A Winter Reflection

Wednesday I took a long walk through the snow to visit a member of my congregation. It was a lovely experience. I enjoy walking. It makes me feel connected with my environment. As the light dimmed, the snow fell and the wind picked-up I was transported to some sort of ethereal otherworld. I thought of Emerson and his attack on Barzilai Frost in the Divinity School Address. Emerson attacks Frost, though he never mentions him by name, for not being a good preacher. Emerson writes that listening to him one would have no indication that the man had ever lived. Emerson believed that Frost’s sermons and preaching were not rooted in his experience.

Thinking about Emerson and the Divinity School Address made me think of a sermon I once heard about Frost. In it, the preacher argued that Frost was a decent minister. He may not have been a great preacher but he cared for his people, visited with them and tended to their needs as best he could. Pastoral work might be an ordinary sort of greatness but it seems to me that it is something available to all of us. Not all ministers may be great preachers but we can all visit the members of congregations, provide them with pastoral care and tend their needs as best we can. I suspect that much of the root of great ministry lies as much with these former actions as it does with skillful preaching.

Incidentally, when I was trying to figure out how to spell Barzilai Frost I stumbled across what appears to be the text of the sermon I heard. It is by Joel Miller, currently the minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Buffalo. You can read the whole sermon here. The passage that struck me reads:

Emerson had resigned as the minister of the Second Unitarian church in Boston in 1832, four years before publishing Nature… Emerson’s 3 or so years with Second Church were good years…and those same folks gently overlooked the fact that Emerson was a really terrible pastor. He was so bad at visiting and reaching-out to the people of his church that one famous example of his pastoral skills tells of the time when Emerson went to visit the family of an old revolutionary war veteran who was dying. Emerson was so awkward that the dying man woke up from his deathbed and told Emerson to go away.

Barzilai Frost, on the other hand, was profoundly present for the people of the First Parish of Concord - he was so beloved by the folks in that Unitarian church he served for decades that when I was in Concord…I saw his picture displayed prominently in their Parish Hall. It’s been there for about 150 years, and this is in part because even though Barzilai Frost was not the world-class public speaker that Ralph Waldo Emerson was, Frost was a good minister. Emerson should have regretted his judgments against Frost. The congregation he served felt Frost was a very good practitioner of his profession - he apparently succeeded where Emerson failed: Frost converted life into truth simply by being able to listen to and care for his people - his Unitarianism was far closer to what we would recognize as the Living Tradition: the practice of growing the community, nurturing the web of relationships that welcomes us with our individual narratives, complete in themselves… yet at the same time willing to risk the dangers of creating a larger, shared story about who we are together.

Rounding Up Thandeka on the Web

I studied with Thandeka and am, in general, a fan of her work. Unlike Forrest Church, another major contemporary Unitarian Universalist theologian who I am fond of, Thandeka’s work is collected nowhere on the web. The below is a brief catalog of works of  her’s that are available on-line. It’s largely for my own future reference but if you stumble across a text that I have not included here please let me know and I will update my list.

Articles and Essays

"Ministering to Anxiety," Tikkun, May/June 2005
"Healing Community," UU World, January/February 2005
"The Confidence Man," Tikkun, May/June 2004
"Genesis 1:1," Tikkun, January/February 2000
"Middle-Class Poverty: Race- and Class-Passing Within White America," UU World, September/October 1999
"Why Anti-Racism Will Fail," Journal of Liberal Religon, Volume 1, Number 1 (Fall 1999)
"The Cost of Whiteness," Tikkun, May/June 1999
"The Whiting of Euro-Americans: A Divide and Conquer Strategy," UU World, July/August 1998
"The Life of Small Group Ministries," UUA Web Site
"Engagement Groups: Bringing Forth the Future From the Past," The Center Community Values Web Site

Interviews and Panel Discussions

"The Fate of African Americans–Panel Discussion," Tikkun, September/October 1996

Reviews

"Rich Man’s War by David Williams," November/December 1999 UU World

Sermons 

The Spiritual Power of Our Faith (Audio) 

