First Parish Unitarian UniversalistFaith-based Living
A sermon preached by Rev. Diane Teichert
First Parish Unitarian Universalist - Canton, MA
March 4, 2001
The expression "Faith-based" entered our vocabulary as if everyone knew what it meant.. It has sparked a controversy, into which various Unitarian Universalists, speaking officially and unofficially, have waded (mostly on the negative-or at least cautious-side).
President Bush's newly created Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives introduced the term in the public arena, but actually, its usage in regard to funding of social service programs has been around for at least six years. It was six years ago that the Clinton administration pushed and Congress enacted a law relaxing the restrictions on government funding of human service programs.
Shortly after President Bush announced his plans, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sponsored a press conference at the National Press Club in the nation's capital. Our own Rev. Meg Riley, director of the UUA's Washington Office appeared at the press conference and was quoted as asking,
"Who will determine which religions are 'qualified' to receive government funding, which religions are 'cults,' which religions should receive billions of tax dollars…? Who will determine whether a spiritually-based program is accountable to the common good, as that common good has been carefully discerned over centuries of legal and civil struggle in this country? Who will be in the room where…highly nuanced, complex discussions will take place to direct billions of federal tax dollars?
"President Bush, I urge you to think again before you make this historic change in the fabric of religious and social life of our nation. [The participants around] your decision-making table must reflect the real diversity of our nation's religious practices. Any initiative that takes apart the existing regulations, which were designed to ensure the constitutional separation of church and state, is a danger to our nation's future."
I must confess, however, that at the time Rev. Riley was speaking, I was thinking more selfishly. I was thinking about whether or not the Canton Food Pantry could get some of this money! After all, it was started by local clergy (chief among them, my predecessor Anita Farber-Robertson, proud to say). Doesn't that make it a faith-based initiative? (I'm just always looking for a hand-out, or at least a helping hand! Shameless huckster!)
Seriously, I am perhaps more ambivalent about this relatively new initiative than many of my colleagues. I think there have been some successful federally funded, faith-based programs already-especially in the arena of affordable housing in major cities-and I would like to see more money sent in those directions. I'm aware of the issues regarding separation of religion and state, but I think that thoughtful people, going slow, could work them out, as well as the difficult quality-control issues.
Therefore, I don't think this new flow of funding should come shooting out of the spigot. I think the water pressure should be set intentionally low at the start. I also believe it should be new money, not money siphoned off the flow of federal funding currently directed to government and non-profit secular agencies, by which some successful services have also been provided over the years. In this time of unprecedented prosperity, we should be able devote more, not less, of our wealth toward improving housing, education and working conditions for all Americans.
Herein would have ended the political aspect of this sermon if not for the following report. You can imagine my dismay, now that you know about my ambivalence-even openness-in regard to this new initiative, when I read the following account written by Cynthia W. Parr of Augusta, Georgia, whose husband is a rabbi there. .I don't know her personally, but I pursued and received confirmation that she did in fact originate the email message reporting her own personal experience, originally to a rabbinic spouse listserv, from which it was forwarded to the Hebrew Union College alumni listserv, and then to the Clergy for Choice Network of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (see www.rcrc.org).
On Saturday morning, February 24, 2001, I attended a meeting with Steve Goldsmith, head of President George W. Bush's Faith-based Charity Initiative. The mayor of our town, Augusta, Georgia, had sent personal invitations to the local clergy and I had read a small blurb about the meeting in the newspaper. There were about 200 people in attendance and lasted about 1-1/2 hours. After some investigation, I realized that only Christian clergy were invited to the meeting. In addition, by having a meeting on a Saturday morning, the mayor was assured of no Rabbis attending.
The meeting began with a prayer by the Episcopalian minister and the mayor introduced our "special" guest, Ralph Reed (former head of the Christian Coalition and now an advisor to President Bush). When Mr. Goldsmith spoke he explained that the faith-based charities initiatives involved no new monies, it was actually a move to lift the restrictions from the current government funds going to non-profit organizations. Religious groups would be allowed to compete for federal money to achieve their missions. If a church was in the business of setting up a soup kitchen, the government money could be used for everything "except the Bibles". The group could continue to pass out religious material (that they themselves provide) and require prayer by their clients. They could not discriminate against clients but could insure that "acceptable" people work [there]. For example, they could make sure only Christians, men, or heterosexual people would be on their staff. A Catholic church could set up a sex-education program with government money. I…heard the comment several times that this is to lift the discrimination against Christians….
