.
No 7: FaithToday we hear much about “people of faith,” “faith-based initiatives,” “statements of faith.” With this in mind, it is interesting to note that the word faith is used only twice in the entire Old Testament. In contrast, in the New Testament faith is used hundreds of times. Does this mean that the Old Testament de-emphasizes faith, while the New Testament is preoccupied with it? It all depends on what one means by faith! Faith has been variously defined as 1) belief in a higher power; 2) the acceptance of statements as real or true which are not supported by factual evidence; 3) in Christian terms, belief in Jesus Christ; 4) loyalty to a person; 5) fidelity to a promise; 6) confidence in the word or assurances of another. In the Old Testament, faith is most often seen as the community’s response to an all-powerful and loving deity (definition #1). In this sense, the whole of the Old Testament can be viewed as a definition by example of the meaning of faith, hence the lack of explicit use of the word itself. In the New Testament, faith appears to conceived more in terms of definitions #3 and #5 above. These understandings of the word compel the New Testament writers to use the word faith constantly because of their preoccupation with defending their new-found faith (subsequently viewed as a body of doctrine) against external attacks and internal divisions. UUs appear to stress definition # 2 as their primary understanding of faith. This is the definition that appears most acceptable to the scientific community. It is also a definition favored by St. Paul, who defined faith as “belief in the evidence of what is unseen.” This understanding perhaps overly stresses the non-rational aspect of faith; it should be emphasized that all faith does rest upon evidence. The evidence that supports faith is not factual but experiential. Various sources have been cited as providing such experiences, such as loving relationships, imagination, intuition, inspiration, revelation, personal loss and emotional trauma. UUs seem to view the experience of loving relationships as a prime source of faith, in contrast to some Christians (like Roman Catholics) who view their “deposit of faith” as a source of faith apart from their experience of others (who may or may not be loving). In this way, UUs may run the risk at times of dropping their faith if they do not experience the love they are expecting, since their faith is so completely identified with the quality of human relationships they experience. Blaise Pascal, the 17th Century French scientist, philosopher and religious seeker, once proposed a wager: Live as if God exists. If he (or she) does, you will be rewarded in the next life. If God does not exist and there is no next life, you will have lost nothing and will have gained a good reputation. Either way, you win. This basis for faith is not favored in the Bible or by most religious or spiritual thinkers. Nevertheless, it’s probably the most practical basis for faith we can ever have.
No 1: GraceHistorically in Christian usage, the word grace referred to the unmerited favor bestowed on humans by a loving God. It is a word that once provided the subject of much theological conflict, but which can now be employed with less diffi-culty to better understand our relationship with God or what-ever we choose to call our Ultimate Principal in life. As Peter Fransen points out, “grace…is a created gift which brings (us) an inner strength, a lifting urge, a yearning for God.” For those who feel no attraction to the concept of “God,” we can say that grace is a force implanted within us that impels us toward the Divine. How is grace implanted in us? That’s a question that theologians have puzzled about for centuries. The traditional Christian position is that grace is implanted by Baptism, but how about those of us (such as most UUs) who don’t recognize official Baptism as necessary or important? To meet this objection, Catholics sometimes speak of a “Baptism of Desire,” meaning that those of us who seek earnestly seek the truth, and the divine will come to its realization simply because this is what we sincerely desire with all our heart. On their part, Protestants might say that grace is basically something born within us through hope, not through a church ceremony. Whatever the emphasis, it is clear that grace is now increasingly viewed in Christian circles not as a state or status, but as an inclination, a force leading us toward the holy that takes root in our inner beings because, ultimately, it is not we who seek God or the Divine, but it is God or the Divine who seeks us out of love and compassion. Fransen quotes two famous aphorisms by St. Augustine. In the first, God says to us: Because you have loved me you have made me lovable. In the second, we say to God: You have made us and turned us toward you and our heart finds no peace until it rests in you. In both of these statements, God or the Divine is viewed as a kind of “ultimate ground” of our being that forever calls us to oneness with its power, ultimately the power of love. Understood in this way, the word “Grace” need not be a source of contention or disapproval. Rather it is instead a perception, an inclination, a ready means with which we constantly try to plumb our continuing relationship with those forces for good that surround our daily lives and in which, as has been said, we “live, move, and have our being.”
No 5: HeavenTo most UUs, the Christian doctrine of heaven seems rather forbidding. For example, would you want to go to a place without a known location, that no one seems to know anything definite about, where there doesn’t seem to be much to do, where not only food and drink but also coffee, muffins and sex don’t exist, and a place from which no one ever returns? Doesn’t sound too appealing, yet believe it or not, many Christians are just dying to go there. What is the reason for this odd fascination? Why do some Christians spend their entire lives working to get into a place like this? To be with their loved ones? Maybe, but there are few people (maybe none) one would want to spend eternity with. That’s a long time, after all. What would there be to talk about after, let’s say, a billion years? Or is the goal of getting to heaven to be with Jesus? If it is, what would he have to talk about? We’ve already read what he has to say in the New Testament, so do we really want to hear that over and over again? Other religious traditions besides Christianity face the same questions but answer them more creatively. In some faiths, Islam for example, paradise is beautifully and graphically depicted as a sensual feast in which the blessed are treated to gorgeous gardens, sparkling fountains, fine clothing, wine, food and a plentiful supply of dark-eyed female virgins (although I’m guessing this feature is for the male blessed only). That’s something to die for! One would have to agree that Christian portrayals of heaven pale by comparison. As a matter of fact, other than Jesus’ oft-quoted line in the New Testament about heaven containing many mansions for believers, the Bible contains very little description of what heaven might actually look like or be like. The familiar depictions of harps, golden streets, heavenly choirs, clouds, pearly gates and St. Peter mostly derive not from the Bible but from later mythology and the works of popular poets. Indeed, the New Testament pays more attention to the idea that the blessed will gain, not something called heaven, but eternal life once they pass away. This state of existence (which is sometimes depicted as starting now rather than beyond the grave) brings the blessed into union with God in some kind of eternal, throbbing, continuously flowing river of love and goodness that in time will encompass the whole world. In this version, popular with mystics and saints, paradise ceases to be a “place” “up above” and becomes instead an adventure both within the self and with others in a divine process of constant growth, caring and fascination. Although I suppose one could call this a kind of American Plan heaven (i.e., continuous quality improvement, etc.), it is also an image that can have a certain compelling quality, even for UUs, and to be something not only to actively participate in, but also to die for.
