Mike: So Carol, what is a dialogue sermon?
Carol: In a graduate school course on preaching, I encountered the concept of a dialogue sermon, two voices engaging in a conversation about a common topic. It offers the opportunity for question and answer, for disparate points of view to be aired together, for disagreement and resolution. When you and I stood in the hall of Unitarian House a few months ago talking about questions of "God" language in our congregational worship, the thought occurred to me that it would be interesting to go public with our dialogue, to share with the rest of the congregation some of our thoughts, concerns and questions. You courageously agreed to this outrageous offer -- and here we are. Mike, perhaps you could start us off with a sketch of your religious background.
Mike: I was born Jewish, but was raised in the '50s, when Jews were doing a lot of melting into the American pot. When I was about 14, I heard a sermon; the rabbi said being Jewish started with believing in God. I sat there thinking, "I guess I'm not Jewish." Many years followed of not thinking about religion or spirituality. Nancy and I started looking for a church when Megan came along. We found this church through music, we joined for Megan, and then found we were coming to church for ourselves. During the last eight years or so, a couple of questions have been important to me: Why is there so much violence in the world, and what happened to the Earth-centered religions?
Carol: I was born into a Protestant family and grew up Episcopalian. God was central, in its trinitarian form: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. On my religious journey that brought me to Unitarian Universalism and eventually to the ministry, God the Father, who controlled events and looked after his children, metamorphosed into a benevolent force in the world, the source of goodness, love, mercy and beauty. Christ the Son became not a part of God, but a great teacher with ethical and moral wisdom to impart. The Holy Ghost remained a mystery.
Mike: Lately I have been thinking the one-God concept is actually harmful to society. This is leading me, sort of backward, to a connection to the gods and goddesses of pre Judeo-Christian history. Earth-centered religions with a holiness based in the reality of our world seem to be where I need to go; indeed, these religious beliefs seem very connected to our UU principles.
An important aspect of my thinking about religions for the past year or so has been the book by Leonard Shlain, The Alphabet Versus The Goddess. One of our readings was from Shlain's book. He proposes that as a society learns the alphabet, the people in that society get their brains rewired. He argues that literacy reinforced the brain's left side -- the linear, abstract, predominantly masculine left side. What suffers is the right side -- the holistic, image-understanding, feminine right side. This shift upset the balance between men and women, leading to a single male God, to the disappearance of goddesses, the abhorrence of images and the decline of women's political status. Patriarchy and misogyny followed.
This is not the place to argue whether this hypothesis is right or wrong. What matters is that these are my thoughts lately, and that they support my evolving understanding that the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian religions have contributed to much of what is evil in the world. This really tests my tolerance of others' views, especially when their words come from the Bible.
I want to be tolerant, but I have trouble dealing with the Judeo-Christian one God; that's when I asked you for help thinking this through. As part of that discussion, you asked me to consider whether my concerns were personal or for the church (the institution). After thinking about it, I've decided they are both.
Carol: I too have to distinguish between my personal beliefs and my institutional concerns. On the personal side, I am increasingly uncomfortable with traditional "God" language. "God" has a fully male sense to it with hierarchical overtones. "Goddess" points up the gender of deity in ways that personify an intangible spiritual reality. And I have never been a pantheist, so many Gods doesn't work for me either. While I truly want to retrieve the feminine spiritual virtues that Shlain articulately points out were lost as the alphabet, left-brain thought processes took over, I do not want to be distracted by images of a woman in flowing white robes any more than by images of a man with a beard.
An important question, however, is that if we cannot name the spiritual without getting caught up in rejected images of our past, do we have to relinquish altogether the notion of spirituality? Must we buy into the rational, scientific, Western tradition that declares there is nothing that we cannot see, touch, feel, taste, smell and measure?
I do not think so. I believe we need to search for words, or other ways, of expressing a non-intellectual reality.
During another seminary course, wrestling with the elements of the Christian Trinity, I had an epiphany: that the mystery I encounter in life is most clearly represented by the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. For me, Spirit has become a name for a force within and among us, not superior and above; it is a force upon which we can draw when in need; it is the essence of loving, feeling, grieving, caring that is available in us, through us and to us from each other. I have begun to invoke the Spirit of Life, for myself and others, in prayer, as God language that I can live with.
