The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Published in The Auburn Citizen, March 17, 2012

                One of the fluffy popular songs from my teen years was the lilting “What the world needs now is love, sweet love.” Not to denigrate love, but I think that what the world needs right now is a lot more empathy. Empathy seems to be one thing that “there’s just too little of.”

            Empathy is often defined as the ability to feel or share something of another person’s experience. An empathic response is one that lets another person know that you are tracking their feelings accurately, and that you really get what they are saying.  With all his failings, President Bill Clinton exemplified empathy when he would say “I feel your pain.” The operative word here is “feel,” and it does not have to be expressed with words.  As clergy, sometimes the most empathic response we can make when we visit a family following a death or other tragedy is to sit with the person or persons in silence, and look into their eyes. The poet, William Blake, captures the feeling of empathy in his Songs of Innocence and Experience when he writes:

Can I see another's woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another's grief,
And not seek for kind relief?

 Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow's share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow filled?

 Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!

            Empathy came to mind over the past few weeks as I watched the genocide being carried out in Syria. Who cannot feel shock and revulsion at the sight of hospitals being deliberately attacked, and innocent neighborhoods under siege from Syrian artillery as Assad’s forces have gone door to door, murdering noncombatants?

            Empathy is not something that one political party or religious group owns. It is a human response to the sufferings of another person. Obviously, empathy makes its way into political or religious discussions when we fail to take into account another person’s experiences or sensitivities. The sad reality is that few laws are written with the people whose lives will be most affected sitting in the room. The recent Congressional circus on contraception, in which all of the people invited to testify were men, was but one example. Couldn’t our Congressmen find a qualified woman to speak on an issue so germane to women’s health?

Gun control is another. Within the past few weeks, the Virginia Legislature decided to overturn a bill limiting people to one handgun purchase per month. In a state that witnessed the worst shooting rampage in recent American history, when Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 people before turning a gun on himself, families of the victims turned out and raised their voices to protest what they saw as an insult to their children’s lives. Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association (which has somehow spent a lot more time defending handguns, armor piercing bullets, and assault rifles than shooting sports—unless you consider shooting people “sport”) demanded removal of the limit. Rather than having the NRA’s check writers in the room, perhaps the Virginia legislators should have had the families of the victims in their assembly, and then looked into their eyes as they cast their ballots. Ironically, they cast their ballots on the day that a third high school student died from gunshot wounds outside Cleveland, Ohio.

            On one level, empathy flies in the face of our “winner take all” or “I Me Mine” culture. Too often, the message that seems to dominate our society resembles the bumper sticker with the message “Whoever dies with the most toys wins the game.” We hear similar messages from Super PAC donors who freely speak of spending in the tens of millions of dollars to get their candidates elected. What does it say about our society that such blowhards believe that this is even an option? What does it say about politicians who will do whatever “tricks” such braggarts demand for that money?

            I believe that most of us are better than that. The nearly universal expressions of revulsion and disgust at what is happening in Syria are but one sign of hope. They are a sign of hope that underneath all of our political differences, there is a layer of compassion, and the ability to “feel another’s woe.” It is that same nascent empathy that it took Comedy Central to reach, when it made each of us ask what it would be like for some inept and unempathic legislator to have a probe stuck into our bodies.

            As Unitarian Universalists, empathy has been at the core of our faith. One might call it our version of “applied theology.” Our services are held at 10:30 on Sunday mornings. All are welcome!

If you do not believe in gay marriage, do you believe that you should be paying to support lobbyists who support it?

            If you are opposed to any form of birth control—regardless of whether it includes contraception, the “morning after pill,” or abortion, do you believe that you should be subsidizing groups that are lobbying for it?

            Those of us who support gay marriage and/or reproductive rights have been pondering these questions for some time. Atheists and the 15% (and growing) of the population who claim no religious affiliation have also been wondering about this. They go right to the core of the fairness of what are called “charitable contributions,” and who gets to use such funds.

            One of the benefits that religious organizations, as well as other “do good” groups receive is favorable treatment under the tax code. This encourages people to contribute towards what is ostensibly “the public good” because their contributions are deductible when they file their taxes. In all honesty, this deduction enables congregations and other organizations to provide far more in the way of programs than we would be able to accomplish without the deduction. This goes back to the days when there was less of an official separation between church and state, and churches were charged with the task of providing moral instruction in their local communities.

