Advent – A Humanist Adventure

December 16, 1984
Lakeland

Port Charlotte

When I speak of Advent as a humanist adventure, such a description could be labeled a contradiction in terms. After all, Advent is a particular period in the Christian calendar, the period of four Sundays before Christmas, the birth of Jesus, Lord and Savior to almost two thousand years of Christian believers; a Lord and Savior miraculously born, who redeems a condemned humanity from original sin by his atoning death on the cross and resurrection from death. In such specific, theological dogmas, Advent is not a humanist adventure, but a supernatural deliverance. Conceded.

However, my thoughts today seek the story behind the story – the human hopes, fears, expectations, celebrations, joy and mystery that are older than the Christian story, more universal the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and touch us with both the glories and miseries that have been part of the human adventure from times more ancient than written history.

Perhaps it is a cliché to remind ourselves that the reality is that Christmas celebrations are a blend of many customs, brought not only from the legends, music, poetry and theology of Christianity, but also from the evergreens of the German forests, the pagan celebrations of Rome, and other sources. Clichés may not be new, sparkling insights, but they are frequently repetitions of truth and folk wisdom. The winter solstice has always been a drama of the human adventure, a time of celebration of nature’s reliable cycles, a time to recall the trials and joys of human liberation, a time to confront justice unfulfilled, a time to meditate on the idea of the holy family and what makes it holy, a time to re-assert hope over fear.

The winter solstice had for centuries been the source of celebration. In our calendar, about December 22 marks the turn when the sun bestows the annual gift of days of more light after months of days of increasing darkness. To us, with more knowledge of astronomy, the solstice is routine in the cycles of the seasons. But to the ancients, particularly those who lived in the lands of cold, dark winter – the Britons, Celts, Germanic tribes, Scandinavians, the winter solstice was the authentic visible reality for the renewal of life, light, after darkness – the fore-runner of the time of new planing of crops in fertile, unfrozen fields.

In our times, we renew as symbols the worshipful acts of the old pagans – the Christmas tree – the evergreen which resisted the autumn death of leaves of foliage; the mistletoe, worshiped by the Druids as a sacred plant which healed illness, to be cut only with a golden sickle; the candles were preceded by torches held by celebrants as the light returned – all these are symbols, but symbols which touch feelings inherited from ancient times. We are moved by those old emotions more than our “modern” minds readily admit. In all the controversies about display of the crèche on public land at this time of year, it is curious to me that in our time there seems to be no objection to the pagan Christmas trees, mistletoe, yule log, even though these are unmistakably inheritances from the “old religion,” the pagan religions. Perhaps such age-old signs and symbols are woven more deeply into our deep human fibers than the later religions.

Commonplace and unquestioned by scholars is the conclusion that Jesus was not born on December 25. That was the celebration of the birth of Mithras, the invincible Sun. For a long time, the historians tell us that the new Christian movement did not make much of the birthday of Jesus, and different dates were suggested by Christian leaders.

In the 5th century, because the religion of Mithraism was making missionary inroads on Christian believers, December 25 was set as the birthday of Jesus, not only to pre-empt Mithras, but to Christianize the Roman Saturnalia.

The Roman Saturnalia celebrating the winter solstice was a wild celebration. They partied! Schools closed, there was feasting, drinking, riotous behavior. I don’t know to what extent drunken chariot drivers were a problem, but the Roman equivalent of today’s Christmas office parties scandalized the early Christians. On the last day of Saturnalia, the pagans exchanged gifts. So the Christians make attempts to moderate the excesses by transforming the Saturnalia into Christ’s birthday. [CJW note: Modern proverb: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. But many Saturnalia practices linger until this very day... absorbed...]

These were all part of the human adventure celebrating the increasing light, joyful that the sun was faithful to its cosmic course.

Nor is it irrelevant that Hanukkah is celebrated in this same solstice season. In December (25 Kislev), the Jewish festival of lights commemorates the Maccabean victory over the Syrians, and the re-dedication of the Temple in 165 BCE. Lighting the Hanukkah candles, the religious ritual is also called the “Feast of Lights.” Hanukkah is specific in that the occasion is a ritual of human liberation. Not only just the return of light, but also the need and value of human freedom is celebrated.

In the Christmas celebrations and rituals there is not always full awareness that the event claims justice for the whole human family. In the gospel named Luke, Mary, when the baby quickened in her womb, is credited with enumerating the lovely poem known as the Magnificat, [which] begins,

“My soul doth magnify the Lord.”

Then recall the middle lines,

“He hath showed strength with his arm;
He hath scattered the proud in the imagination
of their hearts
He hath put down the mighty from their
seats,
And exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things,
And the rich he has sent empty away....”

This poem has been called the gospel of the poor; it is cited by some who advocate liberation theology. This is one source of the belief that God has a bias toward the poor and disinherited. It is one of the citations that has always invoked many interpretations as to its application in the human adventure, among human persons.

The point is that there developed in this Jewish-Christian tradition the association of the renewal of life with justice for persons; food for the hungry and the lifting of the human spirit. True, it contradicts a saying of adult Jesus that “the poor you have with you always.” But without much doubt, there is more intense awareness of human need in this season of solstice, the old religion, Hanukkah, Christmas. Thus this is the time of year when we gather in the “Guest at Your Table” boxes, the Salvation Army volunteers ring bells over their kettles to get funds for the homeless and needy; many agencies serving human needs sell holiday cards with proceeds to assist a human cause. Our consciousness is raised, our conscience is sensitized in this season of Advent – the human adventure. William Blake, with the poet’s comprehensive grasp, had the words:

For Mercy has a human heart
Pity, a human face;
And Love, the human form divine
And Peace, the human dress
Then every man of every clime,
That prays in his distress
Prays to the human form divine
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

One more thought – in the Christian symbolism and imagery, the Holy Family is an object of adoration. The father, the mother, the child. I suppose that is the image of the ideal family. But in our time and for the predictable future, that lovely image of the Holy Family does not match the social realities of our time. [CJW note: Consider the starvation death in Ethiopia – the blinded child, dead children | 2000.] What sense of holiness attaches to these families? [CJW note: Washington Spectator 10/15/84]

A less horrifying but still a formidable reality is the American family. Today almost 60% of American mothers of children under 6 work outside the home. 8½ million American families are now solely supported by women breadwinners. Women are 42% of the labor force. About 6 million children aged 6 to 13 are latch-key kids, going home from school to empty houses. In New York City alone, there are more than 550,000 children in single-parent households, most of which are headed by women.

If the family is holy, what about the latch-key children, the pre-schoolers, the infants in single-parent households? The times they are a-changing. There are some efforts by some social agencies, some community groups, some churches, some corporations, to provide full child-care while the parent must be at work. But the efforts fall short of the need.

Sweden is among [those leading] the world in tackling these problems. In Sweden, 80% of mothers of children under 6 work, and that country maintains a state-supported system of child-care from 6-month-old babes to after-school programs for 10-year-olds.

Parents receive compensation for a total of 12 months’ leave of work, nine months at 90% of pay.

Today, the debate is no longer over the need for government-sponsored [child-care; it] has been replaced by the discussion of how to improve the care.

Such recognition of the needs of parents by Sweden and its citizens would not be popular here, for in Sweden there is a much higher income tax, and higher taxes are not welcomed here. There are those who say that the Swedes are not a very religious people because only a small percent are church-goers, regular or even occasional (10%). But it is a fair question, “Do they consider the family more holy than we do?” In the human adventure, one does, individually and nationally, choose priorities among values. Such priorities tell something about a people, do they not?

If the human or humanist adventure is to carry the ancient spirit of Hanukkah, of the Magnificat, then such realities as the needs of the family in our society must be addressed.

How realistic are we? Do we recognize the perils of our age? Are we prepared for the issues of our time, in our time?

The sensitive writer Annie Dillard, in her story, “An Expedition to the Pole” tells how the early explorers were ignorant of the troubles they would encounter. “The Franklin expedition of 1845, for instance, took no special equipment for Arctic conditions. Instead they took the trappings of Victorian civilization: an organ, china, silver service, glassware and dress uniforms. Years later their skeletons still clutching such objects could be found scattered across the Arctic Sea.” (Christian Century, 11/14/84)

Are we as a people facing today’s realities any more wisely? Or with better preparation?

Lastly, “Peace on Earth, good will among men” was the angel’s song. Lilting carols and traditional words remind us of that every Advent, every Christmas Eve, every Christmas Day.

So far, through all the ages, it has been the angel’s song, but not the full strong chorus of the men and wonder of the earth. Peace on earth will never come as long as the choir is composed of angels, rather than men and women of this earth.

Yet the season is one of hope over fear. Hope that we will someday act as the angels sing; that we will work for the Hanukkah of the feast of lights for freedom today, that we will value the family as holy in our time and in the need dimension of our time, and that peace will prevail in spite of the threats more perilous by far than the tyrannies of Herod.

This is Advent – a time for the human venture and human reach. Theologically many Christians hope and pray for the second Advent when Christ will come again and all problems are solved, all tears washed away.

Some of the Jewish community still look for the Messiah. But I suggest to you those hopes for supernatural salvation do not speak to the realities and needs of our time. Rather, in conclusion, I suggest a Rabbinic proverb, and its meaning needs no elaboration:

If you always assume
the one sitting next to you
is the Messiah
waiting for some simple human kindness –

You will soon come to weigh your words
and watch your hands.

And if he chooses
not to reveal himself
in your time

It will not matter.

