The Divine Seed in Every Person

These are the times that try our souls! You don’t have to belong to a traditional religion to be suffering from spiritual trauma right now. Our theist brothers and sisters may be concerned for the whereabouts of God during the terrorist attacks on September 11; they may be debating the theological underpinnings of the ideas of the Just War, but we UUs shouldn’t giggle or scratch our heads over their doubts and theological debates. On the contrary! I think that we Unitarian Universalists should be giving very serious consideration to one of our most cherished, foundational beliefs: the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. As you may already know, this is the first statement in our Principles and Purposes. Those of you who were present for the sermon on the eight themes that bind us together as UUs may recall that a variation of this statement – the divine seed in every person – as one of the themes that runs through what Roy Phillips calls, "Our Way of the Spirit." Some would say that the inherent worth and dignity is our ontological ground that is the foundation that everything in our religious movement is built upon. It is a radical claim about human nature, especially in an era that has witnessed two devastating world wars, ethnic cleansing of global proportions, and death camps on every continent.

There is no equivocation in this statement. We don’t lay out a set of expectations that allow us to make judgments about anyone’s worth and dignity. We use the word inherent. This means that individual worth and dignity are an inseparable part of being human, and that these qualities are permanent. Everyone has worth and dignity and nothing can remove it. To put a very fine point on it, we UUs have covenanted to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of Osama Bin Laden and all those terrorists and thugs, all those Taliban leaders that our government is hoping to annihilate. Now, as my mother used to say, "How do you like them apples?"

Personally, I find this commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every person to be a true challenge in ordinary times, never mind times of violence and fear-mongering. On any given day the morning paper or the evening news gives us plenty of evidence of human beings who display a complete lack of dignity and whose worth is, in my humble opinion, very questionable. I’ll confess that I have grave doubts about the dignity and worth of drug pushers who prey on children and terrorize adults in order to take over a neighborhood in Roanoke. I’m not so sure about anyone who siphons off tens of thousands of dollars for their own use and who deplete the coffers of local charities. And these are the little guys in the halls of human wrongdoers. Their deeds are no match for what we saw on September 11 and what we’ve worried over in the days that followed. Where did we get this overly idealistic view of human nature? How can we justify it in the face of a human history filled with horrors?

As Unitarian Universalists, we’d like to claim that this idea has is roots in the teachings of one of our saints, William Ellery Channing who claimed that every person has carries within a "divine presence" or, as he later came to call it, "a divine seed." But this is an overstatement, rather like the young Sunday school scholar who, when asked "What did you learn about today sweetie?" reported that the Unitarian, Joseph Priestly, was the inventor of oxygen!

The truth is that this idea can be traced back to the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers. Epictetus wrote that human beings have a touch of the Divine within and asked why we are so blind to our own nature. But it was Channing who brought this idea into the pubic consciousness of New England in the early 1800s and who used this idea of human worth as a one of the defining differences between the precepts of Unitarianism and the doctrines Calvinism.

Perhaps you’ve read the famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by the Puritan preacher, Jonathan Edwards. This sermon offers a wonderful snapshot of the Calvinist doctrines concerning the nature of humanity and our relationship with God. The main point of this sermon is that all human beings were inherently and utterly depraved and that God is ready to plunge us into the terrors of hell at any moment. Channing found most of Calvinism to be reprehensible and at a fairly young age he rejected the church of his birth. In the early to mid 1800s Channing was at the forefront of Unitarian theology. In his sermon titled "Likeness to God," he states without hesitation that every individual has the "likeness of God, as part of their" higher or spiritual nature." This "divine likeness" has its "foundation in the original and essential capacities of the mind." For Channing, one of these essential capacities was the God-given gift of reason. In this early sermon, Channing uses a somewhat Platonic approach when he claims that it is this "likeness of God" which allows us to know something of the attributes and perfections of God. Our best purpose, then, is to "conform ourselves to God’s perfection," using Jesus (among other worthy men) as our best example. Ordinary circumstances and daily life provide all the opportunities we need to move toward perfection, and as we strive toward the goal, others, "even the convict in prison," would be touched by our examples.

Sermons were published and distributed to the masses in those days and this notion that humans possessed an indwelling likeness to God was quickly taken up by the public Most mainline ministers of the time called this "Likeness to God" ideal nothing more than another Unitarian heresy. For his part, Channing realized he had a transforming, even salvific (after salvation) idea and over the next ten years he honed and refined his thoughts. A decade later, he gave one of his most famous lectures called "Self Culture." In this lecture, Channing makes a claim that is even more radical than his notion of a "Likeness to God." Now he states quite boldly that human nature is "the image of God, the image even of his infinity, for no limits can be set to its unfolding." And if that wasn’t sufficient to get the attention of all New England, Channing went on to say that this "divine image" was no respecter of class or circumstance. Everyone had the right, even the duty to seek self-improvement and the greatest accomplishments of humanity might come from the lowest classes whose lives were invisible, but whose efforts were heroic, given their circumstances.