Mike: I don't think rationality requires us to forgo spirituality. And often, for me, when words are not sufficient, music is the expression of spirituality.
Carol: I believe more and more firmly in our religious task to continually encourage lifelong spiritual growth and learning. I believe that who we are now and what we believe today is different from what we were yesterday and what we will become tomorrow. And certainly our human perception of spirit is in process as well. Thus it is to be expected that, to borrow an image from goddess worship, like the serpent we are continually outgrowing and shedding our skins.
Mike: Certainly my theological viewpoint has changed over time as yours has, Carol. That seems to be a clue to tolerance; the essence of tolerance is recognizing that our positions are not cast in stone. They change over time. That reminds me of walking a labyrinth. During the past year, I walked the labyrinth at Mt. Saint Mary's in Watchung several times; it brought home the concept of continuing change while on a larger journey. There's an image of a labyrinth on the cover of our order of service this morning.
Carol: A month ago we hosted a labyrinth walk as a meditative, spiritual way to usher in the new millennium. A labyrinth is a clearly defined, serpentine path that loops back and forth on itself until finally winding into the center of the circular form. Unlike a maze, a labyrinth is not intended to confuse, but to enlighten. After walking to the center, one may rest, sit, meditate, pray -- in short, become centered. The walker then retraces her steps, slowly returning to the outside world. Each walker goes at his own pace and makes his own discoveries. People pass at different speeds and in opposite directions, but no two people are ever on exactly the same journey. Walking the labyrinth is a spiritual journey inward and then again outward.
Mike: As I pass near someone on the labyrinth path, I realize a connection to them, even when they are passing in the opposite direction; they could be going into the center, or already leaving. There is a connection to everyone in the labyrinth, even those far away on the other side of the circle; in fact, those who entered the labyrinth just before or after me can easily be on the opposite side of the circle.
A little later, I will be where others are now. I think this sense of us all being on a journey together and the sense that there is no absolute position in the labyrinth that is more important than any other position is a physical symbol of some of our UU principles:
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations.
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
I also think these ideas are what tolerance is about. They imply we understand that maybe, just maybe, we don't have all the answers right now.
Carol: The labyrinth is an apt metaphor for our congregation. Each of us is on a spiritual pilgrimage, each at his own pace, each making her own discoveries. Some of us are on an inward journey of self-discovery; we may take in from others and not have a lot to give out. We may be at a point of rejecting much or all of religion that we left elsewhere. We may be honing and clarifying and articulating our very personal creed. Others may be on an outward journey, full of the joys of discovery and eager to share. They may be at a point of incorporating religious ideas, old and new, into a newly formed framework for living. They may be ready to take their faith outward to transform the world. These nascent discoveries can be sensitive, very tender to the touch, and therefore in need of protection. In our community of spiritual travelers, there are people at all stages of the labyrinth.
Mike: So we need to be sensitive to each other's journey. One of the inherent challenges to our communities of free faith is our commitment to "a free and responsible search for truth." So what happens when our individual searches, our discoveries of our own truths bring us into conflict with the truths of others around us, as I've experienced lately? I think the answer is to recognize we are on a journey of change and any of our spiritual truths can change. In fact, this has been built into our service for a number of years; it was introduced here by David Bumbaugh. After the sermon, the minister says, "In a Unitarian Universalist environment, the sermon is never the last word on any subject. It is now your turn to add, correct, support or make a comment." What is actually said in the response is not as important to me as this statement itself. It is a statement of tolerance and, I think, is essential to our communal worship.
Carol: You are right that it is essential to provide opportunities for response to the preacher's point of view. But the sermon talk-back is not the only way to accomplish that goal. In community, our individual discoveries and our personal religious differences provide a healthy tension and are particularly noticeable when we worship together.
We have had some interesting congregational tolerance issues recently. Following the Solstice service on Dec. 19, I received a great variety of responses. Many people left the service on a high: excited, elevated and enthusiastic. At the same time, there were several people who expressed concern about being asked to sing "The Lord of the Dance," which enumerated the life story of Jesus the Christ.
