|
Deep Ecumenism
Reverend Darcey Laine
April 14, 2002
Palo Alto, CA
My first semester at Seminary, I was eager to challenge myself to face my growing edges. I took preaching and classes addressing racism and heterosexism at my own school, and because Starr King School for the Ministry is part of a consortium of seminaries I bravely left the safety of our little school, studying Basic Buddhist Meditation from an actual Theravada monk, and Old Testament at the Jesuit school. My Old Testament professor began that first class with a prayer, and closed with these words, difficult for rational humanist to engage: "it's not only a remarkable text, it's also the word of God." Though I was engaging many of my growing edges during that first semester, I was most nervous about studying the scriptures. How could I find my place in a class that took for granted scripture as the word of god? The only bible I had ever owned growing up I got from the Presbyterians in 2nd grade for attending Sunday school there, and I never did complete my assignment to memorize the names of the 12 disciples. I felt out of my element in an unsettling way.
Despite my discomfort, I was drawn to continue seeking out the wisdom taught in other schools by a comment from a second year student at the Franciscan school. By way of advice he told me that his favorite part of studying at the Graduate Theological Union was what he called "Deep Ecumenism." I nodded knowingly and at the first opportunity I rushed upstairs to my dictionary to learn that Ecumenism refers to a dialogue between different parts of Christianity. Deep Ecumenism. I was intrigued.
I didn't understand what a radical notion this was until I studied Church History with the Dominicans. I suppose I should have known that the class called Church history as taught by the Dominican order of Catholicism and the Church History taught over at the UU Seminary were quite different in content. During the part of the semester when students in the UU class were talking about Baptists and Anabaptists and Universalists, we were studying Vatican II. The Dominican Brother who was our professor talked about the ecumenical movement, and pointed to the creation of the Gradate Theological Union as an important historical moment.
According to the GTU historian Lucinda Glenn Rand: "With the post-World War II period, came a rise in ecumenical sensitivities and cooperation. The war had brought devastation, displacement of populations, and disruption of church organizations in Europe. The global church community responded with the formation of the World Council of Churches (begun prior to the war, but not completed until after) in the Protestant tradition, and the Vatican II Council in the Catholic tradition, 1962-65. The understanding of theological education, too, began to shift away from denominational isolation to a more ecumenical approach. Seminaries began to understand the advantages of working in cooperation to strengthen curricula and advanced degree programs. Consortia of seminaries began to form in major cities throughout the United States during the 1960's."
What seemed to me so natural-- a gathering of institutions training men and women to be religious leaders-- was apparently a cause of some disagreement among religious institutionalists. According to our church history professor, many were resistant to the idea of exposing seminary students to the beliefs of other confessions during their formation. Think about what a change this represents; from an institutional religious stance which discourages dialogue to one which encourages it. From a position where exposure to the creeds and ideologies of other sects is considered dangerous to a position of openness.
A story I heard secondhand illustrates how dangerous this really can be: A couple of my classmates at Starr King had chosen to take study pastoral counseling at the Baptist School. The Baptists and the UUs had fundamentally different positions on many issues, but lead a mostly peaceful coexistence throughout that semester. Then one night the topic arose of counseling gay and lesbian parishioners. The Baptist students wondered how they could council those they felt to be sinners, those who embraced an immoral lifestyle. After over an hour of this conversation my UU friend couldn't stand it and finally outed himself to the class. There was a profound silence as classmates grappled with the idea that this fellow seminary student they had grown to respect and like was gay. As the class filed out for the night, one Baptist student was overheard speaking to his professor, saying he found himself suddenly questioning his own church's position on homosexuality.
If you listen deeply, discuss openly with people of differing religious perspectives, there is a chance you will be changed by it. No wonder people were scared. I myself have been profoundly changed in my attitude toward the bible, no longer an oppressive tool of those who disagree with my theology and life choices, I now believe I have a right to study it as well, and to find truth in a cannon of writings passed down by my ancestors.
Unitarians and Universalists have had a somewhat unique relationship to ecumenism throughout their history. At several points during our history Unitarians have been left out of the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical organizations because of our historic position that Christ was not divine, but a wise Rabbi, aleader of people. Despite this history of exclusion, religious tolerance has been an important part of our movement since our earliest days as an organized church. In Rumania in the mid 1500s King John Sigismund became the first Unitarian king, and issued the most widespread edict of tolerance theretofore, allowing Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans and Unitarians to worship in his country.
In our own country in 1893, Unitarian minister Jenkin Loyd Jones, was central in bringing together the World Parliament of Religions, a gathering of international religious leaders, in an attempt to transcend national and religious differences. This was an interfaith organization, however, and I have noticed that for Unitarians especially our interfaith relationships have often been easier than our ecumenical ones.
