HomeBelonging means different things to different people, and they therefore have differing expectations of giving to and receiving from the groups they to which they belong.
Good morning!
What does it mean to you to belong to something?
I find for me that the meaning changes depending upon what I am thinking about. So, for me, belonging to a family is different than, say, belonging to a political party though I can use the same word for each. In practice I tend not to apply the word “belonging” to my family, I just say “I am a Bryce”. That indicates a degree of belonging that is much deeper than my membership in a party or an organization. That level of belonging is organic. I am a Bryce; that is part of identity and is stated in a kind of unchangeable way. In the Spanish language there are two different words for the idea expressed in English as “to be”. One of those verbs is used when a person is something by nature, the other when what is being described is something more transitory.
In a sense, I can use the phrase “I am a Unitarian Universalist” to indicate either that the statement is me by nature or that it is me but it may be transitory. In English we have to derive that difference of meaning from usage.
I say “I am a Unitarian Universalist”, and mean that in a very deep sense, while some would say the same words but would really mean, “I belong to a Unitarian Universalist congregation” or “I attend a Unitarian Universalist congregation” and would be indicating something less committed; you hear the differing levels of attachment in those statements.
I have been a member of many organizations, and have noticed the differing experiences I have had in these. Sometimes being a member means no more to me than having a subscription to a publication. For example, at one time in the past I was a member of the National Geographic Society. Well, technically I was a member, but I never felt like a “member”; in my mind I just had a subscription to the magazine.
Partly that is a matter of “Ownership”, which is a word used often in Unitarian Universalist congregations to refer to an inner sense of relationship to a group or organization. In relationship to the congregation, are you an Owner, or just an Attendee?
You know, I own stocks that represent shares in a number of companies, and I know that legally that makes me an “owner” of those companies; but I don’t actually feel like an owner. To me that theory of company ownership is a legal fiction; it is legally true but not actually true. My vote is so miniscule that it is meaningless. If I owned twenty five percent of the shares in a company I would feel differently, but the fact is that to me owning stocks is just that: owning stocks, not owning the corporation. And please, to those who now want to set me straight on this: I understand the theory, I just do not buy it--pun intended—I just do not buy it as a reality. A corporation is not a shareowner democracy it is a dollar democracy and I do not have the dollars to make my vote count.
Sometimes, belonging intersects with ownership and that can be both a sense of joy and a sense of frustration. I have been a member of organizations where I truly felt the words “us” and “we”. People who feel that expect others to feel it as well, and can become confused and angry when other people do not act as if they have that feeling. They can become hurt because they assume that others feel as they do. But in any organization some people are deeply committed and some people are just consumers, they come for a particular product. In a congregation that might be the sermon or the Religious Education program or whatever. People who have a deep commitment to an organization or a movement often cannot understand or even recognize that lesser commitment in others. Their sense of belonging is so strong they assume that others share it.
One difficulty with the deeper level of commitment is that any organization, or the people in it, can fail. In fact, if we are honest, we will acknowledge that because people are people, and institutions are created and maintained by people, ultimately all will fail in some way. If I insist on perfection I will be disappointed. I have known the sense of betrayal with some groups I have belonged to when they do not live up to my expectations of how they or we should be with one another, or how the organization should treat me or someone else. If I am part of something as just a consumer I am much less likely to feel any such reaction. The deeper the commitment the easier it is for one to feel betrayed.
On the other hand, the deeper the commitment, the more likely it is that you will derive deep pleasure and satisfaction from whatever group you are part of. Like the old Simon and Garfunkle song went, “I am a rock”; indicating that if I don’t invest myself I cannot be hurt. Those who are deeply invested can be hurt, but also are more likely to know the joy of their emotional investment.
Religious communities, that is, congregations, have a theology of existence. In the Protestant movement during the Reformation, especially in the left wing of the Protestant movement represented by the Puritan, Baptist and Unitarian traditions, there was—and still is--a view of congregations as based upon a theology of the covenantal community. The idea is that we gather together in covenant with one another. A covenantal community is one where the people join together as a gathered people and agree among themselves what their goals are, that is, what their mission is; and they agree among themselves how they will be with one another; that is, what their covenant is. Note, they decide that for themselves. Further, a covenantal community is a community in which each person has an equal say.
No one has more or fewer votes than anyone else. Some may hold greater sway through the power of persuasion or track record, but otherwise all are equal. In neither the theology nor the polity (that is, the decision making process) of the gathered people of a covenantal congregation do we as individuals or as a congregation yield to priest or bishop, Pope or Prince. We decide for ourselves individually and we decide for the congregation collectively. Democracy is then one of the pillars of such a community. Unlike corporate democracy, this is genuine democracy; every person who is a member gets one vote.
Active participation is also a pillar of our theological underpinnings. Members of the congregation do not sit back passively while the minister decides things like budget, structure and programming. In our tradition, the members are actively involved in those aspects of congregational life.
You get to decide the shape of the congregation in the future. That is part of what the meeting later today is all about. It is one step in a process of decision making that the congregation is engaged in. If we were a different kind of gathered people, I would decide where our building would be located, would meet with the architect to approve building plans, and would make all final decisions. That would be so much easier and smoother, would it not? It would be much more efficient. But we have decided against efficiency in the name of democracy and covenant. It is much more difficult because it can mean interminable discussions with people focused on irrelevant points that make your eyes roll—at least internally, because we do not do that to one another. But then, you too say things that make other people’s eyes roll, because they think your points are irrelevant. Still, we listen to one another. That is the messiness of the democratic process that developed within the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation and that later gave birth to our democracy here in the United States. It is the process of talking and thinking and voting. It is the act of conversation as part of a sacred process, and the process of such decision making is viewed as sacred. In the traditional Christian congregations from which Unitarianism arose, the process of conversation was a process of waiting for and listening for the intervention and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And because the spirit could speak through any member of the community--even the least likely--each person listened to every member of the community when they spoke. And because the Holy Spirit spoke through the community as a whole, a vote—whether it was about calling a minister or approving a building design or deciding where to be located--was not about expressing personal desires, it was about seeking to hear and to express the will of God as spoken within the heart.
One of the effects of that was that once the community had decided upon a course, even though it might not be what the individual would have done, there is a sense that it is what God has willed, and so the individual sought to go along with it as much as they possibly could always recognizing that revelation was ongoing.
Today, we as a congregation do not think in quite those terms, though some individuals among us may well. Today we are more likely to see the vote of the community as an expression of democratic will even if that will is misplaced. But there is still a sense that, even if “they” are wrong, the community has spoken and I as an individual will go along with it as far as I am able to and still stay within the bounds of my own conscience.
In a healthy community, that is the proper response; and in my humble opinion, we have a healthy community.
So as we welcome our newest members today let us do so with the recognition—at least metaphorically—that they each represent a new infusion of the Holy Spirit, a new infusion, if you will of energy, of promise, of the future. Let us recognize that our present ways of being may represent the honored past, but that their new insights may represent a new revelation, for revelation is not sealed.
And may you who join us today, come to honor and revere the past of this community and of this religious tradition as your own; and may you not feel stifled by that tradition but rather be uplifted by it to new vision and new hope and may it be that you feel true belonging to, and ownership of, this place and this people.
May we together represent the ever re-gathering, ever re-forming, ever re-newing beloved community. May our covenant be one of mutual nurture and support, mutual respect and mutual love.
So let it be.
Return to
Home
Return to Sermons Index