Beginning of Universalism in America

c. 1950-55 (undated)
Gloucester, MA (assumed)

Beginning of Universalism in America (Ed. - the sermon was actually untitled)

In 1770 Gloucester, Massachusetts was a seaport In touch with all the world. Before the advent of railways, seaports were always centers of liberal thought, the first places to receive the new ideas. In 1769 a man named Gregory, whether officer, sailor, or passenger on one of the Gloucester merchant ships (no one knows), had brought to the town a book written by Rev. James Relly of London, entitled, "Union, or a Treatise on the Consanguinity Between Christ and His Church." The arrival of this book in Gloucester was the beginning of Universalism in America. The printed page preceded the spoken word. This book had been read, and made converts at least three years before Murray came to the city. Murray's Preaching for the first three years was itinerant. Welcomed at first as a popular preacher, it was before long discovered that he was a heretic. In Boston the Rev. Andrew Croswell denounced him in the papers as a disciple of Relly. This was true. After some years of friendship with John Wesley and Whitefield, he had some months before coming to America come under the influence of Rev. James Relly and had been converted to his ideas. The Gloucester converts to Relly read Croswell's accusation in the paper and were very much interested. They asked the most influential member of the group, Mr. Winthrop Sargent, to go to Boston and invite Murray to Gloucester. Mr. Sargent was undoubtedly at this time the leading citizen in the city. In response to Mr. Sargent's invitation, Mr. Murray came to the city and preached nine times on nine successive days. For the first time in his three years in America he here found a group of influential people already in sympathy with his ideas.

From this time on for twenty years, with the exception of eight months, when he was a chaplain in the Army of the Revolution, and part of one year when persecution drove him to England, and when away on missionary journeys, Gloucester was his home. Here he found the support made his career possible.

At first he was given the use of First Parish Church. Shortly after coming here the second time this privilege was denied him and thereafter services were held in the homes of his converts, on Sundays, usually in the spacious parlors of Winthrop Sargent's hospitable mansion.

Congregations grew, converts increased, and opposition became more bitter and determined....

Shortly after he (John Murray) resumed preaching, after his return from the army, his followers ceased to attend the services in the First Parish Church. Then the storm broke – a mob assembled before the house of Winthrop Sargent, where Murray was living, determined to ride him out of town, and on being dissuaded from their purpose, warned him to leave on the threat of violence if he remained. An effort was also made to have him expelled from town as a vagrant, anyone not a land-owner having no legal status in any place at that time. This danger was avoided by one of his supporters making him a gift of some land, this constituting him a free holder....

He was summoned before the committee of safety and ordered to leave town within five days (read p. 107 – Universalism in Gloucester). The town at its annual meeting, by a vote of 54 for and 8 against, approved the action of the committee of safety. Curses followed him and stones were thrown at him as he walked the streets. Through it all Murray and his company of brave supporters (Gen. Greene – Eddy I – p. 150) stood firm and unwavering. In spite of all this, perhaps because of this, the number of Murray's followers increased, and little by little threats and dangers of physical violence ceased. The difficulty of his followers, however, in establishing their right to a faith and form of worship as they desired was only beginning.

On February 1 [ed. - or 11?], 1777 fifteen people (read p. 112), five of them members of the Sargent family, absented themselves from worship in First Parish Church. In these people we find the beginnings of what is now the Independent Christian Church (Universalist) in Gloucester and the Universalist Church of America.

There was, however, no legal organization. They simply agreed to meet together for religious worship and to "appoint Mr. Murray their religious teacher so long as he preaches the gospel as we now understand it." Shortly after they drew up what are known as the "Articles of Association" in which they call themselves the Independent Christian Church in Gloucester, declaring it to be their purpose "in so far as possible to live peaceably with all men." The Articles were signed by thirty-one men and thirty women, or if, Murray's name be omitted, by thirty men and thirty women.

A year later the society built a meeting house in one corner of Winthrop Sargent's garden, near where the Bradford Block now stands on Main St. Gloucester. It was 32½ x 48 feet with 30 box pews and was the first church building erected by Universalists in the United States, or, for that matter, in the world.

The members of the First Parish held that by law members of the Independent Christian Church were still obligated to pay taxes for the support of the established order. The Universalists refused to pay, basing their refusal on the Bill of Rights, which they held guaranteed to each person liberty to choose his own religious teacher. The First Parish claimed the Independent Church "was not a religious organization, or if so, was not incorporated, and that Murray was not a religious teacher, or if so, was not ordained."

The easiest thing would have been for the members of the Independent Church to apply to the Legislature for an Act of Incorporation. They felt, however, that they were being denied rights secured them by the Constitution and that in fighting for their rights they were fighting for the rights of all others.

For this public-spirited reason they refused to pay and they refused to incorporate. The First Parish in 1782 in an attempt to enforce its demands seized and sold at auction the goods of three prominent members of the Independent Church. It was found that in order to establish their rights, Murray as their religious teacher must bring action against the First Parish for the recovery of money which had been wrongfully diverted from his use. This Murray refused to do for some time as he had never taken any salary for preaching. In time, however, he came to see that by refusing be was doing an injustice to friends who had loyally stood by him, and so suit was brought.

Both in the importance of the issues and the eminence of the legal lights engaged in the case, this was one of the great legal battles of America. Murray's counsel was Hon. Rufus King, who, however, removed to New York before the case came to trial, and Judge James Sullivan, nearly, if not quite his equal in legal lore, took his place; while the First Parish of Gloucester was represented by Theophilus Parsons. The judges instructed the Jury to bring in a verdict adverse to those bringing suit. This the Jury refused to do. This meant a second trial. This took place a year later, and this time the judges reversed their earlier opinion, in part perhaps influenced by public opinion, in part, perhaps convinced by a very able pamphlet written by Mr. Epes Sargent (p. 133) entitled, "An appeal to the impartial public by the Society of Christian Independents, congregating in Gloucester". Any way, this time the verdict was in favor of the Independent Church, judges and jury concurring. This long trial, in which the ablest lawyers in the United States were employed, must have been very expensive for the little group who realized well that they were fighting not only for themselves alone, but for the right of all to freedom of worship. Before this decision, Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, nor other heretics had any right to a church of their own faith.

While the suit in court was pending, a number of Universalist congregations which had been gathered together in different parts of the state planned to meet in Oxford, Mass., for encouragement, counsel and instruction. In anticipation of this event the Universalists in Gloucester adopted a Charter of Compact to provide for carrying on of religious societies by voluntary subscriptions.

This Charter of Compact is notable for its absence of any theological or doctrinal creed, statement, or requirement. It is still more challenging by virtue of several articles:

Second Article: "That funds shall be provided, by voluntary subscription for the purposes of supporting a teacher or teachers, of piety, religion and morality; the repairing of the public edifice, and the relief of poor and distressed brethren."

Ninth Article: Whereas the privilege of choosing and professing one's own religion is inestimable: And in order to maintain that privilege unimpaired, in case any person associating with is should suffer persecution from the undue exercise of power, we do agree and resolve to afford him all legal means of extricating him from difficulty, and of enjoying that freedom which is held forth by the Constitution."

Concluding sentence "AND BE IT KNOWN UNIVERSALLY, That we who have signed our names to this CHARTER OF COMPACT for the purposes heretofore cited, compose and do belong to the Independent Christian Society, Gloucester, Sept. 6, 1785.

One of the signers was Gloster Dalton, a Negro. Upon the occasion of his death and church funeral, April 11, 1813, the then minister, "Father" Jones, made this notation: "April 11, 1813, Gloster Dalton, an African. In this country from a youth. Supposed to be 90 years old. They said Gloster Dalton was an honest, industrious man. He had been Infirm about two or three years ... belonged to the Independent Christian Society for many years. He was a native of Africa, and brought away as a slave (so-called). For there are no slaves! All men are born free! T. Jones."

A Unique Prayer

c. 1951
Gloucester

A UNIQUE PRAYER

[Editor’s Note: This is another undated and unsigned paper found in Rev. Westman’s files.]

