Let Go and Grow!

This story for all ages and sermon for all ages were part of the multigenerational ingathering service held on August 11, 2013.

Story for all Ages:  How the Stream Crossed the Desert (A Sufi story; modified and retold by Rev. Jane)

The Story this morning is about a stream of water that was enjoying rolling through the countryside.  The water saw some mighty mountains in the distance and thought – "that’s where I’m headed" and was confident that he could just roll right along the same way in the same form.  But the stream of water got to a mighty desert of hot sand – and he tried to push along but it too hot and dry. 
And the sand asked, “What do you think you are doing?” 
The stream said, "I want to go to the mountain and I must roll through you."
  “That’s impossible” – said the desert sand.  "Others have tried, but I’m too hot and dry.  You can only go to the Mountain if you are willing to change and work with the heat and the wind.” 
“Why do I need them," said the stream. "I’m mighty water.” 
“Well, you’ll only be a stagnant pool of mud if you are not willing to change," said the sand.
 And the water thought, "no – I want to move to the mountain, I will change."  So the water welcomed the heat of the day and transformed through evaporation into water vapor that moved up – up – up and bunched together to form clouds. Then the wind took the clouds and blew them across the desert to the mountains.  When the clouds reached the mountains other water vapor joined them and they became dark and heavy.
Then near the Cool Mountaintop – it happened – another transformation.  Yes, the water vapor turned to water again and it began to RAIN. 

We are going to make sounds like that rainstorm. 
When I walk by you – you copy me – and keep doing the same thing till I’m walking by you again doing something different.  I’ll start by rubbing my hands together – and when we all do it – grownups too --- it will sound like a gentle rain falling.
(Hand rub, Snap, Clap, Thigh Slap, Foot Stomp – then back again.)

Then the water came together into another mighty stream that fell from the Mountaintop in a glorious waterfall that nurtured all the plants and animals in the area.   

Let Go and Grow SERMON for all ages.

A couple of weeks ago – my two grandsons went shopping with their Mama.  What do you think they went to buy? 

They got some new clothes and new shoes.

Now when I shop for new clothes I usually go to a thrift store like Goodwill – so my new clothes are used clothes – but they are new to me, and it’s another way to recycle.

But in any case – some of you may have gotten some new clothes and shoes too.  Now WHY did they need new clothes and new shoes?  Maybe they just wanted to look good.  But usually – you young folks have gotten BIGGER ---- and the old clothes and shoes don’t fit anymore.

Have you ever worn shoes that were too small for you?  How does that feel? 
That reminds me of something that I heard about long ago.

When I was a little girl, we used to go to Tybee and sometimes we would go shopping in Chu’s – cause "if there is something you can use, you can find it at Chu’s."  And the little grandma that worked in there had really, little, tiny feet.  And my mama told me it was because when she was a little girl in China – they bound up her feet.  They don’t do that anymore – but they used to.  They would bind up the little girls’ feet very tightly, so that they would not grow and they would stay small. 

SO – sometimes, we have to remove the things that keep us small – the too tight shoes for example – so that we can grow.  Even if they are pretty shoes and we have enjoyed wearing them a lot.  Maybe we can pass them on to someone else.

Well, I’m telling you these stories because that is what we are doing with our building.  This is a nice little building and we have enjoyed it, but if we want to grow, we need something bigger – with more rooms for more activities.  This will be the last ingathering service we will have in this building; but we will continue to have ingathering services in our new building.  We will have to let go of this one though.  That’s why my message is called – “Let Go and Grow.”
When we pass on our shoes to someone else – we “Let Go and Grow”
When we move from our building to a bigger space, we will “Let Go and Grow.”
And that’s what that stream had to do in our story.  The stream had to let go of being a stream --- and become transformed into something else – so that it could fulfill an even larger purpose.  The stream had to “Let Go and Grow.” 

You know just as our bodies grow – and our congregation grows in numbers --- we need to grow in other ways --- become more mature in other ways.  And sometimes we need to let go of some things about ourselves in order to do that. 

When you are little – it might mean letting go of a pacifier or a favorite blanket.  But we older folks have things like that as well that we hold onto that may keep us from growing and maturing. 

Sometimes they are bad habits – or perhaps bad attitudes – and they are binding us, keeping us from growing our souls.  And we need to – “Let Go and Grow.” 

