"Coming Home to Religious Humanism "

Today is "Hiroshima Day." Fifty-one years ago the United States detonated an atomic bomb above the city of Hiroshima, Japan. I recommend the "True Majority" internet message about Hiroshima Day published by Ben of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Ben drops one BB, representing fifteen (15) Hiroshima sized atomic bombs. Then he drops 6 more BBs equivalent to nuclear weapons needed to blow up all of Russian. Then he drops 10,000 BBs, equivalent to the nuclear arsenal maintained by the United States.

Betty and I visited Hiroshima in June. We rode the trolley from downtown to the Peace Park located at ground zero where the 1945 atomic bomb blast occurred. When leaving the trolley the first sight is what remains of an industrial exhibition center, commonly called the "Peace Dome," which was almost directly under ground zero. From there, one can walk through the Peace Park, with various memorials, including the Cenotaph where names of all those known to have died are inscribed, along with these words: "Let all the souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat this evil." After Betty and I visited Hiroshima, I wrote in my diary:

"I think I know all the 'political' reasons the US dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima: such as, end the war quickly with limited loss of life; achieve Japan's surrender before Stalin's Russia could enter the Pacific theater. However I continue to believe there could have been a better way . . . . Try as I may I cannot believe this horrific display was the only way. The pictures of people walking around with flesh literally falling off their bodies (heat at ground zero was 3000 degrees), the lingering effects (long term disease) . . . . Visiting this Peace Memorial Park and Museum is, it seems to me, necessary as one way to learn humanity's inhumanity."

How do we respond to this one example of what I call "humanity's inhumanity"? I suggest one possibility is religious humanism. Of course there can be responses which are humanistic without the qualifying adjective, "religious." Some secular or non-religious humanists might suggest Hiroshima was justified, because of Pearl Harbor. Some people might even say the US warned the citizens of Hiroshima with leaflets prior to the bombing. Some might say, we can learn the effects of nuclear radiation.

Then, of course, there might be some religious responses with little, if any recourse to humanistic concerns. Religion without humanism might say, well we just need to pray more; or we need to spread the message of Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed or ______ you name it religion, in other words, better mission efforts.

I do not believe either humanism-without-religion or religion-without- humanism is good enough. In fact, either may do more harm than good. I suggest the original Humanist Manifesto of 1933 is the place to begin. One cannot read that document without finding repeated references to religious humanism. Here are two quotations worthy of note:

"Through all (the changefulness of religions through the ages) religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life."

And

". . . While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present."

To be sure later revisions or re-writes of the "Humanist Manifesto" as well as the publication of the American Humanist Association, "The Humanist" are much more secular, the only references to religion are usually being negative. The conceptual journey from 1933 to today has sometimes been characterized with the shorthand terminology, "theism" vs. "humanism." This is a false dichotomy. WE can come home to religious humanism.

Before going further I attempt some definitions. I understand humanism to be characterized by human responsibility. Namely that we human beings have responsibility for our own life and world; more, that we have the ability, as part of what it means to be human to accept responsibility for our own lives and world. Said another way, our humanist strain does not rely on a Supernatural Power to make things right in our world. That's our responsibility.

I understand religion or religious to have to do with matters of faith. Some people find meaning in the term, "God." However for some people that term is too loaded with unhappy associations to be meaningful. I like the Unitarian Universalist concept of "Transcending Mystery." Personally, I understand that "Mystery" to be the power of Love. In other words, our human responsibility to make things right in our world can be informed by, indeed transformed by, spiritual awareness.

Let me say it another way. One of the dangers of some religions is treating people as though we are mere pawns in the hands of an all-knowing god; and that whatever happens is god's business not ours. One of the dangers of some humanism is treating people as though we do not have any spiritual insights; and that qualities such as love and empathy and compassion are only glandular.

Religious humanism, it seems to me is an attempt to correct both the mistakes of religion and of humanism. Here's an example from human relationships. The old, what could be called "secular humanism" emphasized the individual to the exclusion of community. Religious humanism accepts the reality that full humanity is enriched by relationships in community. I talked about this last week as the "open circle" congregation of liberating faith.

More recent humanism has ignored the original Humanist Manifesto and tends to be intolerant of other perspectives, including a Theistic perspective which may be reflected in many different religious traditions. Seems to me that mistake was noted by one of our UU "saints," Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote over 140 years ago that to dismiss religion is like ". . . saying in rainy weather, there is no sun." Emerson went on in that essay to call for a new understanding of "spiritual" which went beyond supernatural illusions of the past to an internal reality.

The two readings for today's service reflect the hope of building bridges of understanding between religion and humanism without neglecting either. David Parke, well-known UU minister, draws the two together in his words: "Each (that is both humanism and theism) exemplifies, extends and enhances the other." Fredric John Muir uses the analogy of balance: "The new religious humanism uses the language of balance, of balancing left and right sides of the brain . . . ."

I suggest this kind of balance may be a key for our Unitarian Universalist movement. I realize some people are offended when the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Rev. Bill Sinkford, talks about a "language of reverence." However, as I said last week, there is a spiritual longing in our culture which I believe requires a response which includes "reverence." Unitarian Universalists could become a template for humanism which accepts human responsibility, for example in our social action work; but more for human responsibility which is enriched by spiritual or religious understandings.

