Wrestling with God (1-11-09)

Wrestling with God

Rev Jane Page

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Statesboro

January 11, 2009

 

The Reading:

Genesis 32:22-31 (New International Version)

Jacob Wrestles With God

 22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak."
      But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

 27 The man asked him, "What is your name?"
      "Jacob," he answered.

 28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, ^[a] because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

 29 Jacob said, "Please tell me your name."
      But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.

 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, ^[b] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

 31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, ^[c] and he was limping because of his hip.

 

The Sermon:

 

I’m a member of the FACEBOOK social networking system on the internet, as many of you are.  FACEBOOK provides an opportunity for friends to “update their status” and tell their network of friends what they are up to.

 

Monday night at 10:15 I posted this update:

 

“Jane is ‘Wrestling with God’ as she prepares for her Sunday sermon on the same topic.”

 

This was followed by a comment from one of my facebook friends, Deb Blackburn, later that evening:

 

She said:

“I put my money on Him...no offense.”

 

Well, no offense taken I suppose.  I guess most folks would think it rather foolish for someone to attempt to wrestle with God.  But Jacob held on to him and wrestled him all night long – until he got a blessing.  Of course he came away with a little injury as well.  Anyway, it’s true that I also have spent many nights of my 58 years wrestling with God.  But I prefer to dance with God!

 

We have waltzed and done the foxtrot too,

But more often it was the twist or the boogaloo.

 

And I’ve walked with God and talked with God,

I’ve yelled at God and raised hell with God.

I’ve raved at God and been saved by God.

I’ve shoved God and loved God.

 

My God has been multiplied and unified

My God has revolved and evolved time after time.

Especially after a glass of red wine.

 

Through laughter and tears of these 58 years,

I’ve changed God’s demeanor from angry to kind,

And at time’s I believe that I changed God’s mind.

Yes, I’ve changed God’s face and changed God’s place.

And I made HIM surrender when I changed God’s gender.

 

I’ve hated and rejected God.

Then translated and reflected God.

 

My God’s now Pure LOVE empowering us all

And I’m blessed to attempt to answer Love’s call!

 

Yes, my God has changed and I have too

And that can continue, thanks to UU!

 

Hallelujah!

 

Yep – Jacob and I have both wrestled with God – but he’s the focus of this sermon.  And we are going to use his story and see if there are lessons that we might learn.  We’ll begin by looking at three big questions regarding this story.

1^st – Why was this story included in the Hebrew Scriptures?

2^nd – Who was Jacob wrestling in the story?

And 3^rd – Who won – and what were the results of this match?

 

Why was this story included in the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

•      Stories in Hebrew scriptures (like other old religious texts) were often included to explain or defend some phenomenon or practice.

•      The Hebrews needed to explain and affirm their special status as descendents of Jacob – especially since Jacob was not the eldest son.

•      A special blessing from God would carry even more weight than the blessing of a father– confirming their “chosen” status.

 

2^nd Question was – “Who was Jacob wrestling in the story?”

 

Like us – Jacob sometimes is not sure who is struggle is with!

Let’s review verses 24-30. 

 (See above)

 

FIVE times this figure opposing Jacob is referred to as a man.  Then he shares with Jacob that Jacob has wrestled with God and men --- and Jacob goes on to say he’s seen God face to face.

 

So is this a man or God? 

Let’s see how most artists portray Jacob’s struggle.

           

           

 Where did this angel come from?

 

Three possibilities.

 

1. The evolution of religion and of God from one who “walks among people” to one who resides in heaven.  (theophany)
2. Jacob’s god seemed to have limited power and knowledge in this match.  This does not match the later concept of Yahweh as all powerful and all knowing.
3. There are other places in the Old Testament where “Angel of God” and “God” are used interchangeably when “He” appears.

THUS:  “God” became an “Angel of God” when the prophet Hosea recalled the story many generations later.

 

3^rd Question was “Who won this wrestling match and what were the results?”

 

If you read many Christian scholars doing exegesis, they will tell you God won and explain with some kind of twisting of the story.  But if you read it literally, like most of them say we should….