Right now – just think of ONE thing that you need to let go of – just one thing – and whisper that into the cupped palm of your hand.
(Lift up waste basket)

Now since we are using our imaginations a lot today anyway, let’s imagine that we are all perfect shots – and you can wad up what’s in your hand like a piece of paper and toss it into this trash can.  Let go of it!

You may have to do that many times again, but eventually you will be free.  You can…”Let go and Grow.” 

Oh May it be So!

A Visit from John Dewey

On June 7, 2013, John Dewey (as portrayed by yours truly donning fake mustache and academic robe) visited our congregation and shared his views about religion and faith.  I composed this using information from his life and his own words selected from his book A Common Faith, published in 1934.  In the following "speech" I have not highlighted or differentiated words I've added for transitions, etc.  Most of these are Dewey's words.  Others that I've added for introductions or transitions will be pretty obvious!  So with those disclosures, may I introduce philosopher, psychologist, and educator extraordinaire --- (and a personal hero) --- Professor John Dewey.


Good Morning and thank you for inviting me here to speak to you today concerning a topic that is significantly important.  First of all, I need to disclose to those of you who may want to claim me as a Unitarian that I never joined your group, although many of my friends were Unitarians.  I did tell my wife, however, to call the Reverend Donald Harrington, a Unitarian minister and a friend, when I died.  She did and also requested that my friend, Max Otto, a Unitarian philosopher, be the speaker at my Memorial service which was held at a Unitarian church.  So I guess you may be able to claim me in death if not in life. 

Now just because I did not claim a particular religion at the time of my death does not mean that I was not a religious man.  I was certainly raised to be religious.  Oh, you may be interested in knowing that my father was raised as a Unitarian and my mother was raised as a Universalist.  They became Congregationalists, though, and I was raised in a strict Congregationalist household. 

As a faculty member at the Universities of Minnesota and Michigan, I led Bible Study groups and contributed articles to the Congregationalists’ magazine, the Andover Review.  If you look at my early writings on ethics, psychology, and social psychology you will see references to Christ and Christianity.  But in my early 30's I began moving from Christianity to a different kind of faith which I will discuss with you today.  I still used religious language in my writings, however, and many believe that enabled me to communicate with a public that would have been turned off by a more aggressively secular or skeptical writer. 

Although ideas about my faith were sprinkled or implied in other writings, I addressed these more directly in this little book. A Common Faith, published in 1934.  I’m pleased to say that it is still in print!  Now you will note in this book and in my remarks today that I do not use the gender neutral terminology that you all are careful to use today.  However, I applaud your efforts in this regard. 
If I could stay with you longer, I might be able to make that transition.  For as you can see, I have already made the transition to talking with a southern accent.

In any case . . . When I wrote this book I saw mankind divided into two camps regarding religion. 
You may say that it seems that way today as well.  Religions have traditionally been allied with ideas of the supernatural, and often have been based upon explicit supernatural beliefs.  There were many people then, as there are today, who hold that nothing worthy of being called religious is possible apart from the supernatural. They vary in their doctrines and creeds.  But they agree in the necessity for a Supernatural Being and for an immortality that is beyond the power of nature. 

The opposing group consists of those who think the advance of culture and science has completely discredited the supernatural and with is all religions that were allied with belief in it.  But they go beyond this point.  The extremists in this group believe that with elimination of the supernatural - not only must historic religions be dismissed but with them everything of a religious nature.

So you have these two groups who differ greatly.  But, there is one idea held in common by these two opposite groups: identification of the religious with the supernatural.  Now in my book and in our discussion today, I shall develop another conception of the nature of the religious phase of experience, one that separates it from the supernatural and the things that have grown up around the supernatural. The heart of this conception is that there is a difference between a religion and the religious; between anything that may be denoted by a noun and the quality of experience that is designated by an adjective.

I do not suppose for many minds the dislocation of the religious from a religion is easy to effect. 
Tradition and custom, especially when emotionally charged, are part of the habits that have become one with our very being.  For a moment, let’s drop the term religious and think about how we accommodate, adapt, and adjust to various life circumstances.  We accommodate ourselves to various changes in the weather.  Plays in a foreign language are “adapted” to meet the needs of an American audience.  But there are also adjustments in ourselves in relation to the world in which we live that are much more inclusive and deep seated.  It is the claim of religions that they effect this generic and enduring change in attitude.  I should like to turn the statement around and say that whenever this change takes place there is a definitely religious attitude.  It is not a religion that brings it about,but when it occurs, from whatever cause and by whatever means,there is a religious outlook and function. 

