“Ears and Eyes for the Here and Now" by Rev. Karen Hutt
Delivered at the Ordination and Installation of Jim Foti
First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis (a humanist congregation)
April 11, 2015
Good afternoon. Good afternoon! It’s a glorious day! It’s the ordination day! As one very jolly fellow was singing up and down the street a few minutes ago – I don’t know if you heard him singing that ordination song. It first startled me, but then I started to realize just how happy a day it is. And, congratulations to you Jim.
The old folks in my family had an expression that I would hear under special circumstances. I would hear this expression when the conversation had taken a turn to a subject matter that was not suitable for children to hear. The old folks in my family used to say, “Honeychile, if these walls could talk! My, my, my … if these walls could talk.” When I heard that, I knew that that was my cue to soon be ushered off to bed, where I would promptly grab my glass and put it against the wall to listen to those special stories from the walls. Be careful what you say – the walls have ears. It is thought that this expression may have come from a story about Dionysius of Syracuse who had an ear-shaped cave cut and connected between the rooms of his palace so that he could hear what was being said from room to room. We have all been in situations and in spaces and in rooms where we wished the walls would talk – to reveal a family secret; to guide us and narrate an historic event; or, to finally hear what our in-laws really think about us.
Friends, as we sit here this afternoon framed and contained by these walls, what would they tell us about this Society if they could talk? That back wall might tell us about the Western Conference of Unitarians – where certain ministers began pushing for an Unitarianism that was different. A new Unitarianism – here, in the Midwest. Born on that wall was freedom from the edicts of Boston and Theism. On that side wall, we might be able to hear John Dietrich. We might hear him say, “It is this humanist faith that will give volume and power to our Unitarian Movement, and it is this faith that will conquer the world, if only we carry it to the world in such a form as to make men despise things as they are and passionately long for things as they should be.” On that wall over there, we may hear the words of Rev. Curtis Reese, Treasurer of the Western Unitarian Conference. You might hear him address the crowd in his eloquent tone and say, “The trend in modern religious developments is away from transcendence, the authoritative, the dogmatic – and toward the human, the experimental, the tentative. Away from the abnormal, the formal, the ritualistic – and toward the normal and informal, the usual – away from the extraordinary mystic expressions that exalted mood to otherworldliness - and towards an ethical, social, and worldly religion. Conceived differently - differently. Conceived as one of man’s concerns and towards religion conceived as man’s one concern.”
These walls, this edifice, this Society, is held together by these people, these events, and these stories. It is held together by the steel reality of material reason. It is held together by the concrete demands of individual freedom, making this Society the inheritor of one of the most prestigious, most esteemed, most recognized cornerstones of humanist history in our movement. Yet, the weight of this gravitas has its challenges. I once lived in an historic building, for a summer – and after a while, I took it for granted that I walked through doors that Betsy Ross had also walked through. You can get comfortable in an old, historic house. David, as I look around the edges of this building, given the age of these walls, you probably have some repairs that are needed. You may have some deferred maintenance - and some walls may be in need of more than just a coat of paint. Some of these walls may need to be opened up and reexamined, and the windows may need to be upgraded and reinforced with new structural materials. Being historic brings awe, but it also brings a special need for reflective, steady stewardship.
As Jim joins David to lead this assembly with you, these walls will absorb new stories as you continue to grow, repair, and contribute to a humanist movement that is informed but not bound by its history. In partnership with David and Jim, you will bring to life the mission statement on your website. How many of you can repeat that mission statement on your website? – show of hands, please! You’ve got some work to do. It says, “A heritage of forwardthinking humanism at home in the here and now.” A heritage of forward-thinking humanism at home in the here and now. Now, this invites me to ask you some questions. What humanist heritage grounds your Society’s decisions and guides its moral compass in 2015? How has your forward-thinking contributed to the growth of this Society and our movement? Where and with whom do you spend your here and now time with? How will you make what you believe about human power, creativity and potential known, relevant, and active? How do you share with one another your goodness while doing good for the common good? These questions are the challenges for humanism in the 21st Century and the challenges for this Society going forward.