No 8: HellToday, in most conventional Christian churches, it is considered in poor taste to dwell on the subject of hell. It is true that some religious zealots still speak of fire, brimstone and the tortures of hell, but for the most part this kind of talk is now viewed as idle chatter by ordinary Christians. Indeed, most of us today hardly give the religious idea of hell a serious thought. This situation is rather amazing considering the fact that, at least until the 17th Century, thoughts of hell and ways to avoid its punishments preoccupied much of the time of our religious ancestors. It is interesting to note that, following what has been called the “decline of hell,” the idea of heaven also suffered a loss of prestige and importance. If no eternal punishments were to be incurred for bad behavior, why be concerned about future rewards for virtue? It would seem much better, and more certain, to seek for and enjoy the rewards of virtue here and now rather than wait for some kind of “pie in the sky when you die, by and by.” Despite all this, the idea of hell lingers on. What, some people ask, will become of deterrence for evil deeds if the concept of eternal punishment disappears? And what becomes of the great evildoers of history, such as the Borgias, Stalin and Hitler? Will they never be punished? Where is the justice in that? To meet the need for an updated concept of hell, therefore, some religious authorities and philosophers have tried to redefine it in ways that make an understanding of hell more accurate and palatable, less repellant. For example, the Roman Catholic Church now describes it as a “state” of existence after death which is characterized by the individual’s “definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” (Probably a clear definition, but what would Dante think of that statement?) Others have developed a more this-worldly social definition. Civil War general William T. Sherman declared that “war is hell.” The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre states that hell is “other people.” Other thinkers have focused the extensive public opprobrium and rejection that is visited upon great evildoers in this life when they transgress the bounds of common human decency, a kind of “hell” of social isolation.
No 20: Holy SpiritOn the flip side of this debate, many observers have commented on the “living hells” of poor housing, drug abuse, crumbling schools and poverty to which individuals are consigned, sometimes through victimization by the social conditions in which they live because of mistakes or intentional exclusion by the wider society in which the rest of us live. Be that as it may, it is clear that the idea of hell is still around despite efforts over the years to get rid of it. It seems to fill a need, so it reappears over and over in different guises. Oh well, what the hell! U U s may have lost something by their rejection of Trinitarian doctrine. In particular, they have by now lost all consciousness of the “family drama” that is incorporated in the doctrine of the Trinity, which its focus on the relationships between the loving father (God), dutiful son (Jesus) and supportive, mothering presence (Holy Spirit). The doctrine of the Trinity, admittedly, is somewhat confusing, especially since it does not represent three gods, but different aspects of the one God; that is, each aspect of the Trinity is considered to be equally God, but each is understood in Christian terminology as a different manifestation of God in human consciousness. Simple to say? Sure. Easy to comprehend? No way. The Holy Spirit is probably the least easy aspect of the Trinity to figure out. It doesn’t help matters that for years, because of a mistranslation, it was referred to as the Holy Ghost in English, spawning no end of jokes. Representations of the Holy Spirit in Christian art are likewise confusing. It is at times shown as a dove, as a beam of sunlight or as a tongue of fire. Descriptions in Christian literature are likewise diverse. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is described as a person, at other times as breath or as a force, a driving wind, an irresistible power, a whisper, a comforter, a blessing, a nurturer, a yearning, a mother and as life itself. According to the Book of Job, “When God withdraws his spirit, all flesh dies.” Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned prominently in the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the letters of St. Paul, its importance faded from view in Christian history in the West (although Eastern Christian churches have always preserved a strong interest in the Holy Spirit). After the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the Sixteenth Century, the emergence of Protestantism, with its emphasis on the individual soul’s direct confrontation with the divine without mediation of church or priest, brought renewed attention to the action of grace upon the individual soul and his or her redemption in the eyes of God. Since grace, or divine love, has always been viewed as a property of the Holy Spirit, this person of the Trinity began to receive renewed attention and devotion, first in Protestant (especially evangelical) circles and finally in the Roman Catholic Church itself. The late Pope John Paul II proclaimed himself a disciple of the Holy Spirit and recommended special devotion to encouraging its work in the world. UUs today do grant special attention to the notion of spirit. However, the term often is equated with abstractions such as truth, beauty, and goodness, and the divine element present in the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems to be lacking. Perhaps a possible improvement might be to try to recover the playful emphasis once accorded the term by Christian mystics, who gave it a universal religious yet not specifically sectarian meaning. Referring to the work of the spirit, Meister Eckhart (a Thirteenth Century mystic) says, “Sometimes I feel such a sweetness in my soul that I forget everything else—and myself too—and dissolve in thee. But when I try to catch it perfectly, O Lord, thou takest it away…If you love me, why do you run away? Ah, Lord, you do this because you want me to have a lot of experience with you!” A UU mystic, Ralph Waldo Emerson, expressed similar thoughts in his Journals: “Far the best part…of every mind is not that which he knows, but that which hovers in gleams, suggestions, tantalizing, unpossessed, before him. His firm recorded knowledge soon loses all interest for him. But this dancing chorus of thoughts and hopes is the quarry of his future, is his possibility, and teaches him that his man’s life is of a ridiculous brevity and meanness …but that vast revolutions, migrations, and gyres on gyres in the celestial societies invite him.” No 5: JudgmentAll religious traditions, including the Christian, insist people are responsible and accountable in some way for their thoughts and actions. In general, modern UUs have abandoned their forebears’ ideas of a coming Day of Judgment in which all are to be held to account by a deity or supernatural beings and sent either to heaven or hell. Instead, while UUs agree that judgment day is “a-comin’” for each of us, they see it in social and not mythological terms. In fact, regarding judgment, many Christians today appear to agree with the UU version. With the decline in belief in a literal and physical hell and heaven, most liberally-inclined religious people in the west tend to see judgment at or after death as the opinion of survivors about the deceased person rather than as any kind of final supernatural verdict. In Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, for example, Scrooge experiences true remorse for his hardhearted ways when (thanks to the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come) he overhears the opinions others express about him just after his death. That is the judgment he most fears, not some kind of divine condemnation. Another factor that now diminishes the idea of judgment in liberal religious circles is the growing view (courtesy of the Universalists) that God is too loving to ever condemn anyone to eternal punishment but instead wants all to come to heaven. As a famous church leader once remarked: “Hell exists, but there is no one in it.” This view, however — with its implication that people like Attila the Hun, Jack the Ripper, Hitler and Stalin will not burn in hell for all eternity but will instead be standing among all the rest of us behind the pearly gates — makes many other people uncomfortable. Consequently, more conservative religious traditions in Judaism, Christianity and Islam still emphasize a literal reward and punishment scenario at the time of death, because it seems more in tune with the idea of just desserts for both good and dastardly deeds. Even religious liberals like UUs, who do not fear a harsh judgment experience at or after death, are not above wishing it upon other people they are not crazy about! Therefore, the idea of final, divine judgment will not go away soon, because even though it seems excessive at times, it ultimately seems fair to many people and indicates that even in these chaotic times the “divine policeman in the sky” is still in charge. No 24 Judgement - mark 2 If there is any word in the Christian vocabulary which most causes a shudder in the typical UU, it is probably the word, Judgment (especially if it is capitalized). Most UUs have long ago driven the word in its religious sense from their minds, since it seems to signify exclusion, intolerance and domination. The ancient image of Christ sitting on the judgment seat, prominent in such cathedrals as Chartres or in Michelangelo’s famous portrayal of the Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel, only confirms the notion that the idea of final judgment in Christianity symbolizes the diminishment of humans in the face of an implacable, angry and unforgiving God. Even more repulsive to UUs is the notion that God is some kind of celestial bookkeeper, constantly adding up sins and good deeds so he can gleefully separate the sheep from the goats on the Last Day. Truly not ideas that any UU can relish. It is the Universalist solution that most appeals to UUs: in the final judgment all are saved, so everybody wins. In this approach, since all win (and all get prizes), judgment is shown to be unimportant and therefore eliminated because it is irrelevant. Q.E.D. However, eliminating judgment, though a feel-good solution, raises problems of its own. For example, there is the Adolf Hitler Problem; in the all-win scheme it doesn’t matter if one tortures and slaughters thousands of innocent victims, because the mass murderer is saved along with everyone else. Since no questions are asked, why be good? Inherent dignity of all living things? Who cares? Why not rape and pillage to your heart’s content because you are guaranteed a ticket to happiness no matter what you do? The UU answer to this dilemma has generally been to do away with the idea of an afterlife. So no judgment, no afterlife, no rewards or punishments, no big deal. However, this approach still doesn’t eliminate the Adolf Hitler Problem. Instead, it merely avoids the idea of consequences for bad behavior, which makes most of us uncomfortable. Somehow, the concept of just desserts seems more fitting. So typically UUs, secular humanists, agnostics and atheists, along with all the rest of us, are reluctantly driven back once more to the idea of judgment. Only this time it’s the judgment of humankind, or public opinion. In other words, we feel that it is necessary to be, or at least to seem, good because we don’t want to suffer the rejection and censure of our peers, neighbors, family, fellow church members, etc. So in the final analysis, judgment becomes identified with social acceptance and respectability. This eliminates the Adolf Hitler Problem. However, this solution doesn’t feel very satisfactory either. If being good is equated with respectability, what about the Con Man/Woman Problem—people who pretend to be good but really aren’t? Or the Unjustly Accused Problem— people who appear to be bad but really aren’t? If judgment is only social, what about unjust judgments? There are always legal remedies, but the courts make mistakes too! Now we find ourselves not only driven back to the idea of judgment, but also once again considering the idea of divine or supernatural judgment, or judgment that does not rely strictly on human powers (which, because limited, may be wrong or misguided). So once more we find ourselves inescapably in religious territory when considering the idea of final judgment on human behavior. Amazingly it seems the Christian solution (that final judgment belongs to God and not to humans) may actually be worth reconsidering! In fact, though it’s a galling thought to religious liberals, it is possible the traditional idea of judgment (maybe minus its medieval trappings) may even have some real value!