•      Jacob won!  “When the man saw that he could not overpower him….”

•      Results:

–     Man / God breaks Jacobs hip.

–     Man / God forced to bless Jacob.

–     Jacob walks away with a blessing, a new name, and a limp.

–     Jacob is a changed man in action and name.

(Israel means struggling with God)

 

SO WHAT are the lessons we can learn from this story.  What are some possible metaphorical analogies we could explore?  They are probably innumerable but here are 5 possibilities that I considered or wrestled with.

 

7 Possibilities

•      Story represents struggle with faith in God.

•      Story represents our struggle with good or doing good.

•      Our blessings come through struggle.

•      Our blessings are accompanied by pain.

•      Blessings from fathers – not enough.

•      We are humbled in our attempts to face the divine.

•      We take on new identity after struggle.

 

I decided to go with the first one this time – perhaps because I had a book handy which did just that!

 

Rev. Tom Owen Towle, a widely published Unitarian Universalist minister, published a book in 2002 entitled:  Wrestling with God:  A Unitarian Universalist Guide for Skeptics and Believers

 

 

Tom dedicates his book:

 

To all religious pilgrims who pitch tent in the creases between belief and skepticism, uncertainty and devotion…who willingly carry on a persistent lover’s quarrel with God.

 

From Owen-Towle’s intro:

My life-journey has been one extended wrestling match with God – evolving from an early mindless embrace to categorical rejection, then gradually yet resolutely proceeding toward my current status as a questioning believer or trustful agnostic.  I have emerged a theological hybrid who chooses to juggle live tensions concerning the Holy.  However unorthodox my spiritual condition may appear to mainline scrutiny, I proudly reside in the middle realm, straddling the three A’s, atheism, agnosticism, and affirmatism, simultaneously.

 

Tom asserts that he’s in Good Company –

quoting Voltaire:

To believe in God is impossible – not to believe in God is absurd.

And theologian, author, and diplomat Michael Novak:

A conscience faithful till death is of more importance than being on a certain side, whether of belief or unbelief.

 

But isn’t living in that kind of paradox stressful?

 

Owen Towle says:

 

I am at peace with Walt Whitman’s claim:  “Do I contradict myself?  Yes, I contain multitudes!”  (Tom goes on to say) Probably innumerable Unitarian Universalists, when pressed would admit to being religious mongrels.

 

I don’t think I like being called a religious mongrel.  I think of an ugly dog when I hear that word.  But mongrel simply means mixed breed.  And if Barack Obama can refer to himself as a “mutt” – then I guess I can accept Owen-Towle’s term.  Personally, now that I own a beautiful, energy efficient Prius, I’d prefer the term Hybrid – which Tom also uses.

 

So why does Owen-Towle use the title “Wrestling with God” for his book exploring his mongrel beliefs.

 

He says:

 

Along with Jacob, the epitaph of countless Unitarian Universalists could gladly read:

 “You have wrestled with beings divine and human” (Genesis 32:29). 

We have been known to emerge from many a theological skirmish both limping and graced with a new name such as the one Jacob acquired, “Israel” – literally, “the one who struggles with God.” 

 

Owen-Towle uses Pascal’s division of beliefs in making his own argument for checks and balances.  Pascal was an eminent 17^th century apologist for the Christian religion, as well as a mathematician and an experimental scientist.  He divided humanity into deniers, believers, and doubters and noted that each attitude brought a valuable gift to the theological table.  In his volume of confessions he stated that:

 

“Denying, believing, and doubting completely are to humans what running is to a horse.” 

 

Tom Owen Towle uses three A words for these same classifications.

Those that DENY God – are the Atheists

Those that DOUBT  -- are the Agnostics

And those that BELIEVE are the Affirmatists

He contends that all of these are important aspects of our Unitarian Universalist faith.

 

Tom provides a laundry list of atheistic postures.  See if any of these sound like YOU or someone you know.

