|
By John T. Crestwell, Jr.
December 3, 2003
UUA President Bill Sinkford
has been clear and outspoken: He wants to have more “language of
reverence” within UU congregations. That is, he wants us to not be
afraid to use the word or title “God” and other common religious
phraseologies. By doing this, President Sinkford and several others
feel, we move from the margins of religious society and become a
part of accepted religion. We become more progressive, more modern.
We’re not a hidden religion in America, rather a more orthodox
faith. And we position ourselves by doing this to make great change
in theological circles.
This idea is good in many ways, regarding moving UUism from a sort
of secret society to a more mainstream faith. I can go with Mr.
Sinkford on these lines. But I have a question… And it is not
referring to the fact that we have secular humanists, atheists,
agnostics, pagans and others who will disagree with this notion. I’m
not focusing on that this morning. What I want to focus on is the
word God and what the UUA feels they mean by saying we should use
“god language” more.
The title God for me, in its traditional sense and historically, is
problematic. I am not saying that I am against using God language
more. What I am saying is that before that occurs we must look
carefully at the connotations and perceptions God language inspires.
The sermon title, New Vision of God, suggest there is an old image
or vision of God that must be analyzed.
This old image refers to a Tribal deity; the YHWH, or Yahweh, who
for sure, is a respecter of persons— I have to say honestly this
morning, I’m not interested in revering that God. If we are talking
about a God who told the Israelites to “Utterly destroy the
Canaanites… Take their land, it’s yours, make your way their way…”
I’m not interested in revering that God. If we are talking about the
God who has chosen people, I’m not interested in that God. If we
talking about the God who inspired colonialists-- many of whom had
“manifest destiny mentalities”, moved deeply by their God to save
the world. They used their God as justification to exterminate many
Native Americans who were there thousands of years before these
early settlers. The natives were called savages and
heathens—sinners. I am not interested in talking about this God. If
we are wanting to have a language of reverence about a God who says
Gays and Lesbians ought to be sent to eternal damnation, or
uplifting a God who chooses a particular tribe or race; or one
gender over another, I am not the least bit interested in a language
of reverence about that God. For this God to me has both an
inferiority and superiority complex. And that is just far too human
for me.
I talked about this last time—people build God in their image. They
make God do or be what they want The Great Spirit to do or be. I am
not convinced yet that using more God language will work without a
concise definition of what Unitarian Universalists mean when they
say “God”. We risk losing our identity as a place for all souls, if
we jump into a dogmatic sea where God is boxed in, and clearly
defined and this is the present reality of how God is viewed.
So the old image, the old view of God refers to a particular
personality for a few, not a universal deity for the many.
Another problem comes from the fact that we, as Americans, share an
image of God that is based on the dominant religion of our
culture—Christianity. But we are a melting pot of shapes, sizes,
colors and ideas. We cannot accept anything less than images that
uplift the whole of humanity. Again, the image must be universal,
not particular.
The Upanishads, an ancient mystical religious group in India from
the 8th to 5th century B.C.E, have a different understanding of God.
They say:
“Those who realize that God cannot be known, truly know; those who
claim that they know, know nothing. The ignorant think that God can
be grasped by the mind; the wise know it beyond knowledge.”
That is, if you think you know something about God you know nothing
at all because you have boxed God in. But if you say, “I cannot
articulate nor fathom this great mystery we call God,” a Upanishad
disciple would say, “You are very wise and have found Brahman” the
Supreme Spirit, the divine reality at the heart of all things.
Wonderful Upanishad story: A father teaches his son the essence of
what Brahman is. He has him fill up a glass of water, put salt in
it, and leave it overnight. The next day he asks the son to find the
salt… The dad says, “Bring me the salt you put into the water last
night.” The son looked into the water, not seeing the salt, because
it had dissolved and he’s perplexed. His father seeing this said:
“Taste the water from this side of the glass. How is it?” The son
replies, “It’s salty!”
Dad says again, “Taste it from the middle son. How is it?” The boy
replies again, “It’s still salt.” The father tells him, “Look for
the salt again and come to me later.” The son follows the
instructions, comes back later and says, “Dad, I don’t see any salt.
