Today we are going on a snipe hunt. Some of you may havehad this experience during your youth, because the snipe huntis a time-honored initiation rite. Toward the beginning of thecamping period, the counselors gather all of the first-time campersaround a bonfire at night. They explain that the activity forthe evening will consist of sending small groups of campers outinto the woods to search for the elusive, nocturnal creature knownas the snipe. The camp counselors take turns describing the appearanceand habits of this rare animal. Actual sightings of this creatureare rare, yet some of the counselors and even a few of the moreexperienced campers swear they have caught glimpses of it. Theiraccounts of its physical features differ widely, and sometimesseem to contradict one another. Is it brown or dark gray? Is itstail short or long? Is it furry or sleek? Timid or aggressive?Does it live underground or in trees? No one seems sure, but theyall agree that there are snipe out there in the dark woods. Armedonly with flashlights and burlap sacks for retrieving their quarry,the new campers are sent out into the night. As soon as they areout of earshot, the counselors and veteran campers burst intolaughter and wait for the confused and demoralized rookies toreturn empty-handed. (By the way, the fact that there really islong-billed bird called a snipe has almost nothing to do withthis ritual hunt.)
The Unitarian Universalist Association has its own uniqueritual for initiating candidates into the ministry. It is calledthe Ministerial Fellowship Committee-the MFC. The one-hour interviewwith the MFC is the final and most dreaded hurdle in becominga UU minister. When I appeared before the MFC in May 1996, 1 approachedthe interview with the same perverse self-confidence that hadcarried me through my Ph.D. oral exams at the University of Chicagoseveral years earlier. I said to myself, "If they don't approveme, they are making a big mistake!" But I also benefitedfrom some inside advice from a former member of the MFC, who toldme to prepare for the "elevator question." Suppose thatyou encounter a friendly stranger in an elevator on the firstfloor of a hotel where a UU conference is being held. Noticingthe affiliation on your name tag, he asks, "What do UnitarianUniversalists believe?" while he pushes the button for thefifth floor. In the time available, how would you answer thisquestion? What I share with you today originated as my responseto the "elevator question."
It seems to me that we are still searching for our identityas a movement. What does that search entail? The concept of identityis central to the work of Erik Erikson, who concluded thatindividual identity involved two overlapping processes: whoam I and what am I committed to. The first processinvolves integration: pulling the different strands ofone's history and the different and often competing roles eachof us plays into some sort of coherent whole. If a person is unableto achieve integration, the result is what Erikson calls identityconfusion. It is difficult to answer the second question,"What am I committed to?" without having first wrestledwith the question, "Who am I?" The combined internaland external pressure to resolve these two questions can producean identity crisis, a kind of paralysis that interfereswith moving ahead in life. I would like to use Erikson's ideasabout identity as a framework for understanding where UnitarianUniversalism is right now and where I think we need to go, whileat the same time acknowledging the limitations in applying histheory of individual development to a collective movement as diverseas ours.
One of the ways of resolving an identity crisis is to adoptwhat Erikson calls a negative identity, which says in effect,"I will define myself by opposition to some alternativeidentity." Our movement has a long history of defining itselfby opposition: the Unitarians by opposition to the Trinitarianview of God and the Universalists by opposition to the idea ofeternal damnation for unbelievers. Even today, there is no surerway to unite Unitarian Universalists than to target a common opponent,whether it be racists, sexists, gay-bashers, or the religiousright. If you comer most Unitarian Universalists, the odds arethey will be far more articulate about what they don'tbelieve than what they do believe. But an identity thatis only negative is not adequate. At the individuallevel, it is a shaky bridge over troubled waters. Knowing whatyou don't believe is not likely to sustain you throughthe crises and adversities none of us can avoid. At the collectivelevel, a negative identity will not support a sustained commitmentto the ongoing work of a congregation. A community of disbelieversis an oxymoron--a self-contradiction.
It seems to me that a positive identity for contemporaryUnitarian Universalism revolves around three core areas, whichI believe provide the foundation for our identity as a movement:(1) Regard for Nature (2) Respect for Differences, and (3) Reverencefor Life. At last, a new version of the three R's: regard,respect, and reverence. Of course, any one of these topicsis worthy of a sermon unto itself. Thus, one final word of caution:what follows is only a first step. If this were an artisticcreation (which it certainly is not!) this might be consideredan artist's first rough sketch. So, into the woods we go!