 

The devoted atheists – those individuals who splurge more effort debunking god than some believers do celebrating Him/Her/It. (The New Atheists that I discussed in a sermon last year would fit this category for sure.)  Peter Christiansen good naturedly lampoons this group:  “I tend to be wary of ‘professional atheists’.  They spend a little too much time thinking about God.”

 

The distracted atheists – those people who don’t have the time to waste on god-talk.

 

The functional atheists – those who sit in church or temple pews, going though rituals and mouthing doctrines, yet harboring in their hearts, and displaying in daily life, scant acknowledgment of a divine companion….  They are, for practical purposes, disguised unbelievers.

 

The hopeful atheists – those who emphasize human freedom and potential.  They gravitate toward humanism and occasionally embrace a naturalistic or mystical worldview and focus on human sized projects.

 

The cheerful atheists – those who live confidently and comfortably a-theos – without but not against the notion of deity.  These folks are more accurately termed non-theists and are essentially at peace, both spiritually and socially, living void of metaphysical reference.  

 

The pessimistic atheists who stress human forlornness in an impersonal, even hostile, universe.  Such nonbelievers have frequently grown up with tormented and twisted ties with God. 

 

Tom Owen-Towle finds atheism most valuable as a clarifying, cleansing vehicle and least useful when stubborn or combative.  He says that “Atheism is beneficial when employed in service of religious wisdom rather than as an outright negation of it.”

 

And honest Atheists have good company.

There are nontheistic as well as theistic forms of Hinduism.  In Theravada Buddhism there exists no single, uniform concept of a personal deity.  As for Zen Buddhists, when one famous Roshi was asked, “What does Zen say about God,” he remained silent. 

Confucianism is essentially atheistic in that it concentrates on rules of behavior for the conduct of human life but has little to say about deity as a personal entity. 

Jainism possesses no notion of a creator god, yet remains an uncommonly ethical faith.\\

 

Tom argues that:  “Atheism at its healthiest, dare I say, at its holiest, provides a critical, purifying role in the pursuit of a reasonable religion.”

 

Tom’s Second A is AGNOSTICM.

He posits that:

 

Agnosticism supplies the essential gift of measured indecision, challenging earthlings to handle the sacred lightly without forcing it into formulas, to “live in the questions” (Rilke) rather than yielding to either certitude or apathy.

 

Most Unitarian Universalists KNOW that the more we KNOW, the more we KNOW that

WE DON’T KNOW!

 

This has led to lots of jokes folks tell about Unitarian Universalists.  Here are a few.

 

 

UU Prayer: "Dear God, if there is a God, if you can, save my soul, if I have a soul."

 

One long time visitor considering membership said, “I'm not even sure if I am a UU. But I suppose that removes all doubt.”

 

What do you get when you cross a Unitarian Universalist and  a Jehovah’s Witness?  Someone who knocks on your door but doesn’t know why she’s there.

 

What do you get when you cross an insomniac UU with a dyslexic? Someone who stays awake at night wondering if there is a dog.

 

Did you hear the one about the poor bigot who was so angry at one of our churches that he burned a question mark on our lawn?  

And Finally:

For the members of any religion...

To have a few doubts is normal.

To have many doubts is a crisis of faith.

To have constant doubts is a conversion to Unitarian Universalism

 

The THIRD A that nourishes Unitarian Universalists is Affirmatism.

 

Owen-Towle says that

 Affirmatism unflinchingly insists upon the inherent sacredness of existence!  In the midst of healthy noes and perennial maybes, the affirmatist is willing to venture a steady, unyielding YES to existence in its entirety. 

 

He quotes Dag Hammarskjold (Dog Hammud held), who was a Swedish diplomat, Christian mystic, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, and  a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

 

I don’t know who – or what – put the question, I don’t know when it was put.  I don’t even remember answering.  But at some moment I did answer “Yes” to Someone or something.  And from that hour I was certain that existence is meaningful and that, therefore, my life, in self-surrender, had a goal.

 

Owen Towle also reminds us of the tale of Moses striking the Dead Sea with his wand and nothing happening.  The sea opened only when the first person plunged in, took the risk, and voiced a full-souled YES to Life, Life, Life.

