UU Catechism

• Sermon on UU Principles by Rick Lohmeyer
• Contra by Larry McAneny

Sermon On UU Principles

by Rick Lohmeyer

I’m going to speak today about our UU Principles and Sources, their meaning to me, their history and their limitations as the work of fallible men and women, with the cultural biases and assumptions that too often go without saying.

I first learned about Unitarian Universalism in 1968, when I was in the Army Security Agency and was a student of North Vietnamese at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. I entered the Army planning to have a military career, and to my surprise I was assigned to language school as I had requested. I knew that I had much better chance of getting into the Special Forces and then into Officer Candidate School if was fluent in Vietnamese.

Unfortunately for my career plans, as I learned the language and studied the history, geography and culture of Vietnam, I became convinced that we were on the wrong side, the side of colonialism and oppression, of indiscriminate violence and against the legitimate aspirations of the Vietnamese people.

I spoke to my friends and to the minister at the Methodist church I attended then, and found cold shoulders and closed minds and a distinct lack of empathy and intellectual honesty. As I learned more about the war, my distress increased and finally I spoke up in services one Sunday, baring my soul and sharing my doubts and my disappointment with my country and its leadership and with my church. That church had no place in the service for joys and sorrows and no place in its community for a troublemaker and apostate. I left after service that day and did not return.

Some months later a girlfriend invited me to go to church with her on Sunday, and I demurred, expecting a repeat performance. She asked me to withhold judgment until I had seen for myself, for this, she said, was an entirely different kind of church.

And so it was. The Monterey Peninsula Unitarian Church occupied the second floor of an old warehouse on Cannery Row. Huge window walls on three sides gave views of the ocean, the mountains and the old cannery buildings which were abandoned and not yet converted to shops and restaurants. The bottom floor of the warehouse was home to a nightclub with a sleazy reputation for catering to gays and lesbians, and which was off limits to military personnel.

The first Sunday I visited, the speaker was a former priest and his wife, a former nun, and they spoke about the oppression in Latin America and the disgraceful role played by the United States in supporting military dictators, assassination squads, and the ruling elites. There was a lively talkback after the sermon, which explained why so many people had been furiously taking notes, something I had never before seen in church.

I did not see any mention of the Principles or beliefs in that church and did not ask about them. It was enough that I found people there who accepted me as I was, with my doubts and my limitations. It was enough that the minister, Sid Peterman, who was later District Executive of the Joseph Priestly District, was open and honest and caring. It was enough that the people in the church joined me in starting an anti-war coffee house and supported me in my decision to become a conscientious objector to the war in Vietnam.

At that time, I did not plumb the depths of history and beliefs of my newfound religious home. The practice, the actions of those good people was proof enough that this was a faith that mattered, a faith that I could embrace with my whole heart, and a religion that was committed to more than platitudes, creeds or dogmas.

When I returned to my home in Maryland, I found I could no longer attend my Methodist church. It just didn’t feel right. I visited two UU churches then, but found the people aloof and the moral indignation about the war restricted to a few good souls. I decided that the church in Monterey was unique, an aberration, due to the influence of the left coast.

After that there was no time for church. I became a father, then a single father, enrolled in college and had to take care of my mother as her health deteriorated in her final years. I found Transcendental Meditation, and Reevaluation Counseling, and other venues for my emotional and spiritual search.

Years later, in the late seventies and early eighties, I spent ten years in Adult Children of Alcoholics, a 12 step group and as I worked the steps, I began to see that I needed a community of faith in my life. I tried the ethical society and while I loved Dan Montagna, the leader, I felt the place was too intellectual and cold for my tastes. So again I was unchurched.

And then one day, one Sunday morning, fourteen of fifteen years ago, I decided to go from church to church until I found one congenial and welcoming. This church was nearby so I came here first. Paul Johnson was in fine form that day, although I cannot remember what the sermon was about. I can’t remember talking to folks in coffee hour, although I did. And I remember seeing the messy construction site as the sanctuary was being built and having to park on New Hampshire Avenue.