The prayer that Dr. Levi M. Powers gave at the city inauguration exercises more than 30 years ago in Gloucester was so unusual that it created a sensation throughout the country. These are some excerpts:

"WE PRAY for the retiring mayor. He might have done better and he knows it and now we are sending him to the state house. Help him to be the representative he may be and ought to be.

WE PRAY for those who must guide our city in the coming year. There is Alderman Daniel Marshall. You know what a good fellow he is and how everybody likes him - the most popular man in town, though there are some who say he needs a stiffer backbone. If that is so, Lord, give him what he needs, and if it is a lie, help him to refute it.

THEN THERE IS Alderman Johnson who needs thy help, Lord. This is a new job for him. But everybody speaks well of him, and many who did not know him voted for him because those who know him best said he was all right. May he end this year with this good opinion confirmed and increased.

MOST OF ALL we pray for him honored in being chosen mayor. But we have given him a hard job, Lord. You know very well that the laws of this city have not been well-enforced. May he accept this responsibility and not only do his duty, but insist that all those responsible to him do their duty as well.

NOT ALONE for those we have chosen do we pray, Lord; we pray for ourselves. We confess, Lord, that we are a logy, grouchy set of citizens, most of us. We no sooner elect men to office than we find fault with them. Help us to see that good citizenship is an all-the-year job that cannot be delegated to others,

WE PRAY for the voters of this city; there are some too lazy to vote but not too lazy to grumble. Bless them. We pray for the citizens who want good streets, good schools, good fire and police protection and good health officers but who wish other people to pay their cost.

WE PRAY for the business men whose votes are always determined by the expectancy of special favors for themselves. Bless them, if you can. We pray for those who believe that all laws should be enforced except the laws which they do not like or which, if enforced, would trouble them.

WE PRAY for the comfortable who do not care for anything so long as they are left at ease.

WE PRAY for political managers who swap votes and sell out their friends and let their bad candidates go unopposed.

WE PRAY for the ministers who say what it is pleasant to hear rather than what is true. We pray for all connected with the newspapers who openly advocate civic righteousness and secretly promote crooked policies,

WE PRAY for the lawyers who use their knowledge to help those who wish to evade the law and so enable themselves and others to get something for nothing.

WE WISH, O God, that these people might be blessed, but perhaps we are asking too much. It may be that the only thing you can do is to let them go to hell.

INCREASE our love and devotion to our city. May we be zealous of its good name and prosperity. May wealth, happiness, intelligence and character so increase that the proudest boast we can make shall be that we are men and women of this city." Amen

LATER COMMENTS of Dr Powers in answering the critics of his prayer: “I have been criticized for asking the Lord if he could help some people out of hell. I did not send anyone to hell or ask the Lord to send anyone there, I questioned whether God could keep some people out and I hope I shall shock no one when I say that I do not believe that God can keep out of hell those who prefer to be there. God has established laws that are just and changeless and all who disobey them punish themselves. To most people the most shocking things of life are not the things themselves, but the words that remind us of the things. Sometimes it is God's work to shock people out of their complacency and self-satisfaction.”

The Beginning of Universalism in America

c. 1951
Gloucester

The Beginning of Universalism in America

[Editor’s Note: This undated, unsigned sermon was found in Rev. Westman’s files. Based on the quality of type, or lack thereof, and the subject matter, it appears to belong to the 1950-54 period in Gloucester. The style of writing is generally characteristic of Rev. Westman’s writings, with a few exceptions, which are easily explained since the sermon was given early in his ministerial career. Few readers will miss that the portion dealing with the constitutional question of taxation for churches is said to have occurred before 1787, the year the United States Constitution was adopted. The particular constitution in question, however, appears to have been the Massachusetts state constitution, which explains the discrepancy. An 1892 article from the New York Times echoes many of the themes in this sermon, and offers interesting additional details on some. See:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9401E2D71331E033A25751C2A96E9C94639ED7CF or click here for the PDF of the article.]

In 1770 Gloucester, Massachusetts was a seaport in touch with all the world. Before the advent of railways, seaports were always centers of liberal thought, the first places to receive the new ideas. In 1769 a man named Gregory, whether officer, sailor, or passenger on one of the Gloucester merchant ships no one knows, had brought to the town a book written by Rev. James Relly of London, entitled, “Union, or a Treatise on the Consanguinity Between Christ and His Church.” The arrival of this book in Gloucester was the beginning of Universalism in America. The printed page preceded the spoken word. This book had been read, and made converts at least three years before Murray came to the city. Murray’s preaching for the first three years was itinerant. Welcomed at first as a popular preacher, it was before long discovered that he was a heretic. In Boston the Rev. Andrew Croswell denounced him in the papers as a disciple of Relly. This was true. After some years of friendship with John Wesley and Whitefield, he had some months before coming to America come under the influence of Rev. James Relly and had been converted to his ideas. The Gloucester converts to Relly read Croswell’s accusation in the paper and were very much interested. They asked the most influential member of the group, Mr. Winthrop Sargent, to go to Boston and invite Murray to Gloucester. Mr. Sargent was undoubtedly at this time the leading citizen in the city. In response to Mr. Sargent’s invitation, Mr. Murray came to the city and preached nine times on nine successive days. For the first time in his three years in American he here found a group of influential people already in sympathy with his ideas.

From this time on for twenty years, with the exception of eight months, when he was a chaplain in the Army of the Revolution, and the part of one year when persecution drove him to England, and when away on missionary journeys, Gloucester was his home. Here he found the support which made his career possible.

At first he was given the use of First Parish Church. Shortly after coming here the second time this privilege was denied him and thereafter services were held in the homes of his converts, on Sundays, usually in the spacious parlors of Winthrop Sargent’s hospitable mansion.

Congregations grew, converts increased, and opposition became more bitter and determined....

Shortly after he (John Murray) resumed preaching, after his return from the Army, his followers ceased to attend the services in the First Parish Church. Then the storm broke – a mob assembled before the house of Winthrop Sargent, where Murray was living, determined to ride him out of town, and on being dissuaded from their purpose, warned him to leave on the threat of violence if he remained. An effort was also made to have him expelled from town as a vagrant, anyone not a land-owner having no legal status in any place at that time. This danger was avoided by one of his supporters making him a gift of some land, thus constituting him a free holder....

He was summoned before the committee of safety and ordered to leave town within five days. The town at its annual meeting, by a vote of 54 for and 3 against, approved the action of the committee of safety. Curses followed him and stones were thrown at him as he walked the streets. Through it all Murray and his company of brave supporters stood firm and unwavering. In spite of all this, perhaps because of this, the number of Murray’s followers increased, and little by little threats and dangers of physical violence ceased. The difficulty of his followers, however, in establishing their right to a faith and form of worship as they desired was only beginning.

On February 11, 1777, fifteen people, five of them members of the Sargent family, absented themselves from worship at First Parish Church. In these people we find the beginnings of what is now the Independent Christian Church (Universalist) in Gloucester and the Universalist Church of America. There was, however, no legal organization. They simply agreed to meet together for religious worship and to “appoint Mr. Murray their religious teacher so long as he preaches the gospel as we now understand it....” Shortly after they drew up what are now known as the “Articles of Association” in which they call themselves the Independent Christian Church in Gloucester, declaring it to be their purpose “in so far as possible to live peaceably with all men.” The articles were signed by thirty-one men and thirty women, or if Murray’s name be omitted, by thirty men and thirty women.

A year later the society built a meeting house in one corner of Winthrop Sargent’s garden, near where the Bradford Block now stands on Main St. Gloucester. It was 32 x 48 feet with 30 box pews and was the first church building erected by Universalists in the United States, or for that matter, in the world....

The members of the First Parish held that by law members of the Independent Christian Church were still obligated to pay taxes for the support of the established order. The Universalists refused to pay, basing their refusal on the Bill of Rights, which they held guaranteed to each person liberty to choose his own religious teacher. The First Parish claimed the Independent Church “was not a religious organization, or if so, was not incorporated, and that Murray was not a religious teacher, or if so, was not ordained.”

The easiest thing would have been for the members of the Independent Church to apply to the Legislature for an Act of Incorporation. They felt, however, that they were being denied rights secured them by the Constitution and that in fighting for their rights they were fighting for the rights of others.

