The Universalist promise that each of us, every one, has inherent worth is, for most of us, a bedrock of our religious commitment. We may have a hard time trusting that Good News, but it still serves as a comfort when we fall short, when our actions harm others, when there seems good reason for us to be most self-critical. It is a source of affirmation for each of us and a corrective to the plaque of perfectionism. That promise also fuels our work for justice.

What would a religious community that held that every person has inherent worth as a foundation look like? What would, or should, First Unitarian look like, if we truly had universalism at the center of our spiritual lives?

Isn’t the test of faith how we live, not what we say we believe?

Shouldn’t a church with Universalist in its name, welcome all people? Shouldn’t diversity be expected?

Don’t answer too quickly.

Can you, for example, imagine a Japanese UU church, a church that worships in the Japanese language, with a cross prominent in the sanctuary? Or a Nigerian UU church that worships in the Yoruba language to the persistent beat of the drums?

I have preached (with translation) in both of those and other culturally specific UU congregations.

Is diversity (racial, ethnic, linguistic…) required to claim a “Universalist” identity? Or is the specific New England version of Universalism and the language and hymnody that expressed it necessary to claim a Universalist identity?

Is diversity of race or background or wealth, in our membership or attendance, necessary to make real our Universalist message?

Most mainline Protestant confessions have culturally specific congregations: African American, Korean, Latinx. They also have culturally specific White congregations although they do not describe them that way.

The Universalists went the other direction, attempting to create a “world” religion at the Charles Street Meeting House in Boston in the 1940’s. Symbols from all the world’s religions were prominent in the sanctuary but the language tried to transcend them all. Science was elevated as the source of truth and cultural specifics were subsumed into a “general” universalism. That congregation, virtually all white, did not survive. Their minister, Ken Patton, has more pieces in our grey hymnal than any other. They did have an impact.

There are several challenges in attempting a “general” universalism. First, neither religion nor identity are experienced “in general.” We live specific lives, grounded in specific stories and habits. A real universalist promise is not general, it is specific to each of us.

Second, and this is also important, a “general” universalism can mask the operation of power and privilege. In that Japanese Universalist church where I preached, there is no doubt which cultural specifics are privileged. What cultural specifics would you say are valued at First Unitarian? If there is an honoring of cultural specifics in a universalist congregation, how is that congregation called to express its universalism in the world?

I will be holding up these questions and suggesting some avenues for exploration as the fall unfolds.

The spotlight is on differences today. Different impacts on different communities of the Covid virus. Different treatment by our police state depending on your race. Different access to voting. The question of who is included in “we the people” is front and center.

I believe that our Universalist heritage is a gift, but it is a complicated gift. Our Universalist identity does not answer all questions for us, but that identity will not allow us to avoid those questions of real importance.

Blessings,

Bili