I had been asked to preach at our General Assembly in Phoenix last June on the theme "Building Interfaith Cooperation." The venue was St. Mary's Roman Catholic Basilica, the oldest church in the city. That would be a challenge, for while I have visited many Catholic churches, I had never preached in one.
My topic was tolerance and respect in a religiously pluralistic world. My basic thesis was that our religious humility as Unitarian Universalists required us to transcend tolerance - which can smack of condescension. Respect, on the other hand, is the realization that there are many valid paths to truth about which we should know.
The day before the service, I met with a member of the Planning Committee responsible for the event and the Franciscan priest who administers St. Marys. A tall, smiling and gentle man, he was totally cooperative in accommodating our needs. In front of the altar with its towering crucifix we placed a flaming chalice. The good father would be there to greet us, then had to leave and would miss the rest of the service.
All was well until about an hour before the service I suddenly had a terrible thought. The words of one hymn - selected months before - coursed through my brain: "Faith of the Larger Liberty, written in 1944." I silently mouthed the words of the second stanza: "Heroes of faith in every age, far seeing, self denying, wrought an increasing heritage, monarch and PRIEST defying." Priest defying? Oh, no! That was clearly not in the spirit of interfaith understanding. How could I have picked that particular hymn?
I had to DO something. I thought of the consequences if I did not. (1) the kindly Father might read the words and bar the doors; my reputation would be ruined and Unitarian Universalist-Roman Catholic relations would be set back a century; (2) I could simply announce the hymn, inviting the congregation to sing the first and third verses, hoping no one would read the offending stanza; or (3) I could take a magic marker and cross out the second verse on a thousand or so programs.
None of these alternatives really appealing to me, I called the service coordinator to ask his advice. He appreciated my dilemma, picked up a copy of the program which he had in his room, and started reading as I braced for his reaction. "Monarch and CREED defying."
The old words were in my memory bank, but the hymnal commission, in its wisdom, had changed them. Better to defy a creed than a priest. I said a hasty but heartfelt prayer for the Commission, and eagerly made my way to St. Mary's.
It was a heartwarming sight - people were crowding into the sanctuary long before the 7 o'clock Prelude. They kept coming - crowding into the pews - these heretics from many religious backgrounds. The good Father opened up the "crying room" for the overflow - and the balcony and every other available space. They were sitting on the floor in the aisles. I am told there were 1200 in a sanctuary that officially held 800. Fortunately the church was air-conditioned - after all, it was Phoenix.
At first flattered, I began to realize this was the only event on the G.A. schedule at 7:00 p.m. that day. That, and the fascination of worshipping in a Catholic church consecrated by the Pope himself, was apparently irresistible. The organ boomed out the hymns and the singing swelled upward into the gothic ceiling. It was tumultuous! They laughed at all the right times - a ripple become roar - and they seemed to enjoy the experience. I understand there were a few members of St. Mary's Church there - I wonder what they thought of us. What a moment!
And what did I learn from that moment? How hazardous interfaith cooperation really is. Despite the fact I had six months' warning that I would preach in such a setting, I had nearly chosen words that would have been inappropriate. I vividly remembered two events in which I had been embarrassed by such interfaith insensitivity. At the dedication of a Cleveland area Unitarian Universalist church in the early 1960's, and in a Roman Catholic church in the 1970's, I had heard two prominent denominational preachers, with rabbis, ministers and priests present, essentially insult our fellow religionists with a kind of liberal religious dogmatism. They were not subtle. I had vowed I would not repeat their embarrassing mistakes. And yet, how close I had come.
It has been said that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of Unitarian Universalism. While we are remarkably close to Jews in theology - rejecting the Trinity and Jesus as Messiah - we often stand in opposition to Roman Catholics. Partly, of course, it is our intractable differences over contraception and abortion. More importantly, our differences have to do with the role of the Pope as spiritual and moral authority. For us, the individual in community has that responsibility and that authority.
In recent years, however, I have come to have a much more appreciative attitude toward Roman Catholicism. For example, I believe the Catholic bishops often are more prophetic and more effective on social issues like welfare reform and poverty than we. Their statement on economic justice could never pass muster in our churches, not only because it is a bit too radical for many of us, but also because many among us would run from such consensus with all deliberate speed.
Personally, I find myself working happily with Catholics on virtually every social issue except the afore-mentioned family planning, public aid to parochial schools and end of life issues like doctor aid in dying. However, New York State Interfaith Impact, which I chair, has chosen not to affiliate with the Interfaith Alliance - a group critiquing the Christian Coalition and like groups - because the Alliance, which includes Catholics, cannot deal with those issues. Yet we work closely together on issues of economic justice. Interfaith dialogue is a wondrously complicated and subtle thing.
And then there was the article in the July 10 issue of the Jewish Ledger, the voice of Judaism in our community. The headline: "The Latest Rage for Unitarians - Sukkot, Seders."
Citing an article in The Burning Bush, newsletter of Unitarian Universalists for Jewish Awareness, the question was raised about the validity of our celebrating Jewish festivals. We, for example, celebrate the Days of Awe, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and have an annual Passover Seder. According to the article, this phenomenon "illustrates two factors in American religion: its increasing eclecticism and its search for a useable past. 'American religion has returned to rituals,' said one Jewish historian, 'These folks are searching for nice rituals...and Judaism is full of rituals.'"
