|
Sermon by Leland Bond-Upson, A few years ago, I took a turn as editor of the Journal of the Starr King School for the Ministry. The first project I chose was to investigate the burgeoning phenomenon of liberal religious spirituality. Just as I was beginning my interviews with students, professors, and ministers, an article came out in the New York Times, written by Gustav Niebuhr, the newspaper's Religion reporter. The article was entitled "Unitarians Striking Chord of Spirituality." (Outsiders, then as now, have no patience with the 10-syllable 'Unitarian-Universalist.') The article went into some depth, reporting a surge in spiritual feeling and hunger among congregants-in a religion known for centuries for its rationality and humanism. The reporter interviewed a number of key figures in the denomination, and described how ministers were responding to the needs of a growing number of congregants for something more 'spiritual' than what they'd been getting before. He noted that the Unitarians were part of a broad and rising popular interest in the soul, angels, and near-death experiences-what was news-worthy was that this was happening in the religious home for "people who would put their faith in reason and social action, rather than in God." So I wrote a short, questioning article in the Starr King Journal, along with a Spirituality Survey, sent it out to about a thousand people, and waited for the response. I was not an impartial observer. I had become increasingly interested and puzzled, even concerned, by what was going on in our seminaries and in our churches. My title for the introductory article was "SpiritUUality is BIG-but what is it?" My initial reaction was to be wary of the fuzzy language surrounding the spirituality movement-fuzzy in both the warm and cuddly sense, and also in the not-quite-in-focus sense. It seemed enticing, but I couldn't make sense of it. I had participated fully in the period known as 'the 60s.' and had learned that sloppy or airy language often masked some form of dishonesty, anything from wishful thinking to justifications for mooching, and even theft. So the fuzziness of the thinking of spirituality advocates pushed old buttons in me. The people who were talking the most about it didn't seem particularly logical, and the approximateness sometimes gave me the willies, as I recalled being coerced by a combination of political correctness and emotional pleading. But still, I was interested in this new thing myself apart from some of its advocates, and I tried to treat it fairly. My questionnaire, "The Starr King Journal Spirituality Survey," asked these questions, among others Is spirituality What need does spirituality fill for UUs? Is your spirituality What the heck is this simultaneous individual pathway/ spreading, shared vision/non-organized movement? What does it portend for the future of organized religion? Why are religious liberals interested in spirituality? If there is something missing in our old-time religion, what is it? Is spiritual practice another term for meditation, or communing, or prayer? What is a spiritual path? How is it found? Where does it lead? What is a spiritual search? What exactly is being sought? What danger might it represent? What good purpose does spirituality serve beyond one's own
pleasure? * * * * The responses came in. This was four years ago, but from what I read and see, not much has changed. A number of respondents were angry. One wanted to know why there wasn't a choice available for the opinion that (in effect) "spirituality is a lot of hooey." Spirituality, some said, just doesn't have a place in their lives. Several thought it is being misused as a tool in the hands of 'the women' to gain advantage in the battle of the sexes. For others, spirituality is dangerous, muddled nonsense cloaked in 'niceness' and 'feel-goodness'. But for most of the respondents-even the doubtful ones- the idea of spirituality had some resonance. There were six statement/question clusters that more than half the respondents agreed with: 1. Matthew Fox' statement that spirituality satisfies a "longing for greater connection and meaning." The word 'connection' was emphasized by two-thirds of the respondents. 2. The statement by Paul Sawyer, our minister in Pasadena, that "One must go deeply in, in order to do good with heart and sustained effort." A lot of people liked this way of putting it, and used it to address both the question "What need does spirituality fill for UUs?" and the question "What good purpose does spirituality serve beyond one's own pleasure?" 3. Spirituality is essentially personal (it means whatever we want it to mean). Not only did a majority agree with this statement, no-one objected. 4. Most respondents' said spirituality was more easily found inside themselves and in nature, but only a few found it in a group. This was surprising given all the attention at that time to the manifestations of spirituality in UU church services, but it is in line with the general agreement that spirituality is essentially personal. 5. The current spirituality phenomenon doesn't auger anything particularly profound for the future. The few who want it to threaten organized religion don't think it will. Regarding the possible merging of religious traditions, as Matthew Fox puts it, "born from and pointing toward a common experience of the Spirit", the votes were evenly split between yes, no, and maybe. 6. Regarding "Is spiritual practice another term for meditation, or communing, or prayer?" the most common response was "Yes, and more." Most times, when the 'more' was detailed, it appeared to be a form of meditation or communing (gardening, music, dance). One person said service was his spiritual practice, and another, "all of life". There were four statement/question clusters that a substantial minority of the respondents agreed with: 7. Four in ten thought religious liberals are interested
