The Unitarian Fellowship of Peterborough

First Principle:  As Unitarian Universalists “we covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

We see the seven “Principles” which are printed on the back cover of our order of service every week. We don’t often confront them head on, and struggle with them, although they are often implicit in the topics we consider on Sunday mornings. Today we are beginning a sermon series looking at each of the principles more directly. We will touch briefly on the history and theology of each of these statements, and explore what they mean to us, as individuals, as a congregation.

In the introductory sermon in November, I argued against the idea that “Unitarians can believe anything they want.” While we do hold diversity as a value, and pluralism as an opportunity, there are central core values which we affirm. These can serve as guides to our actions. Equally central to our faith is the right of individuals to interpret these values and principles in their own words, not in a creedal statement. And so, our approach to religion encourages us to find common ground in terms of ethical principles, rather than a set of religious beliefs.

We have already noted that the statement of Principles starts with one that focuses on individual worth, moves then into how we relate interpersonally, from there into group relationships - the congregation, society and humanity in general, and finally the seventh principle relates to our interdependence with the whole of nature. Is that progression important? I have discovered that various authors and colleagues see here some unspoken principle about the relative importance of these statements.

Marilyn Sewell [in WITH PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLE, edited by Edward A. Frost] identifies this first principle as the “foundation” of all the others. My colleague Anne Treadwell identifies the fourth, the one about a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning” as the very centre of our faith and most distinctive of us. David Bumbaugh, in an article in the UU WORLD, expressed the view that the seventh principle, “the interdependent web of all existence” is the encompassing principle which most clearly defines a theology for the new century. For him, it is the essential defining principle of Unitarian Universalists. I would ask, is it really necessary to look for some hierarchy or centrality in these principles? Or is it more important to notice how interconnected they are, and also that each one is both an ideal to strive for, and a challenge because of contradictions, ambiguities and our own human limitations.

Inherent Worth and Dignity of Every Person

Let’s look at the first principle. What do we mean by “inherent” worth and dignity? The dictionary says inherent means: intrinsic ...the essential character ...belonging by nature ...existing as a permanent characteristic. Inherent worth, then, is not based on right beliefs or right behaviour. It is not something earned or given on merit. It is something basic, of the very essence of being. When I was teaching a Religious Education class a few years ago, we used a curriculum based on the seven principles called “We Believe.” The children were taught the meaning of this principle by use of a board game which demonstrated that no one is more worthy than another by virtue of age, class, sex, ability or other distinctions. They were given a badge to wear, saying “Ask me about... inHEREnt worth.” The H-E-R-E of the word was in capital letters. As the children mingled with the adults during coffee hour, and adults did ask: “OK, tell me about inherent worth” and the children answered “it is in here” pointing to their chests. It is not on the surface, but deep within.

To speak of inherent worth and dignity is easy. To live by it is something else again. Do I really affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person? Every person! That includes people I disagree with or don’t like, people I don’t know and don’t want to know, people who are obnoxious or frightening. This is a tall order! Living by this principle does not mean accepting abusive behaviour, but it does mean valuing the personhood of the other, not treating any person as unworthy. “Every person” includes disagreeable children, and crotchety old grumps. It includes narrow minded politically incorrect folks as well as those nice like-minded folks I associate with. It includes both oppressed and oppressor, victim and perpetrator. Who said it’s easy to be a Unitarian?

For some of us, at least some of the time, living by this principle in relation to ourselves is even difficult. Because respect for every person also means respect for ones own integrity, not allowing others to put us down or stereotype us in some way. If you can truly affirm this principle, then you will be sure of our own innate worth. It is not something that can be taken from you. It is not something you have to earn or need to prove. It is not something that you lose when you mess up. It does not set you up as better than another, or lesser.

This first principle, then, is an affirmation of self worth, and an affirmation of the worth of others, respect for each and all. It is an ideal we never fully realise but strive for.

Our covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person has been central to so much of our commitment to social justice, both presently and in the past. In terms of Unitarian Universalist history, we have people like Emily Stowe, who devoted her life to the principle that women are as inherently worthy as men. We have the great religious educator Sophia Fahs who lived out her conviction that children are as inherently worthy as adults. We have the legacy of Joseph Workman who turned the so-called Provincial Lunatic Asylum in Toronto into a modern mental health facility. And we recognize the work of the Women’s Alliance at the First Unitarian Congregation of Toronto, in establishing the Elizabeth Fry Society.

These are embodiments of the Principle of inherent worth... the inherent worth of the mentally ill, the inherent worth of prisoners. There were also the Unitarians who worked to change the law which excluded atheists as adoptive parents. And the Universalists who worked to abolish the death penalty, as they did to abolish slavery. This principle is of the essence in the Welcoming Congregation program, which when it is adopted by a congregation, says publicly that each of us, regardless of sexual orientation is a person of worth and dignity, and openly welcomed in this religious community.