As for the Universalists, by the mid 20th century "A new type of Universalism is proclaimed which shifts the emphasis on universal from salvation to religion and describes Universalism as boundless in scope, as broad as humanity, and as infinite as the universe. Is this Universalism's answer; a religion, not exclusively Christian or any other named brand, but a synthesis of all religious knowledge which passes the test of human intelligence, a truly universal religious?" [1] This question was posed by Universalist Brainerd Gibbons, later a president of the Universalist Church Association.
In 1949 Kenneth L. Patton was the founding minister of the "Charles Street Meeting House" which strove to create a "religion for one world" growing out of the precepts of universalism. He covered the inside of the meeting house with brass symbols of religions the world over. These very symbols now hang in the main meeting room of the Starr King School.
But is this really an inter-faith or inter-denominational dialogue? The attempt to broaden our own religion to be inclusive, to unite all religious groups into one I believe leads us in the right direction. It indicates that we have something in common, that humanity shares the urge toward meaning and values. It creates a forum which is badly needed after centuries of factional fighting. Remember the Inquisition. Remember Bloody Mary, the queen of England (1553-58), who had put to death those protestants who would not convert back to Catholicism upon her ascendance to the throne. The effort to engage in dialog, to find common ground is a noble one indeed.
But in his reflection this morning, Jonathan tells us that the ecumenical movement was doomed to failure. The Charles Street Meeting House is now a historical landmark, the world having passed on the option for one religion. Religious difference is real. As with any conversation of depth or significance, eventually those involved in the ecumenical movement came upon disagreement. UUs would be the first to agree that Theolog, and values must arise authentically and truthfully from ones own heart and mind. One should not compromise values and beliefs for a superficial peace.
Religion reflects and shapes how people are in the world.
I suppose it goes without saying that theologies vary from one denomination to the other. Wars were fought over the question of whether the communion wafer and wine become the body and blood of Christ- Transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. And of course the first defining area of dissent which lead to the birth of Unitarianism was the humanity of Jesus and an absence of scriptural justification for the trinity.
What we value varies greatly from one end of Christianity to the other. While we emphasize living a good life as a human, others emphasize an eternal reward or punishment. Obedience may be valued in one tradition, while another values freedom. Liberal religious tend to value love and compassion above all else. More orthodox Christians value the law. And so religious denominations find themselves on opposite sides of legislation like those making legal or illegal marriages between persons of the same gender.
Where we look for truth also determines much of how we are in the world. Some look to the scripture as an ultimate authority. Both liberals and conservatives of different denominations believe that the individual can find truth in scripture through detailed study and loyalty to the text. Others believe that clergy have a special access to the divine and can act as intermediary for the laity. Tradition carries authority for certain denominations. While for us reason and the human experience are given precedence.
And the question of where we look for truth may be perhaps the one that determines for whom ecumenism will be possible, will be a gift. In what form do you like to find truth? In art and music? In a laboratory? In the kind words of a friend, the wisdom of a hero, the questions of a teacher? Could truth be spoken by someone from another church? A Lutheran, Baptist or Mormon? Unitarians tend to believe that revelation has not been sealed, that there is truth beyond the canonical books of the bible, that among us and around us the truth is still spoken. We just have to listen. I am reminded of a story told by Ram Dass in his book The Only Dance There Is. He says he used to go walking with a friend who would say from time to time "the next person we meet will be a Bodhisattva" and so they would listen for truth in the words of whomever would cross their path. If we approach our brothers and sisters from other denominations with this attitude, perhaps they have truth for us as well, whatever our differences might be.
But the differences are important as well. I'd like to illustrate with a final story from my own life. At one time I was part of a UU congregation taking a public stand supporting same sex unions. The private and public dialog in the community had started to get a little ugly, and a belligerent tone had begun to creep into our own newsletter articles. It occurred to me one day that the administrative assistant who had to type and lay out those very articles was Mormon, a church whose views were exactly the opposite of our own on this issue. I asked how he felt typing words that were insulting to any who held his point of view. I suggested to him that I would support whatever he needed to do if he felt he was compromising his own integrity. He told me that though he was very committed to his church and to their position on this and all issues, members of his family were gay, and he felt that in all relationships with people love was the most important thing. I myself had experienced him to be a warm and compassionate man, and as I listened to him talk about how many people in his family had disowned their relative just because she was gay and how he could never abandon someone in his family, I had this very physical sensation of us being on opposite sides of an ideological line which divided us, but still be connected heart to heart by the warmth of friendship. He would not change my position, nor I his, but our friendship became deeper that day in a way I will always treasure.
And so the question whose answer makes ecumenism possible or impossible is this: Do you believe that men and women who hold radically different points of view that lead them toward radically different ways of being in the world can be people of conscience and compassion, grounded in the values of their own tradition ? Is whatever we share with all those who inhabit human bodies and minds greater than that which differs? Is it possible for those who disagree to hear one another, to learn from one another without losing their own religious identity?
By whom may truth be spoken?
To whom are you listening?
What is your reaction to this sermon? Please send comments to Reverend Darcey Laine
|