And I do clearly remember reading the Purposes and Principles from a poster on a wall. On the very first reading my life was changed. I had found a religion that was concerned less with religiosity and more with spirituality. I had found a religion that spoke to the best in humanity, and that acknowledged the worst. I had found a religion that was more concerned with practice than adherence to a creed.

On first reading of the Principles and Sources, in my heart, I became a Unitarian Universalist, although I attended the church for several years before signing the book.

I realized then that I had been involved with the Monterey church without any knowledge of or even desire to know about the principles and history of the denomination, and knew that in my youthful self-absorption, I had been missing out on something important.

As I matured, or at least aged, and became more involved in the life of this church, I began to develop an intense interest in UU history, principles and practices. That interest and the reading it led to brings me here before you to discuss the Principles and Sources that I hold dear.

As I went through the church library, and searched the web in prepartion for this service, I found very little about the development of the principles. So I’m going to give you some history

“In 1803, the Universalists adopted the Winchester Confession, an anti-Calvinist statement of belief that affirmed the central doctrine of the new American religion -- that in God's love and forbearance, all souls will be saved. A liberty clause was added to enable congregations to adopt their own statement of belief "provided they didn't reject the general profession." In 1899 and again in 1935, the Universalists adopted new professions of faith framed in more contemporary language.

“The Unitarians, on the other hand, never fashioned a creed or even a profession of faith. The religion had been based on a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity and in the teaching and example of the human Jesus. The heady Unitarian set developed moral philosophies, notably at Harvard, based on virtues such as conscience and reason. During era after era of controversy, Unitarians made a series of evolving theological statements, first in 1825, then again in 1894, and finally after World War II.”

After two hundred years of on again, off again discussions of merger, Unitarianism and Universalism, after nearly ten years of careful planning and discussion, finally merged. It was felt necessary at the time to write a set of principles that would be acceptable to the six hundred Unitarian and four hundred Universalist congregations. The updated UUA Principles, as approved when the Unitarian and Universalist denominations consolidated in 1961 are as follows:

“In accordance with these corporate purposes, the members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, dedicated to the principles of a free faith, unite in seeking:

1. To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of our religious fellowship;
2. To cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition, immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to man;
3. To affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth of every human personality, the dignity of man, and the use of the democratic method in human relationships;
4. To implement our vision of one world by striving for a world community founded on ideals of brotherhood, justice and peace;
5. To serve the needs of member churches and fellowships, to organize new churches and fellowships, and to extend and strengthen liberal religion;
6. To encourage cooperation with men of good will in every land.”

This statement of Principles was acceptable to both Unitarians and Universalists and served us well for nearly 20 years. But the rise of women in the denomination throughout the 1970’s led to a searching examination of the sexist and non-inclusive wording, which resulted in a commitment to rewrite the principles.

In 1979, two years after the UU Women’s Federation sponsored Women in Religion resolution passed at GA in 1977, a UU continental conference on women in religion was held in Loveland, Ohio. In a workshop was called "The UUA Principles: Do They Affirm Us As Women?" the women present said “No!" They pointed to the patriarchial and sexist language: “Love to God and love to man;" "the dignity of man and the ideals of brotherhood." and a reference to "our Judeo-Christian heritage. The delegates condemned the 1961 UUA principles for sexist language and for failing to “indicate a respect for the wholeness of life and for the earth.”

This culminated in 1981 in the drafting by UU women of a proposed nonsexist revision of the Principles and Purposes, which was presented to the General Assembly. Gone were the reference to “our Judeo-Christian heritage and references to man and mankind.

An intense debate resulted and a number of ministers who identified themselves as UU Christians were distraught at the lack of any reference to God or our Judeo-Christian heritage. They wrote and published a letter saying "the impending debate on whether or not to amend [the principles] so as to eliminate the word 'God' has every prospect of becoming the kind of contest in which, regardless of who wins, our Association will lose. . . . We believe that it is time to recognize and empower that pluralism which we are." The ministers called for putting off a decision and the creation of a commission to study the situation.

UUWF President, Denise Davidoff, who had succeeded Natalie Gulbrandsen, courageously broke from the group and endorsed the proposal that a committee be set up to consider the wording of the Principles and report back to the GA after further study and consideration within the entire UU community. The motion to set up the committee was passed and work began immediately.

