It has been said that Unitarian Universalists are not great singers because they are always reading ahead to see if they agree with the words.

Language is of great value to us. As an Association, we have worked with great intention to use words that are inclusive. This began with our efforts to use gender inclusive language for example replacing "mankind" with "humankind". In our current hymnal there was also an effort to be anti-racist revising lyrics that associated darkness with evil and lightness with holiness thereby reinforcing a cultural stereotype. In recent years, we have also become more intentional in welcoming families of all compositions not assuming that every family includes one father and one mother. The language that we use matters in expressing our values and in communicating who is welcome. There is a wide lexicon of religious language in the hymnal drawing from many traditions and images to describe the sacred. Having words from Buddhism, Judaism, Paganism, Transcendentalism, Islam, Christianity, and Humanism in the same book demonstrates that no one tradition has all the answers-even our own.

One of the reasons that language is so challenging, especially when it comes to matters of ultimate meaning, is that by their very nature, spiritual experiences are beyond words. Mary Oliver is not a Unitarian Universalist. She is a Catholic poet. However, you will find her words often spoken in UU congregations. Her poetry captures the beauty and power of direct encounter with the natural world. "Stars" which I read this morning, describes a transcendent experience in which she empties herself of the noise and demands of language to encounter the pure radiance of the stars. A language of reverence can only suggest the wonder and awe found in a walk along the beach, the profound sense of gratitude we feel when a kind word arrives just when it is needed most, the miracle of a newborn child, and moments of transcendence found in prayer, meditation and the creative process.

"Debate Flares in Unitarian Universalism Over Leader's Quest", this was the headline that appeared in the New York Times in May. The article written by Richard Higgins outlines the current discussion in our movement around the subject of religious language or a "vocabulary of reverence". Some of you who attended our General Assembly in June or read the UU World magazine or visit the UUA website may be very familiar with this issue. Some of you may be unaware of this issue and that is why I want to inform you about this ongoing debate in our Association; a discussion which speaks volumes about our past, who we are today, and may impact our future as a liberal religious faith. This issue has sparked more email, letters and telephone calls to our Unitarian Universalist Headquarters in Boston than any other issue in its history.

Let me first give you some background. In January, the Rev. Bill Sinkford who is the President of the UU Association preached a sermon in Texas. One of the strengths of this administration is in the area of public witness. Sinkford's appearance was covered in the newspaper. The article reported that the UUA President wanted to put "God" into the Purposes and Principles and challenged Unitarian Universalists to embrace religious language. The American Press picked up this article, which was widely circulated.

As you can imagine news that Sinkford who is in the second year of a four year term was lobbying to put the word "God" into the Principles and Purposes caused outrage among many Unitarian Universalists, especially Humanists and Atheists. This was a catalyst for telephone calls, emails and letters to the UUA. Also, this sparked lively debate in online chat rooms. Some people balked about "creeping creedalism" in our Association that has historically had no common assent to creed. Some people were so outraged that they warned of a "mass exodus" from Unitarian Universalism if their perspective was no longer welcome.

The Rev. Bill Sinkford responded quickly with an open letter explaining that the newspaper had erroneously reported that he called for including the word "God" in the Purposes and Principles. He had no intention of forcing any Unitarian Universalists to speak of God against his or her will. His statement has allayed some concern.

Sometimes the nuances of the spoken word are indeed lost in translation. Although, the Rev. Bill Sinkford did not preach that we must put "God" into the Purposes and Principles, he has continued to challenge us as religious liberals to reexamine the words that are not a creed but can be viewed as our mission statement. It is the opinion of our UUA President that the Purposes and Principles "contain not one piece of religious language, not one word." These words, which contain our unifying values were composed in 1961 when the Unitarians and the Universalists merged into one Association. Sinkford asserts that the Principles are inclusive generalizations because at the time of merger, the religious leaders were seeking to bridge the Unitarian and the more traditional Universalist perspectives, and so omits mention of God. The Principles serve as a broad ethic but according to Sinkford do not do much "to capture our individual searches for truth and meaning". He urges Unitarian Universalists to embrace
explicit religious language that would acquaint people with life's "religious depths" and "ground them in their personal faith". So although he is not formally proposing to change the Principles, Sinkford is suggesting that there is something missing in our religious movement. He is encouraging Unitarian Universalist to mature in our ability to engage with religious ideas.

