"What Is Liberal Religion?"

For Jan 28, 2001

Dave Witke: It is important to note that I speak only for myself this

morning, not as any official voice.

My goal is to share some views with you, rather than to dictate what your

views should be.

Our goal is to learn from each other.

Bob Glass will get us started with the Chalice Lighting.

Bob Glass: The chalice is the fire we gather around as a religious

community.

The pledge that binds us together as a religious community is

our "Bond of Union" — the covenant we sign when we become

members of First Unitarian Church.

Our "Bond of Union" goes like this:

"We associate ourselves together for the study and practice

of morality and religion, as interpreted by the growing thought

and noblest lives of humanity — hoping thereby to prove helpful,

one to another, and to promote truth, righteousness and

love in the world."

Dave Witke: We are about to sing a good old Unitarian hymn by Samuel

Longfellow, brother of the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I want to note

that in this church you are never required to say anything you don't

believe. So we have a long tradition of individually substituting other

words in our hymns if we come upon words or ideas we don't like. So, if you

are a newcomer, don't be surprised if the singer next to you sings an

occasional word differently than printed.

....You might also notice that sometimes we sing the notes a little

differently than printed, too.

Let's rise, if you are able, and sing Hymn No. 345: "With Joy We Claim the

Growing Light."

INTRO: About today's talk:

This is a hard church to belong to.

This is a hard church to belong to.

That is not a knock. That is not a complaint.

It is a compliment. It is praise.

This is a hard church to belong to not because the church

expects so much of us .......

...but because it inspires us to expect so much of ourselves.

I began thinking about this last summer during

the discussion or debate that raged via e-mail among

many of our members with differing religious viewpoints.

Some of our members were stimulated and motivated

by that debate. Others were offended or upset by what

they saw as as divisive comments.

Since then, some of my friends in both groups

have asked me my reaction to that episode,

and my ruminations on that have led to my remarks

this morning —— and to my conclusions,

which I have already shared with you:

1. That this is a hard church to belong to.

And

2. That that is wonderful, and as it should be.

###

One can enjoy this church simply by being here:

Enjoying good friends and fellowship. Eating the great

food. Listening to Annie's intelligent sermons.

Appreciating the fine music that Barb Martin, Bruce Martin,

Kellie Patterson, Keith Cranston and others offer us.

By being accepted for ourselves, without false faces.

There is much to be enjoyed here without much effort.

But to truly tap into the richness and depth of this church

requires hard work.

That's what we are going to talk about this morning —

the hard work of Liberal Religion.

Work that is satisfying, rewarding, meaningful — and fun.

(And speaking of fun, right now, it is time

for the Children's Story. Lori .....)

Part 1: What Is Liberal Religion?

Many Sundays, at the start of the service,

the opening words remind us that Unitarian Universalism

is a Liberal Religion, not bound by creed or dogma.

Seldom, I think, do we stop to consider just what is

a Liberal Religion.

I suspect many — especially our visitors —

confuse Liberal Religion with Liberal Politics: That we are

a church pushing a left-wing agenda.

The confusion is understandable. The "Liberal" in both cases

derives from the same general original sources — the tools

of the classic humanities, the Liberal Arts.

The adjective "liberal", in its broad sense, means to be open

to progress, open to learning and to change. Way back at the

Latin root, the Liberal Arts, or artes liberales, meant

"work or study befitting a free and independent person."

Liberal Religion is, at heart, a process that applies the tools

of the classical humanities to the practice of religion.

At a UU General Assembly session, the Rev. Paul Rasor of

Harvard University spoke to this issue. According to my notes

of his talk, he explained it this way:

The form of liberal thought relevant to today's Liberal

Religion flowered in The Enlightenment of the 1600s,

at the end of the Dark Ages.

The following list of things were the key concepts

of The Enlightenment:

1. Reason and rationality. The use of the human mind.

2. An orderly universe, discoverable by reason, experience

and science.

