Home

About Us

Weekly NUUs

Activities

Religious Education

Visiting UUCJ

Social Justice

Sample Sermon

Links

UUCJ Pictures

Contact Us

Privacy

Check out our blog at uujackson.wordpress.com!

 

services

 

 

We have a variety of speakers from with diverse perspectives who speak from our pulpit. We have a collection of services and will post a variety of samples below:

Liberal or Liberating?

By Todd Allen

I definitely don’t mind being called a “liberal” as opposed to a conservative, BUT I would rather be labeled by the ACTIVE VERB liberating.  If your vocabulary is so limited that you cannot think beyond these two categories, Ok, I am liberal.  But it tells you nothing about what I am doing.  It really labels me as more inactive than active – and maybe if I am honest I am much less active than I could be. I would rather be labeled by the VERB liberating than by the Adjective LIBERAL. 

I want to require that all media today start to use these two new categories for people: liberating people or stagnating people.   These are the new choices.  No more liberal or conservative.  Are you liberating your mind, or is your soul stagnating? Which is it?  Where do you stand? 

I am living my life in order to set myself free and maybe lead a couple of others to freedom along the way.  I am liberating and I am being liberated.  Liberal is an attitude.  Liberation is an ACTION.  I advocate for a liberating mind, a liberating spirit and for liberating politics.  The word “liberal” reminds me of a group of folks puffing cigarettes from a top a penthouse in Manhattan and blowing smoke down on the ideas of little minds of the people on the streets far beneath them. Liberation is work: sweaty, confusing, discouraging work.  

The story of Moses is the story of a liberator. Moses took people who were not a people and in the struggle for liberation, they became a people. Too often and for too long, we have defined people by nouns and adjective rather than by verbs.  The people who Moses led out of Egypt were known as ISRAEL.  PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH GOD. COULD THIS STRUGGLING BE A STRUGGLE TO BE FREE.  WERE THEY IN THE PROCESS OF LIBERATING THEMSELVES.  COULD ISRAEL ALSO MEANING “LIBERATING FROM GOD or LIBERATING WITH GOD?”  Whatever the label, we do see in the story that as they came to see themselves as tribe, as a family of brothers and sisters, they were able to see that they deserved to be treated better than donkeys and cows. When they formed themselves into a people, the Hebrews split the sea wide open on their way out of EGYPT.   This is action. This is progression.  This is liberation.

In the book “Why I am a Unitarian Universalist” Jack Mendelsohn described it this way: We must be stretched beyond our decent concern for oppression until we have a profound sense of agony and outrage.  I say that we must move beyond seeing ourselves as a liberal people toward seeing ourselves as a liberating people. Will we come alive in this town filled with spiritual zombies?  

In the story of the Exodus of the Hebrews, Moses changed from opinion to action.  Politically he became an agent of liberating transformation. He moved from being a just rich guy with liberal views toward being the leader of a slave revolt.

In Mississippi white society, the example of Moses serves as an example to me of how to “un-white”    myself.  Moses became willing to identifying himself with the Hebrew people. At the time they were most oppressed and mistreated in his society.  The calling on Moses was as Mendelsohn  describes “a calling not away from humanity but deeply into it.” It is not to sit on a sofa in a gated suburban house watching on TV all the horrors and hateful deeds of man against man. “Un-whiting” requires that I move beyond my bemused detachment and become actively engaged in the work of liberation. 

I don’t know what that means in my life.  I just know that I am not involved as I could be and that I still have a suburban attitude toward the world that I need to get over.  I am sure that Moses could have chosen to maintain a kind of “semi-divine posture of being above the common embarrassment, doubt and shame.” 

Would Moses have become Moses had he refused to share the deepest level of compassion with the lowest members of his society? Where did Moses find the courage to leave the pretentions, poses and protective facades of the palace and step out and into the choking dust that the slaves were breathing?

a.       Why did Malcolm X put the “X” on the end of his name?  It was a way for him to “un-white” himself.  Malcolm chose throw off the name that only identified who he was in relationship to the system of white racial oppression.   I think that we can call Moses the first X.  Moses X sounds as good as Malcolm X to me. 

Moses could have remained hidden in Pharaoh’s palace  but instead he chose to reveal his Hebrew origins.  Apparently, Moses walked like an Egyptian, talked like an Egyptian and there was nothing about him that revealed that he was anything but a member of the royal family.   He had to actively “un-white” himself to the powers that be.

