Untitled (Concerning Religious Education)

Undated (found in 1968 papers)
Unspecified (possibly Plainfield)

Untitled Fragment, starting on p. 13

... architects described the needs of the educational program of the church by referring to the “Perambulator Revolution.” There are forty-million children crowding the church schools of the nation. Universalists and Unitarians know that the strongest magnet in attracting thoughtful young families is the program of religious education being developed in the liberal churches. In spite of the need to communicate better both the religious basis and the educational methods we attempt to promote, unquestionably our loyalty to a constantly improving liberal religious education program will determine the kind of people who will be attracted. Many persons who can “take” an orthodox adult worship service, or “leave it alone,” so to speak, revolt against subjecting their children to a dogmatic, tradition-centered Sunday school.

When Marie Antoinette was a child, her mother, Queen Maria of Austria, because of numerous duties only saw her children once every week or ten days. The children were left in the care of governesses and teachers who, because of fear of royal rage, were more anxious that the children should make a good impression than they were that the children should learn. As the historian tells it, “the copies which were presented to the Queen in evidence of the progress of the children were all traced over the original drawings of the teachers. The children just followed with pen over the penciled lines.” The beautiful (but copied) product was then exhibited to Queen Maria for approval. The young princess was also taught to address strangers of distinction in short Latin phrases, when she did not understand the meaning of a single word.”

Unless we liberals do a catastrophic turn-about, we will not be interested in our children making tracings of our religious lines, or chattering religious phrases they do not understand. As J.P. Corbett, a philosopher, said over the B.B.C.: “We should be teaching young people to think about the world, not talk themselves out of it; to work through concrete problems of nature and society, not to drop a verbal curtain between those problems and themselves.”

This method of education requires space for activity. If we believe in it, we should provide opportunity for the growth and expansion of the liberal spirit in education.

There is a fine summary of educational goals in the words of George Counts: “(Education) must assure mastery on the part of the younger generation of the essential practical skills and knowledge of the social heritage. Second, it must promote with unflagging zeal an understanding of the world as it is and as it is becoming. Third, it must strive without apology to inculcate in the young loyalty to the great values of a society of free men. Fourth, it must stress the universal in the total human heritage, stimulate the creative faculties of man, and contribute to the advancement of all the humane arts and sciences.”

Similar to the feeling General Bradley expressed in his recent speech, these affirmations I advance about fellowship, worship, and education are not self-proving propositions. They are articles of faith more than expressions of reason, but I believe they will be true to experience of Universalists who assume the burdens and share the inspiration of a a new and growing church.

Memorial Service for Robert F. Kennedy

June 9, 1968
Plainfield

Memorial Service for Robert F. Kennedy

Robert F. Kennedy is dead at the age of 42 years. The bloody wave of senseless violence has once again shocked our sensibilities, ravaged our stability and stunned our hopes. Another famous American has been killed by the assassin's bullet. The public servant once again was the target for the gun of a killer. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in the course of the American political process we call “seeking the presidential nomination.”

Conjecture tumbles over speculation. Why did it happen? Why is ours a land of violence? Is there spreading decay in the human civilities? Is there something about our partisan frenzies, political build-up and election contests that precipitate latent and suppressed hostilities into overt and destructive acts? Is some contagion of violence infecting the vulnerable? Has the American dream become a nightmare?

Why does a killer kill? Why did the man cautiously called “the prime suspect” pull the trigger ? We ask this question far too frequently in this land of ours. President John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are revered martyrs who were known for their conviction of human brotherhood and their public acts to bring more justice to the social order. Now Robert Kennedy, a man with the same inner conviction and public courage has joined their tragic company. Brave lives, but brief lives.

James Meredith was shot, but survived. Many other lesser-known persons, civil rights advocates and workers have been murdered. Too soon we forget, not only their names and deeds but also we lose a sense of the urgency of the causes for which they died: Megdar Evers, James Reeb, Viola Liuzzo, Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner, many others. Even a hate-monger, George Lincoln Rockwell, was not exempt from the violent death of the assassin's bullet.

A senseless and immoral war in Asia
Strife and misery in our cities
Racism in our land
Poverty and hunger affecting thousands of poor people in the rural areas of barren land or enormous farms where the machine has replaced the man.
Pollution in the skies and streams
Hate in the hearts of too many persons.
Is this our culture?

Many books and articles occupy space on library shelves to attempt to explain human irrational violence. Pick and choose a theory. Consider our violence a primeval remnant from the days of fang and claw if you wish; or maybe you would defend the theory that human beings who are overcrowded and compressed into insufficient living space respond with violence. This has been demonstrated in experiments with rats. Too little space creates frustration, rage and a striking-out in violence. But whatever the theory, can we limit, curtail, restrain violence to the end that young men who have conviction, ambition, energy, opportunity and desire to be leaders in the public order will not be murdered because they had this will to serve their fellow-citizens?

It is not enough to dismiss the matter sorrowfully in the grounds that the assassins are isolated psychotics, maddened by emotional derangements and therefore unrepresentative of American society.

The formidable fact is that we have ignored some of the controls that might have made it difficult for the unfit person to purchase guns. On April 29, 1968, Senator Dodd, a consistent fighter for gun control laws, had a sermon by Dr. Duncan Howlett printed in the Congressional Record. Duncan Howlett is minister of All Souls Unitarian Church, Washington, D. C. A gun control law has been consistently and effectively opposed by the powerful lobby of the National Rifleman's Association. Duncan Howlett urged the passage of a gun control without loopholes. Chief Campbell of the Plainfield Police Dept said to the clergy the other day that a tight Federal gun-control law would be one means of reducing violence.

A year ago, Senator Edward Kennedy confronted 75 members of the Board of the National Rifleman's Association and attacked their opposition to gun controls. He exposed their false publicity, reminding them that gun control legislation would not interfere with the recreation of the real sportsman.

The NRA did not pay any attention to him. Perhaps gun control would not have made a difference. Perhaps Senator Edward Kennedy’s brother, John, an assassinated President would still be buried these four years in Arlington National Cemetery. Perhaps Senator Robert Kennedy would still be interred these few hours near his older brother in Arlington National Cemetery. Perhaps the assassins of Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers would still have been able to procure the weapons used for murder. No one can say with certainty.

But it can be asserted that stricter gun controls might have reduced the 7000 murders by gunfire, the yearly average now in our country. Probably it would reduce the ghastly statistic of 18,000 deaths caused by the accidental discharge of a gun.

Can we face up to the figures for our violent land? (1963, quoted by Duncan Howlett): Switzerland had 1/25 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S. Great Britain had 1/50 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S. The Netherlands had 1/90 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S.

Effective gun control would reduce that disproportionate number of murders. Under the impact of this latest assassination, Congress passed Thursday the gun control law which had been much weakened by amendments. But much stronger legislation is needed.

Gunnar Myrdal, the perceptive Swedish social scientist, believes the tradition of violence and political assassination is growing in our country. Who among you can argue the evidence? The President has appointed a special commission to study the causes of violence and to suggest possible remedies. One can only hope that more attention will be given to the results of this study than to the recent President's Commission on Civil Disorders. That is a remarkable document – surprising in its candid appraisal of the real problems and astonishing in the degree that it has been ignored.

Poverty, injustice, hunger, ill-health are breeders of violence as well as the cause of much apathy. We can never entirely solve the problem of the individual psychotic who suddenly goes berserk and kills. But if we can come to grips with the environmental problems, then there is much that can be changed for the better.

For most persons, in America, this is a day of penitence and national sorrow. Many persons will be torn by vague but disturbing guilt. Our task is not to indulge in formless feelings of guilt in mourning the death of Robert F. Kennedy. Our proper attitude is to mourn his death as a brave, out-spoken public servant; AND to resolve that we shall be among those who strive to determine the priorities of our national life.

In that lonesome airplane that bore the body of Robert F. Kennedy to New York, Thursday, among others on board were Mrs. John F. Kennedy, widow of the assassinated President, Mrs. Martin Luther King, Jr., widow of the assassinated Dr. King, Charles Evers (who has spoken from this pulpit), brother of the assassinated Medgar Evers, and the newest member of the grieving circle, Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy.

Who can measure tragedy? Who can perceive the depth of the fellowship of grief which must have prevailed in that airplane? Who can feel truly the agonies of their sorrow?

There was common ground on which the martyrs had stood. They had established priorities for which they gave more than dedicated, impassioned leadership. They gave life itself because they had determined the national priorities for which they gladly and tirelessly labored. All of them were aware of the constant peril in which their lives were lived. They sought a larger life for all and each had to pay for the effort with a tragically shortened life for himself.

What can one say about our debt to those who have died for human brotherhood, economic opportunity and political freedom and power for those who have been deprived of these rights? We can look at ourselves, Americans, New Jerseyans. Are our priorities related to peace, freedom, human dignity? Let's look at our political parties and add whatever ounces of weight our influence may represent to bring about a closer balance on the scales of justice.

Working for such achievement is the lasting memorial for those who risked and gave their lives.

May such a spirit of faithfulness to the best goals we know and persistence in making some part of the ideal become real be our authentic labor as an enduring memorial to all the heroes and martyrs who died for their dreams. Because their dreams were of a fairer, better social order for everyone, they died for all of us.

Can We Indoctrinate To Set Free?

June 2, 1968
Plainfield

Can We Indoctrinate To Set Free?

Every person should be free to grow in mind and personality towards greater development and fulfillment of the self. Every person should be growing toward more freedom, wiser understanding, and ever-deepening relationships with other persons. How can we teach children, particularly, but actually all persons, to be free? Can we indoctrinate to set free? Are there experiences which can be the stimulus to self-growth?

This is a hard question because we tend to want others to be like ourselves. We get anxious when our children's ways depart from our ways. We get annoyed or hostile when other persons hold to ideas or behavior which we believe to be either trivial or wrong. At the same time we know that living situations continuously change. Perhaps the attitudes we hold may no longer be vitally related to new situations. How can we indoctrinate not only to set children free, but to free ourselves as well?