            Over the years, charitable status has extended to numerous other groups, such as museums, food banks, and other community organizations. Charitable status also helps fund numerous forms of medical research. All of these are important, particularly at a time when government funding is being cut. It enables all of us, as individuals, to support causes that are particularly important to us.

            Unfortunately some very egregious abuses of this status in recent elections have led me to question its future. One very prominent abuse was the Mormon church’s injection of $22 million to end marriage equality in California.  Some Catholic bishops have also attracted attention with various threats to deny communion to politicians who support various forms of reproductive rights, as well as their followers, and for their recent decisions to withdraw Catholic Charities from participating in the adoption process because of the bishops’ opposition to adoption by same-sex couples. Over the years, I have gotten to know numerous people who have worked for Catholic Charities. Many are non-Catholics who are more concerned about the work they are doing to help the poor and those in need than they are in the political aims of the bishops. I have to believe that many of them are cringing in embarrassment at the bishops’ actions.

            The privilege of using tax exempt funds is something that all of us serving religious congregations take seriously. By law, we cannot endorse political candidates. This is not to say that we should be agnostic or silent on issues that we believe are morally important. How we use our tax exempt funds, however, should be studied. It does not take a scholar in theological ethics or moral reasoning to know that something is wrong when groups such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS organization are allowed to collect and use tax exempt funds. To be blunt, it cheapens the term “charitable giving” when blatantly political organizations use tax exempt funds to pay for professional lobbyists or television advertising to influence political campaigns.

            The absurdity of this has been pointed out in recent weeks by Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, who set up their own “Super PAC” to collect money. As a recent New York Times Sunday Magazine pointed out, Colbert used some of the funds for ads supporting the National Basketball Association owners. The Super PAC, which he turned over to Stewart’s control last week, has been running ads in South Carolina, as it prepares to hold its primary election. The ads satirize the process that allows this to happen as much as they poke fun at individual candidates. As the Times article pointed out, Colbert offered to underwrite the cost of either the Democrat or Republican primaries if they would include a referendum asking whether corporations are people, or, if only people are people.

            Every year, Americans give hundreds of millions of dollars to tax exempt organizations. These are funds that are not available to pay for schools, roads, our wars, or the care of veterans who will need help for the rest of their lives. In a recent online article, Martin Marty, the esteemed scholar on the interface between religion and society asks whether this practice make sense. As Marty writes, “the generally free ride given religious institutions even in a “secular time” should inspire thought: With all its contradictions, the United States remains a wonderful place in which religions can prosper. They do well when they serve the common good freely and openly.” I believe that this is more important, as well as a more appropriate use of these funds than as morally questionable ways of funneling tax exempt dollars to political action committees, or any groups that function that way…regardless of what they call themselves.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Citizen Article

There are many things that we can be precise about. We know how much we weigh in the morning when we step on a scale; we can tell you what we have eaten for a meal; we know when bills and taxes need to be paid—and how much we owe; we know that Christmas will be celebrated on December 25, though we do not know exactly when or where Jesus was born; and we can provide directions from one location to another—though there may be more than one route to follow.

On the other hand, does anyone really know the exact moment when the world was created? While we are pretty sure that the universe was created by what has been called “the big bang,” do we know why that explosion was set off at that precise moment? We know that life is pretty amazing. However, can anyone tell us why some seemingly healthy people die of sudden heart attacks, while others linger for years with degenerative diseases? Is this really “God’s Plan?”

Nearly 32 years ago, when I was a ministerial intern, my supervisor drilled the word “hubris” into my head. Hubris is another word for prideful ignorance. It is the sin of claiming to know too much about what we really do not understand, and should not claim to know. It comes to mind whenever I hear someone say “God tells us” or “this is God’s will.” Let us be honest: none of us really knows God’s will. When pushed to explain, we probably do not know whether there is such a Being as the God that so many preach about on Sunday mornings. The difference between me and whoever is in your pulpit is probably this: I am willing to acknowledge that there are things that we do not know, and probably never will fully understand. So, I have stopped using phrases such as “God says” or “God tells us.” Instead, I am more likely to say something akin to “based on my understanding, I believe that the most loving or compassionate response to a situation is….”