As you might guess, Channing was again criticized for his heretical views and for encouraging people to be focused on their own development and needs. He answered this by encouraging his congregation to attend to the culture of their own character. But self-improvement was only a preparation for a greater good. Once individuals had nurtured their own divine seeds, they had a duty to reach out to those who were less fortunate; to become involved in efforts to reform society so that the laboring classes, poor children, and even the prisoner and the insane were given opportunities for self-culture. For they too were given a divine seed, they too had potential for greater understanding, greater deeds, and more fulfilling lives. Some of the greatest American reformers came from Channing’s congregation

I won’t go into the process of evolution that took the concept of "divine seed" to the more secular wording of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person" even thought I think that examining that development would give us some valuable insights into the development of Unitarianism and American culture. That isn’t my purpose. Today, I want us to face some of the uncomfortable realities of what it means for us to make this faith statement about ourselves as well as the rest of the world’s human population.

I know that we tend to avoid discussions of personal belief in this congregation, but I’m curious to know how many of you have wondered about the truthfulness of this claim as you’ve pondered the events and threats of the past few weeks? How many of you have changed your minds about this piece of UU doctrine?

A system of beliefs and faith statements that doesn’t get shaken up by life now and again is either poorly defined or sadly neglected. I don’t agree with those who take joy in the distress and questions of those who believe in God’s presence or God’s agency in the world. I know that having your root assumptions and embedded theology challenged now and again is healthy. At least, that’s what I’m telling myself as I examine the bricks and mortar of my unsystematic theology. So let me share a few thought with you in the hope that you will find them helpful in your own attempts to come to an answer for yourself.

One of my problems I have with the claim for the inherent worth and dignity of every person is that it seems incomplete. The statement not only doesn’t address the reality of human evil or even ordinary wrongdoing, it makes it hard for us to look at the total sum of our common humanity. We have a dangerous tendency to avoid the violent, selfish, and even brutal aspects of human behavior. We like to say that we don’t believe in guilt. If anything is a "sin" for us, it’s being judgmental toward another person. In recent years, we’ve come up with a clever way to avoid discussing the less lovely aspects of human behavior, and that is to reject most of the vocabulary traditionally associated with human failing. We talk about worth and dignity, about tolerance, acceptance of one another, compassion in human relations. That’s all well and good but it’s also insufficient.

These days we’re all achingly aware that there is more that worth and dignity that is inherent in human nature. Jung called this aspect of our human nature our shadow, and he taught that until we recognize and really know our shadow, we cannot be complete and healthy beings. So it seems to me that if we are to have a truthful understanding of human nature, we UUs have to figure out where this undeniable side of human nature fits into our claim that every person has inherent worth and dignity. What then is our response to someone who clearly believes that his victims have no worth or dignity and should be exterminated? How do we deal with someone who sees other people as objects to be manipulated for her own ends with no regard to the welfare of the person being used? If we stand by the claim that every person has inherent worth and dignity are we then obliged to be accepting and compassionate toward them? Regardless of their behavior?

You might think that this is an abstraction or just a foolish exaggeration to make a point, but these are serious questions for members of your Board. In a couple of meetings we really struggled with our values and convictions as we have talked about new personnel policies or the change in our by-laws recommended by the Welcoming Congregation committee which included the phrase, "Welcoming all." In this last instance, we wrestled with how we might respond if a person who was known to be a sexual predator came into the congregation. Some of us feel strongly that there needs to be a place where such a person is accepted and can have the possibility of compassionate acceptance. Some of us feel that the protection of the community is paramount and that boundaries and consequences would be appropriate in such an instance. Our discussion was bounded by our shared conviction that our first principal, the inherent worth and dignity of every person, was an important element as we went back and forth for almost a half hour. I’d add that we weren’t able to come to a firm conclusion, so we’ll have the chance to revisit these issued in the coming months.