No 16: MiraclesThe term miracle has been used for thousands of years in Christianity and other world religions to describe events in which individuals have experienced God’s direct intervention in human history. UUs do not typically use the word today, except in the sense of occurrences which indicate unexpected good fortune. Beyond that, we secular moderns remain skeptical about claims of the miraculous. Sow us irrefutable evidence a miracle has occurred, we say, yet even if such evidence is shown,, we hesitate. I can’t explain it now, we then say, but I believe someday science will reveal the answer. Other cultures, past and present, are not as hesitant as we Westerners. Native peoples or members of less secular cultures readily admire the miraculous because they believe in an order of existence not apparent to ordinary eyes and experience. We tend to chuckle that such credulity represents gullibility, superstition, lack of understanding or reasonability. To other peoples, however, our lack of regard for the miraculous indicates shallowness, spiritual blindness and infatuation with the material and superficial aspects of reality. UUs might be interested to know that two founders of Unitarianism in this country, William Ellery Channing and Ralph Waldo Emerson, believed strongly in miracles. Channing, for example, in a spirited defense of the Christian religion against the skepticism of the Scottish philosopher David Hume, stated that the disposition to discredit miracles was itself irrational. He explained that if a belief in supernatural works has occurred under circumstances most unfavorable to the operation of credulity (e.g., as in our modern secular, scientific culture) we all must look for other causes, and if none can be found but the actual existence of the miracles, then true philosophy binds us to believe in them. For his part, Emerson saw miracles everywhere in life, especially in nature and in art. His words are a fitting tribute to the everyday power of the miraculous and a caution against any hasty rejection of all non-scientific and otherworldly explanations of strange events: There is truly but one miracle, the perpetual fact of Being and Becoming, the Ceaseless saliency, the transit from the Vast to the particular, which miracle, one and the same, has for its most universal name the word God. Take one or two or three steps where you will, from any fact in Nature or Art, and you come out full on this fact; as you may penetrate the forest in any direction and go straight on, you will come to the sea. No: 18 The PoorChristianity is sometimes denounced as an otherworldly religion which focuses on pie in the sky and ignores the needs of the here-and-now. UUism itself developed in part as a reaction against such perceived tendencies in Christianity. But in many ways such jibes are unfair. Christianity has always also focused on meeting the needs of the marginalized and despised in society, the poor in all their variety and wretchedness. References to the poor, the suffering and the rejected occur throughout the New Testament, and Jesus makes it clear that unless his followers minister to and mingle with such individuals they will never join him in either an earthly or heavenly Paradise . Who are the poor that the Bible constantly refers to? Initially, the phrase referred primarily to widows and orphans, of which there were many in the early days of constant warring with aggressive neighbors. Later the term was extended to include those of low estate such as tradespeople, strangers (or foreigners), subsistence farmers and livestock tenders who were oppressed by wealthy landowners. Jesus expanded the category of the poor even more to include the hungry, the sick, the sorrowful, those in mourning, the persecuted (such as those of other faiths) and the despised (such as lepers, prisoners, the physically handicapped, tax collectors, prostitutes, thieves, robbers and even rebels and murderers). All such individuals, Jesus stressed, require compassion and caring from his followers. In one famous passage in the New Testament he forgives a repentant thief being crucified with him on and promises him immediate entrance to Paradise . UUs are no slackers when it comes to caring about and tending to the needs of the poor in all categories. However, it is sometimes forgotten that this intense concern for the less fortunate originated not with Emerson and Channing but from the basic tenets of Judaism as transmitted through the life and works of Jesus and, subsequently, the mission of the early Apostolic Church itself. Indeed, a preferential option for the poor (as the Catholic Church calls it) constitutes the core belief that all Christians are adjured to hold and act upon constantly in their daily lives. According to the New Testament, it is the standard by which they are to be judged and measured throughout their earthly sojourn. Only by honoring it, according to St. Paul , can they be said to be truly Christian. UUs, among others, have historically been helpful in expanding such sentiments to include not only individual responsibility but also the responsibility of the entire society to serve as a medium for the implementation of the values and goals of social justice. This is the message of the so-called Social Gospel. In this way the values and ideals once stressed by the prophets and Jesus have the potential to convert not just individuals but entire communities and societies to the ideals of love and service to others, and especially to the poor, despised and rejected.
No 4: ProvidenceThis word was especially troublesome to our UU forebears because it carries connotations about God’s Divine Plan, God’s foreknowledge, predestination and our eternal destiny. To Channing, a UU founder, the doctrine of providence represented one of the “thorny points” of Calvinism that he wished to overthrow. Today, however, few people seem to be concerned about the doctrine, let alone to be thinking about overthrowing it. The idea that God has somehow planned everything that will ever happen, knows what’s going to happen, has control over what will happen and will reward or punish us according to how we fulfill his plan—all this now seems largely beside the point. As moderns, we tend to assume that it isn’t God who’s in charge, it’s us, or fate, the stars, accident, nature, love, “life”, the “force” or some other personal or impersonal process. But definitely not God! Still, it appears the old religious debates on this subject have not died but just assumed new forms. For instance, today conservatives (and some liberals) place a lot of value on “personal responsibility.” This is an echo of old religious debates in which people like Channing urged the view that individuals have the capacity to choose, plan and thus take responsibility for their actions, and are not simply robots mindlessly responding to some god’s plans and control. Also today, liberals (and some conservatives) express the view that not the individual but society should be held responsible for individual decisions and actions. After all, they urge, it is society that has conditioned individuals to respond in certain ways, ways that may often be violent and unjust, but ways to which the individual sees no alternative because of upbringing or lack of opportunities. This reflects the older view that it is an outside power, such as God, an international conspiracy, racism, greed, evil, the devil, etc. that is really in charge and conditions everything that we do. So the old questions about providence still pose many dilemmas, even though we continue to deny the doctrine. Are we in control or aren’t we? Do we really have choices? Is our destiny actually all worked out no matter what we do? Channing, incidentally, never resolved the matter. The best he could come up with was the idea that the doctrine of providence is offensive to the idea of a loving and just God; therefore it cannot be true. But this requires that one believe in a loving and just God, which many moderns, given today’s random murders, killer hurricanes, tsunamis, wars, genocide, terrorism and sudden or agonizing deaths by accident or physical illness, find difficult to stomach. So we return once again to questions about providence, whether interpreted in secular or religious terms. These questions don’t seem to go away, and none of them has yet been answered!
No 11: RepentanceThis has to be one the least favorite Christian words for UUs. If raised in the Christian tradition, they are probably sick to death of being told they needed to repent of this and that in order to be full member of the club. If from another tradition or none at all, they are probably likewise sick of having the word constantly thrust at them as a requirement to fulfill if they were ever to be seen as respectable in the eyes of Christians. Therefore it is a word which, to almost everyone, now immediately conjures up images of “holier than thou” finger pointing by people who really should know better. In ancient times, however, the word repentance did not have this negative connotation of public blame and rejection. Instead, it was widely used in a variety of religious contexts to signify an individual’s interior decision to turn away from personal ideas and actions that were felt to draw one away from God, right, justice, or whatever the individual felt to be his or her higher calling. Because the word has been lately much abused, especially by the more fundamentalist branches of Christianity, some UUs have cautioned against rejecting it entirely and instead have urged a reassessment of the whole idea. James Luther Adams, for example, has called upon UUs to critically assess their present and past involvement in social evils and express repentance for their occasional all-too-human failings of indifference and self-satisfaction. But this then brings up other questions: to whom does one then express repentance? The Great Spirit? The minister? Our neighbors? Our family? And just how is one to do this? Individually? Privately? In a group? In a ritual? At present there are (and may never be) any definitive answers to these questions in the UU household. Some UUs, in fact, may find the whole idea morbid and ridiculous. Where’s the joy in such speculations? they would ask. And for that matter, they would add, I’m a good person and have nothing to repent from, so the whole issue is irrelevant. Nevertheless, as all of us are slowly becoming aware, none of us is totally free from being complicit in any number of serious moral lapses, whether it is the destruction of the environment or civil wars in far off places or the economic slavery of millions near our borders who toil to support and feed our expensive and often unnecessary habits. So, as Adams suggests, it may not be amiss to reexamine the concept of repentance in more detail. For instance, UU congregations might benefit from a periodic “examination of conscience” ceremony that would allow each member to mentally look at his or her own faults and failings and make a “firm purpose of amendment” to avoid these transgressions in the future. Repentance could then be sought openly from fellow “brothers and sisters” in the congregation. Such an exercise might help to both bring about an internal release from guilt and provide public healing and new directions for social action and commitment. In many other traditions, such ceremonies have proved their value over time because they allow for a kind of conscious stock-taking that all of us need occasionally in order to correct our course and refocus. At any rate, the message should be that repentance is not a gloomy and onerous task, but a necessary corrective we all need from time to time.
