First Parish Unitarian UniversalistPracticing the Beloved Community
A sermon preached by the Reverend Diane Teichert
First Parish Unitarian Universalist - Canton, MA
May 5, 2002
Last fall I read a delightful book called Open Secrets by a Lutheran pastor about his first church, a country church, in very rural southern Illinois. There is nothing about that church that is like First Parish and nothing about its location that is like Canton. Yet, the lessons Richard Lischer learned there spoke to me, and the humor with which he shared his stories spoke even more so.
The story I just read to you in particular was humorous, and somehow very human, and part of me knew right away I wanted someday to share it with you. The other part of me, the part that wanted to quibble with the lesson Lischer learned, wasn't so sure it would be a good idea.
To some extent, the appeal of the story had to do with its use of a familiar word in an unfamiliar way. You know, perhaps, how much I like to check the dictionary for the roots of the meanings of words, especially the words that religious liberals have avoided in recent decades? Often, in their roots, is the suggestion of a meaning for the word that we can embrace and thus take back the word from the evangelicals.
Like worship. I remember when I was new here, I referred to the bulletin as the "order of worship" and someone commented helpfully to me, "we've been calling it the order of service." The comment slipped by me. I didn't mean to be rude, I just thought, "oh" and didn't get the significance.
Later, it dawned on me that the word worship sounded strange to this congregation- as if to say, we don't worship anybody or anything here, we don't bow down in obedience and we don't even necessarily believe in God and even if we do it's not the kind of God that tells us what to do. So, we don't use the word worship.
I don't use it in those ways, either. I understand the word worship to mean what its roots in Old English suggest, the naming and shaping of that which is of worth, of deepest meaning. We come together here each week to celebrate the life we share, with all its joys and sorrows, to name again our values and re-shape the reality of our lives in light of those values, to remind ourselves of that which is above all and beneath everything really and truly of utmost importance to us. That's worship, and so this printed order here, is the order of worship. Service is what we do when we leave.
I remember a favorite pastor from my college days who closed each worship service by saying, "the worship is over, now let the service begin."
While I'm on the topic of worship, let me add that we are looking to involve more of you in planning and leading worship next year, by re-focusing the Church Services (notice its name!) Committee on lay-led worship. So, if you might be interested, please speak with me about joining that effort.
Anyway, in Open Secrets, Richard Lischer goes to the roots of a word that most religious people, not just liberals, feel they should avoid. The word is gossip. He explains that it "originally implied a spiritual relationship. A gossip was a sponsor at a baptism, one who spoke on behalf of the child and who would provide spiritual guidance to the child as it grew in years. A gossip was your godmother or godfather. Gossiping was speech within the community of the baptized." (p. 94)
I didn't quite believe him. How far the meaning of that word had traveled, from someone who provides spiritual guidance to someone who tells tales and spreads unkind rumors! My dictionary, though, said the same thing as his dictionary. I was surprised!
Now, First Parish is not a "baptizing community." And when he says "gossip in service of the gospel," he means the Christian gospel, and ours is more eclectic and broader than that. Still, though, I wondered, isn't there some meaning here for us, too?
Is there any way that this different kind of gossip could serve the Covenant we recite each morning, when we say we will "dwell together in peace with respect and understanding"? Could this kind of gossip serve our Unitarian Universalist Principles and Purposes in which we say we will affirm and promote "The inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity and compassion in human relations; acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations"?
Or, to turn the question around: Are our Covenant and our Principles and Purposes so alive, so central among us that they are strong enough to guide and constrain gossip, so that it's not the unkind type of gossip but the kind that provides spiritual guidance??
As you may recall from the reading, Lischer says, "When gossip serves the gospel, it exhibits historical, moral, and pastoral dimensions."
I take that to mean that it traces the history of an individual or situation, trying to understand precedents and origins. Then, it raises moral questions, evaluates in light of our shared values. And, finally, it responds to the individual or situation pastorally- firmly but kindly, with the good of the whole, the common good, as paramount always.
The purpose, then, of this kind of gossip's historical dimension is understanding, not invading someone's privacy. Its goal in raising moral questions is not judgment, but to be reminded of our common values. And, in its pastoral dimension, it responds to individuals and situations, in light of that new understanding and those reaffirmed values, to challenge and diminish hurtful behaviors and reinforce or inspire constructive ones.
To repeat, when gossip serves the gospel-or for us when it serves our Covenant and our Principles and Purposes-it exhibits historical, moral and pastoral dimensions. That's how it is able to provide spiritual guidance.
