The Minister’s Reflections
on
Religious Language
To paraphrase the late Christopher
Hitchens: If you care about the points
of agreement and civility, then you had better be well-equipped to engage in
conflict with points of persuasive argument and compelling criticisms,
because if you are not, then the center of
shared understanding will be occupied and defined without your helping to
decide it, or determine what and where it is. In this spirit we gathered for our Fireside
Chat to discuss our experience of common worship on Sunday
mornings. We shared with one another what aspects of Sunday services we
liked and those we found disagreeable. The discussion revealed what
previous congregational gatherings, surveys and questionnaires have
disclosed. Our congregation is religiously diverse with the majority of
our church members identifying as theists and humanists, both groups evenly
divided.
By and large, the majority expressed
an appreciation for the balanced manner in which the Sunday services reflected
the religious sensibilities of the congregation as a whole.
Notwithstanding, for some anti-theists any reference to God was experienced as
personally disagreeable. After many
years of observing UU congregation’s attempts to address the challenge of
religious language, specifically, “God-talk.” I have come to accept the fact
that there are some people who are simply allergic to "God-talk,"
regardless of the concept of God being expressed. There is for some no
distinction to be drawn between a humanistic-naturalistic theology and that of
a narrow-minded irrational fundamentalism. I can appreciate how for some,
who may have had the language of God pounded into them as a child in an
authoritarian and dogmatic fashion, the reference to God carries disturbing
memories of authoritarian religious abuse, spiritually, psychologically and
intellectually. Despite the great pains to which I go to distinguish our
liberal theology, grounded in science and critical intellectual thought, the
distinctions I draw are oftentimes unheard.
It has become my practice, when a member of the congregation complains
about too many references to God in a sermon or worship service, to suggest a
closer reading of the sermon text or the liturgy to reveal what references were
actually made and the theological meaning of those that were expressed.
During the gathering one church
member asked me, "What is more important to you? What you have
intended to say or what was heard?" I responded both were equally
important. And for mutual
accountability, what the text actually did say as well. I shared the
experience of being intimately familiar with the sermon I have written and delivered
and frequently being confronted after the service with the "sermon"
that a church member has "heard." Very often they are quite
different, especially with those who have an aversion or allergic reaction to
any and all expressions of "God talk."
My pastoral response to such a
situation is to be sympathetic while at the same time being mindful that there
may be a need for therapeutically unpacking the personal religious
experience of the one who easily falls into a negative projection upon the
minister and his or her use of the word God. That is to say, the focus of
change needs to shift, from a presumed need to make changes in the liturgy or
sermon, to examining the undisclosed experience of a church member’s
hearing the sermon that has given rise to negative projections and
misperceptions.
How we address this issue in our
congregation is very important. This
conflict can be either a creative catalyst for a revitalization of our free
church tradition with its staunch defense of freedom of religious conscience,
or it can become a force that leads to the impoverishment of our religious
reflection and communication, stripping it of powerful symbols and an expressed
relation to the eternal – ground of being – ultimate reality.
A. Powell
Davies, one of the great Unitarian preachers of our denomination in the 1950's
and 60's, when confronted with the secularism of many of his parishioners,
responded that to "jettison the language of religion was to cut oneself
off from the world's literature of faith, the most urgent writings, the poetry,
the music of the human race. It is therefore to impoverish oneself."
While in seminary, a professor of
mine, a scholar in the study of the Old Testament, once remarked that in the
religious community there were two kinds of fundamentalists. Those who
literalize biblical scripture and then adopt it as God's law, and the
fundamentalists of the left, the liberal secular humanists who, in similar
fashion, literalize scripture and religious language so that it can be
summarily disregarded and discarded. With pseudo-intellectual sleight-of-hand
they reduce all religious communication to the least rational denominator and
then discard it for its having been proven trite and meaningless. The
consequence of both of these fundamentalist positions is the impoverishment of
our religious discourse with its use of symbol and metaphor.
I have never forgotten the professor's
comments, they deflated much of the hubris of my own narrow-minded religious skepticism.
The truth is we need both traditionalists and thoughtful iconoclasts in our
church. Those who embrace the heritage of our religious history sustain
us in caring for the roots of our living tradition. They help to bring a
stability and continuity with our past, that past which has created us in our
present and effects the direction of our future. But we also need our iconoclasts to sustain
our living tradition in its dialogue with the modern world. They ask of
us that our language be in keeping with modern times and its critical
intellectual disciplines. The iconoclast and the traditionalist are both
welcomed in our church. It is fundamentalism and dogmatism that we must
guard against in all of its expressions.
Our
Unitarian Universalist faith is a living tradition. It is both the living
faith of the dead extending from time before memory and the living faith of the
present extending to time beyond imagining. Our task in sustaining our
living tradition is twofold, requiring both the renewal of our tradition's
religious language so that we do not sever ourselves from our heritage, and the
creation of new words and images for those who no longer find themselves spoken
to with the words of the past.
It is in the spirit of gathering the
words of faith together, both the old and the new, and then, following
Emerson's admonition, to sift them through the fire of our own lives, we can
begin to deepen and enrich our religious communication. Let this be a
celebration and affirmation of the integrity and unity present in our
differences. In this way we will renew our worship on Sunday mornings
while authentically proclaiming the gospel (the good news) of the Free Church,
where we harbor no form of expression of religious dogmatism, bigotry and
intolerance.
Gary
Gary