Now most of you know how important education is to me.  And I believe that understanding and knowledge also enter into a perspective that is religious in quality.  You see, faith in the continued disclosing of truth through directed cooperative human endeavor is more religious in quality than is any faith in a completed revelation. 

Of course most religions now hold that revelation is not completed in the sense of being ended. 
But religions hold that the essential framework is settled in its significant moral features at least, and that new elements that are offered must be judged by conforming to this framework.  Some fixed doctrinal apparatus is necessary for a religion.  But faith in the possibilities of continued and rigorous inquiry does not limit access to truth to any channel or scheme of things.  It does not first say that truth is universal and then add there is but one road to it.  It trusts that the natural interactions between man and his environment will breed more intelligence and generate more knowledge provided the scientific methods that define intelligence in operation are pushed further into the mysteries of the world, being themselves promoted and improved in the operation.

There is such a thing as faith in intelligence becoming religious in quality – a fact that perhaps explains the efforts of some religionists to disparage the possibilities of intelligence as a force.  They properly feel such faith to be a dangerous rival.  Yes, the mind of man is being habituated to a new method and idea: What is the way to truth? It’s the road of patient, cooperative inquiry operating by means of observation, experiment, record and controlled reflection. 

Now you might point to some aspect of our world that science has not explained and contend that this is evidence of the supernatural. The argument that because some province or aspect of experience
has not yet been “invaded” by scientific methods,it is not subject to them, is as old as it is dangerous. Time and time again, in some particular reserved field, it has been invalidated. 

It is more to the present point, however, to consider the region that is claimed by religionists as a special reserve.  It is mystical experience.  What of mystical experience? There is no reason for denying the existence of experiences that are called mystical.  On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that, in some degree of intensity, they occur so frequently that they may be regarded as normal manifestations that take place at certain rhythmic points in the movement of experience.  But there is no more reason for converting the experience itself into an immediate knowledge of its cause than is the case of an experience of lightning or any other natural occurrence. 
(Pause)
It is sometimes held that beliefs about religious matters are symbolic, like rites and ceremonies.  This view may be better than that which insists upon a literal understanding of all religious texts.  But as usually put forward it suffers from an ambiguity.  Of what are the beliefs symbols?  For example, historic personages, such as Jesus or Mohammed, in their divine attributes may be said to be symbolic of the ideals that enlist devotion and inspire endeavor.  But, the ideal values that are symbolized by them may also mark human experience in science and art and the various modes of human association: they mark almost everything in life that rises from manipulations of things as they currently exist.

Now many admit that the objects of religion are ideal in contrast with our present state.  What would be lost if it were also admitted that the reason they have authoritative claim upon conduct is because they are ideal?  The assumption that these objects of religion exist already in some realm of Being seems to add nothing to their force, while it weakens their claim over us as ideals, in so far as it bases that claim upon matters that are intellectually dubious. 

What I’m trying to get to – is the need for God.  We need God because we need the ideals.  But do we need the Being?

So what do we mean by the word God? On one score, the word can mean only a particular Being. 
On the other score, it denotes the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and actions. 
(I realize that sometimes my explanations can be a little dense.)
What I have been criticizing, though, is the identification of the ideal with a particular Being, especially when that identification makes necessary the conclusion that this Being is outside of nature, and what I have tried to show is that the idea itself has its roots in natural conditions;
it emerges when the imagination idealizes existence by laying hold of the possibilities offered to thought and action.  The aims and ideals that move us are generated through imagination. 
But they are not made out of imaginary stuff.  They are made out of the hard stuff of the world of physical and social experience.  The locomotive did not exist before Stevenson, nor the telegraph before the time of Morse.  But the conditions for their existence were there in physical material and energies and in human capacity.  Imagination seized hold upon the idea of a rearrangement of existing things that would evolve new objects. 

Moreover, the process of creation is experimental and continuous.  The artist, scientist, or good citizen depends upon what others have done before him and are doing around him.  All of these considerations may be applied to the idea of God, or, to avoid misleading conceptions, to the idea of the divine.  All of these ideals are further unified by the action that gives them coherence and solidity.  It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name “God.”  I would not insist that the name must be given.  However, in a distracted age, the need for such an idea is urgent.  It can unify interests and energies now dispersed; it can direct action and generate the heat of emotion and the light of intelligence.  Whether one give the name “God” to this union,  operative in thought and action, is a matter for individual decision.  But the function of such a working union of the ideal and actual seems to me to be identical with the force that has in fact been attached to the conception of God in all religions that have a spiritual content; and a clear idea of that function seems to me urgently needed at the present time. 