The Ultimate Solution – The God Of Armageddon

December 2, 1984
Lakeland

From pre-Christian times there have been those who prophesied that the world would end in God-directed fire from the heavens, a few would be transported to heavenly bliss and most persons cast into Hell, where amid fire and brimstone they would suffer horrible torture forever. Armageddon, a plain in northern Palestine, was to be the battle-site. Indeed, armies had clashed at Armageddon several times in the history of the Jews. In all my years of conducting Sunday services, I have never before dealt with the subject. [CJW note: Not only did I take the notion as irrelevant, even absurd, but also I could not accept a situation where millions of my fellow citizens truly believed such a riotous fantasy. But I guess I was wrong.]

Several circumstances motivate a critical look at the background and present application of this “final solution” of the human enterprise. Recently, the President of the U.S. was quoted as saying he believed in Armageddon, although he was vague about specifics, later commenting that he did not say that Armageddon was arriving soon. Then, too, the surge in the numbers of those who seem to accept this fundamentalist eschatology is an aspect of our times that requires commentary. Attitudes of acquiescence toward the everlasting torture of most men, women, and children in the world surely deserve a critical look. The belief that human history is pre-ordained to end in a holocaust initiated by God invites examination both theologically and ethically. Then, too, I have been stimulated by a cassette of a conference on this subject loaned by Dale Matthias to Al Esk, who loaned it to me. That report is one of the resources I have drawn upon in preparing this presentation.

Background: Those of you who were among the Wednesday night group earlier this year may remember that we discussed the scripture of Revelation. Revelation is part of the apocalyptic (reveal) literature which flourished in Palestine in the period 165 BCE to 120 CE. The Jewish people had been in subjugation and oppressed for centuries. Assyrians, Persians, Greeks under Alexander, Romans, had successively ruled and oppressed the people of Israel. When would Yahveh redeem his chosen people? When would the Messiah come to free his people and crush the powerful enemies? Other than the successful but short-lived revolt of Judas Maccabeus, there was no earthly hope. Triumph only could come supernaturally with the arrival of the Messiah. The book of Daniel expresses the hope in vivid imagery. Persian/Zoroastrian religion plainly influenced this hope an expectation. In Zoroastrian religion, the universe is the battleground between good and evil – Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.

The Jewish messianic hope became recast in the early Christian beliefs and writings. The surviving disciples believed Jesus was coming again soon to redeem the world. During the persecutions of Nero and, a little later, Domitian, the early Christians also felt that the only answer to Roman power and oppression was the second coming of Jesus with his cosmic avenging angels to overthrow the tyrant emperor and punish not only the oppressors, but also unbelievers, in eternal fire. But Jesus did not come again.

Furthermore, because persecution of Christians was intermittent, not persistent, the church grew. The fiery visions of the author of Revelation became a minor part of the message and growth of the Christian church. Creed and sacrament became the major teachings of the Church. Christ was present in the sacrament of the mass, and the Holy Spirit was among the faithful. The Messiah had come in ritual forms and in spirit.

But the minor strain of the belief in a fiery Second Coming has persisted, though never a prevailing emphasis since the 2nd or 3rd centuries, at least. In every century there have been those who prophesied the Second Coming was at hand. Using numerology and fantastic interpretations, the number 666, the Harlot of Babylon, were prophecies of the end of all things in the fiery holocaust. Of course the mystic names and numbers the author of Revelation used were secret code names for the Romans. They were code names to protect the Christians from discovery in the time of Domitian (96 CE), when there was a time of persecution. Babylon was Rome, the Harlot of Babylon was the Roman Empire, and 666 was probably the numerical value of the name Nero Caesar. The author of Revelation was of his own time, writing to fellow Christians in his own time, not to any subsequent centuries or problems.

Nevertheless this minor note of belief in an Armageddon climax to all history was advanced by a few persistently. The “signs” were continually re-interpreted. Distinctions were made between human time and divine time. Occasionally important dates stirred great numbers of people. It has been written that on the eve of the year 1000, the churches were full of believers expecting the end. But the world did not end.

And so it went, many predictions, but the world did not end. In 1843, followers of William Miller sold all their earthly goods and gathered on a hill awaiting the fulfillment of Miller’s precise prediction, but the world did not end. Charles Russell, one of the founders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, predicted in 1907 that the world would end in 1914, but it did not.

In spite of the unbroken record of failed prophecies, still the predictions of terrible death and punishment continue. Hal Lindsey, a contemporary predictor, has sold millions of copies of his vision of the end of things, THE LATE, GREAT PLANET EARTH. Nowadays, the Babylon of Revelation is not Rome, but interpreted to be the Soviet Union. Still other fundamentalists strongly support the nation of Israel as a condition of the expected end. Why? At least one of the reasons is the visionary prediction that Jesus will not come again until the Jews are re-established in Jerusalem, whereupon that event 1/3rd of the Jews will convert to Christianity and be transported in the rapture, and 2/3rds eternally punished in Hell, along with the rest of us.

Such is a (too brief) summary of this religion of fantastic visions. There are questions to be raised. To raise questions is not intolerance, but rather the obligation to think critically about ideas that affect the tense, sensitive issues that [in turn] affect every person in the world. Do you remember the Peanuts cartoon, in which Sally and Linus are walking to school:

Sally: I would have made a good evangelist. You know that kid who sits behind me at school? I convinced him that my religion is better than his religion.

Linus: How'd you do that?

Sally: I hit him with my lunch box.

[Editor’s note: the cartoon appears to be dated 12-6, but it is not clear, and the copyright year is unreadable. A search of the comics.com archive for this date did not turn up the cartoon. If anyone can find a hyperlink to it, please post in the comments section.]

I am not seeking to dissuade believers in the Second Coming from their faith and heavenly expectations. And if I so intended, I would not hit them with a lunchbox, or use any other variety of co-ercion.

Nevertheless, there are questions to be raised. If there is a burst of belief in our time that human history will end in a divinely launched, gory Armageddon, why? Unlike the early Christians of the intermittent Roman persecution, we are not persecuted, imprisoned, executed by our government. We are citizens with the right to vote, the right to speak, the right to attempt to influence the political cause of human events. If one may judge by the appearance of persons in the full auditoriums of fundamentalist preachers, the believers are not hopeless victims of tyranny, poverty, or oppression.

Of course, the Second Coming with all its horrors may be an abstraction to the believers with no authentic consciousness of its terror. Bertrand Russell told the story of the English vicar who terrified and agitated his congregation on a Sunday with vivid images of the Second Coming, which, he insisted, would be very soon. The members were quite frightened, but the following day when the observed the vicar planting trees in his garden, their fears abated because they surmised, correctly, that if the vicar was not concerned about his own predictions, they need not be, either.

But to the extent that this belief is not just a doctrinal or rhetorical abstraction to encourage conversions, whip up enthusiasm, what sort of deep anger exists that believers should accept the torture in hell forever of most other persons, including their own friends and members of their families? We look with horror, with rage, at Hitler and his “Final Solution” to exterminate the Jews and how he succeeded with 6 million. Yet, if believers in the Second Coming mean what they say, there are those who accept with faith that the God they worship will execute a final solution of all those who do not hold their particular Christian belief. Such a God makes Hitler a minor-league [manager of] genocide. Why is there such an acceptance of genocide for all but their fellow-believers? I don’t know the answer to that. As I quoted Graham Greene a couple of weeks ago, “there are dark caves of the unconscious.”

Then, too, there is the apparent acquiescence in a current application that the book of Revelation points to nuclear war as the trigger of Armageddon, with the Soviet Union as protagonist. The horror of this interpretation is that it represents acceptance of nuclear war as a part of God’s pre-ordained plan. Is it ever considered what kind of God this must be who would plan and implement a holocaust to end all holocausts? Could any act be more evil than vaporizing, burning, almost all the people on earth except a handful of God’s favorites?

It was against such a theology of a God who was really a devil that Universalists rebelled more than 200 years ago. If men and women were the children of God, could God, if he were God, condemn any child of his to suffer eternally? Such a god was neither just nor merciful. Universalists asserted that God was too good to act so inhumanely. So – no hell. How could there be if God was good? God was love – no hell.

Most Christians do not believe in a God who would commit such savage cruelty on the innocent. Most who hold with a Second Coming think of it in a transforming spirit of peace and justice. Many Christians, I know, co-opt the generous, humanistic vision of the Hebrew prophet Micah (Chapter 4, 1/5):

“But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.”

If you hold that the Bible is prophetic of human events, choose Micah.

One thing more, not only do I reject a cruel, unjust God, but also [I believe that] human history is in human hands.

(Let me re-read a sentence) David Saville Muzzey, “When the truth began to dawn on man (sic) that he was the maker of the religions which had both tormented and consoled him, a revolution in human thought was announced.”

Thus, I believe history is in our hands, not in the vision of the unknown author of Revelation. If there is to be continuing improvement in the human condition it will be because of human minds, human effort, human caring, human ethics. If there is nuclear war, it will occur because men and women allowed it to happen. No other answer seems historical, reasonable, caring, universal, ethical.

As Mark Antony affirmed, “Let Rome in Tiber melt and the wide arch of the Rang’d empire fall! Here is my space.” (Act I, Sc. 1, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA)

Human history is in human hands.

Thanksgiving – Gratitude for Life

November 18, 1984
Lakeland

Harvest Home – that touches us at depth – for Harvest Home is the assurance that there will be food to eat.

We no longer, most of us, live on the land where our own crops mean ample food if the harvest is bountiful, or near-starvation if the harvest is lean. Corn, beans, meat, we buy at the super-market. But other places in our world, men, women, and children starve.

In our affluent nation, the prospect for actual starvation is non-existent for most of us. There are many people living in poverty in the U.S., but their despair and need is remote and abstract for most of us.