In order to meet this challenge, we may need some new glasses. You may need glasses that have three lenses instead of two – to help you examine, to help you appreciate, and reconcile the Three Manifestos of Humanism that sit side-by-side here in this assembly today. Since each of these Manifestos sought to record a consensus view of what humanists believed in a particular time, you don’t need to rally around any one, conclusive statement! You don’t. Because, if we put these Manifestos in conversation with one another, we can make our – our humanist, reason, messages, and beliefs inspirational, but not indolent. Embracing all of the evolutionary strains of humanism can make us smart, but not snarky. Deep knowledge of these three Manifestos provides a framework for a mature, alive, energetic, affirmative humanism. It moves us beyond negation of what humanists dislike, disdain, and don’t believe. But, to a humanism that is free to affirm, practice and advance.
When I look back on the work of Raymond Bragg, who wrote our first Humanist Manifesto in 1933, I would wear a lens in those three trifocal lens glasses - I’d wear a lens of bravery. A lens of bravery, in 1933, after the first industrial war had devastated parts of the world. Thirty-four signers – a few people – enthusiastically claiming in a document that they would represent a new religious movement meant to transcend and replace deity-based systems. This Manifesto outlined affirmations of cosmology, biology, evolution, human nature, epistemology, ethics, religion, self-fulfillment, and the quested freedom for social justice. These signers were intent on seeking to respond to the ravages of war and the horror of Capitalism. They exalted new learning, new discoveries and saw rational and universal truth as a pathway to a new society. They, at that time, sincerely believed that more and more would come to adopt this world view that was human-centric, and discard theocentric constructions. Some of the architects and descendants of this Manifesto are seated in this assembly today.
When we examine the second Humanist Manifesto, I would probably use the lens of upheaval, as massive social and cultural shifts were occurring. This manifesto adds words like racism and sexism to the text. Written in 1973 at the end of yet another horrific war, and on the verge, on the eve of the first Presidential resignation – in my lifetime - Paul Kurtz and Edwin Wilson intended to update the previous Manifesto, citing that it was, “a little too optimistic.” This Manifesto was “hard-headed” and “realistic”, and its lengthy – I say “lengthy” – 17 point statement was powerful. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first did still remained – with hope stated that war would become obsolete, and that poverty would be eliminated. Yet, many of the proposals in this document, if we look back on it carefully today, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction, and support of strong human rights around the world, are fairly uncontroversial today. Its proposal for an International Court has since been implemented. Like its first Manifesto, we celebrate this document because many of these proposals have come to be discussed, legislated, and made policy by political and social change movements led by members of this assembly today. For many Unitarian Universalists this is where the “hurrah” of humanist energy was heralded as a success. Y’all remember the 70’s? – it was good. The architects and signers of that Manifesto are also here. How many of you signed on to the Second Humanist Manifesto? Anybody? Takers? Okay, well this is one that kept getting more and more signers – it wasn’t limited to a small group. Many, many more people signed on afterwards.
Humanist Manifesto III written in 2003 is much shorter – responding to the length of number two, I gather – mentioning only six primary beliefs which echo themes from its predecessors and could be seen through the lens of post-modernity. The main thesis of this Manifesto is that humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that without supernaturalism affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspired to the greater good of humanity.
Friends, what relevance do these Manifestos have for your Society today? How will Jim Foti cocreate with you a humanism in the here and now with the heritage that you carry? This is a critical question because nowhere in the Unitarian Universalist movement is the generational issue more serious and central than among humanists. The decline of humanism in our movement is due in part to stereotypes, I believe. Stereotypes. Stereotypes of humanists as cranky old white men with PhD’s and no tolerance for anything that smacks of emotion. Stereotypes! There is also a perception of humanism as dry, intellectual exercises in logic and abstraction that do not offer help in solving life’s real problems. More stereotypes! Ironically, some even say that humanism most frequently criticizes not taking the realities of being “human” into consideration! Yet today, as we are surrounded by these walls, we have a responsibility and an opportunity to refute these stereotypes, and refuel ourselves with the potential, the hope and the power of the words in these Manifestos that can still bring me to tears. Many humanists and secular groups around the world are retooling their manifestos – in India, in Africa, in Asia, in Europe.
I am affiliated with black, non-believers – Black Atheists of America and African Americans for Humanism – and in our organizations we, too, are putting our history in dialogue. The legacy of early black humanists like Fredrick Douglas, and Zora Neal Hurston, and Carter G. Woodson, and so many other countless people, are being actively juxtaposed and retooled with the post- post-modern black humanism found on historically black college and university campuses today. Many of them are placing their views about doubt and skepticism on billboards along highways from Atlanta to Boston. Remember, we black people were some of the first humanists in this country, as we rejected – many of us, many of us, rejected – a religion that would condone our bondage and discount our humanity. Our humanist movements, like others, could be on the verge of considerable growth as evidenced by the increase in secularism in all communities.
And, the newest, most powerful, most inspirational humanist movement we have going on in this country today is called “Black Lives Matter.” At the heart of these matters is not a conflict of manifestos, it’s not our respective movements, but a conflict of approaches. What should our practices be? What stories will these walls speak 50 years from now? Will there be stories about hiding behind the walls of self-centered, abstract, adolescent idealism that provides shelter from wider responsibilities and action? Or, will there be stories about the importance of developing what Robert Ingersoll calls a “caring rationalism” that takes you outside these walls to stand up for the humanity of someone you might usually avoid? Will there be stories of dismissiveness that make it impossible for you to show up authentically as allies at events in communities of color led by communities of color that are both free thinking and theist? Or, will there be stories of believers and non-believers working together as they address pragmatic questions with courage, with reasonable cooperation, with good hearted humility, with a hunger for wisdom and heroic humor? Will there be stories about universal rationality, true science, a fixed human nature, and a social utopia not yet realized? Or, will the post-modern condition finally be unavoidable for humanists – that will make us cognizant of multiple, contextual, interlocking struggles that cannot be understood without one another?
Friends, humanists will always want to argue – naturalism against theism; evidence against faith; rationality against superstition; the individual against the herd – but to find allies for the real fight, let’s see where our presumed opponents stand on practical issues. When and if we reach agreement about ends and means, these differences can safely remain unresolved - safely remain unresolved. This humanistic project will continue on in many different guises, and under as many different names as our tolerance for ideological diversity will permit. I know Jim is ready to get to work to start creating new stories. He’s a storyteller – a story maker. Are you ready to join him? (Congregation – “Yes”) Will you join Jim in building a humanism that is about real people, not abstractions? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Will you join Jim in creating a humanism with multiple and expansive narratives that encourage the creative power of every human being? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Will you join Jim in building a humanism that champions differences with joy and passion? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Okay, the only thing I can do now is drop the mike and say, “then get to work!”
Delivered at the Ordination and Installation of Jim Foti
First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis (a humanist congregation)
April 11, 2015
Good afternoon. Good afternoon! It’s a glorious day! It’s the ordination day! As one very jolly fellow was singing up and down the street a few minutes ago – I don’t know if you heard him singing that ordination song. It first startled me, but then I started to realize just how happy a day it is. And, congratulations to you Jim.
The old folks in my family had an expression that I would hear under special circumstances. I would hear this expression when the conversation had taken a turn to a subject matter that was not suitable for children to hear. The old folks in my family used to say, “Honeychile, if these walls could talk! My, my, my … if these walls could talk.” When I heard that, I knew that that was my cue to soon be ushered off to bed, where I would promptly grab my glass and put it against the wall to listen to those special stories from the walls. Be careful what you say – the walls have ears. It is thought that this expression may have come from a story about Dionysius of Syracuse who had an ear-shaped cave cut and connected between the rooms of his palace so that he could hear what was being said from room to room. We have all been in situations and in spaces and in rooms where we wished the walls would talk – to reveal a family secret; to guide us and narrate an historic event; or, to finally hear what our in-laws really think about us.
Friends, as we sit here this afternoon framed and contained by these walls, what would they tell us about this Society if they could talk? That back wall might tell us about the Western Conference of Unitarians – where certain ministers began pushing for an Unitarianism that was different. A new Unitarianism – here, in the Midwest. Born on that wall was freedom from the edicts of Boston and Theism. On that side wall, we might be able to hear John Dietrich. We might hear him say, “It is this humanist faith that will give volume and power to our Unitarian Movement, and it is this faith that will conquer the world, if only we carry it to the world in such a form as to make men despise things as they are and passionately long for things as they should be.” On that wall over there, we may hear the words of Rev. Curtis Reese, Treasurer of the Western Unitarian Conference. You might hear him address the crowd in his eloquent tone and say, “The trend in modern religious developments is away from transcendence, the authoritative, the dogmatic – and toward the human, the experimental, the tentative. Away from the abnormal, the formal, the ritualistic – and toward the normal and informal, the usual – away from the extraordinary mystic expressions that exalted mood to otherworldliness - and towards an ethical, social, and worldly religion. Conceived differently - differently. Conceived as one of man’s concerns and towards religion conceived as man’s one concern.”
