Heritage And Holocaust

September 15, 1985
Lakeland

September 22, 1985
Port Charlotte

The heritage of the Jewish people is remarkable in its depth and persistence. The Holocaust was one of the most savage and cruel instances of man’s inhumanity to man. Although an outsider can never fully appreciate what the High Holy Days mean to the members of a Jewish congregation, we may try for a measure of understanding. Although an outsider can never perceive fully the pain, deaths, humiliation, and suffering of the extermination camps, one can speak plainly of the ancient and enduring evil of anti-Semitism and why cruel prejudice against the Jews has been a persisting pattern in Christian history.

Tomorrow, September 16, is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, beginning 10 days of worship and remembrance, culminating in Yom Kippur, September 25. Rabbi Abraham Karp, a friend in Rochester days, speaks of Rosh Hashanah as the birthday of the world, to some orthodox this is literally true; for most it is a metaphorical allusion. It is Yahveh’s gift of a new page in the Book of Life. The sounding of the ram’s horn, the shofar, reminds the faithful to examine their lives and repent of their sins. Sin is not an ineradicable trait inherited as a result of Adam and Eve playing around in the Garden. Sin is “missing the mark.”

To me, one of the most appealing concepts is the belief that when one repents of sins against God, or Yahveh, Yahveh will forgive. But Yahveh cannot forgive sins against one’s fellow men and women. As Rabbi Karp wrote (p. 164), “for sins committed against fellow men, one must seek and obtain forgiveness from those sinned against and make restitution if possible. In consequence of this teaching, there arose the custom that during the week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, a Jew would call upon his friends, neighbors, and associates and inquire if he had wronged them and beg forgiveness. And if one is asked to forgive, the law demands that he do so. When a congregation joins for prayer on the Day of Atonement, it is a company of friends who have made peace with each other and have thus earned the right to approach their father in Heaven for understanding and pardon.” I would add that a saying attributed to Jesus, a Jew, encompasses that requirement for reconciliation: “If a man cannot love his fellow-man whom he has seen, how can he love God, whom he has not seen.”

The climax of the High Holy Days, Yom Kippur, begins with the Kol Nidre, a haunting melody that touches emotional depths. Inevitably, it renews memories of two thousand years of persecutions and of the six million slain in the Holocaust. In the 20th century it recalls the brave men and women, living and dead, who fought against overwhelming odds to re-establish the state of Israel.

The rich heritage of Judaism – the superb literature of the Psalms, the ethical prophets, the neat myths, legends, and history of the Exodus, the 10 Commandments, the Maccabees, the Talmud – all deserve unlimited appreciation, particularly from Christian believers who appropriated this greatness and called it their own.

But instead of praise and honor, Judaism has been the victim of persecutions most vile for two thousand years. Anti-Semitism is “hatred and persecution of the Jews as a group; not the hatred of persons who happen to be Jews, but rather the hatred of persons BECAUSE they are Jews.”

It should be needless to state in detail the tragic consequences of anti-Semitism. A partial outline would include:

The Crusades: the crusaders attacked every Jewish community and burned synagogues on their bloody journey to the Holy Land. Many Christians who did not go on crusades stayed home and killed and persecuted Jews, particularly in the Rhineland.

From the Middle Ages to modern times, in many European cities, Jews were confined to ghettoes (Miller, p. 9). In the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, they were driven from England, France, and Spain. Throughout most/all Europe, Jews were prohibited from owning land and farming. Not until 1832 did Great Britain grant the franchise of the vote to Jewish people. Norway did not permit Jews to enter that country until 1860. Under Tsar Alexander III, Cossacks killed and plundered Jewish villages in bloody pogroms. There was no European nation free of the terrible plague of anti-Semitism – except Spain, when, during the period, Iberia was controlled by the Moslems, who at that time not only tolerated but encouraged the flowering of Jewish culture.

Anti-Semitism, subtly but unmistakably, was disclosed even among the so-called enlightened. Charles Dickens certainly was conscious of the terrible conditions that so many poor and underprivileged endured. However, in OLIVER TWIST he refers to the corrupt Fagin as “the Jew,” again and again. Villains in his other novels were not so identified. Uriah Heep is not “the Anglican” or “the Presbyterian” or “the Methodist.” Similarly, Steerforth in DAVID COPPERFIELD is not “the Puritan” or “the Roman Catholic.” Only open or latent anti-Semitism could produce such distinctions.

When I remember the 1930s, there is no doubt that anti-Semitism was widespread here in our “land of the free.” Fascist organizations were blatantly anti-Semitic [CJW note: and financed with highly “respectable” sources]. Jewish people were scapegoated for every bad social force. Father Coughlin, a radio preacher with a large listening radio audience of millions, berated Jewish people weekly. Anti-Semitic jokes were repeated interminably and enjoyed hugely. There was unchecked discrimination in housing, professions, schools, and employment.

Even when the horror of Hitler’s “final solution” began to be reported, consciousness was dull (see Koestler). Jewish refugees to Palestine on leaking, rusty ships could not land anywhere. Only relatively few were admitted to the U.S. or the U.K. Thousands lost their lives as the rust-buckets sank or Jewish refugees died at sea of want and sickness.

How ironic that the welcoming lines on the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your [tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free]” were composed by Emma Lazarus, a Jewish poet.

It could be comforting to think that anti-Semitism is a thing of the past, but I’m afraid that’s not so. I still hear persons say, “My doctor is Jewish, but....” I do not hear “my doctor is Episcopal (or Roman Catholic), but....” Or [consider], “I’m in trouble, I’ve got to get me a Jewish lawyer,” etc. I would surmise many of you have heard these too, if you have listened.

More blatant and dangerous activities are coming to light. I have begun to be a supporter in a small way of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which calls attention to such neo-fascist, paramilitary groups in our country as the Aryan Nation (associated with the KKK). [In] April 1985, 23 were arrested and charged with the murder of Alan Berg of Denver, who happened to be a Jewish talk radio host and was an outspoken critic of racist, neo-fascist groups. Those arrested were also charged with the arson bombing of a Boise synagogue and other crimes. The Simon Wiesenthal Center came across one of the creedal statements of “The Aryan Nation” - I [will] read it to you, although it turns my stomach:

“We are the race of God; the Talmudic Jew is the chosen people of Satan. We are the front line of life and liberty, the Jew is the cauldron of death and enslavement. ... We do not want any other race to be present in our land at any time.”

Is Hitler dead? I wonder!

Years ago, I clipped these lines (author unknown):

SWASTIKA

What can erase
This thing from the scrawled
Walls of the mind; exterminate
This spider from the infested conscience? It hooks
Convulsively on the memory of man: the obscene
Insignia of hate. It mates and spawns
In every season and climate, crawls
On the faces of Nations. What
Can kill it but implacable
Wrath?

SEC

“What can erase this thing from the scrawled walls of the mind”

For one thing, I believe we must go deeper into the roots of Christian theology and appraise and recognize its central role in the sorry, bloody history of anti-Semitism.

Another source I am drawing [from] is the October 1984 issue of Theology Today, a publication of Princeton Theological Seminary, a graduate school for persons training for the Christian ministry. Also basic is Jules Isaac’s distinguished study, THE TEACHING OF CONTEMPT.

For almost 2000 years, the Christian church in most of its branches has explicitly or by implication taught that the 1st century Jewish people were “Christ Killers” - and because Christ was God, ... the Jewish people were [guilty of] deicide – killers of God! For this, the teaching proclaimed, they were punished by being dispersed to wander the earth forever. Ideas have consequences, particularly theological ideas imposed as “divine revelation.”

[Charging] the people of Israel [with deicide] has no historical validity. Not only do we have no original documents from Jesus’ followers, but we do know that the land was ruled by Roman officials who commanded the occupying force of Roman soldiers. Crucifixion was Roman-style execution. Pilate and a relatively few collaborators were responsible for executing a man they tagged as a dangerous rebel.

Then, too, in that time there were Jewish communities all over the Roman world. Such groups never heard of the Nazarene at the time. [CJW note: no TV, radio, newspapers] Similarly, one can reasonably surmise that most of the Jewish population in Palestine knew nothing about this wandering prophet. How under any standard of justice or common sense can both they and their religious descendants be held eternally responsible? Such ideas are nonsense, but for the Jewish people they have had a devastating effect through the centuries.

A. Roy Eckardt, a distinguished United Methodist clergyman and professor emeritus at Lehigh University, writes (THEOLOGY TODAY p. 301) “The late James Parkes, British historian ... always stressed that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Jews and surely nothing to do with Jewish behavior. Anti-Semitism’s dwelling place is the minds and hearts of anti-Semites. Accordingly, Jewish behavior becomes “bad” not because it is humanly bad, but because it is Jewish. This means that it could be “good” but still would be as “bad” as ever. For the imputed guilt is one not of DOING but of BEING. To impute badness to being is a pathological act, or theologically put, a uniquely sinful act.”

In addition, the story that the Jews were dispersed to become wanderers because they were responsible for the death of Jesus-God is an historical falsehood. The Romans, under Titus, did conquer Jerusalem in 70 and destroyed the Temple. In 132, the rebellion of Bar Kochba was crushed by the Romans and thousands of Jews [were] sold into slavery.

But migration of Jewish communities had been in process for 500 years before the time of Jesus. There had been the Babylonian captivity. When return to Jerusalem was permitted by Cyrus, many Jews chose to remain in Babylon, where a Jewish community existed long after that. There, the synagogue was created for worship and teaching because there was no temple. There, the Babylonian Talmud was developed by the scholarly Rabbis.