Religion begins with wonder. It begins when we ask what all of life is about, and what we are supposed to do with it. Some would end the process of questioning and learning with answers that are often justified with phrases such as “God says” or God tells us ….” If only this were true.

If science has taught us anything, it is that there is much that we do not know, and that we will never know. Some would argue that this is precisely the reason why we should not believe in any God. It is, after all, just a material process. In one of his earlier books, A Brief History of Time, the English cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, tells us that we can trace the origins of the universe back to the first moments following what has been called “the big bang.” However, to know what lit the fire that set off the equation, according to Hawking, would be tantamount to reading the mind of God. I know that Hawking has changed his opinion since then. Now, he argues that the big bang does not require an explanation. It simply happened.  I still prefer the earlier Hawking, who was agnostic enough to admit that there are things we just don’t know.

Religious skeptics such as atheists or non-theists and agnostics have gotten a bum rap in our society. I believe that the reason for this is that most people want certainty. They want to believe, even if what they are told to believe is unbelievable. The result can be seen in decreased attendance at worship services and people merely going through the motions rather than actively participating in worship services.

I remain an agnostic because I want to believe, along with the earlier Hawking, that there is some purpose to all of this. However, I am honest enough to say that none of us can honestly read its mind or discern that underlying purpose. We can only make our best efforts at reasoning, thinking, and feeling our way through life’s moral conundrums, and hope that we are acting compassionately. At the least, we treat others as we wish to be treated.

We live in a world that has been saturated by charlatans and “God-claimers” and is largely missing “God acknowledgers.” God-claimers are the so-called religious authorities who use the word “God” to justify ideas as diverse and perverse as misogyny, torture, and, even killing in the name of their gods. Does any intelligent or compassionate person still believe that the Inquisition had God’s imprimatur or blessing? I doubt it. If you have a minister or priest who tries to do so, you know that you are dealing with a fraud or a charlatan, not a person of God. Religion is about hope and helping us to make it through this world. It should not be about tribalism and killing those who are different, unless you want to worship some Dracula-like, bloodthirsty imitation of the divine.

To find yourself back at the beginning, according to the poet, T.S. Eliot, can be a blessing. It is to return to wonder, rather than leaping or grasping for a claimed certainty. Some may even call it a “faith in uncertainty.” I acknowledge it as an agnostic’s uncertainty. It is also an agnostic’s honesty. Is it yours? If so, I invite you to spend a Sunday morning with our congregation. You will be welcomed, along with your questions.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
From the May 14, 2011 edition of The Citizen

A recent article in the New York Times observed that Pitzer College, part of the consortium of elite small colleges in Claremont, California, has started a major in “Secular Studies.” According to the May 7, 2011 article, by Laurie Goodstein, “Professors from other departments, including history, philosophy, religion, science and sociology, will teach courses like ‘God, Darwin and Design in America,’ ‘Anxiety in the Age of Reason’ and ‘Bible as Literature.’ The department was proposed by Professor Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist of religion, and approved by the college as recognition of the fact that the fastest growing religious identity group in the United States is “Nones.” That is to say, people who belong to no religious group. According to the most recent polls, 15% of Americans now place themselves in this category.

While much attention has been paid to the mega-church movement, Protestant congregations with thousands of members that provide everything from their own sports leagues, movie theaters, and restaurants, often combining a human potential or gospel of prosperity message on top of their evangelical message, thousands of others have been leaving religion altogether. This is on top of those who have grown up in totally secular homes. I am reminded of this every time that I receive a phone call from someone asking if I “do weddings for people who don’t belong to your church.” I do. I also do same-sex weddings.

Although Americans still attend worship services at higher rates than other western countries, a growing number of people are opting out and doing something else on Saturday or Sunday morning. Why?