 

As Unitarian Universalists, we, like Jacob, may wrestle with our understanding of the sacred and the divine.  But in the end, we are blessed – though humbled from the struggle, and we hopefully say YES to each day, each hour, each minute that we are given.  

 

Owen Towle provides this summary statement regarding the three A’s:

 

Holding to the critical gifts of our atheism, agnosticism, and affirmatism we love God as wholeheartedly as proves reasonable.  Unless we succumb to premature hardening of our spiritual arteries, we will argue with heaven all the way home.  But the good news intrinsic in our life affirming religion is that, as Thomas Carlyle remarked:  “Life is one long quarrel with God, but we make up in the end.”

 

And BLESSED we shall all be.

 

Women and Religion (Elizabeth Cady Stanton) (11-11-07)

Women and Religion

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (portrayed by Jane Page)

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Statesboro

November 11, 2007

 

The following “sermon” delivered by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (as portrayed by the Reverend Jane Page) was compiled from various writings by Stanton including letters, documents, articles, etc.  Many of these were published in a work entitled:  Women Without Superstition:  No Gods, No Masters edited by Annie Gaylor.  Transition words were added to the text and are italicized. 

 

 

Good Morning.

I have been invited here to speak to you today regarding religion and women.  You may not like what I have to say.  But I encourage you to open your ears and minds today.

 

I have been traveling the old world during the last few years and have found new food for thought.  What power is it that makes the Hindoo woman burn herself on the funeral pyre of her husband?  Her religion.  What holds the Turkish woman in the harem?  Her religion.  By what power do the Mormons perpetuate their system of polygamy?  By their religion.  Man, of himself, could not do this; but when he declares, “Thus saith the Lord,” of course he can do it.  So long as ministers stand up and tell us that as Christ is the head of the church, so is man the head of the woman, how are we to break the chains which have held women down through the ages?  You Christian women can look at the Hindoo, the Turkish, the Mormon women, and wonder how they can be held in such bondage.  Observe today the work women are doing in the churches.  The church rests on the shoulders of women.  Have we ever yet heard a man preach a sermon from Genesis 1: 27-28, which declares the full equality of the feminine and masculine element in the Godhead?  They invariably shy at that first chapter.  They always get up in their pulpits and read the second chapter of this book --The bible.

 

In the early days of woman suffrage agitation, I saw that the greatest obstacle we had to overcome was the bible.  It was hurled at us on every side.  The ballot for woman was contrary to God’s holy ordinance.  Woman was born to be submissive, subjective; she must be subservient to her husband in all things and at all times.  These were the admonitions of pulpit and press.

 

And of course they pick and choose what they preach on from this book.  Well then, so shall I.

 

Here is part of a sermon that I preached based on Genesis 1:27 which says:

27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

All the evils that have resulted from dignifying one sex and degrading the other may be traced to this central error, a belief in a trinity of masculine Gods from which the feminine element is wholly eliminated.

 

….  The subjection of woman has existed as an invariable element in Christian civilization.  It could not be otherwise with the Godhead represented as a trinity of males….  The human race has not yet reached its maturity when (it shall be) governed by reason.  It is still governed by its emotions, often by its reverse passions, as hate, fear, greed, rather than by love, attraction, devotion.  It will glorify woman when it comes to its reason.  Positivists, who have everything on reason….point to the church of humanity which makes woman and especially the mother the central figure, the actual Divinity.  It remains for us to take the next step and reunite both in the trinity of Father, Mother, and Child….

 

There is no power by which the human soul can be held in such bondage as through the religious emotions; no realm of thought where it is so difficult to displace error with truth as the religious realm.  And so long as we base our religions on the fundamental error of a “male God” it is in vain to struggle for woman’s equal status in the church; and until her equality is recognized, all talk of establishing a religion of humanity is idle since one half of humanity is in social, religious, political subjection to the other.  I have often thought that we should take the first step for woman’s freedom, and for that of humanity – when we shall have outgrown the popular idea of a male God in the skies or elsewhere:  Then we might see and worship God in humanity.