When Alexander the Great conquered and built and named a great city in Egypt for himself ..., more than 300 years before Jesus, there, too, was a distinguished Jewish community of scholars, traders, and workers.

When Paul the Apostle went on his numerous preaching journeys, it is recorded that he spoke in synagogues – obviously there were Jewish communities established long before he got there.

And even in Palestine, Judaism survived. The rabbinical schools continued. The writings comprising the Jerusalem Talmud took form after the so-called “Dispersion.”

To claim that there was dispersion as punishment for killing God simply has no validity, but it HAS been a harmful historical lie.

Heritage and holocaust – who can help but admire the strength of the bonding of the followers of Judaism – to persist in their faith and to endure all the consequences of hate, discrimination, lies, death, humiliation. Perhaps it is the shared burdens of prejudice which has kept them united. Perhaps it is the power of their faith in the one God, Yahveh, and their obedience to the Torah, the Law. Perhaps it is the ancient thirst for knowledge, painstaking scholarship, perhaps it is the family structure of their religion and the Sabbath at home. All of these things – and much more – [are] beyond my comprehension.

Most of you know that a mezuzah is a parchment under cover placed on a door of a Jewish family indicating that the household follows the Law, the Torah. The story goes, “while being shown an apartment on West 86th Street in New York City, the prospective renters gave themselves away as recent arrivals with one question, ‘What’s that on the door?’ ‘That is a mezuzah,’ responded Evelyn Weiser, who represented Metropolitan properties. She went on: ‘It indicates that an observant Jewish family once lived here.’ One of the newcomers responded, ‘I thought it was part of the security system.’ Mrs. Weiser said, ‘Well, in a way, it is.’”

To summarize – hail to our friends and neighbors as they observe their most solemn holy days.

Then, recognize that anti-Semitism exists and speak up when you hear or see its manifestations, blatant or subtle.

Don’t be misled that historical fabrications can be either a true or humane foundation for anyone’s theology or salvation scheme.

And remember that as Rabbi Tarfon reminded in the Pirkei Avot 2/16 - “You are not required to finish the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.”

Religious Pluralism

September 14, 1985
Lakeland

Published in THE LEDGER as:

Religious Pluralism Maintains Global Liberty

THE LEDGER, Attn: Marc Hook, Religious Editor
For release 9/14.85
From Rev. Carl J. Westman, Minister, Lake Region Unitarian Universalist Fellowship

When one reads these LEDGER pages devoted to the hundreds of religious enterprises in our community, the reality of religious pluralism is amply demonstrated.

By religious pluralism, I mean that in this world, there is no one faith that is universally regarded as true, no sacraments held to be valid by everyone, no one religious authority obeyed by all. In our nation, by Constitutional sanction, no one must adhere to a particular religion or any religion; no one particular religion may have advantages another may not have. A person professing no formal religion at all loses none of the rights of a citizen because of the absence of religious affirmation.

Historically such freedom of belief has been persecuted and punished by those who imposed by force “one faith” or “one creed.” History is replete with such inhumane chapters as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the mass execution of “witches,” and in our own memories, the Holocaust.

Are such dreadful events in the past? Would you advocate that our government should function according to “Scriptures?” Do you believe that we would be a better nation if public education taught one set of religious values to the exclusion of others? Would you prohibit a diversity of religions and the free expression of non-religious views? Should one group’s religious views be the only ones acceptable in society? Must women be submissive to men in the name of a “true” religion? Would you maintain that a secular view of the human condition is evil and must be prohibited? There IS a country where these views are official and enforced – Iran. Fundamentalism, under any name, does not control our nation. Not yet, anyway.

One basic premise of the Unitarian Universalist religion is the search for truth maintained by an inquiring mind. Most of us would endorse the wisdom of John Milton: “If the waters of truth flow not in perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition... give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the truth in the field, we do injuriously to misdoubt her strength.” [1]

Contradictory views of religion need not have the consequence of malice or prejudice. When our views are open to each other, when the better thoughts of our minds are shared, a thoughtful, concerned pluralism will strengthen the liberties of all. Because I may disagree with others does not mean I dislike them or feel their views should be repressed or scorned.

The perils and problems of our dangerous times will not be assuaged by religious arrogance or unsubstantiated claims to “one truth.” The diversity of religions through the world: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and the many other communities of faith which have endured for centuries, make it impossible that there can ever be “one Big Church” for all. Our dreams for a better world depend more on the point of convergence where the dignity and worth of all persons are respected. From that premise, better and more relevant ethical actions by both the “religious” and “non-religious” groups and individuals may help deter the destruction of the Earth and all who live on it.


[1] Editor’s note: the Milton quote may be slightly inaccurate. There is some evidence that the following is correct: “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength.”

The Difference Defined

September 8, 1985
Unspecified Location (probably Lakeland)

There is a periodic need to define the differences between Unitarian Universalist religion and the varieties of fundamentalisms which have purchased or captured so much time and space on the airwaves and newsprint, and provided so many seats in multi-thousand capacity auditoriums. Many times, these massive appeals to ears and eyes make us vulnerable to just being defensive. We rebuff extravagant claims by asserting what we do not believe. We reject imposed authority – Bible – creed – dogmatic church – because of historical facts, by applying reason, and being generous toward beliefs which will not fit into anyone's pre-cast iron boxes of presumed piety.

Although my approach is different today, let me emphasize that it is necessary to reject what is believed false. Keymo spoke of my locating my remarks of a couple years ago on the power of negative thinking and presenting them again. Maybe I will, because always there will be the need for the emphatic, “No” in religion, politics, economics, and every other area of mutual concern when claims are asserted we believe false, fanciful, or harmful.

Today I want to speak of the “No” and the “Yes” - defining what I believe to be the essential points of departure between fundamentalisms and Unitarian Universalist religious principles. Let this too be emphasized – we are certainly not sole possessors of a way I believe to be more thoughtful and enlightening. Millions in or out of religious institutions would agree – even though the specific expressions of the basic agreement might differ.

There are six points in my outline today. Three will criticize fundamentalisms, three will affirm a way which has been called the “new civility.” I found these six points in an article by Douglas Sturm (C + C, 8/26/85) who teaches in the religion department of Bucknell University. The elaborations of the points are mine.

First, fundamentalism unequivocally clings to a set of basic beliefs it considers to be unchangeable truths about the world.

Almost always this belief centers about a holy scripture asserted to be the revealed word of God and containing no errors. Such scripture is the authority for belief and conduct.

Ignored or rejected by Christian fundamentalists is the reality that fundamentalist Moslems place their authority in the Koran, divinely revealed to Mohammed by Allah. The Koran, for Moslem fundamentalists, is the authority for belief and conduct.

Symbolic and parabolic meanings of these scriptures are rejected by fundamentalists. As Max Stackhouse, a professor at Andover-Newton Theological School noted, “many in these traditions hold that the scriptures do not point to the ultimate truth, but are themselves the ultimate truth.”

For such fundamentalists, the world was created in 4004 BCE. When geologists, cosmologists, and other scientists demonstrate that our Earth is millions of years old, then scientists are just wrong, in the fundamentalists’ view.

Similarly evolution: when Darwin and his successors provide evidence for the change, mutation, disappearance of some species, evolving of other species (including the human species), over millions of years, then these scientists are just wrong, in the fundamentalists’ view. Moreover, malevolent motives are usually attributed to the scientific pathfinders. They are no longer tortured or executed, but they are labeled “secular humanists” - how awful!

For fundamentalists, the code of conduct is not only how they should behave, but how everyone else must behave. Mr. Dooley, the 19th century humorist, defined a fanatic as “one who knows he is doing exactly what the Lord would do were the Lord in possession of the facts.”

Secondly, the fundamentalist holds these truths with dogmatic certitude. Critical review and analyses are out. There is no modifying of positions when new facts or fresh insights are offered.

The scholarly and historical studies of Biblical literature, in progress for almost two hundred years, makes no impact on those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture, divinely revealed.

No consideration of the finding of scholars is given credibility. The assured findings that the scriptures were nearly a thousand years in formation, written by different persons in different times, under unlike conditions, makes no impact. That the older portions were in oral tradition for centuries, thus subject to generations of story-tellers adding, embellishing, changing the ancient tales, makes no impact on fundamentalism.

The reality that ancient laws, customs, taboos, of ancient times such as found in the book of Leviticus, have no relevance for modern times – that is ignored.

Not only labored interpretations of scripture are held with dogmatic certitude, but also creeds have tried to force persons into a religious Procrustean bed. Reason, fact, logic must yield to the creed. If your faith is too large, parts of you must be lopped off. If your face is too small for the creed, you must be stretched.

Augustine, called “Saint” by the Christian church, usually regarded as one of the two or three more profound theologians of Christian history, wrote “I would not believe the gospel if I were not moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Quoted by Hans Kung)

Such fundamentalism ignores the growth of human understanding and that time does make ancient truth subject to modification, discovery, refinement, and personal choice.

Third, many fundamentalists view the world as divided into two camps – those who are not with us are against us. There are the saved and the unsaved. Heaven or hell, bliss or torment, are the only possible destinations.

It is not only the fundamentalist preachers who exhort this ancient Persian myth dressed in Christian clothing, but also and more fearful still, the same chasm of division exists in the geo-political world. There is the Soviet World and the U.S. World, and the chasm is unbridgeable, or so we are exhorted constantly. The only possible solution is to eliminate the Soviet Union or extinguish the U.S. Fortunately, such political fundamentalists on either side have not conquered the minds and behavior of most of us. Otherwise, two idiotic giants would have blasted our earth in our time.