For this public-spirited reason they refused to pay and they refused to incorporate. The First Parish in 1782 in an attempt to enforce its demands seized and sold at auction the goods of three prominent members of the Independent Church.... It was found that in order to establish their rights Murray as their religious teacher must bring action against the First Parish for the recovery of money which had been wrongly diverted from his use. This Murray refused to do for some time as he never had taken any salary for preaching. In time, however, the came to see that by refusing he was doing an injustice to friends who had loyally stood by him, and so suit was brought.

Both in the importance of the issues and the eminence of the legal lights engaged in the case, this was one of the great legal battles of America. Murray’s counsel was Hon. Rufus King, who, however, removed to New York before the case came to trial, and Judge James Sullivan, nearly, f not quite his equal in legal lore, took his place; while the First Parish of Gloucester was represented by Theophilus Parsons. The judge instructed the jury to bring in a verdict adverse to those bringing suit. This the jury refused to do. This meant a second trial. This took place a year later, and this time the judges reversed their earlier opinion, in part perhaps influenced by public opinion, in part perhaps convinced by a very able pamphlet written by Mr. Epes Sargent entitled, “An appeal to the impartial public by the Society of Christian Independents, congregating in Gloucester.” Any way this time the verdict was in favor of the Independent Church, judges and jury concurring. This long trial, in which the ablest lawyers in the United States were employed, must have been very expensive for the little group who realized well they were fighting not only for themselves alone, but for the right of all freedom of worship. Before this decision Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Universalists, nor other heretics had any right to a church of their own faith.

While the suit in court was pending a number of Universalists congregations which had been gathered together in different parts of the state planned to meet in Oxford, Massachusetts for encouragement, counsel and instruction. In anticipation of this event the Universalists in Gloucester adopted a charter of Compact to provide for carrying on of religious societies by voluntary subscriptions. This Charter of Compact is notable for its absence of any theological or doctrinal creed, statement, or requirement. It is still more challenging by virtue of several articles:

Second Article: “That funds shall be provided by voluntary subscription for the purposes of supporting a teacher or teachers, of piety, religion and morality; the repairing of the public edifice, and the relief on poor and distressed brethren.”

Ninth Article: “Whereas the privilege of choosing and professing one’s own religion is inestimable: And in order to maintain that privilege unimpaired, in case any person associating with us should suffer persecution from the undue exercise of power, we do agree and resolve to afford him all legal means of extricating himself from difficulty, and of enjoying that freedom which is held forth by the Constitution.”

Concluding sentence “AND BE IT KNOWN UNIVERSALLY, That we who have signed our names to this CHARTER OF COMPACT for the purposes heretofore cited, compose and do belong to the Independent Christian Society, Gloucester, Sept. 6, 1785.”

One of the signers was Gloster Dalton, a Negro. Upon the occasion of his death and church funeral, April 11, 1813, the then minister “Father” Jones made this notation: “April 11, 1813, Gloster Dalton, an African. In this country from a youth. Supposed to be 90 years old. The said Gloster Dalton was an honest, industrious man. He had been infirm about two or three years ... belonged to the Independent Christian Society for many years. He was a native of Africa, and brought away as a slave (so-called). For there were no slaves! All men are born free! T. Jones.”

The Everlasting Light

December 23, 1951
Gloucester

The earth has grown old with its burden of care

But at Christmas it always is young,

The heart of the jewel burns lustrous and fair,

And its soul full of music breaks forth on the air,

When the song of the Angels is sung.

It is coming, old earth, it is coming tonight,

On the snowflakes with cover thy sod,

The feet of the Christ child fall gently and white,

And the voice of the Christ child tells you with delight

That mankind are the children of God.

On the sad and the lonely, the wretched and poor,

That voice of the Christ child shall fall;

And to every blind wanderer opens the door

Of a hope which he dared not to dream of before,

With a sunshine of welcome for all.

The feet of the humblest may walk in the field

Where the feet of the holiest have trod,

This, this is the marvel of mortals revealed,

When the silvery trumpets of Christmas have pealed

That mankind are the children of God.

The purpose of our service today is not to broadcast knowledge about Christmas, but rather to acknowledge that Christmas is essentially something we feel in the deepest well of our emotions. It has been said that Christmas is the time of year when we get rid of the feelings of guilt which have been created throughout the year by our dominant attitude or selfishness. It has been said, also with some truth, that Christmas is but the continuing pagan festival of Winter Solstice and that the religious elements associated with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth are but superficial touches added to a very primitive structure. It has been said also, with more poetry than literal truth that Christmas is the day when “God broke into history”. Countless other little theories have been conceived and broadcast. Yet none of these theories ever speaks clearly enough or profoundly enough to explain why it is we are so deeply moved to joy, hope, and a spirit of neighborliness and charity to others at this time of year we call Christmas.

Our Christmas would not have the same content of feeling if it had not been for our religious forefathers, the Hebrews and their belief that someday mankind would be redeemed by the hand of God in the form of a Savior who would vanquish the forces of evil. The early Hebrew scriptures are laced with prophecies of such a hope. The prophet Isaiah, who lived many centuries before the birth of Jesus, expressed for all time the hope that man's destiny is not one to be dominated forever by selfish desires, low ambitions, thoughtless as well as deliberate acts of cruelty and inhumanity to others.

XL/3: “The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

XL/5 The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

LX 1,3,5: Arise, shine! For thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee; and nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. They shall bring gold and frankincense and shall proclaim the praises of the Lord.”

LII;7 “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God Reigneth.”

The legendary history of the birth stories of Jesus were tailored to fit these ancient hopes. Yet no such legends could have been creatd, we could not feel the glow within us which reminds us of Christmas that “mankind are the children of God,” if there had not been a person such as Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth not only grew in wisdom and stature, but he lived in consecration to a way of life which he believed in above all else. He saw, as perhaps none of us see, that unless the spirit of love and brotherhood dominates the earth, all our science and all our industry will be but fuses which will sooner or later be set off at some zero hour and destroy man's dreams for milleniums to come. He believed enough in a way of life that declared “love is the answer” to die for it, even as he had lived.

The light of Christmas shines into our clouded hearts to remind us that this feeling of love is unconquerable even by death. The everlasting light of Christmas stirs us with the inward knowledge that ways of hate, retaliation and disregard for even the least of these our brethren will surely bring us to a pit of degradation in which it will be unclean to live and stupid to hope. We hope that there will come a time when “Peace on earth, good will toward men” will not only be the song of angels but will be the song and practice of mankind everywhere.

The hope of Israel and the life of Jesus are not the only contributions that have made our Christmas. Each century has contributed in its own language of poetry, devotion, and music in the attempt to express the depth of feeling which stirs us so joyfully and yet so tragically each year when Christmas comes into our view.

Our Christmas message this year is one that will be expressed in song and poem. Our responsive reading was that incredibly beautiful poem that appears in the early part of the gospel according to Luke. This was a contribution of the latter part of the first or the early part of the second century after the birth of Jesus. From the ages of faith, the 13th to 15th centuries has some of the music that is to be sung. From our own century, the 20th, has come the theme for our worship. We cannot understand our theme without feeling something of the majesty of the man who inspired our theme.

Phillips Brooks was a world-famous preacher and Episcopal Bishop. He loved the Episcopal church and it would be unthinkable to disassociate him in any way from his beloved faith. Yet, Phillips Brooks was a Universalist too. No one who could write the lines of the poem which I read at the beginning could feel other than someday, somehow, men were going to recognize their basic unity as children of one great God, brothers in an illimitable universe:

“The feet of the humble may walk in the field

Where the feet of the holiest have trod,

This, this is the marvel of mortals revealed,

When the silvery trumpets of Christmas have pealed,

That mankind are the children of God.”

It has been well said that there are three memorials to the memory of Phillips Brooks: Many of us have known these memorials. First there is Trinity Church standing in splendor in Copley Square in Boston. Erected during the time when Phillips Brooks was rector, it is an ever-present symbol of the broad character of his ministry and his contribution to the life of Boston. (P) Standing beside the Church is the second memorial to this giant among American religious leaders. It is the heroic statue of the Bishop molded in the preacher's stance. Beside the statue of Brooks there is another statue, an image of Jesus, symbol of the way that the life of Jesus dominated the life of Brooks.