I believe there are several reasons. One is what I will call “backlash.” When one looks at social issues such as the public campaigns against gay marriage and reproductive freedom, issues that represent an extension of personal freedom, which has been the defining quality of the American experience, the opponents of these freedoms come from conservative religious voices—in our legislatures, and throughout the media. Have you ever heard a professed atheist voice opposition to gay marriage or reproductive freedom? I maintain that the voice of oppression is religious rather than secular, when it comes to social issues, just as many in the religious camp opposed interracial and interfaith marriages until well into the second half of the twentieth century.

I believe that another reason is the growth of science. It is absurd that we are still arguing about the teaching of evolution in our nation’s schools. What is commonly accepted in virtually every reputable college and university is skipped around in many of our nation’s public schools, where science teachers can be intimidated by threats to their livelihood for teaching evolution rather than the biblical story of Creation. While one may never get back to the moment before all this started, scientists are quite certain about what happened from the first milliseconds after the universe exploded into being, and they are even more certain of how we evolved from the most basic forms of life. The fact that we are all interrelated is something to celebrate, something that should unite us in striving to protect and preserve, as well as appreciate our world. The story of separate and distinct acts of creation, particularly the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, may be ennobling poetry, but they are not science, and do not belong anywhere near a science course. Pitzer has it right when it treats the Bible as literature. Students in future generations would do well to learn about the Bible, the Qur’an, and other examples of religious literature. They would also do well to learn about how these great books were assembled, what was left out, and why decisions
were made to include various laws and teachings—not to make them permanent fixtures in our legal system, but to learn about how society has evolved through the centuries.

It is ironic that some of our nation’s founders and political heroes were more forwardthinking than some of its current legislators and politicians. A Deist such as Thomas Jefferson, or even a religious skeptic such as Abraham Lincoln, would have difficulty in today’s political environment. While both might have said “God bless America,” they were both religious progressives who may have been categorized as “Nones” today. Jefferson favored the sermons of Joseph Priestley, the scientist who was also a Unitarian minister.  Jefferson once wrote that he believed every young American man of the next generation would eventually become a Unitarian. Lincoln never joined a church, though he has often been called the most sophisticated religious thinker ever to become President of the United
States. Personally, I look forward to the day when a self-professed atheist or an honest agnostic will be able to run for public office without facing opprobrium from those who would chastise her or him for their candor.

As a Unitarian Universalist minister, I welcome those who come to our congregation with their skepticism about religion. I want our congregation to be a place where people will feel free and safe asking the most significant and personal questions about life, death, and meaning. I want it to be a place where they will hear “yes, think about what the world can be,” rather than “no, just believe, it has been and always will be this way.” Ours is a different
kind of religious faith. It is a faith in one another, and what we can do to tilt the axis of society in the direction of compassion, progress, and hope for the future.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
(This appeared in The Citizen on Saturday, April 16, 2011)

As a minister, one of the ongoing challenges that our religious communities face is racism. In spite of all our efforts, Sunday morning remains the most segregated hour of the week. When I discussed this with an interracial couple in one of my congregations, the white wife remarked that her black in-laws said that "Sunday morning is the only time we don’t have to be with white people." I cringed when I heard that. I felt as though I, and my congregation, were being lumped into the same category as blatant racists such as the Ku Klux Klan. I also accepted it as a challenge and responsibility—to make each congregation that I serve as open and hospitable to people of all races, sexual orientations, cultural and religious perspectives as possible

This has been on my mind recently because this past week marked the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War. It has also been 43 years since the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King told of his dream of a world where children of all races would eat together at the same table. Although we now have an African-American president, there are times when I feel as though we are not much closer to Dr. King’s dream than we were at the time of his assassination.

I say this because racism often makes subtle appearances, such as the spurious charges that President Obama was not born in the United States. There is no way that such ignorant remarks would be made, let alone tolerated, about someone with a father of European descent. It is his name, and the fact that his father came from Kenya that makes such racism seem "softer." Ironically, President Obama’s "eight-great grandfather" on his mother’s side was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1640! I wonder how many of the men and women who are lining up to oppose him 2012 can claim such a long American ancestry?

Last year, Virginia’s governor, Robert O’Donnell, called for a celebration of the Confederacy. His arguments that the Civil War was not about slavery, and his actions were not racist, were absurd, at best. It reminded me of George Wallace, who knew what he was doing when he used the term "nigra" rather than "Negro" during the sixties.