This focus on God as defined in this manner, may also decentralize the focus on man.  Both supernaturalism and militant atheism tend to downplay or denigrate nature and emphasize mankind. 
A humanistic religion, if it excludes our relation to nature, is pale and thin, as it is presumptuous, when it takes mankind as an object of worship. 

You may ask, why not just declare as our faith -  “Agnosticism?” Agnosticism is a shadow cast by the eclipse of the supernatural.  Of course, acknowledgment that we do not know what we do not know
 is a necessity of all intellectual integrity.  But generalized agnosticism is only a halfway elimination of the supernatural.  Its meaning departs when the intellectual outlook is directed wholly to the natural world.  When it is so directed, there are plenty of particular matters regarding which we must say we do not know; we only inquire and form hypotheses which future inquiry will confirm or reject.  But such doubts are an incident of faith in the method of intelligence.  They are signs of faith, not of a pale and impotent skepticism.

If you hear nothing else today, hear this:

We doubt in order that we may find out, not because some inaccessible supernatural lurks behind whatever we can know. 

Ours is the responsibility of conserving, transmitting, rectifying and expanding the heritage of values we have received that those who come after us may receive it more solid and secure, more widely accessible and more generously shared than we have received it.  These are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race.  This is a positive, practical, and dynamic faith, verified and supported by the intellect and evolving with the progress of social and scientific knowledge. 

And, SUCH - A - FAITH has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. 

Thank You!

A UU Laying on of Hands Ceremony

The following "laying on of hands" ceremony was composed using words from a sermon by Rev. Sue Spencer, other rituals, my own ideas, and the poetry of Unitarian Samuel Longfellow.  A slightly more impromptu rendition of this was used at the ordination ceremony for the Reverend Dr. Gaye Ortiz on May 11, 2013. 

In our free church tradition – the one Unitarians and Universalists inherited from the Reformation – every member of a congregation is called to serve. Every member of the community is a minister, and has a ministry! This is often recognized in Unitarian Universalist ordination services, through the central act of “laying on of hands.” This is an ancient ritual symbolizing the act of conferring of power, by one person to another.

In hierarchical churches, a bishop performs the laying on of hands; in others, the assembled clergy. But at most UU ordinations, it’s done by the entire congregation, joined as one body, linking hands and hearts. This makes sense in our tradition, for it says where the ordained person’s power really comes from. Not from on high, but from the people assembled, with the Spirit moving among them.

So I invite Gaye to come forward now and we are all going to connect together. Gaye and I talked about this and decided we didn’t need to have an order for folks to stand in concentric circles, instead we ask those who are nearby to come forward and put their hands on Gaye – and others will put their hands on the shoulders of these folks or hold their hands – and on and on until we are all connected.  Gather with me in this laying on of hands—whether you are part of the participating clergy, members of the two ordaining congregations, family, friends, and loved ones, connect with the Spirit of life and love and with Gaye Ortiz on this day.

(After all are connected sing)

Gathered here in the mystery of the hour.  Gathered here in one strong body.

Gathered here in the struggle and the power.  Spirit draw near.  (Sing with me)  (Repeat)

With this spirit running through us to Gaye and from Gaye to us, we are joined in that interdependent web of life & love in the shared ministry of our precious faith. 

From hand to hand the greeting flows,

From eye to eye the signals run,

From heart to heart the bright hope glows;

The seekers of the light are one.  (Samuel Longfellow)

It is accomplished. 

So be it. Amen.

Spiritual but not Religious?

You’ve probably heard that the number of people who identify themselves by the phrase "spiritual but not religious" or “SBNR” is growing. In 1998, only 9 percent of American adults said they were spiritual but not religious. A 2009 Newsweek poll revealed that 30 percent of Americans refer to themselves as “spiritual, not religious.” According to a survey referred to in a USA Today article in October of 2012, 72% of millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) say they're "really more spiritual than religious.”

But I’ll be honest with you.  I don’t know what the heck that means.  And my exploration of this topic confirms that it doesn’t have much of a COMMON meaning.  I read several articles, blogs, and a couple of books that approached it from different directions – probably because folks have differing definitions of both spiritual and religious.  