3. A move from external authority to internal authority.

4. Intellectual democracy — everyone to have access

to knowledge. And

5. A concern for human welfare, both collectively

and individually.

Those were the basic elements of The Enlightenment.

By the early 1800s, the German academics, in particular,

had begun applying these elements to the study of the Bible and

Christianity.

This was perhaps the relevant beginning of our strain of

Liberal Religion. The American Unitarians of the early 1800s

borrowed this approach — that is, they applied reason, experience, critical

thinking and scientific discovery to

the Bible and Christianity — and the result was the "New Christianity" of

the Americas, or the Unitarianism

of the 1800s. This Unitarian Christianity was distinguished

by 3 basic characteristics:

1. A rejection of the Trinity. God was one.

2. Acceptance that the body and the spirit were

not separate. They also were one.

3. And a willingness to at least consider whether Jesus

might have been human rather than divine.

The continued application of this process, combined with

new discoveries and new insights, has moved Liberal Religion

farther and farther away from the Authoritarian and

Absolutist interpretations of religion.

Today's Liberal Religion, according to Rasor, shares

the following defining characteristics:

1. Relevance. Theology is relevant to its own time

and culture. Its language is contemporary and specific

rather than traditional and abstract.

2. Unity. An emphasis on unity and continuity rather than

dualism or separation. Body and spirit are one; religion and

life are congruent and concentric, not separate spheres.

3. Autonomy. A distrust of external authority or any

untested authority. Reason over someone else's revelation.

The validity of personal experience.

4. Process. Religion and life and their rules are not rigid or static, but

changing, evolving, perhaps growing. Religion must

be dynamic if it is to serve a changing world and

incorporate new knowledge.

And

5. The final defining characteristic of Liberal Religion,

according to Rasor, is what he calls Prophetic Voice. By Prophetic Voice he

means that Liberal Religious people are impelled to use their knowledge and

insights to challenge

the status quo when the status quo is not healthy

or life affirming.

So: Liberal Religion is, in essence, a process of applying

to religion the tools of Reason

Critical thinking

Experience

Science

New knowledge and new insights

With the expectation that our personal synthesis of all this

will be applied in our daily lives.

Now this process, to be fully experienced, takes effort.

It requires reading, study, art, thought and reflection.

It requires listening and sharing and testing and

challenging and rebuttal.

It requires a willingness to be critiqued and to grow

and to change.

It requires a commitment to the unending process

rather than to eternal answers.

How much easier it would be to have a Bible and a Preacher

to hand you the answers and to blindly follow them.

But that would be much less satisfying —

and less fun, as well.

See why I say, "This is a hard church to belong to?"

But it is worth it.

THE OFFERING While the offering is being taken, Bob Glass will read to us

one of the best pieces of literature our denomination has to offer.

Bob Glass: The reading is from Sophia Fahs, who played a key role in

shaping

our denomination's religious education program for children. She wrote:

"It matters what we believe.

Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage

exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged.

Other beliefs are expansive, and lead the way into wider and deeper

sympathies.

Some beliefs are like shadows, clouding children's days with fears of

unknown calamities.

Other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing children

with the warmth of happiness.

Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved from the unsaved,

friends from enemies.

Other beliefs are bonds in a world community,

where sincere differences beautify the pattern.

Some beliefs are like blinders, shutting off the power to

choose one's own direction.

Other beliefs are like gateways,

opening opening wide vistas for exploration.

Some beliefs weaken a person's selfhood.

They blight the growth of resourcefulness.

Other beliefs nurture self-confidence

and enrich the feeling of personal worth.

Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death,

impotent in a changing world.

Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling,

ever growing with the upward thrust of life."

Part 2: Many Paths:

The process of Liberal Religion, by its very nature, leads us down

different paths.

In finding our own ways, we will not all find the same way.

After all, we think differently, we have different experiences, we perceive

life and its events through different eyes, and, since most of us come to

UUism from different religious backgrounds, we all start our quests from

different places.