In the fine book of some years ago, LET US PRAISE FAMOUS MEN, [authors James Agee and Walker Evans told the story of Southern sharecroppers:] "In every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances, and no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again; and in him, too, once more and each of us our terrific responsibility toward human life; towards the utmost idea of goodness of the horror of error, and of God."

Two words stand out when we think of indoctrinating to set free: "potentiality," "responsibility". There is a type of desert lizard, which, when food is abundant, stores surplus in his large, colorful tail. When food becomes scarce, the lizard draws upon the reservoir of this large, swollen tall to sustain him through the crises of his lizard life. Analogies are never fully accurate, but the lizard is suggestive of the capacity of human reserves – spiritual reserves if you will. From our growth potentialities and the wise interpretation of experience there can come reserve deposits of strength which can help in the inevitable and recurring crises of life.

One becomes religious by experience. One becomes religious by experience appropriate to the age-level and growth stage. A five-year-old has not developed a sense of historical time. A three-year-old is not always ready for cooperative behavior in the group. A ten-year-old may not yet be equipped for theological discourse.

The readiness of a child for religious guidance; the moment of religious growth for an adult for that matter, is frequently indicated by the questions asked. The questioning person, child or adult, may given a lift on the road developing potentiality and increasing responsibility when he is answered by adults who are neither fearful of the questions nor afraid that the answers might be wrong. The old cliche that children should be seen and not heard is one of the most erroneous proverbs ever coined. The experience of serious answers to serious questions is one of the prime ways religious stature develops. Consider one of the elementary and necessary instructions a worker receives beginning a new job, "Don't be afraid to ask questions ... We'd rather have too many questions than costly mistakes." This is even more true in the situations where one can grow in self-hood and social responsibility.

There is another way of indoctrinating to set free – encouraging one to do. What a child, or adult, does – working with paint, clay, paper-mache and working with others in play and worship is part of an attitude that can set free. John Dewey's famous educational phrase, "learning by doing," has sometimes been too harshly criticized. Whether one
feels the sun on his back on the trail, the wind in his face on the hilltop, the wonder of an unexpected bulb breaking the crust of the earth in Spring, the crunch of autumn leaves on an October walk, one is doing. If one seeks to interpret such experiences wisely, he will apprehend that there is a one-to-one relationship to the Universe; that one can embrace with awe and ardor some of the seemingly impersonal ways of the Universe that swirls about us and provides the setting for our living.

To put it slightly differently, one "becomes religious by developing inner resources. The kind of personal growth which best sets us free comes from such experience which leads us to trust ourselves.

many strokes and thoughts shimmer
the soft color of innocence
young creating patterns
splash in self-expression
finding the sunshine of their colors
in a place for discovering life

- Wendy Stafford

But of course the solitary person confronting the Universe is not nearly enough, even though Whitehead defined religion as what one is in his solitariness. Growth and character are not achieved in a vacuum. One must grow toward freedom in a complex and interdependent series of societies. A couple hundred years ago when Rousseau exuberantly sung praises of freedom, he was sure that man was born free in nature. Rousseau argued that it was society that put chains on natural freedom. Now we know that this was a naive and rosy misunderstanding of human growth. One is not born free; one learns to be free.

The story is told that in the 17th Century a slave-trading vessel had loaded 200 slaves between decks, raised anchor and took a westward course. Somehow the slaves broke free, overpowered the crew and tossed them overboard. But although they had liberated themselves from the slave-traders, not one of the freed slaves could either handle sail or rudder or read a compass. They had freed themselves "from", but not freed themselves "for".

This seems a parable for man in community. Man must develop his own inner strength, must find his own convictions about himself, his fellow-man and his God. At the same time he must assume the social responsibilities and develop the community skills without which freedom is as directionless as the slave-ship. John Dewey phrased this need fully for inner resources this way, "Men have never fully used the powers they possess to advance the good life, because they waited on something external to themselves to do the work they are responsible for doing."

While the debates and decisions of the Cleveland General Assembly will be presented in greater detail and better form by the Denominational Affairs Committee, one of the most exciting as well as controversial matters is in point here. The Black Affairs Council will be recognized by the Board of Trustees and will be funded. The delegates by a strong majority of 836 to 327 clearly indicated that they believed that time had come for Black self-determination within the framework of our continental U.U.A.; that there was sufficient confidence in their understanding of needs and ability to meet needs; no strings have been tied to the appropriations. This says to the Black Affairs Council "you need not wait on something external to yourselves to begin to make things right." Use your inner resources as these have been developed through centuries of struggle and suffering. Out of your own experience guide us in ways that may make some difference in this most sharp problem and struggle of our nation. Unconsciously, as well as deliberately, we Whites may have been paternalistic. At Cleveland, those who voted [in the 836] say, we have failed to extend to you the same encouragement to self-growth; the same right to interpret experience that we have proclaimed is our central approach to religious learning and coming to religious conviction.

This is freedom for self-growth, self-determination, not a regression to a separatism. There are those thoughtful and sincere people who disagree. I believe I can understand their point of view; but I believe that our times demand this opportunity for growth, not only for the children in our church school, but for adults in our movement who have not had their opportunity to interpret the pressing problems in the domestic social order and to offer ways to overcome the problems.

One of the prime feelings in learning is a sense of quickening relationships. A child may feel this quickening relationship to his class and the methods and materials in it. At Cleveland, most of the adults, all I know of anyway in that majority, felt a quickening relationship, not only to the Black culture which set our shoulders moving and our feet tapping, not only to the Black worship service which had Unitarians singing "Precious Lord take my hand," and other spirituals, but also a quickening relationship to the possibilities that our church, our movement may have crossed a time-line of newness and relevance.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must develop wider and more effective ideas and programs in the social order. Perhaps our new vision will help. In addition, quite apart from what may or may not happen in the social order, the pressure of social problems on us at Cleveland deepened the sense of personal religion (for many at least). There are those who felt disillusion, those who said,"this isn't my church, anymore." But the tides of feeling, commitment, call, did deepen our sense of personal fulfillment, or solitary religion, or whatever one might want to call it.

The problems are formidable, particularly the financial problem, with so many places where our dollars can be will spent. Varying priorities will be sifted to assign importance. Nevertheless, in a spirit of group decision, personal involvement and personal commitment, we were being freed from the burden of issues we now know to be of lesser importance.

Consider what Albert Schweitzer said, long before the development of the nuclear bombs (INDIAN THOUGHT AND DEVELOPMENT, Beacon Press, 1954): "I believe there must arise a philosophy profounder and more living than than our own, one possessed of greater spiritual and ethical power. In the terrible age through which mankind is passing, all of us, both in the East and the West, must watch for the coming of a more perfect and healthier form of thought which will conquer men's hearts and compel all people to acknowledge its sway. And it must be our aim to bring this philosophy into existence."

Room for the self to grow, response with real answers, a quickening of relationships both solitary and social, a linkage between conviction and commitment, these are ways to set us free.

In Walden, Thoreau wrote, "We must learn to re-awaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn...."

To re-awaken and keep ourselves awake by the methods of growth and freedom, this is the way we can be free and I covet for myself and for my Unitarian Universalist denomination, the courage and stamina to persist until the way is clearer and fulfillment nearer.

Lakefront Decision

May 19, 1968
Plainfield

Lakefront Decision

Some of you may groan audibly or silently because I am devoting this sermon to the Black Affairs Council of the Unitarian Universalist Association (U.U.A.). Some may feel they have heard enough already about Black Power, the President's Commission on Civil Disorders and the prospects before us, but the delegates to the U.U.A. meetings next week in Cleveland will find the issues so intense and difficult that they may face tough tests of conscience and principle in choosing where to vote "aye" and where to vote "no." Furthermore, here at home you will read news releases which may represent neither full facts nor undistorted opinion or may simple be utterly inadequate reporting.

There will be many issues at Cleveland but the most crucial will be whether or not to recognize the Black Affairs Council (B.A.C.), and if recognized, how it will be financed. The considerations involved are formidable issues within our Unitarian Universalist family. In addition, the debate and decisions are symbolic of the crisis in Black and White which so thoroughly penetrates all levels of American society. In Cleveland there will be sharp differences among delegates. These differences will not represent a division of the concerned versus the unconcerned. Opponents will be equally concerned, but divided on such central principles as the application of the historic decision-making process of the U.U.A.; and whether or not Black separatism should be accepted and approved as a present necessity.

The best factual reporting on this whole matter of a Black Affairs Council is contained in THE BRIDGE, Summer issue, 1966. Those who have studied that article may find my remarks repetitious. In this talk, I'll review the history and attempt to state the issues and changing attitudes toward the issues, and give my own present views.

In reviewing the history, first there is a preface; then there is the development of the Black Caucus, which led to the Black Steering Committee and the proposed B.A.C. In addition, there are the policies of the U.U.A. Board, policies which have been somewhat fluid. A U.U.A. Board meeting scheduled just prior to the Cleveland meetings may result in modified policies on the part of the Board.

The preface is twofold: Black rebellions in the U.S. Black people discovered that Supreme Court decisions (anniversary of Brown) and civil rights legislation did not create social change quickly enough; rising expectations were woefully short-changed; they have realized that the dominant White culture would not act promptly in the fields of employment, housing, police relations, education, and governmental service. Overarching all of these was the rightful feeling that their human dignity was either
ignored or violated.

Out of this social ferment came disorder in the cities, aptly summarized in the President's Commission on Civil Disorders: "White racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of WWII .... Race prejudice has shaped our history decisively; it now threatens to affect our future."

Another social consequence was the emergence of Black Power. Black Power is the effort of many Black people to achieve self-determination, to meet their own needs themselves, to recognize and be proud of their Black identity and traditions. They seek political power to achieve change because they simply do not believe Whites care enough to make the effort required to produce an equal opportunity society.