That there may be a third or fourth or fifth way is unthinkable to those who see only “them” and “U.S.”

Thus for me, the answer is “No” to anyone’s beliefs about the Earth and its living beings that cannot admit that ideas change and truth is growth, not a fixed object. “No” to dogmatic certitude. “No” to the idea that people everywhere are divided into two camps only.

In my introduction, I used the phrase “new civility” as a better choice than the closed minds of fundamentalisms. Of course, the “civility” of which I speak is not new. Generous-minded, truth-seeking men and women in all times have grasped its importance and necessity. But their efforts were too often squelched, forgotten, or transmuted by others to a more base metal.

This “way,” this “civility,” first of all, recognizes that each individual and every community may be possessed of some important truth about the human condition.

Jesus, as best we know, came out of a working-class family. Can any good come out of Nazareth? The centuries have answered that question. Not the dogmas and persecutions, but rather the wisdom of the parables, the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, have been constant reminders of how great the distance is between what we are and what we might be.

Buddha, son of a royal family, found fulfillment not in the luxuries that were his, but in the discovery that unlimited compassion for his fellow men and women was one of the noble truths of human existence.

If Russia had the infamous Stalin, that nation also produced Tolstoy. Should we remember only Ivan the Terrible and forget Dostoyevsky?

When we think of Germany, should we remember only Hitler and forget Goethe? Remember Eichmann but not Bach?

So it is across the nation and through history – there are those who have contributed discovery, insight, literature, art, and music to us all.

This attitude is not an apologetic for crimes against humanity. Rather, it is an attempt to recognize that always there are those who in every place and time whose discoveries or creativity have made life’s difficulties easier to bear.

To discount a people because of an iron curtain, or shifting political alliances, or fear or ignorance, is to subtract from the sum of wisdom so badly needed in perilous times.

Secondly, this “way,” this “civility” requires a posture of openness even to perceived enemies. That’s not easy, is it, when our perceived enemies – the Soviet Union and its allies – are held before us as an “evil empire” in our President’s words.

The Soviet Union perceives us as enemies. We circle their nation with nuclear bases. They see us as researching and building space weapons to wipe them out.

A philosopher of ancient times once said, “The dog barks at those he does not know.” That brief sentence digs profoundly into the difficulties of human relationships and conflicts between nations.

Can you think of any event in political possibility than halting the escalation of nuclear and other weapons? Arms reduction talks go on; a summit meeting between President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev approaches. Will there be openness in their discussions? Will our President assume the Soviet people want war? Will Gorbachev assume that the American people want to destroy the Soviet people? Such assumptions will lead to destruction.

A posture of openness requires two positions – one, that we can be critical of our opponent; two (and just as necessary), we must be self-critical. The best reason for that attitude of openness that I can think of is the thousands of nuclear weapons that both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have poised at the ready.

Sometimes the very serious can be illustrated by the somewhat frivolous. Out of the Anglican or Episcopal tradition comes this story (from CONTEXT): “The town reprobate was run over in front of the church. The vicar rushed out: ‘Willy, you’ve lived a terrible life, but you are about to die. Don’t you want to be baptized, finally?’ Willy: ‘Vicar, I guess my time is up. Yes, I do want to be baptized.’ Vicar: ‘Well, Willy, do you renounce the devil and all his works?’ Willy, painfully, after a pause, with eyes closed: ‘Vicar, I’m in no condition to make enemies!’”

The whole human family is in that condition today.

Last, but not least, a way for life acknowledges kinship of all humanity, even all being in order to form institutions of conciliation and mutual enhancement. There is an interwoven web of all life that we sometimes forget in our strong feelings of individualism and nationalism.

While we have been on recess, two holidays have passed – July 4th and Labor Day. We have largely forgotten that both of these days celebrate not individualism but community and united effort for causes which persons underwent sacrifices for the common good. Columnist Ellen Goodman, writing of the Fourth of July, noted, “What connects us back through history to our founders and across space to each other is, ironically, a shared sense of the importance of our own separateness. Together we defend our right to be independent of others, including each other....” On July 4th, it’s worth remembering that the original day of independence was also a day of commitment and community.

Likewise, Labor day – and the 8 hour workday, the five-day workweek, the minimum wage, safety regulations in mine, mill, and smelter, contracts between labor and management – do you think such benefits we now think commonplace were achieved by an individual here and an individual there? No way! Institutions, labor unions, were formed to conciliate, to negotiate, to strike when deemed necessary. And in spite of organized labor’s seemingly diminishing influence today, the whole face of our nation, our world, is enhanced because individuals bonded themselves together in solidarity. A kinship was achieved. What remains for us and our successors is a recognition and implementation that there is kinship of all humanity to be recognized, negotiated, and achieved.

To summarize, I have intended to contrast:

- dogmatically held beliefs with the recognition that all persons, religions, and cultures possess some truth.

- the world of divided camps with openness even toward perceived enemies.

- and have claimed that the human family is one kin, however that condition has become obscured or rejected through a variety of historical, cultural, and social forces.

I hope I have not been guilty of drawing stereotypes. Certainly many persons have a touch of both sets of beliefs. There are those, including ourselves, who need the wider view, the broader truth, the deeper love. May we [be] among those [who] hold a light to lead them, and ourselves, on the way.

Images Of Restoration And Reality

June 2, 1985
Lakeland

On a Sunday such as this when we declare a recess for awhile from formal Sunday services, it is appropriate to think about two vital images of religion. One symbolizes our need to be restored by touching ancient sources of help; to seek that which grasps our human experience with a sense of wonder. Can you thrust aside the curtain of personal tensions which has beset you and be open to words which conjure up images of restoration? Do you recall the words about sky read a few minutes ago?

But while we rest and re-create, surrounded by the perfumes of parklands and picnics; while we are engulfed by the drowsiness of days delivered from usual problems, can we remember a world that will not cease from troublings just because we take our ease? Can we confront a world of bristling threats and uncertain future? Richard Lattimore reminded us in the verse, “This could be the last summer for the world.”

The vital images, or rhythms, of religion are restoration and reality. Rayner Johnson wrote, “a living and vital religion, broadly speaking, ought to do two things for the plain man (and woman). It should be related to his (her) tasks in everyday life, to the workshop, office, or factory in which they earn daily bread. It should also set their lives in the context of a greater whole so that the crises which overtake them – accident, suffering, disease, loss, and finally death – can be faced with serenity and fortitude because they are believed to be part of a meaningful pattern.” (NURSLINGS OF IMMORTALITY, p. 156)

There was a cartoon in the NEW YORKER: an obviously depressed business man is returning to the kitchen immediately after having left for the office and says to his bathrobed, hair-curlered wife, “I don’t mean my car battery has run down, I mean MY battery has run down.”

There is some medical confirmation for the cartoonist’s insight. Some time ago, researchers at the University of Rochester medical school offered the opinion that when a person loses zest for life, it usually isn’t long before illness strikes. The researchers called this the “giving-up” complex.” When a person loses confidence, when the experiences of living no longer provide zest, when one is overpowered by the feeling that one just cannot “take it anymore,” then this corrosion of hope may lead to a failure of health.

We need restoration. For some it is travel; for others, seclusion; for others, excitement; for others, harbors, beaches, summer theatre, bustling festivals, study, books, walks, picnics.

There is some restoring quality in recognizing that all our religious dependence must not be on the religious institution. Perhaps that is a minister’s June bias has he/she looks forward to a break in routines. Obviously, persons in my profession point to the fellowship/church as an organization deserving support, worth upholding as a functioning community which meets needs for common worship, education, social relationships, [and] the need to proclaim the demands of justice and peace. Yet, one should not depend on any institution for all resources, because institutions, religious institutions not excepted, can some times induce one to be so busy with the outward institution that inward strength becomes rusted from disuse. We need to remember Whitehead’s definition that “religion is what man is in his solitariness.” [CJW note: even though it is an incomplete definition.] Restoration also comes from responding to the occasional pulse which throbs our need to remember that we can become better citizens and churchmen and women if, in addition to group responsibility, we now and then feel free to maintain a portion of our life-emphasis individually, seeking strength that may be uniquely our own.

Roger Williams (ca 1600-1684), an exemplar of liberty of conscience, was a persuasive example of one who maintained great personal faith almost to the exclusion of the organized institution. Coming to New England for reasons of conscience, again and again he endured persecution because he placed personal integrity first and the institution second. He renounced the Church of England. He denounced the Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because, in Roger Williams’ view, it falsely represented the King as a Christian and because the Charter gave away title to land the King didn’t own. “The Indians owned the land,” declared Roger Williams. Furthermore, he stood squarely opposed to the practice of the citizen’s oath of loyalty.

His convictions were strong enough to direct him to the wilderness when he was banished from the colony to live with the Indians; to establish Providence Plantation, wherein majority civil rule and liberty of individual conscience were established.

Churches, cities, the nation, the public, and employers which hire our time and talents, [all] exert a major claim on our effort and loyalty. But not completely. We need opportunity to restore our strength by recreation, rest, and a change of pace. Wordsworth had some appropriate lines in “A Poet’s Epitaph”:

“The outward shows of sky and earth,
of hill and valley he has viewed;
and impulses of deeper birth
have come to him in solitude.
In common things that round us lie
Some random truths he can impart
The harvest of a quiet eye
That broods and sleeps on his own heart.”

