Why Are We Here - as a Community of Faith?
Sermon by Steve Edington
February 20, 2005
One of my hobbies, if that's the right term, is keeping an eye out for cultural markers. A cultural marker is an event, happening, piece of writing, etc. that offers some clue as to our prevailing cultural climate. Such markers are not as telling as scientifically conducted surveys; they are more like straws in the wind that may offer an indicator as to which way the wind is blowing. One such straw I've watched blow by recently has to do with a gentleman who has become a target for various pundits and spokespersons of the religious, political and cultural right in country, as their latest liberal bad-guy. At first I thought I was hearing the name wrong because the gentleman under fire is Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood? The same Clint Eastwood whose vigilante police officer character, "Dirty Harry" Callahan, gave the more moderate minded types on the San Francisco Police Force fits? And whose line, "Go ahead, make my day" became President Reagan's mantra in his dealings with Congress? The same Clint Eastwood whom President Richard Nixon once appointed to the National Council on the Arts as a conservative counter-weight to the alleged liberals on that body? The same Clint Eastwood who, during the 1980s, was the Republican mayor of Carmel, California? This is a town where, if you're house shopping, and can find something going for a mere one million dollars, you're looking, at best, at a one bedroom condo. As a matter of fact, it is that Clint Eastwood.. He's recently been labeled a purveyor of "liberal propaganda" by Rush Limbaugh. And various other such self-appointed protectors of all that is supposedly right, good, and moral in our society have weighed in with similar kinds of denunciations. What did he do - marry Barbra Streisand? Well, no; what he's done is direct and co-star in a movie about a female boxer called "Million Dollar Baby."
Full disclosure: I have not seen this movie. I have read enough review and commentary about it, however, to at least get some sense of the alleged sins of Mr. Eastwood. The problem, as I gather, is not with the main plot in which Mr. Eastwood plays an aging, has-been boxing trainer who agrees to be the trainer for a young woman who sees a career in women's boxing as a way out of her impoverished upbringing, and her otherwise dead-end life.
It's a subplot in "Million Dollar Baby" that seems to be kicking up the ruckus. One of the principal characters in this movie gets a spinal cord injury rendering him completely immobile and who, as a result, wishes to die. This subplot apparently revolves around the issue of whether or not this character's wish should-by some means or other-be granted. There is a priest, played by Brian O'Byrne, who also gets into the act here, and with whom Eastwood's character - as a life-long Catholic - engages in some rather intense conversation about certain points of religious doctrine, in part as they relate to what to do about the character with the spinal injury. The moral issues of active euthanasia and assisted suicide come into play.
Now, I don't even know how this movie turns out. For all the commentary I've I cannot find anyone willing to give away the ending. So if you have seen it - don't tell me; I want to see it and find out for myself. But the marker I am seeing is really not the movie itself anyway; so much as it is the response it has generated in some quarters. The very suggestion that there could be some moral ambiguity as to what constitutes a worthwhile and livable life; and that there could be some reasonable points of difference over quality of life issues, is apparently not to be tolerated. The very suggestion that maybe there's not always a direct, connect-the-dots line that can be drawn between established religious doctrine and hard moral choices is apparently more than some of the self-anointed protectors of our common virtue can countenance. It must seem like the ultimate betrayal: Dirty Harry Callahan, the tough-cop hero, has become a moral relativist in his old age.
This is one of those markers that leave me more amused than appalled, truth to tell. It may provide fodder for a few more rounds of right wing radio before its shelf life runs out; and it goes the way of "The Passion of Christ," which was the talk of the town about this time a year ago.
What I find more sobering, and take more seriously, is an opinion voiced last November by the American historian, author, and cultural and political commentator, Gary Wills. It's another cultural marker but with more gravitas. Wills maintained, in a New York Times op-ed column that the United States can no longer claim to be an Enlightenment country; or a country born out of the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. That does sound a little over the top until you read the case he quite cogently makes. First, Mr. Wills offers this historical perspective:
"America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, (and) a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then (called) modernity. They addressed 'a candid world' as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of a 'decent respect for the opinions of mankind'."