in spirituality because rationality and social action don't add
up to a satisfying religion. 9. More than a third said "I practice spirituality." 10. Likewise, one third agreed the dictionary definition of Transcendentalism also defines spirituality. * * * * I'd like to suggest that spirituality is both more primal and more transcendent than our habitual rationality and the knowing gained from our five common senses. It's more primal in that spirituality deals with imagination and care of the soul, and it's more transcendent in that it's openness to the ineffable furthers one goal of the universe, which is to become ever more conscious, more awake. Why exclude any way of knowing? Why not use everything we got? In the UUA's list of Living Traditions, the first source we draw from is "direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life." This is a clear expression of spirituality, descended from the Unitarian Transcendentalism. For the last few years I've been happy to let my spirituality peacefully co-exist with my rationality and humanism, but my equilibrium was upset when I was given a recording of a talk by a Professor of Ministry at Meadville-Lombard, our seminary in the Chicago area. It was a talk Professor David Bumbaugh's gave at a recent General Assembly, entitled "God, Worship, and the Tyranny of Intimacy." His ideas have disturbed my peace because they play on my old fear that, for all its attractions and blessings, spirituality has something dangerous hidden in it. At the risk of making too much of a little thing, he says, this is what seems to be happening: The old God Almighty is dead. It is no longer possible to reconcile a loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God with the suffering and evil we see daily. If God is Almighty, why did people suffer and die of polio until human science, in the form of Jonas Salk, provide the answer? God may 'care' about the human race, but not about individuals, else why would so many babies die in pain every day? The western world is finding it hard to hold onto the old God, which is why all the western religions are experiencing new conceptions of God along the lines of spirituality. So the new God is no longer the cosmic CEO, but more like a household god, who gives us strength to endure suffering, encourages us in our hour of despair, and shares our grief and pain. This is a diminution of God, the Professor argues. It replaces religious majesty in the form of a "Creator God who manages the world with loving competence," with the God enacted by a few people in intimate, religious community. Hence the appearance, coincident with the rise of spirituality, of the practice which has swept our churches in recent years-the ceremony of Joys and Concerns. Likewise, he says, the sudden and widespread appearance of the curious form of forced sharing (his term) known as the "check-in." These practices, he believes, are massive and unremarked shifts of emphasis and energy. These new rituals, says Bumbaught, are potent symbols of the idea that real religion is kindled in a circle of intimacy, and that as a result, we are losing contact with the stranger who may share our values, and can connect us to the larger world, but chooses not be one of us in that way. We speak of church less and less in the sense of it as public institution with a public responsibility, but more and more of church as family, or caring community. What is missing he says, is a broader vision. "The mission of the church," he says, "is to lift us out of dumb fascination with ourselves, and into a responsible engagement with a broken and bleeding world." I agree with this. Therefore, spirituality is a good thing: But it's also true that spirituality is an avenue, not an
end. For what purpose do we pursue it? (Is it my goal to be
perfectly spiritual? Nope, not me, I want to be enlightened,
and then to be an agent for change.) Likewise, religious intimacy is a good thing: But it's also true that the god of religious intimacy does
not seem capable of inspiring prophetic vision; If Spirituality and religious intimacy were in fact encouraging us, in Paul Sawyer's phrase, to "go deeply in, so that we may do good with heart and sustained effort," then I say, more power to them. But I don't see that happening. I see them becoming ends in themselves, and this, in Professor Bumbaugh's words, is a seriously shrunken vision of the religious venture. I believe that our Spiritual growth can be better advanced
by less thinking about ourselves and our small circle of friends,
and more about engaging a larger society in helpful and healing
ways.  |