 

When woman discards its creed, dogmas, and authorities she too will be free, and a free enlightened woman in a divine being, the savior of mankind….

Amen.

Many of you may deem that sermon heretical – so be it.  It does not follow the church’s teachings – you say?  Well, what of the Church’s teachings.

 

According to Church teaching, woman was an after-thought in the creation, the author of sin, being at once in collusion with Satan.  Her sex was made a crime, marriage a condition of slavery, owing obedience; maternity a curse, and the true position of all womankind one of inferiority and subjection to all men; and the same ideas are echoed in our pulpits to-day.

 

To those not conversant with the history of the Christian Church and the growth of the canon law, it may seem a startling assertion; but it is, nevertheless, true that the Church has done more to degrade woman than all other adverse influences put together.  And it has done this by playing on the religious emotions (the strongest feelings of her nature) to her own complete subjugation.  The same religious conscience that carried the widows to the funeral pyre of their husbands, now holds some women in the Turkish harems, others in polygamy under the Mormon theocracy, and others in the Christian Churches, in which, while rich women help to build and support them, they may not speak or vote or enjoy any of the honors conferred on men, and thus their natural feelings of self-respect are held in abeyance to what they are taught to believe is God’s will. 

 

Having decided that she was the author of sin and the medium through who the devil would effect the downfall of the Church, godly men logically inferred that the greater the distance between themselves and all womankind, the nearer they were to God and heaven.  With this idea, they fought against all woman’s influence, both good and evil. 

 

For the supposed crimes of heresy and witchcraft, hundreds of women endured such persecutions and tortures that the most stolid historians are said to have wept in recording them; and no one can read them today but with a bleeding heart.  And, as the Christian Church grew stronger, woman’s fate grew more helpless.  Even the Reformation and Protestantism brought no relief, the clergy being all along their most bitter persecutors, the inventors of the most infernal tortures.  Hundreds and hundreds of fair young girls, innocent as the angels in heaven, hundreds and hundreds of old women, weary and trembling with the burdens of life, were hunted down by emissaries of the Church, dragged into the courts with the ablest of judges and lawyers of England, Scotland and America on the bench, and tried for crimes that never existed but in the wild, fanatical imaginations of religious devotees.  Women were accused of consorting with devils and perpetuating their diabolical propensities.  Hundreds of these children of hypothetical origin were drowned, burned, and tortured in the presence of their mothers, to add to their death agonies.  These things were not done by savages or pagans:  they were done by the Christian Church.  Neither were they confined to the Dark Ages, but permitted by law in England far into the eighteenth century.  The clergy everywhere sustained witchcraft as Bible doctrine, until the spirit of rationalism laughed the whole thing to scorn, and science gave mankind a more cheerful view of life.

 

One remarkable fact stands out in the history of witchcraft; and that is, its victims were chiefly women.  Scarce one wizard to a hundred witches was ever burned or tortured. 

 

Although the ignorance and crimes of the human race have ever fallen most heavily on woman, yet in the general progress of civilization she has had some share.  As man became more enlightened, she of necessity enjoyed the results; but to no form of popular religion has woman ever been indebted for one pulsation of liberty.  Obedience and subjection have been the lessons taught her by all alike. 

 

Even so, the women are the chief, untiring pertinacious beggars for the church.  They compose the vast majority of the congregations.  Rich women give large sums to clear church debts, to educate young men for the ministry, and to endow theological seminaries.

 

Poorer women decorate the temples for Christmas and Easter, make surplices and gowns, embroider table covers for the altar, and slippers for the rector; and all alike think they are serving God in sustaining the Church and the priesthood.  In return, the whole tone of church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading.  Perchance the very man educated by some sewing society will ascend the pulpit, and take his text in I Corinthians 14, 34-35:  “Let women keep silence in the churches:  for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church.”  Ephesians 5 – 23  “Wives, submit yourselves unto you own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.”  I Timothy 2 – 11-13:  “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man…. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”  I Corinthians 11, 8-9:  “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.  Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

 

Now my friends, what effect do you think such Epistles as these, written by Paul to the Ephesians, the Corinthians, and the Thessalonians, had on the men and women of those times; and what is the effect of sermons from such texts today, but to degrade woman and demoralize man?  These teachings in regard to woman so faithfully reflect the provisions of the canon law that it is fair to infer that their inspiration came from the same source, written by men, translated by men, revised by men.  If the Bible is to be placed in the hands of our children, read in our schools, taught in our theological seminaries, proclaimed as God’s law in our temples of worship, let us by all means call a council of women in New York, and give it one more revision from the woman’s stand-point.