In a season of restoration there is quiet strength to be obtained from embracing [the] poet’s injunction,

“But put not asunder
Man’s first word: wonder ... wonder...”

But restoration can slide into decadent world-apartness if reality is ignored. Think again of the lines:

“O sky and sand and blue of here and now,
how shall we keep you always for our friends
and us, for our sons when we are gone,
or save some certainty for all, and shelter
the dream of living for a piece of time
within a known and tolerable world?”

Reality is the other vital image of religion that I would have you consider today. We think of summer as picnics, summer stock, travel, rest, sailing and sunbathing. But summer days have been days marking enormous social change and disruption when pivotal happenings have turned the trends of history.

July 4, the Declaration of Independence; July 14, the French Revolution gathered irresistible momentum when the Bastille fell; it was June 28 in 1914 when Arch-duke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated, plunging Europe, and later, other Continents, into that awful event, World War I.

July 16 is the anniversary of a radically new world, for on that date 40 years ago, 300 scientists watched the first atomic bomb exploded in New Mexico. August 6 and August 9 were summer days when our nation used atomic bombs against cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Summer is a time when one should be alert to images of reality, too.

The late Joseph Wood Krutch once observed that “the ancient world ended and the Dark Ages began when the army of Belisarius cut the Roman aqueducts and, overnight, turned Rome from a community with a water supply said to have been comparable with that of a modern city, into a Dark Ages town where a few wells and cisterns had to serve a large population. A calamity even greater, but no less easy to imagine, might introduce us to a new Dark Age.” (AMERICAN SCHOLAR, 66, p. 182)

Recreation can become little more than leisurely decay unless there be before us also the image of reality in our world.

The alternating images of restoration and reality are so deeply a part of religious myth, legend, and history that we can feel to some degree that these contrasting experiences combine to make us more whole persons. Moses retreated to the mountaintop and came back to the Exodus camp a better leader with stronger convictions and more creative plans. Jesus went to the wilderness, and there acquired the resource of spirit, which was his adequate strength when powerful convictions led him to confront a world which neither understood nor accepted him. Toynbee wrote at length of this pattern of “withdrawal and return” as explaining the source of the courage and moral reserves of authentic great leaders.

Neither restoration nor reality are sufficient in themselves. Gandhi once said, “you can wake up a man who is asleep, but if he is merely pretending to be asleep, your efforts will have no effect on him.” (Quoted by Dwight McDonald NR 1/29/66). A writer in a British Unitarian publication (The Enquirer, 8/31/63) summed up the matter in two sentences: “Our minds are possessed by three mysteries: where we come from, where we are going, and since we are not alone but members of a countless family, how should we live with one another. These questions are aspects of one question, and none of them can be separated from the others and dealt with alone.”

Where do we come from? Where are we going? How shall we live with one another? Such are the interwoven themes of living. In dealing with these, now and then in solitude and relaxation, but returning always to grapple with living problems in the experiences of home, office, church, state, continent, and world ... we may expect to achieve a mature balance of restoration and reality.

Roots of Unitarianism

May 5, 1985
Lakeland

May 26, 1985
Port Charlotte

The calendar is the context for today's subject, the roots of Unitarianism. If you have the Unitarian Universalist Calendar, you know that the various dates carry the names of persons and important events for our Unitarian Universalist tradition. May is a month filled with memorable dates. These dates are the stimuli for digging in Unitarian roots (on another occasion, the same device will be used to examine Universalist roots). The purpose of this look at the past is not only to increase consciousness of our particular religious past, but also because our past informs and guides are expectations of the future.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to their being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.... We will have the dead at our councils.” (Quoted, CONTEXT, from Orthodoxy)

Guided by such recognition, let us consider May days:

May 4 (1819): William Ellery Channing delivered the historic “Baltimore Sermon” at the ordination of Jared Sparks. Channing, by that time a famous preacher, chose as his topic “Unitarian Christianity.” In Baltimore, First Independent Church was the new theology’s first church outside eastern Massachusetts.

Speaking with trenchant reason and fearless candor, Channing defined an approach to religion which, while antagonistic to existing dogmas and creeds, was delivered so persuasively that it was the catalytic sermon which, among other influences, six years later led to the formation of the AUA.

[Regarding the] Baltimore Sermon, published within a month, “it has been claimed that no pamphlet except Tom Paine's COMMON SENSE had ever been so widely circulated in the U.S.”

Also on May 4 (1796-1859) Horace Mann was born. If one grew up in a Massachusetts city, the chances are that there was a public school named for Horace Mann (from 1st to 6th grade, I was taught in the Horace Mann school in my city).

Born in poor circumstance and taught religiously of the terrors of orthodoxy, Horace Mann persisted and secured a law education. He also became a Unitarian because of the illumined, reasonable sermons of William Ellery Channing. Mann became a success in law and politics, was elected to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1827 and the Massachusetts Senate in 1833.

As President of the Senate he pushed through the historic bill which provided for a State Board of Education. Up to that time, school districts were completely independent, not responsible to any governing or supervising body. As a consequence, public schools were physically dilapidated, teachers both untrained and miserably underpaid. Standards were grossly uneven.

Abandoning his lucrative law practice and promising political career, Horace Mann became Secretary of the State Board of Education. His annual reports became educational classics. When I was doing some studies at Teachers College, Columbia, it was both taken for granted (and required) if one was heading for a graduate degree in education, that one study Mann's annual reports. They were models for improving public education, not only in Massachusetts, but in many other states. Mann is the most important person in the recognizing the need [and developing the value] of free public education in our nation.

He espoused other causes – state hospitals for the mentally disturbed, and restriction of lotteries and the liquor traffic. In his own words, he believed in the "unlimited improvability of the human race through education."

Mann became the first president of Antioch College. In his final commencement address, he summarized his highest value and life-long passion, “be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”

On May 10, 1860, Theodore Parker died in Florence, Italy, and buried there in the American cemetery. More will be said about him when marking another May date.

On May 14, 1525, Laelius Socinus was born in Siena, the Venice territory of Italy. Born Lelio Sozzini, of a wealthy family, he was associated with the liberal part of the Reformation. He, with others, called into question the dogma of the Trinity. Forced to escape from Venice because of religious persecution along with others in the discussion group we might call a fellowship, he moved about Europe. He was influenced by Servetus. John Calvin warned Socinus about the consequences of asking too many questions about dogmas and creeds. The Inquisition seized his properties in Italy. He is less famous than his nephew Faustus Socinus, but Laelius was a guide and forerunner. Socinianism was the name for Unitarianism in much of Europe in those troubled, but world-changing times of the early Reformation.

On May 15, 1961, there was celebrated the consolidation of the AUA and UCA. After a hundred years of sometimes half-hearted, sometimes intense approaches and negotiations, these two liberal unique religious denominations became one, the Unitarian Universalist Association.

On May 16, 1804, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (1804-1894) was born in Salem, Massachusetts. She was one of three remarkable sisters. Mary was the wife of Horace Mann; Sophia the wife of Nathaniel Hawthorne. At age 16, Elizabeth Peabody opened a private school in Lancaster, 2 years later, one in Boston. For 9 years she was secretary to William Ellery Channing. She was a key figure in assembling the famous religious and literary figures of the time, so well described in Van Wyck Brooks’ FLOWERING OF NEW ENGLAND. The planners of the utopian community, Brook Farm, met in the back room of a bookstore she opened in 1839, ([the] only one carrying foreign books). She set up a press and published 3 of Hawthorne’s [books] and the writings of Margaret Fuller as well.

After 1845, Elizabeth Peabody devoted herself to education. She was a member and lecturer at the then-famous Concord School of Philosophy. In 1860, she established the first kindergarten in the U.S. She lived [until] her 90th year and her life and memories contributed much to our understanding of an American age notable not only for its literary flowering, but also for the developments in Unitarian thought.

May 19, 1841 is one of the most distinctive dates in American religious history. On that Sunday, Theodore Parker delivered his sermon on “The Transient and Permanent in Christianity.”

Theodore Parker, grandson of Capt. William Parker, who commanded the Lexington militia on April 19, 1775, [was] born [in] 1810, ... the 11th and last child of John and Hannah Parker. Theodore Parker, as a Unitarian minister, was radical even in the eyes of his Unitarian colleagues. He questioned the authority of the Bible, he doubted that Jesus performed miracles. The Unitarian weekly (CHRISTIAN EXAMINER) complained, “Mr. Parker is not a Christian believer.... This young man must be silenced.” He was shunned by most Unitarian colleagues.

Parker was a social prophet and reformer. He participated in demonstrations against the Fugitive Slave Law. He was a scholar of prodigious learning.

It was [on] May 19 that he preached “The Transient and the Permanent in Christianity.” He criticized the reliance Christians had on the authority of Jesus. He argued for the validity of truth, not the authority of a savior, saying “If it could be proved Jesus never lived, still the truths of Christianity will stand firm. If all the Evangelists and Apostles were liars; if Jesus never lived and the New Testament a forgery from end to end, the doctrines of love to God and love to man are just the same absolute truth. They rest on their own authority.”

He believed the church to be in the social order, with responsibility for it. He said, uncompromisingly, “If there be a public sin in the land, if a lie invade the state, it is for the church to give the alarm: it is here that it may war on lies and sins; the more widely they are believed in and practiced, the more they are deadly, the more to be opposed. Here let no false action or false idea of the public go without exposure or rebuke. But let no noble heroism of the times, no noble man pass by without due honor.”