No 10: ResurrectionTo many people, Unitarian Universalists especially, the idea of resurrection must seem one of the most curious of Christian doctrines. No Christian has yet experienced it, nor knows for sure what it means, how it will take place, or what it will look like. A lot of emphasis in Christianity is placed on Jesus’s resurrection as a model of what will happen to Christians in general in the future. However, no one saw Jesus’s resurrection, so it is basically a model without content or guidance. Lacking any definite evidence, Christians are forced to rely upon poetic imagery and faith to understand resurrection. Nevertheless, despite these drawbacks, most Christians since the earliest times have believed fervently in the resurrection as a final endpoint for all human life. Early doubters, of course, scoffed at the idea. They claimed that Jesus had not really died, that Christians had stolen his body or that it had been eaten by wolves, or that Christians had gone to the wrong tomb (which was empty) and therefore mistakenly thought that Jesus has been resurrected. None of these arguments, though reasonable, has survived. Instead, the belief lives on that Jesus has been resurrected, and that he is the “first-born” of all Christians, who will now likewise be resurrected at some point after death. Lest skeptics and religious liberals dismiss such ideas as simply a Christian aberration, it should be noted that other religions and religious groups (such as Egyptian religion and, later, Judaism and Islam) have also emphasized ideas of resurrection. But the emphasis in these accounts is on the return of the dead to the pursuits of ordinary human life: eating, drinking, sex, marriage, working, etc. In his discussions of resurrected life, Jesus dismisses these kinds of ideas as pure fantasy. Instead, he explains, resurrected individuals (if they die in God’s favor) will live “as the angels,” that is, as pure spiritual beings totally involved in the life of God. The if in this statement is the clincher, because it emphasizes that we have to do something (like actually love ourselves and our neighbors) in order to profit by resurrection. Those who for various reasons don’t feel so inclined to meet this condition will also be resurrected, according to Christian doctrine, but to some lesser kind of condition (the sheep and the goats metaphor is trotted out here). The doc-trine has always remained somewhat vague about just what this condition will be, which has provided fertile ground for poets, artists and comedians ever since. In case UUs are still puzzled by the rather arcane doctrine of resurrection, it may be helpful to note that ideas often mixed in with it — such as the immortality of the soul (which originated in Greek religion, not Christianity), heaven, hell, final judgment and purgatory — are not spelled out in the Bible or in the early church but are mostly later additions and elaborations. So in reality, it is a concept both simple but infinitely incomprehensible. It is also worthy of notice that the Bible recounts that even Jesus’s friends refused to believe in his resurrection when they first heard about it. They thought it was totally crazy. It was not until something called the Holy Spirit grabbed and shook them that they finally understood. And that, it seems, is what it still takes today to help us make sense of the idea. No: 21 RevelationUU’s tend to pride themselves on their practical good sense, down-to-earth religion, and anything that smacks of revelation is automatically suspect to them. In this respect, they are in good company with the secularizing tendencies of the modern age. The might indeed also heartily agree with the eighteenth century philosopher David Hume, a famous foe of revelation, who said the “the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion...even though (individuals) believe them(selves) sincere.” All the great and traditional religions of the world rest upon beliefs they hold to be revealed by some higher power (God, Allah,Brahman, etc.). In fact, the root Latin word for revelation is revelare, or “to unveil”, which implies that revelation reveals a reality beyond the surface of experience known to ordinary mortals. Over the years this view of revelation has been broadened to include revelation from natural as well as supernatural sources, hence the modern distinction between natural and supernatural revelation. It is somewhat surprising to find that belief in both forms of revelation still remain amazingly strong today, even in our secular age. One could surmise that ideas about supernatural revelation might still have a hold on people’s minds because such ideas are staunchly backed by religion in order to justify its existence. But beliefs in natural revelation also persist, although no longer touted by official religion The famous (or now possibly infamous) Argument from Design, for example, which supposed that one could infer a Creator by examining the forms of creation, although demolished famously by Hume two hundred years ago, has now resurfaced strongly in the writings of highly popular, so-called creationist scientists. That this once discredited belief should be revived so energetically today, and not just by fundamentalists, serves as an example of the persistence of belief in revelation even outside of the provenance of official religion . And if our famous opponent of revelation, David Hume, should return today and visit a UU church, he would be surprised to see evidences of “revelation thinking” alive and well even in the midst of UU rationalism and common sense. If he were to pick up there a book by one of the founders of American UUism, William E. Channing, he would find inside a chapter entitled “The Evidences of Revealed Religion” in which Channing, the supposed doubter and rationalist, defends the legitimacy of biblical miracles. Since Hume many years earlier had written a famous essay exposing multiple fallacies in the reasoning establishing miracles, he would be surprised to see these same ideas still espoused by a founder of enlightened religion such as Channing. If Hume were to then take a seat in the church and observe a current UU service, he would be further amazed to observe that such things as prayers, incantations, blessings, and fervent appeals made to variously named higher powers are still very much a part of UU worship. If, during coffee hour following the service, he were to ask a church member exactly to “what” or to “whom” he or she were addressing their prayers and appeals he might receive such answers as “I was praying to love” or “to the great spirit” or “to the divine”. If he pressed our church member to give him credible evidence about the actual existence of such a being or force, he would probably be answered by our church member that their certainty about the existence of the object of their prayers derived from personal experience. Hume would then answer that personal experience, though historically the most frequently used justification for belief in revealed truths, does not in itself contain protection against illusion or error, and therefore cannot solely be a valid ground for belief in anything, revealed or not. At this point our church member would probably ask to be excused so they could attend to business elsewhere, like getting additional coffee or using the restroom. Emerging into the church parking lot sometime later, Hume doubtless would shake his head and observe to himself that the idea of revelation, which he once though t disproved and dead, was indeed still alive and well even in the most surprising places.
