|
|
|
|
The Public Church
March 21, 2010
|
|
In the 2009 Fall edition of our denominational magazine, the UUA World, Michael Durall wrote an article called “Reach out to become a public church” that posited the idea that our churches would do best by engaging in the world in more meaningful ways. As a church consultant having worked with some 50 Unitarian Universalist churches, Durall believes that our focus on individual search for truth and meaning can be a weakness, that it can prevent our communities from growing in both spirit and church membership.
In his article, Durall quoted William Murry, Unitarian Universalist minister and former president of Meadville Lombard Theological School in Chicago who in speaking about our tendency to focus on private, provincial matters said: Too often we have understood our task as relegated to the private sphere, the personal lives of our members. Too often we have preached sermons on trivial and inconsequential subjects rather than address the significant issues of our times. In a word, too many of our ministers and churches have retreated into the safety and security of the private sphere and have little or no public ministry, and that is tragic.According to Durall, Americans already have many opportunities to seek spiritual truth via books, DVD’s, seminars, conferences, and residential retreats. As a result, our focus on seeking spiritual truth will not yield good results in terms of growth in membership, if membership is your main concern. Durall suggests that when a church becomes a public church, that is, a church that devotes a goodly amount of its treasure as well as volunteers’ time to organizations and projects that promote social justice and peace, that that church will attract new people. Indeed, that has happened in a number of Unitarian Universalist churches. It has happened here to some extent, in that our own Peace and Justice Committee has attracted some new people, people who actually believe that the hallmark of a Unitarian Universalist church is to promote social justice and peace in the world. Durall pointed out that other mainline Protestant churches devote a goodly portion of their budget for community outreach. The average portion is 16 % of their budgets. Now, I agree with much of his thesis and would like to see our own church become more outwardly oriented and develop a commitment to the public good. But I disagree with the dichotomy. It is not a matter of the idea of the private church versus the public church. Rather the best church emphasizes both the public good and the social well-being of its members. It is important that we have a place where people can find ways to interact, to get know one another, to discover what we have in common, what we enjoy. We want to be here because we find people here that we like, who share our values, who want to worship and practice our liberal faith. In my own case, after a 15-year hiatus, I became re-involved in my home church because of a singles’ group, a place that I felt warmth and acceptance, a place that I had found wonderful, dear people who are still my friends after some 35 years. I doubt that I would have stayed for the good works if it weren’t for the good times with friends. So, here is a question for you. What is the one thing that makes a church grow in membership? Think about that for awhile. And if you came up with an answer, then with all due respect, you would be wrong. Because it is not one thing that attracts new people and make them want to stay. What draws people is both the mission for public good and the gathering of friends to share in the good times and sad times. For my sociability needs, I play bridge on Sunday evenings when I get a chance, with my buddies here at the church. Now, suppose that is all that was available at our church, except perhaps the worship service. And suppose someone new comes to our service and after it, he approaches me and says that he likes our religion and wonders what we have available for him to get involved in and I tell him, “Well we have bridge.” And he says, well, “That’s nice, but I don’t care for bridge. Anything else?” And I say “no, sorry, that’s it.” That seems absurd, but I think you get the point. You may think that whatever you do here at our church is all important and thus you may denigrate other activities of our members. That would be a shame. For you see, it is important that you support the other members as best you can. In other words, it is important that you say “yes” to other members, especially when they are trying to do some good in this world. I was once told that the purpose of ministry is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But I disagree with that. Rather I believe that everyone, all of us, need comforting, but that comforting is expressed in different ways. For those who are poor, oppressed and victims of war, it is obvious what comfort means to them. They need relief from their affliction. But for those of us, most of us here, who are well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed, and well-educated, the idea of comfort is not so obvious, but it is there. Remember that comfort means to give strength, and what do we need to be strengthened? We need to strengthen our spirit of love, generosity, compassion and courage. We who are blessed with the trappings of the luxury of being Americans and Unitarian Universalists need to be comforted with the message that we belong in this world, that we don’t live in a bubble, and that we have responsibilities to live such that we make a difference. Back during the 2004 presidential election, I received an e-mail from my friend, Lorraine from New Hampshire. In it, she shared some of the news about her kids, her son Rich who was then recently engaged and now married, and her daughter, Lynn who has two sons. But at the end of her missive was talk about politics. Her husband, Peter, is very much involved in politics, and actually ran for some public local office one time, but lost. In the email, Lorraine talked about Peter supporting a candidate for the state legislature. She indicated that even though Pete’s candidate was a long-shot, there still might be a chance in that strange political year. And then at the very end she wrote this: “I’ll just be glad when it’s over so that we can go back to ignoring the politicians and they can go back to ignoring us.” She then added parenthetically “(That should get a response.)” Well, Lorraine knows me well. She knows how intense I can be about politics, just like Pete. And I can understand her feelings. Politics can be a rough and dirty game at times. Given the hypocrisy and duplicity of politicians, it is no wonder that people like Lorraine are turned off to the political process. She is a person who likes peace and harmony, and often would leave the room when Pete and I would get into it in one of our many heated political debates. I can’t say that I blame her. But I also am concerned that someone like her, an intelligent and wise person would be the one who would be turned off to politics and not get involved. To extent that politicians do dissemble and cynically manipulate the public is the extent to which our political