These walls, this edifice, this Society, is held together by these people, these events, and these stories. It is held together by the steel reality of material reason. It is held together by the concrete demands of individual freedom, making this Society the inheritor of one of the most prestigious, most esteemed, most recognized cornerstones of humanist history in our movement. Yet, the weight of this gravitas has its challenges. I once lived in an historic building, for a summer – and after a while, I took it for granted that I walked through doors that Betsy Ross had also walked through. You can get comfortable in an old, historic house. David, as I look around the edges of this building, given the age of these walls, you probably have some repairs that are needed. You may have some deferred maintenance - and some walls may be in need of more than just a coat of paint. Some of these walls may need to be opened up and reexamined, and the windows may need to be upgraded and reinforced with new structural materials. Being historic brings awe, but it also brings a special need for reflective, steady stewardship.
As Jim joins David to lead this assembly with you, these walls will absorb new stories as you continue to grow, repair, and contribute to a humanist movement that is informed but not bound by its history. In partnership with David and Jim, you will bring to life the mission statement on your website. How many of you can repeat that mission statement on your website? – show of hands, please! You’ve got some work to do. It says, “A heritage of forwardthinking humanism at home in the here and now.” A heritage of forward-thinking humanism at home in the here and now. Now, this invites me to ask you some questions. What humanist heritage grounds your Society’s decisions and guides its moral compass in 2015? How has your forward-thinking contributed to the growth of this Society and our movement? Where and with whom do you spend your here and now time with? How will you make what you believe about human power, creativity and potential known, relevant, and active? How do you share with one another your goodness while doing good for the common good? These questions are the challenges for humanism in the 21st Century and the challenges for this Society going forward.
In order to meet this challenge, we may need some new glasses. You may need glasses that have three lenses instead of two – to help you examine, to help you appreciate, and reconcile the Three Manifestos of Humanism that sit side-by-side here in this assembly today. Since each of these Manifestos sought to record a consensus view of what humanists believed in a particular time, you don’t need to rally around any one, conclusive statement! You don’t. Because, if we put these Manifestos in conversation with one another, we can make our – our humanist, reason, messages, and beliefs inspirational, but not indolent. Embracing all of the evolutionary strains of humanism can make us smart, but not snarky. Deep knowledge of these three Manifestos provides a framework for a mature, alive, energetic, affirmative humanism. It moves us beyond negation of what humanists dislike, disdain, and don’t believe. But, to a humanism that is free to affirm, practice and advance.
When I look back on the work of Raymond Bragg, who wrote our first Humanist Manifesto in 1933, I would wear a lens in those three trifocal lens glasses - I’d wear a lens of bravery. A lens of bravery, in 1933, after the first industrial war had devastated parts of the world. Thirty-four signers – a few people – enthusiastically claiming in a document that they would represent a new religious movement meant to transcend and replace deity-based systems. This Manifesto outlined affirmations of cosmology, biology, evolution, human nature, epistemology, ethics, religion, self-fulfillment, and the quested freedom for social justice. These signers were intent on seeking to respond to the ravages of war and the horror of Capitalism. They exalted new learning, new discoveries and saw rational and universal truth as a pathway to a new society. They, at that time, sincerely believed that more and more would come to adopt this world view that was human-centric, and discard theocentric constructions. Some of the architects and descendants of this Manifesto are seated in this assembly today.
When we examine the second Humanist Manifesto, I would probably use the lens of upheaval, as massive social and cultural shifts were occurring. This manifesto adds words like racism and sexism to the text. Written in 1973 at the end of yet another horrific war, and on the verge, on the eve of the first Presidential resignation – in my lifetime - Paul Kurtz and Edwin Wilson intended to update the previous Manifesto, citing that it was, “a little too optimistic.” This Manifesto was “hard-headed” and “realistic”, and its lengthy – I say “lengthy” – 17 point statement was powerful. Nevertheless, much of the unbridled optimism of the first did still remained – with hope stated that war would become obsolete, and that poverty would be eliminated. Yet, many of the proposals in this document, if we look back on it carefully today, such as opposition to racism and weapons of mass destruction, and support of strong human rights around the world, are fairly uncontroversial today. Its proposal for an International Court has since been implemented. Like its first Manifesto, we celebrate this document because many of these proposals have come to be discussed, legislated, and made policy by political and social change movements led by members of this assembly today. For many Unitarian Universalists this is where the “hurrah” of humanist energy was heralded as a success. Y’all remember the 70’s? – it was good. The architects and signers of that Manifesto are also here. How many of you signed on to the Second Humanist Manifesto? Anybody? Takers? Okay, well this is one that kept getting more and more signers – it wasn’t limited to a small group. Many, many more people signed on afterwards.