Probably each of you has recalled knowingly or unknowingly the third memorial to Phillips Brooks many times during the past days.

When Phillips Brooks was thirty years old he spent a year traveling in Europe and the Near East. During Christmas week in 1865 in a letter home (LYRIC RELIGION Smith P. 298) Brooks wrote “after an early dinner, we took our horses and rode to Bethlehem. It was only about two hours when we came to the town, situated on the Eastern ridge of a range of hills, surrounded by its terraced gardens. Before dark, we rode out of town to the field where they say the shepherds saw the star. It is a fenced piece of ground with a cave in it, in which, strangely enough, they put the shepherds. The story is absurd, but somewhere in those fields we rode through the shepherds must have been. As we passed, the shepherds were still 'keeping their watch over their flocks,' or 'leading them home to fold.'”

Phillips Brooks must have been deeply moved as the thought about the birth of Jesus when he toured the hills of Bethlehem that Christmas night in 1865. Perhaps the emotion he felt was one of the main influences in fixing within him the determination to live for others in the spirit of Jesus. Perhaps that night helped fix his purpose so that years later in a service memorializing his death, Rabbi Gustav Gottlieb could say, “He was not bishop of his church only, but he was my bishop also by divine calling and consecration.” And Lyman Abbott, himself a famous religious leader could say: “We have been wondering, Is there any God? And we have been reaching out in nature to find evidence of him. And suddenly there appears before us the divine shining in one great illuminated nature, one that is full of God; and while we were looking in his eyes and he was looking into ours, then did God come again; then did we realize that God is; then did we feel that God speaks to the heart of man through the heart of man.”

There were many other influences on the life of Phillips Brooks in addition to those hours in Bethlehem. But we do know that two years after his journey to the country of Jesus' birth, Phillips Brooks wrote the carol that is now the beloved possession of men everywhere: “O Little Town of Bethlehem.”

Inspired by this carol of our time, which demonstrates that even after more than 1900 years of the Christian Era men can still respond from their inward being by the memory of the birth of a baby, we preach you a sermon in song:

The Birth of Jesus

(from a sermon by John Wycliff, 14th century)

Joseph went with Mary, that was his wife, into “Bedlehem”. They broughten an oxe and an asse with them, as men say, for this reason – Mary was great with child. Therefore she rode upon an asse; the oxe they brought for to sell, for Jews haten begging.

And Bedlehem was filled of men before they camen to the town; and so they hadden no harbor, but dwelten in a common stable, and these two beesties with them, till time came to use them.

And it fell while they were there, our lady bore her child, the which was her firste child, for him she bor and no other. And she wrapt Christe with clothis and putte him in the cratike, for she had no better place to put him in all the house.

And so, as men singen and trowen, Christ lai before an oxe and an asse. And the breath of these two beesties kept him hoot in this cold tyme.

And so men say that Christ was born at the myddil of this night, for the myddil person in the trinite loved myddil in many things.

Directional Signals and the Christmas Spirit

December 16, 1951
Gloucester

For two or three weeks motorists have been under the pressure of law to signal for turns and stops. This requirement to indicate directional signals is not particularly new, but now there are teeth in the law. Accessory dealers have been busy installing mechanical equipment so that some drivers do not have to lower the window, signal, and then close the window again. Meanwhile he must not forget to make the turn in the direction that he has indicated.

If the hand signals are made accurately and sincerely, other drivers and pedestrians will know where the driver is going and adjust their own conduct accordingly. But people do not always behave according to either law or our expectations. Someone was telling me that on TV this week there was a scene wherein a lady was in an accident. The driver of the other car protested that she had given an improper hand signal. When asked what signal she made, she raised her hand straight up (like this) and gestured thus. She indignantly said immediately that she wasn't signaling, she was merely shaking her bracelets farther down her wrist. Morey Amsterdam (quoted in The Boston Globe) says that when a woman driver sticks out her arms, you can be sure of one thing: her window is open.

Confused and awkward drivers are men as well as women. The day before yesterday when riding with a friend, a car coming in the opposite direction started to make a left turn across the path of the car in which we were riding. My companion, who was driving, immediately slowed down in ample time to avoid any crash. However, a person in the front seat of the other car (not the driver) stuck his arm straight up in the air as high as the roof of the car as he could reach and gestured thus. It could have been interpreted to mean that we were to fly over the top of the other car. While it was a funeral coach in which we were riding, most certainly the machine was not equipped with wings.

What have directional signals to do with the Christmas spirit? If properly performed, directional signals in the motoring world are signs that help avoid trouble, assist people in going their separate ways without violently crashing into another whose way may be different, but it's his way and he can take it if he likes and obeys the rules.

The Christmas spirit sounds forth in rather hollow and unconvincing tones, at times, when we consider that the world is in turmoil, at war in some sections and a vast fog of suspicion enveloping nearly every land. The reason is that some people are going right, some people are going left, and others are taking roads a certain distance to the right or part-way left, and they are crashing into each other with an impact that threatens to wipe out entire nations – even civilization itself.

I'm told that the terms “right” and “left” when used to indicate a persons economic and political beliefs originated in Paris where at one time those who advocated revolution lived on the left bank of the Seine, while those who were opposed to change, who thought the old way best, lived on the right bank of the Seine.

Since that time in theology, literature – all areas of knowledge actually – but most common in national and international politics and economics, the “right” has come to mean those people, whether individuals, groups, or both, who usually have a reverence for the past amounting almost to worship, who will not approve any radical breaks with existing customs or the existing order, who are opposed to revolution – and who have an aversion to any change in the accustomed way of doing things.

Conversely the “left” is not only willing that changes be made but is eager that thing be done differently than in the past, does not approve a custom or law merely because it is old, sometimes willing to permit violence if that violence will result in some change that the left wing groups think will bring about a certain desirable result. Both right and left have innumerable shadings along the spectrum – and they squabble among themselves as well as with their opposites.

The difficulty that is bound to arise when we are able to escape from our particular bias for the left or right as, the case may be, is that great ideas and movements elude any permanent classification of “right” or “left” or “conservative” or “radical”.

For example, 178 years ago today, on December 16, 1773, one of the incidents that precipitated the revolt of the American Colonies against the British Empire occurred in our ancient, honored and conservative neighboring city of Boston.

The King of England had proclaimed a new tax on the colonies for all glass, paper, paints, and tea. This import tax was exerted for three general purposes: in the first place, to support the soldiers who had been placed in the American colonies to see that the King's will and the king's laws were enforced; next, to pay the governors of the colonies, the judges and other officers – thus making them dependent not on the people but on the king's tax; and the third reason was to give large sums of money to certain influential citizens to persuade them to give public support to the King.

The colonies, particularly Massachusetts Bay which was a steaming cauldron of radical movements, immediately raised such an uproar that the sound and fury reached the ears of those in power in the Mother Country. Merchants banded together and pledged mutually not to import any paper, glass, paint or tea. Samuel Adams, sometimes called “The Father of the American Revolution,” proclaimed that he and others would “eat nothing, drink nothing, wear nothing” that was imported from England until all the duties on goods should be removed.

Parliament then conceded that a mistake had been made and removed all taxes except one of a few cents on a pound of tea to insure the maintenance of the right of the British Government to tax the colonies. The price of tea was pegged at so low a price that Americans could purchase tea from English ships, tax and all, cheaper than they could smuggle it from other countries. But the American colonists said they would not take it as a gift if there was a tax on it. In Boston citizens refused to unload a cargo of tea. Under port rules, at the end of 20 days if the cargo was not unloaded, custom house officials, who were British civil servants, would unload the tea.

On the 19th day the rebellious colonists held a mass meeting in Old South Church. The debate raged all day long and into the evening. Then Sam Adams spoke up, “This meeting can do nothing more than to save the country.” That was a signal for action, and colonists disguised as Indians gave a loud war-whoop, rushed to T-wharf, went on board the vessels and dumped $100,000 worth of tea into the harbor.