I am not talking about something new or different; neither is Bill Sinkford. That is why the title of this sermon is "coming home to religious humanism." We Unitarian Univeralists are not what biologists call a "sport." We are not mutants with questionable ancestry. One of the historical components of our UU Movement is religion. Our UU forebears were people of faith. That does not mean creedal orthodoxy, requiring everyone to conform to a particular religious understanding. Indeed, our forebears rebelled against that kind of orthodoxy. We can be justly proud that the first, and I believe only, European monarch to declare religious freedom was a Unitarian, King John Sigismund of Transylvania in the middle of the sixteenth century. In short, religion without creedalism is one of our roots.

However, we also have a tradition (not traditionalism) in humanism. The 1933 "Humanist Manifesto" was written by two Unitarian Ministers. Corliss Lamont, also Unitarian was long time President of the American Humanist Association. I believe Edwin Henry Wilson, also a Unitarian leader, helped to write the 1973 Humanist Manifesto. In short, humanism is also one of our roots.

Last week I talked about Rabbi Michael Lerner and "The Network of Spiritual Progressives" as an alternative to the Religious Right. Rabbi Lerner challenges several current assumptions in the United States. One challenge is that the right Wing Christian Conservatives have defined God and religion in their own terms, with a new orthodoxy pegged to homophobia and abortion rights.

He also challenges those of us who are more liberal, because of our anti-religious and anti-spiritual elitism. We are so alienated by the way the Religious Right talks about religion and spirituality, that our "pendulum" swings all the way to denunciation, sometimes angry denunciation, of anything which even smells like religion. Witness some of the reactions to Bill Sinkford's statement about a "language of reverence."

Following last week's sermon, Carol Agate questioned me about how I would distinguish Rabbi Lerner's "spirituality" with an emphasis on compassion and community, which he calls "mutual interconnectedness" from what is traditionally known as ethics." My concern, and I think Rabbi Lerner's concern is that ethics which is not rooted in spirituality is not good enough. "Cut flower" ethics without a spiritual root too quickly wilt and die in the hot sun of conflict and uncertainty.

I believe this is one of the problems facing secular humanists who seem to favor ethical solutions without regard to religion. Those solutions very often end up being nothing more than rushing in to "fix" human beings, in other words to manipulate people according to what one thinks is "ethical." Humanist ethics without a spiritual-base is a perfect way to manipulate people in the name of "doing good."

This is, however, not only a secular humanist issue, this can also be a religious issue which does not have humanist concern. Religion without the influence of humanism will most often result in rationalizing a form of paternalism, illustrated in the worst excesses of missionary work as found, for example, in the novel, "The Poisonwood Bible."

Last week I talked about the pilgrimage of faith, a pilgrimage or journey for everyone who has rejected the easy answers of "hand-me-down" religion. You may remember one option in that pilgrimage is "Rectangular Church," which invites the pilgrim to come in to safety. No more journey, no more problems, just believe what we say. We have the answers just for you. Welcome.

Directly opposing this option is "Avoidance Oval," where the pilgrim can just decide the whole pilgrimage of faith is a waste of time.

I suggest that religion without the benefit of humanism is like the "Rectangular Church," with easy answers to complex questions. I suggest humanism without religion is "Avoidance Oval," which simply rejects the whole matter of spirituality or religion as possibly enrichment of our humanity.

You may remember there is a third possibility, which is the struggle to reach a personal, liberating faith. The struggle is not easy. We Unitarian Universalists call that struggle, "search for truth and meaning," note "search," not something which is just handed down.

The pilgrimage toward liberating faith will bring us to an open-minded community where we learn from one another through compassionate sharing of ideas. The pilgrimage will also lead us to what I believe is a hallmark of Transcendentalism namely, ". . . a religious spirit that does not reside in external forms, words, ceremonies or institutions" but in what Emerson called, "an active soul." (Robert D. Richardson, Jr., "Emerson: The Mind on Fire," p.250.) "Namiste, the spirit in me greets the spirit in you."

Religious Humanism does not appeal to some external, supernatural, force or power to alleviate the conditions which create atomic bomb blasts, or Iraq, or the Hizbullah-Israeli current conflict. Religious humanism recognizes our human responsibility for compassion and ecological sanity and community based on mutual acceptance of our differences. Religious humanism balances human responsibility with spiritual insight. Here is an example from our Hymn Book.

In the back of the Hymn Book there is a topical index. I was amazed the first time I looked at the hymns under the topic, "Humanism" to find listed the great hymn by Harry Emerson Fosdick, "God of Grace and God of Glory." How could anyone think a hymn with the word "God" in the title be humanist?

Look closely, however, and note that the message of the words of the hymn is not for God to do something, but for we human beings to do something enriched by Divine mystery. The message of the hymn is a plea for Transcending Mystery to enrich and inform human effort:

"Cure thy children's warring madness, bend our pride to thy control, shame our wanton, selfish gladness, rich in things and poor in soul."

Again:

"Fill us with a living vision, heal our wounds that we may be bound as one beyond division in the struggle to be free."

This hymn does not represent magisterial humanism which denies spirituality. Neither does this hymn represent magisterial religion which denies human ability. Rather this hymn gathers both human potential and religious influence together in a marvelous poetic call for we human beings, enriched by spiritual insight, to make the world a better place.

Ben, of Ben & Jerry's has it right. The seventeen billion dollars required to maintain our country's nuclear arsenal could be better spent for education, and health care. He concludes his Hiroshima Day message by challenging us to write our representatives in Congress; not a bad suggestion to end a Hiroshima Day sermon.