It was based on these same Enlightenment values - I would add, and Mr. Wills would agree - that many of these same founders wrote and ratified a completely secular Constitution, deliberately devoid of any references to a Deity. These founders, most of them, were devoutly religious persons; and I don't question at all that their religious views shaped their overall vision of the country they were creating. But when it came to matters of civil governance they stuck to the principles of the Enlightenment and of modernity. When it came to creating a form of government they were secularists.
Back to Gary Wills' piece for another minute or two: He cites several examples of how he sees the American populace at large forsaking, in disturbing measure, these Enlightenment values upon which the nation was founded. Wills asks, "Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?" And then he rolls out his big guns: "The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they have experienced from this country in the past... Where else (in the world) do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, (and) fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Queda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed."
I have to take issue with the comparison Wills draws here between our home-grown American fundamentalism and that being expressed in certain parts of the Muslim world. I think a penchant for hyperbole got the better of him when he got to that particular line. He wrote those words the day after last November's Presidential election; and before, it seems, he had a chance to take a deep breath or two.
But his larger point, I feel, is still well taken. The question of whether or not we as a society and nation still retain the right to call ourselves an Enlightenment nation is a valid and reasonable one. There is less and less political capital to be gained these days by holding forth in the social and political arena for those Enlightenment values of "critical intelligence, respect for evidence, (and) a regard for the secular sciences" that Wills cites. There are numerous examples of this I could offer. In the interest of time, I'll give just one. Take a look a few miles to the south, where the current Governor of the State of Massachusetts positions himself, by good indication, for a run at the Presidency by strongly opposing the use of stem cell research in finding a cure for some of our more debilitating diseases and illnesses.
So what does any this have to do with our being a community of faith - as I've titled this sermon for today? I guess I'd better give myself enough time to take that one up. Since, with the help of Mr. Wills, we're already dabbling in American history, let's dabble for a few minutes more. Like the founders of this nation, the initial founders and definers of our liberal religious heritage on this continent were, for the most part, creatures and proponents of the Enlightenment; and of the principles and values, as already noted, that this movement represented. They were also men and women of faith. Their faith was in the power of the human mind - informed by reason - to discover and affirm new truths about the world that was unfolding before them as the scientific era dawned. Their faith was also in the strength and ability of the human heart and soul to find meaning, purpose, direction, value, and moral guidance in human living, by drawing upon one's religious principles and values. Their faith was one in which a religious or spiritual consciousness, and a critical and discerning mind, were not at odds with each other, but were instead compatible.
Some of these folk called themselves Unitarians and some called themselves Universalists; which was which depended largely upon their social standing. Initially they lived out their Enlightenment religion in a Christian context, looking primarily to Jesus as the prime teacher and guide for living what they called a Godly life. In time they moved beyond that context without discarding it.
I point to all this not to simply toss out what is - maybe - an interesting historical tidbit, but to impress upon you as strongly as I can that we here, those of us who are members of this congregation, are the inheritors of this liberal faith tradition. This is the tradition you signed on to when you signed our membership book; those of you who have done so. No, you did not sign on to a particular political agenda or political philosophy, but rather to the idea, among other things, that the common good is best advanced by the use of the critical, questioning, and unfettered mind; and the compassionate, justice-seeking heart.
This is the faith of which one of our spiritual ancestors, Thomas Jefferson, spoke when he said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" [Or human mind as we would rightly put it today.] We know Jefferson had his serious failings, but he still nailed it on that one. Those words, by the way, are carved in stone at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. It wouldn't hurt for some of the higher ranking powers-that-be in that City to stroll over to the Jefferson Memorial and give them a read now and then. This kind of stance was among the components of the faith of our founders. And this is the faith we are called upon to embody today. It is one of the reasons we are here.
If, as Mr. Wills and others suggest, we are in now the midst of a cultural cycle (and I'm hoping and trusting that that's all it is) in which certain types and expressions of religion are indeed constituting a "form of tyranny" over the human mind, then the presence of strong, vibrant, and growing religious communities that celebrate both the harmony and the flowering of the human mind, heart, soul, and spirit is more crucial than ever. Just so I don't sound chauvinistic or provincial, I would quickly add that religious communities like these do not, and need not, all bear the name Unitarian Universalist. We're not the only show in town, or religious body on the societal landscape, when it comes to being religious liberals. Given our size, that is a good thing. But we do have our tradition of a critical faith to uphold, and that is, in fact, one of the reasons we are here. It is one of the reasons we come together here to share our lives, and to find spiritual nurture for our lives, even as we seek to attend to the needs and demands of our larger world.