It is out of this scene that we can narrow the focus to specific events in our Unitarian Universalist movement.

Out of the Summer disorders came the call of the U.U.A. Department of Social Responsibility for an "Emergency Conference on the Unitarian Universalist Response to the Black Rebellion," held in October last year in New York. Several members of our Society attended all or some of these sessions. We have discussed this Emergency Conference at length and a sentence or two should be a sufficient review.

About 37 Black Unitarian Universalists formed a Black Caucus under the leadership of a California group, BURR – Black Unitarian Universalists for Radical Reform. Most Black Unitarian Universalists attended a separate meeting limited to Blacks. Returning to the final sessions, the members of the Black Caucus presented a series of proposals. There was an insistence that these proposals be parsed without discussion and transmitted directly to the U.U.A. Board.

In November the Steering Committee elected by the Black Caucus met with the U.U.A. Board. But before presenting their proposals, the Black Steering Committee insisted that the U.U.A. Board commit itself in advance to saying "yes" that very day. This was discussed for two hours, with the majority of the U.U.A. Board declining to commit itself before hearing the proposals. The Black Steering Committee then did present its proposals: 1) To establish a Black Affairs Council instead of the Committee on Religion and Race, with Blacks in a clear majority. The Purpose of the B.A.C. would be to mobilize talents of Black and White Unitarian Universalists for service and action in the ghettos under Black leadership and control. It was proposed that the B.A.C. be financed by the U.U.A. at $250M per year for four years. The Board was also asked to encourage Black Caucuses in Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships and to support other demands made in New York.

After much discussion, the U.U.A. Board passed a resolution which stated in effect that the problem can be solved only by "Blacks and Whites together" not by separatism, Black or White. The U.U.A. Board also voted to re-organize the Commission on Religion and Race with a substantial participation in the re-organization by the Steering Committee of the Black Caucus. This re-organized Commission on Religion and Race would be given the responsibility of carrying out the most important recommendations of the Emergency Conference in New York.

The Black Caucus was thoroughly and heatedly in disagreement with these findings by the U.U.A. Board, asked that churches withhold support of the U.U.A. and give instead to the Black Caucus Fund.

In late November the U.U.A. Committee on Religion and Race made a grant of $4,100 to the Black Caucus to help finance a continental meeting in February of the Black Caucus in Chicago.

In these Chicago meetings attended by about 200 Black Unitarian Universalists, the following positions were adopted: 1) That the U.U.A. General Assembly would be asked to commission the B.A.C. as an affiliate of the U.U.A. to replace the Committee on Religion and Race. This B.A.C. would have 6 Black and 3 Non-Black members. All members of the B.A.C. would be appointed by the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus. Members of B.U.U.C. individual caucuses in churches and fellowships would be limited to Blacks, but membership in the Unitarian Universalist Church would not be required.

The B.A.C. would seek financing for its program at $250M per year for four years from the U.U.A., using capital funds if necessary.

The U.U.A. Board also has been dealing with the same issues. Following the Chicago meetings of the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus, the B.A.C. was invited apply for affiliate or associate membership in the U.U.A. At the same time, the U.U.A. Board announced that the Committee for Action on Race would replace the Committee on Religion and Race. The members would be appointed by the U.U.A. Board but would include representation from the B.A.C., the Unitarian Universalist [Service] Committee and other appropriate associated or affiliated members of the U.U.A. This Committee would be financed by a fund to be called the Unitarian Universalist Fund for Racial Justice Now, with a goal of $300M; and would be an appeal to all Unitarian Universalist societies to impose on themselves an annual, per capita, voluntary assessment.

The forgoing represents the events that had occurred up to last Monday evening when four of your delegates attended a meeting in NYC planned to inform those who would be representing their Societies at Cleveland, beginning next Friday. We had known that the issues involved in the Black Caucus were difficult because contradictory principles are involved. We know now more than ever that the intensity of feeling is considerable and that the Cleveland meetings may bristle with passion on several sides of several issues.

We were reminded of the existence now of two alphabetical organizations: FULLBAC and BAWA. FULLBAC stands for Full Recognition and Funding of the Black Affairs Council and is comprised of White Unitarian Universalists who support the Black Caucus. FULLBAC’s purpose is to recruit support and votes for recognition of the B.A.C. as an independent, continuing agency of Unitarian Universalists. Furthermore, that recognition or membership is not enough, adequate financing must be made available by the U.U.A. There is an impressive list of ministers and laymen supporting FULLBAC. They believe that to recognize Black leadership, named and controlled by the B.A.C. is a necessary step in a long-range goal of an "inclusive, effective U.U.A." In essence FULLBAC believes the demands made by the Black Caucus are just, proper, and must be adopted or the U.U.A. will have flunked its most important test in its history.

In strong opposition both to the Black Caucus and its supporters is a newer organization, BAWA - Unitarian Universalists for a Black and White Alternative. Dr. Donald Harrington, nationally-famous minister of Community Church is co-chairman of BAWA. A recent statement of his outlines the reasons why BAWA opposes the recognition and financing of the Black Caucus:

1) Because UU should maintain the "principle of an inclusive community of mankind, undivided by considerations of race, color, creed or class. Therefore, because the Black Caucus is a racially segregated organization it will impede progress toward the achievement of the goal of an inclusive community of mankind.

2) BAWA questions whether the Black Caucus has demonstrated that it speaks for most Unitarian Universalists, that such claims by a few individuals undermine the democratic process.

3) That the proposed proportion in the B.A.C. of 2/3 Black and 1/3 White represents a quotaed arrangement which should not be acceptable by a church which has outlawed segregation.

4) That the demand of the Black Caucus for large sums of money for un-designated programs is bad financial practice and an unrealistic demand to be treated as no other Unitarian Universalist denominational organ has ever been treated.

BAWA outlines a number of specific programs that are commendable, although the main point at the moment is the development of this organized effort of an integrated group to oppose the recognition and financing of the B.A.C.

The recommendations made by the U.U.A. Board are unacceptable to the Black Caucus. They believe even a re-organized Committee for Racial Justice Now will not do because power will still reside in the U.U.A. which would make the appointments and allocate the money. By the Black Caucus view this is paternalism and offensive. The B.A.C. insists on full control of organization or Committee which will plan programs and action in the ghettos and other areas involving the issues of the struggle for equality and power in this country.

As a ministerial delegate to Cleveland, I am planning to keep my options open. But my present views are these:

I, too, believe in the overall goal, or strategy, of an inclusive religious body with no walls between us of caste or color. As a tactic however, given the circumstances of our time, I support the Black Caucus in urging the recognition of the B.A.C. as an affiliate or auxiliary organization of the U.U.A. The status of the B.A.C. would be that of the U.U.W.F. and the Laymen's League. I also believe the Black Caucus should have full power to make the appointments to the B.A.C.

Given the state of our feeble efforts in this country to make equality real, we need to adopt all varieties of innovative steps to try to break through the vicious circle of discrimination and inequality in education, housing, employment, governmental service and other sore areas. The B.A.C. should have the recognized organizational base to lead the U.U.A. and its churches and fellowships in programs and actions that may make some positive differences.

We who are White simply do not understand either the ghastly neglect of rights or the callous indifference to human suffering that prevails so widely. Just the other day, an attorney from Mississippi told an audience that she was sick of watching people starve in that State; no longer able to tolerate such facts as that 65% to 75% of the children registered in a Head Start Program were suffering from anemia due to malnutrition; that 78% of the Black people of that State lived below the poverty level; and that unemployment has reached epidemic proportions due to the large scale mechanization of farms ending jobs for thousands.

I believe we should encourage the Black Caucus to exert leadership; to prize their identify as Black People; to applaud their commendable evaluation that Black is beautiful. This identity and self-determination is a present tactic which may in the long run create a more significant authentic inclusiveness and sharing than we have ever experienced or even glimpsed in our dreams of human brotherhood.

One aspect of Black Caucus demands I cannot vote for without qualifications. This is the demand for $250M per year for four years. One agenda item at Cleveland calls for $150M to be turned over to the B.A.C. by July 1, 1968. My reluctance to endorse this demand is based on two considerations. First of all, the amount of free capital funds in the possession of the U.U.A. is so limited that, almost every other operation would have to be drastically limited, many programs terminated. The U.U.A. has been going through the agonies of strenuous budget-cutting in order to end deficit budgets. Perhaps the program of the Black Caucus is relevant, important and necessary to a degree that we should toss out most other programs we have believed necessary. But such a decision would have to be based, in my view, on a knowledge of what the alternatives are. So far the Black Caucus has given little indication of what programs would be financed by this $250M per year. Their case is that one, we should show our confidence in their judgment by allocating millions [of] dollars with no questions asked. Maybe it's a hang-up on my part, but I cannot function organizationally in this manner. Financial decisions using U.U.A. funds must be made on a judgment of the value of proposed programs. So I do not plan to vote for this aspect of the demands of the Black Caucus.

However, if we are asked to "bet on them" [the Black Caucus] by supplying substantial appropriations with no prior knowledge of how the appropriations were to be used, I could support following alternative:

Already fund-raising proposals are in preparation if the [General Assembly] should recognize the B.A.C. This will be a voluntary campaign, separate from the Annual Fund. I would presently favor turning the proceeds of this campaign over to the B.A.C. with no prior requirements to enable the development of programs. This would be understood by all who gave to the fund. At the end of a year, the B.A.C. would report on the ways it has used this voluntary money, and ask for continuing support on a program basis. This alternative would enable the B.A.C. to get its action priorities established and initial programs off the ground.

More than that, it would demonstrate the authentic concern of Unitarian Universalists in the churches and fellowships for the peaceful resolution of the crisis in Black and White. It would be a grass-roots expression more than action by delegates at Cleveland or votes by the U.U.A. Board, "whatever support resulted would be the proof of the feelings of Unitarian Universalists about the issues.

