Upon telling other students that I am a Unitarian Universalist, I am often met with curiosity and questions about our faith. One fellow student, who is Methodist, told me that he is really a Unitarian Universalist at heart, but the Methodists give him a job (now there is some practical thinking for you!) Another woman, who is also Methodist, is thinking about exploring our faith more because her lesbian daughter is not accepted by the Methodist church. So this woman is searching for a denomination that is more accepting. And one evening one of my friends, who is with the Disciples of Christ, was talking about how he has been with that denomination his entire life and still doesn’t know how to explain to other people what they believe. I said "Gee, you sound like us Unitarian Universalists", and an Episcopalian friend spoke up and said to me "yes, but YOU have a cool bumper sticker" – referring to the "Uncommon Denomination" bumper sticker that is on my car.

The faculty there is not interested in converting students or telling us what to believe. A large part of the purpose of seminary is for us to learn to figure things out for ourselves. Many students seem to enter seminary thinking that they have it all figured out already. I know I was kind of like that. I knew what I believed and why. I was convinced that, except for perhaps a few loose ends, I already had all of the bases covered. Boy, was I wrong! We are constantly presented with questions to ponder as we are challenged to define, articulate and defend our personal theology and our calling. My Old Testament professor kept telling us that he did not necessarily believe everything he told us, but it was his job to "mess" with our minds! And he sure did a good job with that. My history professor told me that it doesn’t matter what we believe, or even THAT we believe. What matters is that we gain insight and understanding. Seminary is proving to be a wonderful personal growing experience.

The first course I took was "Interpreting the Hebrew Bible" (which is the Old Testament). What better place to start, I thought, than "in the beginning". Whoa! Nothing like jumping right into the fire! I was very pleasantly surprised that despite the hard work, I really enjoyed that course. We were encouraged to come up with our own interpretations of the stories. However, we couldn’t just regurgitate what we had been taught in the past to believe or not to believe. We had to be able to back up our interpretations with good, sound argument.

For our first paper, we were to select from among 5 or 6 different stories to write about. One of those was the story about Abraham and Isaac – you know, the one where God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his son. Now, I have always had a great deal of difficulty with that story – as I’m sure many of you have. After all, what kind of a God would do such a horrible thing? My first thought was "I’m not touching that one – maybe I’ll do something more "mundane" like the fall of Adam and Eve". But, perhaps because this was my initial reaction I realized that I needed to "grab that bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground"! Much to my surprise, my conclusion ended up being rather conventional – but the important thing was that I got there by myself by digging around in the Bible, reading and evaluating other scholarly works, and reflecting on questions that our professor had given to us to ponder in our efforts to find our own understanding. How I got there would make a whole sermon by itself, but my basic conclusion was that this is a story about Abraham’s faith in God and how he grew to trust God. And through extrapolation, this is a story about how we learn to trust those things in which we have faith – be they a person, a scientific theory or a Higher Power.

What is more interesting, though, is that a United Church of Christ friend of mine did the same story. His conclusion, however, was very different. He decided that Abraham was an idiot, and that wasn’t really God talking to him. Abraham was hearing voices, and they weren’t from God. (I didn’t read his paper, but I doubt those were the exact words he used – although maybe they were!) That seems kind of odd – one might think that I would have been the one to come up with that and he would have come up with the more conventional conclusion. But what is really interesting is that each of us got an A on our paper! That’s because we both were able to present a good solid argument to back up our particular conclusion – and that is the criteria that our professor used to grade us. It didn’t matter whether or not he agreed with our conclusion and certainly he had to have disagreed with at least one of us! The idea was for us to engage in the discipline and struggle of coming up with an interpretation in which we would have ownership.

We spent a lot of time in that class discussing how it is valid to interpret the Old Testament within the context of our current culture and understanding. How something was interpreted in previous times can be legitimately "trumped" by newer interpretations. One illustration, in particular sticks in my mind.

We were studying Isaiah – chapters 6 thru 9 in particular:

Chapter 6, v. 14 reads (New Revised Standard Version):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son,

And shall name him Immanuel.

In chapter 9 v. 6-7, it says

For a child has been born for us,

A son given to us;

Authority rests upon his shoulders;

And he is named

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

His authority shall grow continually,

And there shall be endless peace

For the throne of David and his kingdom.

He will establish and uphold it

With justice and with righteousness

From this time onward and forevermore.

I’m sure that many of you are familiar with this passage.