Such was Theodore Parker, “Yankee Crusader” - repudiated in his own time by his Unitarian brethren; today, a hero and exemplar.

On May 25, 1825, the AUA was organized as a member organization, not a denomination of churches. Its organizational beginnings and growth are a long and developing history. Up until the time of consolidation with the Universalists, the annual meetings of a Unitarians were always called “The May Meetings,” and without exception held in Boston in May.

By co-incidence, rather than specific planning, the British Unitarian Association was organized the following day, May 26, 1825.

Also, on May 25, but in 1803, Ralph Waldo Emerson was born. We have discussed him before. Many would agree that he is the greatest figure in American literature. Others recognize that his Transcendentalism – his belief that one could know God directly and no religious institutions were needed for such communication – has guided several American religions. His influence in bringing the insight of the Hindu scriptures to the American world, his stirring lectures, his masterful essays, all these make him a Unitarian hero, even though he found the ministry to stifling and insensitive. He influenced Parker, but also generations of Unitarians. Emerson believed in the universality of truth. He held that character is the test of a person’s worth. In one of his enduring adages, he wrote:

“Every man takes care that his neighbor does not cheat him. But a day comes when he begins to care that he does not cheat his neighbor. Then he has changed his market cart into a chariot of the sun.”

On May 27, 1819, Julia Ward Howe was born of a wealthy family. She is most famous as the author of the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Visiting a campsite near Washington in the early days of the Civil War, she scribbled the words in a tent in the dark. But the years of her living contributed much more than that, even though largely unrecognized.

Rejecting the social life of the upper crust social elite of NYC, she went to Boston for education (debutantes were not educated). There she met and married Samuel Gridley Howe, 20 years her senior (he’s a valiant story in himself – courageous abolitionist and founder of the famous Perkins Institute for the Blind (and for 44 years director)).

Julia, too, was an abolitionist. With her husband she edited “The Commonwealth,” an anti-slavery paper. Their home was a gathering place for abolitionists. She wrote poems and prose in that cause.

Following the war years she became a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, President of the New England Women’s Suffrage movement..

She was also a brave and persistent advocate of world peace, and was one of the organizers and leaders of an international conference of women for peace and against war in 1820 (probably the first such international conference). She died in 1910 with no fulfillment of women’s suffrage or world peace, but she was one [of the] pioneers in both these causes.

Thus the memorable dates in May. Each month could provide similar stories of innovation in thought and deed, courage, and persistence in the upholding the human values of justice and kindness.

These men and women were the kinds of persons about which E.E. Cummings wrote in his line “Be Yourself”

to be nobody but yourself
in a world which is doing
its best night and day to
make you everybody else
means to fight the hardest
battle which any
human being can
fight and never
stop fighting.

These persons and their deeds have not been cited in order that we may gloat with vicarious virtue about famous Unitarians. That would be a bad mistake they never made. They were of their own time and wrestled with the problems of their times.

Our task is not to repeat their names just for historical denominational vanity, but rather to catch up with their expectations of the future – their vision of a world more just and kind, and a religion free, reasonable, and loving.

To be informed and guided by Cummings' reason and compassion.
To be emboldened by the social courage and prophetic radicalism of a Parker and Julia Ward Howe.
To be faithful to the educational ideals and dreams of Horace Mann and Elizabeth Peabody and apply them to our times.
To be grasped by a sense of the transcendent that Emerson held before us.
To recognize that religious movements survive by a combination of the free individual and a democratic organization – AUA, ... UUA.

Such principles applied to our issues of self and society represent the better way to be faithful to a tradition worth our loyalty.

Vigilantes And Demonstrators

April 20, 1985
Lakeland
Port Charlotte

We have just finished singing “Soon the day will arrive when we will be together and no longer will we live in fear.” How long before that day arrives? Not soon, I surmise, when one considers the tensions and terror of our times.

The subject today is vigilantes and demonstrators. To be looked at are Bernhard Goetz, the subway shooter who took vigilante action, the so-called “pro-lifers” who bombed a Tallahassee clinic, the church people who provide sanctuary for refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala, and the demonstrators at South African embassies. What these persons have in common is breaking the law. These persons also have convictions they believe take priority over the law.

Are the laws just convenient, to be willfully broken when one has other goals, values, ideals or fears that require lawbreaking?

In MACBETH (Act II, Sc. 1), one of the assassins assures Macbeth of his willingness to carry out the crime:

“I am one, my liege
Whom the vile blows and buffets
of the world
Have so incensed that I am
reckless what
I do to spite the world.”

In reviewing several issues, hotly disputed in these months of 1985, there will be a look at causes so fervently held that the believers are so incensed that (they are) reckless in what they do [to] spite the world – reckless in the sense of consciously and willingly breaking laws to accomplish purpose.

Then I will inquire if there is an ethic to justify such lawbreaking, and whether such an ethic requires standards of behavior even when breaking the law.

First, the case of Bernhard Goetz, the subway vigilante who took the law into his own hands when approached by four young men. Taking out the gun, which he illegally carried, Goetz shot the four, one of whom is still hospitalized, suffering brain damage and paralysis from the waist down.

After a grand jury initially indicted Goetz only on the charge of illegally possessing a gun, the case was re-submitted to a grand jury. Based on evidence not included in the first Grand Jury hearing, he has been indicted on charges that he tried to murder the four young men in the subway train last December. The trial has not yet been held, so no one can predict at this time whether Bernhard Goetz will be convicted on any of the charges.

But what is important to the subject today is the reaction of the public to the subway shootings.

Hotlines recorded hundreds of calls praising Goetz as a hero; one senator from New York offered both to pay for the legal defense and to testify for Goetz. The shootings seem to bring to the surface the city dwellers’ constant fear of violent crime, their deep discontent with the necessity of using the subway system – overcrowded, unreliable, and subway cars splashed with ugly or vulgar graffiti. The subway experience in New York City is not a joy-ride, but an unpleasant, fear-filled ordeal. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the many persons who have been mugged, robbed, or otherwise violated felt their intense frustration somewhat released by the heady rush of sweet revenge accomplished in John Wayne fashion by the subway vigilante.

Next there is the case, just now being decided by a jury, for the Christmas Day bombing of the abortion clinic in Tallahassee. Two young men, both 21, and two younger women, fiancee and wife [to the men], respectively, are alleged to have purchased explosive materials, made pipe bombs, and set them off at the clinic. [CJW note: they have been convicted] Their defense lawyer is quoted as saying that the four are not terrorists, but “Christ-like innocents and knights in shining armor.” The defendants claimed that they were acting on orders from God. The newspaper (4/17/85) reported that one defense attorney is planning an insanity defense (which, by the way, presents a fascinating theological problem – if one believes he/she is acting on “orders from God” is this insanity?). That may or may not be so, but it is clear that violent crime was committed by four people, and justified by many more, on the ground that what they believe to be God’s will overrides the laws of the state.

Then consider the controversial matter of sanctuary. In defiance of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), [a number of illegal aliens (perhaps several hundred, and with the support of thousand more) from El Salvador and Guatemala are being transported and sheltered by churches].

There have been at least 16 sanctuary movement leaders indicted, and more than 60 arrested. The Federal government claims that churches have no legal right to protect lawbreakers, in these cases, illegal aliens. In 1980, Congress passed an act recognizing political asylum for those fleeing persecution. As the INS interprets that law, persons fleeing communist countries are “political” refugees and entitled to asylum. Refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala are “economic” refugees and [are] in this country illegally.

Why this labored distinction when there have been thousands (perhaps 50M) killings in [El] Salvador and a cruel military dictatorship in Guatemala? As William Sloane Coffin pointed out, “the reason is transparent. It would be highly embarrassing to grant ‘political’ status to refugees coming from countries whose governments our own government enthusiastically supports with military and economic aid.”

There is probably no legal basis in the U.S, for the medieval common law that the church is sanctuary for the law-breaker. There may be a legal defense in that the INS has made a bureaucratic interpretation beyond the act that Congress passed. Be that as it may, churches transporting and sheltering illegal aliens are breaking that law as interpreted. Many of our own Unitarian Universalist societies are confronting this issue, dealing with strong differences of opinion. Events may or may not place before our voting members the necessity to take a position “yea” or “nay.”

Then there is South Africa and the demonstrations in Washington, DC, and other places in our country where there are arrests every day for illegal demonstrations. Among those arrested have been Eugene Pickett, President of the UUA, David Eaton, minister of All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Washington, many other Unitarian Universalists, and hundreds of others from the spectrum of all religious affiliations. They are protesting the cruelties and inhumanity of the government of South Africa where 80% of the population is black – 23 million people who cannot vote, who must carry an ID pass at all times, who cannot own real estate in the white areas of the country, where the government forcibly resettles blacks in wretched areas called “homelands,” where only half the children will reach the age of 5, where 270 have been killed in the last 15 months when peacefully protesting.

Disengagement in South Africa is not an issue here, because there is nothing illegal about shareholders pressuring U.S. corporations to cease their large investments and enterprises in South Africa. But demonstrators arrested in Washington are breaking the law.

Here are four developing events in our time – in the papers we read, the TV we see, and strong opinions we hear on each side of the controversies. My attempt to digest vast and complex issues may be inadequate, but I think sufficient to make distinctions which are important to me.

Bernhard Goetz, the subway vigilante.
The bombers of the Tallahassee clinic (and there were at least 29 other bombings of abortion clinics in 1984 alone)
The advocates of sanctuary for illegal refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.
The protestors against the inhumane government of South Africa.

However much Bernhard Goetz lived in fear, and however much many responded with approval or satisfaction at the gut level, shooting down the four youths with a handgun carried illegally is wrong. No matter how much the so-called “pro-life” people either favor, sympathize, or tolerate the violent bombings of women’s clinics, they too are wrong. I do not question the sincerity of their beliefs, but the violent methods used.

On the other hand, I support the sanctuary movement, although that may be illegal. I support those who protest the tyrant government of South Africa, although some of those protests are unlawful.

The prime reason for such attitudes is the distinction between violent and non-violent resistance. One’s personal ethics are the choices one makes between wrong behavior and right behavior. In the course of our lives, there is the struggle between the ends or goals one seeks and the means or methods one uses to accomplish the goals. [CJW note: Horance Davis]

The subway vigilante, according to his own statements, went far beyond reasonable self-protection, shooting the young men in the back when they retreated, and endangering the lives of 20 other passengers with flying bullets. The problem of crime is authentically a pressing reality, but it would not be solved, but extensively compounded, if we all armed ourselves and responded with a quick trigger in real or assumed to be threatening situations.

The “pro-life” forces make a mockery of their own slogans when they commit terrorist bombings or apologize for them. Would they concede that the majority who disagree with their stand have a right also to commit terrorist acts to support their point of view?

My support of peaceful, even when unlawful, demonstrations for the purposes of political pressures simply acknowledges that civil disobedience is sometimes necessary to secure and maintain values which the dissenters believe essential. The underground railroad in the Civil War represented unlawful activity. Today we look upon the participants as heroes and cherish as shrines the stations where slaves were hidden during the perilous escape to Canada. During the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s, there were thousands of arrests, but the goal was accomplished.

The essential points were non-violent protest and the willingness to accept the penalty if convicted. Gandhi was the great exemplar of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, and was jailed many times. So with Martin Luther King Jr., who is the model for such action in this country. He, too, was arrested many times, but never wavered in the essential foundations that dominated his philosophy to accomplish needed social change: civil disobedience, when necessary, non-resistan[ce], and accepting the legal penalty for such action if convicted.

In conclusion (to await your questions and rebuttals), let me repeat the words of Henry Steele Commanger, in two principles [that] are the very core of Americanism: the principle of the Higher Law, or of obedience to conscience rather than statutes, and the principle of pragmatism, or the rejection of a single good and the notion of a finished universe. “From the beginning, Americans have known that there were new worlds to conquer, new truths to be discovered. Every effort to confine Americanism to a single pattern, to constrain it to a single formula, is disloyal to everything that is valid in Americanism.”

Trust And Diversity

March 31, 1985
Lakeland

The preceding two Sundays I have spoken, I have tried to highlight and affirm Unitarian Universalist positions toward authority in religion and the nature of human salvation. There has been emphasis on how we differ from the usual beliefs and assumptions of the overwhelming majority of Christian churches and most other religious institutions. Because we are seekers, not dogmatists, we are denied the absolute assurance and confidence possessed by the followers of an unquestioned faith.

Relying on principles rather than creeds makes us a tiny minority. Tuesday morning, it was reported [on radio news] that over a million people world-wide viewed the Academy Awards on TV Monday evening. I said to myself, “Here I am in another tiny minority.”

In religion, I have from time [to time] wondered if life would be any better or have more meaning if I simply made the jump of faith to a formula[ic] religion. Would I enjoy the confidence of certainty more than the insecurities of the constant dynamism of search? But I always return to the search. The confidence and assurance others may cherish are based on assumptions and premises that are not true for me. In that vein, I’m reminded of the story told by John McKay, the former coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, about the late and famous coach of Alabama, Bear Bryant. McKay tells it: “When I went duck-hunting with Bear Bryant, he shot at one, but it kept flying. ‘John,’ he said, ‘there flies a dead duck.’ Now that’s confidence.”

But such unreal confidence I cannot possess, share, or recommend.

Thus in the far more important matter of what religion is and does, and the principles governing our gathering together, my reliance is on diversity and trust.

Writer John Updike once noted, “My first thought about art as a child was that the artist brings something into the world that didn’t exist before, and that he does it without destroying something else. A kind of refutation of the conservation of matter. That seems to me its central magic, its core of joy.”

What Updike wrote about art expresses some of the feelings I have about diversity and trust in Unitarian Universalist fellowship. Something is brought into the world that didn’t exist before without destroying something else.

First, our diversity: our diversity exists because we are willing to share differing opinions, unlike perceptions, and various convictions. The key word is “share,” not just sit with unexpressed beliefs.

There was a cartoon in a recent NEW YORKER where a visitor is shown with his host in an underground vault. There is a massive steel door, TV monitor, and other protective mechanisms. The room is filled with sturdy, sealed packing cases of various sizes. The crates are stenciled “Rembrandt,” “Vermeer,” “Bonnard,” “Picasso,” “Matisse,” “Gauguin,” “Van Gogh,” “Klee.” The visitor says with an awed expression, “I had no idea you were so passionate about art.”

But here we want the treasures of your mind and the convictions of your experience to be open and shared, not crated away in stored isolation. Disagreements have a tart taste when the temptation is to have everything sweet. As Sydney J. Harris once wrote, “Agreement makes us soft and complacent; disagreement brings out our strength. Our real enemies are the people who make us feel so good that we are slowly, but inexorably, pulled down into the quicksand of smugness and self-satisfaction.”

My opinion and your opinion may differ on a given matter. How we arrive at what seems true to us can flow from different springs.

In his speech accepting the 1957 Nobel Prize, Albert Camus said, “Truth is mysterious, elusive, always to be conquered. Liberty is dangerous, as hard to live with it as it is elating. We must march toward these two goals, painfully, but resolutely, certain in advance of our feelings on so long a road.”

Acknowledged diversity is the basis of truth and freedom in the atmosphere of trust.

Harry and Bonaro Overstreet, [in] their book, THE MIND GOES FORTH, noted (p.83) “The devotee of democracy adopts a life-long assignment in human relationship.” One can accurately paraphrase, the Unitarian Universalist adopts a life-long assignment in human relationships. Human relationship would not be a phrase in our language were it not for the reality that there is diversity in human perceptions and goals. To deal with diversity in good will is assuredly both a constant need and a rewarding virtue.

Trust is the necessary other side of the coin of diversity. We can entertain our differences because of trust. We are more than a clubhouse of the complacent. We have different perceptions and perspectives. But an authentic life together is where burdens and joys are shared. We trust that here we learn more about what makes men and women persons, not objects. When we forget that, may our words be as ashes, our proud convictions as the chaff which the wind drives away.

Here, because of trust, we may know the wisdom of an old story and the joy of a new child.
Here we may join arguments about the social order.
Here the shared meal is made savory by fine conversation.
Here, we cherish the remembrance of things past.
Here we have the hope of new and good experiences to come.
Here we stand together trustingly so that elsewhere, if need be, we can stand alone with courage.

Let me conclude with a recent Hagar the Horrible cartoon. in the first panel, Hagar is going out the door and saying to Helga, “I go to seek wisdom, truth, and to discuss the real meaning of life.”

In the second panel, he adds, “If you need anything, I’ll be at the tavern.”

I just wish he had said, in the second panel, [“I’ll be at] the Fellowship, come alone with me.”

Where Is Fundamental Certainty?

March 17, 1985
Lakeland
Port Charlotte

A human trait is the need for security. In religions, this need for security has been, for most of history and among most people, a faith response to a creed or authoritative teaching, or placing a complete trust in a savior. W.H. Auden’s phrase “The Age of Anxiety” has become a cliché, but is a cliché that denotes the fears that characterize 20th century men and women. The impressive growth of TV ministries of fundamentalist gospel churches is due not only to catchy music, magnetic preachers, and excellent public relations, but also because a basic security is offered. The rock of ages, when accepted by a leap of faith, provides a firm base of hope amid the storms, shifting tides, and uncertainties of living in a precarious age.

The source of authority for religious beliefs spells the difference between liberal religion and more orthodox beliefs. An informed idea of a person’s religion can be inferred from an answer to the question, “By whom or by what are you directed or commanded in your religious beliefs and actions?”

I would seek to review briefly this central directive of living we call authority. In the 1920s, Walter Lippmann asked liberals the same questions then that are asked today, “Where is your fundamental certainty? What are the credentials of your authority? Where is the faith that will strengthen the nerve of your people? [or be] a ‘preface to morals?’”

A whimsical story I came across helped me to sort out the matters of authority for religious beliefs:

The U.S. Customs Service requires that all imported merchandise be labeled with country of origin. (CONTEXT, August 1984) A religious organization, unaware of this provision, tried to import kaleidoscopes made in Hong Kong, marked only “All good things are made by Him.” Discovered at customs, there was a hasty attempt to comply, and the wording came out “All good things are made by Him in Hong Kong.”

After a chuckle, it seemed to me that this was like a parable. That all good things are made by Him in Hong Kong is absurd. But are all good things (about religious faith) made any other particular place? Jerusalem Rome? Mecca? Found in a sacred book? Discovered in a conversion experience? Partaking of sacraments? Where is authority found?

In civil life, the lines of authority are much more clearly defined. In republican government, authority rests in the constitution and statutes of the political structures. Elected and appointed officers legislate and enforce, and the judiciary interprets the law. Authority ultimately rests with the citizens who exercise their vote and make the effort to monitor their legislators and register convictions.