 

In one of the essential doctrines of Christianity – namely, self-sacrifice, -- women have been carefully trained, until, as John Stuart Mill says, that has come to be their pet virtue.  The thing which most retards, and militates against woman’s self-development, is self-sacrifice.  Put it down in capital letters, that self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.  Women have always believed that they were born to be sacrificed, and I have made it my duty and my life-work to teach them the contrary.  If I have succeeded in that, I have attained sufficient success.

 

Therefore, I have endeavored at many of our suffrage conventions to pass some resolutions embodying the idea that woman’s’ first duty was self-development; and at last, after a prolonged struggle and much imposition, even by women themselves, the following resolutions were passed at our thirtieth anniversary, held in Rochester, July 1978.

 

Resolved, That, as the first duty of every individual is self-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience taught woman by the Christian Church have been fatal, not only to her own vital interests, but through her to those of the human race.

Resolved, That the great Principle of the Protestant Reformation, the right of individual conscience and judgment, heretofore exercised by man alone, should now be claimed by woman; that in the interpretation of Scripture, she should be guided by her own reason, and not the authority of the Church.

Resolved, That it is through the perversion of the religious element in woman, playing upon her hopes and fears of the future, holding this life with all its high duties in abeyance to that which is to come, that she and the children she has trained have been so completely subjugated by priestcraft and superstition.

 

The following Sunday, the Rev. A.H. Strong, President of the Baptist Theological Seminary of that city, preached a sermon especially directed against these resolutions, which met strong clerical criticism and opposition by all the fraternity in the State who chanced to see reports of the proceedings.

           

One amusing episode in that convention is worthy of note.  Frederick Douglas, who has always done noble service in our cause, was presents.  But his intellectual vision being a little obscured that warm afternoon, he opposed the resolutions, speaking with a great deal of feeling and sentiment of the beautiful Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice.  When he finished, Mrs. Lucy Colman, always keen in prickling bubbles, arose and said:  Well, Mr. Douglas, all you say may be true; but allow me to ask you why you did not remain a slave in Maryland, and sacrifice yourself like a Christian to your master, instead of running off to Canada to secure your liberty like a man?  We shall judge your faith, Frederick, by your deeds.”  (I say) The time has come when women, too, would rather run to Canada to taste some of the sweets of liberty than to sacrifice themselves forever in the thorny paths marked out for them by man. 

 

But most women remain under the strong influence of the church.  And while many worked diligently on issues of abolition and temperance, they have failed to realize the terrible consequences of some of their actions.

 

For example:  It is said that under the leadership of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union association 100,000 petitions were presented in Congress, asking that no appropriation be made to the (World’s Fair) unless the managers pledged themselves to close the gates on Sunday, the only day the masses could visit the grounds.  Thus sacrificing large classes of citizens to the prejudices of a few for the sacredness of one day of the week above all others.  If the Christians could close the gates on Sunday, why not the Jews do the same on Saturday? 

 

Now they want God and the Christian religion recognized in the constitution…..  (And) The women are generally in favor of the most rigid Sunday laws. 

 

Seeing the danger of a union in state and church in the old world, our fathers determined to lay the foundations of our republic, in the equal rights of all citizens, without regard to sect or creed, Quaker, Baptist, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Infidel, Agnostic, all enjoy the same freedom.  Any encroachments on this principle should be firmly resisted

 

Much as I desire the suffrage, I would rather never vote, than to see the policy of our government, at the mercy of the religious bigotry of such women. 