So 178 years ago today, less than 40 miles from here, one of the most important of the chain of events occurred that led to Lexington, Concord, Independence Hall, Yorktown, and the Constitution.

In view of what has happened, would you, if you had the power, change that incident – or prevent it from happening? These energetic citizens certainly were not the conservatives of their day. They were far left – that is, they were revolutionists. They overthrew the government by “force and violence.” Yet these men are honored by us. We praise their deeds and thank God for the liberty they won and which we prize – or so we say.

Perhaps you suspect, as I do, that there is something basically wrong, or at least inaccurate, about these arbitrary classifications of “right” and “left” or “tory” and “liberal”.

Another illustration: F.D.R. Is now and will continue to be one of the most controversial figures of our century. He described himself as “being a little left of center.” To the conservative he was considerably more than a little left of center. To the radical, Roosevelt seemed to be a middle-of-the roader at best, and at worse, one who saved all that was old and all that was bad by a few concessions to a desperate citizenry which prevented revolution.

The soldiers of the right and the soldiers of the left are still shooting at each other in Korea and other parts of Asia. In the rest of the world, Acheson scolds Vishinsky; Vishinsky laughs his (now notorious) guffaw at the right – The Western world accuses the Soviet world of innumerable crimes against human rights and human decency and the claims are valid. I believe the slave labor camps do exist, that many Communist governments stay in power because of the strength + coercion of the Red Army, that many, although probably not all of the charges made against Stalin and Soviets are very brutal realities in our 20th century world.

The Soviet world accuses the United States of depriving racial minorities of rights, of abusing them and refusing them the right to vote and compete equally for jobs and education. They say that prejudice as it exists in the United States is a vital cause in creating undemocratic racial tensions and crimes against persons and groups. Those things are true aren't they? We are accused of many more things.

The right accuses the left; the left accuses the right; unlike our automobile drivers, even though they have indicated at least vaguely in which direction they are going, they clash nevertheless.

In a most ghastly parable, fenders are smashed, bumpers are hocked together and blood is running in the streets.

Suspicion and hate are rising to an almost incredible pitch on both sides. We are at the point where even a relatively small and insignificant incident can spread the war that is raging in Korea around the world.

Did you see two stories which were placed together in a recent issue of the NY Times under the caption “Reasons Why”. Even though ludicrous, they are strangely pertinent to the way fear and suspicion may overturn the world: “A railroad worker in Superior, Wisconsin, explained in court that he had attacked three bunkmates with an iron poker because he suspected they were plotting an attack on him by snoring in Morse code.” “Charged with knocking down a policeman, a Detroit man pleaded: “I saw a big bee land on his neck above the collar. I didn't want him to get stung, so I hit the bee as hard as I could.”

If we on the “right”, and I hope in the right, have a valid claim to be the representatives of the ideal of freedom offering to help a world largely in chains, then we must recognize and accept that our freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility. If we make the mistake of thinking that “free enterprise” means freedom for a few and control for a great many, then we may find ourselves left, literally and in quotes as well.

There is no attraction into falling into what I think is the deadening fatalism of that part of the left wing which implicitly accepts Marxism and Stalinism. Capitalism will probably not endure forever as the predominant economic system – but there is no certainty that Marxism or any form of it is assuredly going to replace it. Incidentally, I, for one, hope that the cooperative movement will receive a closer examination from those who are concerned with personal, national, and international finance.

I have said something about directional signals, about “right” and “left”, but not much about the Christmas spirit, have I.

To a certain extent, I believe that the tensions that exist between the right and left react on each other to solve the problems of history. The German philosopher Hegel used the famous analogy of the skater to make this point clear. The skater swings his left leg to the left, then quickly strides with his right to the right as a result of these alternative left and right movements the skater progresses down the centre of the ice. The disagreements, the pendulum-like swings and changes of public opinion and political leadership do bring forward progress. Were it not for the right and left movements, the skater would soon glide to a stop by staying on dead center.

But it is not enough to go right and left. For example, one cannot describe or understand the vast oceans merely in terms of square miles of surface area or the topography of shore lines. One must know something about depths, channels, shoals, and tides in order to have any appreciation of, or ability to survive the “sea around us.”

Right and left are not enough – there must be another dimension. That is why the Christmas Spirit is related to life's directional signals and movements. We must concern ourselves not only with right and left but also with right and wrong. When we repeat, “Peace on earth, good will to men,” we can not single out conservatives, or radicals. All are included.

It may well be that the critical problem of our day is the Machiavellian methods by which Soviet Government and its satellites are trying to bring about the domination of the world. Furthermore that this menace and threat must be dealt with skillfully, diplomatically, economically, and militarily. But also communism is a disease caused by misery. Over the long run it is not alone the power of democratic argument that will be tested – but the power of democratic ideals and ideas of government to produce conditions of freedom, health, warmth, and knowledge. Didn't Lincoln say once, “no nation can survive half-slave and half-free”? -- neither can a world.

The Christmas spirit is one of kindness – feebly glimmering in an unkind world. Albert Schweitzer, from deep within his place of service in Africa, challenges us with these words, “all the kindness which a man puts out into the world works on the heart and thoughts of mankind, but we are so foolishly indifferent that we are never in earnest in the matter of kindness. We want to topple a great load over, and yet will not avail ourselves of a lever which would multiply our power a hundredfold.”

The Christmas Spirit is one of revolution too – the inner revolution of good-will and understanding – no matter how greatly we may have been injured – no matter how easily our hurt could be the spark for a conflagration of retaliation.

In 1936 when Hitler's re-armament program was moving into high gear, when Goering had pledged the German people to give up butter for guns, when the Nazi overlords had seduced the entire German people with the foul myth of Aryan and Germanic racial superiority, the late and famous author Franz Werfel, author of 40 Days of Musa Dagh and the Song of Bernadette, was booed off a platform in East Prussia when he pleaded with a group of inflamed students that their choice was not left or right – but above or below.

He wasn't trying to lure them with a promise of some far-off heaven. He was pointing out that there is a moral choice involved in either a right or left wing decision. He was saying that there are values that must be recognized in any system. These values concern freedom in all the areas we dream of, concern human dignity and decency and the right of a people to judge the truth – the additional dimensions.

The story of Jesus and the woman of Samaria is one of those rare jewels of religious insight that we occasionally come upon in the gospel of John. The gospel of John is one that is largely theological rather than biographical or ethical. Its announced purpose is to promote an idea of Jesus as the pre-existent God. But here in the fourth chapter there are some profound implications for universal religion.

The Jews and the Samaritans hated each other – distrusted each other – even as nations do today. The Jews, from the time they campaigned against the pagan gods of the Canaanites, had insisted that God could be worshipped only in the temple at Jerusalem. The woman refers to this when she says, “our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say (referring to the Hebrew doctrine) that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

But Jesus goes beyond the right and left of worship practices of that part of the Near East. He didn't defend Jerusalem or attack the Samaritan custom, he said, “the hour cometh and is now when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a spirit: and they that worship him in spirit and in truth.”

So if we are to make, someday, a reality out of the daring dream of “peace on earth and goodwill to men”, we must go beyond a mistaken compulsion making a choice between Jerusalem and Samaria or staking all on the “right” or the “left.” We must believe profoundly enough in the reality of the Christmas Spirit that wherever the directional signals of right or left may take us, we will achieve, maintain, and preserve as individuals, and as parliaments of man, the basic dignities which must become the property of all peoples or we most surely will all crash together: freedom from fear through goodwill and cooperation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and of speech and the freedom to introduce our children to all that is best and noble in human history so that through wise and understanding moral ideals they may survive the conflict of ideologies of “right” and “left” which is now brutalizing our world.