So it is not surprising that we come up with different answers — and that a

UU congregation includes a sometimes uneasy alliance of Theists, Atheists,

Christians, Agnostics, Rationalists, Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists, Sikhs,

Humanists and others.

Yet we remain a congregation, a community, despite those drastic

differences.

And that is because we are united not by our personal answers, but by the

process we are dedicated to to find our answers.

As a community, to make this process most effective, our goal is to nurture

each other in finding our own best paths and to support the others to live

by their own highest ideals discovered in that quest — even if those ideals

may differ from our own.

We glow with pride not at achieving uniformity, but at seeing ourselves and

others fulfilled as individual human beings.

And doing so should enable us to put up with — even appreciate — each

others' foreign paths and alien answers.

Now I think we sometimes have too little understanding of answers different

from our own, and therefore miss opportunities to learn from each other and

to expand and deepen our own thinking.

If last summer's e-mail debate had a weak spot, it was that we weren't

listening to each other with sincerity. We were discounting other people's

experiences because they didn't match our own. At least at first. Later on

in the exchange we began to hear each other, and bridges were rebuilt and

important common ground was re-found.

This past week, another flurry of e-mail exchanges occurred on our church

e-mail network. It was over a "frank letter" from our valued friend Michael

Shank, expressing his sense of alienation from us and his feeling of

rejection.

Michael's letter and the responses to it seem, to me, to indicate we are

not — either side (if we must perceive them as "sides") — fully grasping the

idea of respecting others' paths.

Nor, on the other hand, are we fully realizing the essential role that

honest disagreement, sympathetic critique, respectful debate and civil

challenge play in Liberal Religion.

Such things are not personal attacks; they are, for many of us, part of

the religious process.

I'd like to offer a personal example of the value of critique and

challenge:

Last fall, during one of the UU discussion sessions between services, I

labeled myself as a Unitarian Atheistic Humanist.

Since then, some folks have asked me: "How can an Atheist be religious?"

and "What do you mean by Humanism?"

The ensuing discussions and my subsequent thought and study have helped me

clarify to myself my self-description.

Because I think it is important that we try to learn from each other, I'd

like to share some very summarized results of my examination of Atheism,

Agnosticism and Humanism.

ATHEISM: In its original pure form, atheism is simply the lack of a belief

in God. "A" for without, "theism" for a belief in God. Without a belief in

God.

This does not necessarily imply a denial of God's existence. Some atheists

do deny God's existence, and they can offer some grounds for that denial.

But trying to prove there is no God is almost as tough as trying to prove

there is.

Other atheists simply do not consider God. They see no reason either to

believe or to disbelieve — nor do they care. The issue simply is irrelevant

to them.

AGNOSTICISM: That's the word coined as recently as 1894 by T.H. Huxley to

describe what is no doubt the most intellectually honest of all religious

approaches. Agnosticism is the conclusion that humans cannot know whether or

not there is a God — at least based on present human capabilities. "A" for

without, "gnostic" for knowledge. Without knowledge.

As honest as that is, it presents a real problem in everyday life. An

Agnostic, it seems to me, must decide whether to live as if there is a God

or as if there is not a God. Do I take full responsibility for my life? Or

do I reserve the possibility of guidance and help from God? Do I live like

an Atheist, or do I live like a Theist? That, to me, is a choice an

Agnostic must make in order to live an integrated life.

To me, both Atheism and Agnosticism are good beginnings. They free the mind

to think in new and wider contexts. But in themselves I find them

incomplete. Not believing in God, or not knowing whether there is a God,

is by itself an inadequate guide to how to live a good life. (So, by the

way, is a belief in God, by itself, an incomplete guide to living.) Atheism

and Agnosticism do, however, free you up to partner up with an ethics-based

non-theistic religion — such as Religious Humanism.