What about the historical and theological background of this first principle? It clearly has origins in our Jewish and Christian roots, and more specifically in our Universalist heritage. In simple theological language, this principle rejects the concept of original sin, and reflects the concept of the unconditional love of God. When Jesus associated with the outcasts of society, lepers and prostitutes, he was saying through his actions that those who are most despised in society do have worth and dignity. When he said “whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me” he was calling for his followers to treat all persons with respect. He brought the message home in many parables, such as the one about “the Good Samaritan” as Samaritans were a hated people in his time. The term “good Samaritan” is loosely used to refer to anyone who helps a stranger. But one of the main points of the story is that Jews of the time despised Samaritans, and it was one of the despised who turned out to be the good neighbour.

Those who were seen as unclean or unworthy or as outsiders were accepted and valued by Jesus. That, I believe, was his central message. The distortion of the Christian message, the Calvinistic negativism which said that only those who have been predestined will be saved, and all others will burn in Hell eternally, was rejected and turned on its head by our forebears, the Universalists. Salvation, they said, is not for some select group, based on their good works, their faith, their character or station in life. Salvation is universal. The foundation of that universalist belief is that every soul has inherent worth. Every person, regardless of what they contribute, regardless of what they believe, is included in the family of humanity.

Today, self professed “Christian fundamentalists” expound an exclusive theology. Aren’t they perverting the message of Christianity, just as Islamic extremists have perverted the message of Mohammed. Both prophets were considerably more inclusive than many of their professed followers. I want to be careful about using the word fundamentalist in a pejorative sense. Not all fundamentalists are militants or extremists. I expect the early Universalists felt they were returning to the “fundamental” Christian message, and I think it can be argued that they were. But any fundamentalism, whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic or otherwise, when it claims to hold the one true faith, and denigrates others, is in danger of becoming harmful and hurtful, and even terrorist. We have seen how destructive extremism can be. It is an ever present danger, and increasingly a threat today, everywhere.

You might have seen a recent letter to the editor of our local paper, which argued for an exclusive Christianity. If one does not profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, one is doomed, it said. The writer agonized about those he knows who are not believers, about “where they will spend eternity.” To drive home his point, he denounced Universalists who he said “believe that eventually all people will be saved, which means those who have been guilty of the world’s most heinous crimes, as well as those who have done great charitable works for God’s kingdom.” He shuddered at the vision of Osama bin Laden and Mother Teresa seated at the same heavenly banquet table and concluded his letter with “Does that strike you as right? Just asking.” I get his point. But I would ask him, does it seem right that your eternal reward is based on a set of beliefs and not on how you have treated your fellow human beings? “Just asking.”

In any case, the Universalism he is referring to is historical. In the nineteenth century these questions of eternal reward or punishment were of much greater import than most of us would give them today. In the last century or so, Universalism has had a very humanist bent. It is expressed in the writings of Kenneth Patton. Our responsive reading today did not speak of the hereafter, but of a vision of community based on friendship, openness, and encouragement. It spoke of freedom and responsibility, and acceptance of differences.

Most of us are much less concerned with eternity than we are with the “heaven” and “hell” we create right here and now. As Marilyn Sewell says, “living on this earth is the proper focus of our time and attention” and our first principle calls us “to create justice where justice now does not exist.” And the point is that the commitment to principles of peace and freedom and justice is not based on fear of God, but on a faith that all persons are deserving of respect, all souls are inherently worthy. And I deliberately use that word “faith” as I do not believe that inherent worth and dignity is a factual statement. This principle is not provable by science or logic. This is a faith statement, and like most is extremely hard to live up to, as we all have within us, if not original sin, very human tendencies to reject those unlike us, to exclude, to judge and condemn, to mistrust and to fear.

This principle calls us to rise above the tendencies to respond with fear and rejection. It calls us to look and respond to our universal humanity rather than our differences, to a respect for each and all. This is an inclusive message which is desperately needed in today’s world. We need each other to affirm and promote this principle, to strengthen each other, and ourselves.

In closing I want to share with you a brief story which friends sent to me over the holidays. It was forwarded to them by a friend, and as with so many of the holiday messages this year, it was set in the context of the fear and shock and grief of these times and the “challenge to find words of cheer.” It includes this tale of a Native American grandfather talking to his grandson.

"I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart," the old man said. "One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, peaceful, compassionate one."

"Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?" asked the grandson.

"The one I feed," the grandfather answered. "The one I feed."

So let us look for ways to feed that part of ourselves. Let us make this a place where we are fed and nurtured to respond with love and peace and compassion. Let us create an atmosphere of affirmation, respecting each and all. So be it.