The Commission on Principles and Purposes sent out questionnaires to member congregations and individuals asking for input and suggested wording for a new statement of principles. They received many suggestions (and not a little skepticism) which were sent out again for further comment.

The seven committee members met, under the leadership of Walter Royal Jones, using what Jones described as "the good old process" of posting big sheets of paper all over the meeting room walls. "We really wanted to assure everyone that no point of view was going to be left out," says Jones. "We wanted to say to everyone, You belong."

The Commission submitted their first report at the Brunswick, Maine, GA in 1982 at Bowdoin College. In true UU fashion, the proposals were put before many small groups for discussion of the language.

A major fight was avoided by a suggestion by the Rev. Harry Hoehler, “who came up with a solution to the problem that had created controversy both at the 1960 meetings and again in 1981: whether to refer to the deity and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Hoehler suggested dividing the statement into two parts: first, the seven principles, followed by references to five "living traditions we share." No one objected to language about the "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love" when it appeared as part of an uncontroversial summary of historical influences on UUism.”

The final wording, Jones has said, "suddenly seemed to fall into place" at the committee's final sessions, "where we literally rearranged almost everything we had done." At the 1985 GA, it came up for a second vote, as is required for bylaw changes, and passed with only one dissenting vote. Edward Frost has described the GA's response to passage as "loud applause, sighs of relief, tears, and a few shrugs of 'wait and see.'"

The reason for the relatively easy adoption of the new principles by nearly unanimous votes in 1984 and ‘85, is the result of the diligent work of the Commission. To recap, over a five year period the P & P Commission did the following:

1. Placed articles in almost all UU Publications,
2. Held hearings both at the annual UU General Assembly and in most UU Districts,
3. Sent at least three mailings over three years to all UU Societies, calling for local discussion and feedback to the P & P Commission.
4. The Commission's recommendation of six principles, and five sources of the "living tradition" was presented to UU General Assembly in Columbus, Ohio in 1984. From a group at the G.A. came a motion to add a 7th Principle, "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." This was approved. It takes approval by two annual UUGAs for such a change to take effect. In 1985, the final adoption took place.

The growing interest in Ecology and "Earth Centered Spirituality" brought repeated efforts to add a sixth source of our living tradition. This was added at the 1995 UUGA:
"Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred cycle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature."

And now we have them, how do they serve us?

First, the Principles are not a capital “C” Creed, and are not meant to be. Rather, they represent the essence of a free faith, and the wisdom of thousands of our ancestors who bequeath them to us for safekeeping.
They represent the spirit, rather than the letter of our religious ideals. They are not perfect, we recognize them as a work in progress. It is in their imperfection and in our commitment to change them, as we change, that we find the true strength of our faith.

In a philosophical sense, I personally believe that the Principles are meaningless without considering first the introductory clause:

“We the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:”

This word, covenant, an ancient religious term, going back to the covenant, or promise made between the Jewish people and the God of Abraham, is the heart of the issue of the usefulness of the Principles.

When we join this church, or any church in the denomination, we enter in to a covenant with each other and with our Principles. We make a promise to integrate them into our congregational life and into every relationship we are in or become part of. We make a covenant, or promise, to live the Principles in our everyday lives and actions. By agreeing to the Principles we agree to feed the hungry, to house the homeless, to vote in elections, to protect and repair the planet. The Principles are nothing without action, nothing without commitment to being the best person we can be.

I found these words of Rev. Robin Landerman Zucker, from the UU Church of Reading, PA particularly useful:

“As I see it, although our principles appear most often as statements, they can be creatively recast as the questions we hold before us as we go about our daily rounds. A colleague pointed out to me that the lifelong search for truth and meaning lays at the midpoint of the seven principles, between the individual and interdependence.

“It follows then, that after stating "I affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person," the next step is to ask yourself: "Is there any person whom I have disrespected? Am I in right relation to all people?" It's all well and good to "affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all." Yet, upon further self-reflection, we must ask: "What have I done today to promote peace, understanding and freedom throughout the world and in my own corner of the world?"Sure! It's a no-brainer to "affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part." Then take it a step further. "How have you personally reduced the negative impact of living on this planet?"”