When he decided to identify with the very people who were being most oppressed, he lost rank in society. His opportunities for advancement were severely hindered. It was quite the faux pas.

The first move toward liberation and revolution often happens among the privileged classes.  I did NOT say that I believe in a trickle down revolution. Instead, I mean to say that the difference between a revolutionary war and revolutionary movement has often been that there has been a significant number of people who were born into privilege who, like Moses, choose to lose status in order to restore integrity and to help lead a movement for the greater good of all people.

A democratic revolution is a revolutionary change in the way that everyone sees themselves.   Those enslaved must come to see themselves as more than slaves and slaveholders, or at least some sons and daughters of slaveholders, must come to hold themselves to higher moral standards. 

If any real change is to come to this state more and more white citizens must become as willing as Moses was willing to be rejected and cast out of Mississippi society and start to see themselves as American citizens whose fellows citizens are suffering. 

b.      It is the nature of a totalitarian state to mandate uniformity.  The elite in Mississippi wish to rule like little Caesars over their little empires.  Back in Egypt, the Pharaoh’s empire needed the people at the bottom to feel that they are connected to the top. You are not a Hebrew, as long as you are here in Egypt, you are a not a people.  

Yesterday I listened to a bigoted man who considers himself to be white person rant on about how his dislikes the term African-American.  Why can’t we all be Americans?  He said.  I did not get a chance to answer him because an African American member of the audience chose to take him aside and speak to him at length.  I imagine that back then in Egypt, there were among the oppressors those who said the same thing “Why can’t we all be Egyptians?”   My answer is like Moses’ answer.  As long as one group systematically and methodically carries out public policies that target and take advantage of another group, we are not one big happy family.  To answer Rodney King: “Why can’t we all just get along?”  Because as soon as we stop marching in the streets, those in power start to repeat the behaviors that caused us to start marching in the first place. 

Why do people need to call themselves African Americans?  First of all, because in America, they can, period.  Shut-up.  To say that one is African American is to call attention to the fact that one ancestors were torn from Africa and enslaved and oppressed in America.  To call oneself, an African American is to chose to align oneself with the nation and the country that perpetrated the great evil of racial slavery and racial deprivation and racial injustice in the name of God and with the backing of the government.

Moses and the Hebrews did not call themselves Hebrew Egyptians.  That’s what he was.  He was much more Egyptian than he was Hebrew.  He dropped the name Egyptian altogether as far as we know. Should descendents of enslaved Africans also drop the name American altogether?  I hope not but they have good cause to do so.

Distinction among tribes is a threat to any totalitarian state. Too much group-identification is considered dangerous unless the group that you are joining is part of the majority anyway. 

c.       So Moses had some learning to do.  He had tried to be THE MAN. He tried to be Superman.  The story goes that he killed an Egyptian when he saw the man beating the Hebrew like a Hebrew slave.  This was an attempt to get rid of the bad guys one at a time, like bat man or spider man.

Living in the Pharaoh’s court  Moses’s brain was perverted into thinking that he was a godlike superhero. He thought that he could single-handedly bring truth and justice to the situation.   This is the delusion of royalty and the uber-rich.  They really think that they are above the rules. 

But here is the rule: when you try to kill the bad guys, the bad guys may kill you first.  Humans just don’t need no more superheros or no more so-called just wars!

Moses survived but he had to leave town because somebody put a video clip of him on Facebook, so to speak, that showed him murdering the Egyptian taskmaster. 

Moses lost faith in the false god of the oppressors

a.       Ra may be on your side

b.      But Ra ain’t doing nothing for the slaves who cry out.  I am still infuriated by a license plate on the back of a 60,000 Mercedes that read “BLSDbyGD” BLESSED BY GOD.  Because it implies to me that my license plate should read “CRSDbyGD”  CURSED BY GOD.

c.       It has “Any god that can be killed, should be killed.” My journey away from the Christianity of my family is a move away from idolatry. If a god can be manipulated with special prayers that give your special favors, that god is an idol. Belief in Jesus doesn’t magically transport people from a housing project on Bailey Ave to a condo on the Reservoir. Hard work, good opportunities and a just system of government combine to help people move up in life – not Jesus.

Moses called attention to the emptiness of the religion of oppressors and so must we.   I don’t think that God did all those horrible things to the Egyptians just to persuade the hard hearted pharaoh to let the people go.  I think that Moses used another strategy to get them out of slavery.  Moses did some serious community organizing.