The Star You Have Never Seen

December 9, 1951
Gloucester

Oliver Wendell Holmes in a memorable paragraph said, “no man has the right to intellectual ambition until he has learned to lay his course by a star which he has never seen.” The learned Bostonian was talking about faith. He was saying the same thing that the author of the letter to the Hebrews said when he referred to face the as “the substance of things hope for, the evidence of things not seen.” (11/1)

The Advent season is particularly appropriate to the serious consideration of faith. We live in a world that seems like a speeded-up newsreel. We seem to have little opportunity and only slight desire to reflect on and speculate about this word faith – which seems to hold so much meaning –but also engenders so many doubts and so many confusions.

Twentieth-century America is not particularly noted as a country of deep and abiding religious faith. Such a description always seems to apply to far-away lands or far-removed ages. Yet someone has said facetiously that nowhere it is there such a faith as exists in modern America. The reason is that “among those enterprises which depend for success on implicit faith are love, democracy and hash.”

What is faith? If this were the summer season (and yesterday I thought it was) I might quote that definition which says that “faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move.”

There has been some excitement in the religious press about the alleged miracle of faith which occurred in fact Fatima, Portugal, in 1917. So ‘tis said the sun danced in the heavens and a vision of the Virgin Mary appeared with the message that the Russian threat could be ended with a prayer. I do not doubt for a moment that the hot sun of Portugal may cause visions and the bright glare might be brilliant enough to so daze optic nerves that the sun may appear to be dancing and moving in a most natural or supernatural manner. But is this faith?

Very recently a great stir and fuss was caused by a photograph published nation-wide which claimed to be one of the United Nations and Communist planes engaged in combat over Korea. The white clouds had parted against the darker space in such a manner that it seemed to portray vividly a vision of Christ, miles and miles in the area with every feature perfectly delineated.

Thousands of inquiries flooded the wire service which published the picture. Surely many thought this is a vision of Christ in a world that seems to have completely and finally rejected his teachings of love, good-will and willingness to go the second mile and not give blow for blow. But as usual it was demonstrated that faith does not so manifest itself. Closer investigation revealed that this was the usual fake photograph – a picture of planes in combat over Europe in World War II had been cleverly retouched to picture the head of a man, supposedly Christ.

The thought occurs – even if this had been the real stuff – an unvarnished, completely accurate and authentic miracle, what would it prove? Other than demonstrating that the Italian and Spanish artists had been completely correct in portraying Christ as possessing the Latin type of feature, rather than the facial characteristics of the Semite the Bible tells us he was, what would it have meant that he was approving or disapproving of war? Did he favor the North Korean or South Korean? Communist bloc or United Nations? How would one know?

Faith is not only an attitude toward such things as whether or not God exerts the power of the Universe through such things as miracles. Faith must also be an act. “Faith is dead without good deeds,” said the author of the letter called James. (Goodspeed, 2/26). Faith is an act of giving – not only one’s time and money, as with the duties of a churchman to keep the institution alive and functioning, but the giving of one’s self. To be completely bound up, “sold” on a certain philosophy of life, or way of life, that all one’s deeds are dictated by it and one’s life is completely transformed by that powerful influence – that is faith.

One of the most inspirational and symbolic stories in all the sacred scriptures of the world religions is the story of Abraham, found in the early chapters of Genesis. Abraham is the patriarch of the Hebrew people. Jesus and every other Hebrew prophet looked back to Abraham for a sign of God’s approval of the Children of Israel. The old folk-story tells how God singled Abraham out. But the literal truth does not disclose the meaning of a parable.

Terah was the father of Abraham and lived in the ancient Chaldean city of Ur. We are told that Terah took his son Abraham and other members of the family and emigrated to the land of Canaan. But they never reached there. They settled somewhere else along the way and gave up the dream – the star they had never seen – and settled for less than their goal.

But the son, Abraham – he may have been of a more determined mold – or was moved more strongly by the vision of the land of Canaan – by the star he had never seen. The ancient story, with its lovely symbolism, tells how he had a vision of the Lord and how the Lord told him to start again for that promised land and if faithful he would be blessed. Then in one of the most interesting single verses in scripture, “Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. Abraham took his wife Sarah, and his nephew Lot, with all the property they had accumulated, and the persons they had acquired in Haran and they started out for the land of Canaan; and to the land of Canaan they came.” (Genesis 12/5 – Goodspeed).

Faith was a vision – a star that was not seen – and an act of allegiance to that dream that transformed it into reality.

But we would be missing the point completely if we sought only the faith of Abraham, or the faith of Jesus. For to do so is an erroneous effort to move back into the past. Abraham’s faith was not that of his father. Terah was satisfied to go only part way. Abraham was determined to go to the land of Canaan “and to the land of Canaan he came.”

One of the mistakes that large segments of people in any age seem to make is to find themselves slavishly devoted to the past – because it is the past – and content to labor at the impossible task of understanding explicitly the dream of another age and time. If your religious duty consists only in guarding the sacred records of an ancient past, then you are being cheated out of one of life’s most adventurous and stirring quests. We must realize through our own eyes, not through the eyes of some ancient prophet, that there is a “star we have never seen” and that with devotion and genuine commitment to the ideal, we may glimpse it.

John Dewey once said that religion like poetry and art is a “precious thing.” It cannot be completed and fulfilled by staying in the past and hoping that the first century can be restored. One of the most overworked stories that I know of is the one where a man announces that he has just bought two million 1949 calendars for a few dollars. The straight man asks, “what in the world will you ever do with two million 1949 calendars.” “Nothing right now,” says the comedian, but if 1949 ever comes back, think what a fortune I’ll make.” The story is humorous because in most everything but religion everyone knows that the past will never come back again.

Science, industry, and the political movements of the centuries make it utterly impossible to recreate the world of Abraham, Jesus, Luther, John Murray or even the world of the warm-hearted Universalist evangelists of a half-century ago. John Dewey said further, “We are weak today in ideal matters because intelligence is divorced from aspiration.”

In the light of today’s knowledge we know that the scientific faiths and religious acts of at least he first seventeen centuries of the Christian Era were intolerant, unintelligent and many times created an unhealthy emotional slavery. No serious student of history of religion will question it. It could be claimed that religion, at least in its institutional form, has always been a child of its times like politics and science. What was high religion for two centuries ago, cannot be today. The world has moved – so faith must keep its struggle dignified and decent by stirring men with a star they have never seen.

Have I told you that little anecdote about the early New England Parish meeting, where the devout Calvinists passed three resolutions? Quite evidently Universalism had not permeated that particular community with its wholesome teaching of the power of God’s love to bring all mankind to salvation. Anyway, this Calvinist community passed three resolutions:

1. Resolved that God’s elect are foreordained for salvation & heaven.

2. Resolved that God’s elect are the saints.

3. Resolved that we are the saints.

Is that a faith for today?

Sophia Lyon Fahs, who prepares much of the church school material for the Unitarians and Universalists has a very instructive and important article in the latest issue of the “Standard” publication of the Ethical Culture Society. In it there is a story about trying to use an outdated faith in the world of today:

Margaret was a five year old whose mother had given her Christian instruction. Margaret had been told the stories of the Bible, of Jesus and God and had been taught to pray.

“One morning Margaret was swinging in the church school playground, pushing the swing higher and higher. So confident was she that she did not even hold on to the ropes as she was swinging. ‘Margaret!’ called the teacher in charge, ‘You had better hold on to the ropes or you will fall.’ But Margaret called back, ‘Oh no, I don’t need to hold on to the ropes, I am not afraid to go high, high, high! Jesus will not let me fall!’ In a few minutes the child did fall. Bewildered, she pulled herself up from the ground, rubbed her scratched arm, and ran over to the teacher. She held out her arm, asking mutely for a little sympathy. ‘Anyway, I didn’t cry,’ she muttered.”

An equally dangerous stumbling-block for a committed faith is the danger of replacing the worn-out creeds and ideas with nothing but scoffing and criticism. There is no particular advantage in freeing one’self of crude superstitions if in their place is installed nothing but a flat, bitter derision of any hope that we can earnestly and honestly set up a quest for the good, the true and the beautiful.

There is an old fable about a convention in Hell. Satan had gathered all the subordinate Lucifers and Old Nicks from the far-flung parts of the underworld kingdom to discuss an important matter. The chief devil had received word that a spiritual revival was in progress on the earth and if steps were not taken immediately the smoothing working gears of the operation of evil influences would be jammed and halted. So the devil offered a great prize for the best solution to the problem of halting this spiritual progress.