I thought it would be interesting to see the kinds of images used with these two words.  As you probably know, when you put something in your google box and look it up – you can go to the top and click “images” and see images used in the land of googledom with these words --- and sometimes that gives you a “picture” or “pictures” that are helpful.  Here are the top images for “spiritual” on google.   

Ah, lots of nature and blurry lines.

And when I type in the word “religious,” these are some of the top images.”  

You know when you go to the eye doctor, you look through that fancy lens and they change from frame to frame and ask you to pick the one that looks better.   

Let’s do that. This one Or this one.  Again – the 1^st one or the 2^nd one.

Which one – 1 or 2?  Well folks, there are some people like me who wear bifocals.

In any case, I decided I would get some help figuring out what folks that I CONNECT with mean if they say they are “spiritual but not religious.” 

So I put up a little survey on survey monkey – and shared it with our members and friends and my Facebook friends – asking folks who identified in this manner to complete it.  There were 29 folks who responded.  About 60% of the folks did not regularly attend church or any other faith group.  But about the same number of folks DID have “some” label that they used (like UU) to identify themselves theologically. 

When I asked what they meant by “spiritual but not religious” I got lots of different kinds of answers, but they generally fell into two categories.  About half of them were talking about BELIEF – and why their views did not fit the traditional theistic framework or did not match the religions they knew about.  Here are a couple of representative quotes.

“I do not necessarily believe in a literal God, and I certainly don't fit into any of the organized religions. However, I feel like there is amazing beauty and wonder all around us. I believe in the importance of a moral life and the importance of love. I feel most spiritual when I connect to other people (through meaningful conversation) or to nature.”

“Spiritual is something I am -- the deep place inside of me and the interconnectedness that I feel with every living thing. Spirituality is the god within. It's always there, and I can always call on it. To me, the term religious feels very confining -- like I have to follow rules with which I don't necessarily agree. Traditional religion feels stuffy and inauthentic. I have NO interest in practicing religion.”

Explanations from the other half of the “spiritual but not religious” folks indicate that they were not interested in an “ORGANIZED religion” or coming to church – regardless of their beliefs.  Here are two representative quotes – and these are rather difficult for me to hear:

“As the Indigo Girls lyrics tell it in Closer to Fine: "The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine" Religion to me is a set of disciplines that are supposed to allow one to feel close to their source, it is their way to seek closeness with their source. But I find that the less I seek, or the less I try, the easier it is to just BE close to my source. I don't feel the need for a set of disciplines, the best I've done for myself is to let go of those practices and instead just BE.”

“Spiritual but not religious means you have turned your back on organized religion due to the hypocritical nature of most of those organizations. I have found very few church-goers, primarily Christians, to act in any way Jesus-like, and have found Jesus-like behavior even less frequent among supposed church leaders.”

Hmmmmm.

In the short time I have, I’m going to attempt to provide some response to both of these groups.

To the first group – put off by the dogma of many traditional religions; well join the club.  And actually, it’s an old club.  But it’s not necessarily a club that has rejected the religious term and religious association.  In fact, one of the reasons the Unitarian Universalists opted NOT to have a creed was that our forebearers agreed that you could be religious without a certain belief – especially in the traditional sky god.  A couple of you referred me to an article in the New York Review entitled “Religion without God.” 

The editors indicate that before his death on February 14 of this year, the author, Ronald Dworkin, sent to The New York Review a text of his new book, Religion without God, to be published by Harvard University Press later this year. They published an excerpt from the first chapter.

In this chapter, Dworkin shares some ideas from lots of folks through history who seem to be religious without a belief in God. For example, he quotes Albert Einstein, who said that though an atheist he was a deeply religious man: Here’s what he said:

“To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

As you see, it all depends on how one defines religion – and folks like Einstein (and many of us) have a much broader interpretation than religious fundamentalists. 

Although the philosopher and psychologist William James would say that his religion really IS what’s fundamental:  that there are “things in the universe,” as he put it, “that throw the last stone.” Theists have a god for that role, but an atheist can think that the importance of living well throws the last stone, that there is nothing more basic on which that responsibility rests or needs to rest.

The Supreme Court of the United States certainly recognizes that “religion” doesn’t mean a belief in a deity or particular religious practices – and Dworkin cites multiple cases. 

Dworkin contends that the term “religious” doesn’t connote a specific belief, but an attitude – or perhaps a perspective.   Here’s how HE would describe that attitude:

“The religious attitude accepts the full, independent reality of value. It accepts the objective truth of TWO central judgments about value. The first holds that human life has objective meaning or importance….  The second holds that what we call “nature”—the universe as a whole and in all its parts—is not just a matter of fact but is itself sublime: something of intrinsic value and wonder.

