| June 1, 2008 | Fundamentalist Unitarianism: an oxymoron or something else? Reverend Jane Bramadat |
Meditation "When one sees Eternity in things that pass away and Infinity in finite things, then one has pure knowledge. But if one merely sees the diversity of things, with their divisions and limitations, then one has impure knowledge. And if one selfishly sees a thing as if it were everything, independent of the ONE and the many, then one is in the darkness of ignorance." From the Bhagavad Gita (one of the Hindu religion’s sacred texts)
Comment How do we, each in our own lives, manage to celebrate that which we know is ultimately going to disappear? Perhaps the reverse is easier to see. For example, even if love will eventually disappear (with the disappearance of that which was loved..) is it not infinitely better to have had love for whatever time it is granted to us? And how do we, in the life of our religious community, keep our eyes on our overall religious purpose, (melding mind and heart to produce spiritual growth and healing the world) so that we can appreciate and affirm all of life.
Sermon Is there such a thing as a fundamentalist Unitarian (or Unitarian Universalist)? That is the question I set out to answer this morning.
Is there such a thing as a fundamentalist Unitarian Universalist? Is this an oxymoron (like jumbo shrimp or an objective opinion) are they contradictory words - or is it an uncomfortable possibility? Is this a question that is so obviously untrue that it may seem to some of you to be ridiculous to even be asking it? In other words, once one has become a Unitarian Universalist, is it the case that one could never be a fundamentalist of any sort? Or is there an uncomfortable possibility that there are fundamentalist UUs and that they are comfortably living here in Victoria and elsewhere?
I suppose first of all we need to be sure we are all using the same meaning of "fundamentalist." The image that almost automatically comes to my mind is of a neatly and somewhat conservatively dressed woman or man who doesn't look or act that much differently from you or me most of the time. But the results of their thoughts and beliefs can transform them into obedient followers at hearing the party line,...into followers of THE TRUTH, all in capitals. They are able to rationalize any words or actions they are told to say or do as long as they are promoting the goal[s] of their particular party or creed. This makes them narrow-minded, wearing blinkers, dancing to the tune of a hierarchical leader who will brook no disagreement. Even when confronted with a reality that does not conform to the particular belief they have, they almost always choose to ignore the reality, follow the leader and stick with the belief.
If you had to write down what you thought a fundamentalist was, would it bear any similarity to what I've just said? Of course, what I gave you was my own subjective, value-laden, skewed image. When it is someone or something that is "other" than how we see ourselves [or want to see ourselves] one’s perception comes out as subjective, value-laden and skewed.
Let me share some more precise, objective definitions of a fundamentalist.
First, it is someone who has a "strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets" Oxford English Dictionary [OED] or:
The Merriam Webster Dictionary calls it “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.”
And iconoclast Richard Dawkins uses the term ‘fundamentalist’ to characterize religious advocates as “clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence.” (Found on the web.)
Along with these three definitions, did you know that ‘fundamentalist’ is a relatively new word - one that wasn’t even in the OED until 1989? Isn’t it interesting how common a word it is now...? What does this mean? It seems to me to be causing or supporting dualistic thinking - you’re a fundamentalist or you’re not a fundamentalist. You think correctly or you don’t think correctly. We are right and you are wrong. This can be very dangerous thinking.
But let me return to trying to decide if any Unitarians and Universalists could be in any way considered to be fundamentalists. “Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets”. This does not sound very Unitarian Universalist. “An attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”. I think our basic religious principles are quite wonderful and I try to follow them as much and as faithfully as possible. Does that make me a fundamentalist? I don’t think so! Why am I even raising this question? Because I believe fundamentalism is more than 'strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets' or having attitude. I believe it is also a state of mind - a state of mind that has lost its flexibility - at least temporarily. Often when we are feeling insecure, we want to hold on to what is familiar and comfortable...hold on to the ‘fundamentals’ of what we understand to be true.
I am raising it because from time to time any one of us can forget the deep significance of one of our religious stances - namely, a desire to keep an open and engaged mind and heart on matters ethical, intellectual, theological and spiritual. Somehow we are expected simultaneously, to remain open to and respectful of others’ views and yet share where we stand and take action from that stance. .
The logical outcome of our religious perspective is that things do not, cannot, stay the same. We may have become used to a certain Order of Service, or to the number of people on a Sunday morning or the topics on Sunday morning being within an expected range or framework. Then, inexorably, things begin to change. Depending on each person's flexibility quotient, change will be a matter of celebration, angst or anger. This happens all the time all over the place. Sometimes the realisation that things are not going to remain the same is handled with awareness and maturity; sometimes it causes joy or hysteria; other times it is ignored or swept under the rug [making for a very large noticeable lump, of course!]
Let me give you some examples from our own religion.
Way back in the 1860s a group of Unitarian ministers, through a strongly worded motion, tried to persuade the National Conference of Unitarians meeting in Syracuse, NY to disavow 'any common creeds or statements of faith', In other words, the delegates were being asked to refuse to support a religious statement that would bind all congregations to a Christian position. At this time, the majority favoured remaining completely within the Christian fold and the motion was resoundingly defeated. The majority of delegates were being true to what they saw to be the 'fundamentals' of the Unitarian religion at that time. As a result the Free Religious Association was formed by the minority.
In retrospect we know that this minority was an advance guard for change and generally ahead of the religious thinking of mainstream Unitarianism. Their idea of having a broader theological base began to influence the majority and by the beginning of the 20th century we had begun the gentle but firm movement out of the exclusive Christian circle. (at times helped firmly and not so politely by other non-Unitarian Christians!). Were there any fundamentalists at that meeting in Syracuse? I suppose one could say there were - because there were certainly delegates there who adhered strictly to traditional orthodox tenets and would not give the minority the time of day. On the other hand, they had not been given much time to get used to the new mind-expanding thought and, over the decades, they were able to change.