HUMANISM: Humanism is The Big One. We know from surveys that in this

congregation and in the UU denomination more people identify themselves as

"Humanists" than with any other label. There are many brands of Humanism and

many ways to define it. But the central core of Humanism, to me, boils down

to this:

Humanism says that — whether or not you believe in a God or anything else —

what really counts to humans is humankind. Everything can be judged and

evaluated in terms of how it affects and improves human life, collectively

and individually, right here on this Earth.

All sorts of good and enriching ethics and corollaries can be added to that

simple principle— such as the whole Humanist Manifesto — but that central

importance of humans to humans is to me the essence of Humanism. And that

essence, again to me, is almost identical with the essence of modern

Unitarian Universalism.

Some question whether Humanism can truly be a religion. Even many Humanists

agree, calling themselves "secular humanists." But Religious Humanists find

that their Humanism can lead them to meaningful values and can fulfill all

the other needs, motivations and roles that traditional religions fulfill

for their adherents — so it is a religion.

And a rich one, with the goal of valuing, celebrating and ethically living

life on this Earth — through use of the tools of Liberal Religion.

Religious Humanism is distinguished from most other forms of Liberal

Religion by its rejection of RELIANCE on the Supernatural. Some Religious

Humanists do believe in God; some do not; some don't know or care. But we

are (mostly) united in concluding that our lives are in our own hands. We

live in a natural world, and it is we humans who are responsible for our

lives in nature.

By the way, this church, First Unitarian of Des Moines, was actually an

original source of "Religious Humanism" when our pastor in the 1920s, Curtis

Reese, joined with John Dietrich of Minneapolis to begin advancing Religious

Humanism as the religion of the future.

But that's a story in itself, and I'm sure Harvey Martens would love to

tell you more about it sometime.

HYMN No. 346: "That I Might Know Your Mind"

Part 3: Guerrilla Theater:

Next I would like to talk about .... (the often misunderstood relationship

between head and heart, or mind and emotion....)

Jane Swanson :

(in audience, interrupts): "But, Dave, wait a minute. What I want to know

is where does Unitarian-Universalism fit into all this?"

Dave Witke:

Well, UUism is one brand of Liberal Religion. Perhaps the main one

today. We basically were a breakaway group from the early

Congregationalists, who stayed with the Trinity.

There are other denominations that also make use of the tools of Liberal

Religion: The Quakers, the American Ethical Societies, even many mainline

Christian churches — certainly Plymouth Congregational and other United

Church of Christ churches — practice aspects of Liberal Religion within

their own Christian framework. It is also possible to practice Liberal

Religion without a denomination, alone and in solitude, as many Rationalists

do.

To me, what distinguishes UUism among religions are 3 basic traits (our own

sort of Trinity, I suppose):

1. We apply the tools and process of Liberal Religion.

2. In doing so, we set virtually no limits on the possible answers. UUism

accepts the widest possible range of sincere answers as valid — if that's

where the hard work of a conscientious quest has led us. (On the other hand,

we give little heed to unexamined answers.)

3. And this is an important one: Community. By making our quests as a

congregation, rather than as isolated thinkers, we gain the advantages of

mutual support, exchanged ideas, and friends to test our ideas against. Not

to mention the helpful resources a denomination can provide.

So, to me, UUism fits in as sort of the epitome of how an individual can

apply the tools of Liberal Religion in community.

Now the next thing I'd like to talk about ........

Bob Glass:

(in audience, interrupts): "Okay, that's all fine and dandy. But what bugs

some of us is that you folks who insist on practicing Liberal Religion

are always getting hung up on semantics — definitions of words

like worship and faith and spirituality. Why do you have to be

so hung up on just semantics?"

Dave Witke: Well, those of us who are pests about words feel words and

definitions are important both to our individual thinking process and to the

communal communication.

A quick example from real life: At last week's forum session on the UU

principles, Phylliss Henry asked us all: "Are you a spiritual person?" The

initial response from almost everyone was: "Well what do you mean by

‘spiritual’?"