This is the final installment of a three sermon series I've done on my understanding of what faith is as a religious liberal. The first two sermons dealt with the subject on a largely personal level. Today, as you've seen, I've moved the topic to a more societal and institutional level. But I'm going to loop it back to the personal before finishing up, while also looking ahead to next Sunday's service when we will be launching our Annual Pledge Drive. And, yes, a Pledge Drive is about money. If faith alone were legal currency we could fund our programs, pay our bills, and compensate the staff without having to ask for financial pledges. But that's not the way the world in which we live works.
That said however, pledging your financial support to us, to the greatest extent you are able to do so, is not entirely about money. It also has to do with how you answer the question of why we are here. As succinctly as I can put it, I'll say we're here for three reasons: To have a place to stand; to have a place to be; and to have a place from which we can respond to the larger life of our community, nation, and world.
A place to stand: A place to stand on some of the faith precepts I've spoken to over the previous two weeks. A place to affirm, celebrate, and experience the power of the human spirit, the power of the Spirit of Life, the power and presence of that which dwells within each of us and links us to the world and to all of life that is beyond us. A place to be: To be with one another in sharing in this kind of faith; a place to learn from one another about how we each and all find meaning and purpose and direction in our lives and how we each and all give voice to it. A place to be with one another as we encounter some of life's greatest joys and suffer some of life greater pains, setbacks, and losses. A place where you can say to a fellow member or friend when you know the need is there, the same thing our Choir sang, earlier: "Lean on me." A place to be in stretching our free minds and exercising our free spirit. A place to be for fun, for learning, and for knowing the joy of human fellowship, and the gift of human love and compassion. A place to be with our children - biologically related or not, they are all our children over there in that other wing - as they too learn the joys and challenges, the rewards and demands of a free faith.
And finally a place from which we respond to, and engage our values with, the greater life of our community, nation, and world. When faith is put forth as the antithesis of, or even as an antidote to human reason; and when religion is proffered as a counter-force to scientific inquiry; and when, to get down to cases for a moment, religion is used as a rationale for denying the acceptance, affirmation, and full civil rights for gay and lesbian persons, then we need strong communities of faith will say 'no' to this kind of perversion of religion and faith, and 'yes' to those universal principles and values that have, over the course of human history, moved us, however slowly and haltingly, in the direction of a more just and humane world. We need strong communities of faith who will say we're not going to sit still for this kind of undermining of the positive role that religion, at its very best, can play in a free and open society.
I'll close with this, as we look ahead to next week and the weeks to follow: One of my colleagues in the UU ministry, Rev. Chris Buice at the UU Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, in a pre-pledge drive sermon, told his congregation, "This church is free because we pay for it." That's a good line. I wish I'd thought of it. Since I didn't I'll use his. "This church is free because we pay for it." I hope you'll bear that thought in mind over the next few weeks. To play with the line a bit, I'll add this church will be the embodiment and representation of a free faith, as I've tried to speak to it in recent weeks, only as long as we pay for it - and only as we continue to lessen our dependence upon those who paid for it in the past. You'll hear more about that next Sunday.
We, as citizens of this nation, remain in the debt of those who, even with all the imperfections by which they were bound in their time, strove to make the free mind and the free spirit the basis of how we would govern ourselves as a nation. We, in this congregation, are in the debt of those who believed that men and women could be persons of faith and could form communities of faith that could meaningfully engage with the world, and with the new age of inquiry, they saw dawning before them. To their wisdom I would add that of the late African American novelist and essayist James Baldwin who once said, "The minute we cease to hold one another; the minute we break faith with one another, the light goes out and the darkness engulfs us." We are bearers of the light of truth, of the free mind and spirit, of justice, and of love. May we keep faith with our call to keep it glowing.
Stephen D. Edington
February 20, 2005
Copyright © 2005 by the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Nashua NH. All rights reserved.