One closing point I believe essential: I've been disturbed by good people who say, "If the B.A.C. is not recognized and funded at Cleveland, I'm cutting off support and will quit the Unitarian Universalist movement. The executive director of the LL has already announced his speech in Cleveland as "Why I'm Leaving the Unitarian Universalist Denomination." Others are saying, I'll leave the Unitarian Universalist movement if the B.A.C. is recognized.

To me it is important to go on record that I'm not going to leave the movement, no matter what minority position I may find myself in. We engage in dialogue, debate, and decision-making. In Cleveland these will be sharp, probably hostile and the losers will be very much tempted to be sorely aggrieved and resentful and be tempted to walk out.

It is my hope that the B.A.C. will be recognized and that it will supply fresh leadership in these extremely critical times of rebellion. It is my hope that Unitarian Universalists will respond heartily with voluntary financial support. But no matter how the issues are resolved on the lakefront, the search for an adequate faith, the quest for effective action and the growth of deeper fellowship and friendship can best be pursued within the framework of the Unitarian Universalist religion.

What Can We Learn From Flower People, Power People, And Other Rebels

May 12, 1968
Plainfield

What Can We Learn From Flower People, Power People, And Other Rebels

In our culture, one of the most difficult tasks is to look below the surface characteristics of rebels in order to discover if there are valuable under-currents beneath the waves of belligerence, bohemianism, and blunt rejection of what we believe to be true and good. My belief is that we can learn from the acts and attitudes of persons and groups whose ways irritate us, whose behavior alarms us and who act profanely toward patterns of living we may consider sacred. Properly understood, those who rebel against all or some of the ways of our society may be reaching for enduring values. In speaking of what we can learn from flower people, power people, and other rebels, I am also asking each of us to ask himself, Why do rebels irritate me? Why am I alarmed? How sacred are some of the cows which I believe the rebels have profaned?

One important qualification should be made. When discussing characteristics of flower people [and] power people, one should be aware that individual differences prevail in every group. As Russell Baker pointed out by exaggeration, pre-packaged personalities are a myth. There may be prevailing climates of attitude and behavior among groups, but we should be just as wary of stereotyping flower people and power people as we should be wary of stereotyping people by race, religion, occupation, and national background.

When I speak of Flower People, I refer to those well-publicized young people who crowd New York’s East Village, San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury, and similar gathering places. They have rejected the prevailing culture of white suburban, de-odorized, middle-class America. They wear flowers in their uncut hair; they wear clothes distinctively different from Madison Avenue garb; their Mexican shawls or vests and tight dungarees or bell-bottomed trousers may be unwashed and paint-smeared; some flower people may be strumming stringed instruments; a goodly percentage may have experimented with “pot” and have taken “trips” with LSD or other chemicals; nearly all have rebelled against the authority and beliefs of their parents; many live openly in varieties of sexual freedom.

The Power People are those who seek salvation by acquiring political power in order to achieve economic justice, human equality, and peace in the world. They may be Black Power people seeking to weld together the Black people as a political force because of the reality that when one is poor and not numbered among the socially privileged, then political power is not given but must be seized by united numbers who hold together to force concessions from the traditional holders of political and economic strength in this nation.

Or, Power People may be members of Students for Democratic Society or similar organizations sometimes classified as the “New Left.” Their focus too is on tactics which will shift political control in some effective measure to themselves. Or, at least they may shake up and stir anxieties in the usual seats of political power. The lens of Power People’s effort is focused on tactics: resist the draft (“Hell no, we won’t go”). They seek to force a confrontation with power; for example, the events at Columbia University of the last few days or the Berkeley campus of some months ago. They condemn the Vietnam War, particularly, as the immediate reason for resisting the draft; they rebel against the administration of Universities much more than rejecting the faculties. The rebels are fearful that the Government will dominate educational institutions through publicized grants for defense research/development; they fear even more surreptitious subsidies by the C.I.A. The power people of the New Left, on the whole, are not doctrinaire in their political and economic theories. Most of them are not convinced socialists, communists, or capitalists in any of the accepted definitions. They believe that all such ideological distinctions are 19th century antiquities, exhausted of meaning or irrelevant to the human needs of our times.

A significant majority of Flower people and Power people are young. They were born toward the end of WW2 or after that. They are the first generation reared in front of that most influential of educators, the TV tube. That hypnotic eye exposed them to years of fictitious violence: the Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, Zorro, and other blood and bullet re-creations of the old frontiers. They learned about tommy-guns and gangsters from Eliot Ness and Sergeant Friday. Some years ago, Kenyon Scudder, then a delegate to the U.N Congress on the prevention of crime, quoted this little verse:

Sing a song of TV
For the little ones
4 and 20 jailbirds
Facing tommy-guns

When the scene is finished
The blood is ankle deep
Wasn’t that a pretty dish
To send the kids to sleep.

From the same omnipresent screen there emanated the “situation comedy.” “I Love Lucy” - the family situation, or “Our Miss Brooks,” the educational situation – neither of which could possibly have done much for either family life or education, even though the humor was believed to be uproarious.

You will recall other instances wherein the lowest common denominator was emphasized in order to secure the largest possible viewing audience to the end that detergents, aluminum siding, cigarettes, and all other manner or precious goods could be skillfully marketed. As many young people became saturated and surfeited with the banality of such mass entertainment, they could hardly escape the conviction that the American culture not only placed its major emphasis on minor pursuits, but also that it was dreary and boring.

Then there are those of this young generation of rebels whose deep impression of our culture can be described as a tale of three cities: Auschwitz – Hiroshima – and Nuremberg (see Kenneth Keniston, p. 242, article, “Youth, Change, and Violence” in The American Scholar, Spring 1968). As Kenneth Keniston wrote, “Auschwitz points to the possibility of a ‘civilized’ nation embarking on a systematized, well-organized, and scientific plan of exterminating an entire people. Hiroshima demonstrated how ‘clean,’ easy, and impersonal cataclysm could be to those who perpetrate it, and how demonic, sadistic, and brutal to those who experience it. And Nuremberg summarizes the principle that men have an accountability above obedience to national policy, a responsibility to conscience more primary even than fidelity to national law.” There are many young persons who have seen clearly, or at least felt inwardly, the brutal and destructive potential of so-called civilized nations and are placing individual conscience above unprotesting obedience.

What can we learn from the Flower People and the Power People who have grown up in the setting described? They are minorities among youth. Many, probably most of them, will move on into suburban, middle-class, affluent settings as they become weary of the struggle – and others will take their places.

We need not adopt their mistakes in order to learn from them. Many Flower People fool with dangerous drugs, even though it is probable that some compounds and weeds may one day be as acceptable as tobacco, liquor, and tranquilizers are today. We need not condone all the acts of student rebels on campus. But we ought to become aware that when social change does not happen fast enough, the consequence is not static acquiescence but revolt. Of course it was wrong to vandalize Dr. Kirk’s office at Columbia and steal his private papers. It was both breaking of law and an invasion of his privacy which none of us would tolerate if it happened to us. Similarly, acts of violence cannot be approved. If anything is clear now, it is that violence breeds violence. This is no less true of heedless and senseless police actions as it is of rioters. The principles of due process of law and order have been evolving and becoming more valued for thousands of years. The bullet is no substitute for the ballot. Our salvation will come not from more deadly bullets but from more effective ballots. And this can come only when those who value human dignity, freedom, and equality learn the lessons of how political power is achieved and used to establish progress.

What can we learn from the radical Flower People and Power People?

We can remember what “radical” means – radical means fundamental, having roots, reaching for the center, going to the source.

The Flower People remind us of a radical continuity in our society that is as old as the Hebrew ethical prophets and as new as a candid, unsparing view of our culture and values. By “radical continuity” I mean that there are moral currents springing from the source which can be known in any period if one examines protest and reform movements. The Hebrew prophets looked at their prevailing culture and did not like what they saw – hypocrisy, narrowness, injustice: “I hate, I despise your feasts,” said Amos, “but let righteousness pour down like a mighty stream.”

The Flower People remind us of the ancient radical values of personal fulfillment and inclusiveness.

By taking one’s own mind and person seriously, the Flower Person may be reaching for the ancient and profound experience of wonder and awe. They seek sensitivity and openness to colors, tastes, sounds, and touch. That they are in error in using harmful drugs to achieve mind-expanding experiences does not indicate that we should be insensitive to the potential growth experience of expanding consciousness. Personal religion in all cultures has been characterized by mind-expansion and self-growth. Buddha sat under the tree and opened himself to experiences from which he had been protected by his family’s wealth and status. He became conscious of human suffering and human need. His mind and soul expanded and one of the great religions of the world was precipitated.

So it has been with the founders of great religions and great institutions. They sought to expand their interior horizons with new ideas, more sensitive consciousness. The human hind has the capacity to expand if we are open to its opportunities. As Mark Twain said, “Take out your mind and stomp on it; it’s getting all caked up.” This we can learn from Flower People.

Inclusiveness is a value of which we need to be reminded frequently. It is one of the radical continuities. In ancient times, Malachi cried, “Have we not one father? Has not one God created us?” Most of the Flower People would reject this ancient religious language, but would endorse the idea of one human family, including all persons. And the relationship between all persons should be direct, open, accepting; the contrived and artificial boundaries of nation, class, race, and Puritan rigidity are not tolerated by the Flower People. However scandalous older generations may believe the conduct of some Flower People to be, their slogan, “Make love, not war” is a symbol of inclusiveness. It is a slogan of a superior society than that of war-makers and racists.