But the philosophical sense is not the only, or even the most important way the Principles are useful.

The Principles are useful and important in a practical way. I am not the only one in the congregation who came again and again, Sunday after Sunday and joined because we were moved and motivated by reading the Principles. There are people in every UU congregation who read the Principles and said, “I’ve found a spiritual home.”

That is why I have placed copies of the Principles and Sources in every public room in our four buildings as an experiment. Every year, thousands of people visit our church for parties, weddings, coming-of-age ceremonies, concerts and meetings of all kinds. The Principles sell us by their very presence. Take a look and let me know what you think; are they too visible, too obvious, too pushy?

There are many other uses and ways to present the Principles. We print the Principles in every order of service, as do most other UU churches. They are in the very beginning of our hymnbook, Singing the Living Tradition; they are posted on church walls, even recited in unison. At many churches the principles are the focus of the annual new members' recognition ceremony. In at least one church, you have to sign a copy of the principles as a condition of membership. The UU Funding Program, after stating that the program's basic purpose is "promoting Unitarian Universalist principles through grantmaking," groups the programs it supports by the principles they reflect.

Warren R. Ross, contributing editor of the UU World, points out that, “Perhaps most important, the Principles and Purposes have guided the development of a denominational religious education program that both expresses and nurtures a UU sense of identity, with curricula ranging from Around the Church, Around the Year, for the youngest kids, to one called Being a UU Parent.

“One final example: to assure that Beacon Press, our denominational publishing house, carried out its mission as a public voice for Unitarian Universalist ideals, Wendy Strothman, while director of the press, started requiring that her editors include with every editorial proposal a statement explaining how the proposed volume would support one or more of the UUA Principles and Purposes—a policy still maintained by Helene Atwan, her successor.”

So the Principles and Sources are more than a formality, more than a feel-good statement to help newcomers relate to a new kind of church and faith, after coming from traditions where they learned to recite the Nicene Creed, the Baltimore Catechism, or the Ten Commandments.

The Principles are even more than a way to help us give an intelligible answer when we are asked what UUs believe. They are a guide living our lives as we go from Sunday to Monday and the business of life.

I invite you, as you leave today and go about your business, to consider how the Principles and Sources affect your lives. I suggest you read them when you have a chance and try to see them in a new light, as questions for living. For they are yours; they are part of your intellectual property, your inheritance from a long line of ancestors who lived, and sometimes died for our free faith.

Contra

by Larry McAneny

One of the reasons I am so fond of Rick is that I cannot take the wind out of his sails. Rick’s sails are filled with hurricanes of love and enthusiasm I could never quell. But I believe his sails will hold the wind better if I wet them down with a bucket of cold cynicism.

I can’t get up the same level of enthusiasm for the Seven Principles as Rick, but I will admit the Principles are useful. I have a copy on my wall right next to my desk. If someone should claim that I don’t have any principles--well, there they are.

The Principles probably raise different associations for me than for some of you. For example, I associate the First Principle with that great founding father of Unitarian-Universalism, Napoleon Bonaparte. After Napoleon misplaced a million soldiers somewhere in Russia, he had trouble finding more full grown men for his armies. His solution to this problem was to draft 13-year-olds. When some brave soul questioned the Emperor as to the morality of conscripting boys so young, he shrugged and replied that they would fill a grave as well as an older man. Napoleon, you see, had incorporated the First Principle into his world view. He sincerely believed that every person had inherent worth--as cannon fodder. I keep looking for his name on the lists of famous UUs, but somehow it gets left off.

Setting the level of inherent worth higher than mere cannon fodder could be a big problem for liberals. Maybe the Right-to-Life folks never read our principles and don’t realize how easily the First Principle could be used against us. It seems clear that, if all persons have inherent worth, one could argue about the point at which that inherent worth is created. Only at birth? Perhaps sometime before the third trimester? Is abortion a proper way to treat someone who has inherent worth, or might get it later? My personal temptation is to deny that Republicans of any age have inherent worth, but the First Principle has me standing shoulder to shoulder with them.