Moses created a people, a tribe, a movement, a 600,000 member support group as it were. Do you think a support group for the Hebrew slaves would have sounded something like this: Hello, my name is Jacob and I am a compulsive brick maker.

Support groups work, not because they pray to God correctly, support groups work because people need to be a part of a people group in order to flourish as human. Coalitions work people the are focused on group action. Wolves need wolf packs.  People need tribes.

a.       It did not take much work to convince the people that they needed to be liberated. The liberating work was the work of community organizing.  What they needed was a way to identify themselves as a people. Individuals are easy targets. Revolutionary individuals can be criminalized or killed quietly at night but mass movements of people are much harder to put down.

b.      I doubt that the 600,000 people were all authentic ethnic Jews. Could it be there several thousand who joined in when they saw that freedom may be coming?  All you needed was to have a Jewish mother so how many Non-Hebrew slaves ran to the skirts of the Hebrew women and pleaded to be adopted as children.  When freedom is in the air all kinds of folks start coming together to stand against oppression and to gain freedom.

c.       In the book of Exodus it says that the people cried out. I believe that this was the only qualification for tribal membership.  Are you being oppressed? You are one of us? 

d.      If a voice cries out for help in the wilderness and if there are no human ears to hear it, does that person exist?

There is nothing magical about how the Tea Party movement is spreading across America. It is no more divinely inspired than the proliferation of Tweeting on Twitter.  As far as I can tell the only qualification for membership is that you have joined the Tea Party. The momentum of the movement is the source of its strength. Yes, think fear and anger is driving the movement. But didn’t the ancient Hebrews cry out too? Doesn’t frustration drive all movements?

It does little good to criticize a movement without starting a countermovement. We need to build as many coalitions as we can around issues that matter to us. If you are being oppressed, you can join us and we may find freedom somehow. When voices become a voice and persons become people, then they can be heard, change can start to come.  My song becomes music when someone enjoys it. My cry becomes effective when someone responds to my need.

All congregations in Jackson are tribal rallies. The greatest benefit of a tribal meeting is that my voice joins yours to shout to the larger community about the things that matter most to me.  The healthy members hear the alarmed cries from the sick and they respond to one another through tribal rally.  The weak members are helped. So churches and synagogues and mosques are not all bad.

The waves of change in Mississippi were stirred up when people gathered like tribes.  The reverberations of voices united in a chorus spoke truth to power. Some of you sang in the 1960’s with those people who were refused to comply with the expectations of those in power.  AIN’T GONE LET NOBODY TURN ME AROUND. The songs sung were not magic or even especially spiritual, they were just the tools used to unite voices. People made choices to join or they chose to remain isolated.  Many chose to march with “them.”

Today we can start to sing together again or we can continue to sit alone in guilty silence. Until we start to join together again, the stronger, angrier voices will continue to drown us out. People don’t need answers, they need to be heard.  Too often religion gives answers without giving voice. Will we give liberating voice to those who live on the streets in Jackson?  Are your people the people who are marginalized and bullied in school?  Are your people profiled by police on the street?  Are your people imprisoned unfairly and far too long. Who are your people? Are they the children born into a family that nurtures and cares for them? Too few children have a Mama who makes cupcakes for the homeroom class.  Too few children have a Daddy who throws the ball with them, just for fun. What are we going to do to unite voices into a chorus. 

We must decide who the tribes are. We can create Hebrews out of motley groups of oppressed people. There are many voices crying out in the wilderness, but where is the resounding voice of the multitude of the oppressed? Will we become a people, a liberating people?  Or will we just be liberals and conservatives satisfied with the status quo?

A VARIATION ON THE WORDS OF JACK MENDELSOHN

LET US BE SOLEMN

     For our old world is dying

LET US MOVE GENTLY

     For a new world is waiting to be born,

LET US SEE CLEARLY

     what is required of us to do

LET US RISE TOGETHER

     empowered to make a better future for every family, every tribe and every child on this planet.

 

Living a Legacy

By Stacy Callender

When I first came to understand Unitarian Universalism, I thought “What a great religion!” Sometimes I wonder why more people don’t join. I mean, no matter the specifics of your belief system, you’re always right!

Say, “I think Jesus is God!” Okay for you.

Or say, “Well, I think Jesus was just a good teacher!” Sure, no problem.

Even say, “Well, I don’t believe in God!” All-righty then.

You’re free to find your own truth and meaning. I mean why is this not the state religion!

