The Limits of Tolerance
Reverend Benjamin Maucere
First Unitarian Church, Philadelphia, PA
On Thursday, February 21, on his television show "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson attacked Islam as a violent religion that seeks to, quote,"dominate or, if need be, destroy."
This from the man who agreed with Jerry Falwell that the September 11 attacks happened because Americans had insulted God
These statements make it clear, if we had any doubt, that Islam has no monopoly on religious intolerance, bigotry, and extremism. We are currently witnessing further proof of this In Western India, where four days of Hindu/Muslim rioting has produced a death toll that now approaches 400. And we continue to pray for peace in the Middle East.
There are causes for the violence beyond religion, of course, but religion does play a part. Most religions have repressive, even violent strains - both in theory and in practice.
The Koran is filled with imagery - some beautiful, some peaceful. And some bloody. But Robertson's trick of quoting only the negative can be used against him as well.
The Bible is filled with violent imagery from beginning to end. From God's destruction of every living thing upon the earth except Noah's family in Genesis, through the blood sacrifice of Jesus to the final casting unbelievers into rivers of hellfire in Revelations.
One little-known example, in Psalm 137: are the words you may recognize as a Reggae song, "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. . . ." the psalm ends with these words, "Happy shall he be, that takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks."
The Unitarian Universalist Principles and Purposes are printed on the back of your Order of Service. It is not a creed, but rather a statement of shared religious values - a statement of identity if you will. Enshrined in this statement is our third source - that we draw from "the wisdom of the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life."
This is not to say that all religious paths are equally valid. This surprises some people, who misinterpret our radical respect of other paths as uncritical acceptance. Our minds are open - not empty.
When people say to me that they are attracted to UUism because "we're not judgmental" I know what they mean, but it's not accurate. We have to be judgmental. Our religious tolerance has limits. As Jacob wrote in notes for our conversation, "We do not agree with all beliefs or accept that all belief systems are true and good for individuals, the environment, or human welfare." Or as he said, semi-seriously, "we can tolerate anything except intolerance!"
We repudiate all demands that we grovel, or beg forgiveness.
We relinquish those religious forms
that would take our power and put it in the hands of a church
or a God that just might - graciously - give some back.
And we renounce all that demeans,
diminishes,
and destroys the human spirit.
Yes we judge - that we might differentiate
the wisdom
from the toxic
in religion.
On what basis do we judge?
Our faith gives us some tools: the use of reason,
the reality-check of conversation in religious community,
and our history and tradition.
Our Principles and Purposes is a product of these.
Which is why it is vitally important that we know our history. Not only so that we can articulate our faith when inviting someone to church, but because we are guided by our history. It is said that those who don't stand for something will fall for anything. Well we do stand for something!
In the fourth century, at the Council of Nicea, we stood with those who advocated a respect for differing opinions regarding the nature of Christ. We lost that fight, and the Council voted to establish a narrow creed and exclude religious pluralism.
In the sixteenth century In Transylvania we stood with Francis David, the Unitarian Bishop of Transylvania, who died rather than accept the King's prohibition on "religious innovation"- he sacrificed himself in defense of one of our central values - that revelation is not sealed. Religion evolves, ever yielding of new insight, taking new form to respond to the challenges of the present age.
In the eighteenth century in England and the United States, we stood with the Universalists who argued against the Calvinist dogma of predestination because it dehumanized people and demonized God. We argued that a loving God would not condemn any creature to eternal damnation.
In 1796, in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, a group founded the "Society of Unitarian Christians" - now First Unitarian Church, the oldest congregation in North America to use that name. Their statement of identity was simple: "We unite to worship one God, the Father, and Him only." But a disclaimer followed this statement - to the effect that not even this belief would be considered a requirement of membership.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the work of the Transcendentalists: Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller and others, truly developed this value of theological diversity. At the time, Unitarianism was a liberal Christian denomination. In the Dial and other publications, the Transcendentalists were some of the first people in this country to translate and publish Buddhist and Hindu sacred writings. They claimed that religious insight was not confined to the Bible. Then they went further, by contending that literature, especially poetry, is a source of religious insight. And further still, they concluded that nature itself can guide us and teach us - religious authority need not be confined between the covers of a book. It took the Unitarian establishment a while to respond, but eventually we became a post-Christian faith.
We learn from the bad as well as the good. For example, we lift up church member Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, our first minister William Henry Furness, and others who fought against slavery, as well we should. But we must recognize that, while the Universalist Denomination took an anti-slavery stand as early as the Philadelphia Convention in 1780, the Unitarians never did. Rather than respond to the demands of justice, the Unitarians allowed Congregational Polity, the principle that each congregation decides for itself, to take precedence. It is important to recognize the danger of making tolerance for diversity the ultimate value.
There's another problem with our claim of religious tolerance - sometimes it is a thin veneer masking an elitist condescension if not outright hostility. The attitudes of many of us regarding Christianity is one example. It's a problem and we've got to get over it. A newcomer at coffee hour told me recently that he asked about the UU position regarding Christ and the person "went off on him" about how we don't believe any of that stuff. Well some of us do - and deserve to feel safe here.
I have no quarrel with the core of Christianity, but I have a lot of problems with literal interpretations. Jesus as divine incarnation? I can work with that - aren't we all children of God? As a unique manifestation of the divine? Again - aren't we all? As the only path? That's a problem for me, but contemporary Christians have done wonders with the concept of the Cosmic Christ, as a principle that unites the human with the divine.
What I fervently believe is that Jesus taught in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, calling us to love and justice, hope and healing, and is therefor worthy of reverence, and his followers worthy of respect when they continue in this tradition.
This is the liberating strain of Christianity, which we must distinguish from the repressive strain that we rightly oppose.
We are often repelled by Christian proselytizing, trying to convert others, but we must differentiate this from evangelizing, or sharing good news. I admire the passion some Christians bring to the endeavor. Where's our passion?
No, we're not motivated to spare others from hell. We've abolished hell. Our message is different: You are not going to hell!
Christians are wrong when they try to convert people from faiths that work perfectly well for them. They are wrong when their goal, as Pat Robertson has stated, is to convert all the world to Christianity. This sounds suspiciously like "to dominate, or if need be destroy."
But wouldn't we like to be able to convert the homophobe;
the racist;
those who would deny women control over their reproductive lives? Have we tried?
And even if we fail - what about the millions of ordinary folks who are spiritually dissatisfied, who know there's something more, some faith that can help them find meaning and purpose, to love one another without prejudice, and to build a just and sustainable world?
Why are we so reticent to share our faith? Why do we hide our light under a bushel? This is the attitude we are working on with the Committee of Fifty, as Amy Hillier demonstrated earlier.
The problem is not Christianity, the problem is that it contains destructive elements within it. Recently some people, and not just demagogues like Pat Robertson, have argued that Islam is the problem. This attitude of course is much more common after September 11.
Yes, Islam has its problems. The most significant problem is the individuals - both outside and within, who are unable or unwilling to make distinctions - to lift up what is valuable and worthwhile, what exalts and upholds love and justice - which is present in all the world's major religions - and to repudiate that which is toxic.
So our job as religious liberals, our contribution to the conversation about religious tolerance and its limits, begins with a radical respect for difference. It continues in the practice of discernment through reason and conversation. And it is maintained through our commitment to building and maintaining a religious community as a means to personal development and furthering love and justice. The work is worthy - and so are the workers. AMEN.
Previous page: Sermons
Next page: Sermon Archive