I cannot get over the suspicion that “inherent worth” is really some sort of UU code for the immortal soul, that mysterious valuable something that every person has equally. That concept got me into trouble in high school, when I attempted to buy several immortal souls, but now that I am older I don’t want to spend any money on it. I think I could be satisfied believing only in the worth people acquire through their life experiences.

The term dignity worries me too. From time to time I have had some dignity, or behaved as if I did, and it has never been any fun. If I had less dignity, maybe I could dance, or enjoy spectator sports. As it is, I am completely unable to caper or cheer, and I can’t begin to tell you how that incapacity weighs on me. Dignity is an albatross I wouldn’t wish on anybody. .

Consider all the harm dignity has done throughout history. Suppose, for example, that someone had sneaked up behind Adolph Hitler the first time he got up to speak, and yanked his trousers down to his ankles. Nothing could have saved his dignity then, not even silk boxer shorts embossed with swastikas, and no serious German would have wanted him as a Fuhrer. Hitler would have had to go back to painting, or maybe after that first laugh he might have taken up a career in comedy. If only he had lost his dignity, he might never have caused any harm , and we would think fondly of him today as the Austrian Charlie Chaplin. Dignity makes monsters, and I believe we should steer clear of it.

If the First Principle is not very comforting in the context of tyrants and mass murderers, some of the other principles have logical problems also. The use of the democratic process will be at odds with the right of conscience whenever one believes that the majority is wrong, and the Fifth Principle gives no guidance when one must choose between them. The Second Principle ignores the tendency of compassion to shy away from justice, to recoil in sorrow and horror. Liberty is potentially in conflict with community, peace all too often impossible without suppressing justice, and pursuit of all those ideals as a global goal could easily justify atrocities that would shatter any ideals whatsoever.

The Sixth Principle suffers also, as do several others, from awkward reverberations. I tend to do a lot of free association anyway, and the ending of the Sixth Principle: “...liberty and justice for all.” reminds me of the Pledge of Allegiance. I find myself checking to see if there is not an “under God” in there somewhere. I never hear anyone talk about “Spiritual Growth” without wondering if mine could be surgically removed, and “the interdependent web of all existence” sounds like something sticky one could get tangled up in, like the little fellow at the end of The Fly: “Help me!” How big a critter would it take to weave such a web? Would it have a voracious appetite and hairy legs and multiple glassy eyes, like, uh, Bill Gates?

The integrity of the Fourth Principle is inconsistent not only within itself but with the whole idea of having Seven Principles, laminated and enshrined, set to music and into stained glass, woven into tapestries and sermons, read responsively and chanted in unison. UUs all over the country are creating an entire iconography built around the Principles, associating them with individual sacraments and colors in the rainbow and even animals. The First principle is a cardinal, the Second a fox, the Third is ducks in a row... and of course the Seventh is a spider. A Parrot represents the Sixth Principle, but it might as well be the Fourth, because, with all this pre-fabricated, ready to wear Truth at hand, any search for meaning will not get further than mindless repetition.

And isn’t that really the point in having the Principles? Now, when someone asks us what we believe, we don’t have to scratch our heads and grope for our own words. No sir! We can all whip out our Seven Principles printed on a handy card, and give it to the questioner, so that he too need question no further. Please keep it, Mister, we have plenty more copies, all just alike.

This convenience should work pretty well for our kids too, in a suitably simplified version with easier words. I’ve heard a version set to Do-Re-Mi, and it can only be a matter of time before some UU Trapp family is belting it out. What a benefit to our RE programs! With the UU Principles reverberating in their heads, our young are sure to replicate our values and turn them away from the temptations of evil lifestyles as serial killers or CEOs. Several years of repetition should be enough to inculcate the Principles into our children, setting them forever on a UU path, ensuring their return to us as young adults, protecting us, us parents, from our fears of separation and alienation.... It works for all those other religions, doesn’t it?

Well, I wouldn’t count on it. Many of us here are refugees from just such techniques. The catechisms of other religions did not bind us to them. And they had better reward systems. Follow the tenants of fundamentalism and you can look forward to spending eternity in bliss. Follow the Seven Principles and you can look forward to spending your vacations in Allentown. Hardly competitive.

