|
Home
Sermon Archives
|
A
Rose by Any Other Name
Delivered by
Bruce Arnold, January 15, 2006
At the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, New Bern, NC
Words have power.
They say sticks and stones
will break your bones but words can never hurt you. They are wrong about a
lot of things. Over and over, my domestic violence patients have said that
the bruises heal and the broken bones knit up, but the cruel words last
forever.
Words have power.
They say the pen is mightier
than the sword. They are right about a lot of things also. During World
War II, when Churchill warned Josef Stalin against conflict with the Pope,
he replied scornfully "The Pope! How many divisions does he
have?" The Soviet Union no longer exists. John Paul II left the
papacy stronger than it had been in a century.
Words have power.
Talk about power: In May of
1961, John F. Kennedy gave a stirring speech about putting a man on the
moon, at a time when we had not even worked the bugs out of the Atlas
rocket. Just over 8 years later, Neil Armstrong fulfilled that promise,
with stirring words of his own.
Words have power.
Religious language has a
particular power to move the human heart. Religious language has been used
to incite hatred and start wars. It has been used to heal divisions, and
to express the most sublime sentiments.
Within the Unitarian church,
religious language has become a ticklish subject. Recently, one of our
presenters found it necessary to give a little explanation for using the
word God. Well, he was joking, kind of. Humor often hides difficult
truths. Whether he was joking or not, no one was surprised by the remark.
I found, last summer, that
when I used the word God in a presentation, there were some people whose
minds snapped shut and they heard nothing more of the rest of the sermon.
I was not using it in any supernatural or superstitious sense. Comments
were made afterwards that indicated that, not only had they not heard what
I said, they substituted their own meanings, things I would never have
said, and proceeded to disagree with them. I invited them to read the
text, which was posted on our website, and then we could talk more, as I
believed that further consideration of what I actually said would allay
their concerns. So far as I know, none has yet. As I say, it is a very
ticklish subject.
We have to come to grips with
certain things. I have heard many say that they would like to see our
Unitarian church grow and prosper. If this fellowship is going to create a
vibrant presence within the community, one which attracts and integrates
people of different views, then we are going to have to be able to meet
people's needs for spiritual nourishment. And to do that, we are going to
have to act more like a church.
I want to talk today
about the word "sacred." This is one of those religious terms
which can cause some people’s minds to slam shut. It does not have to be
that way. There are religious traditions in the world which are not based
on the supernatural, which nonetheless recognize valuable meaning in the
concept of sacredness. Neither Buddhism nor Taoism are theistic in any
way, and yet they have their own, deep sense of the sacred. One definition
I found while researching this sermon said “worthy of veneration.”
There are many things that are venerable, without attaching divinity to
them.
I often like to refer to the
Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, because he understood these things so well.
Jung was responsible for disseminating a key concept, which is embodied in
the word "numinosity" or "numinous." It kind of sounds
like the word "luminous" and I suppose there is a connection, in
a poetic way. We often connect the idea of light with spirituality. In my
own Quaker tradition, the Inner Light or the Light Within is a central
principle, the idea that everyone has a connection to a source of cosmic
wisdom which they can turn to for comfort and guidance. In Genesis, God's
first words were "Let there be Light", and there was light. Why
does Light come first? Because it has this universal spiritual flavor. In
Buddhist paintings of the various saints and bodhisattvas, who are not
gods, they nonetheless have a kind of halo around their heads and bodies.
So in some way there is a connection between the luminous and the
numinous.
We have all had experiences
of numinosity. A few months ago, Duncan Harkin led a service in which we
talked about our peak experiences. Many people told a story of something
that had happened to them, a time in which they transcended their usual
daily thoughts and concerns and felt connected to something larger, or
deeper. These are numinous experiences, as Jung defined the term. He used
the term "numinous", because he was a scientist, and did not
want to use words that had a certain value placed on them. He wanted to
remain objective. Yet, in his personal communications, he was clear that
these peak experiences, these numinous moments of transcendence, were what
is meant by the word "sacred."
I recognize that, all too
often, words such as this have been used to exclude. If I say that “This
is sacred”, then I may also say that “That is profane.” If I define
what is sacred very narrowly or rigidly, then I may call profane many
things which are of great transcendental importance to others. Anyone who
has ever had a moment of consummate, ecstatic, sexual union in the arms of
someone with whom they are deeply in love knows very well that this is one
of those transcendental moments, a truly numinous experience. Yet many
religious traditions would define this as profane. I call this narrow,
rigid, and exclusionary.
Just because the word
"sacred", then, has been put to such perverse purposes does not
mean that we should discard the concept. We may open it up. We may make it
more inclusive. We can re-define it to include those experiences which are
not strictly controlled by the church, the clergy, the liturgy, the
tradition.
Not only can we do this, we
must. If we do not drink from the very deepest wells of living water, if
we do not share that living water with those who come into our orbit, we
are short-changing both them, and ourselves. If we do not do this, then we
have become a social club. That's fine, but let's not pretend to be a
spiritual fellowship. Such dishonesty is corrosive. We owe ourselves, and
our community, better.
I know there are agnostics
and atheists here. I am not saying that they have to believe in something
which would violate their integrity. In my view, asking someone to violate
their integrity is destructive of the sacred. I am suggesting that we
fling wide the gates, and open up the walls, and throw open the windows,
and let many things be sacred which are not always seen that way in other
places or times. I say, it is either all sacred, or none of it is. Could
we proceed on that basis?
Atheists and agnostics can,
and do, have those transcendental moments. I know that they, too, thirst
for union with something that is bigger or deeper than themselves. It is
no mistake that Carl Sagan, a well-known atheist, called his hit TV series
"Cosmos." Who doesn't want that cosmic connection?
When people come here for the
first time, they may not know exactly what to expect, but they do expect
to find a church. Whether they would voice it this way or not, they want
to be nourished. Fellowship is part of that nourishment, and we have that
here. But people are also looking for the numinous, even though they have
never heard of that term. They want an encounter with the sacred. No
church will appeal to many, if it does not provide this. No church will be
a church, if it does not provide this. It may be something, and that
something may be good, but it will not be a church.
Whether we use the word
“sacred” or not is neither here nor there. It is a perfectly good
word; I think we should work on it. But this is not about using a certain
word. It is that, when people walk through the door and sit through one of
our services, they should have had at least a brush, a hint, a glimmer of
the numinous.
Without this, you may be
certain that this will remain a small group of those who just happen to
fit in well with the current cast of characters. This is not a recruiting
strategy. The purpose of a clique is to remain small and tightly-knit.
This is not a bad thing, but I have heard people talk about wanting to
grow and reach out into the community. Well, if you truly want that, then
you have to do the things that makes that possible. Today, I am suggesting
one of them.
|