This has become one of the main goals of Sinkford's presidency and so he has had many discussions, talks and articles. Here is part of the presidential report that he gave at General Assembly: "We need some language that will allow us to capture the possibility of reverence, to name what calls us, and to talk about our ability to shape our world, guided by what we find ourselves called to do. My energy here is not primarily for a revision of our Purposes and Principles, though that may well emerge. My priority is for us to engage with one another about this faith, what it means to us, and how we live it out. It is out of this conversation, that engagement, that any formal language should come." The UUA Commission on Appraisal is also in the midst of a study exploring "Where is the Unity in Our Theological Diversity?" I look forward to reading their report.

The letter to the editor, which Jim read this morning appeared in the Boston Globe in reaction to an article on our General Assembly that focused on Sinkford's remarks. In his letter, Mark Thomas asserts that without mention and invocation of God, it is a sham for us to even be called a church. He suggests that to do so is like a doctor operating without a degree or license and this "is the sad convoluted result when you let the laity run a 'church' with their flawed human wisdom." He writes that instead of a church "It is simply a group of people lost, wandering, and bickering in the darkness."

We need to be able to answer Thomas' critique lest we indeed seem like a group of people uncertain of who we are and what we believe. Another presidential initiative has been to encourage Unitarian Universalists to develop our elevator speeches. That is, imagine you get into an elevator wearing a t-shirt or pin identifying yourself as a Unitarian Universalist. One of your fellow passengers in the elevator asks, "What is Unitarian Universalism?" You only have a minute or less to answer before you reach your floor. Sinkford's response is "One God. No one left behind."

Our movement dates back to the sixteenth century in Eastern Europe and yet so many people have never heard of Unitarian Universalism. This church has stood on this spot since 1880, and yet many folks in the local community are just discovering us. Perhaps it is because we so value the individual conscience that we have kept our religion quiet. However, it is possible to share our beliefs without imposing them on other people, but it does take practice. At General Assembly, I bought a magnet that is my current elevator speech: It is a blessing each of us was born. It matters what we do with our lives. What each of us knows about god is a piece of the truth. We don't have to do it alone. How would you answer? I encourage you to come up with a response that articulates your beliefs and to share our message of hope with others.

In a world torn apart by hatred and fear, our message of inclusion and compassion is desperately needed. My hope is not that Unitarian Universalism will come up with a "vocabulary of reverence" or reclaim traditional language, but that we will continue this rich dialogue about the presence of the sacred in our lives. My wish is that we will find our voices to speak with greater pride and courage about our liberal religious movement. My vision for this community is that we will share with one another not only our questions and longings, but also our convictions and passions. In doing so, we will show to the world that "diversity need not be divisiveness".

Now, some of you who are new to this church or who are perhaps visiting with us for the first time may be questioning along with Mark Thomas who wrote that Letter to the Editor. If Unitarian Universalists do not have uniform belief in God, how can we call ourselves a "church"? If there is no creed, no one set of beliefs that Unitarian Universalists hold in common, how can we call ourselves a "faith"? If there is such a wide variety of theological perspectives among our members, how can Unitarian Universalism be a "religion"?

One of the factors that makes communication so difficult, is that people ascribe different meanings to the same words.
If by "church" you mean
a place where people bend down to follow the word from a higher authority,
then no, Unitarian Universalists do not belong to a church.

If by "faith" you mean firm belief and adherence to traditional doctrines,
then no, Unitarian Universalism is not a faith.

If by "religion" you mean scrupulous conformity to a system of beliefs,
then no, Unitarian Universalism is not a religion.

Then again,
If by "church", you mean
a safe place where you can be yourself and bring your loved ones to find support and meaning in facing the joys and struggles of life,
then welcome to our church.

If by "faith" you mean
belief in the inherent goodness of all people and the confidence that we can work together to make this world a better place,
then welcome to our faith.

If by religion you mean
a way of life drawing inspiration and guidance from many sources, engaging your heart, mind, and spirit in a lifelong journey toward wholeness
then welcome to our religion.