When I confronted the Mayor about whom he invited, he told me he invited everyone in the phonebook under "Church". When I suggested that he had left out "Synagogues", he replied, "well I guess you' re going to tell me I left out the Imams too".
I also confronted Mr. Goldsmith afterwards. I asked him if he was a practicing Jew. He said yes. I asked him what Synagogue he belonged to and he wanted to know why I wanted to know. He finally told me he belonged to a Conservative synagogue in Indianapolis. I also found it interesting that he was wearing a "Boy Scout" pin on his suit jacket. This meeting left me with a horrible feeling…"
If this incident was not a local aberration peculiar to Augusta Georgia, but rather represents how the new Office for Faith-based and Community Initiatives is promoting itself, I cannot be ambivalent about or open to it much longer. They only invited Christian clergy, made it clear that federal money could fund salaries of people hired without following mandatory non-discrimination clauses, stated that there would be no new money allocated, and allowed that sex ed services could be provided by religious organizations that are known to be against existing law regarding abortion. I'm starting to have a horrible feeling, too.
But, I really didn't want to get too far into the politics of this, this morning. I'm more interested in probing other aspects of the matter. For example, what does "faith-based" really mean? Also, can we as Unitarian Universalists claim that what we do is based on faith? Is our Children's Garden Pre-school a faith-based program? Do we live "faith based" lives?
What does it mean to say that a program is faith-based? (Sardonically) Does it mean that it takes faith to believe that the program is successful? That its success can't be verified, so a leap of faith is required to believe that it works?!!
Or, does it mean that faith makes the program successful? If so, whose faith? That of the people running the program and doing the serving, or the people being served? Whoever's faith it is, how do they know it's their faith that makes the program work? And what do they mean by "faith"?
And, here's yet another question, faith in what? Faith in the program itself? Wouldn't faith in the program, if held by both the servers and the served, be a significant factor in its success rate? Such confidence must operate in any successful social service program, secular or religious, non-profit or for-profit, government-funded or privately-funded. Confidence that you can and will be helped makes you more open to being helped, it seems to me. Why would faith in the program be so controversial?
Let's get to reality, here. The controversy is swirling because "faith-based" means that the program is in some way religious. It is either founded on religious tenets or initiated because of religious beliefs. Historically, and in many but not all respects (laws interfering in the practice of Native American religious traditions come to mind), we Americans have worked hard to keep government policies and government money, government itself, out of our practice of religion.
This "Faith-Based Programs" initiative commingles the two. It requires the government to decide which religious groups gets the money and which doesn't, thus strengthening some and not others. It uses public funds to support services to vulnerable people by religious groups that may be looking for converts (or just people to sign their Membership Books!) It raises a worry: do we risk losing our religious freedom? As a religious minority, Unitarian Universalists have reason to want to be careful about this.
Yet, I still haven't addressed the question that interests me most: what is meant by the word "faith"? It is not necessarily synonymous with "religion." According to one dictionary [current Oxford English Dictionary], its first meanings are general concepts like "belief, trust, or confidence." Programs based on such things need not be so controversial.
New social programs, especially, are based on the belief that they will work or are at least worth trying. Many social service programs are based on the development of a trust in the relationship between provider and client. This use of the word "faith" does not justify much alarm.
Another older dictionary [1970 Webster's New World Dictionary] first defines "faith" as "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." Based on faith, based on an unquestioning belief, based on a belief that does not require (or lend itself to) proof-is that what "faith-based" really means? If so, again, is that really so harmful? Even people who are not religious sometimes say, "I went on faith that…" It may make evaluation difficult, which becomes a problem for quality-control, but unquestioning belief is in itself not cause for great concern, except that the belief not be a damaging one.