No 2: SalvationUUs often resent the claim of some Christians that they are saved. The concept of salvation actually goes back to Old Testament times and refers to the idea that God would grant his followers victory over physical distress and military defeat. In the New Testament the idea became more spiritual and came to mean that the followers of Jesus would be taken to heaven at the end of time to live with God for eternity, free of all trouble and care. However, salvation, as an ideal, can be both present and future-oriented. Both senses are present in many Biblical texts. In Psalm 98, for instance, God is seen as demonstrating his salvation by showing “his kindness and his faithfulness toward the house of Israel.” In contrast to this view of salvation, the New Testament writers often speak of salvation as being not yet and coming to pass only through the difficult day-to-day choices we all must make. For example, Paul stresses that we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Peter, reflecting on the trials and stresses of daily life, concludes that “the just man (or person) can be saved only with difficulty.” The notion of what exactly constitutes salvation also shifts dramatically according to the orientation of the author. Old Testament authors emphasize the earthly benefits conferred by God’s salvation: bountiful crops, political security and protection, and the natural wonders of the environment. New Testament writers are less sure of just what salvation really is and how it can be obtained, whatever it is. They know that it is somehow tied into being with God in some future state, but exactly what that will mean and just what it will look like, no one in the New Testament seems to know for sure. All this indicates that whatever being saved means today, it cannot really mean that someone has been granted a claim check on heaven, to be redeemed no matter what. No Old Testament writer understood salvation in that sense, and the authors of the New Testament would have considered such a view heretical, despite their confusions about the subject. It should be noted that certain Protestant groups, quoting passages from the New Testament out of context, do illogically take this view. However, their position is belied by their actual behavior, which never stops striving after salvation even though they believe it is already guaranteed because they are saved. Most religious thinkers would agree that salvation can only mean that we have an ongoing responsibility, while we draw breath, to try to realize the Kingdom of God (however conceived) on earth as best we can in our day-to-day lives. According to our Christian forebears, only in that sense can any of us can claim to be saved, even though it is always not yet. No 23: SatanIt may seen a bit odd to start the new year with some reflections about the Prince of Demons, but since so much of our time during the year is spent dealing with the effects of various evils, both human and natural, it may not be totally beside the point. Of course UUs, along with most others in the Christian tradition, no longer believe in the reality of the Devil. My own denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledges his existence but seems somewhat embarrassed by the idea, which seems so unappealing in our scientific age. So why even bring the subject up? Let us begin with some history and then move on to current events. For many centuries before ours the Christian tradition, as well as other religious traditions, spoke often and urgently of the importance of avoiding the clutches of the Devil, or any like evil supernatural being who wielded immense destructive power over human affairs if only he (the being was usually male) gained human consent and cooperation for his designs. With the rise of science beginning in the 16th century, many evils (sickness, personal calamity, mental illness, general misfortune, etc.) began to be perceived as being within human control and understanding. Thus, no longer was it possible to refer convincingly to any of these events, at least when they weren’t being blamed on God, as “the devil’s work”. In fact, UUism in this country was in the forefront in gradually draining away the significance of such attributions so that now to use them in discussing human affairs seems both arcane and laughable. But lest we think that belief in the Devil has by now been completely destroyed by the enlightened views of UUs and other liberal types, we need to examine the evidence of popu-lar culture, in which the Devil seems to again be enjoying a resurgence. Today in film, TV, art, music, and drama we see and hear many depictions of the rampant evil and satanic tendencies in our times. A 2007 movie guide, for example, lists no less than three full pages of films with “Devil” in the title. Current events as reported in the media also seem to corroborate the existence of wide-spread evil and ruin despite the best efforts of reformers and seekers of social justice. It could be that these developments are behind the recent rise of interest and concern about the wide-spread and seemingly unstoppable reach of the diabolical in modern life. If this be true, it may not be amiss to reconsider again the historical importance of the concept of the Devil, or at least the devilish, in our lives. For the Devil, despite the outlandish and sometimes ridiculous ways in which he was traditionally represented, was always a reminder that evil is fundamentally personal in nature. That is, it always begins with a hu-man choice between alternatives. Choices, even when well-intentioned, can lead sometimes to disaster, sometimes to benefit, and sometimes to indifferent outcomes. When choices become tainted by the spirit of evil, or pure self-aggrandizement, great harm to all is assured. Therefore UUs, as believers in the promise of human potential, could in this coming year make the fulfillment of this potential more achievable by not forgetting the Devil in each one of us and our need to counteract it by increasing our foreknowledge through study and reflection and our love for others by continued commitment to the unending struggle for social justice. No 26: SaviorUUs and religious liberals generally dispute the importance of this hallowed Christian term, along the lines of “we (or I) don’t need someone else to save us because I’m OK and we can do it ourselves anyway if we need to.” This attitude seems to stem from the fact that well-meaning and tolerant religious liberals and secularists have long ago shed any desire for divine help in this matter and no longer feel any need for redemption or salvation, other ancient Christian terms which have ceased to have meaning in their religious vocabulary. The ancient term savior or, alternately, deliverer and preserver, is used many times in the New Testament, mainly in St. Paul in reference to Jesus. In essence, it reflects the strong Jewish belief in the Messiah, whose coming was to herald a new day in which the Jewish kingdom would return, enemies would be vanquished and peace and justice would reign forever. Christians gradually transferred this archetype to Jesus, who came to be seen as (and appears to have believed himself to be) a new type of Messiah, one who stressed love and healing instead of earthly victory. In this transformation, Jesus became for Christians their Lord and Savior. So what significance, if any, does the term have for UUs today? Although it is not a religious term UUs currently now use, perhaps it should be reexamined. Although few UUs would today want to claim allegiance to any particular “saviors” such as Jesus, it might be helpful to recall this term now and then as a reminder of our constant mutual need for the help of others in working out our group or individual redemptions and salvations in this life. Increasingly, as a society, we are dropping the notion of rugged individualism and realizing that we can no longer, if we ever could, go it alone. Our recent national political and foreign policy adventures in this country and overseas have only served to underscore and highlight this fact in ghastly detail. Perhaps the term savior can now be seen to reveal an essential truth: that each of us must serve as “savior” to each other if we are to survive and develop. Christians would only add that it is the grace of divine help that enables us to persevere in these essential efforts. Failing this, we are confronted with the bleak prospect of Matthew Arnold’s famous image from “Dover Beach” in which … the world, which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.