In research, the seat of authority is the scientific method. Discoveries, theories, and inventions are examined by testing procedures designed to demonstrate the truth or error of the hypothetical proposition. This is the authority of experiment and testing discoveries.

Most religious groups seem to find no difficulty or confusion in locating the seat of authority. They profess to know in whom or where truth originates, and they acknowledge its commands. Is this unquestioning reliance on authority persuasive to Unitarian Universalists and other religious liberals? For me, the answer is “no.” I would put before you my justification of this negative and contrast it with what I believe to be the basis for liberal religious beliefs.

First, the Bible as authority for religious beliefs is no longer a source of unquestioning trust (some who may have shared in our Wednesday night discussion groups may remember our detailed discussions). In this stance, we have separated from the main bodies of Protestant religion who still seem to accept the Bible’s authority. For religious liberals, there are analogies, folk stories, poems, ethical pointers, and literary values in the writings treasured by Christian and Jewish believers.

But for us there is no doubt that biblical writings have gone through a social process of additions and alterations in order to accommodate the varied ideas of differing religious leaders and groups in many historical periods. An open-minded study of only small portions of scripture disclose many contradictions that cannot be reconciled. Acceptance of critical biblical scholarship has been a common-place attitude among Unitarian Universalists and other religious liberals for more than 100 years.

The Bible as the seat of authority in religion is also on dubious grounds when we realize what history plainly demonstrates. Even if the origins of scripture were literally from the hand of the Creator, the meanings inferred and the power that has been claimed have always been a matter of individual interpretations that frequently contradict each other.

Most Protestants would affirm that the authority of the Bible was the spark that ignited the Reformation. Although there is some ground for this belief, it is a generalization that needs qualification. John Hus, John Wyclif, and Giralamo Savonarola all were famous Bible preachers and leaders of the pre-dawn of the Reformation, “the morning Stars” as they have been called. Luther was the instigator of religious revolt in Germany; Calvin in Switzerland. Both insisted with assurance the authority of the Bible. John Calvin was quite sure that only he knew what God intended men and women to know from scripture. Luther was equally positive that his position was authoritative.

It has been pointed out (RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM, p. 25) “While Luther understood worship, like faith, to be determined by scripture, his understanding of the Bible was such that anything in Christian worship was permissible which was not explicitly prohibited. Thus Luther was able to justify the continuance of vestments, candles, rituals, and liturgy. For Calvin, only that which was specifically authorized had precedent and [validity] in Christian worship. Therefore he was outraged by images, stained-glass windows, altars, vestments, and pipe organs.”

Beyond the obvious difficulties of locating the seat of authority when such different interpretations have been made, the historian, reasonably free from sectarian bias, notices that most of Calvin’s interpretations had the effect of security and maintaining his political power in Geneva. Martin Luther studied the Bible intensely, gave the German people the scriptures in their own language and preached Bible-centered sermons with oratorical power. But when the Reformation became a political reality, the seat of authority was not the Bible. The seat of authority was found in the decision of the individual who headed each of the many small German principalities and estates. The princes considered their political future and economic well-being at least as much as evangelical conviction. The princes made the choice – Latin Catholicism or State Lutheranism – and all their respective subjects had to abide by that authority, disregarding any individual convictions people may have had about the authority of either the Bible or Church. Imagine Jesus saying that a political prince had the right to choose religion for every one of the people!

Consequently, the high-sounding principle of placing the seat of authority in the Bible is not simple, but a vague, complex, and inconsistent task.

The inevitable dilemmas and questions that confront any serious student who attempts to use the Bible as a complete authority has led persons back to Rome as the seat of authority.

John Henry Newman (“Lead, Kindly Light”), Anglican minister and scholar, became not only a convert to Roman Catholicism but a prince of the church, receiving the cardinal’s hat in 1879. He traveled the road to Rome because he came to believe that only in the authoritative church could he find the religious certainty he wanted.

Most Christians in the world are Roman Catholic. Not an infallible book, but an infallible church is the source of teaching and power. St. Ignatius Loyola once wrote, “There is no greater mistake than to suppose the mass of mankind sincerely crave for liberty. They crave for comfort and convenience.”

But however much the authoritative church may be a comfort to those who will not guide themselves in religion, it is apparent to many of us that assertions of unlimited authority for the church have been made by limited human beings like ourselves; that selfish institutional ends have many times been served, individual brilliance squelched, and political and economic considerations have displaced the gospel as priority.

Then many will say, “let’s really get down to fundamentals. We cannot accept the seat of authority in a book or church, but we can find it in the God-man Jesus.”

Certainly his disciples and followers were impressed that Jesus was a source of trust – at least until he got into trouble with the governmental authorities. Jesus must have possessed unique personal appeal and impressive moral power (“the common people heard him gladly”, “He taught with authority and not as a scribe.”) To accept Jesus as “Lord and Savior” is an attractive invitation to persons in troubled times. But as Professor Henry Cadbury, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, and many other scholars have pointed out, there is a “peril to modernizing Jesus.” He moves back into his own time and his own Galilean ways and is an elusive source of authority for specific instructions on today’s problems.

We can’t be sure he said everything attributed to him. The documents have gone through much religious editing. Even if we knew with certainty exactly what Jesus said, we would need much courage to accept the authority of a rebel who rejected religious authority, who was considered a threat to the established government, who thought so little of the religious institutional life most people prize that he did not even have the simplest kind of established gathering place for followers of his movement, and [who] was publicly executed.

Where then is the Unitarian Universalist or other religious liberal [to do] when he/she finds no sure foundation in a sacred book, holy church, or a redeeming savior?

The first principle in the purposes of the UUA is the key: “Support the free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of religious fellowship.” For me, truth is not a fixed point like the North Pole, but a process, a sifting, a discarding of the old, when the old no longer measures up to reason, common sense, or ethical requirements. I believe it was Spinoza who argued that freedom is not anything which is given us, it is something which with certain limitations we can acquire by insight and effort (Fromm, p. 1545, HEART OF ...)

This is guidance by inner honesty, reason, freedom, and [it] has a long history. The Friends have always held all other authorities secondary, giving first priority to the voice of the inner spirit. Jeanne D’Arc was burned at the stake because she obeyed her inner voices, rather than yielding to the authoritative church. I remember years ago being told following service by a layman, “We are a people who take our beliefs so seriously that we will not even permit our church to tell us what to believe.”

I’m acutely aware that to place our trust in reason and individual conscience presents as many problems as it solves. Persons of equal sincerity will arrive at different decisions because the voices of conscience do not agree. We are programmed early in life and changing [one’s] mind-set, many times, is a painful and lonely task. As a proverb from the Talmud has it, “truth is heavy, therefore few care to carry it.”

In Christopher Fry’s play, “The First Born,” Moses tells Pharaoh the reason why Moses had to return to dangerous Egypt from safe Midian:

“A man has more to be
Than a Pharaoh. He must dare
to outgrow the security of partial blindness.”

Shortly after, Moses says to his brother Aaron:

“Though civilization become perfect?
What then?
We have only put a crown on the
skeleton.
It is the individual man [CJW note: woman]
In his individual freedom who can
mature
With his warm spirit the unripe world.
What would you make
of man? If you diminish him
To a count of laboring limbs,
you will also dwindle
And be an unmeaning body,
decomposing
Imperceptibly under heavy ornaments.”

There is a cautionary statement to be made. Individual freedom of belief can never be fully achieved in isolation. “The free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of religious fellowship.” [CJW note: operative words are disciplined, fellowship]

In his classic of medieval Catholicism, MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND CHARTRES, Henry Adams notes, “Absolute liberty is absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore the ideally free individual is responsible only to himself. This is the philosophical foundation of anarchy ... and fatal to all society.”

Our process of refining truth, finding new insights and uniting when we can is the foundation of religious fellowship. Finding truth is a sharing process, too. Such is authority for Unitarian Universalists, for religious liberals. The liberal conscience, a process of sharing experiences and insights, builds on a foundation of faith. That faith assumes that truth is a process, that the human individual is of supreme worth, that humankind always has the potential to be free, and that the highest purpose of the human enterprise is increasing involvement and identity with freedom, fellowship, and human dignity of persons everywhere on this planet, our home.

Salvation – An Immediate Experience Or A Constant Task?

March 3, 1985
Lakeland

The interest, support, and enthusiasm for Christian salvation religion seems more intense in Central Florida than any other place I have lived. An Assembly of God church has just opened its new building which will seat 10,000; to me, an astonishing capacity. Every week some Christian church announces a revival with a visiting evangelist and gospel musicians. The Leighton Ford Crusade is concluding an eight-day series of meetings at the Civic Center. Ford has been an associate of Billy Graham for many years. I think it’s accurate to say that SALVATION is the basic theme of these and other evangelistic meetings. The planning that has preceded the Leighton Ford meetings has been well organized – preparations have taken months. The Christian churches of the community have been largely involved. The attractive signs in patriotic red, white, and blue announcing the meetings were mounted outside almost every Christian church in the community. The financing from individuals, business groups, and churches has been largely subscribed in advance [CJW note: 198,000]. Unlike the TV evangelists, I surmise that there have been no plaintive pleas to write checks for a deficit.

The comments on the Leighton Ford meetings by two Florida Southern professors have been instructive. The meetings have not been like the old sawdust trail themes of pounding away of punishment in hell for the unsaved. The theme has been hope. The professors, Cook and Weaver, note that Ford has characterized his meetings as a proclamation, celebration, and invitation. “It has components of a ‘show,’” they write, “laughter, interaction with the crowd, talented performers, yet also seeks to go beyond these elements. It elevates theological matters to the center, but is not a forum for academic debate, for it aims at eliciting commitment and altering lives.”