Furthermore, some of their rebellion is based on a rather discerning appraisal that the older generations display a considerable inconsistency between principle and practice. Have not we elders frequently communicated, “Do as I say, not as I do?” If with all their faults, the Flower People can spur us to look at the hypocrisy gap in our culture, then we can learn from them. We may squirm when the young rebels accuse us of hypocrisy in our culture – but what is the evidence? Everyone who believes in open housing, but not on his street, supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who believes in equal job opportunity but not in his trade, supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who criticizes the young for open behavior which is indulged by the old furtively supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who casually and unthinkingly supports war while professing to be part of a peace-loving nation supports and deepens the hypocrisy gap. Every parent who believes his child should develop an autonomous self in wisdom, stature, and creative self-direction but at the same time tries to dominate his child’s choices, is adding to the hypocrisy gap. If the Flower People can help us see ourselves with our failures and rationalizations they are providing us with the opportunity to learn.

The Power People too are making a radical criticism in our society. They remind us of root values that we may have forgotten in our insecurities and complacencies. When issues are vital and timely, confrontation is a moral force. This is the purpose of the non-violent demonstration. When issues are plain, confrontation has moral power to effect change. The Power People are reminders that we may have relied too heavily on the printed word to influence change. The Power People teach us that one must confront the institutions that are failing to make social changes quickly enough. This is what the Poor People’s March on Washington is all about. The great teachers of religion have always relied on such confrontation ... peaceful but unequivocal confrontation. The conviction that confrontation has moral force is another radical continuity. You can find one example among many in a man from Nazareth who turned his face toward Jerusalem and went there.

There is some additional support that confrontation can change people as well as events. One of the methods by which human relations can be improved in business, government, religious institutions, or any other kind, is that process sometimes called sensitivity training, T groups, or group dynamics. Essentially the people learn to get along with themselves better and others better by confrontation. One is candid with others about his real feelings. If one is angry at someone else, he expresses this anger. Blunt openness, rather than furtive politeness, is the rule; and it is [a] healthy process inducing personal and social growth.

The Power Person is honest in expressing strong desire and need for change now. If he can’t influence by his wealth or prestige, he can by his numbers. To recognize this legitimate use of power does not condone those practices which are violent or illegal. One may practice civil disobedience because of strong, moral conviction that the law is wrong in a given instance. But part of the moral force comes from accepting the penalties for such disobedience. If you want scripture for this, the death of Socrates or Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” are morally eloquent.

Every member of the Daughters of the American Revolution is descended from a rebel. Everyone who finds moral persuasiveness in the great prophets of all religions relies on the vision of a rebel. We can learn from rebels by seeking out the radical continuities that may be actual or potential in their acts and attitudes.

It was said of the great French architect, Le Corbusier, that in 1927 he prepared one of his greatest designs for the League of Nations competition. But his plans were rejected by the judges on a technicality. He had failed to use India Ink in his drawings. Allen Tamko, a city planner with vision, commented, “Instead of Corbusier’s design, a preposterous Beaux Arts Palace was put up instead. If the League had had the courage and decency to put up Le Corbusier’s buildings and supplied the politics to match it, maybe we would not be in such a mess today.” (Pamphlet, “The City”, p. 22)

To summarize: we do need to expand our minds and recapture the sense of wonder and awe at our human experience in this marvelous creating universe of which we are a part.

We need to be reminded that there must be a fuller recognition of the inclusiveness of the human family and to love the entire human family, not make war on certain parts of it which may at a given moment be an obstacle to plans in high places.

We can learn to be more honest with ourselves and recognize when there is a hypocrisy gap between our principles and our practice.

We may remember that serious criticism of the social structure may require confrontation to achieve needed social change – change that is essential if a worthwhile culture is to emerge from our present conflicts and injustice.

Let me close with a dictionary reference: if you look up the word, radical, you will read that its opposite, its antonym, is not conservative, but superficial, cursory. Anyone should feel free to argue against the radical celebrations and the radical criticisms of Flower People and Power People, but let such criticism be thoughtful, engaging the real issues, not merely [as] a superficial expression of irritation or alarm.

Religion and Taxes

April 21, 1968
Plainfield

Religion and Taxes

“In view of their favored tax position, with reasonably good management, America’s churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation, within the predictable future.” This was said almost seven years ago by Eugene Carson Blake, a former president of the National Council of Churches and now the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches.

With April 15 less than a week in the past, hardly one of us are free from the knowledge of the substantial portion of our income which goes for taxation; furthermore, what a massive segment of our national economy is represented by the Federal Income Tax.

You may or may not feel strongly about the favored tax position enjoyed by religious institutions. But as it does cost you money, you might consider some of the facts. Therefore I would speak to you of some of the tax privileges enjoyed by churches and religious orders in the framework of the historic constitutional principle of the wall of separation between Church and State.

Last year many of us opposed the passage of the New Jersey legislation to provide free bus transportation to private school students. Among the arguments were not only those of the historic separation principle, but also the unfairness of such a tax levy for non-public bus transportation. Various costs were mentioned, but I know of no summary of costs for the State. But certain instances can be cited which cost the taxpayer money:

A Watchung mother is being paid $4800 a year to transport her children and two other children to private schools in Summit and Morristown.

In Franklin Township, one child is driven by car to Edison at a cost of $1800 per year. There are numerous similar cases. The Plainfield Board of Education provides for transportation of more than 700 students to parochial or other private schools.

However this N.J. busing law is but a small part of an issue that becomes increasingly formidable – religion and taxes.

The public responsibilities made necessary by our chaotic social conditions require much larger revenues be obtained for taxation; religious institutions, almost entirely free from tax burdens create a disproportionate burden which must be carried by individuals and profit-making corporations.

The war in Vietnam requires public money which is becoming an intolerable burden. But even with negotiations beginning to be a possibility, the 70 billions yearly required to keep our military-industrial complex fat and happy is unlikely to be substantially or quickly reduced. I wish that it could, but realistically it is unlikely.

The problems of poverty, trouble in the cities, housing, jobs, education, demand a substantially larger investment of public funds than ever has been so appropriated. But there is not a readiness to vote the needed monies. It is commonly said that the reason the President does not appear before the Congress pleading for large grants for immediate impact in the cities is because he is sure that Congress will not vote such funds.

Even at present levels of spending, a tax increase is generally believed to be essential to preserving the stability of the economy. Governor Hughes this week told a conference of mayors that large increases in state taxation would be needed to fund essential programs in the cities.

By using a few of many statistics available, I would like to make the point that the tax-exempt property and income of religious institutions are becoming increasingly important factors in the taxation systems because they represent such large portions of property and income.

Many of the facts to be mentioned are drawn from this little book, CHURCH WEALTH AND BUSINESS INCOME, by Marin Larson. Published a couple of years ago, the chances are strong that religious wealth is more today because of natural growth and inflation.

If one considers the visible national wealth, the approximate assessed valuation among the three major faiths are:



There are of course other types of tax-exempt land than religious charities, foundations, etc. But religious corporations hold the majority of such tax-exempt wealth.

LAST TWO PP, p. 51

IN part of his book, the author takes four American cities, Buffalo, Baltimore, Washington D.C and Denver, and analyzes the property held by religious institutions.

Consider Buffalo – Buffalo is a large industrial city, decaying at the core and with the urban problems and disorders which are becoming alarmingly typical. In 25 years, the White population has declined by more than 100 M and the Black population has grown 70 M.

Buffalo faces a double tax squeeze – the taxable real estate is deteriorating – age, lack of repair, neglect, while at the same time more and more property is being removed from the tax rolls. For example, in 1930, taxable property was assessed at one billion, 65 million and the exempt at 195 million. By 1963-64, the taxable had declined to one billion 36 million but the exempt had risen to 458 million. This included government property as well as the private exempt property. There is a denominational breakdown which should be of interest

Quote p. 13

The large amounts of religious property exempt from local property taxes is only a part of the picture because there are many extraordinary benefits granted to religious institutions by the Internal Revenue Service.

No one knows how many tax-exempt organizations there are in the U.S., but there are hundreds of thousands. “Any organization which can qualify for exemption from local property taxes ... is exempt from taxation on income derived from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, or capital gains.” (p. 68)

Further, churches “occupy a special position under Internal Revenue Service, ...”

Quote, p. 61
Quote, p. 63

What can be done? Perhaps the reason to maintain the special privileges is compelling enough so that we should not be concerned that exemptions may represent an annual amount of billions of dollars lost to the public order.

The strongest argument to maintain tax-exemption privileges for religious institutions is that such exemptions are necessary in order to maintain the historic wall of separation between church and state. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The government could effectively render any religious enterprise impotent through the use of taxing powers. One of the famous cases of the 1950s was that of a Unitarian church in California[; it] was threatened with a loss of tax exemption because it refused to sign a loyalty oath.

Inasmuch as churches and their spokesmen must in the nature of things take stands sometimes severely critical of the government, then government should not have the power to squelch or retaliate through the tax system.

Then there are those who say the Church should pay taxes. The enormous growth of church property and wealth creates a situation of financial hardship for citizens who do not have such exemptions. Furthermore, in a nation such as ours where approximately 1/3rd of the population has no particular religious commitment, why should they pay equally in support of religious institutions?

I began this with a quote from Eugene Carson Blake. He also said, “When one remembers that churches pay no inheritance tax ... that churches may own and operate business and be exempt from the 52% corporate income tax, and that real property used for church purposes is tax-exempt, it is not unreasonable ... that the churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation within the predictable future.”

A third position would be that the churches should retain tax-exempt positions for its worship halls but should reimburse communities for some portion of services received, such as police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, etc. Last year one neighborhood Unitarian church, Montclair, voted a voluntary contribution of $1,000 to reimburse the community for some of the essential services received.

I believe one of our Cleveland churches took similar action. I also believe church properties such as parsonages and other residential properties should be placed on tax rolls.

Furthermore, there would seem to be a real injustice in [a] church-operated business operating tax-free. Such enterprises are in competition with private companies. Consider this from Mr. Larson’s book:

Quote, p. 66
Quote, p. 73

Therefore when the function of a religious group is clearly that of a business enterprise, the business should be subjected to the same tax burdens as must be carried by all others.

What can we do? We can be aware of this problem which constantly increases in magnitude. For example, someone with a sharp pencil could do a study of Plainfield. How much tax revenue would be received if some or all tax-exempt property should be on the tax rolls? What is the value of church property?

Then too, perhaps all religious institutions should be required to disclose their wealth – not only real estate, but other holdings – cash, stocks, bonds, etc.

There is no expectation of any sweeping changes occurring in the tax-exempt religious structures, but certainly the trend of increasing wealth for religious institutions in a time when there is crying need for more money to rebuild the cities, provide real opportunities and training, and a staggering additional list of community and national needs, should make us all think through again the matter of the tax-free ride for religious institutions.

The Geography of Hope

April 14, 1968 (Easter)
Plainfield

The Geography of Hope

"We must drive into the heads of men the full consciousness of moral responsibility that comes with the knowledge that there will never be a God unless we make him." George Bernard Shaw wrote these words (quoted by Christian Century, 10/16/63) and he would certainly be astounded to discover that a new trend in Christian theology is remarkably like Shaw's challenge. I would like to speak of this theological trend, "the theology of hope" which derives from the Death of God theology; discuss whether or not there are grounds for hope; and consider whether or not the Christian theology of hope has significance for Unitarians and Universalists.

Easter is a season of hope, whether accepted as ancient pagan celebration of the renewal of life or Christian rituals of the resurrection of the crucified Christ. But hope has a geographical meaning. Is the map of hope drawn of this world or another world? Hope can be worldly or other-worldly.

Historically, Christian hope, based on the old story of salvation, has been other-worldly. The true believers were convinced that Christ died for their sins on the cross, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead. Furthermore, he would one day come again and by his supernatural powers overcome the forces of evil and redeem those chosen to be saved. Heaven was their destination – an other-worldly salvation hope. Such a hope relied not at all on any on any power or strength available in human resources. As one representative Christian theologian put it, "Christian hope does not rest on an idea but on the living person of Jesus Christ, risen from the dead. He alone can guarantee an inheritance which is imperishable. By his resurrection, Christ laid the foundations of hope in eternal life and delivers us from the calamity of hopes which are for this life alone."

But in our age, a new theology of hope may be emerging in Christian theological thought which should be of interest to us. The new theology of hope seems to be a consequence of the "Death of God" theology which, like a wave, rolled and has now somewhat receded in avant-garde Christian circles.

The death of God theology has various expressions and its advocates differ somewhat from each other in their interpretations. But generally, [because of] the displacement of values from the sacred to the secular world, the philosophy of existentialism which proposed that the only assurance we have is our present existence with no authentic basis for any supposed purpose, individually or corporate in the universe, the problem of how to discover any goodness in God when the problem of human suffering has been so vast and unexplainable, in the face of assigning positive meaning to the word "God," some Christian thinkers proclaimed that God was dead.

The theology of hope seems to be accumulating some force as another wave. The movement originated in Europe among some young theologians both Catholic and Protestant. Although there are variations in the thinking, generally they hold that God is one who does not exist but is coming to man, God is not yet, but is to be. One cannot speak of God existing in an age when evil is so widespread and when the world is known in scientific and technological ways rather than in religious terms.

Think how much kinship there is in holding that god is "He who is to be" with Shaw’s statement that "there will never be a God unless we make him."

Central to this theology of hope is the geography of hope. Man is to be redeemed in this world, not another world. More than that, it is a religious task to change the world, not just to interpret it.

Now whether this new theology of hope will be more than a discussion among theologians remains to be seen. Many times so-called advanced thinking does not seem to reach the millions who sit in pews. I am not concerned today with talking again about the causes for belief or disbelief in God. My feelings and thoughts that lead me to affirm the creative process in the Universe are not dependent on any variety of Christian dogmatics.

But in such a time as this, do we have grounds for hope in the human venture? Although there may be a glimmer of light in the murky shadows of the Vietnam War, the process of peace negotiations will be neither brief nor easy, but prolonged and difficult. The renewal of fierce hostilities and re-escalation of bombing is undoubtedly geared to a hair-trigger sensitivity. Not only devious intentions but human blunders on either or both sides could again escalate the war, perhaps hopelessly.

The cities seethed in blood and fire as some persons in the ghettos struck back in anger at the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Is there any hope that the U.S. can be redeemed from racial conflict which not only will be fatal to our cities but also kill our dreams?

Yet there is hope, and the geographical charts of hope are maps of this world. Hope is more than yearning for what is not. Hope is desire for what is not yet real, accompanied by the expectation that one day hope can be fulfilled. Hope is belief that goals can be achieved. Hope is conviction that though the goal may shine afar, it can be reached by following maps in this world, not in some other-worldly heaven entirely dependent upon a Christ crucified, risen, and coming again.

The obstacles are formidable. No one conscious of our world in disarray, our nation in torment, can assume an air of easy optimism. The events of the past 10 days are grim confirmations of the findings of the President's Commission on Civil Disorders, which is seemingly ignored by most persons who have the political power or influence to initiate the massive, immediate steps to begin to put an end to the underlying causes – despair, defeat, indignity, discrimination, injustice.

Any hopes must be conditioned by an awareness of the reality of violence at home and abroad. But also hopes may be buttressed by the knowledge that most unrest is caused by the "revolution of rising expectations." Our world has a potential of abundance never before possible for the human family. Even more than the potential abundance of food and fiber for all is the potential for individual fulfillment through the freedom to chart one’s way. In spite of the constraints of modern mass culture, the prospect for such individual power can be glimpsed not only by the favored and affluent few, but also by the unfavored and poor.

So there is hope. There can always be hope – and I remind you of James Thurber’s exquisite parable which you heard, The Last Flower.

Now many Unitarians and Universalists may yawn when they hear of the theology of hope in Christian thought. "We’ve always had maps of this world, we’ve never had an other-worldly slant," – this would be generally agreed. Universalist theology, in its early days at least, had an other-worldly direction. All souls would be saved. But more than 100 years ago, Universalist churches organized reform societies within their churches, and Unitarian salvation has always been concerned with character and progress on this earth.

Our Service Committees have been concerned not with missionary conversions but human need without reference to whatever religious belief's those in need may hold. We asserted the goodness or the potential growth towards goodness of every human being.

These characteristics of our Unitarian Universalist heritage are not recited complacently. We fall short of our pronouncements. This heritage of ours is a most difficult goal to live up to. We are not immune from inertia. We are not exempt from the stymie caused by strong differences about how our beliefs in character, reform, progress, should be applied.

There are grounds for hope in the human venture. It is idle to speculate the degree of significant involvement we will have individually or as a group in the promotion of the social changes which must occur if disaster is to be prevented. The great scriptures of mankind were not written to inspire men to courageous, creative acts which would help the human venture. Rather, the courageous, creative acts of persons were the inspiration for great scripture.

So it will be with old and new teachings of hope for the people of the world. Amid the troubles of the past week when people died in the cities, I remembered the story told by Sam Levenson, the stand-up comedian whose humor sometimes reflects serious social thought. It's a parable – or a fantasy – but I believe it to be poetic expression of hope for the human family.

The story has the setting of Heaven. At the gate there appears a young Black boy, beaten unto death in the city. And as Sam Levenson tells it, Heaven has a computerized system to provide St. Peter at the gate with the names and I.D. numbers of all persons who are expected to enter the Gates of Heaven each day. But there are no admission credentials for this Black boy. His name is not on the list. So the gatekeeper phones the next higher level of administration in the bureaucracy of heaven. But no record seems to exist for this boy's admission. So Peter phones various levels of policy. No information. Finally the gatekeeper phones the top – the Lord himself, [and] tells the story of the fatally beaten Black boy who is at the gate. The voice thunders to Peter, "Send him back to Earth – he’ll recover in the hospital. He's not due here for years and years – not until after he has found that cure for cancer."

So amid all the frailties of our existence the inadequacies of our performance of what we ought to be doing and the weaknesses of our will, there are grounds for hope if we accept the obligation to add our weight to the scales of justice and our expectations are undespairing that new creations and renewed life can come to the human family as well as to the ever-renewing Earth.

The Price of Life

March 24, 1968
Plainfield

The Price of Life

The price of life is death. In my view, that six-word statement is not a morose warning of inevitable extinction, but rather a superior achievement of human expectation. As I attempt to explain this proposition, please remember that I am not arguing that the human self is extinguished at death like a small candle-flame in a strong draught. I do not know what there is, or is not, in the future of the self, the soul, following the experience of death. But here on this earth in these measurements of space and time, in our present existence, the price of life is death. Does that bother you? In Edith Bagnold’s play, THE CHALK GARDEN, Mrs. St. Maugham cries, “Oh, when things are killed in my garden it upsets me – as when I read in the newspapers that my friends die.” Laurel, her granddaughter, says, “I should have thought as one gets older one found death more natural.”

Mrs. St. Maugham: “Natural! Its as though the Gods went rock-shooting when one was walking confident in the park of the world. And there are pangs and shots, and one may be for me.”

Madrigal, “That is why a garden is such a good lesson. So much dies in it – so often.”

Mrs. St. Maugham: “It’s not a lesson I look for.”

We don’t ordinarily look for that lesson, do we? Death is formidable. In our culture, many people attempt to disguise the fact of death through all the contrived superficialities of most American funerals. Death is not mentioned – one “passes away.” There are elaborate cosmetic attempts to cover up the fact that the life-spirit has left the body and that when the life-spirit is gone, the body decays swiftly.

Death is the price of life because only consciousness of life provides the experience of shock and grief when life ends here. If there had been no meaning to life, if there had been no growth of self, death would not be painful for it would not be experienced as the terminal point in this world. If there had been no growth of self, if there never had been the growth of the feeling that one had some choices in life, death would not be a price at all, for there would have no real consciousness of life. No consciousness of life; no grievous shock at death.

In a rather remarkable book, THE EMPTY FORTRESS, Bruno Bettleheim considers this matter of the cost of the conscious self in detailed case-studies of disturbed children who had failed to relate to this world of human experience. These children withdrew to such inner remoteness that the sense of self regressed almost to extinction. They experienced no joy or sorrow; they refused to accept control by others; they refused to take upon themselves the beginnings of autonomy; they would seemingly make no choices. They were unable to relate to human beings, because they were not wanted (an oversimplification). The point relating to today’s subject is that to become a growing self, one must begin to freely choose – perhaps to give pleasure or comfort to others or withhold, but developing the autonomous self which makes the more fully-developed person. To become human, in Bettleheim’s view, through choices one must acquire a consciousness of self. This growing awareness is achieved through the experience that one’s chosen actions can affect one’s relations with other persons. As Bettleheim wrote, “I believe it to be a distinctly human experience to feel with conviction: I did it, and my doing made a difference.”

But when one relates to other persons, decisions never end. When one chooses, there is something or someone not chosen. The self grows by feeling the particular direction of experiences created by different choices. Sorrow can be felt because we have known joy; victory can be sweeter when we have known the bitterness of defeat; the self is an achievement, invariably carrying a cargo of mixed feelings. But the alternative to this self of churning emotions caused by difficult choices is non-self, not to be a self. Even those who may have known disorder and early sorrow would not have chosen never to have been. “Cursed be the day I was born,” said Job. But only a self which had known the self-growth as a consequence could ever pronounce such a curse.

A follower of one of the new religions of Japan wrote about superb Mt. Fuji; how for centuries this magnificent mountain has been revered, worshiped by the Japanese people. But also, Mt. Fuji was the guide for American bombing airplanes during World War II. The object of worship was also a guidepost to disaster.

Another Asian insight is the age-old Yang-Yin symbol of Chinese religion, one of those illustrated in the large memorial window. The divided circle symbolizes that neither light nor shadow could be seen without the other; that good registers as a value because evil is real and present; that positive is measured by contrast with negative; male and female are different though complimentary; that night and day are known only by each other; that hope for gain is usually disciplined by fear of loss.

You probably know the old story of the editor of a small-town newspaper who showed little concern when a tipster phoned in an accident. It was about a truck that rolled downhill and smashed into a private house. “Not interested,” said the editor. “This kind of thing happens all the time.” “Well, I’m glad you’re taking it so calmly,” came the rejoinder, “it’s your house.”

So it is with both happiness and hurt in living. The more developed our sensitivities of self, the more easily we can laugh and the more readily we will weep. The price of a capacity for joy is an openness to grief. To savor the one, there must be a readiness for the other. It was said of the notorious censor, Anthony Comstock, that he sought out all varieties of pornographic literature, reading enormous quantities so as to be able to suppress such stuff and prevent others from reading it. His biographer said of him that “out of all the world he could have his cake and suppress it too.” Well, that’s not the way life is. You cannot have a capacity for feeling responsive when things go well and at the same time maintain a wall that will keep out the feelings of hurt and despair when things go wrong. And many times things do go wrong; many times one cannot be true to the self he has developed and remain at ease enjoying the roses without thorns.

This is the human meaning of sacrifice. This is the Lenten season for many. The churches celebrate solemn days which have their climax early next month. Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Easter will be days of pious pageant. The Christian belief pivots on the conviction that Jesus died a sacrificial, atoning death in order to save all man. Those of us in churches such as this who no longer hold with Christian dogmatic particularities should not let narrow Christian theology interfere with understanding that which may be true in all human experience. Sacrifice is one of the universalities of human experience, central to the price of life. The necessity of sacrifice seems to have been accepted everywhere. In every culture, one way or another, “the belief prevails that sacrificial death promotes life; that the highest sacrifice that man can offer to his god (or to his most valued belief) is his own self.” (See Spinks, PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, p. 150).

The atonement or sacrifice in our religious roots pre-dates Christianity, of course, although the Jewish calendar marks atonement in the Autumn. The Day of Atonement climaxes the New Year period when the believer seeks to reconcile himself inwardly and outwardly, to God and his fellow-man. To worship rightly, he must repent of his misdeeds, he must persist steadfastly in prayer, and he must commit himself to righteousness of conduct.

In teachings about sacrifice and atonement, there is a significant difference in the teachings of Christianity when contrasted with Judaism.

Jewish beliefs hold that man needs no mediator between himself and God. By prayer, repentance, new pledges and acts of righteousness, man can atone for his own sins and the sins of others. In spite of the later meanings attached to the word, sin did not in pre-Christian days refer to congenital moral defect. Sin was not the taint that all men inherited from Adam. Rather, to sin was to miss the mark.

The Christian (basically this represents the viewpoint of an overwhelming majority of Christians) believes that man by nature is depraved morally, that he does not deserve to be saved, that he must have a superhuman mediator who will intercede with God to save mankind from a hopeless condition of sin.

Paul taught this doctrine and persuaded most of the new Christian movements to accept this as necessary dogma. Paul writes to his friends at Phillippi (2/9 ff) [that] Jesus alone was Lord "for he had a name which is above every name; to him every knee must bow, every tongue confess Jesus is Lord."

The author of the Gospel of John, a half-century later testifies this savior will atone for mankind’s depraved moral state (1/29): "Behold the the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." I guess the basic foundation belief in Christian theology is also found in John’s gospel, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

One can summarize the Christian doctrine of atonement as requiring that a person believe Jesus was God – supernatural – the only being capable of saving man from man's inevitable sinning character and ways. Thus the death of Jesus is the most important event to Christians. That is what their Easter celebrations are all about. But that was not the important event to Jesus. What was important to Jesus is insufficiently considered. That is next week's topic!

Unitarians do not accept the Christian dogma of atonement. We believe Jesus was human – he was a man, not a god. We cannot affirm Jesus is God not only because we are a non-creedal church, but also because the overwhelming percentage of Unitarian Universalists see no real evidence that Jesus was God. Furthermore, we believe that man bears responsibility for human transactions, that that is the price of life. We do miss the marks we have set for ourselves individually and corporately. We fail to measure up to our best. But the human self has caught glimpses of better things and when we miss the mark in attempting to make the ideal real, we feel pain, or shame, or anger, or inadequacy, or failure. But that is the price of life, and when all is said and done, who would have it any other way?

In the more primitive days of our religious tradition, the scapegoat ritual was a way of ridding the people of sin, A goat, chosen by lot, was burdened with the sins of the people who wiped their hands on his hide. Then the goat was led to a cliff and pushed to his death, thus expiating the sins of the people. The Christian atonement is a refined version of the same principle of passing the buck (or pushing the goat). But the price of life is that we cannot thus slough off the penalties (costs) of awareness, of consciousness, of idealism.

In the 17th century, there was a fervent preacher, the Rev. Thos. Prince, who on the Sunday following a severe earthquake told his congregation that the people themselves were responsible for the disaster. He blamed them for putting up lightning rods, thus attracting the wrath of God from the heavens above to the earth beneath (see Journal of World History, X2 1967, p. 402). Although theologically and scientifically absurd, there is a certain seed of symbolic truth. Human catastrophes have human origins and human responsibility must deal with them. That is the price of life.

Most of [us] do not deny the need or reality of atonement. But atonement is not a trick of supernatural magic but an arduous human endeavor of moral necessity.

There can be little disagreement with the human conditions of perplexity, anxiety, guilt, inertia. We are victims of frustrations and fears that seem to surround both our lives and hopes. The mistakes and selfish foibles of human beings create grief and suffering. Good intentions frequently fade and die; such a tendency cannot be ignored. But we are aware of such ignorance, wrong, and retreat because we have acquired visions of knowledge, righteousness, and advance. When we do acquire such better visions, our less-than-perfect achievements will dismay us frequently. But that is the price of human life and hope.

Furthermore, there is the universal condition of human existence which supplies considerable evidence, when we are honest with ourselves, that many times we receive more than we earn. Life has brought us nurture, protection, forgiveness and opportunities to repay and restore.

Can not each of us ask himself, "have I not been brought to this hour of my existence because there have been sacrifices, atoning acts, to preserve me physically, educate me mentally, strengthen me emotionally, fulfill me spiritually?" Parents, teachers, friends, physicians have all combined to bring to us humanity’s growing heritage. This is human life: to be aware of what price has been paid, and what we must pay for living.

As you know, many cultures and religions have had the myth of the dying-rising Savior Gods. Not only the religions of the Near East and Asia have cherished this myth, but in addition, ancient religions of the Americas found comfort in believing they were saved by a god who died for them. Among the Iroquois, Algonquins, Sioux, Pawnees and others a belief prevailed that a god was slain to create the earth – the body of the god "became the source of life of the vegetable and animal life, and thus of man himself." Man is created, nourished and survives because of the God who willingly died.

Almost everywhere among so-called primitives the belief comes to be that the gods die and become part of the earth and are reborn when vegetation springs again from the Earth.

In my view, Jesus did not teach a super-human god-magic atonement. Rather, to teach a human, natural atonement he took the familiar, but mysterious example of the seed, which by its fall and death created new fruit in its season. But human beings pay for my errors and yours by what they live for, not by what they die for, although many times they must die because of what they live for.

It's a noble event when human beings consciously participate in the miseries and troubles of others and carry more than one share. When one considers the famous or the unknowns, we are aware that there is no equality of sacrifice. Perhaps no man can work redemption for his fellows except by entering into their condition, accepting responsibilities [that] others, if they had been more strong or determined, might have carried.

As one sees, hears, and smells the message of Spring – rebirth, new life, more light, there can be also a consciousness of the price of life. Union is joyous because parting is sad. Excitement thrills us because we have known the drag of boring hours, Life is great because we know that on this earth, at least, our unique, individual self is always under sentence of death, even though few will know much in advance whether our days will be long or short in this present existence.

An Excess of Understanding

March 17, 1968
Plainfield

An Excess of Understanding

"What the world lacks most today is, perhaps, understanding and appreciation of one another among nations and people." Most persons today would say, "amen" to those words spoken by Nehru, the late Prime Minister of India. We need understanding of the worship of other persons – what they adore and how they behave. We need understanding of the political aspirations of people everywhere – in the new nations of Asia and Africa where expectations are rising. We need to understand the need for power by those existing in the areas of human disadvantage and despair in our own country. As I discussed in the earlier service, the primary need is not the study of ghettos and the culture of Black America. The Black American has been studied to death, almost literally. We in White America need to understand how crucial our attitudes are in the peaceful happening of rapid social change.

As the old Hebrew proverb has it, "with all thy getting, get understanding." Understanding means to "judge not so that you will not be judged." An American Indian proverb has it that one should not judge another until he has walked in his moccasins for three days. Another favorite saying has it that to understand all is to forgive all. We understand when we grasp facts and the causes of facts; we understand when we perceive the emotional framework for intellectual opinions; we understand when we are able to comprehend more clearly the searching heart of others as well as their verbal statements, conventional or otherwise.

How then can there be an excess of understanding? My thoughts moved in this direction after studying the following quotation from the Journal of Andre Gide, the famous French writer (p.55):

"My torment is even deeper; it comes likewise from the fact that I cannot decide with assurance that right is on this side and wrong on the other. It is not with impunity that, throughout a whole lifetime my mind has made a practice of understanding the other person. I succeed in this so well today that the point of view it is most difficult to keep uppermost is my own .... What decides too easily is sympathy."

Have you not shared that feeling sometimes? Perhaps frequently? The point of view most difficult to acquire and maintain is your own? Many persons feel, but few admit, that they are vulnerable to suggestion. In a conservative gathering the insights of the Right seem persuasive. In a radical group, the logic of the Left seems difficult to refute. As Gide pointed out, the difficult labor is to maintain a mind of one's own.

The human is a strange but wonderful creature. Many theories of human nature and destiny have been proposed. There will be no end to such philosophizing. Today I have no intention of engaging in the age-old dispute as to whether or not we have free will, or whether our attitudes and acts are pre-determined by prior causes or experiences completely. But most of us, at least, have the feeling that there are areas of choice – that we do have some control over the decisions we make.

If knowledge and understanding are to have power, we must move from understanding to decision. What Gide was writing is also conveyed in an old folk tale which asserts that if two identical carrots are so placed that a donkey sees them in opposite directions, but equally distant, the creature will stand immobilized, unable to decide which carrot to for which to reach. I don't know anything abut donkeys, so I would have to see this to believe it, but certainly one of the troubles which frequently immobilizes people is the difficulty of making decisions.

We tend to suspend judgment on vital matters, hoping decisions will be made without the necessity of personal commitment. Years ago, I remember sitting in a Grange meeting when a certain vote was called for by a show of hands. The man sitting next to me failed to raise his hand either "for" or"against" the motion. When I lifted my eyebrows questioningly, he whispered to me, "if I don't vote at all, nobody can blame me, no matter what happens." This attitude is as old as the human adventure.
Why is it tempting to be indecisive on matters of importance? We may fear deep down that our security will be weakened, our status threatened or that our easy smooth highways may become difficult, rocky paths.

One of the great psalms of Hebrew scriptures is the 19th. Some may recall the 12th verse, "who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults." In the Goodspeed version, a modern translation, the same passage reads, "who can discern his errors? Of unconscious ones hold me guiltless."

Unconsciously, one may want to be suspended between the carrots, moving neither one way or the other. When one can justify inaction by accepting as equally truthful the force of both arguments when there are contrary views, deep within there may be a sense of relaxed comfort about not having to choose one side or the other.

Now I am not one to hold that we should feel guilty about unconscious errors. Such a state only creates anxieties. We should seek by self-searching, self-analysis to understand more fully ourselves and our attitudes. But when we find ourselves so tolerant of widely differing views that we make no choices on important issues, our excess of understanding may actually be a comfortable inertia.

To live detached from the joys and grief of the human experience is to be not fully human. Most joy and grief are the consequences of human choice – acting in the light of one's best understanding when decisions are demanded by time and events.

Belief that action is the proper religious consequence of understanding is a primary value in the Judaic portion of our religious heritage. Knowledge and understanding were never enough. The one God the Hebrews came to worship required much more than recognition or adoration. Micah asked, "what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God?" Believing that it was God's voice speaking from within him, Amos proclaimed, "I hate, I despise your feasts, but let righteousness pour down like a mighty stream." In their mythology and legends, God performed mighty acts and their worship of Him required that they act. When the child, Samuel, destined to become a great prophet, was brought by his mother to be dedicated to the Lord, Hannah sang a song which included the words, "The Lord is a God of Knowledge and by Him actions are weighed. " (1st Sam 2/3)

The ethical necessity to add action to understanding carried over in the early Christian traditions. Jesus asserted, "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father."

One of the readings was from the letter of James, a document notable for the point of view that without action, knowledge and understanding became empty of meaning and deprived of vigor:

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror, for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer who acts, he shall be blessed in his doing." (1/22 ff)

This attitude persisted. Some historians have commented that the eventual triumph of Christianity over its competitors in the Roman Empire in the first few centuries was not due to the reasonableness of Christian doctrine or to the superior organizational abilities of the Christians, although these were factors. Rather Christianity won out because of the stubborn acts of faithfulness to their religion on the part of Christian martyrs. (see e.g., Fran. Boaz, THE LIMITS OF REASON, p.68)

The scholar Seymour Lipset commented, ("Commentary", Jan. 61), "Apathy, a learned zoologist has written, is a characteristic response of any living organism to stimuli which are too intense or too complicated for it to cope with."

Gide put the same condition in the human framework with the words previously quoted, "the point of view most difficult to keep uppermost in my mind is my own." The late learned Israeli scholar-philosopher, Martin Buber, wrote, "A devil would not be one who decided against God, but one who in eternity came to no decision."

I remember a charming, learned man who always seemed to be present when controversial matters were being discussed. He always listened alertly, analyzed contending positions comprehensively but succinctly. He had a habitual conclusion to his observations, "There's three sides to every story, your side, his side and the right side." Which was of course a wise observation applicable widely. But sooner or later we all realized that this man never really offered a statement which would have indicated what side he believed to be the right side. So I had to conclude that he understood much but believed little.

I am not really indicting an excess of understanding but am urging an application of understanding. In truth, ample resources are available for understanding the bristly problems. You remember the imperative statement, "Just don't stand there, do something." That can and should be turned around, "Just don't do something, stand there." That is, to act impulsively without understanding may be correct sometimes, for our intuition may be a wise signal. But more often than not, we do need to "stand there' long enough to understand the facts and feelings involved in difficult issues.

If one is talking about open housing, one does have to understand fears. For fear is usually caused by ignorance and fear prolonged will create hate. One needs to understand that fears can be exploited by those who seek a fast buck. One needs to understand that there are fears of the poor on the part of those most recently uplifted from poverty and discrimination. While the feeling is irrational, the fear exists that those immediately below you on the social-economic ladder will grab your place. There seems to be a pecking order where the ones immediately below will be picked on by those immediately above. We can understand economic fears, can't we? Who is there without any concern for his salary, real estate, insurance, securities? We need to understand that great losses are caused by feelings of panic, not movements of people.

The same need to understand applies to all the conflict areas. We will fail to understand the antiquated bureaucracies of government unless we are aware of how many persons feel that their security depends on the continuation of the obsolescent institution. We need to understand such fears.

This is just as true in the issues of war and peace. My position of opposition to the Vietnam War should not alter my willingness to listen to the other side of the story. I have tried to understand those who speak of the complexities of the use of international power. But I have never been persuaded that there was either justification or promise in this wretched war which carries such an excessive cost in human misery and such a low expectation of resolution of real problems.

We need to understand ourselves, too. We are creatures with a physical-psychological heritage and development. Our good feelings and our bad feelings have origins in our personal history. Our aggressions and retreats, our activities and passivities are always related to our encounters with life as infant, child, young person, adult. Yet who can ever say with assurance that he fully understands himself? The self is more like a layered onion than a precise blueprint. Each peeling discloses another level.

Thus the proverb, "Just don't stand there, do something." Because we will never fully understand, we must act with incomplete knowledge. One cannot predict surely the outcome of measures which may alter the course of conflict in the cities. One cannot be sure that measures to overcome the glaring disparities in housing, employment, education will succeed. One cannot be sure that the cost will be supportable. We are required to act without full knowledge. To me these are the dimensions of faith – to believe without absolute certainty, to act in situations where the outcome cannot be known.

Kierkegaard once wrote, "life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards." This is the human glory and agony – to choose when the full consequences of choice cannot be known at the time of decision.

If studies of non-human life are accurate, one can say that insects and animals are conditioned to respond in precise ways. The life in the ant hill is orderly, predictable. The ants, by whatever ant processes prevail are conditioned to behave in determined ways through the cycle of birth, life, death.

As individuals, we may never fully understand why we tend to respond or behave in certain ways. Our inner conflicts may never be fully harmonized or sufficiently understood to be like an open page printed in large type and easy words. But unless we want to be the donkey immobilized between the carrots, we must act in spite of unknown consequences.

I think it was Alan Watts who used the analogy of the rainbow as the result of a triangular relationship of sun, moisture, and observer. There must be sun, mist, and an observer who will perceive the combination which creates the rainbow on the field of vision. Human life is like that too, To live is a triangular relationship of understanding ourselves, others, and what we must do in the light of our present understanding.