The term "nice rituals" calls into question our seriousness. The article indicated that this trend was not as disturbing as Messianic Christian sects which openly proselytize Jews. "The Unitarians think that they're trying to make life more comfortable for their Jewish members....The Unitarians are not missionizing, but down the road, the impact is the same," said one rabbi, "because in both cases we lose Jews."
What we are trying to do, it seems to me, is not only to make the 8-9% of Unitarian Universalists who were born Jews more comfortable, but also to learn about the practices of the temple across the street.
From time to time we note the holy days of other faiths as well - Hinduism with its Feast of Lights - Diwali - which occurs at the end of this month, Native American rituals and special events like the Kalachakra of the Tibetan Buddhists at the Memorial Art Gallery last spring.
Have we a right to do this? Legally, of course! But morally, spiritually? I think we do, provided we do not pretend that we are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists, but Unitarian Universalists who are so radically open to other faith traditions we wish to learn about them experientially, rather than merely academically.
This is a pluralistic nation - no one faith has religious hegemony. Theoretically, we are all on an even playing field, sometimes competing for adherents, sometimes cooperating for the common good - sometimes both. One hopes we are not like Mark Twain's religious menagerie in self-destruction.
We do face dangers in this interfaith dialogue, of course. There is the danger of intentionally or unintentionally putting down another faith. I have been criticized a number of times of doing just that from this pulpit. As a Unitarian Universalist I am a heretic - a heretic being one who chooses. My own faith is derivative of Judaism and Christianity. I choose to reject certain creeds, dogmas and practices of both to fashion a faith for myself that incorporates some of their noblest moral and spiritual teachings.
Because we emerged from and have strong ties to these traditions, it is almost inevitable that we make occasional negative comparisons "you have heard it said, but I say unto you." We are like the child who differentiates him or her self from parents, differing with them, but loving them all the same.
I recently received a letter from a colleague disturbed by one of my sermons he had read. I had written that "we do not need the Christian promise of immortality to give meaning to our lives," and "Our mission is not to become holy and go to heaven." He believed these statements diminished both Christianity and those who consider themselves Unitarian Universalist Christians. Surely I had not intended this comparison to put Christians down; I had simply compared my own views with what I believe is normative Christianity, the dominant American faith. Since most of our members come from the Christian tradition, I felt such a comparison helpful. He didn't. Let the record indicate that I am a proud child of the Jewish and Christian traditions, but a frequently rebellious one.
We face yet another danger - a facile eclecticism in which we try to be a Christian on Sunday, a Jew on Monday, a Buddhist on Tuesday, a Hindu on Wednesday, a Taoist on Thursday, a Muslin on Friday and a Baha'i on Saturday.
I try to be a Unitarian Universalist with a laser-like focus - but one who takes his universalism so seriously that he appreciates and celebrates the wisdom found in all the great religious traditions of humanity. I am a Unitarian Universalist who sings Christmas carols, draws on the power of the Hebrew prophets, covets the zeal of the Muslim, does Zen meditation as a spiritual discipline, takes seriously the meditative calm of Taoism and the ethics of Confucianism, and seeks to be as compassionate as the Hindu doctrine of ahimsa - non-harm to all living things. A tall order - to ground myself in the Unitarian Universalist tradition of freedom with responsibility, and yet learn from all traditions. Like Walter Royal Jones I am a Unitarian Universalist - and proud of it.
Finally, I insist on the right to critique, not only my own, but other faiths as they take their position in the public arena. I make no bones about my fear of the Christian Coalition, the dangers of official Catholic doctrines on family planning, the fundamentalisms of all faiths with their incendiary rhetoric and even more dangerous fanatical behavior.
The test I would use in dealing with other faiths is one stated by Alan Jones, Dean of Grace Cathedral (Episcopal) in San Francisco: "My first ground rule...is, if you were in charge, would I be safe? What worries me about the Christian right is what would happen if they were in charge. My hunch is there wouldn't be room for a lot of people I know and love. So that is my first test of orthodoxy. If you are safe, then you can argue about all sorts of things, because there is a basic compassion and respect that binds us together, even though our doctrines may differ."
Our dilemma is neatly summed up in the story about the seventh and eighth grades of the First Parish (Unitarian) in Bedford, Massachusetts. They "visited the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston. What, they asked, did Christian Scientists believe about homosexuality, abortion and other social issues? When the UU students didn't like the answers, their reactions (for example, 'That's really dumb') were, in the words of...Bedford's religious education director, 'not as polite as we might have wished.....' What takes priority: one's social obligation as a guest or one's conscience?" Should we be proud of our kids for affirming values we have taught them about ethics or embarrassed they were not courteous? Ideally, of course, we should be able to disagree with others agreeably and be both courteous and faithful to our values. After all, courtesy is one of them.
At last June's General Assembly I heard world religions scholar Huston Smith. He playfully shared what he thought might be a Unitarian Universalist prayer: "Dear God, deliver us from intellectual arrogance - which for your information, means..............."
Later, he told of a visit to a friend who was a Zen Master. She had been working on a new mantra for some time. Smith was eager to find out, so he asked, "What was it?" She answered, "I could be wrong."
I could be wrong. You could be wrong. Anyone human could be wrong. But I would rather take the chance of being wrong with a Unitarian Universalist community of seekers than to be with anyone else. I hope you feel the same.
return to main page