Let’s move from the local to the global. We are all witnesses to the horrors of violence that was carried out in New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, and now in Afghanistan. Our government has labeled those who planned, funded, and carried out the attacks as "The evil ones." I have no doubt that an equally damning label has been applied to the Western allies by those who are in sympathy with the other side. I’ve also heard voices of restraint and even forgiveness, reminding us that even these terrorists are "children of God" or "human beings of inherent worth and dignity." Anyone who dares to speak these soft words is dismissed as a foolish pacifist dreamer. Some advocates of peace have even been condemned as traitors. I suspect that a "soft" attitude toward those who perpetrated such death and destruction offends our very human inclination to survive by striking back at those who have attacked us. We also seem to have a psychological need to create enemies so that we can justify the horrors of our own violent responses. As Sam Keene says in his book Faces of the Enemy, "We human beings are Homo hostilis, the hostile species. We are especially driven to create enemies when we don’t want to face realities about ourselves." For myself, I literally shivered as I listened to our President tell the Taliban leaders to "cough up" anyone associated with the attacks, with the offer that "we might re-consider what we’re doing to your country." The tone of his voice seemed almost gloating, as if he were proud of the destruction and terror that we are now perpetrating on Afghanistan. And if President Bush does indeed feel proud of the destruction that we’re now causing, what does this say about his inherent worth and dignity? It is possible to engage in acts of violence and not lose your worth and dignity?

There are those who would say that neither good action nor bad action affects the claim to inherent worth and dignity, that all humans, that all creation can claim inherent worth and dignity. This idea that our worth and dignity can’t be diminished by our own actions strikes me as false and dangerous. I believe that our actions have consequences for our own selves as well as for the people around us. If I’m mean, insensitive to others, arrogant, and unforgiving, these attitudes and the actions that follow will surely affect my character. I can’t imagine that a human could be dishonest, self-serving, abusive, and violent without serious damage to their inner being. It’s also useful to remember our Principles and Purposes call us to "affirm and promote" the inherent worth and dignity of every person. These words call us to action; they don’t describe a state of being. For me, this makes all the difference,

If we understand our first principal as a call to work toward an ideal rather than a dogmatic statement about our essential human nature, then this claim becomes a source of inspiration and hope. It speaks to a potential that must be nurtured if it is to come into being. It also serves as a warning that if we fail to promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person, including our own selves, then we are breaking our covenant with one another and our relationships within the covenanted community will suffer for our failure.

This approach might even lead us to develop a UU notion of hermatia or missing the mark which is one way of thinking about that old bugaboo word, "sin." If we are unaware of the potential of our own worth and dignity and do nothing to affirm and promote it, then we have missed the mark. Channing warns that if we allow we allow our appetites and passions to overpower us, or if we fall into habitual moral evil, we risk destroying the divine seed that dwells within. From this perspective, we must take the work of self-cultivation seriously so that we can actualize the potential within ourselves and develop the understanding and skills to encourage others as they discover and nurture their own inherent worth and dignity.

Once again, as I move from the local to the global, from the individual self to the interconnected web of humanity and all life, the costs of our own violent response to the terrorist attacks become clearer. I can’t take pride or comfort in our acts of violent retribution, in the destruction of a nation that has endured years of suffering due to human and natural causes. I don’t have an answer for the current horrors that afflict our world and I sometimes get lost in the helplessness that I feel as the daily news reports bring us new accounts of death and destruction. I can continue to urge our leaders to seek the root causes for violence and to look for ways to create effective ways to nurture justice and peace. I can look at my own life and consider that I too am a part of this larger system of politics and economics, that my own hands are not entirely clean. This can lead me to examine changes that I can make that impact the larger world as well as my own small community.

I can begin by learning to recognize the sources of hurtful actions and words in myself. Effective self-culture must always include honest and deep self-understanding. I can take comfort in the faith that I can grow and change by nurturing the divine inner seed, the inherent worth and dignity within, by seeking more wisdom, more truth, more love. I can turn to other lives as examples of wisdom, truth, and love. And I am not alone in this effort to affirm and promote my worth and dignity. I know that all of us are engaged in the work of growth and inner development. As a member of a community covenanted to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I would say that this work of encouraging, guiding, and at times sharing hurts and concerns with one another is an important aspect of our beloved community as long as the motive is to nurture the worth and dignity of the other and not to retaliate or injure someone who may have caused us pain. If we take our covenant seriously, we have a wonderful opportunity to enrich our lives and to strengthen our higher or spiritual nature. I recall the words of the prayer we use during our Flower Communion ritual each year:

"Let us renew our resolution sincerely to be real brothers and sisters, regardless of any kind of bar which estranges one from the other. In this holy resolution, may we be strengthened, knowing that we are God’s children, that one spirit, the spirit of love, unites us."

May it be so!

UUC Home Page

Reverend BrownlieHome Page