Another recent example took place in Charleston, South Carolina. It was billed as a "Secession Ball." As every schoolchild knows, the Civil War began with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor. This gathering was a celebration of their state’s decision to be leaders in the move to secede from the union. Again, arguments were made that this was not a racist celebration. It should be pointed out that there were no blacks in attendance, at least, not in the period costumes of the white gentry, who sang "Dixie" in full voice.

The Civil War remains the bloodiest war fought in our nation’s history. Approximately 2% of the population at that time died, either in battle, or from war-related illnesses, such as dysentery. (Similar carnage today would leave approximately six million dead!) Some of the dead were slaveholders, fighting to protect their rights to own slaves. Many more were poor whites, on both sides, drawn into the maw of battle through conscription, a sense of duty, or an illusion. Some of the Confederate foot-soldiers undoubtedly lived and died with the hope that they, too, would someday become slave owners. Isn’t this how most wars are fought?

One of the central themes in theology is that of "repentance." Holding "Secession balls" and commemorating the Confederacy do nothing for repentance. They are as wrong, divisive, and corrosive to our nation as the birthers’ repeated challenges to the legitimacy of the Obama presidency.

This coming week, we will remember the life and death of one whose capacity for forgiveness exceeded any of ours. I have to believe that Jesus would find it in himself to forgive such mean-spirited racist behaviors. John Dominic Crossan, one of the leaders of the Jesus Seminar, who has written extensively on the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, points out that one of the hallmarks of Jesus’s teachings was what he called "open commensality." It was the belief that all people should join together at one table, regardless of race, gender, or belief. It is a dream that I aspire to when I look at who is in my congregation, and remind myself who is missing. I believe that Jesus would have found a willing and smiling dinner companion in Dr. King. As for the birthers and celebrants at the Secession Balls? God only knows.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Citizen Article

Evangelical pastor Rob Bell raises this rhetorical question of whether Gandhi is in Hell in promos for his new book, Love Wins. Bell, the pastor of a 10,000 member church, has built a career as a charismatic young preacher in what is called the “Emerging church” movement of evangelical Christianity. He comes at this provocative question in a way that my Universalist forebears did more than 200 years ago. (The first meeting of Universalists in the Auburn area took place in 1812, and our faith has evolved considerably since that time.) So, if Bell is really “preaching Universalism,” as some of his accusers say, I want to welcome him to a position that James Relly first described in his book, Union, which was published in 1759. In that book, Relly argued ‘Since all sin had come from Adam (Original Sin), all were saved through the sacrificial death of Jesus.’  Relly’s ideas were revolutionary for his time. They were carried across the sea to the colonies by John Murray, who served as a chaplain in George Washington’s army during the American Revolution.

Both Relly and Murray preached the idea that an all-loving God would not condemn anyone to an eternity in Hell. In the generation after Murray, Hosea Ballou would preach the idea that a person’s sin ended when they died, and so should their suffering. Again, it was based on the belief that through the death and sacrifice of Jesus, all would be saved.

The position that only those who personally accept Jesus as their lord and savior will escape eternal suffering is one that Universalists (and now Unitarian Universalists, since the faiths merged in 1961) have opposed because it imposes limits on God’s capacity to forgive. I believe that it is tribal because it assumes that there is a god whose compassion is limited to one group of people. It also portrays God as narcissistic—i.e., “unless you believe in Me, you’re going to spend eternity in Hell.” This is precisely the point that Bell seems to make when he asks whether anyone seriously believes that Gandhi is spending eternity in Hell because he remained a Hindu, rather than accepting Jesus as lord and savior.

Some of my Evangelical Christian friends have pointed out that heaven is the automatic destination for all “confessing Christians” who accept Jesus. This makes Jesus sound like the gatekeeper at a clubhouse, rather than the revolutionary religious teacher that he was. Using this logic, Hitler and his henchmen (most members of his inner circle, including those most responsible for carrying out the Holocaust grew up as Catholic altar boys, and remained practicing Catholics in good standing throughout their lives) are listening to the proverbial harp music in Heaven. They were never denied communion, and, even after the full extent of the Holocaust was known, none were excommunicated. A rabbi friend told me that this was precisely why he believed in an after-life, because he had to know that the Nazi leaders were suffering for their crimes against humanity. Even today, priests who have been convicted of abusing children may still receive communion and expect to go to Heaven when they die, while women who use the birth control pill may be denied communion, and are treated as sinners. Meanwhile, Gandhi, who knew about Jesus and followed his pacifist teachings, could be suffering in Hell. (I am capitalizing Heaven and Hell to emphasize just how much some people view them as literal places. I know that many others explain them as “states of being” instead.)

As Unitarian Universalists, we do not presume to know the limits of God’s capacity for forgiveness. Our Universalist forebears believed in a god of “all-conquering love,” one that could forgive far more than any of us could. To be honest, we spend little time speaking about the hereafter. What matters more is how we treat one another in the here and now. To return to Rob Bell’s question of whether anyone really believes that Gandhi is enduring eternal suffering, I, like everyone else, can only provide my own heartfelt and reasoned position. That is, “No.” That is what our faith teaches, and that is what I preach on Sunday mornings.

Ask yourselves: If there is some type of life after death, would you rather be with Gandhi or Hitler?

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Citizen Article
 
In addition to the role of social networking websites, the power of a "secular soul-force" may be the most important lesson that the world will gain from the recent Egyptian revolution. Prior to Egypt, the paradigmatic example of a revolution in the Muslim world was Iran. The original galvanizing leader of the Iranian revolution of 1979 was Ayatollah Khomeini. Although he originally promised not to turn Iran into a theocracy, he quickly did so. Khomeini‘s legacy is the current symbiotic theocratic dictatorship of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a close circle of ayatollahs, or "holy men." Similar Islamic revolutions included the infamous seizure of power by groups such as the Taliban ("talib" roughly translates to "religious student") in Afghanistan; and Hizbollah, which calls itself "the party of God," and now has a controlling interest in the Lebanese government.

Remarkably, the rebellion in Egypt was led by secular forces. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was seen as the Islamic bogeyman that Hosni Mubarak was protecting the civilized world from, was virtually a non-presence with its "hokey-pokey" (put one foot in, take one foot out) role as events unfolded in Tahrir Square. As a Sunni Muslim society, Egypt does not have the clerical caste of ayatollahs functioning as self-proclaimed mouthpieces for God‘s will (sic) on earth, as there are in Shiite societies. So, there was no Grand Ayatollah (as there is in largely Shiite Iran, as well as Iraq) with power and gravitas equal or superior to that of the ruler/monarch/dictator.

Rather than an explicitly religious voice, Egypt‘s secular army stepped in and took a caretaker role, maintaining order and ensuring that events would turn out peacefully. Furthermore, to quell perhaps the greatest fear in the west, the army stated that all of the peace treaties and agreements with Israel would be maintained. With that statement, most of the world was able to breathe a sigh of relief.

This is not to say that religion had nothing to do with the successful revolution in Egypt. After all, some of the biggest demonstrations took place on Fridays, the traditional Muslim day of prayer, when most people attend prayer services in the mosques. Then again, there is a reason major sporting events take place on Sundays in the United States and throughout the western world—that is the day that most people are off from work.

I use the term "secular soul-force" to describe a power that may "feel religious," but actually transcends our various religious traditions. For example, although Mohandas Gandhi was a Hindu, his teachings on nonviolence drew heavily on those of Henry David Thoreau, the nineteenth-century Unitarian. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King would later base the nonviolent power of the civil rights movement on the teachings of both Gandhi and Thoreau. Dr. King‘s doctrine of nonviolence was explicitly religious, as was his use of "soul-force." This was because of the role of the church in African-American society. However, Dr. King was also ecumenically-minded and savvy enough to describe it in language that transcended Christianity and was inclusive of all humankind.

What we have witnessed in Tahrir Square was yet another manifestation or version of this soul-force. It was, in effect, more secular. Although there were people praying in Tahrir Square, the energy driving the revolution was secular rather than religious. I would define "soul-force" as a power that animates the human will and imagination to act in ways that will eventually lead to justice and liberation.

I believe that soul-force is something that we intuit, rather than something that we need explained in a rational manner. That is to say, it is "self-evident," and may not be inspired by a god, though some may view God as its source.

It is similar to what Theodore Parker, a Unitarian minister in Boston during the 1830s-1850s was speaking of when he spoke of "The transient and permanent in Christianity." For Parker, the transient was all of the church teachings and mythology about Jesus; it was the stuff that changed from one generation or century to another. The permanent was "Love of God and love of man" and we might retranslate that to "love of humankind." Parker wrote that even if Jesus had never lived, those truths would still exist, and we would be able to intuit them within our hearts, without the need of a Bible or any other scripture. Parker was also an ardent abolitionist, who provided sanctuary in his church for escaped slaves when The Fugitive Slave Act was passed, and slave owners gained the right to pursue their slaves who had escaped and moved north.

I believe that what happened in Egypt was a result of a similar "soul-force." Furthermore, it was secular in that it was based on the human desire for freedom from totalitarian rule, rather than by religious leaders hoping to gain power. I hope that it will serve as a model for progressive change throughout the Muslim world. This will benefit the people, because it will free them from the religious totalitarianism which has been used as an oppressive force in too many Muslim lands for far too long. It will also benefit those of us in the non-Muslim world by providing us with stable democracies to deal with, rather than dictators who have served as lackeys for western interests, taking our money to enrich themselves, while providing the non-Muslim world with a false sense of security.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Citizen Article

A topic that is getting a lot of pundit time, particularly by aspiring politicians, is American Exceptionalism. It is grounded in the belief that America is favored by God, above all other nations. Some of its adherents fervently argue that it provides justification for us to act unilaterally and without constraint or respect for international laws. By making such arguments, it weakens rather than strengthens our moral arguments, and makes us appear to be a bully rather than a moral exemplar for the rest of the world. As a religious leader who deeply loves what America stands for, using theological language, I believe that we have a moral duty to call those who argue for American Exceptionalism to repentance. As one who came of age during the Vietnam conflict (it was never a “declared war” even though half a million troops were fighting there at one time), I remember the phrase “America, love it or leave it.” One can “love” America without promoting American Exceptionalism. In fact, my arguments against American Exceptionalism are based on religious grounds.

As Unitarian Universalists, one might say that we are “theologically programmed” to reject American Exceptionalism. The reason for this is that the roots of American Exceptionalism can be found in the writings of the sixteenth century theologian John Calvin. Calvin popularized the related doctrine of predestination, the idea that before we are born, God has a plan for us; and furthermore, God has favored certain people who were called “the Elect” by Calvin and his Scottish protégé, John Knox. Those who were not included among “the Elect” were often consigned to lives of suffering, in this world and the next. How did you recognize members of “the Elect?” It was relatively simple—they were the ones who were in positions of economic power, and were often chosen to serve as leaders of the church.

Robert Burns, the great Scottish poet, came under attack by the national Church of Scotland, and fired back with his poetry condemning any doctrine that ( to paraphrase) taught condemning one to heaven and two to hell…all for its own glory. (See “Holy Willie’s Prayer.”) Burns was in step with the Unitarians of his time. (His two ministers, including the one who baptized him) were both brought up on heresy charges by the Church of Scotland.) William Ellery Channing, often referred to as “the Father of American Unitarianism,” also argued about the absurdity of these teachings when he wrote about why we were forming our own religious association of congregations during the early nineteenth century. (There had been Unitarian churches in Europe since the latter part of the sixteenth century.)

Concepts such as predestination, the Elect, and even the earlier Jewish belief in “God’s chosen people” are ways that groups of people choose to differentiate themselves from others. In essence: to set their group apart. They may have a role to play in the early, formational days of a movement, but they can become toxic and socially corrosive if they continue to dehumanize those who do not share their beliefs. John Calvin, himself, met great derision among other reformers when his followers burned Michael Servetus at the stake in Geneva for writing on the errors of the Trinity. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the beginning of our own Civil War, many of the racist writings used to justify slavery on religious grounds, are reemerging. These are the pernicious results of various forms of “exceptionalism.”

The United States owes its greatness to its egalitarianism and openness to opportunity, rather than absurd arguments for exceptionalism. As Unitarian Universalists, our religion is grounded in human reason, compassion, and the notion that, although we may do horrible things to one another, it is not because God has planned for this to happen. As Burns argued, what would this say about God?

As clergypersons, all of us have our different beliefs about how the world works, and what God’s role is…even, whether there is such a being. As Unitarian Universalists, our members have a wide variety of beliefs and opinions. We love to engage one another in spirited discussions. Yet, in the end, we accept one another, as people of worth and dignity. So, when I am asked to describe my theology or understanding of “how the world works,” I often like to say that “We’re all in this together.” No exceptions.

The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Minister
Auburn Unitarian Universalist Society
Citizen Article (appeared on Saturday, December 25, 2010)

December is the “candle” month on the multifaith calendar. It started with candle vigils for World AIDS Day on December first, and Jews lighting candles for the eight nights of Hanukkah. As the month progressed, candles have been lit by many people to commemorate the winter solstice; and of course, many Christians lit candles at Christmas Eve services. This was immediately followed by African-Americans lighting seven candles on the kinara for Kwanzaa.

There is a lesson to be learned from all these candles. Scholars of religion, as well as anthropologists studying
human development describe this religious impulse as part of what they call homo religiosus.

Underneath the veneer of our diverse religious traditions there is a common human quest for hope during life’s
most foreboding times. It transcends all our differences, even as it undergirds all of our religious stories. It is
symbolized by the yearning for light during the darkest time of the year. This is the meta-story underneath all of our
religious stories. Scholars of religious history believe that one of the early traits was the belief that human beings
could influence the forces of nature; that through their actions, people could create changes or have influence the
conditions that would be favorable for their survival. That is why, before there were candles, there were bonfires
(originally “bone fires” of sacrifice) which were ignited to placate the forces of the universe, otherwise known as God
(or the Gods in polytheistic cultures).

Later, these stories would have agricultural implications—hence the sacrifices meant to appease the forces of
the universe so that next year’s harvest would be bountiful. However, before the harvest implications, there was the
simple prayer/request for light. This is why, to this day, virtually all of our religious and cultural traditions with origins in the northern hemisphere have some form of candle ritual during December.

It is easy to lose sight of the common human origins when we are inundated with news stories about how one
religion, culture, or political system is superior or “chosen by God” above all others. This is one of the pertinent
arguments made by some of the “New Atheists,” such as Christopher Hitchens. While Hitchens would use this point to do away with much of organized religion, I would argue that we would do better to view our different religions as merely separate veneers placed on top of the common human substructure. By digging down and celebrating what we share, our common roots, or, what makes us all human beings, rather than what separates us and makes us different, we could take enormous steps toward a more peaceful world. It would be one in which we would coexist harmoniously as human beings.

One of the best examples of what can happen when we focus on our shared human experience goes back
nearly a century ago. According to legend, it took place during Christmas Eve, 1917, in the trenches of France during the Great War, later to be called World War One. There was no scheduled “Christmas truce” that year. However, on Christmas Eve, some of the soldiers in the German trenches began singing “Stille Nacht.” The American troops recognized the tune, and began singing “Silent Night.” According to the story, the troops serenaded each other, each singing the same tune in their own languages. For that one night, there was a respite from the stench of poison gas and the gore of bayonet charges. According to some accounts, the soldiers emerged from their separate trenches and wished one another a merry Christmas! It is amazing what can happen when we focus on what we hold in common, rather than what makes us different.

Let us keep these stories in mind as we put away our various candelabras and Christmas Eve candles with
their wax catchers until next December. The hands that have lit these various fires emerged from our common
humanity, just as our yearning for wisdom and understanding is human. There are some who ask, “Why can’t the spirit of Christmas (or Hanukkah, the Solstice, or Kwanzaa) exist year round?” I believe that it can. It will not happen because we recite any one particular prayer. This demands “prayer turned into action.” By keeping in mind the fact that all of us are in this together, sharing the human experience, we will create greater opportunities for peace and overcoming the ignorance of prejudice by tilting the axis of the world in direction of a more universal compassion.