Category: Unitarian Universalism

  • Why Go to Church?

    This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper at First Unitarian Church in New Bedford. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Harper.

    Readings

    The first reading is from the journals of Lucy Maud Montgomery, the entry dated August 23, 1901:

    “I sometimes ask myself why, after all, I go to church so regularly. Well, I go for a jumble of reasons, some of which are very good, and others very flimsy and ashamed of themselves. It’s the respectable thing to do — this is one of the flimsy ones — and I would be branded a black sheep if I didn’t go. Then, in this quiet uneventful land, church is really a social function and the only regular one we have. We get out, see our friends and are seen of them, and air our best clothes which otherwise would be left for the most part to the tender mercies of moth and rust.

    “Oh, you miserable reasons! Now for a few better ones!

    “I go to church because I think it well to shut the world out from my soul now and then and look my spiritual self squarely in the face. I go because I think it well to search for truth everywhere, even if we never find it in its entirety; and finally I go because all the associations of the church and service make for good and bring the best that is in me to the surface — the memories of old days, old friends, childish aspirations for the beautiful and sacred. All these come back, like the dew of some spiritual benediction — and so I go to church.”

    [The Selected Journals of L. M. Montgomery: Volume I: 1889-1910, ed. Mary Rubio and Elizabeth Waterston (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 262]

    The second reading is from A Black Theology of Liberation by James Cone:

    “Because the church knows that the world is where human beings are dehumanized, it can neither retreat from the world nor embrace it. Retreating is tantamount to a denial of its calling to share in divine liberation….

    “…There is no place for sheltered piety. Who can “pray” when all hell has broken loose and human existence is being trampled underfoot by evil forces? Prayer takes on new meaning. It has nothing to do with those Bible verses that rulers utter before eating their steaks, in order to remind themselves that they are religious and have not mistreated anybody. Who can thank God for food when we know that our brothers and sisters are starving as we dine like kings?

    “Prayer is not kneeling morning, noon, and evening. This is a tradition that is characteristic of whites; they use it to reinforce the rightness of their destruction of blacks. Prayer is the spirit that is evident in all oppressed communities when they know that they have a job to do. It is the communication with the divine that makes them know that they have very little to lose in the fight against evil and a lot to gain…. To retreat from the world is to lose one’s life and become what others say we are.

    “Embracing the world is also a denial of the gospel. The history of traditional Christianity… show the danger of this procedure. Identifying the rise of nationalism with Christianity, capitalism with the gospel, or exploration of outer space with the advancement of the kingdom of God serves only to enhance the oppression of the weak….

    “The difficulty of defining the meaning of the church and it involvement in the world stems from the unchurchly behavior of institutional white churches. They have given the word “church” a bad reputation for those interested in fighting against human suffering. Because of the unchristian behavior of persons who say they are Christians, “church” in America may very well refer to respectable murderers, who destroy human dignity while “worshipping” God and feeling no guilt about it.”

    [pp. 132-134]

    Sermon

    This morning, I had planned to preach a sermon titled “Spirit of the Sea”; it was to be a sermon on Buddhism, but I realized I needed to do more reading and study before I could pull it off. And then I found myself tangled up in what felt to me to be a more urgent question. That more urgent question was quite simple: Why go to church? Although attendance at Unitarian Universalist churches has been slowly creeping upwards for the pat twenty-five years, generally speaking here in the United States we have been seeing a trend of declining church attendance. And declining church attendance is only one manifestation of the wider social phenomenon of general civic disengagement. Here in the United States, people are pulling back from all organized groups, not just churches.

    The effect of all this is straightforward and personal. Those of us who do go to church have to deal with friends and family members who ask us: So — why do you go to church?

    Perhaps if we were traditional Christians, we’d have an easy traditional answer: We’d say, We go to church to worship God and to acknowledge (what is the traditional formula?) Jesus as our Lord and Savior — that’s what we might say if we happened to be traditional Christians. In fact, there are some Unitarian Universalists who are fairly traditional Christians, and who might in fact give that answer for themselves. But if we’re going to speak more generally, we have to recognize that the majority of us Unitarian Universalists do not believe in a traditional Christian God, and so we do not say that the reason to go to a Unitarian Universalist church to worship God.

    So why do we go to church?

    1. In the late 19th C., it would have been easier for us to answer this question. Not that we would have given the traditional Christian answer. Here in First Unitarian, there were already a significant number of people who did not believe in a traditional Christian God by the middle of the 19th C. John Weiss, minister here from 1847-1859, was a radical Transcendentalist — the scholar Gary Dorrien has called him an advocate of “post-Christian” religion. Weiss’s successor here, William Potter, who finally retired in 1892 was almost as radical as Weiss. Thus, by the mid-19th C., you would not say that people came to this church was to worship God — because many of them, including the ministers, did not.

    But in the 19th C., it was unlikely that anyone would ask you why you went to church. There were many more reasons to go to church than there are now. We heard some of those reasons in the first reading. You went to church because in a small, quiet city like this one, church was one of the only regular social functions. In a history of this church written in 1938, William Emery spoke of this when he recalled what it was like to attend church when he was a boy in the late 19th C.: “And then those late Sunday night vespers! Held in an era when the world was not full of diversions that kept people away from the evening service, vespers were always a center of attraction, for the young people as well as the elders. High School boys might have gone chiefly for the especial purpose of escorting the girls home — the stag line formed on the sidewalk — but they went, and the church was filled.” Thus it was that in the youth of William Emery, people went to church because it was a social function: they went to see their friends, to show off their best clothes, perhaps to flirt a little bit. We have so many leisure-time activities now that the old social function of church is no longer so important; but once it was very important.