A Very Modest Doctrine of the Church

Over on Philocrites, Chris Walton responded to my post from Saturday by writing:
I would simply point out that an ethic of acceptance ("you’re okay the way you are") is a very modest doctrine of the church (i.e., our ideas about what the church is for), although I think it is the operative doctrine in the UUA today.
I think that Chris is right that this is the operative doctrine in the UUA today. I am not, however, quite certain that it is a very modest doctrine. Rather it strikes me as a powerful carry over from our Universalist heritage. "You’re okay the way you are" has strong echoes of the concept that God loves everyone. If we combine/extend the two we end up with something that sounds like "because God loves everyone everyone is welcome in this church." That to me is an important message because many religious communities in this country preach a message that could be approximated as "in order to obtain God’s love and be welcome in this community you must fit these set of standards, if you were born queer and can’t fit those set of standards without denying part of yourself you are out of luck." 
Also, in response to mashmouth I’d simply point out that Unitarian Universalists make a distinction between creed and covenant. We don’t demand that people subscribe to a specific set of beliefs to be a member of our communities. We do, however, hold them to a certain standard of behavior. If people fail to meet this standard of behavior their ability to participate in all of or portions of the life of the community can be reviewed. Such things can protect children from child molesters and ensure the overall safety and health of the community. The operative words here, however, are safety and health. 
Have written the above I won’t respond to mashmouth’s line of reasoning further.

Ending the Silence, a Response to Philocrites

 
I have not had a chance to post here in a few weeks because of a combination of a family emergency and the craziness of the winter holidays. Now that everything is more-or-less back to normal, I thought I should try to resume regular blogging. 
Perhaps the most interesting thing that I have seen on the Unitarian Universalist blog-o-sphere as of late is an essay by Chris Walton over on Philocrites entitled "Megachurch pastor: UUs just don’t do transformation." In the essay Walton responds to a comment by megachurch pastor who, reflecting on the difference between Unitarian Universalism and evangelical Christianity, asserts: "the difference is that, although both UUism and evangelicalism welcome anyone, the evangelical congregations seek to transform participants into Christian believers." 
Walton largely uses his essay to try and spark a conversation among his readers. He wants to know if Unitarian Universalists are really into transforming people or if we are up to something else entirely. 
Personally, I believe that Unitarian Universalism is transformative in a sort of counter-intuitive way. Instead of saying "you need to be transformed in order to be part of our religious community" we say that you are OK the way that you are. I think of all of the people who come into my congregation and are thrilled to discover that we don’t think that there is anything wrong with them because of their sexual orientation or lifestyle choices. There’s a young queer member of my congregation who says that the first time she entered our sanctuary she thought "ah, I am home." Providing a place for people who have been marginalized by society because of who they are ends up being transformative for all people involved. In order to be welcoming to people who are not like ourselves we have to change. The goal, however, is not to change people but to create a space where they can be themselves. The end result is individual transformation but that is not necessarily the goal. 
Advocating for a vision of a religious community and a world where people can be themselves also leads to taking stands for justice and equality. The world does not encourage people to reach their full potential. In order for them to do so we must change the world. In that struggle we are ourselves will be transformed.
The discussion about the transformative vision of the evangelicals and the question of transformation for liberals reminds me of passage I recently revisited in "The Making of American Liberal Theology; Idealism, Realism, and Modernity" by Gary Dorrien. Discussing William James’s "The Varieties of Religious Experience" Dorrien writes:
James distinguished between the sensibilities of ‘once-born’ and ‘twice-born’ believers. The once-born soul is healthy-minded and optimistic, he argued; once-born people experience grace and nature as a unity and require no dramatic conversion experience to be religious. Twice-born religion, on the other hand, is the faith of the great spiritual movements. It is the religion of the sin-sick soul epitomized by Augustine’s Confessions and enshrined in classical Western theologies, which effects unity in a divided will through conversion. (222)
It seems to me that the difference between the evangelical Christians and the Unitarian Universalists might simply be that we Unitarian Universalists have a ‘once-born’ religion and the evangelicals have a ‘twice-born’ religion. I don’t pretend to know enough about James to know if the typologies truly fit but it might be that there is something there.