Our fears are of a different order – the razor’s edge of nuclear war, the possibility of chemical waste and pollution out-of-control, the threat to so many workers that their occupational usefulness to society is being permanently lost because technology develops machines to replace men and women. In our nation, these dispossessed may not starve physically, there will be a dole, but the damage to their spirit will deprive their lives of taste and tang.

The ceremonies of Harvest Home are older than history. Even in the worst of times, gratitude is evoked for the land and sky which sustain us.

Governor William Bradford, in his HISTORY OF THE PLYMOUTH PLANTATION writes of Thanksgiving of 1923. There had been fears of crop failure. Wrote Governor Bradford, “I may not here omit how, notwithstanding all their great pains and industrie, and the hopes of a great crop, the Lord seemed to blast, and take away the same, and to threaten further and more sore famine unto them by a great drought which continued from the third week in May till about the middle of July, without any rain, and with great heat insomuch as the corn began to wither away, though it was set with fish, the moisture whereof helped it much.”

Then after the Pilgrims set aside a full day for prayers for rain, showers came and came often enough to ensure a good crop. This apparent consequence of prayer astonished the Indians. Bradford notes “for which mercie (in time convenient) they also set apart a day of Thanksgiving.”

[CJW note: overlooked that harvest corn ceremony – before the Europeans invaded and possessed the land]

The landing of the Pilgrims is part of the fibre of the celebrations of Americans. After all, the Pilgrims were pioneers, seeking religious freedom in a new world. When I was young, I thought the Pilgrims invented Thanksgiving, not knowing then how far more ancient is the feeling of gratitude that human life will persist through the cold winter and barren fields. Perhaps you, like I did, had to memorize Felicia Hemans’ poem “The Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers in New England.” All I can recall now is the first stanza:

“The breaking of waves dashed high
On a stern and rockbound coast,
And the woods against a stormy sky
Their giant branches tossed....”

Felecia Hemans was an English poet who had never seen Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay. When an American told her that the shores of Massachusetts Bay on the South Shore were not stern or rock-bound, but sandy beaches, tidal marshes, and gentle inlets, Felicia Hemans cried.

[CJW note: forget it was a feast for the whole community – of neighbors of a different color invited - “guest at our table”]

But apart from all the romance of the Mayflower Compact, the Courtship of Myles Standish, the friendly Indians – Squanto, Massasoit, and all, there is something basic and mysterious about the vegetables, fruits, nuts, and fibers bestowed by the Good Earth. Better than church prayers, stilted by dogma, I like a Thanksgiving prayer of the American Indian:

“We give thanks for the corn and beans and squash which give us life;
We give thanks for the wind which moves the air and blows away diseases;
We give thanks for the sun which has looked on us with a kindly eye;
We give thanks for the moon and stars which give us light when the sun is gone;
We give thanks to the Great Spirit, who is all goodness and directs all things for the good of his children.”

(STORIES OF INDIAN CHILDREN, Mary Hall Husted)

The American Indians gave thanks, but they knew hunger, disease, disaster, and violence, too. The Pilgrims who settled at Plymouth were able to do so because disease or a plague had entirely wiped out the tribe which had been there – other tribes feared to re-occupy that tract.

Still, the Indians could give thanks to the Great Spirit for his goodness. Strange? There is a dogged persistence to life. We struggle to survive – and when we are honest with ourselves – we are pleased to be among the survivors, in spite of all woe and travail. We humans share more than brain, heart, lungs, intestines. [CJW note: we share resilience against disaster, and hope even when we are bruised and bleeding from terrible circumstances] Carl Sandburg grasped this in his gathering of folk-wisdom in THE PEOPLE, YES. You know the lines:

“We’ll see what we’ll see.
Time is a great teacher.
Today me and tomorrow maybe you.
This old anvil laughs at many broken hammers.
What is bitter to stand against today may be
sweet to remember tomorrow.

Whether the stone bumps the jug or the jug
bumps the stone it is bad for the jug.
We all belong to the same big family and have
the same smell.
Handling honey, tar or dung some of it sticks
to the fingers.
The liar comes to believe his own lies.
He who burns himself must sit on the blisters.
God alone understands fools.
To work hard, live hard, to die hard,
and then to go to hell after all would be too
damned hard.

You can fool all of the people some of the time
and some of the people all of the time but
you can’t fool all of the people all of
the time.
It takes all kinds of people to make a world.

What is bred in the bone will tell.
Between the inbreds and the cross-breeds the
argument goes on.
You can breed them up as easy as you can breed
them down.
“I don’t know who my ancestors were,” said a
mongrel, “but we’ve been descending for
a long time.”
“My ancestors,” said the Cherokee-blooded
Oklahoman, “Didn’t come over in the
Mayflower, but we were there to meet the
boat.”
“Why,” said the Denver Irish policeman as he
arrested a Pawnee Indian IWW soapboxer,
“Why don’t you go back where you came
from.”

We are strange creatures. Yet we are conscious of gratitude at Thanksgiving. Something deep and primal within us resonates to Harvest Home, even when we are far removed from ploughing, planting, and praying for rain. We reap no corn, grind no grain, hunt no deer or turkey, most of us. But we respond.

The ancient feelings still stir within us – we are bound to the Earth, nourished and warmed by the sun, the heirs of rain, frost moon, and tides. Even when one is among those (as I am) who perceive flaws in the intellectual and theological arguments for God or gods, there is still some deep empathy to that who or what that the ancients named Lord of Harvest. The path to full knowing is guarded and barricaded, but sometimes there is the feeling that the path is not long and far distant, even though the barrier is impenetrable in our minds.

But there is that in the bounty of the Earth, Sun, and Moon, which stirs us to be glad for life, no matter how difficult the journey and how sore the wounds we suffer along the way.

Religion And Politics

October 21, 1984
Lakeland

October 28, 1984
Port Charlotte

Opening and Welcome

As you have probably noted, the theme today is religion and politics. I am not going to ring changes on the old joke about the Bishop assigning a young minister to a first parish and instructing him: “There are two subjects you must not touch in the pulpit – politics and religion.” I have heard so many varieties of that old chestnut that it must touch something in the subconscious.

The theme today is religion and politics. I am not going to endorse or disendorse any particular candidate from the pulpit. Not because I am shy, but rather from principle. However, if a certain political party was on the Florida ballot, I would be tempted to disendorse because there are limits even to political weirdness – the Reverend Bob Richards of Texas, a one-time Olympic athlete, is the candidate for President of the so-called “Populist Party.” Two of the planks in his platform make one wonder. He would remove the right to vote from anyone who had been on welfare for a year. Second, he would solve the Middle East problem by moving the entire population of Israel to West, Texas where the Israeli know-how in making the desert fruitful would transform the arid and parched lands of that part of Texas.

I had the most delightful fantasies about the whole population of Israel in West Texas – sabras in cowboy hats, Shimon Peres a political power in Austin, tacos and lox, tortillas and cream cheese. As an Olympic athlete, Richards should have been a good sport and consulted the nation of Israel. One does not have to do much research to unearth the strange, the comedy, and the fantasy in politics.

But politics is serious, determining our near and long-range future. My only exhortation is: VOTE.

Sermon

Although for the last 35 years at least there have been numerous arguments about the separation of church and state, and many Supreme Court decisions, the 1984 presidential campaign has seemed to generate enough heat about religion and politics to produce steaming controversy. There seems to be more editorials, journalists, commentaries, and inflamed claims about this subject than for many years heretofore.

My purpose today is to make what I believe to be a prime distinction between, on the one hand, the wall of separation of church and state, and on the other hand, religion and politics. Although Robert Frost was not touching these subjects in particular, with a great poet’s artistry, he grasps universals in the particulars of two farmers repairing the walls that divided the property of each:

“Before I built a wall
I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” Thomas Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptist Association, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Jefferson, in those succinct lines, walled out any form of state church or special favors for any particular church or churches and barred discrimination against any church.

I am one who believes that a strong wall is as necessary a bulwark between church and state as any other provisions in the bill of rights [ensure] other freedoms. I hope the Supreme Court in its decisions in the coming months and years will not dilute or adulterate that vital Constitutional basis and history.

Right now that Constitutional freedom is under attack by those (usually fundamentalist) gospel preachers, who are exhorting us to return to a “Christian America.”

The contention usually goes something like, “This is a Christian nation; religion is part of our American way of life; to take it out of public schools (e.g.) is to rob us of an essential part of our heritage; the effect of such decisions as rendered in the McCollum and Regents’ Prayer cases is to make our culture secular where it was always the intent of our Founding Fathers that this nation should be a religious nation.”

This contention seems to be very persuasive to many, but serious flaws are revealed when the case is examined more closely.

Any examination discloses that Christianity is not one religion, but many. There are religions of ecclesiastical authority and religions of individual intuition; there are religions of reason and religions of revelation; there are Christian religions pre-occupied with theology and Christian religions emphasizing liturgical traditions; there are Christian religions devoted to the sacraments and Christian religions where the preaching of “The Word of God” is central.

When one narrows down to Protestantism, then there are four main divisions, each with sub-groups: Lutheranism, Episcopalianism (or Anglicanism), Calvinism, and the free churches, of which there are at least 250 recognized denominations in our country today.

This “Christian Nation” contention also overlooks or ignores the historical fact that members of the Jewish religion have been citizens from the beginnings, and that there are now many thousands of Moslems, Buddhists, not to speak of native American Indian religions.

More accurately, we are [more] a nation of many religions than we are a religious nation. Furthermore, the atheist or agnostic has no limitations on his citizenship, but has the right not to have a particular church or synagogue or mosque associated with citizenship.