No 3: SinIt may seem strange, during the holiday season, to dwell on sin. However, in the Christian tradition it has long been recognized that Jesus’ birth occurred as a prelude to the final battle against sin, a battle that ended with his tragic death and, according to Christians, his resurrection. So it is not totally out of place to consider the topic of sin at this time. Probably no word from the Christian tradition gives UUs more heartburn than this one. Despite its negative associations, the word has always been used to denote two wellknown human tendencies: the power to do evil and to really screw things up. Since these tendencies have been observed throughout human history, the classical term for this problem is “original” sin — that is, a tendency that goes all the way back to human origins. With this in mind, G. K. Chesterton once observed that sin is the only religious concept that has been empirically proven. History, in other words, gives us proof that we are capable of doing a lot of sinning. The notion that humans can sin, however, seems to fly in face of our cherished belief in human goodness. If humans can sin, can they still be good? The Christian tradition has always answered that humans can have it both ways: they can sin and they can also be good. Sometimes even at the same time. Our consideration of sin, however, does not stop at this point. Other issues immediately arise, such as human choice, responsibility, knowledge, judgment and blame. Probably the scariest issue of all is sin’s consequences (better known as the wages of sin). As you can see, this is a word that can really push people’s buttons. What is the history of this word? Why does it cause such fear and trembling now? Does it still really mean anything? The term sin derives from the Old English syn (as in the ancient rhyme: “In Adam’s fall we synned all”) meaning — like the original Hebrew word for sin, chata — to “stray off the path, get lost, miss the mark.” Viewed in this way, the word can be seen to be still very meaningful and to focus on a key human tendency — something all of us have a problem with! Although approaching such a word with anxiety is not helpful, it is still a word that points out something we need to be aware of, to respect and to avoid as much as possible. Karl Menninger, in his book Whatever Became of Sin?, remarks that while many today have dismissed the concept of sin from our minds, the awareness of sin is ever with us, indeed, for many “it is a burning sore, a deep grief and a heartache.” Therefore, it is certainly a word we need to understand, even if we can’t always avoid it!
No 13: SoulsThe term soul, once the prerogative of established religions such as Christianity, has become increasingly popular today and is heard in all of the mass media, as well as in common discourse. Yet, although Websters unabridged dictionary lists at least ten meanings commonly now assigned to the word, no one, including UUs, seems clear on exactly what is being referred to. Sometimes the word refers to a power within each of us, something that lies between understanding and unconsciousness and which utilizes not mind or body but imagination (Thomas More), and at other times it seems to mean a force beyond our individual selves, a higher origin for events, an alien energy, a Unity, that Over-Soul within which every (person’s) particular being is contained and made one with all other (Emerson). Can one term really mean all these things? Does it really mean anything at all? The word soul or its equivalent in other languages historically was seen in all cultures to refer to the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being that is conjoined with the body in life and separable at death. In its original sense, therefore, it connoted a kind of special life principal that animated the human body and survived the body after death. Animals were also believed to be animated by souls, but by souls that were vegetative and which died with the body. If asked for proof of such claims, native peoples would assert that proof is all around us, in our dreams, our imaginings, other people, our daily lives; all of these experiences, the native would say, bear testimony to the fact that those who are dead are still constantly with us, speak to us, influence us and guide us, sometimes for good and sometimes for evil. As with the native, today’s UUs use the ancient word soul freely without much questioning of what it really means because it seems to be validated by everyday experience. We indiscriminately refer to an individual, music, food, a nation, etc. as having soul or a soul because the word rings true to our experience if the experience is positive and life-affirming. On the other hand, we commonly say that individuals, a nation or other experiences are without soul or are soul-less if they are experienced negatively or as life-denying. In other words, our modern experience of soul is so intense and omnipresent and its lack is felt immediately. But when you ask us describe exactly what it is we are so positive about, we find ourselves at a loss for words. So as with words such as love, courage, wonder and spirit, even though we know their meaning, the meaning itself is somehow indescribable. So we will continue to use and value the word, even though our understanding remains hazy. Perhaps Emerson says it best: The philosophy of six thousand years has not searched the chambers and magazines of the soul. In its experiments there has always remained, in the last analysis, a residuum it could not resolve. Man is a stream whose source is hidden. Our being is descending into us from we know not whence. No 22: Virgin BirthDuring the holidays, UU’s find themselves caught up in a swirl of strange sounding Christian doctrines— incarnation, salvation,redemption, etc. Possibly one of the strangest sounding doctrines to UU ears is that of the virgin birth, or the belief that Jesus was conceived through divine intervention and not through ordinary human means. This doctrine, as well as the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, is beloved by Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Muslims but is regarded as naive and laughable by those outside these faiths. It is a curious fact of our modern sensibility that it seems perfectly acceptable to have lots of sex without the possibility of having children but ridiculous to believe that one could have a child without ever having sex. The idea that a deity could make this happen is dismissed as impossible, and the faiths that maintain this are accused of being prudish about sex, since otherwise why would they even speak of such an idea. Sex, in other words, is viewed as so important and essential to human life that no one can do without it, not even God. Nevertheless, during the holidays, we often speak and sing in traditional ways of the “Virgin Mary”, simply skipping over all the implications of this phrase. Although she is typically forgotten during the rest of the year, particularly by UU’s, maybe Mary is trying to tell us something during these holiday times. Maybe she’s saying that sex isn’t as important as nurturing and caring for others, that maybe standing up for the poor and the dispossessed (see her “Magnificat” song in the book of Luke in the Bible) is of more enduring significance than a good roll in the hay, that maybe, in spite of Freud, life isn’t all about sex after all and that it’s OK to be so devoted to God, a cause, or another person that sex may be the last thing that one thinks about. With these thoughts in mind, Mary and her baby may really give us a clue to something other holiday figures like Rudolph and Frosty don’t readily call to our attention: that the Christmas holidays alone give us a unique chance to recommit ourselves to ideals that can take us out of ourselves and make us think, not just about how to improve our sexual performance, but how best to always love and care for others and ourselves. |
||
About Us | Contact Us | Links | Newsletter | Site map