“We are part OF nature because we have a physical being and duration: nature is the locus and nutrient of our physical lives. We are apart FROM nature because we are conscious of ourselves as making a life and must make decisions that, taken together, determine what life we have made.”

Well, that sounds familiar, doesn’t it? 

I see our Unitarian Universalist principles all over that!  
 

For me, religion is all about connection.  That’s what being religious is – connecting with what we hold as sacred, or ultimate, or life-giving.  Re- ligion means Re connecting.  The root word that “ligion” comes from is the same root word that ligament comes from.  It’s connection.  So in the reading we had earlier, Sarah Moores Campbell tells her gardener neighbor, “Yes, you are religious.”

And yes, I certainly agree with Campbell and Dworkin that you CAN be religious without God.   A majority of Unitarian Universalists would probably fit into that category, though many have redefined God and still use that term. And the reason is because we allowed our religion to EVOLVE and become more inclusive! 

Now what about that 2^nd group from my survey, the folks that have rejected organized religion and religious institutions?  I don’t know if there are any of you sitting HERE who feel that way who may have come to this service just to see what I had to say.  I’m probably preaching to the choir on this point.  But my sermons are also made available online and passed on to many folks – so I’m going to try to respond to those folks who feel that way.

First of all, I hear you.  I have been rejected by many in my efforts to fit into some churches; till it almost feels like – why bother.  But I was blessed to find Unitarian Universalism, a place where I did not have to check my brain, my heart, or my identities at the door.  Unitarian Universalism has truly been my salvation – to use a heavily loaded religious term.  But it’s true for me.  I have found a religious faith tradition where I CAN connect. And YES, I did use the word FAITH.  Because faith is about trust.  When one is faithful, that one is trustworthy.  And although we all have to cautious, you can’t go through life without some trust – some faith in something you can connect with.

And that indeed is why we need to come to worship services, for connection to that nourishing community, through music, listening and learning together, participating in connecting rituals, planning ways to serve together, and of course, sharing some good coffee.  Folks sometimes share what their spiritual practices are; perhaps yoga or meditation or gardening.  I always include worship services.  If our connection here is not spiritual, I don’t know what is.  It’s all connection that provides us with the nourishment we need to move forward in this world.  I asked this group on our listserv to share why you came to church and got several responses – but I’m going to share just one which seems to incorporate what many others said.  You may be able to guess who this is. 

“I love UU.  I am a UU.  I like being part of a church where I am reminded of our intention to love one another- to honor the inherent worth and dignity of every person.  I like that children are understood to have inherent worth and dignity -- that we are a village, caring for one another.  I am proud to be part of the church where we stand on the side of love, at every opportunity.   I value that I am known and loved here -- that I am expected and appreciated every Sunday.”

We come for many different reasons   But come we do as we sing, “Come, come whoever you are – wanderers, worshippers, lovers of leaving; ours is no Caravan of despair, Come, yet again Come.”

Ours IS no caravan of despair.  Yet we welcome the despair that many bring with them.  This is a place for healing.  And for me, at least, it’s a holy place. Just as holy as that place we heard about in our children's story built by Thomas Potter so that the message of Universal Love could be shared.   Of course, it’s not a holy place because of this building, and indeed, this congregation will be leaving this building.  But because of these people within it. 

There are CERTAINLY holy places in nature – we churchgoers too see the divine in a beautiful sunset. But we need more than that – and it’s not just about what WE need – but about what we can do for others working together.  We need this religious community, THIS holy place. 

There is a song that feels like it’s about this holy place in “Singing the Journey” and I’ve asked our fellowship singers to sing “When Our Heart is in a Holy Place” for the offertory.  Because the words are so meaningful, I’ve included them on my PowerPoint so you can follow along.  And if you feel like joining in, please do. 

But before they sing, here is my altar call of sorts.  If Unitarian Universalism sounds like something you want to explore more, I invite you to stay after the service on April 28 for our UU 101 session that I’ll lead.  You’ll find out about that “free church tradition” that James Luther Adams encourages.  And if this congregation feels like HOME to you, we’ll invite you to our UU 102.  Just let me or our VP for membership Teresa Winn know.

We’d love to have you join us, here – Standing on the side of Love - in this spiritual AND religious community.

Amen and blessed be!