I can see that this new kind of gossip would build a sense of community. First of all, as Lischer said near the end of his chapter on gossip, it enables people to care for each other in time of need.
When I first came to New Cana, I fretted about all the gossip going on in the church-until I realized I couldn't carry on a decent ministry without it. I quit worrying about "privacy issues" and "privileged communication" and other supposedly moral protections, which finally only safeguard the individual's right to be left alone, lost, and miserable. [Protecting] "privacy" scatters the community's tradition of care into a series of personal problems and festering secrets (p. 102).
He's saying that confidentiality safeguards the individual's right to be left alone, lost, and miserable. This is a provocative idea, with some truth to it. Provocative because the word gossip is so negative, and because in this culture, we guard our privacy. But, it's truthful too, because it's a lot more difficult to help someone when that person's need for help is "kept confidential." How often do we think, or say aloud, "Oh, if I'd only known, I would have been happy to help."
I can also see another way for this kind of gossip to build a sense of community. That would be when it addresses-not individuals-but interactions among us. Its historical, moral and pastoral dimensions provide a model for holding each other accountable to high standards of communication in the congregation.
If there is a repeating, troubling kind of interaction among us, we could trace its history, trying to understand precedents and origins. Then, we would evaluate it in light of our shared values. And, finally, we would respond to the situation pastorally- firmly but kindly, with the good of the whole, the common good, as paramount, always.
So, this different kind of gossip, gossip in service of our Covenant and our Principles and Purposes, would help us to create a tradition of care in the congregation-care for individuals and care for the whole. Based on historical, moral and pastoral dimensions.
"Church is the place where we practice being human," declared James Luther Adams, the notable twentieth century Unitarian Universalist theologian who taught at the University of Chicago and at Harvard Divinity School, and was active in his later years at Arlington Street Church in Boston, where some of our members went this past Friday night to serve dinner to 200 hungry or homeless people, as they do there every Friday night all year round.
I've been reminded of Adams' statement when reading the newspaper lately. The conflict in the Middle East is so deep, so protracted, so reinforced by violence now. hasn't anyone been practicing being human in synagogue, mosque and church there?
A few such voices have been heard recently. I'm thinking of the so-called "refuseniks" in the Israeli army who have refused to serve in the occupied territories, and the leading Palestinian peace activist, Hasan Ashrawi, who was scheduled to speak here in Boston two weeks ago, but had to cancel because her house had been destroyed, and the priests and nuns in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem which has been under siege for weeks.
It feels wildly unrealistic and idealistic to even think that what we do in our religious communities might prepare us for conflict in the real world. But, conflict is as much (or maybe even more so!) a part of being human as peace and love. So, practicing conflict would be one part of practicing being human at church, here at First Parish.
If religious people learn how to have conflict constructively within their religious communities, then we might be better prepared for conflict arising outside. And know how to have it without killing each other.
Conflict--what fun, you say sarcastically? You come to First Parish for the experience of rest and renewal for the week ahead, for peace and love, community and cooperation- not to engage in conflict and certainly not to gossip! We have enough conflict and gossip in our workplaces, towns, and families-let's avoid it here, at all costs! I can sense that you are, at this very moment, sliding down your temporarily cushion-less pews toward the aisle, heading for the front door!
And you new members who we so joyously welcomed just a few moments ago. are you wondering whether to give back your packet and your yellow rose and white out your signature from the Membership Book?!
Please, everyone, stick around!
This practicing practice being human was just what Martin Luther King Jr. had, I believe, in mind when he proclaimed, "the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community." By beloved community, he didn't mean, as I've heard it used, a tight-knit group of "like-minded people" working for peace and justice or whatever. His was a national, even global, vision. He talked about us all needing to live together, with our differences, in a "world house."
In our UU congregations, with our diverse members espousing different beliefs, engaging different religious traditions and spiritual practices, and coming from a wide assortment of childhood religions or none, we have pretty close to a "world house" religiously. We also have the usual range of personalities and differences of opinion without which congregational life would be awfully boring. On all counts, we are learning how to get along.
King (I think) would concur with Adams in saying congregational life is a good place to practice being the beloved community. And, although I'm having trouble embracing the original meaning of the word gossip as a spiritual guide, I have a hunch that gospel gossip-gossip in the service of our Covenant, gossip grounded in our Principles and Purposes-could help us to build our tradition of care in the congregation-care for individuals and care for the good of the whole.
Amen