October 2, 2005

Rev. Henry Ticknor
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Shenandoah Valley

Inherent Worth and Dignity

This morning's sermon is the first in a year long series that will attempt to explore our Unitarian Universalist principles. I hope that you will forgive me my colorful, if transparent, introduction to the topic in this morning's story for children of all ages, but on the Sundays that I am exploring our principles from the pulpit, the children are discussing them in their religious education classes.

Perhaps this journey that we are undertaking together will provide individuals and families with a variety of topics to discuss around the dinner table. Well, as your minister I can always hope!

Before we jump into our exploration of our first principle which states that as a member congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Association we covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person, I think we need to spend a few minutes and see where these principles came from.

Have they always been a part of our faith tradition? Have there always been the same seven? How and by whom were they adopted?

A good deal of the historical information that I am about to share comes from the book With Purpose and Principle edited by Edward Frost. It is also important that before the merger in the early 1960s the Unitarians and the Universalists were distinct religious movements. So, to begin:

In 1803, at a convention in Winchester, New Hampshire the Universalists adopted the Winchester Confession, a statement of belief that affirmed the central doctrine of this relatively new religious movement. Their central belief affirmed that in God's love and forbearance all souls would be saved. This statement was in direct opposition to the prevailing Calvinist doctrine that proclaimed some would be saved and some damned regardless of what they did or did not do.

The Winchester Confession stated that God "Will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness." The document also included a "liberty clause" that permitted each congregation to adopt their own statements of belief "provided they do not disagree with our general profession."

In 1899 and again in 1935 the Universalists adopted new professions of faith which incorporated more contemporary language. These new professions affirmed that "no precise form of words" would be required of ministers or members."

The history of the Unitarians is a bit messier. Because the Unitarian movement came out of the established churches in Massachusetts there was less agreement about what a statement of faith should look like. There were fierce debates between those who wished to keep the Unitarian Association solidly Christian and those who wished to open its ranks to any who wanted to go beyond Christianity to naturalistic and ethically based religious beliefs. In 1865 the well regarded Unitarian Universalist proposed his five points of Unitarianism in response to the five points of Calvinism. In essence, his five points proclaimed:

1. The fatherhood of God
2. The brotherhood of man
3. The leadership of Jesus
4. Salvation by character
5. the progress of mankind onward and upward forever.

But in 1894 the National Conference of Unitarian congregations

(the early forerunner of our annual General Assembly or GA as it is commonly called) adopted this statement:

These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love of God and love to man.

The preamble went on to say that nothing in the constitution was to be construed as an authoritative test and all were welcomed to worship who were "in general sympathy with our spirit and practical aims."

All went well among the Unitarians for several years. However, around the time of World War I the association began to feel the impact of openly nontheistic, humanist ministers, many of whom had been expelled from other denominations. In the early 1940s the well regarded Unitarian minister A. Powell Davies, was asked to frame a statement that would reflect what the Unitarians believed. His efforts resulted in another list of five principles:

Individual Freedom of belief
Discipleship to advancing truth
The democratic process in human relations
Universal brotherhood, undivided by nation, race, or Creed
Allegiance to the cause of a united world community.

According Frost by the late 1970s the five principles had become "uncouth." The statement had been drafted by a group of all white, male ministers and many feminists within the UUA felt the principles as they were then written reflected a patriarchal and hierarchal system. Additionally, the '70s were a time of rising ecological awareness and the five principles did not reflect the growing sense of relatedness to the environment and our responsibility for it. These two forces moved a reluctant organization to re-examine what it stood for in the larger world.

After a lengthy and at times bitter and acrimonious debate the seven principles as we know them today were approved by a vote of the general assembly in 1985. That's the story of the seven principles and I'm sticking to it!

This week I had one of those life experiences that I will be dealing with for some time. I share this story, not to arouse anger or sympathy, but as an introduction to my thoughts on our first principle--the inherent worth and dignity.

I am a member of several ministers groups. Some are composed of strictly Unitarian Universalist ministers, some are located in the greater Washington, D.C area and some are local to Winchester and its environs.

Many months ago I offered to host the monthly meeting of one of the local groups to which I belong--hoping to show off our church and to better introduce myself to other members of the local clergy.

On Tuesday I received an email from one of the officers of the group scheduled to meet here. The email said in part, "Please forward this e-mail to all those on your e-mail list. Due to the fact that the Unitarian Universalist Church has once again hosted the Pagan Pride Day (this past Saturday, Sept. 24), I do not care to worship or meet in their facility. I will not attend this meeting."

Now some among you might be thinking. "Well, Ticknor, what did you expect? What were you thinking?"

I guess I expected to be received as a fellow religious professional whose theology and politics might be at odds with some in the group; yet who is free to follow his religious path with the same freedoms accorded most other religions in our country.

I was thinking that I would be afforded the same degree of worth and dignity that I have tried to afford those with whom I have theological differences. I felt that I deserved the same level of respect and tolerance that I believe I have shown to my colleagues. I was hurt, angry and deeply saddened by this event.

In the heat of anger I fired back an email to the membership that spoke to my gratefulness for the religious pluralism which enriches our lives and which inspires us to deepen our understanding of others. I was reassured when I received some positive replies. I am sure the author of the original message did as well.

It's situations like this that make our first principle so difficult to honor. Am I truly expected to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of everyone?

Marilyn Sewell, the minister of our UU church in Portland, Oregon has written, "Though our first principle is the foundation of our theological and relational lives, we must acknowledge that there are questions and contradictions that plague us. One of these questions emerges in regard to the tolerance we profess."

It's easy for me to afford worth and dignity to those I like. It's easy for me to afford worth and dignity to those with whom I share common understandings and a common worldview. But how am I to act toward those with whom I strenuously disagree? And how about those individuals, yes there have been some in my life, who I simply don't like. Am I to afford them the same degree of dignity that I would afford those I love and care for?

Christian scripture suggests that we are to love our neighbors, to turn the other cheek, to refrain from throwing the first stone, and to do unto others, as we would have others do unto us. Last week's email incident made me feel that I was like the harlot in the street but unlike the biblical story in my case another did throw the first stone.

How does my Unitarian Universalist faith teach me to respond? How am I to act toward this person? Am I called upon to turn the other cheek or to respond as I did by throwing a rock back?

Sewell frames the essential dilemma of our first principles with these words. "And what do we do when contradictions appear? For example, most Unitarian Universalists believe in the right of a woman to determine whether or not she will carry a baby to term. But if each life has 'inherent worth and dignity,' what about a woman's decision to abort a fetus that is found to have Down's syndrome? Though we claim that every life has worth and dignity, many Unitarian Universalists join the approximately eighty percent of Americans who believe in the death penalty, somehow concluding that committing heinous crimes makes a human being lose human status."

She continues, "We have passed a resolution on the right to die and we speak of 'death with dignity' but when we look at how doctor assisted suicide has shifted to include nonvoluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, what does that knowledge imply about potential abuse of our first principal?"

Sewell concludes her thoughts by noting, "We are called upon to reject the easy answers and to struggle with the values and conflicts inherent in human life. We must study and reflect and think and write and get beneath the surface of things, or else we will become facile in regard to these significant moral and ethical issues."

Another writer, Barbara Wells-Ten Hove, has put it this way. "In today's world we are called upon to not throw stones at each other, even when doing so might make us feel better and more virtuous.

It is easy to blame others for the violence, the poverty, and the debilitating anger that often seems to pervade our world. It is harder to look at ourselves and see that we are all part of the problem and part of the solution.

However, to be a part of that solution is, as Paul Tillich once said, 'to be grasped by the power of love.' But this is a radical kind of love, 'that challenges us to seek not separation, but relationship and connection.'"

I believe that Sewell and Wells are challenging each of us to strive to be the kind of people whose acts, ideals, and thoughts, bring meaning and worth to others. When we can live in this way perhaps we are indeed affirming and promoting the inherent worth and dignity of others. Perhaps it is what some would call living a moral life.

I believe there are steps we can take to help us to live our lives in greater accordance to our first principal.

First, we can learn to respect both others and ourselves. Respect is a tricky word because it because I often assume it conveys a sense of agreement as in "I really respect the mind of Einstein." But a closer looks tells us that word can be used to simply convey a sense of worth.

By respecting others and ourselves we are affording them status in the human family. Respect suggests that we do not speak of others in derogatory or degrading ways. Respect suggests that we avoid believing in stereotypes, using racial slurs, or lessening the humanity of others who live differently than we

I believe we need to learn to be better at both speaking and listening. We demonstrate our respect for others, we affirm their worth and dignity, when we give them our fullest attention.

When we listen for the pain, the unhappiness, and the grief behind what they are saying. By listening well we are acknowledging their right to their ideas even though we may strongly disagree; when we respond by speaking the truth in love we acknowledge our right to our own opinions.

So, too, I believe that we must learn to practice forgiveness. Ultimately I believe that understanding is the beginning of forgiveness.

Only when we try to understand the motives of those who would harm us, or to understand the source of our own actions that appear to be disrespectful or denigrating of another, will we begin to be open to the notion of forgiveness. Forgiveness seems to me, to be a two way street. Our actions must reflect our words and vice versa.

When I think of the challenges of living a life in accordance with our first principle, I am reminded of these words of St. Francis of Assisi who said in part:

"make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy.... grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love; for it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned."

I don't know how things will resolve when I meet with my ministers group next week. I don't know how I will approach the individual who sent out the email about boycotting this church. I don't know how the others in this group received my letter and I don't know how I will be received when we meet on Tuesday morning.

Perhaps my emotions are still running too high and I need to put more time into trying to understand what has happened. Perhaps I need more time to find the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Perhaps, I am only too human. I ended my letter to the other ministers with these words that I adopted from the end of our statement of principles and purposes:

My faith journey is informed, in part, by the idea that we should all respect the inherent worth and dignity of every person and that we should be mutually supportive of the free and responsible search for truth and meaning in our lives. As a minister and a member of this community I am called to respond to God's love by loving my neighbors and working for peace and justice in the world. I am grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our lives while deepening our understanding of others and expanding our vision of the transforming power of love.

And so friends, this morning I am grateful to be a part of a religious community that encourages each of us to be in right relationship with one another and encourages us to promise our mutual trust and support.

Amen