Jefferson and Madison were primary in the securing of religious freedom in the United States. Jefferson’s proposal to the Virginia [legislature] passed after seven years of opposition and consideration.

Madison was effective in two basic ways. In the Virginia Assembly of 1784-85, he presented his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance to the Religious Rights of Man.” This was an attack on a bill which would “establish a provision for teachers of the Christian religion.” Later on in the career of this great American, he was responsible for including the right of freedom of religion in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

It is important to observe that these founders of our nation and religious freedom would not have pleased those persons who today exhort us to adhere to our heritage as “Christian” or even monotheistic.

When Jefferson said “free,” he meant FREE, as attested by his “Notes on Virginia”: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbors to say there are twenty gods or no God.” Jefferson asserted that to compel outward conformity to any religion would force neighbors to be hypocrites. (See CORNERSTONES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA, Joseph L. Blau, Beacon Press, p. 72 ff.)

Furthermore, appeals to churchly authority can be both confusing and mistaken. A cartoon in the Tampa Tribune (9/28) compresses this: a balding, overweight clergyman (looks like I do – beard, vest) is standing at the door of the church, saying to a parishioner leaving the church, “No, no, Madam, I said Jesus sat down and ate with publicans, not Republicans.”

Many (if not most) of our Founding Fathers were immediately inspired by the Rationalists of the Enlightenment, and by the humanitarian goals of the American and French revolutions. “My mind is my church,” said Thomas Paine. I see more influence from the Deists ... Franklin, Washington, the Adamses, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, than [from] the organized churches of the time.

One thing more about the wall of separation of church and state: not only does the First Amendment prevent a state church or favoritism toward one church, but also the tax exemption privilege protects religious institutions from government. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The government could effectively render any religious institution powerless through the use of the tax. One of the noted cases of the 1950s was that of the Unitarian Church, Los Angeles, which was threatened with the loss of tax exemption because it refused to sign a loyalty oath.

Because churches and their spokesmen (and spokeswomen) must in the nature of convictions take stands, sometimes severely critical of the government, ... the government must not have the power to squelch or retaliate through the tax system.

In the Zorach case of some years ago, Mr. Justice Jackson, in a dissent, said this (and the advice is wise):

“My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence that what should be rendered to God does not need to be collected and decided by Caesar.”

Yes, I believe in the wall of separation of church and state – but there is no way to separate religion and politics, nor should there be.

“Political” in the unabridged dictionary is defined as “of or pertaining to the exercise of rights and privileges or the influence by which the individuals of a state seek to determine or control its public policy; having to do with the organization or action of individuals, parties, or interests that seek to control the appointment or action of those who manage the affairs of a state.”

We exercise our rights and privileges by applying our values – that which we hold dear. There are [a] great many variations on the idea of God that numerous religious and their advocates have advanced. The authority for religious belief can be holy book, dogmatic church, intuition, authoritative mythology, imagination, reason. But every worthwhile religion that I know of stands for ethical behavior. The Golden Rule, in various forms, is basic to all the world’s great religions. You value your neighbor – what he/she is. In the Christian tradition, Jesus put it, “How can a man love God whom he has not seen, if he does not love his brother whom he has seen?” An old Jewish saying is, “one man is no man.” Martin Buber, the Israeli philosopher and teacher, said, “the most direct line to God is a circle around everyone.” Those who are reluctant to identify Deity in any of the proposed forms may take as a basic premise that human life is the highest value, and that the worth and dignity of all persons is a goal for which to labor in the social order.

Thus in the political segment of our lives, we are informed and directed by the values we hold. The values we hold direct the manner and decisions of the way we exercise our rights and privileges. The opening paragraph of a declaration by the Claggett Conference on Biblical Faith and Public Policy eloquently states the case: “our nation is on the threshold of an historic dialogue concerning the role of religious faith in our political life. We agree with those who assert that religious faith should not be separated from the moral and political life of our society. However, the wall of separation between church and state prevents any one church from imposing upon the whole society its views on matters of individual conscience. But this guarantee is not intended to insulate our political life from the direct influence of moral values and religious vision which promotes the general welfare.” (see Christian Century, 9/14/84)

But values differ. Interpretations of the correct direction of the nation obviously are in collision. Most persons have a priority of values, but the rank order will differ. The run for the roses of national office is dotted with areas of self interest, special interest, hunger for power.

One would be hopelessly naïve to believe that everyone, in or out of organized religion, will always measure his/her vote or political allegiance by the best ideals or values that person cherishes. Our faculty for choosing our best is inhibited by our fears. Political wisdom is that enough Americans vote their pocketbooks to win an election for a candidate. Short-run and immediate fears of having less money or financial security are more over-riding than long-run fears of total destruction by war or apprehension that continued pollution or water shortages will slowly stifle or parch human living. That makes much more difficult but also more necessary the continuing task beyond elections to inform, sensitize, and increase awareness of the threats to our living and how these threats may be ameliorated.

Furthermore, authentic political dialogue is too frequently painted over with with innocuous generalizations, profitless name-calling, pretty pictures and photo opportunities. That has been so, and will be. But that is no excuse for giving up the search for what will make for peace, feed the hungry, extend freedom, encourage responsibility. In our world of social transactions, there is inevitably intermingled the world of politics in all important decisions.

Political advocacy and dialogue must be open. Not for a moment would I want Jerry Falwell stopped from arguing his political views, much as I detest many things he says (or Jimmy Swaggart or Jesse Helms). But not to allow them and others to impose their religious doctrines on me or any other citizen. Let their views be heard. If the values which inform them differ from mine, then my response must be in terms of the values I hold and the unlike perceptions of the history and faith which are mine.

“Something there that doesn’t love a wall” - no walls to shut out political give and take.

I like the way George Marsden, a professor at Calvin College, addresses this whole subject. He makes the same distinction between church and state, religion and politics, that I have tried to make. He criticizes the fundamentalist thrust for a “Christian America.” He notes that it invariably invokes an historical argument for a return to some presumed “Christian America.” Marsden asks, to what shall we return – Reformation theology, or the principles of the Declaration and Constitution? He goes on:

“In the Reformation, Protestant leaders expected nations to be explicitly Christian, to support the true church and to penalize all others. Today’s theocrats may not go so far; yet they want civil laws based on Reformation interpretations of divine laws. But the Declaration does not root laws there. The ‘laws of nature and nature’s God’ are very different in concept from the Biblical notion, which is wholly unalluded to in American documents. The symbolism of the new government was secular. Even the Reverend John Witherspoon (a Presbyterian minister), one of the founders and a signer of the Declaration, did not appeal to Reformation theology that the theocrats of today appeal.

“The practice of the early republic points to a middle way between stark extremes. Compromise is the genius of the American political system. America is not built on the idea that American should be Christian in the sense that today Iran is Moslem or Russia is Marxist. Christians have to play by the rules of the civic game. One of those rules might be that no matter how strongly the Bible or other revelation informs our political views, for the purpose of civic debate and legislation, we will not appeal simply to religious authority.” (CONTEXT, 7/1/83)

One last point (which could be elaborated for days) – there never has been a time in history when a religion was official, to the exclusion of other religions, when that sole dominance has not left a record of bigotry, persecution, bloodshed, and the stifling of the questing human spirit.

Go For The Gold

October 7, 1984
Lakeland

Introductory Remarks

The theme today may strike some of you as trifling when the celebration of religion should be serious. I will accept that criticism, although I will be unconvinced that the subject is trivial. When the Greeks, founders of the Olympic Games, gave the victor not money but a wreath of leaves, they were exhibiting the fact that in their scales of values (set forth by Plato), honor stood very high, higher than money.

Any activity so emphatically woven into our national fabric as sports, of necessity, reflects our values and priorities. In the talk-back I will gladly receive your rebuttals.

Sermon

“Go for the Gold.” That was a prevailing national attitude during this summer’s Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The United States was host to the world (other than the Soviet Union and most of its allies). There were chants: “USA! USA! USA!” We felt thrills of pride and admiration when Joan Benoit of Kennebunk, Maine, won the women’s marathon; when Carl Lewis won four golds; when the U.S. basketball team exhibited its mastery; and so on as the daily results tallied an increasing number of gold medals for the USA. Greg Louganis and Mary Lou Retton could have won national offices if elections had been held the week after the Olympic Games. We felt area pride when Rowdy Gaines of Winter Haven won the gold at the age of 25 when most competitive swimmers are “over the hill.” The Olympic Games of 1984 were an astonishing, spectacular pageant – and the USA won the most golds.

Gold has been humankind’s most precious and sought-after prize long before history began to be recorded, and still represents wealth and power. Cortes in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru destroyed unique civilizations to get their gold. The 49ers and the Alaskan gold rush are events in our history which not only meant great wealth for some and death and misery for an uncounted number, but also were powerful social impulses moving our population West and North. The myth of El Dorado – where large amounts of gold were reputed to be found – stirred men’s desires and expeditions for hundreds of years.

Go for the Gold – humans always have. In 1984 the Olympic gold was an El Dorado that we of the USA won more than anybody else. Not just incidentally, the 1984 Olympic Games made a profit of millions of dollars through sale of TV time to advertisers, souvenir sales, and many fund-raising efforts. Go for the gold!

Like millions of others all over the world, I spent many hours watching the contests, the spectacular opening show and parade of the athletes of many nations. Yet since the heat of patriotic blood cooled down, I have had some nagging thoughts that I want to share with you – thoughts about sports, big money and patriotism, the values and triumphs of sports contests, make a few comments about competition and cooperation, and in conclusion ask if our national values could or should be transvalued to the end that we will have pride in and support world values.