The winning entrant submitted a three part plan: 1. Convince man that there is no heaven. 2. Convince men there is no hell. 3. Convince them that there is no hurry. Symbolically this says that the attitude that proclaims that nothing matters and it doesn’t make any difference, and it’s foolish to get excited about things because there’s nothing can be done is the great repudiation of spiritual values, the supreme antithesis of faith, the casting out from our hearts the vision of a star we have never seen.

Commitment and a working faith will keep up spiritually alive for cynicism and unending despair are deathblows to spiritual values. In a recent National Geographic the thrilling story of another adventure of Capt. Donald B. MacMillan, the famous arctic explorer, was told in the usual fascinating manner. As the trip began Capt. MacMillan was beginning his forty-second year of explorations in the frozen North. As the famous vessel was made ready for departure, a familiar question was asked Capt. Mac: After forty years of hardship and adventure, why do you go? His answer is significant, “To learn something.” I don’t know how MacMillan thinks his theology, but in his actual life he is a man with a vital faith. Because a vital faith is always willing to learn – and such a readiness can overcome cynicism and despair.

MacMillan has a vision of his task and has spent his life trying to make reality out of the vision. Prophetic vision, the star we have never seen, is a very uninteresting even cumbersome thing if we fail to try to make a reality out of it. The point of the story of the three Wise Men may be that astrologers had been predicting that one day there would be a star for them to follow. Then came the day when it came into their vision – and they followed it to journey’s end.

Miracle, if a miracle be a happening that is completely supernatural, is not needed for our perplexities and confusions. Naturally we have powers to realize something of the visions of faith. A couple of months ago I was talking to an aeronautical engineer and I asked him what I guess was a familiar question. I had heard that the body of a bee is so weighty and cumbersome in relation to the gauzy thinness of its wings that by all the laws of aerodynamics it is impossible for a bee to fly.

Is it so? “Yes,” he said, “As an engine a bee is just impossible.” From the standpoint of what we know about aerodynamics, wing surfaces and other facts of engineering, a bee cannot fly. But it does. So, (the aircraft man went on) the problem is not one for the aeronautical engineer because the bee has a different kind of energy than the revolutions of a motor. That energy is tied up with the fact that the bee is a study not for the aeronautical engineer but for the biologist. Life makes the difference.

So with faith. A dead past even with its vital lessons cannot save us. A present that denies that there are stars we have never seen (“peace on earth, good will to men.” is one of the stars we have never seen) will make a mockery and a perversion of all that makes life really worth-while. Life, together with a faithful commitment to the highest ideals we hope for, even though still unrealized, will give us a natural energy powerful enough to overcome even the most imposing of obstacles.

When the Psalmist said As the hart panteth after the water brooks so panteth my soul after thee, O God” an affirmation was being made of the religious quest, the search for the star we have never seen. Behind the oriental imagery there is a hope of a supreme existence, the vision of a spiritual accomplishment not yet achieved.

No teacher can instruct us in such a faith. Even the best of guides can but point the way – the experience must be our own. That experience is the living, acting knowledge of faith.

Let me close with another story that Dr. Sophia Fahs tells out of her long experience with children. The story needs no moralizing to point up its vital clue to the nature of genuine religious faith.

Jimmie was an eight-year old who was disturbed inwardly because of his slowness in learning to read. He was so retarded in his reading in comparison with the other members of his class that he felt disgraced. (p. 61) “His teacher finally decided to give him special attention for a while. She worked with him alone on one specific bit of reading until he felt confident of himself. Then he was given an opportunity to read this small section in a public program given by the class. Jimmie did so well in this instance that the other children recognized his achievement and complimented him. “Why, you can read well!” “Who said you couldn’t read?” “You’re a good reader, Jimmie,” – the boy’s feeling of personal worth grew rapidly.

“That night before going to bed, he was saying his prayer as usual. Now I lay me down to sleep, Bless Papa and Mama and Auntie. He stopped, usually he went on to say, “and help Jimmie be a good boy.” His mother waited. ‘And – and ...’ she started to help him. Finally came the words from Jimmie himself, ‘help me’ – but then he stopped and lifted himself from his knees, ‘I guess I won’t say that tonight. Jimmie has done pretty good all by himself today.” FAITH

Are You A Religious Primitive?

June 17, 1951
Gloucester

Last Sunday afternoon as I watched with great interest the religious procession proceed to the waterfront for the blessing of the fleet, the thought occurred to me as it has to so many others, “this is a primitive, superstitious sort of thing.” The person who thinks in terms of an orderly, law-abiding universe would say that the carrying of a statue to the waterfront and the saying a certain formula of words and the sprinkling of consecrated water will not persuade God to act more favorably to the fishermen then he might have otherwise if the ceremony had not occurred. Thinking back to the Ten Commandments one might expostulate that such a ceremony was a direct violation of the seventh and eighth versus of the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy where we read: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them ...”

But the ancient Hebrews were not as consistently devoted to the one Eternal God as might be seen when one reads the Ten Commandments. In the portion of the book of Genesis which was read a few minutes ago we read with interest that one of the ancient patriarchs, Jacob, and his wife Rachel, were idolaters in the sense that they worshipped images of some sort.

Jacob and his father-in-law Laban had been engaged for years in a duel of wits. two a kid had traveled east in search of a wife. Jacob had fallen in love with Rachel as she brought her flock to the well in the land of Haran. Jacob agreed to serve Laban for seven years at the end of which time Rachel would be given to him in marriage. But Rachel had an elder sister, Leah. And Laban did not want to see the younger, more beautiful sister married before the older and more plain one. So Jacob was deceived and found himself married to Leah. So Jacob served seven more years in order to marry Rachel. It is interesting to note that in those days there was apparently nothing unusual in having more than one wife at the same time.

Jacob had a growing family and wanted to establish himself somewhat and asks Laban for his share of the flocks so that he might make and self more secure. they discussed what should be Jacob’s share Finally kicked up said “go through all the flock to date and remove from that every speckled and spotted sheep, lamb and goat. This,” says Jacob, “will be my pay.” Any not speckled and spotted would remain Laban’s. Then each began his machinations. Laban secretly went through the flocks and took call the speckled ones far away so that Jacob could not claim them. Jacob was figuring too. He disguised some of the unspotted and unspeckled ones so that it appeared that they should be his. Jacob seemed to have the better of it. Laban thought that he had been outdone and Jacob and his wives and their children, servants and flocks decided to put a great distance between them and Laban and his sons.

So they started for the land of Canaan. But before leaving, Rachel stole the household gods, the Teraphin, from Laban. Obviously the families of Laban and Jacob had never heard of Ten Commandments, or at least the one that prohibited the making of an image and bowing down before it. How could they? They were primitives and the idea of one god, who is a spirit, - and a spirit that does not abide in a wooden or stone image – was not to develop for hundreds of years. Laban furiously pursued the escaping caravan. When he and his party caught up he was most interested in finding that Teraphim, the household gods. But Rachel hid them from her father.

We can sense the primitive religious feelings that existed when we consider it that the little images meant more to Laban ban the flocks and herds which the crafty Jacob had managed to acquire. This little incident from the old folk stories of the desert shows its primitive ancestry and in was told from campfire to campfire and from father to son for hundreds of years before it was written down.

And all folks to worry like this once served a purpose. It provided enjoyment for the long desert evening’s as it would be recounted with great delight by the equivalent of troubadours. Its preservation in that manner has in turn given us an insight into the nature of the customs and religious beliefs of the wandering tribes before they settled down in Palestine.

In much the same way, a primitive religious ceremony such as we witnessed in our town last week does a little harm and may even do some good. Certainly a man can work more surely, calmly and courageously at his tasks at sea if he is convinced that divine and supernatural blessing is extended to him by virtue of a ceremony. If the folks at home sleep a little easier because of their conviction that God’s protection has been given their mariners in some special way then it would be churlish to ridicule the ceremony. Then too, some of whom smile, perhaps a little superciliously, at the type of religious pageant which still prevails in certain cultural groups, may be far more guilty of religious primitivism and idolatry than those about whom we joke.