I only see water.” The father responds, “In the same way, my son,
you cannot see the Spirit. But in truth it is here as an invisible
and subtle essence. This is the Spirit of the whole universe. That
is Reality. That is Truth. Thou art that.”
So for a Upanishad, Brahman (God) is something that can be
experienced because you are a part of it, but not fully known
because it transcends you. You can’t box it in. They would say,
“Brahman is the God who appears in forms infinite.”
In Taoism, you have this concept of “The Tao”, the Way”—the way of
power. It is not speaking of finding God, rather finding the true
you. In a sense we are all somehow intoxicated and must sober up to
find our true essence. But in the Tao Te Ching, you have references
to what many call God… Listen to a few words from the Taoist sacred
literature. It starts out and by saying, “The Tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao. The Way cannot be known. It is too marvelous
to know— a mystery!” It continues… “The Way that can be described is
not the absolute Way; the name that can be given is not the absolute
name. Nameless it is the source of heaven and earth; named it is the
mother of all things.” It goes on to say more…
“The Way is infinite; its use is never exhausted. It is bottomless,
like the fountainhead of all things. It smoothes its roughness; it
unties its tangles. It softens its light; it calms its turmoil. Deep
and still, ever present. I do not know its source.”
Taoist philosophy contrasts traditional “godology” which says God is
personal and acts in history. God in traditional theism is the
representative of good, and Satan of evil. For the Taoist, however,
cause and effect, good and evil are simply what life is. A better
definition of Tao would be existence, process, pattern.
Many Africans & Native Americans see God in nature. Or even God as
nature. Human beings are not at odds with nature. They don’t have to
conquer it but must be one with it, which makes them one with the
Supreme Spirit. God is alive in the tree, the plant, the insect, the
rock, and the human being. All is sacred. For all life gives way to
more life. And you are one with the Great Spirit of Life.
So as we see, there are other conceptions of God that are less human
and more metaphysical or transcendent. God does not have a face. God
is not manifest in one particular human but in all creation and in
all human beings. God does not have one group that God loves more
than another. Rather, as Paul Tillich says, “God is “Being above all
being.” God is a spirit, more of an “it” than “I”. God is not a “he”
or “she” but a creating and sustaining force in the universe. God is
not the “I am” but better stated the “IT IS” in all capital letters.
When you study other cultures and other religions, you wonder if you
have been bamboozled in some way. Their God, their concept of the
Divine is different. There are some similarities.
So, my friends, when we institute this language of reverence, what
God will we be talking about? The New Vision of God must include
viewpoints, philosophies, theologies, from other people whose voices
and ideas have been historically muted. You see those in power
realize that the more inclusive God gets the less exclusive they
become. But if we are ever to find that true Beloved Community, we
must evolve in our understanding of God. Just as early humankind
went form monotheism, to polytheism and back to monotheism, all of
this done to satisfy certain needs in a particular time and place in
history, we too stand at a crossroads and we must choose have a new
vision for an evolving time. The ancient relics don’t work as well
anymore. The rudimentary concepts must give way to revolutionary
ideas.
I believe we need a new vision of God for this century. This vision
is inclusive and universal, not exclusive and particular. When the
world becomes a place where we cannot use our theology to justify
violence and domination that will be a day worth living and seeing.
When the world becomes a place where modern tribalism is abolished,
that will be a day worth living and seeing. When the world becomes a
place when the image of God is not based in the petty complexities
of human personality that will be a great day to live and see. And
it can happen if we begin now to make it happen!
As we go into this holiday season with all of its symbolism, with
all of the fun that the end of the year brings, let us remember the
Christmas story is only one viewpoint about God acting in history.
There are others… And so to the President of the UUA and all those
who support creating a language of reverence, I ask you a question:
“Whose God are you talking about?” Thank you for your time this
morning.
Stand and sing hymn 198, “God of many names”.
“God of many names, gathered into One, in your glory come and meet
us, moving endlessly becoming: God of hovering wings, womb and birth
of time, joyfully we sing your praises, breath of life in every
people.”
SING IT IF YOU BELIEVE. Amen.
|