First of all consider the sports phenomenon. I did not take the time to check the TV programs to calculate the hours on the tube just this week which will be devoted to baseball, professional football, college football, boxing, and other games. Neither could I hazard a guess at the total number, perhaps millions, who have been and will be in the stands this weekend watching the athletes compete. Nor could I guess at the value of free advertising sports is given through the daily sports sections of newspapers and the sports time on the 11 o’clock news. Whether this is a natural or created obsession I leave to the social psychologists. But there is not doubt as to the fascination.

Consider the scandals which frequently surround college football, so-called “amateur” football. Somewhere I read that the charges of recruiting violations leveled against the University of Florida will cost that university’s sports program somewhere around 1½ million dollars because of ineligibility to play on TV or in the numerous bowl games which have become so much a part of our American Christmas [and] New Year’s holiday Saturnalia. Sports are big business. Jack Kelley, U.S. Olympic Committee Vice-President, and a one-time Olympic athlete, said “Let’s be honest, a proper definition of an amateur today is one who accepts cash, not checks.” [CJW note: CONTEXT]

Should you happen to begin thinking that I am so un-American as to condemn spectator sports, I am little different from many of you, particularly those of the male gender. I was taken, often, to Fenway Park to see the Boston Red Sox play, before I ever went to school. I knew the names of the players and how the game was played before I learned my ABCs. The Red Sox still cause me grief every August. I watch some football and baseball games on TV, but I hope not as an overwhelming pre-occupation.

No, I’m not anti-sports. What concerns me is the over-emphasis. A cartoon shows a group of little league baseball players clustered around their coach. He is saying to the little boys, “All right men, this is it. There is no tomorrow.” No tomorrow for 10 year old boys?? A colleague of mine, a few years back, was minister of one of our churches in the Milwaukee area, [and] preached a sermon on “The Religion of the Green Bay Packers,” criticizing the philosophy of the then-coach, the late Vince Lombardi, “Winning isn’t every thing, it’s the only thing.” However, my friend said he was careful to reserve his sermon until he had accepted another church far away and was soon moving. [CJW note: 8 o’clock Mass]

I had a dream – what if the millions of sports buffs had 1/4th the knowledge of political, constitutional, economic, disarmament, civil rights issues as they do about the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, the Gators, Seminoles, Hurricanes? Would our elected leaders then be compelled then to exhibit more informed and relevant leadership? But I’m afraid that’s just a dream.

Should we wonder about the connection between sports and gambling? The Ledger reported recently that betting on college football games is up 15-20% at legal sports books in Nevada. According to figures released by that state’s gaming control board, sports customers bet $807 million on sporting events in the fiscal year ending 6/30/84. That does not include all the millions – perhaps billions – bet and unreported in the 49 other states where such gambling is illegal. I am no blue-nose about gambling but: with assurance it can be said that when billions of dollars are bet on the results of games, there are sown the seeds of corruption, bribery, coercion.

Then, too, there are the injuries and fatalities in sports. Just 40 miles away last week, Mike Olivenbaum, the quarterback of the Clermont High School football team, died last week as a consequence of brain injuries suffered in football. In Eugene, Ore., Ed Reinhardt, a player for the University of Colorado lies comatose with little chance of recovery. He suffered a head injury in a game, September 15. Now there can be a reasonable response that such tragedies are a tiny percentage of the large number who play contact sports, but that statistic does not ease the sorrow for the Olivenbaum and Reinhardt families and their friends.

The Olympic Games – “Go for the Gold” – have become political weapons. The U.S. boycotted the Games in Moscow in 1980; the Soviets boycotted the games in 1984. I fail to see how the action of either nation contributed anything to the solving of international tensions. And trained athletes of each nation were deprived of the chance to compete against their peers.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “If there is one test of national genius universally accepted, it is success.” However, he wrote that in 1847, long before the sports era and the passionate urge to win.

But the priority of values, the principles we hold dear, are seldom utterly plain and clear when practically applied. Athletic contests, games, meets, bowls, are no more all bad than their absence would be all good.

There are many who by their athletic strength and ability have been able to climb out of ghettos or share-cropping to become affluent and recognized. Particularly members of the Black [CJW note: or Hispanic] minority – a Willie Mays, a Wilt Chamberlain, a Reggie Jackson, a Walter Payton [CJW note: Roberto Clemente, Juan Marichal] have achieved recognition, admiration, and wealth. Maybe the would have “made it” without professional sports, but the fact is that’s where they did. In most cases they became persons to emulate; they motivated others. Even when one recognizes that the percent who make great achievements is small, nevertheless they did – and through professional sports.

The recognition of the human dignity and worth of all persons is basic to religion. Consider Jesse Owens in the 1936 Games in Berlin. Not only did he become an American hero, but he thoroughly humiliated Hitler, and that dictator’s poisonous belief in an Aryan master race was publicly discredited.

Or, think of the late Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier of Major League Baseball. To be sure, he had to have the skills – speed, a batting eye, baseball instinct, mental acuteness. But more than that he bore the burden of bigotry with courage and restraint. Jesse Owens [and] Jackie Robinson were early lights on a dawning awareness of what is just and what is unjust in this nation, an awareness which led to the later civil rights actions and legislation. That is religion in action.

Charles Dickens once commented (in the foreword to WORLD’S GREATEST MAN) “If a rhinoceros were to enter this restaurant now, there is no denying he would have great power here. But I should be the first to rise and assure him that he had no authority whatever.” The rhinoceros of bigotry had power, but the power of truth and recognition of human dignity was authority exemplified in the courage of those who led the way.

One thing more – competition. Preceding this talk, Pat played the theme music from the movie, CHARIOTS OF FIRE. If you missed that movie, watch for it on TV. It is a story of a competition, but also cooperation. The athletes were fraternal, even to their peers from other countries. It is a movie of striving for excellence, but more than that, the fast sprinter from Scotland refuses to compete on Sunday because of religious scruples, resisting pressure even from high places. Then his teammate, a British Lord who already has won a gold, takes himself out of another race so that the Scot may compete and win on another day. I found it a movie of values, religious values, if you will, in the sense that Josiah Royce wrote:

“Since the office of religion is to aim toward the creation on earth of the beloved community, the future task of religion is the task of inventing and applying the arts which shall win men over to unity, and which shall overcome their original hatefulness by the gracious love, not of mere individuals, but of communities .... Judge every social device, every proposed reform, every national and every local enterprise by one test – does this help towards the coming of universal community?” [THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIANITY]

There is support for the idea that cooperation is not only desirable but natural.... In an article given me by Keyno Hicks...

[Magazine clipping, from World Press Review, August 1984, p. 55: Science & Technology Section, Biology, Cooperation and Competition, by Patrick Bateson. It details the value and mechanisms of cooperation in evolution. E.g., mammals huddling together for warmth, mutual assistance in hunting, etc.]

Thus, from my point of view, sports have both flaws and virtues. Sports can be both disillusioning and inspiring. At the present time, there is overemphasis both in exposure and dollars. Sooner or later, the public will become saturated of the over-load and there will be adjustment. After all, the University of Chicago abandoned football in 1936, but remains a distinguished university. Sports are highly competitive, but team sports require a high degree of cooperation, and most sports are team sports.

A British historian once noted that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.” The spirit of team play, physical conditioning, development of leadership, and cooperation encouraged by sports had far-reaching and favorable consequences for that nation.

Distinctions must be made. The rules ever-need modification to meet new temptations and block fresh avenues of selfishness. Common sense is required. On the whole, our nation is composed of pragmatic people. I’ll continue to hope. Baron Von Steuben, when he came to America to train our raw Revolutionary soldiers, came to believe that no European army would be held together under equivalent hardships. He wrote a European friend, “The genius of this nation is not to be compared with the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your soldier ‘do this’ and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say to these Colonials, ‘This is the reason you ought to do that’ and THEN he does it.” [Flexner’s WASHINGTON, p. 118]

That spirit in any area of life is a tradition to be maintained, and [is] where the gold of values is ever found.

Mugged By Reality

September 16, 1984
Lakeland

Undated
Port Charlotte

“I used to be an idealist, but I got mugged by reality.” That is the slogan on a T-shirt and is the seed of my theme today. In spite of our many comforts, toys, there is a wide-spread anxiety, even dread of the future. In attempting to deal with this, my talk divides into 1) the theme of progress, which has been an essential part of the last 2 or 300 years at least, 2) the events which have cast doubt on human progress (mugged by reality), 3) a look at what progress has meant, and 4) can we still have reasonable hopes for the human venture?

Many of us were reared in the belief that the future was bright. In my early years, two basic propositions were part of how I was programmed. In Unitarian churches, the fifth sentence in the belief affirmations was, “we believe in the progress of mankind, onward and upward forever.” In Universalist churches it was affirmed “we believe in the power of men of good will and sacrificial spirit to overcome evil and progressively establish the Kingdom of God.”

Science and engineering were providing benefits undreamed of by my grandparents. Through Thomas Edison’s inventive and managerial genius, the wonders of electricity brought well-lighted homes, factories, streets, the electric refrigerator, and marvelous appliances. Henry Ford developed the assembly line, and the Model T became the low-cost automobile for millions for business and the Sunday afternoon ride. Farm machinery and scientific soil and planting methods so increased agricultural efficiency and production that it was not difficult to predict (and many did) that soon no one in the world would be hungry.

In our land we cherished the American Dream. Born of our struggle for independence, the revolutionary victories at Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill and Yorktown; the promise of the frontier, richer in resources than ever known in the world, America was the New Jerusalem, the land of never-ending progress.

Woodrow Wilson convinced us that we were to fight WWI to make the world “safe for democracy” and that the war was a “war to end all wars.” In the 1920s, there were disarmament treaties culminating in the Kellogg-Brand peace pact of 1929.

In that same decade, millions of Americans were getting rich (on paper). Not only bankers, brokers, and business men were speculating in stocks, but also clerks, warehousemen, and crafts workers were playing the market. President Calvin Coolidge was widely praised when he pronounced, “The business of America is business.”

Surely Tennyson’s glowing 19th century optimism in the hymn we sang was coming true.

“Yea, we dip into the future,
far as human eye can see,
See the vision of the world,
And all the wonder that shall be,
Hear the war drum throb no longer,
See the battle flags all furled,
In the parliament of man,
The federation of the world.” (1842)

Then these bright, idealistic dreams were mugged by reality. The world was not safe for democracy. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, and the Japanese empire demonstrated that beyond any doubt.

The Depression, beginning in 1929, brought shocked awareness that unlimited American prosperity was not guaranteed. Millions of home owners, farm owners, business men, speculators, lost all their material possessions. The Dust Bowl, bank failures, 20-25% unemployed – the shining American Dream became tarnished.

World War II dimmed the dream of the progress of mankind onward and upward forever. Not only terrible battlefield carnage, but also cities were destroyed from the air; the holocaust demonstrated how demonic human nature could be. Thirty years after the “war to end wars,” 50-60 million people died.

The atomic bomb was designed, engineered, and delivered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The science and engineering which had unlimited promise for the world also lead to nuclear weapons, supersonic bombers, all the sophisticated engines of destruction which can be unleashed by a few electronic impulses.

In THE TEMPEST, when Prospero, with his occult knowledge, and Ariel, spirit of magical powers, have brought together the shipwreck survivors, most of them scoundrels, innocent Miranda says to her father with delight,

“O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!”

Prospero, who has experienced treason and double-dealing, replies, “’Tis new to thee.”

The shadows, realities and threats of the last 50 years cast authentic doubt on how “beauteous mankind is” for the whole litany of reasons that you can cite as well as I can.

Even so, there seems to be limited sensitivity to the ominous threats to human survival. There were a couple of items that illustrated that, and I didn’t know whether to weep or laugh. This was a question addressed to TV Guide: “If we become involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes? Should I store them in a lead-lined container?” The same source reports that civil defense officials in Utica NY (we are told) plan to order 1000 hamburgers and 1000 cups of coffee from fast-food restaurants to sustain occupants of municipal fall-out shelters in the event of nuclear attack.

For the first time in American history, many parents do not expect life to be as good for their children as it has been for the parents. Working, saving, sacrificing for the sake of children and their future has been a distinctive and prevailing motivation. But many parents fear now that this may not come to pass.

In RICHARD III (Act IV, Sc. 1), Shakespeare’s tragedy of different times, the Bishop of Carlisle says,

“The woe's to come; the children yet unborn.
Shall feel this day as sharp to them as thorn.”

But if the foregoing reflected only an undiluted pessimism on my part, I would not have taken your time. I would moan my lamentations and wait with whatever stoicism I could muster for that giant blinding flash. But there’s more to be said. 2600 years ago, the philosopher Xenophanes wrote, “The gods did not reveal to men all the things from the beginning, but men, through their own search, find in the course of time that which is better.”

As an historian of the subject demonstrates, the idea of progress, the dream of human progress, did not suddenly spring forth full-born in the period 1750 to 1900, even though that period marks the zenith of the idea of progress. [CJW note: That hope is found in the Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian cultures even in sad times and [amid] barbaric events.]

No matter where one looks, the evidence of progress is unmistakable. The application of design and engineering to scientific theory has created a new world of wonders that would stagger the imagination of the author of the ARABIAN NIGHTS. Although some of us are critical of aspects of the medical profession, many of us would not be alive but for advances in healing and hospital technology. How many thousands of children do not have polio because of Dr. Salk? The achievements would fill large volumes.

In spite of the sad and deprived condition of the people who live at poverty level, there has been much more done in the last 50 years of our nation than ever before. Americans differ on the effective remedies for poverty, but there is more general sensitivity to the plight of the poor, the deprived, the abused – a consciousness that was only a faint glimmer in the early years of my life.

The opportunities for education have increased. The pool of men and women informed and skilled in scientific specialties and the liberal arts has grown beyond any predictions of a half-century ago.

What went wrong? I respond to what Kirkpatrick Sale (HUMAN SALE, p. 35) points to. Along with a belief in progress, we have been tempted by “technofix.” Oil shortage? Liquify coal. Food shortage? Irrigate the Sahara. Civil disturbances in the summer heat of cities? Cover them with geodesic domes to control temperature and if necessary alter oxygen mix to induce lethargy in the rebellious.

The technofix deals with externals. Furthermore, the side-effects of technofix are not always considered. Think about one “technofix” that went wrong – the Aswan Dam on the Egyptian Nile. As Kirkpatrick Sale notes (HUMAN SALE, pp. 30-31),

“The dam was built at vast expense in order to provide electricity for the Egyptian people, increase agricultural production through controlled irrigation, increase fish production by providing a new lake, and thus improve the general standard of living. But the dam has blocked off the Nile waters so that millions of tons of natural fertilizers end up in the lake behind it and never either get to the farmlands downstream, severely harming agricultural production, or to marine life in the delta, severely curtailing fish production. So the government planners were forced to use much of the electricity from the dam not for home or industry, but to make artificial fertilizers for the farmers, and someday they hope, artificial chemicals for the delta fishermen, thus using electricity to solve the problem created by the dam that was built to solve problems by electricity. But since the artificial fertilizers so far have been strange to the soil and didn’t work as well as the natural ones, and since the delta waters, stagnant now for much of the year, have bred a variety of diseases, the overall standard of living has in fact been lowered.”

Where, then, lies the hope or technofix that is more authentic than fantasy or daydreaming? Can we be more skilled in human survival than the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, who could turn it on but not turn it off?

A social scientist noted “one of the outstanding features of neurotic behavior is the patient’s inability to learn from the past.” (A. Koestler, THE INVISIBLE WRITING, p. 190) Can people, nations, learn from the past? Can there be more ethical imagination in understanding that all inventions we devise have side effects? If there are uncounted workers who will be displaced by the fast-developing robotic production devices, what happens to those for whom industry no longer has a place? There has to be a limit to those who can find low-paid jobs in fast-food restaurants, or sit at computer consoles. Big Brother’s dictatorship in Orwell’s 1984 kept the unemployed narcotized with plentiful supplies of cheap, chemical gin.

The second song we sang this morning encompasses our hope – “Faith in Ourselves”:

Faith in ourselves must be steadfast as a growing tree
Strong through the years strewn with rock and thorn
Our dreams may go astray
Still we salute each day
And left our hearts with faith reborn.

If one values the human enterprise, seeks to hold on, even by the fingernails, to the old but ever-new goal of justice for all, then we maintain the never-ending struggle for a kinder world.

To hold on to the realistic hope that Walt Whitman voiced: ... [Editor’s note: quote missing]

One of the lessons drummed into me as I was being taught homiletics was “never underestimate the intelligence of people; never overestimate their information.” Whether or not I have learned that lesson well or badly, personally, I am still convinced that in the social order, given fuller information, enough of the general public will respond to that which preserves and enhances human life and values rather than the opposite, and that has sustained me.

Rollo May observed (COURAGE TO CREATE, p. 58), “Anxiety comes from not being able to know the world you’re in, not being able to orient yourself in your own existence.”

It sounds like a cliché – but I believe lack of knowledge leads to anxiety, anxiety leads to fear, and fear leads to hate. If our idealism has been mugged by reality, then, if we have faith in ourselves, we will seek to inform ourselves on the source of anxieties, beyond slogans and fear.

I no longer can accept that “the progress of man is onward and upward forever.” There are too many conditions and qualifications necessary to maintain such glorious, inevitable optimism.

A figure that wise Aristotle used so many centuries ago is more compelling to me. “Those who are now renowned have taken over as if in a relay race (from hand to hand, relieving one another) from many many predecessors who on their part progressed, and thus have themselves made progress.” (METAPHYSICS)

In relay races, sometimes the baton is dropped in the act of passing. So with people and their civilizations. But the race continues. Aristotle also noted in his METAPHYSICS, “No one is able to attain the truth adequately, while on the other hand we do not collectively fail; but each one says something true about the nature of things, and while individually we contribute little or nothing to the truth, by all of us together, a considerable amount is amassed.”

One thing more: a sense of the sacred needs to be recovered. This is not a call to an old-time religion because many of the claims and demands of the religious right do not seem very sacred to me. The sacred is that which we revere – an aura which surrounds our highest values because those values are the most precious. The sacred nature of persons, the sacredness of planet Earth and the universe in which it has its being. As in [the] Torah when [the] Deity refused to reveal his/her name to Moses (“I AM what I AM,” I am what I will be), there need not be alarm if our theological designations differ, “we are what we are, the Earth is.” We will be what we choose to be. On such foundations, the sacred can sustain us.

The late Lillian Smith, a courageous pioneer in illuminating the cost of bigotry, wrote in KILLERS OF THE DREAM, (not degenderized)

“Man ... with feet tied to the past and hands clutching at the stars! Only by an agonizing pull of his dream can he wrench himself out of such fixating stuff and climb thin air into the unknown. But he has always done it and he can do it again. he has the means, the techniques, he has the knowledge and insight and courage, he has the dream. All have synchronized in beautiful harmony, for the first time in his history. Does he have the desire? That is a question that each human being must answer alone. It is a secret ballot that one by one we shall cast, and only those votes will be counted that are cast in time.”

Who Are The Unitarian Universalists?

September 9, 1984
Lakeland

We are a diverse lot in our 1000 or so churches and Fellowships. Wilbur, the historian, in the conclusion of his history, named freedom, reason, tolerance as the bonds which bind us together. I would add – fellowship.

We tend to indulge in a bit of ancestor worship. We remind people that 5 Presidents of the U.S. were from our numerically small ranks. We point with pride to Susan B. Anthony, pioneer for women’s rights; to Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross; to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, William Ellery Channing; to Longfellow, Lowell, Hawthorne, Melville, Dr. Benjamin Rush, the Alcotts, Julia Ward Howe, Joseph Priestly, Frank Lloyd Wright, and many others.

We have great traditions – limitless inquiry, courage, reason, and sacrifice for individual freedom of belief. In concentrating on who we are now, you need not conclude that our history is not important or that our splendid Unitarian Universalist heritage and history are not worth talking about. One of the honored theologians in our movement, James Luther Adams, was reminded of a comment of Dr. Richard Cabot, who defined an idiot as a person who has no sense of the past, but lives only in the present. But, he went on, one who has nothing BUT a sense of the past is the victim of an inverted idiocy.

So, in reflecting [on] who we are now, I’m not dismissive [of] our past. I value it, I assume you do, and that you have a handle on the historical forces out of which Unitarian Universalism emerged and was sustained.

Who are we now? We are a tiny fraction of the total population of North America – perhaps one-tenth of 1%. There are some signs of growth, but too little and too soon to confidently predict that growth in numbers will be substantial. We confront a problem, not a unique one in religious institutions – as many drop out as drop in. Why? Any reason. In July, the “Peanuts” cartoon strip, Linus and Charlie Brown are talking. [CJW note: describe.] [Editor’s note: To view the cartoon online, click here: http://comics.com/peanuts/1984-07-24/]

There’s no easy or single answer to increasing the number of drop-ins and reducing the number of drop-outs. There can be continuing sensitivity to why a person leaves as well as enthusiasm when he/she arrives.

Who are we now? We are still a theologically diverse religion. We are sometimes knocked as free-wheeling agnostics who can’t kick a Sunday morning habit. To my way of thinking, because no creed is imposed, theological diversity is one of our strong assets from which, because of a lack of emphasis, we don’t draw enough interest.

For example, some people are surprised to learn that many Unitarian Universalists identify themselves as “Christian” and that there is a Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship organized continent-wide (a brochure for it is on the back table). Unitarian Universalist Christians are not orthodox Christians. I doubt many would be accepted by or comfortable in most Christian denominations. They choose to use interpretations of Christian symbols and language which express a stance toward life, death, and the human condition.

While I do not choose to be so identified, I would be false to my values if I in any way indicate or hinted that Unitarian Universalist Christians did not belong. I remember years ago, a panel which included a distinguished Unitarian Universalist minister who made this analogy. We emerged from the Christian tradition; we are a branch of the many-boughed Christian tree. Then he changed his figure of speech, saying “I speak the English language. But I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom.” He explained, the American Revolution secured our independence and separation from England, but English is still our mother tongue. Our institutions have been influenced by the Magna Carta, Parliaments, Shakespeare, the King James Bible, etc. But just because we secured our independence, we did not invent a new language. We kept what was best and went from there, or so he affirmed. Well, there’s some soundness to such arguments or analogies.

I, for one, was not convinced then, nor am I today. But without qualification, there’s a welcome place and always has been in our Unitarian Universalist circle for those who do trace such arcs of belief.

There was a time when rancor and bad-feeling characterized the debate between Christian Unitarian Universalists and those who did not want to be so identified. Fortunately there is little, if any, bitterness in the exchanges today.

I’m reminded of a story told by Harry Overstreet (THE MIND GOES FORTH). “Two duelists standing back to back, poised for the signal that will make them pace off the fatal distance from which they must shoot to kill. All is in order for one of the traditional, formalized dramas of conflict. All is in order except that one duelist has turned his head enough to say to the other over his shoulder, ‘I don’t feel very insulted this morning, do you?’”

Our theological diversity is no longer a duel or a tag-team wrestling match. We don’t feel insulted at another’s interpretation of religious experience of religious tradition. When we are at our best, our theological diversity motivates straighter thinking and kinder hearts.

Who are the Unitarian Universalists? Some might conclude that we are the “liberal-left,” not only on matters of religious interpretations, inquiring about the reasons and truths that most religious bodies take for granted, but also liberal on issues of the social order.

Our 1984 General Assembly meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in June, took positions on a number of issues in the social order. The few newspapers that I saw reporting on the event emphasized the resolution on gay and lesbian services of unions. That statement urged support of ministers who conduct services of union of gay and lesbian couples, even though legal marriages are denied by state governments. One might assume [by the reporting] that [this was the] only item deserving mention.

There were positions on other issues (as reported in July 15th UU World):

Support of nondiscriminatory, low-cost housing.

Urging governments to recognize the urban crisis by developing jobs for all, decent shelter, adequate healthcare and safe neighborhoods.

Resolved to urge Unitarian Universalists to educate themselves about toxic waste and become involved in efforts to see that environmental laws are enforced and to promote additional legislation where needed.

The delegates also recognized that the number of children abused and neglected is growing. Therefore there was advocacy for programs, economic and otherwise, that will help sustain and improve the dignity and rights to which all, including children, are entitled.

A resolution was passed urging the President of the U.S. to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons and conclude treaties with all nations renouncing first use.

Another resolution urged the renouncing of the proposed “Star Wars” scenario to put nuclear weapons in space.

The delegates also re-affirmed the 1983 resolution opposing overt and covert attempts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua and extend the position to all of Central America.

An accompanying resolution urged a reversal of the U.S. policy which denies asylum to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. Support for those churches that offer sanctuary was affirmed.

These positions were voted by 1258 delegates from 475 churches and Fellowships. Obviously with less than half of Unitarian Universalist Societies represented, there can be no claim that such resolutions represent the political and economic positions of all Unitarian Universalists. The positions taken are guides to the Unitarian Universalist Director of Social Action and the Unitarian Universalist Washington Office for Social Justice. Furthermore, the resolutions are invitations to local societies to study, discuss, and perhaps act on these matters.

There would be no more unanimity on all these resolutions dealing with the social order than there is with our religious identities.

I know of no recent studies, but a few years back, about 34% of Unitarian Universalists generally supported the Republican Party; 18% voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964. 28% disapproved of civil disobedience under any circumstances. 14% disapproved of our denomination’s work in the field of world peace.

Speaking as a political liberal (and I do not shrink from the term), Unitarian Universalists would be vastly poorer if there were no conservative voices among us. We do stand for unity in diversity. To begrudge a conservative point of view is contradictory to the value of “intellectual stimulation” which so many Unitarian Universalists place high on their reason for members of our churches and Fellowships.

Who are we? We are persons who consciously join or remain members of Unitarian Universalist churches or Fellowships because these are religious communities founded on freedom, tolerance, fellowship, and human dignity. I have mentioned before that “community” is increasingly used to describe our gatherings. Community is becoming nearly as basic as freedom in Unitarian Universalist identity. You recall the oft-quoted lines from T. S. Eliot’s poem, “The Rock”:

“When the stranger says:
‘What is the meaning of this city?
Do you huddle close together
Because you love each other?’
What do you answer?
‘We all dwell together
To make money from each other’?
Or, ‘this is a community’?”

There are numerous varieties of community: religious, business, professional, political, social, etc.

We gather in religious community, which builds into the foundation that I will not coerce you, nor you, me. We have always proposed tolerance as basic to our valuing system. But we are not tolerant of coercion! Debate, argue, present proofs, demonstrate, illustrate, illuminate in an effort to persuade. But don’t lean on me; I won’t lean on you.

In our Unitarian Universalist religion, we have believed that individuality and unity find form in the method of decision-making and working together we call congregational polity. Our individual beliefs are shared, but as these may differ among us, the action voted by the majority prevails. But the minority never loses its right to persuade, hoping to re-direct policies and actions.

But I (or you) should never be beguiled into believing that knowledge and reason reside solely in me, or you, or in any body, Unitarian Universalist or not. A proper modesty is both realistic and wise.

Years ago I clipped an item from a Unitarian Universalist newsletter. That church had a column called “Uncle Uni” which attempted to answer questions.

Dear Uncle Uni,

I have attended your church several times and have become very interested in Unitarianism. I was considering joining but was told that Unitarians are a bunch of intellectuals. As I am only of average intelligence, I don’t want to feel out of place. What do you advise?

- Worried in Hershey

Dear Worried,

Your problem is a common one but fortunately we have a solution. The next time we have a Congregational Meeting, attend even though you are not a member. Listen carefully to the discussion, and your worries will disappear, and you will come away with the knowledge that you can join our church without fear of embarrassment or concern.

- Uncle Uni

Who are the Unitarian Universalists? Neither the doorkeepers to a re-discovered Garden of Eden nor the guides to a Golden Age.

If our principles are more than mottos without substance, then the ever-present requirement is to be honest with ourselves and others.

We cannot be believers in anything just because we want to believe, but holding to what we must believe as knowledge, reason, justice, and tolerance compel us to believe.

[We believe in an] openness to and cultivation of ideas along with judgment to distinguish real differences.

And last, [we should] recognize the immense need, our human hunger to enhance and deepen the quality of human experience. That we do best together, not alone.

On Idolatries

May 6, 1984
Lakeland

September 1984
Port Charlotte

Sources of the Living Tradition – IV
On Idolatries

“(The) sin of idolatry is the characteristic religious temptation of the 20th century.” This sentence, written by Robert McAfee Brown, a Christian theologian. It appropriately introduces this fourth in the series, Sources of the Living Tradition. The living tradition we share draws from humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

In attempting to deal with this subject, [we will consider] the definition of idolatry along with its extensions of meaning, what humanist teachings are, and why they are a proper method and guide in assessing the many claims of truth that are constantly thrust upon us.

Idolatry is the worship of a man-made image as a god. Archaeology, scripture, and history point to many instances. There was the sacred stone, such as the Kaaba of the Moslems. Other religious cultures carved stone or wood in human or animal shape, the image of the god. Sometimes the image was anointed with oil to appease the appetite of the good spirit or spirits. The sacrificial practice grew; ritual sacrifice of animals and persons were performed to placate the god so that the god’s power would be beneficent, not cruel. Priests became the proper ones to offer sacrifice with ritual words, ceremonial chants, beseeching prayers. As nomadic peoples became more settled, shelters were built to protect the god from rain and wind. Thus the first temples were built.

But excessive veneration or adoration of the idol became more important than the reality it represented. A human-made object became the recipient of ultimate loyalty. The source was forgotten; the image was feared and the ceremonies were conducted with awe. The idols persisted long after the death of the ideas which gave them birth. The stone, brass, and wood were adored; the creative spirit was ignored or debased.

The revolt of the Hebrews against idolatry represents one of the enduring contributions of Judaic religion. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them ....” [Exodus 20] Many other prohibitions against idolatry are found in the Torah (Ex. 20/23; Lev. 18/21; Lev 26:1, Num. 35 51/53; Ps. 97/7).

However, idolatry is not confined to a golden calf or a brass Moloch. There are many idolatries of mind and spirit. Think how this scripture is for many an idolatry. “The Bible says ....” And what it says become[s considered to be] without error. The scripture which revolts against idols becomes an idol. If there is anything which is assured, it is that history and culture are dynamic, changing. True, there is wisdom in the scripture (as well as a great deal of folly); there is inspiration for many circumstances; there is literary excellence (as well as an abundance of literary mediocrity). There is understanding to be gained of the times, tensions, and issues which produced the various writings. But to believe that everything was said for all times is idolatry. Robert McAfee Brown notes “At no time is the church in greater peril than, when fighting idolatry without, it succumbs to idolatry within.” (THE SPIRIT OF PROTESTANTIM, p. 44). Or as Reinhold Niebuhr put it, “We must fight falsehood with our truth (but also) we must fight the falsehood IN our truth.”

But there could be no greater error than to believe that idolatry is confined to religion. There are many idolatries.

Is there not for some an idolatry of money, of possessions? We remember King Midas in Greek mythology and Silas Marner in George Eliot’s fiction. But the myth and the story represent authentic pitfalls. I read that someone saw a bumper sticker on a luxury automobile in Southern California [which read,] “Prosperity – A Divine Right.”

I do not object to economic well-being, self-sufficiency, or living graced with the necessities and comfort that a fair income brings. Most people I know earn the rewards an occupation or business brings. But prosperity as a “divine right” - that is idolatry. If one is blindfolded by thousand-dollar bills, sun and light and other persons are shut out.

Nationalism can be idolatry. Not our country right or wrong, right or wrong our country. When the nation is an idol; the mistakes, misuse of power, and self-centeredness become idolatry – excessive veneration. The best use of nationalism is to defend and promote the ideals of liberty, life, and citizen government. The Statue of Liberty is not an image to be worshiped but a symbol of our historic welcoming of the dissenter, the poor, the exiled. The awe-inspiring statue of Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial is not an image to be worshiped, but a stunning reminder of a life devoted and sacrificed for union and emancipation.

We stand in peril of an idolatry of escalating nuclear weaponry. We are urged that if we make the proper sacrifices that idol will take care of us. Idol worship of chain-reacting destruction will no more save us than the heated brass Moloch could save the [CJW note: Canaanites] Phoenicians when they tossed their children into the gaping red-hot jaws of that ancient idol. Ortega y Gasset noted, “20th century man is become a technologically competent barbarian.”

I believe any one of you could create your own list of idolatries – whenever fanaticism squelches openness, there is idolatry.

[CJW inserted: In this election year, we are conscious that the political managers are more worried about a candidate’s image than substance. A candidate who may have been perceived as lackluster or humdrum has to show in a debate that he has “fire in his belly” by aggressive jump-ups in a debate or strong statements in a TV commercial. Another candidate projects the image of one with new ideas. Still another projects the image of affability and international statesmanship by strolling the Great Wall of China or shaking hands with the Bishop of Rome. Yet another projects the image of a “Rainbow Coalition” - gathering, we are supposed to believe, supporters from all ethnic and social groupings. I guess I must have been 11 years old when Calvin Coolidge’s picture wearing an American Indian war-bonnet was in all the newspapers and news-reels at the movies. I still don’t know what Cal in a war-bonnet was supposed to demonstrate. But it was a forerunner of the deluge that TV has brought. I’m afraid many of us are idolaters because we fall for the image instead of seeking substance relentlessly.]

The sources of our living tradition also propose that humanist teachings will counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, as well as warning us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

What are humanist teachings? Although this may be repetitious to many of you, there seem to be such lurid lies and unconscionable distortions of humanism that have been reported to me by some of you that not to re-emphasize humanism’s teachings would seem to soft-pedal this humane emphasis.

Robert Ingersoll summarized a basic stance (in his rather florid 19th century oratorical style), “Investigate, not follow. Do not be cringers and crawlers. Do not throw away your reason to save your soul; you will lose it, you will become an intellectual serf.”

Humanism is not a dogmatic absolute. It can never be. Humanist teachings affirm [that] the sources of our knowledge are human inheritance and human experience, and that humane values are the guide to our conduct. Humanist teaching is a method wherein the world of human transactions, as persons understand and perceive these, are the basis for coming to conclusions, establishing and defending values. These teachings, guided by reason, take seriously thought, emotion, history, intuition, imagination, learning, and culture, guided by reason (deductive = conclusion follows from premises; inductive = reasoning from part to whole, particulars to generals).

Perhaps a story I read can illustrate good reasoning from fallacious reasoning. A U.S. citizen and a Soviet citizen were arguing about the freedom each possesses in his own country. The American says, “Why I can stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in my nation’s capital and shout ‘The President of the United States is a jerk!’ The Russian counters, “I have the same freedom. I can stand in Red Square in Moscow and shout, ‘The President of the United States is a jerk!’ and nothing will happen to me.”

If one is guided by reason, the faulty premise is readily apparent.

We are guided by science. Not science as an absolute. That, too, would be idolatry. Science is a method of discovery and verification. The scientific method would include:

Sensitive curiosity concerning reasons for happenings. [CJW note: “You don’t scratch if you don’t itch” - Einstein].

A) Careful and accurate observation. Careful and accurate use of pertinent data gathered by others.
B) Patient collecting of other data.
C) Persistence in the search for explanation.

Delayed response – holding views tentatively for suitable reflection.

A) to permit adequate considerations of possible options.
B) a plan which looks forward to a prediction of the probable outcome or solution of experiment or research.

Weighing evidence with respect to its
a) pertinence,
b) soundness,
c) adequacy.

Respect for another’s point of view – an open-mindedness and willingness to be convinced by evidence.

This scientific method (it could be phrased different ways) has achieved discoveries that beggar any adjectives one could string out. Historian Barbara Tuchman (BIBLE AND SWORD, p. 148) noted, “Not God, but gravity, Isaac Newton discovered, brought the apple down on his head.” The law of gravity is a grand instance of uniformity in our universe.

In 1650 AD, Archbishop Ussher studied the Bible and figured out that the world was created 4004 BCE. Then in the scientific age, geologists studied the earth and the oceans. They demonstrated that the deposit of sodium chloride in the ocean indicated that earth cannot be less than 100 million years old. The geologists studied the strata of rock and showed Earth’s age to be not less than 300 million years. Further studies, disintegration of radio-active elements, e.g., indicate Earth is even more ancient.

Then along came the paleontologists whose studies of fossilized remains and human artifacts have dated human appearance on this planet at least 3 million years ago. Most persons in our tradition put much reliance on the findings of the scientists and no reliance on Archbishop Ussher’s pronouncements 350 years ago.

Similarly, we are guided by the astronomers, astro-physicists, physicists, and chemists in the basic knowledge they are achieving about the physical, chemical, electrical structure of the universe. [CJW note: Oppenheimer - “good morning”]

But the rules of reason and the methods of science are not gods, not absolutes. If they were so held, they would be idols and that variety of idolatry is little, if any, more attractive than other idolatrous perversion. The other values we have discussed in this series are essential – the worth and dignity of persons, justice, acceptance as persons of each person and by each person, the responsible search for truth, the right of individual conscience.

To uphold and support these values, Unitarian Universalists may or may not hold to a traditional image of God or any idea of God. Have you ever thought that it must be an immature conscience that holds that men and women would not be good except for the monitoring of a stern, hanging judge in the sky? It is as if they really did not believe good was good, and [it] had to be coerced.

The keystone values overarching all others are the value of justice, human fellowship, and human dignity. John Lovejoy Elliot, who was a well-known Ethical Culture leader, once wrote, “I have known good men and women who believed in God and good men and women who didn’t, but I’ve never known a good man or women who didn’t believe in people.”