Who are the primitives anyway? I recall reading an item about the famous religious ceremony of the Indians of New Mexico. This is the corn dance and the Indians attempt to persuade the gods to favor them with a bountiful crop. One year, “the usual from the noisy tourists was gathering near Santa Fe, when a group of strangely garbed Indians approached the dancing area. The women were dressed in violently colored slacks and floppy hats; the men wore loud sport shirts; all were equipped with sunglasses and carried cameras. Closing in on the dancers, they stared, giggled, talked loudly and pointed boorishly; they got in the dancers way taking pictures. Then they pulled up boxes, sat down, opened paper bags and began to eat sandwiches, strewing wrappers carelessly on the ground. When they withdrew, a shamed and respectful crowd of white tourists watch the rest of the dance in silence.”

One can be a religious primitive even though he never carries a statute in a parade or seeks special supernatural protection for the men who go down to the sea in ships. Erich Fromm, the noted authority on psychiatry, in his book Psychoanalysis and Religion, says, “as a collective and potent form of modern idolatry we find the worship of power, of success and of the authority of the market; but aside from these collective forms we find something else. If we scratched the surface of modern man we discover any number of individualized primitive forms of religion. Many of these are called neuroses, but one just as well could call them by their respective religious names: ancestor worship, totemism, fetishism, ritualism, the cult of cleanliness, and so on.”

Is it true that collectively and individually our religion is primitive? Certainly our church buildings are a far cry from the jungle and the desert. Knowledge and education seemed to be more wide-spread, in this country at least, than ever before. Yet, Fromm is right when he thinks that most people bow down before pagan gods, that most people, in the religious sense, have failed to reach maturity.

When a man worships power for himself, he cannot worship the God that Jesus talked about. It can be said with accuracy that Hitler and Mussolini were pagan in their religion. They worshipped Power – bowed down before it – and sacrificed millions of human beings on the altar of that pagan god, Power.

Jesus resisted the temptation to bow down in worship before power. In that mythological story about Jesus’s tempting by Satan, there is portrayed that inner struggle which so many leaders face. “If you’re God’s son, command the stones to turn into bread.” “If you are God’s son, then throw yourself down.” It was a great temptation to seek assurance from God that he was on God’s mission by finding the power to overthrow natural laws. And then the most powerful temptation that the Pagan god Power offers to men with qualities of leadership: from the high mountain of inner vision he sees all the towns and cities stretched before him. To be ruler over cities: the same temptation that seduced Alexander, the Caesars, William the Conqueror, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin; and Jesus said, “Begone Saturn, for the Scripture says, you must do homage to the Lord your God and worship him alone.” More than two thousand years ago, Jesus’ personal religion was one of maturity. He did not bow down before the primitive gods. He did not make his life-work depend on personal power over others.

In spite of the dark days that mark our time, the advent of industrial and agricultural programs have given us a sight of the world where all can be provided for – if we but have peace and understanding. The great question mark for our century is – will the leaders let us have peace – or will there be a man of international leadership who has lust is for power and not for peace?

Success is another pagan got-that many primitives in religion worship. Budd Schulberg in his novel, “What Makes Sammy Run,” portrays in his fictional character, Sammy, how the inordinate desire for success, the passion to be the top man on the job, completely ruins Sammy’s life, as well as causing many heartaches to others. Thorsten Velben, many years ago, coined a phrase which is still too accurate in describing American life. We are addicted, he said, to “conspicuous consumption.” We not only worship the pagan god “success” but must use our earnings to buy things that other people will see and thus recognize our success in the material world. Velben may or may not have been accurate and describing American culture, yet it is obviously true that we live in a thing-centered civilization, or as Pitirim Sorokin describes it, “ a sensate culture.” To the extent that we worship “success” as a god and subordinate all other normal parts of life to “success”, to that degree we are primitives in religion.

The famous British Empire builder Cecil Rhodes carved out for himself one of the most famous careers in modern history. He acquired great power and a fabulous fortune in his South African adventures. And yet toward the end of his life, he remarked about how he had spent his life in building a success in terms of money and power. He spoke sadly about burning himself out physically long before his time. In his own words, “ I have spent my life acquiring a fortune, and now in my advancing years I must give half of it to the doctors to keep me out of the grave and the other half of two lawyers to keep me out of jail."

Then too, it is no situation to say that the supreme religious authority for many is the authority of the market-the opening and closing prices of stocks and securities. I’m told that the Wall Street Journal is a pretty good newspaper. But to many people it is the authoritative religious scripture – the Bible of their lives – and as in 1929 and following, many people actually sacrificed their lives on the altar of the market. – A religion of the primitives.

The same danger of being a primitive in religion is present in our individual lives. We’re told that there are 5 million neurotics in the United States. A neurotic is a person who has some emotional difficulties, but it is not sufficiently violent or anti-social to require institutional care or restraint. One can be a neurotic in many ways.

Fromm mentioned that ancestor worship was a form of primitive religion that was part of the lives of many of our times. Now there is nothing wrong with holding one’s forebears in great respect and love, in holding before the new generations the values that have been moulded into work and sacrifice by those who have gone before us. We could not possibly exist without a knowledge of what the past had done for us. Yet we know, that there are many who have become neurotic about their ancestors. Their life is completely in the past. When in their presence we feel that time has stood still for 100 or 50 or 30 years. Everything that is new is bad, everything that is old is good.

This is primitive ancestor worship. One of the least discussed facts but perhaps of great importance in the power of Communism to sweep through China is the primitive trait that the Chinese had of ancestor worship. The Chinese religious code demanded such profound respect for the ancestors, for the old men of the country, that it became a positive barrier to progress. The present was so dominated by the past that China became a backward country, the progress of other peoples was not duplicated in China. When Communism began its attacks on religion, one of the reasons this doctrine found ready converts was because the primitive religious idea of ancestor worship was the principle fact about their religious lives and the younger people’s could see that their progress was dependent on sweeping away the ancient and primitive idea. But for that primitive trait of ancestor worship in the Chinese religion, Communism might never have secured the hold that it has in China today. A mature religion is not only necessary for a wholesome individual life, but a stable corporate and community life.

Many savages in the jungles have a fetish. The fetish might be an amulet or bracelet which they believe has magic powers and that if deprived of it they will surely come to disaster. Now the specific practice of the jungle savage will rarely be found in our modern culture, yet that attitude seems to be present – because we make a fetish of things. This is vividly demonstrated in the play “ Craig’s Wife”. The wife has made a fetish of things, even though that primitive attitude has cost are the love of her husband. The things in the home were more important than love and understanding. The closing scene where she adjusts something on the mantle as a final demonstration of the power of the fetish over her is the culminating symbol of the destructive power of the primitive religious attitude.

Most of us are free of primitive, savage, ritualism. Yet, many of us are victims of doing things in an exact routine. There is a difference between an orderly way of doing things and an obsession with insisting that all things be done exactly the same way.

One of the ritual acts of a person who is overcome by feelings of guilt (undefined – perhaps unconscious) is the making a cult of cleanliness. Continuous washing of hands for example, immediately after touching anything. It is being possessed by a primitive religious desire. It is unconsciously holding the primitive idea that the outward act, the ritual has power to accomplish a task from which we ourselves shrink.

All of us are subject to a greater or lesser degree of religious primitivism. That is all the more reason why we should be seeking a mature religious faith. All the more reason for knowing that a mature religious faith extends to all areas over lives. To think that we can be mature religious people on Sundays and religious primitives the other days, worshiping power, success, ancestors, money, is as child-like a notion as the idea that some savages have that if they hide their gods or blindfold the eyes of the images, that they can safely engage in activities which are prohibited by their gods.

Perhaps some of us need help in freeing ourselves from the worship of pagan gods. If so we need to recognize that need. Those of us who feel a certain power over our motives and actions need to discipline ourselves, grow in our religious attitude so that we may say as did Jesus, “God is spirit (the spirit of good-will) and we must worship him and spirit and in truth.”