Unlike the famous revivals of the 19th century, the main audience is not the unchurched, the “irreligious,” however defined. When the revival phase of American religion began, “sinners” were urged day and night by emotional preachers. The frontier was the scene of the early [revivals]. There were few churches on the frontier (frontier then: Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio). But the meetings this week in the Civic Center do not seem to be designed to appeal to the unchurched, the atheist or agnostic. Some such may have been there. But I assume, because of the extensive involvement of Christian church people, choirs, other organizations, the audience comprised for the most part persons already involved in a Christian church. Admitting that I make this observation as one who has not attended or been involved, and recognizing that what persons do may be thoroughly misunderstood if appraised wholly from the outside, it seems that this series of meetings and others like it represent re-affirmation of Christian doctrine by those already “in the fold.”

To say this is not a negative criticism. The re-sparking of enthusiasm, the involvement with thousands of other believers, the inspirational music and sermons will strengthen the believers’ allegiance to their churches. The organizers, supporters, signers, preachers can be praised for such support of belief. It would be churlish to downgrade the experience of others which may have lifted hopes and strengthened commitment.

But as one who is not in the mode of evangelistic Christian revivals, I have thought about this matter of salvation, whether it is an immediate experience or [a] constant task. Although it is not a word I use much, salvation to me is constant growth, not a quick lightning strike of immediate conversion. I have considered the definitions in the dictionary provided: 1) The saving of man/woman from the spiritual consequences of sin, especially in the afterlife; 2) Deliverance from eternal punishment and entrance to heavenly blessedness. Liberation from bondage and the results of sin by the divine agency of the atonement of Christ.

Such definitions are wholly within the Christian context. But many of us cannot accept this particular salvation scheme. Erwin Goodenough, a pioneer in the studies of psychology of religion, saw variety as an essential feature of religion, much as the idea of art entails by necessity a multiplicity of media forms and schools. Considering the foregoing definitions, I believe that partialistic boundaries can be widened, made more inclusive, if we think of salvation as “the highest good which any faith offers its followers.”

Can persons holding Unitarian Universalist principles, rooted in freedom of belief and trusting in reason, find meaning in a term such as “salvation?” How do we deal with the nature of this religious idea which permeates the times and places of Judeo-Christian history?

Historically, Universalism was founded as a salvation denomination, proposing that all persons would be saved through the goodness of God. No God of love would sentence any human being to eternal punishment. All persons would be saved, and there would be a final harmony of all souls with God. However, the most influential and central doctrine of the Christian churches is that all believers must “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved .... As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

If, however, you, like I, cannot accept such dogmas based on faith without examination, then one thinks and believes in different ways. If you share my belief that ideas, dogmas, and institutions are the result of forces moving with the dimensions of human and natural history, sometimes galvanized to a magnetic person, then the idea of salvation deserves investigation to ascertain whether it can have any meaning for us today.

There is a shared confusion about religious salvation, in my opinion. Generally, both the Christian religious conformist and the unbeliever or the skeptic think of salvation as a future state to come as a reward to those who have believed creeds, shared sacraments, or been “saved.” The believer hopes for a happy land beyond the grave. The unbeliever rejects the idea of salvation because any concept which requires postponement to an uncertain future seems to him or her either to be “pie in the sky by and by” or wishful thinking. Paul Tillich wrote (THEOLOGY OF CULTURE, p. 35), “salvation is beyond time, it is always independent of any stage of time. It is the eternal present above every temporal present.”

If I understand him, I, too, find that unless salvation is an experience we can know in our present lives, then there is no profit in pursuing its meaning.

The various Christian doctrines of salvation have been subjected to ancient influences:

In primitive Jewish religion, there was a great ceremonial occasion when the people rid themselves of the sins of which they felt guilty, by rubbing their hands on the hide of the scapegoat. This scapegoat was then driven into the wilderness, carrying with it the sins of the people.

In a more responsible age, this primitive notion of an innocent goat carrying the guilt burden for all became transformed into corporate responsibility for all. Isaiah 53/45:

“Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows; ....
but he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities
Upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
And with his stripes we are healed.”

Most scholars I have read concur that Isaiah was not predicting the advent of Jesus, the Christian savior. Rather, Isaiah, in an enduring blend of poetry and ethical prophecy, was referring to the whole body of Israel which must bear responsibility. Theologically and culturally, the idea carried over into Christian theology, but the emphasis was reversed. Instead of a whole people bearing corporate responsibility for the sins of any, Christian theology proposed that Jesus was a single “suffering servant” who “bears our stripes” and by his atoning death saves all.

But for those of us who have come to different beliefs, such are not our ways. Most of us who gather here would not feel at home either with over-simplified doctrinal formulas which proclaim the only way of salvation must be linked with the belief in a single God-man savior, or in over-elaborated rituals which assert that we are saved by seven sacraments.

When I consider the idea of salvation, insofar as one can have any meaning for me, three experiences come to mind: character, reconciliation, imagination.

One of the other dictionary definitions offers the thought that “salvation is preservation from destruction, disintegration, failure or other evil.” This definition is easier for me to understand than “consequences of sin.”

First, salvation by character was explicit in the most widely used Unitarian affirmation of faith. We do not claim originality. Salvation by character is an old and respected basis of religious authenticity. Centuries before Jesus, Ezekiel proclaimed (18/5), “If a man is righteous and does what [is] lawful and right – if he does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment ... withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes and is careful to obey my ordinances, he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God.” Notice how every one of these qualities applies to behavior in this world.

Character is what we are and what we do. Character can focus our perspective so we will not make any artificial and unreal distinctions between things alleged to be “spiritual” and things alleged to be “material.”

Regardless of what may await us in worlds beyond our experience of this life (and I do not think there are any such other worlds), salvation by character involves what we are and what we do here in this world. I do not know any way to appraise a man or woman as good other than acts and attitudes in this world.

Whatever motives that thrash around within us, and whatever acts I do that consciously or insidiously separate me from the things and principles I believe highest, place additional barriers between me and salvation – whether I define salvation in some orthodox fashion or whether I define it (as I do) as humanistic self-fulfillment, responsibility, and maturing. David Hume (AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, p. 308, Harvard Classics) expressed the rule succinctly, “Be a philosopher, but amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.” [CJW note: or woman]

But this is not enough. We must confront the social nature of character. Thus there is salvation by reconciliation, also.

Plain-speaking Jeremiah, another of the great prophets of the Hebrew heritage, mourned (8/20) “the harvest is over, the summer is ended and we are not saved.” “WE” are not saved! Salvation is not just an individual affair, but an achievement of community. The leaders of the American Revolution endorsed the Declaration of Independence [with the words]: WE pledge our lives, our fortunes and sacred honor. There can be no individual salvation worthy of the name unless that redemption involves reconciliation and peace between human beings in human community.

Do you remember how Herman Melville, in MOBY DICK, expressed a sensitive understanding of salvation by reconciliation? In the chapter, THE CASTAWAY, Melville introduced the event, “A most significant event befell the most insignificant of the Pequod’s crew.” Pip, the little cabin boy, ordinarily did not accompany the whaleboats when these were launched from the vessel when a whale was sighted. Pip, a native of Tolland County, Connecticut, loved life and usually remained in safety on the Pequod. But one day on the broad Pacific, one of the oarsmen hurt his hand and Pip was enlisted as the substitute. When a whale was harpooned, one of its fins made a sharp rap on the underside of the boat. In terror, Pip jumped overboard. The second mate, Stubb, did not cut the rope in order to pick up Pip, assuming another whale boat would do so. But these boats had turned in another direction and had not seen Pip jump.

Pip was alone. He saw no other humans for hours as he struggled to keep afloat. By rare chance, he was sighted after a considerable time by the vessel, the Pequod. Pip’s life was saved, but his reason was forever gone. Henceforth, he was mentally disabled. The strain of feeling that he had been completely abandoned by his human kind has been too much for him. The old myth of Cain expressed the same desolation when he was rejected and excluded from human community, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

Any idea of salvation that ignores the human community seems a pointless and hollow achievement. Now we are becoming increasingly sensitive that community must some day mean world community, or surely we shall not be saved. No one can be individually saved from nuclear war, or widespread ecological disaster.

Lastly, I would offer that there must be salvation by imagination. Jesus said to Nicodemus (John 3/3), “Truly I say unto you that unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Almost always, in usual Christian thinking this is the Big Phrase – born again referring to the Christian conviction of sin and guilt and [the] consequent conversion that sometimes follows – a polar switch of emotional extremes. Born again.

But it seems to me that one can also interpret this old saying another way: imagination is necessary for salvation. One must acquire a new vision – see things as they should be and might be. Even persons of high integrity can become deeply depressed unless hope continuously offers the vision of a better world for the human adventure.

We need imagination to appreciate the varied ways persons of other faiths envision salvation. Some Hindus find salvation in the way of Bhakti, devotion. Through faith, love, and service, they find salvation ... in vows, pilgrimages, and sacred rites.

When the Buddhist holds up the four noble truths and pledges himself/herself to the eight-fold path to salvation, we need the imagination to recognize [that] we have companions on the ways to a better world.

We are saved by our vision of what we want to become and recognizing companions who seek the same values, though perhaps speaking different words and worshiping at other altars.