As we went around the circle, we found several different definitions of the

word or concept, often quite dissimilar. It took quite a bit of individual

explaining and re-defining before we could begin to understand each others'

interesting ideas.

So, some of us would prefer to use more-precise words. If, as several said,

spirituality boils down to an intense feeling of connectedness to something,

why don't we just say "a sense of connectedness to (whatever)" and add our

own personal choice of what we're feeling connected to?

Knowing what we mean is a good tool of Liberal Religion, and it makes it

possible to communicate with others.

There is a lot more that could be said about words — and many interesting

words to explore: Like "worship." Like "faith." ....... Maybe at a Forum

some time?

Now the next thing I'd like to talk about ........

Terry Swanson:

(in audience, interrupts): "Well just hold on a minute, please.

You say that Liberal Religion keeps changing and modifying itself

as new knowledge develops. So where do you see Humanism as evolving next?

Where do we go from here?"

Dave Witke:

I'm sure no futurist. But let's have some fun with this one. I'll lay on

you a rather far-out idea that intrigues me.

I see some clues, both in religion and in the everyday culture, that

Humanism will survive and grow into a wider, more inclusive, and maybe even

a bit more humble form.

I expect a sort of "Ecological Humanism" to develop that sees the Earth,

herself, as a living, evolving organism — and sees us, we humans, as a part

of that larger living organism.

I expect that our primary emphasis will remain on humans, but that we'll

begin to conceive in a religious way (as well as a practical way) that our

own human welfare is dependent on the health of the larger organism — the

Earth herself. She's called Gaia when she's perceived this way.

Some clues from our culture include the Environmental Movement and the

Animal Rights Movement, with its more inclusive ethics, and Christians

beginning to re-interpret Adam's "dominion" over nature. And both in

churches and among the general public there are more and more "seasonal

celebrations" and nature-oriented observances being held. Not to mention the

growth of Paganism itself. In our own church, as early as 1966 Pastor John

Isom was introducing us to religious and ethical aspects of our relationship

with nature. And 20 years later our denomination added an 8th Principle to

our UU mantra: "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which

we are a part."

A few weeks ago, Gaia even popped up in Lori Allen's children's story. It

was about Gaia and the evolution of the Earth as a living, discrete

organism. She mentioned that some scientists, such as Lovelock, speculate

that our role — humanity's role — in this evolution is to provide Gaia's

moral and intellectual component.

Anyway, in this symbolic year of 2001, that idea appeals to me.

But, then ...... your path is probably different than mine.

Closing Words: Yes, this can be a hard church to belong to.

But together we offer each other the rich experience of applying the tools

of Liberal Religion in community.

If the wisdom of the past and the religious traditions built on that wisdom

are valid sources for us to draw upon — as indeed they are and should be

.........

......... Then how much more powerful, how much more influential on our

thought, can be the impact of more recent wisdom .........

......... based on centuries more of accumulated knowledge and human

experience.

Is it not better to view the broad vista of life's landscape from the top

of the mountain, rather than from part way up?

Thank you for listening.

###

Afterthought: After I had delivered this talk, Charlotte Shivvers pointed

out to me that, despite my emphasis on using precise words, I had used the

word God without defining it. This is a wonderful example of the value of

sympathetic critique and civil challenge. Her question got me to focusing on

just what I mean by God nowadays. After thinking that through, incorporating

both my own thoughts and those I have heard expressed by others in our

congregation, I've arrived at this personal and tentative definition of what

I mean when I say or think "God":

God is a Supernatural being, outside of nature, that has the power to

control nature; or God is a force or principle within nature that, by

itself, is of greater value and power than any other possible combination of

other principles, values or powers.

An implication: Either way, God seems an absolute.

A corollary: A God must be conscious and/or sentient if it is to be of any

relevance, or worth my time to consider. Because if it isn't, what

difference does God make to me? (Except perhaps as a scientist.)

Anyway, I advance this tentative definition for your feedback, critique or

challenge as we practice the process of Liberal Religion together.

— 30 —