(1) Regard for Nature
Ever since the days of Emerson and Thoreau, Unitarians haveprofessed a profound appreciation for the natural world. Unlikethe deists, for whom nature was revered because it bore the imprintof the divine creator, contemporary natural. theology regardsnature as inherently sacred. The core metaphor is thatof the organism, which is continually changing through the processof evolution. Our relationship to the whole of nature and oursense of interconnectedness is based on both our common originand our common evolution, not necessarily on a divine plan imposedon nature by an external creator God. One of the most systematicand productive attempts to relate evolutionary science to theologicalissues is process philosophy. Process philosophy's emphasison the interconnection between events, between the whole and itsparts, is highly compatible with the UU principle concerning "respectfor the interdependent web of all existence of which we are apart." Because it views reality as constantly evolving, processphilosophy also stresses creativity and human responsibility.Each moment of experience represents a new and unique patternof interacting forces, and therefore calls for a novel response.In process philosophy, God is but one of the many factors influencinga particular situation. This feature should make it more attractiveto non-theistic Unitarian Universalists. Indeed, it is interestingto replace the word "God" in process theologians' writingswith the word "evolution." Thus, an alternative to thebiblical assertion that humanity occupies the center of all creationis the belief that we have co-evolved with the changingand very specific conditions of the tiny fraction of the universecalled Earth. We have arrived at our place in the cosmic schemenot through a divine plan hatched before the creation of the universe,but through the nearly infinite set of accidents and trial-and-errorexperiments we call evolution. With our enormous capabilitiesfor altering the very face of the earth, we are the co-creatorsof the future. This does not render us gods and goddesses.Rather, it makes us partners in evolution.
Process philosophy arises from a scientific understandingof nature. There are other approaches that draw from so-calledprimitive traditions-what might be called the mythical approachto nature. They remind us that being at home in the universe includesfeelings as well as facts. The current popularity of neo-pagan,Native American, and other earth-based traditions among UnitarianUniversalists illustrates the yearning for expressions of spiritualitythat are not limited to Western rational thinking. This is notthe time or place to plunge into the disagreements between thehumanists and paganists within our denomination. The revival ofinterest in ancient myths and legends serves as a counterbalanceto the sterility and repetitiousness of everyday life for so manyof our contemporaries. How appealing are stories about our relationshipto the forces of nature that are pre-scientific, even magical!Indeed, most of the celebrators of ancient myth and ritual doso in a playful spirit--a suspension of disbelief. However, one of the greatest dangers of the mythical approachis misappropriation, by which I mean the superficial acquisitionof a spiritual belief or practice without taking the time to learnabout the cultural context from which it emerged.
The scientific and mythical approaches to nature are notmutually exclusive, despite the claims of extremists on both sides.Even though they offer very different ways of discovering andvalidating our relationship with the natural world, both relyheavily on metaphor and analogy for describing it. Consider, forexample, the use of metaphors like "Big Bang" and "charmedquarks" in modem physics. Science and myth begin and endon common ground. As Albert Einstein once said, "The religionof the future will be a cosmic religion. Covering both the naturaland the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arisingfrom the experience of all things, as a meaningful unity."Whether it is expressed by a scientist or a mystic, that coreexperience continues to be one of mystery and wonder, a sentimentoften expressed by the world's greatest scientists.
(2)Respect for differences
The difference between the scientific and mythical viewsof nature is perhaps the best example of our struggle with theissue of pluralism. We want to be inclusive, but we alsowant to be cohesive. The danger we face as a movement, in Eriksonianterms, is identity diffusion, being so overwhelmed by alternativeidentities that we cannot choose among them. Our whole societyfaces this dilemma, as we are exposed to an ever-expanding varietyof worldviews. One of the most enlightening discussions of religiouspluralism I have found is in Diana Eck's book, EncounteringGod, published by Beacon Press. Eck argues that pluralismis more than just the "celebration" of diversity; itinvolves active engagement. Pluralism involves not just tolerance,but the seeking of mutual understanding. In a statement particularlyrelevant to Unitarian Universalists, she maintains that pluralismis not simply relativism, which "becomes a problem when itmeans the lack of commitment to any particular community or faith.If everything is more or less true, I do not give my heart toanything in particular. . . . The theological task, and the taskof a pluralist society, is to create the space and the means forthe encounter of commitments, not to neutralize all commitments."(p. 195) Pluralism is based not on syncretism, the search forthe "lowest common denominator" pieced together fromdifferent religious traditions, but rather on respect for thedifferences as well as similarities among them. Pluralism requiresdialogue. This is as applicable to the conflicts between humanistsand paganists within Unitarian Universalism as it is to the conflictsbetween Jews and Moslems in the Middle East. Diana Eck writes:
The truth seeking of the pluralist, however, can be builton no other foundation than the give-and-take of dialogue. Thereis something we must know--both about the other and about ourselves--thatcan be found in no other way. We do not enter into dialogue withthe dreamy hope that we will all agree, for the truth is we probablywill not. We do not enter into dialogue to produce an agreement,but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premisedupon mutual understanding, not upon agreement. (p. 197)
The spirit of dialogue with mutual respect was very muchin evidence during the discussion of the proposed name changeyesterday in Charlotte. Opponents listened and responded respectfullyto one another. After the final vote was announced, there wereno cheers, no high-fives, and no walk-outs. After a period ofquiet meditation, we stood, joined hands, and sang "Spiritof Life" in unison. The quiet sense of pride and comfortin being a Unitarian Universalist brought tears to many of oureyes. We had neither ignored nor abolished our differences. Wehad simply transcended them. Even though we did not sharea common opinion, we shared a common identity.