discourse is poisoned and people become disenchanted, disengaged or irrationally afraid or angry about the political process. And to the extent that the American people do that is the extent that our democracy is trouble. The roughness and dirtiness Lorraine referred to has only increased since 2004 and exponentially within this past last year. Recently, it was reported that lawmakers were attacked with homophobic and racist epithets, even physically threatened all because of the health care debate. Now, those despicable acts represent a small minority of Americans. Most Americans would oppose those ugly methods of those demonstrators who violate the principles of our democracy. Because, we Americans believe that we can have a spirited and even a raucous debate on the important issues of the day, but we don’t threaten or disrespect those with whom we disagree. Certainly, we do not imprison or kill them. Indeed, our democracy calls forth to us to treat our political opponents with respect and know that they too are loyal Americans. But sadly, these disrespectful and violent demonstrators capture our attention and poison the political dialogue. The media gives them attention even though they are a small minority because they are intriguing much like a flame is to a moth or world wrestling is to a pre-teenage boy or an automobile accident is to almost all of us. But the danger is that such attention can distort the political dialogue and give power to those who act in bad faith with bad will. History shows that bad actors can capture the moment and cause damage, even though most people would disagree with their ideas and their methods. Thus, those of us oppose their methods but fail to respond are in many ways just a culpable in allowing the possibility of evil to flourish. King was fond of this quote by Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality. In speaking out against the Vietnam War, after agonizing about it for several years, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” Now, it can be dangerous to speak out on these contentious issues. We may be like Lorraine and not want to cause unpleasantness, disharmony, and certainly, we don’t want to cause ugly confrontations. But if we do not speak out, who will? I understand that it is difficult to act alone. And that is where a church, our church becomes important. Because if we as a church do not speak up for human rights, for religious tolerance, for care of our environment and for respect for all people, then who will? If we are only for ourselves, then what are we? And if we have no mission to make a difference in the world, then what is the point of being a church? In his book, Why I am a Unitarian Universalist, Jack Mendelsohn talked about a group of intellectuals who gathered in 1939 to respond to the specter of Nazism. Each year after that meeting, they met hoping to solve the problem of evil in the world. Some were agnostic; others, atheistic; and still others were devout. They had many contentious disagreements, but in time they came to a simple conclusion: the answer to the question of evil was simply responsibility. As Mendelsohn put it: Religion may be a matter of prayer, but prayer without responsibility is mockery. Religious faith may at times be a necessary retreat from the world, but retreat without a vigorous return to responsibility is contempt for life.Mendelsohn tells the story of Little Rock, Arkansas in 1954, in which nine black students attempted to integrate Central High School. Those poor students were attacked and maligned; at times their lives were threatened simply because they were trying to go to school. A Harvard social psychologist went to see what the ministers of religion in town were doing about the situation. Only six spoke in support of the students. Of those six, four had been fired and the other two were expecting to be fired shortly. And while the psychologist found that almost all the ministers in town were against the evils of segregation, they acted mostly by praying for guidance as a way of saying something without being heard. In Mendelsohn’s opinion, often religion is a system of props and supports for the individual. He said: Actually I do not contest that this is one of religion’s significant and powerful functions. Few of us can do without spiritual support and solace, but a religious expression which turns only inward upon itself, which fails to help us face and carry through the moral responsibilities inherent in the economic, political, and social structure of the world, is in decay.Strong words, no doubt. But they point to the idea that a church without a public good mission has little use. Now, you could say, well, I do good works on my own. I give to charities and I volunteer in the community and that is all well and good. But then I ask, what is the purpose of coming to church? Is it only for sociability? Is our church only a social club? Or does our church have a mission to fulfill, as reflected in the principles of our liberal religion? Do you note the hundreds of Social Justice Statements past by our General Assembly since 1961 that reflect our denomination’s foresight and courage to take stands on issues that were unpopular but necessary in making a difference? Mendelsohn talks about his old church in Indianapolis which had helped to create and support civic organizations such as the Juvenile court, the Boys and Girls’ Club, a day nursery, the Health and Welfare Council, the Girl Scouts, the Planned Parenthood Association, the Civic Theater, the Civil Liberties Union, the Indianapolis Symphony, and the League of Women Voters. It was the power of the members of the church wedded to the idea of responsibility made a difference in the Indianapolis community. In closing, I will share with you a story from Mendelsohn’s book about a devoted member of the Indianapolis Church named Dr. Alembert Brayton who in 1912 took care of an old penniless, African American widow who had contracted leprosy. The rest of the city isolated her, but Dr. Brayton went out to her every other day to sit with her and reassure her as best he could. There was no cure for her disease, but Dr. Brayton offered care. Dr. Brayton lost his own patients because they were afraid he would pass the disease onto them. But he had assumed responsibility and continued to visit her. As the end approached, the leprous woman begged the doctor to promise to be with her. In her final hours, she asked him to sing the hymn, “Lead, Kindly Light”. He had no experience of singing an orthodox hymn and was known to be unable to carry a tune in a bushel basket, but his daughter dug up an old hymnal and he sang the best he could. He sang his patient peacefully out of her suffering.
Let us look to Dr. Brayton as our guide in making a difference in this world simply because we had lived. Let us this day, make our commitment of making our church that both welcomes and cares for our friends and promotes the principles of our liberal faith that calls forth to us to respond to the best that is in us. Let this day be the day that we act with courage and compassion because we have faith, and hope, and most of all, love. |
| Sermon Copyright © 2010 Harold W. Beu |
