A Universal Challenge

A sermon delivered by The Rev. Kathy Schmitz on January 13, 2008

At Pathways Church, A Unitarian Universalist Community in Southlake, Texas

There never was in the world two opinions alike,

no more than two hairs or two grains.

The most universal quality is diversity.

- Michel de Montaigne (French Renaissance writer)

Reading before the sermon:   Hide-and-Seek with God

                                                from Hide-and-Seek with God by Mary Ann Moore

While traveling in India a couple of years ago, I found myself, one day, on a long train ride, sitting with 3 men.  Two were high tech professionals and looked enough alike to be brothers.  The other was a policeman.  All 3 were traveling for business.  We had the usual type of conversation I had when I traveled by train.  They asked me where I had been in India and about my impressions.  Then they asked about things in the US.  One question, in particular, stayed with me.

The policeman, who was substantially lighter skinned than the other 2 men, asked “Well, in America, can you tell a lot about another person the way we can?  We can tell from the way we look and dress and act and our names, all kinds of things about each other:  Where we are from, and our caste, and other things.”  I was a little taken back that they could tell so much.  But when he looked to the other two men, they readily agreed.  I said that I could sometimes tell where someone in the US was from by their accent.  But not really that much else.  They found this interesting.  By the way, I could tell very little about the people in India by just looking.  I don’t know how long one would have to be there to start understanding such things.

Shortly after I arrived back in the States, I had an experience that caused me to re-think the answer I had given on the train.  Charlie and I were taking advantage of an opportunity to visit another Unitarian Universalist congregation.  It was Sunday morning and as we entered we were greeted by the people at the welcome table and I identified myself as a UU minister.  After a few moments of chit chat, the woman we were speaking with said, “I thought you might be mystery worshippers.”  “What?” I asked. She explained.  Mystery worshippers are UUs trained to go to visit a congregation in order to give feedback on how the congregation does at greeting guests.  This happens only at the request of the congregation’s worship or membership committee.  That was interesting in itself.  But what was really interesting was when she explained why she thought we might be mystery worshippers.  “Well,” she said, “I could tell you were one of us.  But I didn’t recognize you.  So that seemed like a logical explanation.”

I could tell you were one of us.  Just by looking.  She could tell.

The weird thing was -- I knew what she meant.  But I’m not sure I can exactly explain it.  But I think in part it had to do with us fitting the dominant demographic for UUs – by which I mean white and middle aged.  And I suspect it had something to do with our clothes, which I would say were nice but not formal, maybe a bit earthy.  Certainly not a required attire but, if I am honest, the look I was looking for when I got dressed that morning.

My mind flashed back to the conversation on the train.

I think we know, or rather assume, a lot about people, based on their looks.  However, I don’t think we usually talk about it, or admit it, even to ourselves.

That we telegraph information about ourselves and read others is not necessarily good or bad. 

The problem comes when, on the basis of our superficial read on people, or our assumptions, we decide whether or not someone is “one of us.”

After all, we belong to a religious movement with the rather bold name “Unitarian Universalist.” One and universal.   How is it that we might define someone as not one of us?

Before their merger in 1961 Unitarianism and Universalism were 2 different religious movements.  Each with its own gifts and challenges when it came to questions of inclusion.

A late 19th century challenge to our Universalist forbearers was this: "You Universalists have squatted on the biggest word in the English language.  Now the world is beginning to want that big word, and you Universalists must either improve the property or move off the premises!”

This was the challenge that came to my mind last week, as I sat in on the Welcoming Congregation workshop.  Overall, the Welcoming Congregation workshops focuses on a variety of topics that can help congregations provide a safe and welcoming environment for people of all sexual orientations.  The topic last week focused on "The Common Elements of Oppression."   Those present discussed the many ways that dominant groups of all kinds oppress marginalized groups.

As I listened to the very interesting discussion, my mind kept wandering to questions about how these same mechanisms of power might be at play in our religious organizations.  Particularly, I wondered about how those already in a religious organization might inadvertently use the power of their positions to discourage participation by others who might find meaning within the group as well.

I wondered about how we know “who is one of us.”  Or maybe even, “who we will allow to be one of us.”

I wondered about that 19^th century challenge and how we are doing with it today.  Could someone repeat that challenge today?

"You Universalists have squatted on the biggest word in the English language.  Now the world is beginning to want that big word, and you Universalists must either improve the property or move off the premises!”

As we discussed the various mechanisms by which people are systemically excluded I found myself particularly interested in a mechanism called “Lack of Prior Claim.”

In her article, “'The Common Elements of Oppression," Suzanne Pharr explains “Lack of Prior Claim.”  She writes:

At its simplest, this means that if you weren’t there when the original document (the Constitution, for instance) was written or when the organization was first created, then you have no right to inclusion. Since those who wrote the Constitution were white male property owners who did not believe in the complete humanity of either women or blacks, then these two groups have had to battle for inclusion.

If women and people of color were not in business (because of the social and cultural restrictions on them) when the first male business organizations were formed, then they now have to fight for inclusion. The curious thing about lack of prior claim is that it is simply the circumstances of the moment that put the original people there in every case, yet when those who were initially excluded begin asking for or demanding inclusion, they are seen as disruptive people, as trouble-makers, as no doubt anti-American. We still recall the verbal and physical violence against women who participated in the Suffrage Movement and the black men and women who formed the Civil Rights Movement. For simply asking for one’s due, one was vilified and abused. This is an effective technique, making those struggling for their rights the ones in the wrong. Popular movements are invalidated and minimized, their participants cast as enemies of the people, and social change is obstructed by those holding power who cast themselves as defenders of tradition and order.

Blacks who wanted to vote were considered trouble makers.  They were seen by whites has having no prior claim to that right.

So much for “all men are created equal.”  That’s not what they really meant.

Women who wanted to vote were considered trouble makers.  They were seen by men as having no prior claim to that right.

So much for establishing justice for all the people of the new United States.  Really, women voting was not what they had in mind.

Today, those who would deny the blessings of full marriage equality to same-sex couples, also invoke the no prior claim argument.  It is, they claim, not what was intended.

And yet, increasingly our society recognizes that justice demands that all committed and loving couples, and their children, be afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities.

Exclusion in the past is not, cannot be, of itself, a valid argument, for exclusion in the present or the future.

But human institutional life has a tendency to inertia.

Once established we are not quick to expand our circles of inclusion.

This is not a new problem.

The early Christian Church struggled with the questions of who was in and who was out based on history.

The early Church had to determine its relationship to Judaism.  An understanding of Jesus as Messiah was seen as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.  So the question, arose, did one have to be Jewish to be Christian.  If Christ was a savior as defined by Jewish tradition, did you have to be a Jew first to have a claim on this salvation?

As Christianity spread among non-Jewish peoples this was no small issue.   After all, to be a Jew a man needed to be circumcised.  Not really a recruit plus for a growing religious movement.  In the end it was decided that men did not have to be circumcised.  In fact, no human act was required for salvation, only faith.  While Christianity would retain its claim to Jewish history, it would be determined that the Gospel was intended to be shared well beyond the Jewish community.

Fast forward 1700 years.

The Christian Church has been many through many theological debates – many of which created splits in the church.  Many of which decided who was in and who was out.  There is Eastern Church and the Roman church.  Then the Protestants spun off.  Out of these many debates, disagreement about salvation would eventually produce our spiritual ancestors the Universalists.

Universalism emerged in this country at a time when Calvinism was the dominant theology of the day.  This dominant theology taught that, before birth, God had already decided who would and would not be saved.  Most people would not.

Universalists took exception to this view of God.  They conceived of a god who would bring all people to salvation.  For this doctrine of universal salvation, they were called the Universalist.  Their god was a loving god.  Salvation was for everyone.  There was no one who would be excluded because of a lack of a prior claim.

Over the years, the Universalists inclusive view of salvation would compel them to an inclusive view of human society.  Their growth in many ways parallels the development of the United States of America.  As this experiment in democracy emerged, it is no wonder that a religious impulse to democracy and inclusion would also emerge.  Universalists would find themselves active in movements to end slavery and establish voting rights for black men and for all women.  Their voices would be heard in a variety of social and justice movements including the reform of prisons, capital punishment, and the care of the mental ill.  They took an interest in education, the poor, and issues of war and peace.  The good news of universal salvation brought with it an impulse to more fully bring about justice on earth.

If we are going to call ourselves Universalist… would any less be required?

Now fast forward several hundred more years.

Universalism has, itself, had many theological debates.  It has had many twists and turns.  It has merged with Unitarianism to create a movement that brings forward important elements of both.

In parallel with these twists and turns, American society has changed and so has the world.

What it means to be inclusive has changed.  And Universalists, now as Unitarian Universalists, must once again ask themselves… If we are going to call ourselves Universalist… what is required?

Unitarian Universalism has been at the forefront of the struggle for full marriage equality.

Yet, still we have challenges.

Who do we mean when we say “we?”  Who do we recognize as “one of us?”

Our questions continue to be both social and theological.  Last week’s conversation about the “Common Elements of Oppression” helped us think about issues of inclusion from a social perspective.  But what of the theological perspective?

Once upon a time, people wondered whether to be a Christian one had to first be a Jew.

Now, in our tradition, one might ask whether to be a Unitarian Universalist, one has first to be Christian.  What, the debate asks, is the relationship of contemporary UUism to its Christian roots?

Some people remind us of the spiritual roots of our tradition and would hold Christianity as an important and influential part of our continuing movement.

Others look more to the reforming impulse that has been a part of our movement’s history.  They ask: what does it mean to be more inclusive in the twenty first century?

In the limited world view afforded by life in the 1700’s, being a liberal Christian would have been very open-minded indeed.  Now, in the dawning 21^st century, our access to the wisdom found around the world, as well as our increasing view of ourselves as part of a global neighborhood, compels us to an ever broader understanding of what it means to be open-minded.

I think that this is a question which will continue to engage our movement for years to come:  how do we understand the Christian roots of our movement now that it is no longer exclusively Christian?

I think that we can use our learning from our deepening understanding of oppression.  When we consider who we include among us: we need to ask what standards we have set up.

We need to ask if some of us are exercising an imagined prior claim.

I suggest that we heed the challenge given to the Universalists of the 1800’s.

"You Universalists have squatted on the biggest word in the English language.  Now the world is beginning to want that big word, and you Universalists must either improve the property or move off the premises!”

We need to be Universalists.

We need to be sure that this religious tradition which we love and in which so many of us have found truth and meaning is universally available.

We cannot assert a prior claim.

And so while we can draw on the history of this movement for important lessons, it is equally important to remember that at anytime our doors need to be open to those who do not share that history.

Today, people come to Unitarian Universalism from Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism, Atheism, Buddhism, Humanism, Islam and more.

Christianity can no longer be assumed to be a shared heritage among us.

Even among those who have Christian roots, an ancestry dating back to the puritan or pilgrims or the protestant reformation cannot be assumed.

So while we can talk about the history of our tradition, we can avoid referring to it as our history.  We need to remember that many among us bring their own unique religious history.

For we have traveled many paths to arrive at this point… and yet… the claim on its gifts are universal.  They are to be shared by all.

Yes, as Unitarian Universalist, in the year 2008, we have travelled many paths to get here.  And here, in this congregation specifically, you make still another claim with which you can challenge yourselves.

This is Pathways Church, a congregation that honors many paths in its mission to change lives.

There are many paths to your door.  Many paths forward to truth and meaning. 

Many paths to honor in this time and place.

May you live up to your name.

As this congregation moves into the future, may you rise well to the challenge of making room for all those who would share with you in the exciting journey we call life.

Please join me in a moment of silence.

(silence)

I invite you now, if you will, to join me in a spirit of prayer and meditation.

Spirit of Life, Power of Love,

Give us Universal Hearts:

Hearts wide open.  Hearts full of courage.

Unlock our appreciation of the abundance that surrounds us.

Deepen our understanding of gifts we have yet to share.

Open our eyes to faces of our sisters and brothers who need us.

Open our ears to their voices as they call out to us.

Spirit of Life, Power of Love,

Give us Universal Hearts:

Hearts wide open.  Hearts full of courage.

Make this community a place of welcome.

Make our lives an example of what is possible.

In our homes, our schools, our jobs, and in our communities

Let us be an example of hospitality…

            The hospitality that says that all are welcome    

                        That says that all are included

                                    That says that no one is turned away.

Let us be together in shared silence.

(silence)

Spirit of Life, Power of Love,

Give us Universal Hearts

Transform our lives.

Make us whole.

Amen and Blessed Be!