The moral precepts of other religions get the benefit of Divine inspiration and enforcement. We applied for that benefit, but there were many other applicants, and God works in alphabetical order. “Hmmn, Buddha...Jesus,Hammurabi, Moses...Smith...oh yes, UUA. Come back next millennium.” Naturally we did not want to wait, so we wrote the Principles through a committee.

And it shows. Where other religions have a menu of succinct demands--”Thou Shalt Not”--we have verbose, well-wishing, counsels of perfection, a set of finger-waggling preferences and voluntary guidelines. When Cecil B. DeMille made his great epic about the Christian moral code, he called it: The Ten Commandments. If someone made a movie about our principles, the only possible title would be Seven Chides or Seven Druthers.

The great thing about the Ten Commandments is that they are so short: “Thou shalt not kill.”--just four words. Now, everybody knows God was just kidding, and left a lot of loopholes, but the exceptions are comfortably unspoken, or stuck in an appendix. Somewhere back in Deuteronomy the Commandment continues “...except in time of war or public emergency, or in self defense or the defense of others, or as punishment authorized by judicial ruling or civil authority, or in the interests of national security or homeland defense.” Unlike UUs, the Judeo-Christians all know the drill, so there is no need to put everything down.

In DeMille’s movie, God starts out with blank stone tablets, and we get to see Him engrave them on the spot with a finger of fire, Commandments-While-U-Wait. Because the commandments are brief, the engraving only takes a few minutes, which is good because we are anxious to get on to the big orgy scene which comes next. Now imagine: If this movie had been made about UUs, God would have been required to engrave the nearly 400 words of the UU covenant. The Lord would have needed another mountain side. Theater managers would have demanded an intermission, with the Divine Work continuing off screen to the tune of “Let’s All Go to the Lobby”. When you got back to your seat with your popcorn, there would not be an orgy scene, partly because orgies and recycling don’t go together, and partly because the Golden Calf would have been included within the sources of our faith traditions, right up on the tablets with the other sacred cows.

I don’t know which academics drafted the final covenant, but I am pretty sure that the committee did not include Stephen Ambrose, because we credited our sources. The traditions we borrowed from were part of the covenant at the time the Principles were adopted. I think our idea was that, if the Principles ever discover that they were adopted, they won’t have to search far for their natural parents.

Like Rick, I did not hear about Principals when I was introduced to Unitarianism in the late 50’s. The line then was that we were a church with no creedal requirements.
Like Rick, I was away from the church for a while, and when I came back to it, it seemed that somebody had required a creed after all. If some congregations now insist that new members sign the Principles before joining, the betrayal of our four hundred years of devotion to free thought is at hand.

The essence of Unitarian-Universalism is heresy. We began as heretics, men and women who looked beyond received knowledge to think their own thoughts, often at risk of their lives. Our great American preachers have been outcasts whose hardest battles were fought against the orthodoxy within our denomination. If we wish our children to honor that heritage, we must never let them be comfortable with a catechism. We must accept the risk of losing them to other faiths and philosophies. If we wish ourselves to have fresh ideas, we must be prepared to follow lines of reasoning ruthlessly, “though it costs 10,000 lives and breaks the Treasury”. To be true to our faith, we must take up irresponsible searches for truth, because truth is evanescent and elusive and will never be caught by those who are dutifully safeguarding a lot of baggage.

I do not advocate abandoning the Seven Principles, but. we must always remember that The Principles are but one reflection of the flame in the chalice. Let’s recite them, if we have the time, as we might recite a favorite poem, but only so often as they can thrill us. Let’s teach them to our children, but let’s mix the order up and use non-standard wordings. Let’s show them to visitors, but let us tell them: This is what we used to believe. If anyone asks what we believe now, hand them pencil and paper. Let us regard the Principles as a dangerous temptation. For shame on any person who refers to the Principles to win an argument, and for shame equally upon any person who lets him- or herself be intimidated by such a reference to authority. I have seen both happen in this church. By all means mount them on the walls, like a stuffed fish or a dead moose head. The Principals are a trophy of the hunt for truth, but keep in mind that nothing mounted on the walls still lives.