But then, I started actually attending a UU church. Now, I’ve come to realize there’s a flip-side to all that. So now, no matter what you say, there’s somebody out there who thinks you’re wrong.

“Wow, it’s a nice day!” “How can you be so oblivious to all of the oppression and suffering going on in the world right now!”

“You’re right! We should find the oppressors and teach them a lesson.” “But we should learn to understand and respect other people’s points of view! We have to support peace and harmony!”

“You’re right! We should have a world summit! We could get everyone across the world to come together and we could try to resolve our differences.” “What! Don’t you know how many trees are killed and streams are polluted daily by airplanes and cars!”

AAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! It can almost send you running back to those churches that say, “everybody here has to agree with what we have written down on this piece of paper.” “What ever you say man!”

But really, I would never leave the diversity of ideas you find in Unitarian Universalism. I love that we look for truth wherever we find it and embrace ideas from every corner of the world. I wish more people could be open to finding the wisdom that’s out there right now—for the taking.

Lately I have started to see some small changes. I think some people really are becoming more open to exploring other cultures and ideas that they’ve never considered before. And you know who I think had a really big hand in making it possible—I think it’s partly due to those Meccas of world culture—HGTV and TLC’s Trading Spaces.

I mean, think about it, thanks to all these design shows, some people are starting to embrace ideas from so many world religions that I’m thinking of handing out flyers about Unitarian Universalism at Target. In fact, you should see my fundamentalist, Southern Baptist, Pat Robertson-watching mother explain to me how she creating a meditation garden and arrange her house using principles of feng shui. I swear to God, she’s talking more about peace and harmony than your average Buddhist monk.

Who knew?! Who knew that those silly TV shows could have such an impact in expanding some people’s knowledge and views of the world. This is a surprising legacy of home improvement shows. If you don’t believe me, just take a look around at the items in stores today—it’s amazing what you’ll find. In the eighties, all you could find were ducks in straw hats, teddy bears with quilted jackets, and bunny rabbits wearing pinafores. You remember those don’t you? Now every store has miniature Buddhas, Zen rock gardens, Tibetan incense, Moroccan screens, African fertility goddess, you name, they’ve got it.

But joking aside, who can ever predict the possible outcomes of simply sharing a different perspective with the world—the ripple effects of small things going out into the larger world. In fact, everything we do, the ripples of our lives, creates the waves of the future. Well, we have a different perspective to share and the question today is what will be the effects of our lives? [PAUSE]

Today’s service is about Living a Legacy. I choose the word “legacy” for the title for a specific reason. Although the dictionary gives a number of meanings [for “legacy,”], I mean it is as “something bequeathed, left, or established for future generations,”—the idea is that it is a gift that will benefit, enrich, and make better the lives of those who receive it.

So the question for today is what legacy will we leave behind? [PAUSE] There is no doubt, we are leaving a legacy even now as we sit here this morning. It is not a question of “IF” we leave a legacy but rather, “WHAT KIND” of legacy we leave. A quote I found said, “our lives are the books other people read.” Now that’s daunting!

So what’s the legacy for our children, our community, our world? Fortunately for us, we don’t start empty-handed. In our responsive reading this morning we read that “we would hold fast to all of [the] good we inherit even as we leave behind us the outworn and the false.” Many of us easily articulate what we have left behind—the “thou shalt not’s” and the other limitations we put on our minds, or bodies, or genders, or experiences in the world. But what is the good that we inherit?

Well, being a UU enables you to inherit a considerably rich legacy of good—of every kind! I’d like to share a few examples of the legacy that we have inherited.

We have been given a legacy of strong moral convictions.

Josephine Shaw Lowell was a Progressive Reform leader in the US in the Nineteenth century. Josephine was born in Massachusetts into a wealthy New England family. Her parents were both Unitarian philanthropists and intellectuals who encouraged their children to study, learn and become involved in their communities. Her mother considered her “the genius” of her family. She was quick to learn and learned several languages. She was influenced by the intellectual discourse in her household and showed an inclination to help others by the time she was thirteen. She assisted a poor settlement of Irish families in her neighborhood and joined with her mother working with the Woman’s Central Relief Association in NYC packing up useful items to soldiers. She showed an unusual interest in the affairs of the country & was involved in many conversations about important ideas never taking a back seat to men.

Josephine married Charles Lowell, a businessman, in 1863 and followed him to Virginia. They were very much in love. However, her husband was called into service during the Civil War and Josephine helped sick and wounded men on the battlefield. Unfortunately, Charles died in battle, less than a year after they were married and only one month before their daughter was born. Being left a young widow, Josephine moved to Staten Island with her daughter, Carlotta, to live with her parents.

After a respectable period of mourning, Josephine renewed her efforts to help others, and she never stopped. One of her first missions was with the Freedman’s Association. She and a friend traveled to Virginia to establish schools for African Americans in the South. This was just the beginning of her commitment to be a force for change in society for justice, freedom, and upholding moral values. She stayed knee deep in charity work, visiting poorhouses and reporting on abuses. She rejected personal extravagances and the society life, choosing instead to be a charity worker day and night, with only Sunday as her day of reflection.

 Josephine was also active in the Anti-Imperialist League and was a great advocate of Philippine independence. She was committed to social justice and reform and seized the opportunity to become involved in Progressive reform particularly concerned about the eradication of poverty. She once said, “If the working people had all they ought to have, we should not have the paupers and criminals. It is better to save them before they go under, than to spend your life fishing them out afterward.”

In 1876, Governor of New York appointed her to Commissioner of the New York State Board of Charities. She was the first woman to ever hold this position. She served in this position until 1889, using her post to speak out, lobby, legislate, and advocate for people who were unable to do so themselves. Throughout her lifetime, she also founded many charitable organizations including: the New York Charity Organization, the House of Refuge for Women, the Woman's Municipal League, and the Civil Service Reform Association of New York State.

Perhaps her most wide-ranging and effective organization was the New York Consumers' League which strove to improve the wages and the working conditions of women workers in New York City. The League was particularly concerned with retail clerks. Josephine published a "White List" that contained a list of stores known to treat women workers well. Initially, the list was very short. But the New York Consumer's League was adopted in many other cities as chapters opened across the country and the umbrella organization, the National Consumers League (NCL), became a powerful lobbying group.

When she died in 1905, the Fountain Terrace in Bryant Park, behind the New York Public Library, was dedicated to her. It was New York City's first public memorial dedicated to a woman.

Josephine’s life might have turned out more like other women’s had her husband not been killed in battle during the Civil War. She was a life-long Unitarian in her religious beliefs. She preferred their liberal faith and sincere beliefs in humanism. She hated all forms of bigotry, and worked to right any wrongs. Josephine became a career woman in the growing field of organized philanthropy and government service. Her list of affiliations and accomplishments is lengthy. The highlights of the causes for which she fought during her lifetime include: improved care for the insane; benefits for dependent children and widows; improved reformatories; police matrons for women prisoners; the emancipation of labor; advocacy of settlement houses; civil service reform; consumer's rights; and anti-imperialism. All this she did within the established context of society. She sometimes did become angry with others in society, but she never stopped trying. In a letter to her sister-in-law in 1883 she wrote, "Common charity, that is, feeding and clothing people, I am beginning to look upon as wicked! Not in its intention, of course, but in its carelessness and its results, which certainly are to destroy people’s character and make them poorer and poorer. If it could only be drummed into the rich that what the poor want is fair wages and not little doles of food, we should not have all this suffering and misery and vice."

Later in life she spoke out on political matters and in a speech supporting William Jennings Bryan for president she revealed her passion for patriotism and morality. She argued, "When the people of the United States consent to deprive another people of its rights and liberties, they strike a terrific blow at the foundations upon which stand their own rights and liberties." Josephine was opposed to both the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars: “We paid a bitter price to free ourselves from the sin of slavery, and the nation will again pay a bitter price to free itself from the sin of empire, if, driven by fear of financial distress or lured by hope of wealth, it now deserts its ancient ideals.” In this fight she did not prevail, but her ideas certainly made an impact.

This is our legacy.

But we need not look solely to national figures to see people of strong moral convictions. The members of our own church in 1963, a mere decade after forming from 12 members, were presented with the issue of open membership regardless of race. Considering the happenings in the early 1960s in Jackson, the decision would not come without consequences; however, the congregation voted that they would open membership to persons regardless of race. This decision was a courageous stand for the moral convictions of our faith tradition. Later that same year, Rev. Donald A. Thompson came to UUCJ with the aid of a grant from the UUA where he became involved in promoting civil rights with the Mississippi Council on Human Relations. After two years of living his faith, he was shot in the back by a Klan member for his activities. Although he recovered and intended to stay on, renewed threats toward his family prompted his to immediate return to the north.

This too is our legacy.