 

It is one of the mysteries that woman, who has suffered so intensely from the rule of the church, still worships her destroyer and “licks the hand that raised to shed her blood.”

 

My heart’s desire is to lift women out of all these dangerous, degrading superstitions, and to this end will I labor my remaining days on earth.

 

I can truly say, after an experience of seventy years, that all the cares and anxieties, the trials and disappointments of my whole life, are light, when balanced with my sufferings in childhood and youth from the theological dogmas which I sincerely believed, and the gloom connected with everything associated with the name of religion, the church, the parsonage, the graveyard, and the solemn, tolling bell….I early believed myself a veritable child of the Evil One, and suffered endless fears lest he should come some night and claim me as his own.  To me he was a personal, ever present reality, crouching in a dark corner of the nursery.  Ah! How many times I have stolen out of bed, and sat shivering on the stairs, where the hall lamp and the sound of voices from the parlor would, in a measure, mitigate my terror.  Thanks to a vigorous constitution and overflowing animal spirits, I was able to endure for years the strain of these depressing influences. Until my reasoning powers and common sense triumphed at last over my imagination.  The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one pour soul with any of the superstitions of the Christian religion.

 

Instead, I have endeavored to dissipate these religious superstitions from the minds of women, and base their faith on science and reason, where I found for myself at last that peace and comfort I could never find in the Bible and the church….  The less they believe, the better for their own happiness and development….

 

I believe we have reached a point where the world of thought is ready to accept anything which can be proved to be true, whether it is endorsed by the church or not.  That is a great step in advance.  People no longer ask – is this in the Bible, or according to Bible teachings – but is it true?  Is it according to the nature of things?  Nor does God’s word in a book, nor does the church, affirm or deny this – but does god’s human reason say it?  Is it according to logic and mathematics?  Then, can it be proved practically?  Does it tend to make us happy?  Will it work?  Will it pay?  These are the questions we ask today; they are signs and tokens of an extended emancipation that has come so gradually that we hardly realize it.

 

Thanks to the law of Progress, woman is awaking to the degradation she has endured in the name of religion and is interpreting the laws of life for herself.

 

As I read the signs of the times, I think the next form of religion will be the “Religion of Humanity,” in which men and women will worship what they see of the divine in each other; the virtues, the beatitudes, the possibilities ascribed to Deity reflected in mortal beings….  The new religion will teach the dignity of human nature, and its infinite possibilities for development.  It’s believers will not remain forever in the valley of humiliation, confessing themselves in the Church service, on each returning Sabbath day, to the “miserable sinners: imploring the “good Lord to deliver them” from the consequences of violated law; but the new religion will inspire its worshippers with self-respect, with noble aspirations to attain diviner heights from day to day than yet have reached.  It will teach individual honesty and honor in word and deed, in all the relations of life.  It will teach the solidarity of the human race, that all must rise or fall as one.  Its creed will be Justice, Liberty, Equality for all the children of the earth.  It will teach our practical duties to man in this life rather than our sentimental duties to God in fitting ourselves for the next life….

 

It is folly to talk of a just government and a pure religion, in a nation where the State and the Church alike sustain an aristocracy of wealth and ease, while those who do the hard work of the world have no share in the blessings and riches, that their continued labors have made possible for others to enjoy.  Is it just that the many should ever suffer, that the few may shine?  To reconcile men to things as they are, we have sermons from the texts, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven,” “The poor ye have always with you,” “Servants obey your masters,” “Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s.”  As if poverty, servility, and authority were decrees of Heaven!

 

Such decrees will not do for our day and generation; the school-master is abroad, Webster’s spelling book is a classic.  The laboring classes have tasted the tree of knowledge and like the gods  -- they begin to know good and evil.  With new liberties and education they demand corresponding improvements in their environments; as they reach new vantage ground from time to time and survey broader fields of usefulness, they learn their rights and duties, their relations to one another and their true place in the march of civilization.  Yes, -- not just for women, but for all.  “Equal rights to all” is the lesson for this hour.

 

May It Be So!