Humanist Manifesto III written in 2003 is much shorter – responding to the length of number two, I gather – mentioning only six primary beliefs which echo themes from its predecessors and could be seen through the lens of post-modernity. The main thesis of this Manifesto is that humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that without supernaturalism affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspired to the greater good of humanity.
Friends, what relevance do these Manifestos have for your Society today? How will Jim Foti cocreate with you a humanism in the here and now with the heritage that you carry? This is a critical question because nowhere in the Unitarian Universalist movement is the generational issue more serious and central than among humanists. The decline of humanism in our movement is due in part to stereotypes, I believe. Stereotypes. Stereotypes of humanists as cranky old white men with PhD’s and no tolerance for anything that smacks of emotion. Stereotypes! There is also a perception of humanism as dry, intellectual exercises in logic and abstraction that do not offer help in solving life’s real problems. More stereotypes! Ironically, some even say that humanism most frequently criticizes not taking the realities of being “human” into consideration! Yet today, as we are surrounded by these walls, we have a responsibility and an opportunity to refute these stereotypes, and refuel ourselves with the potential, the hope and the power of the words in these Manifestos that can still bring me to tears. Many humanists and secular groups around the world are retooling their manifestos – in India, in Africa, in Asia, in Europe.
I am affiliated with black, non-believers – Black Atheists of America and African Americans for Humanism – and in our organizations we, too, are putting our history in dialogue. The legacy of early black humanists like Fredrick Douglas, and Zora Neal Hurston, and Carter G. Woodson, and so many other countless people, are being actively juxtaposed and retooled with the post- post-modern black humanism found on historically black college and university campuses today. Many of them are placing their views about doubt and skepticism on billboards along highways from Atlanta to Boston. Remember, we black people were some of the first humanists in this country, as we rejected – many of us, many of us, rejected – a religion that would condone our bondage and discount our humanity. Our humanist movements, like others, could be on the verge of considerable growth as evidenced by the increase in secularism in all communities.
And, the newest, most powerful, most inspirational humanist movement we have going on in this country today is called “Black Lives Matter.” At the heart of these matters is not a conflict of manifestos, it’s not our respective movements, but a conflict of approaches. What should our practices be? What stories will these walls speak 50 years from now? Will there be stories about hiding behind the walls of self-centered, abstract, adolescent idealism that provides shelter from wider responsibilities and action? Or, will there be stories about the importance of developing what Robert Ingersoll calls a “caring rationalism” that takes you outside these walls to stand up for the humanity of someone you might usually avoid? Will there be stories of dismissiveness that make it impossible for you to show up authentically as allies at events in communities of color led by communities of color that are both free thinking and theist? Or, will there be stories of believers and non-believers working together as they address pragmatic questions with courage, with reasonable cooperation, with good hearted humility, with a hunger for wisdom and heroic humor? Will there be stories about universal rationality, true science, a fixed human nature, and a social utopia not yet realized? Or, will the post-modern condition finally be unavoidable for humanists – that will make us cognizant of multiple, contextual, interlocking struggles that cannot be understood without one another?
Friends, humanists will always want to argue – naturalism against theism; evidence against faith; rationality against superstition; the individual against the herd – but to find allies for the real fight, let’s see where our presumed opponents stand on practical issues. When and if we reach agreement about ends and means, these differences can safely remain unresolved - safely remain unresolved. This humanistic project will continue on in many different guises, and under as many different names as our tolerance for ideological diversity will permit. I know Jim is ready to get to work to start creating new stories. He’s a storyteller – a story maker. Are you ready to join him? (Congregation – “Yes”) Will you join Jim in building a humanism that is about real people, not abstractions? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Will you join Jim in creating a humanism with multiple and expansive narratives that encourage the creative power of every human being? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Will you join Jim in building a humanism that champions differences with joy and passion? (Congregation – “Yes!”) Okay, the only thing I can do now is drop the mike and say, “then get to work!”