The Almost Church

 A Sermon Delivered by 

The Rev. Thomas Schmidt

January 6, 2008

at the

Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Lowcountry

Well into the the 1980’s, the former Soviet Union was the world leader in the production of manual typewriters.   At face value, the fact is really quite useless. But when we look at the fact in it’s historical perspective, that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would happen only a few short years later, the fact perhaps sheds some light on why the Soviet system ultimately failed. 

To imagine that the economy of such a large country, given all the imaginable and unimaginable variables associated with it, to imagine that such an economy could be micromanaged is pure hubris. The fact is, a centrally planned economy cannot respond quickly enough to changes in the market.  Thus, the Soviets were  still manufacturing manual typewriters as personal computers were quickly replacing electric typewriters in the West. 

Now I know that some people like to credit the efforts of Ronald Reagan for the downfall of the Soviet Union, but my feeling is that we can’t have it both ways.  It is disingenuous to argue that a Free Market economy is ultimately a better system than a centrally planned economy, and that Ronald Reagan’s military build-up caused the the collapse.  The best one could argue, from my very limited point view, is the the military build-up of the 1980’s was a contributing factor, but ultimately not reason.

In my humble opinion, the reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that the conditions for further existence became unfavorable.  It is a fundamental law of nature, in the Buddhist tradition, it is called Conditioned Arising, and as one Humble Buddhist wrote, it  “is a doctrine strongly linked to the Four Noble Truths. In its abstract form, it states:"That being, this comes to be; from the arising of that, this arises; that being absent, this is not; from the cessation of that, this ceases." In other words, it states the principle of conditionality, whereby all things, mental and physical, arise and exist due to the presence of certain conditions, and cease once their conditions are removed: nothing except Nirvana is independent.”

And if one should think that this is merely a Buddhist idea, then consider these words written by Ian Stewart on the subject of Chaos Theory and what is commonly known as the butterfly effect: “The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does.”  Greg Rae points out, “This phenomenon, common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions.”  

I stand here today as a Unitarian Universalist Minister, why?  Because the conditions were right for it happen. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen things, that if they had happened as I originally intended, would not only likely preclude my standing here today, but also preclude me from being a minister, or being a Unitarian Universalist.  With time, I imagine I could name countless events from not only from my own life, but friends and family members, that would have prevented me from standing here today.  

It boggles the mind to even begin to imagine how many people doing the right thing at the right time and how many events had to happen in just such a way as to make this reality possible.  Yet to say “the right thing at the right time” suggests that everyone involved knew what that right thing and when the right time was.  Or that there is such a thing as a single right thing and a single right time, that there is in fact a master plan and we are but pawns in that plan and freewill is but an illusion. The fact is, there are an infinite number of right things and right times.  In each and every moment, circumstances allow us any number of possible choices, some providing positive results, other providing negative. Some of what seem to be positive results may prove to have serious negative consequences later, and some of the choices that seem to provide negative outcomes are in turn positive, either for us or for someone else.  

One can understand how some people look at reality and see apparent randomness and anarchy, while others, given the same reality, see an apparent intelligent force working to create a particular end.  However, what chaos theory and Conditioned Arising show is, that neither, and both, are in fact true. If randomness and anarchy were the basis for reality, then any number of things could not be possible.  For instance, evolution could not exist if we lived in a random universe.  A random universe would make possible the impossible, dogs could give birth to cats, human infants could mature into reptilian hybrids, and granite boulders could develop the skill of self propulsion.  On the other hand, if there is a supernatural intelligent force at work, manipulating human will and reality,  then the same is also true, dogs could give birth to cats, human infants could mature into reptilian hybrids, and granite boulders could develop the skill of self propulsion.

But, If there was not at least some degree of randomness and anarchy, then perhaps the asteroid that struck our planet sixty five million years ago would may not have happened, dinosaurs may not have gone extinct, and mammals may have never been allowed free reign to evolve as they did.  And for that supernatural intelligent force manipulating human will and reality, what if we remove a single word from the phrase, what if we removed the idea of the supernatural and simply said, “an intelligent force manipulating human will and reality.”  

Speaking strictly from personal experience, I can vouch for the existence of an intelligent force manipulating my actions and my reality.   I can consciously choose to do or not do something,  I can manipulate at least some of the conditions that dictate my reality.  I can even change the conditions that dictate the reality of other people as well, for better and for worse. And I can personally vouch for a natural intelligent force of which my own is part and parcel, a force accessible to me at all times and all places.

In this perspective, I am subject to the laws of nature and the seemingly random acts of other people and things,and I am in control of my own actions, thoughts and emotions. I am subject to the circumstances of my physical existence and I have the ability to change the circumstances of my physical existence.  And when I change the circumstances of my physical existence, I am changing the circumstances for all and everything that follows.

(Pause)

The Oxford American Dictionary defines church as:

a building used for public Christian worship 

(usu. Church) a particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines •

 ( the Church) the hierarchy of clergy of such an organization, esp. the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England.

• institutionalized religion as a political or social force : the separation of church and state

• the body of all Christians.

ORIGIN Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon (d?ma) ‘Lord's (house),’ from kurios ‘master or lord.’ 

From other definitions of the world church I have seen, this one seems quite typical.  In the list of variations of meaning, I guess our own religious tradition almost fits, we are an organization with clergy and buildings, but we are not necessarily Christian.  While we have a national organization, it generally is not hierarchical.  Most Christians would not include us in “the body of all Christians.”  I guess the one variation of the definition that does include Unitarian Universalism is, the third which read “institutionalized religion as a political or social force,” but that term is so general as to make the word church a synonym for religion. Many of us use the word church to describe our building and/or our congregation, yet according to the definitions, ours is merely an “Almost church,” we don’t fit exactly any of the standard definitions of the word church, even though many UU congregations include the word in their names. There is also the so-called duck test:  “If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.”

If I had the authority, I would replace the list of definitions with the following:  “An organization or body of people committed to certain religious principles or ideals and actively pursues the activity of living by those principles or ideals.”  Such a definition would not include current definitions, but also would be inclusive of Unitarian Universalism, and any number of other religious organizations that do not fit current definitions.

Here’s the thing, though. While I may not have the specific authority to change current dictionaries to conform to my particular understanding definition of the word church, definitions determined by the conditions of the past,  I can, possibly, change conditions enough to make future dictionaries reconsider their old definitions. Here is the choice before us, or rather, one of many choices before us, If we, as a movement and a denomination wish to remain relevant and live up to our great potential,Do we choose to remain an almost church, conforming ourselves to the thoughts of others and the past? Let circumstances control our future? Or do we choose to change current circumstances to conform to our thoughts and actions. Do we as a religious community continue to make manual typewriters as the rest of the world moves toward personal computers, or do we seek to invent new ways of being in the world and relating to each other and our surroundings?