I think it's fair to say, though, that even though it's not the first or second but third listed definition, the third one that says faith is "a religion or system of religious beliefs" such as the Christian faith, the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, etc. is the one that points us to why there is a debate about the Office of Faith-based Initiatives. By this definition, a faith based program is one that rests in, is based on, a particular religion or system of religious beliefs. That's why this initiative raises Constitutional questions.
Never mind the dictionary, never mind this political issue…here we are gathered together in worship as "people of faith with joys and sorrows, gifts and needs."…what do WE mean when we use (or don't use) the word "faith?"
I confess to using the word "faith" fairly loosely, up til now. I refer to Unitarian Universalism as a "faith tradition," to First Parish as a "faith community" and to myself as a "person of faith." Those expressions sound good to my ears, kind of vaguely religious, but not overtly so-kind of like "spiritual," another vague word.
I have to ask myself, what do I mean when I use the word "faith" in reference to us? And, why don't I (or any of you, to my best recollection) refer to our Children's Garden Pre-school or our new this year and highly popular Toddler Enrichment Program as "faith-based programs?"
When I use the word "faith," its meaning roves around between the first and last definitions, between general notions of "belief, trust, confidence" and "a system of religious beliefs." However, what counts as a "religious belief" for me as a spiritual humanist would sound secular to the director of the Office for Faith-based Initiatives, I'm sure!
The one thing I rarely mean when I use the word "faith" is "unquestioning belief." As Unitarian Universalists, we're known for our questions, not our answers. We even sing a hymn that praises questions, ending with the line, "And in our search for peace, maybe we'll finally see: even to question, truly is an answer."
Many of us have times, if we are honest, when we wish for the unquestioning faith expressed in the Musical Meditation this morning, an unwavering confidence that if God watches the sparrow then he must watch me. You might have a friend or a family member who has a simple and vibrant faith of the traditional sort that sustains them and guides them, and you admit a twinge of envy for the security you think they must feel. Yet, you know yourself well enough to know, that such a faith is not yours, as much as you might sometimes wish.
I remember a time many years ago, as a young teen perhaps, when I secretly hoped that on Easter morning I would wake up and miraculously believe that Jesus had risen! How much easier everything would be!
That it never happened might explain why the passage I read earlier from the second chapter of the Book of James was among my favorites in the Christian Scriptures (James 2:14-18). Not having the required belief in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, at least I could live a life of faith through my works!
I must have skipped over what it says in the first chapter, though. "If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord." Devastating!
It takes time to recover from such a punishing message. I would eventually come to understand that passage to mean, "Trust that you shall have the wisdom required for the task, if not before then after with hindsight, if you seek wisdom and are open to it, not withholding part of yourself in either false pride or self-reproach."
How wholesome are the messages of our faith (yes, faith!) tradition. Years of my own homemade Biblical translations later, I would be heartened by these words of the UU minister Richard Gilbert, author of the Adult RE curriculum "Building Your Own Theology" which we have used here at First Parish
In Praise of Doubt
It is not that we are not believers.
It is that our belief
Has to be passed through the fires of skepticism
And boiled in the crucible of doubt.
You have heard it said,
"Ours is not to reason why,
Ours is but to do and die."
But I say unto you,
Ours is not to doubt and die,
Ours is to seek the reason why.
When we doubt, we affirm the importance of reason
And our confidence in ourselves as centers of religious authority.
When we doubt, we affirm the seriousness of the religious quest.
When we doubt, we recognize that truth was not engraved in stone 2,000 years ago.
When we doubt, we acknowledge that our understanding of truth is imperfect.
When we doubt, we strengthen our faith.
For the faith of doubt, we give thanks;
For the doubt of faith, we make glad thanksgiving.
For the courage of adventure
That welcomes questions
As much as answers;
For the beloved community of seekers,
We sing our alleluias into the silent darkness.
My faith is in the transforming power of love that acts within us and through us and between us (if we would but allow it and be open to its surprises). As its channels, we are forever imperfect-but less and less so, the more we learn to both "save the world and savor it," to both "serve life and enjoy it." May our faith-based living be so. Amen.