    In the first reading this morning, we heard another reason why people went to church: because it was the respectable thing to do. This reason continued to be in force right the middle part of the 20th C. My Unitarian mother once told me that she had been brought up with the dictum that once she grew up, she would be expected to attend the nearest Unitarian church whether she liked it or not. And in the 1950’s, when she got a teaching job in Wilmington, Delaware, she went to the Wilmington Unitarian church, and when she was asked to teach Sunday school, she did so — because that was what one did. Many people went to church in the 1950’s, simply because it was the respectable thing to do. I once heard someone describe it this way: in the 1950’s, it was as if a dump truck backed up to the front door of your church and delivered a whole batch of newcomers every week. You didn’t have to be all that welcoming, you didn’t have to advertise — in the 1950’s, people showed up at your church because that’s what people did in the 1950’s. This was true throughout society. The decade of the 1950’s was a high point of civic engagement in the United States: you went to church, you joined a bowling league, you did volunteer work, you belonged to social clubs. Nobody asked why you went to church: you went because everybody went, and it was the respectable thing to do.

    The late 19th C. and the 1950’s represent high points of church membership and attendance here at First Unitarian. Almost nobody asked why you went to church, because it was taken as a given in the wider society that people just went to church. But now we are in a time when fewer and fewer people actually do go to church. According to polls taken in the last decade, maybe two fifths of the United States population go to church once a month or more. Maybe one fifth of the United States population goes to church every week. We know from sociological studies like the book Bowling Alone that this is part of a wider pattern of civic disengagement. And so nowadays we find ourselves having to answer the question: Why do you go to church?

    2. Lucy Maud Montgomery offers three more reasons why we might go to church. Even though she was writing more than a hundred years ago, I find her reasons still hold up today. She says:

    “[1] I go to church because I think it well to shut the world out from my soul now and then and look my spiritual self squarely in the face. [2] I go because I think it well to search for truth everywhere, even if we never find it in its entirety; … [3] I go because all the associations of the church and service make for good and bring the best that is in me to the surface.”

    We can group these three reasons together under the general heading of “Personal Reasons”. You will notice that Lucy Maud Montgomery does not mention anything about worshipping God, or accepting Jesus as some sort of personal savior. Nor does she say that by going to church she is going to somehow make the world a better place. Instead, she gives three reasons that have to do with her own self. Let’s consider each of these reasons.

    First, she says she goes to church to shut out the outside world for a short time and look her spiritual self in the face. She does not pretend that she could do this entirely on her own; she is wise and knows that it’s very easy to fool yourself about your personal spiritual progress. All the major world religions have a strong communal component to them, because we human beings seem to need the presence of other human beings to be entirely truthful with ourselves. I know I find it easy to tell myself what a great guy I am. But then I go to church, a community where we talk about the highest standards of moral conduct and spiritual progress, and I find that I fall quite short of being a great guy; I may be a great guy in one or two places in my life, but in many more I do not live up to the highest moral standards nor the highest standards of spiritual progress. So, like Lucy Maud Montgomery, I go to church so that I can have a good honest look at who I really am. Mind you, this isn’t about feeling guilty, it’s about being honest with yourself. It’s not always pleasant, but I have found it to be better than deluding myself.

    Second, Lucy Maud Montgomery says she goes to church because she thinks it well to search for truth, even if we never quite find truth in its entirety. She does not think that she can do this on her own, even though she was a writer and a particularly thoughtful person; when she says that she goes to church to search for truth, she is saying that the search for truth must be a communal affair. Scientists and scholars tell us the same thing: science and scholarship depend on having communities of inquirers investigating questions together. Not that churches are meant to investigate scientific or scholarly truths; churches are places where we investigate what it means for you and me to be human; churches are places where we investigate big issues of morality and reality; churches are places where we link the big truths to our own personal lives. This may not be true for you, but personally I’d say this is my chief personal reason for going to church: to search for truth.

    Lucy Maud Montgomery’s third personal reason for going to church is because the service brings out the best in her. I have my own ideas why I think this is so. According to the sociologist Mark Chaves, in his comprehensive 2004 study Congregations in America, “whether or not worshippers know it, and whether or not people generally come to congregations and worship services in search of art or beauty, a substantial amount of artistic activity in fact occurs in congregations, and congregations both inside and outside of worship thereby expose large numbers of people to art.” [p. 179] Chaves goes on to say that churches are one of the primary venues for the arts in United States culture today. So art is a part of churches.

    For me, the whole purpose of art is to bring out the best in persons; at least, I seek out art as a way of reminding myself of the best that is in me. In our congregation, we emphasize art quite a bit. In our church, we get to hear the finest church musicians I have had the pleasure of working with, and we also have other excellent musicians and a Folk Choir that continues to impress me; we have a really quite extraordinary building, and this fine Tiffany mosaic behind me; I try to make an effort to include excellent poetry and prose and the greatest religious literature in our worship services, church being one of the few venues where you get to hear great literature read aloud. Spoken word, visual art and architecture, music — and maybe someday we’ll include occasional bits of drama and dance. The arts are central to who we are as a congregation; and the appreciation of the arts brings out the best that is in us.

    These, then, are three personal reasons for going to church: to take a good honest look at our spiritual selves; to seek together after truth; and to bring out the best in our selves. If someone asks you why you go to church, you could give any one of these answers. Or you could even simply say that you go to church to save your soul — although you would mean something utterly different than the traditional Christian sense of saving souls; you would mean to be the best person you can.

    3. The second reading this morning, from the book A Black Theology of Liberation by the African American theologian James Cone, offers yet another powerful reason for going to church. He says we go to church to fight human suffering. I think he would be a little impatient with the three personal reasons for going to church that we have just heard. He is certainly critical of praying morning, noon, and night — something he says that white churches do as a way of reinforcing their destruction of other people. He says: “There is no place for sheltered piety. Who can ‘pray’ when all hell has broken loose and human existence is being trampled underfoot by evil forces? Prayer takes on new meaning.”

    James Cone is right to take some churches to task for ignoring racism and the oppression of people of color. And after he wrote his book, back in 1970, he was himself taken to task by feminists, both black and white, for leaving women out of his book; for women might equally well ask, Who can ‘pray’ when all hell has broken loose and women, of all skin colors, are being trampled underfoot by evil forces? Later James Cone came to agree with this point, and he wrote: “Black theology is not only a force against racism but also against sexism and any evil done in the name of God and humanity.” Here is this church, we might add a few other evils done in the name of God and humanity. We might talk about the evil that is done in the name of God and humanity against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons. We might talk about the evil that is done in the name of God and humanity against poor people — and let’s face it, these days the evil that is done against working class and middle class people as well. Or the evil done against people with different physical and mental abilities. Here in the United States, racism deserves our special attention, and we must acknowledge that; but as religious persons, we also want to be sure to extend James Cones’s theology of liberation to anybody who is being trampled underfoot by evil forces.

    All this leads us to another reason why we go to church:–

    James Cone tells us that a church that takes liberation seriously does not withdraw from the world; neither does that church embrace the world. We go to church to be in the world, but not entirely of the world. If all we cared about was our own personal spiritual and religious progress, we could remove ourselves from the world and go to those wonderful weekend spiritual retreats, way off in one of those countryside retreat centers, where you get to do personal spiritual practices to your heart’s content. Or if all we cared about was engaging with the world and doing social justice, we wouldn’t waste our time in church, we’d just go off and do social justice on Sunday mornings.

    One extreme is to retreat from the world; the other extreme is to plunge completely into the world. But we follow a middle way. Yes, we stay in touch with that which is highest in best in humanity, which some of us call God: the arts help us to do that, taking the time to seek after truth helps us to do that, taking a good honest look at our spiritual selves helps us to do that. And we also engage the world, we take those insights out into the world and fight evil and human suffering.

    So we try to find a balance between retreat and engagement. We are a church, and that is different from being a non-profit social justice organization that efficiently delivers social services or efficiently engages in affecting public policy. We are a churchy, and that is different from being a spiritual retreat center. We attempt to maintain a balance between doing social justice on the one hand, and staying in touch with what is highest and best in humanity on the other hand. And it’s a balance — we’ll always be teetering to one side or the other, we’re never going to get it exactly right, and it will always be a little bit different for every individual among us.

    Yet notice that there are concrete things we do right now to fight injustice. Our church is a training ground for leadership and organization — churches are one of the best places to learn the leadership and organizational skills necessary in non-profits or to affect public policy. Our church is a place where we combine our individual voices into one voice big enough (we hope) to affect public policy; as we did recently during the fight to retain the right to same sex marriage here in the state of Massachusetts. And our church can be a conduit for helping to provide direct social services to those in need, as we do with the thrift shop in the basement, and our soup kitchen crew, and the food pantry box, and the money we periodically collect for non-profit agencies. Each of these is a concrete way that we remain engaged — while staying apart from, and critical of, the world.

    So it is that when someone asks you why you go to church, one valid response you can give is this: I go to church to save the world.

    And now that we are almost done, I think this counts as my annual sermon about why we should support our church financially, since the reasons I go to church are the same reasons I give two and one half percent of my gross annual income to the church.

    Why do we go to church? In our society, as fewer people do go to church, we find ourselves having to answer this question. Why do we go to church? We go to church to see our friends, and maybe some of us go to church because it is the respectable thing to do. We go to church for personal reasons: to look honestly at our spiritual selves, to seek together after truth, and to bring out the best in our selves. We go to church to gain perspective while remaining engaged with the world, remaining engaged in the fight to end human suffering.

    We go to church to save our own selves, and we go to church to save the world. That’s why I go to church.

  • Singing for Freedom

    This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper at First Unitarian Church in New Bedford. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Harper.

    Readings

    The first reading is by Bernice Johnson Reagon, scholar, composer, and singer in the a capella group Sweet Honey in the Rock:

    “I have had singing in my life since I was a young child. However, my experience with the performance of music form a formal concert stage came by way of the Civil Rights Movement and a group called the SNCC Freedom Singers. We were a group of a capella singers, but we were first field secretaries for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the organization of the Movement formed by student leaders who left their campuses to work full-time against racial injustice in the United States. The Freedom Singers… began to travel throughout the country singing freedom songs to anybody who would listen. Being a fighter for freedom in the Movement meant that our stages were wherever we were, and the songs were a way of coming together, holding each other and proclaiming our determination as citizens to fight racism in this land of our birth. The Freedom Singers sang in concert halls, schools, living rooms, clubs, folk festivals, in elementary, junior, and senior high schools, in colleges and universities. As a group, our concerts were often a way of introducing and connecting people who wanted to find ways to be a part of the Movement, to the culture and energy of activism taking place….

    “As a singing participant in the Movement, I began to notice how well the old songs we knew fit our current situation. Many of the freedom songs we sang we had learned as spirituals, sacred songs created by slaves. Our struggle against racism often found us reaching for connections with those who had during the nineteenth century fought to end slavery in this country….”

    [If You Don’t Go, Don’t Hinder Me: The African American Sacred Song TraditionUniversity of Nebraska Press, 2000), pp. 100, 104]

    The second reading is from the book Sing and Shine On: A Teacher’s Guide to Multicultural Song-leading by Nick Page. Nick is a composer, conductor, and teacher who is a Unitarian Universalist who grew up in our church in Lexington, Massachuestts. Nick writes:

    “An interdependent system is one in which every action affects every other action. A forest fire in Brazil affects the weather in Moscow by creating huge dust clouds that eventually float over Russia. Every element in an ecosystem depends on every other element, even the so-called nonliving elements such as minerals, oxygen, and sunlight. Yes, light is an integral element of all life. The sun is food for many of earth’s life forms. Physicists speak of photons of light as being interchangeable. When the light from an object hits a person, only some of it bounces off. Most of the photons are absorbed in the person. Its energy becomes that person’s energy. This is how incredible interdependence is — everything is constantly becoming everything else — as when you spend a lot of time in a forest or at a beach. More than memory remains with you after you have left.

    “After a powerful singing celebration, I leave with the power of the event still with me. The sense of harmony and connectedness remains. This feeling of being connected to everything is an incredible feeling — truly transcending. We walk in beauty, in harmony with the world around us.

    “The meanings of the survival of the fittest do not work in the context of an interdependent system. A herd of caribou, for example, survive by caring for each other, protecting each other from harm. And yes, the wolf survives by attacking the caribou, but the wolf attacks the weakest member of the herd, thus enduring the strength of the herd as a whole. The survival instinct is universal. Competition and cooperation are both parts of this instinct.

    “When we sing together, our cooperation and interdependence become the perfect analogy for the interdependence and cooperation within nature….

    “Although we humans claim that it is independence from each other that we crave, we truly cannot live without each other or other forms of living things. All life is interdependent with all other life. We have many kinds of bacteria that live inside our bodies. Without them, we could not digest our food. The bacteria are not separate guests inside us — they are part of us, what biologists call host/parasite relationships. We aren’t as independent as we think. This also applies to our place in both our cultures and the natural world. We are very interdependent creatures.”

    Sermon

    Why is singing so important to our religion? In a one hour worship service, we sing together four times, totaling perhaps ten minutes of singing; in other words, approximately one sixth of each worship service is devoted to singing together. Why do we devote so much of our worship service to singing? In a traditionally Christian church, we would sing together in order to glorify God; however, in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, some of us do not believe in God, others of us may believe in some form of God or divinity but don’t see that singing to that God or divinity is necessary, and of course there are those who do sing hymns in order to glorify God or the divine; but we have no consensus, so we can’t say that we all sing to glorify God because that would not be a true statement for all of us. So why do we Unitarian Universalists sing in church? It seems to me that we sing together for the purpose of transforming ourselves and transforming the world.

    About a year ago, I read Bernice Johnson Reagon’s book, If You Don’t Go, Don’t Hinder Me. Now Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon is someone for whom I have the deepest respect. I first came to know her as a singer and the founder of the a capella singing group Sweet Honey in the Rock, and I have respect for her fantastic voice and musicianship. But Dr. Reagon is also a scholar, and I respect her scholarship into African American music and folk traditions, and her work in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, and the fact that she has been awarded a MacArthur “genius” grant. She is also a social activist, who first became active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and has never stopped fighting for social and racial justice — I believe I first heard her singing live at a 1978 rally in Washington, D.C., for the ill-fated effort of putting women’s rights in the U.S. constitution. So anyway, Bernice Johnson Reagon is one of my heroines.

    Thus I was particularly struck by one thing in particular that she wrote in her book If You Don’t Go, Don’t Hinder Me. She said: “As a singing participant in the [Civil Rights] Movement, I began to notice how well the old songs we knew fit our current situation. Many of the freedom songs we sang we had learned as spirituals, sacred songs created by slaves. Our struggle against racism often found us reaching for connections with those who had during the nineteenth century fought to end slavery in this country.” When Bernice Johnson Reagon and other members of the Civil Rights Movement needed songs to lift them up during the long hard fight for civil rights, they were able to draw on their vast repertoire of spirituals, that is of sacred music that they learned in church.

    Although I have been hanging around Unitarian Universalist churches all my life, I can’t say that I have such a vast repertoire of sacred songs to draw upon; but then, I don’t have a particularly good memory for music; I’d say I know less than a dozen songs from our hymnal by heart all the way through, if you don’t count the Christmas carols. However, most of the hymns that I do know all the way through tend to be the songs that are related to social justice and transforming the world. I know Holly Near’s “We Are a Gentle Angry People” by heart because years ago I sang it at pro-choice rallies. I know “We Shall Overcome” because when I was a child we had that song on Pete Seeger’s album of songs from the Civil Rights Movement, which we played over and over and over again. Of course I know “This Little Light of Mine,” which I probably learned in my Unitarian Universalist Sunday school, but which I know by heart because I have sung it at events like last year’s Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing is true of many of you. Unitarian Universalists tend to be politically active, so even if you are new to Unitarian Universalism, chances are pretty good that you have run into such songs as “Gonna Lay Down My Sword and Shield,” a staple in the American peace movement, or “We Are a Gentle Angry People,” well-known at gay pride events, or “Lift Up Every Voice and Sing,” the African American national anthem, or “Step By Step the Longest March,” an old union song — and each of these songs is also in our gray hymnal. Singing songs like these is inherently a religious act, because it can help us to transcend our narrow selves and experience deep interconnection with other people and the entire universe. And singing has the power to help transform the world for the better, which is also an essentially religious act — at least, in my understanding of what religion is, or should be.

    But this may not be entirely obvious as yet. So let me give you three examples of how singing can be transformative.

     

    Let us begin with the most dramatic example of all: the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which has been called the “singingest movement ever.” And I’d like to give you a very specific example of how singing empowered people, how singing allowed people to draw strength from one another.

    Candie Anderson was one of the people who got arrested during the sit-ins in Nashville, Tennessee, in February of 1960 — forty-eight years ago this month. She was an exchange student at Fisk University, a white student at a black university. The African Americans of Nashville had already begun to push at the segregationist policies and laws, and by the end of 1959, students were being trained in how to do direct non-violent protest. Then on February 1, 1960, off in Greensboro, North Carolina, four students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College sat down at that segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter, asked to be served, and got national press coverage. Their action galvanized the students in Nashville. On February 13, the Nashville students staged their first large-scale sit-ins, and they kept at it all month long.

    Candie Anderson, that young white exchange student at Fisk University, wasn’t sure at first what she should do. She asked herself: “The biggest question for me was the rather lonely one of what can a white student do? What would my presence at the lunch-counter mean? Would I alienate and enrage the community to a greater extent than the Negro students? Or would it whos that this is more than a Negro problem? I didn’t know….” She decided that she was going to stand in solidarity with her black friends and fellow students, and she, too, participated in the sit-ins.

    By February 27, the white segregationists started to fight back. When the students from Fisk and other area colleges staged a sit-in, this time they were met with violence, and more than eighty students were arrested. Candie Anderson and a few of the other white students who were participating in the sit-ins also were arrested — but when they got to the prison, she had a shock awaiting her. Here’s what she wrote about it:

    “We were crammed into a narrow hallway to await booking and I studied the faces around me. Many were calm and serious, some were relaxed… a few were really frightened. But there was a unity — a closeness beyond proximity. It was a shock then to be suddenly removed from this large coherent group and thrust into a lonely cell with only one other girl, the only other white female. We protested and inquired why we could not join the large group of Negro girls across the hall. The entire jail was segregated…. The contact which became more real then was vocal. Never have I heard such singing. Spirituals, pop tunes, hymns, and even old slurpy love songs all became so powerful. The men sang to the women and the girls and the girls down the hall answered them. They shouted over to us to make sure we were joining in…. We sang a good part of our eight hour confinement that first time. The city policemen seemed to enjoy the singing….” [Sing for Freedom, Guy and Candie Carawan, p. 22.]

    This is part of what Bernice Johnson Reagon means when she says, “the songs were a way of coming together, holding each other and proclaiming our determination as citizens to fight racism in this land of our birth.” Songs have the power to draw people together, to unify them in an expression of truth and beauty. Songs help us express our deepest commitments in a way that can make them understandable even by those who oppose us: Candie Anderson wrote that on the date of the first trials in Nashville, as the students were going into the courthouse, she saw something remarkable. She wrote: “I looked out at the curb where the police were patrolling, and caught one big burly cop leaning back against his car, singing away [about] “Civil Rights”… He saw me watching him, stopped abruptly, turned, and walked to the other side of the car.” [Ibid., p. 24] So wrote Candie Anderson. And this is precisely what the poet William Congreave meant when he said, “Music has charms to soothe the savage breast,/ To soften rocks, or to bend a Knotted Oak.”

     

    Let me give you another example of how songs transformed the world. This story takes place in central Europe after the First World War, when the Czech and Slovak people were finally allowed to form the new country of Czechoslovakia, after having been dominated by the Austrian Empire for centuries. The Austrians had imposed Roman Catholicism on the Czechs and the Slovaks, but as soon as Czechoslovakia was liberated from Austrian domination, the citizens of this new country began to form their own churches.

    Norbert and Maja Capek were two Czech people who had fled their homeland because of the Austrians. They had both become Unitarians while in the United States. When Czechoslovakina independence came, Norbert and Maja Capek returned to their new country, and they started a Unitarian church, because they felt that the principles of religious freedom inherent in Unitarianism were perfect for their new country. So they started a Unitarian church in Prague, and in fifteen years it became the largest Unitarian church in the world.

    One of the difficulties they faced in starting their own church was what songs they should sing. The old songs from the Catholic tradition came with memories of political domination; they needed new songs for their new religion. So Norbert began writing songs for his church; he wrote hundreds of songs; and some of his songs became so popular that they entered into the folk music of the land, and they are still sung today in the Czech Republic.

    When the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, the Capeks decided that Maja would leave for the United States, where she could raise money for relief efforts; so she came here, and as it happens she wound up living the New Bedford, and became the minister of the old North Unitarian church in our city. Norbert stayed in Czechoslovakia, and he was quickly imprisoned by the Nazis. At first, he was held in Dresden prison; and while he was there, to keep up his spirits, and the spirits of the others whom the Nazis had imprisoned, he wrote songs. Let me read you an English translation of one of the songs he wrote in Dresden prison:

    “In the depth of my soul
    There where lies the source of strength
    Where the divine and the human meet,
    There, quiet your mind, quiet, quiet.
    Outside let lightning reign,
    Horrible darkness frighten the world.
    But from the depths of your own soul
    From that silence will rise again
    God’s flower.
    Return to your self,
    Rest in your self,
    Live in the depths of your soul
    Where the divine and the human meet….
    There is your refuge.”

    I would like to tell you that Norbert Capek’s songs gained his release from prison, but such is not the case: he died in Dachau prison camp in 1942. This is a story that does not have a happy ending. But while his songs did not gain his release from prison, I feel sure that they did gain him some measure of inner freedom, inner comfort and peace. And the songs that he wrote over the course of his life did leave a lasting legacy: his songs transformed individuals, and his songs helped to transform a national culture.

    This is a remarkable thing: that a song, something completely insubstantial and evanescent, can change people

    In the second reading this morning, we heard one possible explanation of why this is so. In the second reading, Nick Page, a singer, choral director, and composer, tells us that we are all interconnected, and we are interconnected with the entire earth. Nick tells us that while he is singing with other people, he gets a deep feeling of that interconnectedness, and that even afterwards (he says): “The sense of harmony and connectedness remains. This feeling of being connected to everything is an incredible feeling — truly transcending. We walk in beauty, in harmony with the world around us.”

    So says Nick Page, and I think he’s right. Nick talks about how singing can literally transform us at a biological level. For a very crude example, I would point out that one reason we sing a song right before the sermon is so that we can all stand up and get some oxygen into our lungs, which means it is less likely that any of us will fall asleep during the sermon. There are also physical phenomena in singing that physically affect our biological beings. Additionally, songs help us to encounter the beauty and mystery of this world, songs can open to us the wonder of the universe. The act of singing transforms us physically, biologically, emotionally, and spiritually.

     

    Singing transforms us, but singing may be an endangered species. Rather than sing yourself, it’s so much easier to sit back and check out music videos on YouTube, or plug into your iPod’s earphones. And if you do sing yourself, you don’t have to sing directly to other people: you can go off by yourself and record your singing, or you can sing through a microphone; both of which are fine things to do, but what is lost in those cases is the direct contact between singers, or between a singer and an audience. Part of the sacred beauty of singing arises when you hear it directly, unmediated by any electronics; because even the best electronics attenuate the highest overtones, even the best electronics change the music subtly so that it doesn’t have the same physical and emotional effect on us. If you’re a listener, much of music’s power comes from being face-to-face with the musician, and a live performance that is technically flawed but where you connect directly with another person is far more powerful than any recording, or any amplification can be.

    I’ll give you an example of what I mean: Sometimes when I stand here and sing a hymn while Randy is playing the organ, I suddenly find myself literally resonating with the notes of our organ. The organ and the human body produce sound in very similar ways, similar enough that you can find your lungs and throat vibrating in sympathetic vibration to the organ. And when you are singing with other people, when you really get in tune with the other people, if you listen carefully you will hear a whole world of overtones opening up in the music. And when we are singing with the marimba, as we are doing today, the sound of the marimba fills this room, and when we sing along, we are drawn up into the sound.

    What I am describing of course are moments of transcendence: when we transcend ordinary experience and become aware of how we are interconnected with the universe. When I go to church, I hope for those moments of transcendence; I don’t always get them, but I hope for them. There are moments of passive transcendence, as when we sit and listen to transcendently beautiful music; but what I value most are the moments of active transcendence, when I am an active participant in transcending.

    This is why I think we sing in church: to experience little moments of transcendence. This does not imply that we must sing as well as Billie Holliday or Placido Domingo or Paul McCartney. The students from Fisk University who sang in the Nashville jail weren’t professional singers, but their singing helped them to transcend their situation. Norbert Capek was not a great singer, but his songs helped him and others to transcend Dresden prison.

    And this is equally true of ordinary people in ordinary life today. Perhaps you read the article in last week’s Sunday New York Times, describing song circles or community singalongs — many of which happen to meet in Unitarian Universalist churches — these are groups of ordinary people who come together to sing, and when these ordinary people sing together, so the article said, something extraordinary can happen. In our culture today, we are taught to be passive consumers of music; but when we sing together, we are no longer mere passive consumer: we are creating something ourselves. That means we are resisting the forces that seek to make us less than human and oppress us by turning us into mere consumers; but when we sing together, we find that we are fully human and spiritual beings who transcend mere consumerism.

    Singing is an ordinary act, it is something babies do without thinking about it. But singing together is also transcendent. By transcending the ordinary, we wing as a path to liberation:– both spiritual liberation, and literal liberation from the oppressive forces that seek to dominate us. We sing to know our interconnectedness:– in a world where there is so little community, where we are fragmented by race, age, class, singing can serve to build connections between us. The singer Holly Near says: We are singing for our lives. We are indeed.

  • 300th Anniversary Celebration

    The sermon below was preached by Rev. Dan Harper at First Unitarian Church in New Bedford as part of a special worship service anticipating the three hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the congregation. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Harper.

    Readings

    The first reading was read by Honorable Scott Lang, Mayor of New Beddford.

    The first reading is an act of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that is the first written record of the establishment of the congregation which became First Unitarian Church in New Bedford:

    [1st SESS.] PROVINCE LAWS (Resolves, etc.). — 1708-9.
    CHAPTER 8.

    Legislative Records of the Council, viii., 360
    Executive Records of the Council, iv., 566.

    VOTE FOR PROVIDING A MINISTER FOR DARTMOUTH. £. 60, PER ANNUM, ALLOW’D AS A SALARY FOR MR SAMLL HUNT.

    WHEREAS it has bin reported & represented to this Court, at a Session in the Year past, by her Majesties Justices of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for the County of Bristol sitting in Court, That the Town of Dartmouth within the said County, having been several Times presented, & complained of for not Providing them selves of a Minister, as by Law is directed, And that the necessary Orders by them made thereupon, as by Law they are impower’d, not being duly observed, but eluded, and render’d ineffectual for Remedy thereof, They remaining destitute of such a Minister; And Mr Samuel Hunt Minister having been lately treated & prevailed with to go, & reside there, & serve them in the Work of the Ministry;

    Resolved that the said Mr Hunt be sent to the said Town of Dartmouth to be their Minister, And that Provision be made by this Court as the Law directs, for his honourable Support & Maintenance.

    And that the Sum of Sixty Pounds be allowed as a Salary for the said Minister for the Year ensuing, And in Case his Abode there shall be for less Time, in the same Proportion. [Passed June 8.

    The second reading was read by Rev. Bette McClure, pastor of the First Congregational Church in Fairhaven.

    The covenant of “The Second Church in New Bedford” (now Fairhaven Congregational Church) was written in 1794, doubtless under the influence Dr. Samuel West, when the Second Church amicably separated from the mother church in Acushnet. We no longer have the original church covenant, so this represents the earliest covenant still in existence.

    “We whose names are hereunto subscribed, having been called to the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel, do in the first place humbly acknowledge ourselves unworthy of so great a favor, and desire with all the heart to adore and admire that free rich grace of his, which triumphs over so great unworthiness: and we desire in an humble reliance on the grace of God promised in the Gospel to all those who sincerely trust in Him, thankfully to lay hold on his covenant and to choose the things that please Him.

    “We declare our serious belief of the Christian religion, as contained in the sacred Scriptures, which we own as the only test and standard of Christian faith and practice. We heartily resolve and engage, by Divine assistance, to conform our lives to the rules of God’s holy word so long as we live in the world. We give ourselves up to the Lord Jehovah, and avouch Him this day to be our God and Father, through Jesus Christ, and receive Him as the everlasting portion of our souls. We give ourselves up to Jesus Christ, and receive him as the great head of the church, and rely on him as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and trust in his grace to bring us to eternal blessedness. We acknowledge the Holy Ghost as our comforter and guide. We acknowledge ourselves to be under the most sacred obligation to glorify God by a strict conformity to all his laws and ordinances, and particularly in the duties of a Church state and body of people associated for obedience to Him in all the ordinances of the gospel, depending on his gracious assistance for the faithful discharge of the duties thus incumbent on us. We do promise by the help of divine grace to walk together as a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in the faith and order of the gospel, so far as the same shall be made known unto us; conscientiously attending the public worship of God, the ordinances of the Gospel, viz. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the discipline of the church, and all Christ’s holy institutions and ordinances in communion with one another, carefully avoiding sinful stumbling blocks and contentions as becomes Disciples of Christ, united in the bonds of Love and Fellowship. — We do also by baptism present our offspring with us unto the Lord.

    “And this we do in a reliance on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for the pardon of our sins, humbly praying that the great Shepherd of the the Sheep would prepare and strengthen us to every good work to do his will, working within us that which is well pleasing in his sight. To whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.”

    Sermon — “Forward through the Ages”

    Three hundred years ago, Massachusetts Puritan congregations were governed by two distinct bodies. On the one hand, there was the church: the church was concerned with matters of the spirit, and had charge of the worship services and communion. On the other hand, the town government had control over such practical matters as paying the minister’s salary and maintaining the meetinghouse.

    But most of the people who lived in the old town of Dartmouth — remember that the old town of Dartmouth included what we now know as Westport, Dartmouth, New Bedford, Fairhaven, Acushnet, and parts of other towns — most of the people who lived here were not Puritans; they had little interest in having their town tax dollars support a church that they would not attend. And so, as we heard in the first reading, the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided on June 8, 1708, to establish a government-sanctioned Puritan church in Dartmouth, by voting that an orthodox Puritan minister be settled here. This act of the state legislature represents the oldest extant written record of our congregation.

    I’m sure you noticed this was not a voluntary matter for the town of Dartmouth: the Massachusetts state legislature was going to give them a minister whether they liked it or not. Nor did town residents have a choice in which minister they would get: Samuel Hunt having been prevailed upon to go and serve as minister in Dartmouth, the state legislature resolved that he should be sent here. The Massachusetts Puritans wanted their colony to be a shining example to the rest of the world of the integration of religion into civic life; and they were resolved that Dartmouth should shine as well, whether or not Dartmouth wanted to.

    There was also a spiritual beginning for our church, about which we have no written record. In those days, New England Puritan congregations each had a covenant, a document that stated the conditions for admission to membership in the church. Such a covenant would be the written record of the beginning of spiritual side of our church, but that document has been lost; all we have is the oral tradition that a few Puritan families began meeting together as early as 1696. The second reading, written by the church members in 1794, represents the oldest extant covenant that we have.

    And perhaps you noticed that the covenant was a voluntary agreement. It begins with this phrase: “We whose names are hereunto subscribed, having been called to the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel,…” — which is to say, you decided whether or not you wished to sign the covenant. You did not have to sign it; you were perfectly welcome to attend worship services if you did not sign it; signing it was a voluntary act.

    Religion has to do with the eternal and permanent, but looking back over three hundred years of our church history I am also aware of how much of our religion is evanescent and impermanent. I would not want to be a part of the old 18th century Puritan church;– I would not want to listen to three-hour sermons; I am not comfortable with the wording of the old covenant; I would not wish to be a part of a government-sanctioned church. But I am also aware that our congregation has kept coming back to certain eternal and permanent truths: the truth that we should organise around a voluntary agreement; the truth that we want to serve as a shining example to the world so that we may make the world a better place.

    We have changed again and again. We have had to change; the world has changed around us. Our task is to sort through all the changes to find that which is permanent and eternal.

     

    By the mid-19th century, First Unitarian Church (then known as First Congregational Society, Unitarian) was a wealthy church. The church grew in wealth and influence in the middle 1820’s, when a number of wealthy Quakers left New Bedford Friends Meeting to be a part of this congregation. By the time we built this building in 1838, the congregation paid cash for it, and had surplus cash left over when the builders were paid off. Following the Civil War, during the long tenure of William Potter as minister, the pews in this church were filled with wealthy and influential people through the early 20th century. Mr. Potter, being concerned with the health of this city, has been credited by some with convincing some of the wealthy men in this congregation to move their capital out of the whaling industry, and into textile mills. This admirable act of persuasion helped create new jobs that allowed New Bedford to remain prosperous even as the whaling industry collapsed. But this act of persuasion also shows how, at that moment in our history, we stood at the center of power, money, and influence in this city.

    Contrast that with the experience of First Universalist Church, who were never at the center of power, money, and influence. In the 1830’s and 1840’s, the members of First Universalist and their minister, John Murray Spear, were ardent abolitionists. People like Nathan Johnson, who was active in the Underground Railroad, belonged to that church. They were so ardent in their abolitionism, that they upset some of the powerful men who ran the city (some of whom were Unitarians), and who favored a gradual end to slavery that wouldn’t upset the economy too much. But the Universalists were such ardent abolitionists that John Murray Spear was eventually chased out of town for being too much of an abolitionist. Though not at the center of power, the Universalists still worked for positive change.

    During much of the 19th century, First Unitarian was filled with wealthy and influential people; First Unviersalist was not. This was only a quirk of fate, an evanescent and impermanent state of affairs. But both First Unitarian and First Universalist aimed to make the world a better place — the one by providing jobs and improving the economy; the other by ending the moral outrage of slavery — and that passion for positive change is what is permanent and enduring.

     

    Let’s move forward in time three quarters of a century, to 1958, when we celebrated our 250th anniversary. The 1950’s in the United States were a strange time for churches. The historian Lawrence Cremin has called it the period of Civic Religion:– a time when everyone knew that a sort of generic Protestant Christianity was the civic religion of the land. The prayers that were said in schools were Protestant prayers; all our presidents were Protestants. My friend Mike Durrall tells the story of an American town in the 1950’s where the residents voted to decide who was the town’s best Christian; and the only Jew living in town won the vote.

    During the 1950’s, churches that seemed even vaguely Protestant filled up with people. You didn’t have to advertise your Protestant church; individuals and families voluntarily showed up and joined the church. In 1957, our church experienced its highest attendance since the Depression. We averaged over 140 adults in the main worship service every Sunday; and about 80 children and 10 adult teachers in Sunday school; for a total of some 230 people. Many United States churches recorded their highest attendance in the mid-1950’s.

    By 1967, ten years later, the average attendance of First Unitarian was half what it had been in 1957. Our attendance has generally declined ever since. Nor are we alone: most American churches have declined in attendance ever since the 1950’s; indeed, we are doing better than the majority.

    We can no longer assume that people will just show up at church; nor can we assume that once they find their way here they will know how to get involved, or even what to do once they come through the front door. That was merely an evanescent and impermanent social truth of the 1950’s, which has now dissolved. Yet we continue to adhere to the permanent and eternal truth that membership in our church must be voluntary; we refuse to coerce people into joining our church, even if that means a decline in attendance.

     

    Now let us move forward in time to 2008, the year of our three hundredth anniversary. In this postmodern age, we are in the middle of another set of social changes that once again is forcing us to change the way we do church: forcing us to find new ways to embody the eternal and permanent.

    Let me give you one small example of what I mean. Over the past two years, the Religious Services Committee and I have been experimenting with new ways of conducting worship services. In initiating these changes, I had been inspired by the innovations of the Emergent Church movement.

    The Emergent Church movement started when a number of evangelical Christians realized that an entire generation of Americans, Generation X, was drifting away from church. The majority of Gen-Xers were steeped in a postmodern mindset that questioned authority; questioned absolutes and demanded multiple points of view; was more interested in aesthetics than ontology; and loved the feeling of ancient and medieval religious forms. And so the Emergent Church movement created worship services that questioned authority by bringing the preacher out of the unassailable pulpit and down on the floor among the congregation; included many voices in the worship service, not just the preacher’s voice, to present more than one point of view; emphasized the arts and new media rather than systematic theology; and brought the feel of ancient and medieval religion into their services. And because the Emergent Church movement knew that Gen-Xers did not grow up in churches, they explained every element of the worship service.

    I had been inspired by this Emergent Church movement, and the Religious Services Committee and I started using some their ideas in our worship services. We brought the minister out of the pulpit for parts of the service. We began using worship associates, so you’d hear more than just one voice. We’re working on including more arts in worship: poetry, and fabric arts, and lighting up our Tiffany mosaic, and putting art on the cover of the order of service. Fortunately, we already have this neo-Gothic building, so we already have that medieval feeling. And we have begun explaining every element of the worship service.

    None of this has changed the eternal and permanent truths of religion; indeed, all these changes in our worship service are evanescent and impermanent, and will be swept away by future changes. But in the mean time, we have begun to attract people in their 20’s and 30’s to our worship services; and our average attendance this past fall was up 20 percent.

     

    We are in the middle of many changes right now. Change never ceases. It is easy to get lost in the changes. We look back over our three hundred year history, and witness all the changes:– the change from the old Calvinist theology to our current religious naturalism; the change from the three-hour Puritan sermons, to our current worship services filled with music and the arts; the change from being a church of the wealthy and elite, to our current diverse church with people from all economic strata and from different races and ethnicities — we witness all these changes, and wonder what remains constant.

    At least two things have remained constant. First, we are organized around a voluntary agreement, a covenant. This lies at the core of who we are: religion must be voluntary, not coercive.

    And secondly, like that old Puritan church, we too try to be an example to the rest of the world. We aim to make this world a better place, to make this world into a kind of heaven on earth.

    In closing, let me mention two ways we aim to make this world a better place. First, we aim to fight the discrimination that continues to pervade our society. Following the example of old First Universalist Church, we aim to fight the ongoing racial and ethnic discrimination that is a legacy of slavery in the U.S., and model a truly multi-racial community here. We stand up for the equality of men and women, and we do this in a city which continues to be a very sexist place. We stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian persons, so that recently we were in the middle of the fight for equal marriage rights. All this we do as an expression of the eternal and permanent religious truth that all persons have equal dignity and worth. And as we build common bonds among diverse groups of people, we find ourselves to be well-placed to take on another huge moral problem facing our era:– and that is the devastation wrought by global climate change — both the ecological and economic devastation, a devastation that is already having a greater impact on the poor and on communities of color.

    Bound together by our voluntary covenant, we can move forward through the ages:– we acknowledge and celebrate the past, but we can leave that which is evanescent and impermanent behind. Bound together by our voluntary covenant, we shall continue to take up new moral and ethical problems, as we engage the changes in the society around us, and try to bring about a heaven here on earth.