Mike: (Interrupting) Wait! The issue was not that it enumerated the life story of Jesus. The issue for me was that the words that went something like "I (Jesus) am the dance; you dance for me" showed a lack of tolerance for the people who responded to the previous dancing in the service; the previous dancing was part of a pre-Judeo-Christian time and was not part of Christ. The sense for some of us was we can't have ideas expressed without connecting them to Christ so they become validated.
Carol: Thank you, Mike, for the explanation of your distress. I ache for the hurt that that hymn may have caused. It was totally my choice to keep it in the service, which I based upon medieval revels performed at another UU church. I responded to the song on an emotional level; it provided just the right lively spirit to close the service. I did not pay much attention to the exact words, but the Christian nature of it rounded out my image of our contemporary honoring of the Solstice, acknowledging the many religious traditions that have found ways to celebrate at the dark of the year. I didn't include it because it was Christian, but because it spoke, or rather sang, to my heart.
Was I intolerant of those who thrived on the pagan dance by offering a different, a Christian dance? Both had the capacity to move the human spirit. Is it being intolerant of those who prefer a more Judeo-Christian base to offer a pagan ritual? Was that dance more tolerable because it was non-verbal? and the song less tolerable because it was verbal?
Mike: Now that we've discussed it, I don't think you were intolerant. Perhaps you were insensitive. What this discussion tells me is, first, I can be more understanding and, second, we need to voice our concerns and make the effort to discuss our differences. It is critical for us to speak up. With this effort we can each move forward on our own path.
Carol: During the fall series of neighborhood meetings, concerns were expressed about the lack of tolerance and closed-mindedness within the congregation and about the difficulty of forming common goals due to diverse ideologies.
It is perhaps helpful to keep in mind that what we are experiencing here is a microcosm of the larger Unitarian Universalist world. There are now self-identified groups such as the Covenant of UU Pagans, UU Christian Fellowship, UUs for Jewish Awareness and the UU Buddhist Fellowship. These are different from shared interest groups; they are groups defining themselves religiously.
I understand the need to find people of similar points of view, but it seems to set up an adversarial quality: my truth as opposed to your truth. Do we want this in our congregation? Is it in the spirit of tolerance that is our cherished heritage?
I see these issues as central to our discussion this morning. As we have noted, one of the principles we affirm is the combined one of accepting people as they are and of making our congregations places where people are encouraged to spiritual growth. Difficult as it is to accept one another, we may find that easier than to engage in the vulnerable openness that admits another's truth. If we are so careful to avoid conflict and not to expose different ideologies that no one speaks his or her deepest beliefs, we cannot be a place of spiritual growth. I believe it is the responsibility of the whole congregation, and of each individual in it to help create a climate of acceptance combined with encouragement to growth. This is a difficult assignment, requiring great trust. It is my hope that by speaking and listening to each other about instances of theological diversity, such as those around the Solstice service, we can encourage and nurture that trust.
Mike: I agree with you, Carol. Tolerance is rooted in these two principles:
* First, a free expression of ideas as we each seek to find truth.
* Second, accepting people as they are and encouraging spiritual growth.
These principles are guideposts for all of us. They help us remove the sense of cross-purpose we sometimes feel when struggling with these issues.
Carol: In closing, I want to thank you, Mike. The dialogues we have engaged in during these past several weeks have been the best, deepest conversations about faith and religion that I've had here during my almost 10 years in Summit. I acknowledge your openness, your honesty and your vulnerability.
My long-range vision for this congregation is that we become a community in which many different truths can be expressed and celebrated. I hope that elements from our varied traditions can point to a larger mystery that we all seek to know and to understand. I hope that we can create communal worship in which I could find meaning in a Hebrew chant, you could be nurtured by a Christian prayer, and all could be inspired by a Sufi dance.
Mike: Thank you for your kind words, Carol.
With pleasure I now remind us all that the sermon in a Unitarian Universalist setting is never the last word on any subject, but an invitation to dialogue and discussion, to correction and to completion. Now the floor is yours.
The sermon in a Unitarian Universalist setting is never the last word on any subject, but rather an invitation to further dialog.
You may want to read other visitors' comments on Rev. Carol S. Haag and Mr. Mike Shand's "God, Gods, Goddesses: Embracing Our Theological Diversity" .
If you wish to add your own comments on this sermon, please enter your name, e-mail address, city, state or province, country, and of course your comments into the following form: