It has long been asserted that the only time one ever hears the name “J.C.” in the Unitarian Universalist church is when the janitor stubs his toe. Garrison Keilor contends that Unitarians are such poor singers because we’re always looking ahead to see if we agree with the words before we sing them. It would seem that Unitarians and Universalists have always been deeply concerned with words (indeed we are “wordaholics”) and the concepts that we assume they represent.

In the very earliest days in both Europe and America, the term with which we were concerned was “trinity.” Our forebears thought the concept was an abomination – some kind of three-headed God which was not supported in scripture. For their part, the orthodox, the Trinitarians in the Old Country, in turn tagged us with an unkind word, an heretical epithet, a searing brand of infidelity, a scarlet word – Unitarian, meaning not of the orthodox faith. And because it was meant originally to be a slam, there have been those among us over the centuries who have wanted to jettison that term “Unitarian” for something more palatable to the public, such as “United Liberal Church.” But Unitarian, originally meaning belief in one God, and Universalist, meaning originally salvation for all, continue to be names of honor and integrity that we wear with pride.

Unitarians and Universalists have always been concerned with words and the concepts we assume they represent. One of my mentors, the late Reverend Dr. Joe Barth, who in his retirement bred daylilies on his farm in Allman (?), Maine, remembers getting off a train in Chicago in the 1920’s. He was met by some Unitarians who almost immediately asked him the burning question of the day, “Well, are you a theist, or are you a humanist?”

I think that the early humanists equated everything negative in religion with theism, and the way for them out of the modern Dark Age was to identify with a faith in the capacity and capabilities of “humankind.” That bright new hope was epitomized in words written by Ken Patton in a hymn. “Ein feste burg,” Martin’s Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress,” became in our hymnal, “Man is the earth, upright and proud. In him the earth is knowing.” Kind of an earth consciousness. That hymn still survives, it is in our charcoal gray hymnal, and of course the language has been updated, “We are the earth, upright and proud. In us the earth is knowing.” And I think if you asked early humanists if they were not overcompensating, they might say, “Yes, perhaps so, but at least it’s in the right direction. Man ascending, not God ascending to the detriment of man.”

Unitarians and Universalists have always been concerned with words and the concepts we assume they represent. And if you refer to the joining of our two denominations, the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America in 1961 as a merger, technically you are not correct. A merger, from a legal point of view, would have meant that both organizations ceased to exist, and therefore any two or three remaining Unitarian or Universalist churches not going along with the merger could have gone to court, saying that they were the true successors to the AUA and the UCA, and could have claimed all their respective assets. So the term was “consolidation” and not “merger.” It got us around that sticky wicket, and also salved the feelings of the Universalists, who feared that merged would actually mean submerged. Consolidation had a nicer ring to their ears; it sounded more like a marriage of equals.

And then of course, at the time of consolidation the question revolving around words became “What shall we call this new combined denomination or association?” And there were many combinations: Universalist Unitarian or Unitarian-Universalist with a hyphen. Unitarians were satisfied that their name came first, and the Universalists were satisfied with having that name first, with the hyphen removed, which meant that “Unitarian” became just an adjective modifying “Universalist.”

Unitarians and Universalists have always been concerned with words and the concepts we assume they represent. Many years ago, more than I care to mention, Sue and Dick Benner and Diane and Bill Cohen were all members of the Unitarian church in Bangor, Maine, a church which sadly has since gone out of business - they actually joined the Universalists. Bill at that time was a promising Republican politician, an up-and-coming attorney who was mayor of the city, and of course later he would bask in the spotlight of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, go on to serve in the Senate for several terms, and ended up his public life being Secretary of Defense under President Clinton. Well, Bill with a Jewish father and an Irish Catholic mother, felt that Unitarianism was a good fit for him. Well, one day Sue and Diane were in the nursery, providing nursery duty, when one young mother mentioned the word “God.” Diane put her finger to her lips. “Shh! We don’t say that word around here,” she said.

Earlier this year the Fort Worth Star-Telegram erroneously reported that our UUA president, Bill Sinkford, wanted to put “God” into the Unitarian Universalist principles. It was an error by an overzealous reporter who wanted to punch up his story, and the newspaper published a clarification. What Bill was talking about was a language of reverence. Nevertheless, even though he didn’t actually say “God,” the very idea was upsetting to a number of Unitarian Universalists, and led to what the Boston Globe called a “raging debate” among Unitarian Universalists.

