The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Salem, Oregon

UUCS Sermons

            This morning I’d like to invite you to do two things: First, I’d like you to consider experiencing some mild discomfort - at least, I find that what I’m about to ask you to do takes me beyond my usual comfort zone.  Why am I asking this of you?  Because I care about you, I care about our religious movement and I care about the unsettled religious situation in our world.  I want you to ask you to do a spiritual exercise – not right here on the spot, but when the time is just right.   We all know that physical exercise is good for us and although you shouldn’t overdo it or become obsessive about it (as some do), it’s good to sweat and huff and puff a bit and feel the burn in our muscles – in other words, experience a bit of discomfort.  We get stronger from physical exercise.  The same holds true for spiritual exercise.  If it’s too easy you don’t really stretch and grow.  If you don’t meet some resistance you don’t build strength. 

            To be more specific, I’d like you to get some spiritual exercise by practicing and promoting one of the cardinal virtues of our Unitarian tradition – religious tolerance.  Yes, I know “tolerate” [is] a problematic word; today to “tolerate” generally means to endure something disagreeable as long it doesn’t go on forever.  Yet it’s good to reclaim this word’s original intent.  None of the synonyms – broadmindedness, lenience, acceptance, etc. quite do the job.   So I do hope you will tolerate my use of the word tolerance – it does have very deep historical roots that stretch down 450 years into our religious past.  

            In that distant age--in the latter third of the 16^th Century (1500’s)--the Protestant Reformation was taking more of a revolutionary turn in Eastern Europe than it was in central Europe where it was championed by familiar figures like Martin Luther in the area that would later become Germany and John Calvin in Switzerland .  Protestant reformers in central Europe ostensibly championed the religious principle of “the priesthood of all believers” – that is, they said “to heck with the Roman Catholic priests as intermediaries between us and God:  each person can claim access to the divine.”  In truth, these Protestant reformers only felt comfortable when this principle applied to the upper echelons of society.   If, for example, a Prince, exercising his priestly prerogatives, chose a new faith, then all subjects were bound to follow suit.   Not so in Eastern Europe, especially the part of Eastern Europe known as Transylvania – “the land beyond the forests.”   Here what religious historians call “the left wing of the Protestant Reformation” was taking place.

            In Transylvania (and also in Poland ) religious ferment was brewing up the most radical theology on the European continent.  The reasons for this are historically and theologically complex and frankly, not fully understood.  Some believe that this was because an ancient heresy known as Arianism – sort of an ancient variation of Unitarianism – had never been completely stamped out as it had centuries earlier in Western Europe , so this region was a natural breeding ground for heresy.  Others say that this was due to Transylvania ’s proximity to Moslem influences where there was more of a tradition of religious toleration that in Christendom.  Then, too, religious liberals from Western Europe came here as refugees, and they certainly pushed the theological envelope.  In any event, this far away land of Transylvania (in present day Romania ) is where the radical idea of religious toleration was officially born.

            It happened like this.  There was a remarkable young king of Transylvania – John Sigismund – he was everything you’d want in a monarch but very rarely get – highly intelligent, sensitive, fair minded, a devout soul– he had it all.  Now the Protestant Reformation introduced new religious diversity into his realm.  People began verbally sparring, sometimes coming to blows, persecuting and even killing one another over their religious differences.  Par for the course in those days.  Alarmed by outbreaks of religious conflict the good king proposed that everyone stop fighting and have a fair and honest religious debate to decide which religion had it right.  So they did.  Tensions ran high since the stakes were very high - in those times there was a winner take all system.  Which is to say, whoever won such theological debates got to rule the religious roost - everyone else had to convert, go into exile, go undercover or get burned at the stake.  

            Highly skilled debaters representing the Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans and Unitarians assembled in the city of Torda at five O’clock A.M. to engage in theological jousting matches for ten straight days.   One debater stood out for his brilliance, eloquence and the power of his reasoned arguments.  He was declared the winner.   This was the Unitarian Preacher Francis David.   He was so persuasive that King John, nominally a Catholic, declared himself to be a Unitarian.  John was especially swayed by the Unitarian conviction that the light of human reason within each person is a gift from God and should guide us in our religious quests.  Naturally it was assumed that the Unitarian victory meant that everyone else must either convert to Unitarianism, go into exile or undercover or prepare to die a martyr’s death.  King John would have none of this.  Instead, in an act of unprecedented magnanimity he issued, at Frances David’s request, an edict of religious toleration.  It stated: 

               "The preachers should everywhere preach the gospel, according to his own belief, and the community might accept it or not.  Nobody should compel it, as this would not ease anybody's soul, but the community should have the right to keep such a preacher whose teaching it likes.  None of the (religious authorities) or others are allowed to do any harm to the preacher, no one should be hurt for his religion....  Nobody is allowed to threaten anybody with prison or with expelling him from his place of teaching." 

            This was the first declaration of religious toleration in Western history.   A bright shaft of true spiritual light broke through the clouds in that bloody age of ignorance and intolerance.  Religious toleration is both one of our cardinal virtues and one of our greatest gifts to the world.  (The other two cardinal virtues of Unitarianism are religious freedom and the use of human reason as a guide in our religious quests.)

            After this debate many in Transylvania did freely choose to become Unitarians and within ten years there were 500 Unitarian Churches in that land, many of which have survived to the present day.  (More on this later). 

            Now this is a wonderful heritage, but this is more than just an inspiring story from our religious past.  It is a call to practice and promote religious tolerance because that is the only way to go. (Paradoxically, saying that religious tolerance is the ONLY way to go is in some respects intolerant –  but more on that later).  If religious tolerance is lacking religious strife ensues, or fearing such strife, we all agree to sweep the topic of religion under the rug and never discuss the matters that should rightfully be at the center of our lives – the faith, values, beliefs and convictions that guide us in our lives.  As the original promoters of religious tolerance in the Western world we are called to understand this cardinal virtue, to practice it and show the world how religious tolerance and mutual acceptance can be achieved.   The world is begging for this spiritual gift.

            That’s enough talk about this virtue.  How do you practice it?  It’s a real challenge that takes most of us out of our comfort zones where we encounter our fears of conflict and rejection.  Personally, I find this to be a daunting challenge, but I do try to practice what I preach.   Drawing from personal experience, here are some of my foundational principles for practicing and promoting religious tolerance.

            Some young men are walking down my driveway and I know from their appearance that they are missionaries from the LDS (Mormon) church about to ring my doorbell.  Years ago I would politely but resolutely turn them away. After a time I realized that it must be tiring and discouraging walking around all day having people reject you.  They are not so much older than my own son, and I thought of how I would want some stranger to treat him.  So now, if I have time, I will invite these young men in for a chat and perhaps a glass of lemonade. 

            At first, I steer the conversation away from religion and try to get to know them as individuals and let them get a sense of me as an individual before revealing my profession, which would immediately short circuit our conversation into a discussion of religion.  Why do I do this? Because I believe we should encounter each other in our humanity before we paste religious labels upon one another and get trapped into reacting to the assumptions we unconsciously project upon each other.   Recognition of our common humanity provides a solid foundation for religious tolerance and genuine dialogue.  Over time I’ve come to feel genuine affection for several of these young LDS missionaries, and the fact that we’re on different theological pages is not a paramount barrier in our relationship.   We can still meet, be friendly and then talk about our respective faiths, and we do.  Then, too, in the process of such conversation it’s good if you can define some common ethical ground between your faiths – such as helping those in need, or confronting injustice. 

            When I am discussing my faith with someone of another faith, simple honesty and humility have been useful touchstones for me.   Some time back I had some conversations with an Episcopal priest, a good man and a good Christian.  I especially appreciated that he was open to wisdom from Eastern spiritual sources, but still, he did believe that Jesus Christ was the one true incarnation of God.  My response was not to deny that this was true – personally I don’t believe that it is, but I could be wrong - but rather to say that I had not had the same spiritual revelation myself and therefore could not honestly claim this as my guiding faith.  You do not have to deny someone else’s faith in order to affirm your own.  If someone does want to engage in respectful debate over religious beliefs and you’re willing, too, that can be a mutually enriching exercise. But the spirit of toleration calls for us to avoid coercion and to resist it as well.   Simple honesty – claiming only that faith which comes to you honestly and simple humility – acknowledging that you are not the ultimate judge of truth and wisdom for all humankind - can go a long way.

            Interestingly, genuine positive change is most likely to occur in discussions of religion when this spirit of honesty and humility prevail.  It subverts the tyranny of tension and coercion that can dominate religious conversations.  Then growth and change can happen freely, organically.  You may be surprised how those you thought were trapped and limited by their theological identities are really honest seekers primed to explore new territory. 

Yet, to be honest, the practice and promotion of religious tolerance is often challenging.  From time to time some of you ask me how to deal with the issue of religious tolerance in family systems. A typical scenario is that your relatives embrace conservative or rigid fundamentalist views and this has either driven a theological wedge between everyone – which is painful and even heartbreaking.  Or, fearing bitter conflict, the subject of religion – the elephant in the room at every family gathering – is scrupulously ignored and no one can relax, have a good time and enjoy the precious moments of being together in a spirit of love and joy.

The solution to such concerns is not rocket science – no, it’s harder than that.   We know how to launch rockets into outer space (at least our scientists and engineers do), but we don’t know how to project the light of reason into the black holes where the authoritarian religions of fear and control prevail.   Rigid, authoritarian, cultish religions can extinguish the light of reason in people’s minds and no one, to my knowledge, has invented the spiritual or psychological flashlight that can illuminate these dark holes where the gravitational pull of dogmatic certainty overpowers the speed of the light of reason.  It’s dreadful to see our loved ones, or anyone, trapped in a realm of spiritual captivity where fear and intolerance completely block out the light of reason.  People who are trapped in such a mindset have been led to believe that everyone’s eternal salvation depends upon unquestioning acceptance of their faith and thus tolerance of other faiths is out of the question.   

Here’s the best advice I can offer for such situations. First, honestly acknowledge your differences in religious perspective, affirm that you realize how important their faith is to them, yet be clear that it is not a faith that you share and no amount of coercion, preaching or pleading from them is going to change this fact.  Second, insist upon your individual freedom of conscience and invite them to consider that each of us must freely choose our faith in order for it to have integrity and meaning.  Finally, invite them to relax and trust in the spirit of love to do its work, however it will. 

Frankly, this can feel like an impossible dilemma.  It may well be that you can’t resolve it and on this personal level, we must learn to tolerate what feels like an intolerable situation. This is not to counsel passivity and acquiescence but to warn you against exercises in futility. 

What bothers me so deeply in all of this is that the purveyors of religious intolerance are given such free reign in our society, and they have converted so many credulous souls to religions of intolerance.  They have no shame. In their churches and over the airwaves they preach a gospel that claims a monopoly on truth and denies the validity of all other faiths.  

Which brings us to the conundrum to which I alluded earlier.  The principle of tolerance has within it the seeds of its own destruction.  With the ideal of tolerance we face a similar dilemma as does our government when it seeks to promotes democracy abroad and yet knows that the first order of business of some popularly elected party will be to assume autocratic control and abolish democracy.   Ill conceived promotion of democracy thus serves to destroy democracy.  Likewise, ill conceived promotion of religious tolerance can serve to destroy religious tolerance. 

Those who espouse intolerant faiths are not averse to championing the cause of religious tolerance when it serves their narrow purposes and allows them to spread their gospels of intolerance – so if you challenge their intolerance YOU will be accused of intolerance.  Religious liberals and open minded people in general have been too stymied by such spiritual sophistry - too timid, too acquiescent in allowing theologies of intolerance to go unchallenged in the public arena.  Ironically, we allow this because we embrace the principle of religious tolerance.  Yes, we do affirm religious tolerance, and in order to protect it we must challenge those whose faiths deny the principles of religious tolerance, and who are working tirelessly to conquer the entire spiritual landscape.  

Here is a monumental challenge –  we are called to question any religion that claims to hold an exclusive monopoly on truth.   The monumental arrogance of such religions – claiming to be THE ONE TRUE FAITH - demands that they be challenged for they are unacceptably absolutist and authoritarian and they seek not to coexist with other faiths but to be the only faith to exist.    There are many paths to truth, wisdom and holiness, and I will honor anyone who has found a life affirming faith that adds meaning to their own life.  But if any person or religion claims that their faith is the only legitimate faith they are playing God and they don’t have any right to such a role.   

Practicing and promoting religious tolerance is the primary theological challenge of our age – an age in which those of differing faiths (especially the two largest faiths in the world – Islam and Christianity) as well as those of differing sects, are killing one another;  it is an age in which the government of China prevents the free religious expression of the Tibetan people;  it is an age in which an aggressive religious right in our own nation seeks to dominate. 

Long ago a wise young king in a small country in Eastern Europe clearly saw that unless the various religions of his small realm could learn to coexist, then theirs would be a bloody and tragic history.   So he introduced the sublime principle of religious tolerance.  Today our world has become ever smaller as time and distance have been greatly diminished by our technology.  And we are ever more intermingled.  No longer do those of other faiths live in another corner of the world, they live down the corner from us.   We cannot have peace on earth unless we learn to practice religious tolerance. 

If someone ever asks you what Unitarian Universalists believe say that we don’t enforce any belief because beliefs change, grow, evolve.  Rather we affirm certain guiding principles in religious life – most especially the principle of religious tolerance.