The discussion of pluralism leads me to the third and finaltheme: Reverence for Life, which addresses the ethicalcomponent of our identity. Unitarian Universalism has a long traditionof translating words into deeds. How might the foregoing discussionof process philosophy and religious pluralism be applied in therealm of social justice? Frederic John Muir, minister of the AnnapolisUU Church, tackles this question in his book, A Reason forHope. Muir's goal is to develop a Unitarian Universalistversion of liberation theology. Liberation theology originatedin the poor Roman Catholic parishes of Latin America. Its mainideas have also been applied to other historically oppressed groups,including people of color, women, and religiously persecuted groupsaround the world. One of its most important themes is "thepreferential option for the poor," which means, within aChristian context, that God identifies with and therefore "prefers"the poor and oppressed people of the world. According to liberationtheology, God's choice to become incarnate in Jesus, an unprivilegedmember of an oppressed ethnic group, the Jews, is evidence ofthis preference. Of course, many UU's object strenuously to aconceptualization of God as a personal being who "take sides"in human history. Muir and others argue that the concept of reverencefor life, rather than a personalized external deity, providesthe foundation for a Unitarian Universalist theology of liberation.Such a social ethic is human-centered (anthropocentric) and earth-centered(eco-centric) rather than God-centered (theocentric). It is basedon our respect for nature and our reverence for life. Where doesevil fit in this ethic? While evil continues as an active forcein human history, I view it primarily in terms of absence--theabsence of a capacity for empathy. People who are capable of intentionallyinflicting absence--the absence of a capacity for empathy.People who are capable of intentionally inflicting suffering onothers are incapable of compassion for their victims. The homicidalsociopaths roaming our streets and highways are filled with angerunchecked by any reverence for life itself.
The Unitarian Universalist identity I have outlined herechallenges some of the sacred cows of our own tradition. The complementaritybetween the scientific and mythical views of nature challengesour over-reliance on rationality as a tool for understanding andexpressing our relationship to nature. The emphasis on pluralisticdialogue between opposed viewpoints is aimed at relationshipbuilding rather than the kind of argumentation so dear tosome UU's. And finally, social action is based not on a patronizing"do-gooder" attitude but on the long-term survivalof our home the earth.
Meanwhile, back at the youth camp, the snipe hunters havereturned to the campfire. Their bags are empty, but they are fullof stories about near-encounters with their elusive quarry. Witheyes gleaming, they tell of strange and sometimes frighteningencounters in the night--with animals, with the darkness, andwith other snipe hunters. In the glow of the dying campfire, theirstories evoke the knowing glances of their more experienced companions.A new generation of snipe hunters has been welcomed into the circle.
CLOSING WORDS
The blessing of truth be upon us,
the power of love direct us and sustain us,
and may the peace of this community preserve our doing out andour coming in, from this time forward, until we meet again. [Amen]
- Duke T. Gray
[Revised version of "In Search of a UU Theology"] TJMC 4/27/97
New River/Blacksburg 8110/97
(1) From Kenneth W. Collier, Our Seven Principles in Storyand Verse [pp. 1-21
1 have been a Unitarian Universalist for more than fifteenyears. Visitors and new members to my congregation often ask,"What do Unitarian Universalists believe?" , . . Alltoo often I hear [the reply], "Well, I don't know what Ido believe, but I certainly do not believe . . ."--youcan fill in the blank with your favorite non-belief. We thinkit is enough to be negative without ever being positive. Not onlyis this a terrible way to define or even characterize something,but, far worse, it is an incredibly effective way of being stuckin rejection and denial and preventing spiritual growth. If itis true that we do not stand for anything or ... that we can believeanything we want, Unitarian Universalists would be just anotherbunch of confused people milling around without center or edgesor substance. And if we can do no better than tell people whatwe do not believe, then none of us would discover the beauty andintegrity of who we are.
(2) From Albert Einstein
In one of his letters, Einstein wrote, "I am a deeplyreligious unbeliever." Elsewhere he wrote, "As to whatI believe in, I believe in the brotherhood of men [sic] and theuniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove whatI believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you would spenda whole life time without being able to prove them. The mind canproceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comesa point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, butcan never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involvedsuch a leap. ... The important thing is not to stop questioning.Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help butbe in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, oflife, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if onetries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.Never lose a holy curiosity."
[quoted in Raymond J. Baughan, If TheShoe Fits, pp.39-401
(3) "We Gather in Reverence" by Sophia Lyon Fahs
We gather in reverence before the wonder of life--
The wonder of this moment
The wonder of being together, so close yet so far apart--
Each hidden in our own secret chamber,
Each listening, each trying to speak--
Yet none fully understanding, none fully understood.
We gather in reverence before all intangible things--
That eyes see not, nor ears can detect--
That hands can never touch,
That space cannot hold,
And time cannot measure.
After earning a Ph.D. in Psychologyof Religion at the University of Chicago, Reverend Piper spent nearly25 years as a college professor and administrator. In 1996 hecompleted the transition to the UU ministry. He is currently full-timeextension minister at the UU Fellowship of Waynesboro, VA.