That wasn’t the first time that the “God” word became an issue. At the time of consolidation, it was the one issue which almost brought the proceedings to a deadlock. The Unitarians and Universalists had to come up with a new set of principles, and what do you do with God in terms of the principles? There were three factions: The traditional theists, who wanted a reference not only to God, but to our Christian heritage. There were the Universal theists, who preferred to acknowledge great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition. And then there were the Humanists, who would just as soon do without any reference to the trinity. So the debate went on for days, and finally on the very last day, at 3:00 in the morning, with hundreds of delegates faithfully sitting in their seats, a compromise acceptable to all three factions was reached and approved. It read, “The UUA unites to cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition, immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to man.” Now the key change which made that possible, that compromise and that approval vote, was the substitution of the one three-letter word for another – from “our Judeo-Christian heritage” to “the Judeo-Christian heritage,” making ownership of that heritage an option.

In the newer version of our principles and purposes, 1984, we no longer “unite,” we “freely enter into a covenant.” We covenant to affirm and promote our seven principles, and to acknowledge the living tradition which draws from many sources – mysticism, the prophetic word, humanism, and Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Unitarians and Universalists have always been concerned about words and the concepts we assume they mean. Bill Sinkford, our UUA president, happens to be a theist. He believes in God, and he has prayed regularly since his son almost died of a drug overdose six years ago. And he makes it clear that he is not trying to move Unitarian Universalism towards an adoration of a deity. But it is a wonderment to him that our seven principles contain not one single traditional religious word. And he wonders if the language of our principles “is sufficient to capture our individual searches for truth and meaning.” He contends that we may need to expand our vocabulary of reverence if we want others to hear us.

The process which culminated in our current principles and purposes was the most inclusive and the most democratic in the history of any religion, anywhere. I was there in Columbus, Ohio, in 1984, on the campus of Ohio State University when the second and final vote was taken on the approval of our principles and its language, and it passed unanimously to loud applause. And it was the second time, the second year in a row that it had done so, that we had achieved that. Something of a near miracle for Unitarian Universalists, for anything to pass unanimously because we are so individualistic. There is always somebody who says, “Well, it shouldn’t pass unanimously, so I’m just going to cast my vote the other way.” It didn’t happen!

God language, for whatever reasons, is still toxic to some among us. That’s a fact. Not having the principles themselves state any traditional religious language enables everyone to come in under the tent. No one feels marginalized. And by not having traditional religious language in our principles themselves, we can say no, we’re not just like every other religion, and yes, we do march to a different drummer!

And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the principles themselves are only part of the larger covenant. As free congregations, we do not enter into unjust principles. The principles are not a stand-alone document – we enter into a covenantal relationship with other congregations, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

And while it is true the actual seven principles do not contain one word of traditional religious language, the living tradition that we acknowledge we share most certainly does. And the way I read it, there is less distancing from God language in the 1984 version of our principles than in the 1961, which speaks of the Judeo-Christian heritage, and not our Judeo-Christian heritage.

From my standpoint, the vocabulary of reverence is there, and it is not only there, it’s here. And to say that we have lost the ability to speak of that which is sacred, holy, or of ultimate importance to us is to sell us short. Way too short, in my opinion. For Unitarian Universalists are intelligent people, we are imaginative people, we are articulate people. We have more than sufficient linguistic and conceptual skills with which to enter into a critical dialog with the religious community.

I use one small recent example: Our ecumenical Thanksgiving eve service took place in this very room. Some of you were there. We brought Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Unitarians together under one tent by respecting and not bashing each other’s traditions, by understanding and appreciating each other’s vocabularies of faith and reverence, by celebrating the ministries we all share that begin at our doorsteps, by acknowledging that we all drink from wells we did not dig and are warmed by fires we did not build, that we have all inherited these beautiful structures from which we minister. We have been here for a long time in this neighborhood together. The Presbyterians dedicated their sanctuary in 1917, we in 1918, and First Central Congregationalists in 1920. That is one small recent example.

Do we have a sufficient vocabulary of reverence? To me the answer is a resounding yes!