To move much closer to home; here in Canada, the Unitarianism of the 1970's was described by one Unitarian Universalist person in Toronto, this way: "Our rationalism has led to an intellectualistic definition of the church as a discussion club. Our moralism has led to the Utopian Idealism of traditional "social action" which defines the church as a moral club. Our romantic individualism has led to a sensation and pleasure-oriented definition of the church as a social club. Put them together, and it is still a club...a private association of like-minded persons working together for their own self-interest and self-development." [Duke Gray quoted in Hewett's Unitarians in Canada, p 308-9]
If you were feeling grumpy you might call this a sort of mindless, selfish fundamentalism.
But then this description was written by a person who was quite frustrated by the rational humanism of the time. Yet in the same time period, in the west, in Alberta, the Edmonton Unitarian congregation was experimenting with congregational hugs and love-ins and many people were wishing they had the rational humanism that some in Toronto were finding oppressive!
Coming closer to the present: - in the 1990s, not that far from London ON (while I was their minister), I observed from a distance another congregation struggling to adjust to new people coming to the church, new people who had not been there for generations as had the majority of this congregation. These new people wanted to be woven into the tapestry of that congregation, but it was difficult for older members to agree to the changes that would have to be made. They might have to let go of some of the important ‘fundamentals’ recollected of their original 19th century faith.
What does any of this have to do with Victoria in 2008? Am I suggesting that there is some fundamentalist trouble here in Victoria that we are not facing? Do we, metaphorically speaking, have large lumps visible under our rugs? Every group has some lumps and we’re no different ...but I don’t believe our lumps are permanent. Even so, or to make the lumps go away faster - eternal vigilance has to be practiced!
I encourage us all to look at the responses we have when we learn there is the possibility of change on the horizon. For example, I recall speaking with one person after I had been here for several months. This person wanted to tell me how upset she was that the service now went on for an hour and a quarter instead of just an hour. She said something like, “I have my whole Sunday arranged and I’m used to leaving here at 11:30 to get to my next activity.” This person only allowed one hour for her religious experience on Sunday and anything more was unsettling. By my requesting an additional 15 minutes of ‘flex time’ for the Sunday service I was upsetting her timetable.
And I encourage us all to think about how we react to a Sunday service that is different to the style with which we are most comfortable. Is our first reaction to be critical of the entire service, to find something in it that could be pointed to as a fatal flaw and a reason why it ought not to be tried again; or on the other hand, if we found the service style to be completely delightful, do we decide that all our services ought to be conducted in this style in the future?
We have moved on from times which were so fulfilling for some and so discouraging for others. And it really doesn't matter what time we are in - whether the majority of us are rational humanists or theists or agnostics or christians or mystics - there will always be those of us who have similar views to most of the people who make this religious community their home and there will always be those of us who are quite different. I believe it is the responsibility of those in the majority to make sure that the freedom they enjoy is also enjoyed by those who follow a different tune.
A Past President of the UUA said recently: "Freedom is a heady thing. It can cause reverse fundamentalism if all it allows is denial." John A. Buehrens, in Salted with Fire .
What is he talking about? I understand him to mean that we need to extend our belief in freedom of belief to all among us; not just to some of us. I understand him to mean that if we put all our energy into criticising those who are different from us whether within or outside of our walls, we are being fundamentalists. I understand him to mean that fundamentalism comes about even in Unitarian Universalism if one has an inflexible attitude; that is, if one is trying to close off the human spirit by denying its right to be heard, to dance, to sing, to be transformed.
This is not easy. We can all get used to things one way and not want it to change. That is, it is common to remember the past as only rosy; as always an improvement on the present. In fact, to work to prevent anything from changing. If we act in this way we are "selfishly see[ing] a thing as if it were everything, independent of the ONE and the many, [and consigning ourselves to] the darkness of ignorance," as the Bhagavad Gita so insightfully puts it.
I challenge each of you to spend some time thinking of ways you may have been a ‘fundamentalist’ in your words or actions - and how you plan to move out of the darkness.
Actually, it requires greater effort and courage to find the energy and the openness to listen to new plans, use new buildings, accept new visions. I have listened to many of our founding or long-time members talk about how different things are now and yet ...many of these people are supportive of the changes that are occurring. When I have heard this I have been moved beyond words.. It requires vast amounts of unconditional trust and commitment to walk forward into a future that is different from the present, and different from the one some of us helped to create in the past.
But that is what we are required to do, each of us in our own turn, if we wish to be a part of this demanding religion that makes us do all the work. It can certainly be worth it, because the flexible 'fundamentals' of this liberal religion ensure that if we live up to our religious principles with love and integrity, we will be sparkling on every facet of our being. This will happen from having rubbed up against fundamentalism again and again in our own hearts and minds and then deciding to choose a different and broader path. May we work to make it so.
Closing Words May the love that gives to life its beauty,The reverence that gives to life its sacredness, and the purposes that give to life its deep significance be strong within each of us and lead us into ever deepening relationships with all of life.
( George G Brooks from 1997 UUMA Worship Manual; )
|
| ||
|
First Unitarian Church of Victoria 5575 West Saanich Road Victoria, B.C. V9E 2G1 |
Phone | (250) 744-2665 |
|---|---|---|
| Fax | (250) 744-2610 | |
| churchoffice@victoriaunitarian.ca | ||
| Design | webmaster@victoriaunitarian.ca | |
| Website hosted by UUism Networks | ||