Many Christians are taught that this scripture is a prophesy of the coming of Jesus Christ. During our discussion of these passages, my professor went to great length about how to interpret the original Hebrew. He concluded by telling us that it is highly unlikely that this passage is about Jesus. Much more likely is it to be about one of the kings of that time – perhaps Hezekiah. Then my professor said "I’ve said enough now. I’m going to shut up and see where you all are". There was dead silence in the class for a bit. Finally, one of my classmates spoke up and said "OK. Suppose that what you say is true, and suppose that other things that you’ve taught us about the Bible are also true. We, as seminary students are now learning the "secret" truth about the Bible. Why can’t we tell these things to our congregations?" And another woman spoke up and said "I asked that same question in another class and was told it was because we would be fired". And I was sitting there listening to all of this, and thinking "Thank GOD I’m a Unitarian Universalist"…. Thank God I don’t have to struggle that kind of struggle. Can you imagine being fired for speaking what you believe to be the truth? This was a good lesson for me – it gave me insight and understanding into what students and clergy of other denominations have to struggle and deal with. Eventually, my professor somehow got us out of this mess by explaining that it was all right for Christians to interpret these passages as they have. Isaiah is a text from and for ancient Israel, so for it to function as scripture in our own time we need to interpret it given the cultural context of present day worshipping communities. There is evidence that the Bible has always been interpreted in such a way as to make it relevant for the culture of the day.

There was a reading in the Bible Workbench some time ago that speaks to this idea. It is an excerpt from "In a Dark Wood: Journeys of Faith and Doubt" by Linda Jones and Sophie Stanes and it is about Lionel Blue, who is evidently a Jewish Rabbi. He says:

I know that for the Old Testament to have relevance for our own living faith, it has to become a living source itself. We have to find our own meaning and interpretation in the stories, or it will be useless to us. The beauty of many of the stories is that they, in fact, are open to different interpretations. We can find our own truth and value in the Old Testament – even those of us who don’t identify as being Christian.

Isaiah is also about creating a just and peaceful world for all. We talked about social justice a lot in that class as we did in the other classes that I took this past year. The thing that sticks out most in my mind happened the very last day of this past semester in my history class.

We were talking about the difference between an apocalyptic and a prophetic viewpoint. The apocalyptic viewpoint is the one that says that God is coming and is going to fix things, so there is no need for us to do anything to try to improve the world. The future is predetermined so we don’t have to bother trying to change things. In fact, some would want to hurry this along! This is truly a frightening thought when one realizes that perhaps some of our country’s leaders subscribe to this apocalyptic viewpoint.

The prophetic viewpoint, on the other hand, holds that God is present in our world and works for and with us. It is the optimistic viewpoint that we can change and improve the world and the human condition.

My professor was describing how, at age 16, she realized that perhaps Jesus Christ isn’t coming as she had been taught, and that God isn’t going to fix things – that it is up to us to work to improve the world. So she asked the leaders of her church, "What if Jesus doesn’t come back – what, then, is the "game plan"? She was subsequently treated as if she had been effected by the devil. What an awful thing – to be told that you are of the devil just for asking questions! But, I suppose that some, or perhaps many of you have experienced that. I’m fortunate in that I haven’t. I can only imagine how terrible that must be.

But that question has stuck with me, and will probably stay with me during the years to come. What is the game plan? What is OUR game plan???

I think that the most important things I learned in seminary this year have to do with gaining an understanding of my Christian counterparts – my Christian brothers and sisters. There are lots of liberal Christians out there, and in many cases, their thinking isn’t all that different from our own. There are groups of liberal Christians who are just as concerned about social justice as we are. We are not necessarily as different as we like to think we are!

"What is the game plan?"

I don’t know what the entire answer to that question is, but I’m sure that part of the answer is in joining forces with others in the effort to change and improve the world. We cannot do it alone! We need to be connecting with those liberal Christians, and others of like mind. And ACT (Allied Communities of Tarrant County) offers a way to do just that. ACT brings people of different faiths, races, ethnicities, economic classes and other diversity together to develop relationships and strengthen communities. People identify issues of common concern and work to resolve those issues. ACT offers a way to get out and actually DO something – to make a difference. ACT brings power to the people!

We have a number of people within the First Jefferson community who have been heavily involved in ACT. Others of us have "caught the bug" and are becoming more involved. Between now and this fall, we will be holding house meetings in the effort to strengthen our own community. "Service is our prayer" will be the focus. What are we doing to fulfill this mission? What should we be doing? What do we need to do better? What is our game plan? We aren’t going to just talk about it, though. The idea is that out of these house meetings, leaders and issues will emerge and we can begin to take action! I urge you take part in this initiative, if only to offer up your concerns and ideas. I urge you to become part of the answer.

I would like to quote from that wonderful sermon that we heard at General Assembly at the Service of the Living Tradition. Dr. Patrick O’Neill, Sr. Minister at First Unitarian Church in Wilmington, DE says:

Dr. O’Neill went on to charge those who were entering the ministry that evening to lead the way in helping Liberal religion find its voice again.

Here at First Jefferson let us keep alive that enthusiasm and inspiration that so many of us brought back from General Assembly. Let us do our part to give Liberal religion a voice. Let us put our theological differences aside and team up with those of other liberal faiths to work to improve the world and the human condition. It is these pluralistic efforts that are going to be a significant, and perhaps a necessary part of the answer to the question "what is the game plan?"

Let us be a part of that answer.

Let us ignite!

Amen and Blessed Be