We have been given a legacy of seeing possibility where others see limitations.

Lydia Ann Moulton Jenkins was a leader in the women's rights movement, a Universalist minister, and later a homeopathic physician. It has been claimed that she was the first woman to be granted ministerial fellowship in the United States, and perhaps the first to be ordained with full denominational authority. The effectiveness of her preaching helped to foster acceptance of women ministers within the denomination. Her medical practice and much of her ministry were carried out cooperatively with her husband, Edmund Samuel Jenkins.

A native of Auburn, New York, Lydia lived in or near the Finger Lakes region throughout her life. As a child she was taught traditional Calvinist beliefs, but as a young adult she read and thought her way to Universalism. She first expressed her religious faith speaking out for women's rights. Her article, “Woman-Cival Rights,” published in 1850, in an early feminist journal, called for women's right to vote. She pointed out that women's property is taxed without representation, that their existing rights are only privileges conferred by men, and that the deprivation of civil rights is an inherent source of evil. Later, speaking before a women's rights convention in Syracuse in 1852, she asked, “Is there any law to prevent women from voting in this state? The constitution says 'white male citizens' may vote but does not say that white female citizens may not.” [talk about seeing possibility] At that time, although not ordained, she was referred to as “Reverend;” evidently she had already become known for her preaching from Universalist pulpits.

Jenkins soon came to the attention of Thomas Whittemore, an outspoken opponent of women's preaching and editor of the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine, the most influential Universalist newspaper. In 1857, having read of her "preaching to good acceptance," he wrote in an editorial that "[i]t were better for her to remain at home and tend to her domestic duties," for "St. Paul very pointedly condemned the uprising of preaching women."

That Jenkins had indeed preached "to good acceptance" is obvious from the reports of the many who witnessed it first hand. A reporter from the Christian Freeman concluded after one service “that if even the editor of the Trumpet had been present, his soul would have been moved and all opposition to female preaching would have departed.”

Jenkins' popularity as a preacher continued to grow. Her pulpit appearances in New York City received highly favorable reviews by Horace Greeley and others. In 1858 she was a principal speaker at the annual session of the New York State Convention, preaching in a grove "to a great assemblage of people from all the region round about." The Christian Freeman reported that Jenkins had received fellowship "as a preacher of the Gospel" from the Ontario Association of the New York State Convention, pointing out that "[t]his is the first instance in our denomination, and we think in the world, where a woman has received a formal license of Letter of Fellowship as a minister of Christ." Some interpreted this action as constituting ordination, with full denominational authority.

Whittemore voiced his strong objection to this action. Later that year when Jenkins preached in Lowell, Massachusetts, he took pains to be present. By the time the service was over, his mind was completely changed. "We supposed that a woman could not do it, unless she were bold, masculine, and presuming," he confessed. "We are now sure that a woman can preach, can pray, in the pulpit, without throwing off her womanly dignity and modesty." Given Whittemore's influence in the denomination, this change of heart hastened the day when women could freely enter the Universalist ministry.

Although there is some conflicting information as whether Lydia Jenkins or Olympia Brown was the first woman to be ordained to the Universalist ministry, in 1860 Jenkins and her husband became co-ministers of the Universalist society in Clinton, New York. Two years later the couple left Clinton to become itinerant preachers in New York and New England. In 1866, while remaining Universalists, they left the ministry to establish a homeopathic medical institute in Binghamton, New York. In 1874, soon after a fire destroyed their home and practice, Lydia Jenkins died. Her tombstone bore the following inscription: "Rev. Lydia A. Jenkins, M.D., wife of Rev. E. S. Jenkins, died May 7, 1874, in her 50th year. First woman minister in fellowship with the Universalist denomination in the United States. Preached 20 years."

This is our legacy.

We at UUCJ have also been blessed with a woman who did not see the limitations presented. Recognizing a need for ministry, Joan Jebsen worked with the Mid-South District to create a chaplaincy program, setting up requirements and oversight. She served the congregation from 1990 to 1997 as the only UU chaplain in the U.S. and one of two UU chaplains in North America. In 1995, she received the “Unsung Unitarian Universalist Award” from the Mid-South District for her work which inspired and expressed Unitarian Universalism.

This too is our legacy.

We have been given a legacy of hope for the future—even when facing a wall of opposition.

Horace Greeley, a Universalist journalist, reformer, and politician, is best known as the longtime, innovative publisher and editor of the New York Tribune. In 1872 he campaigned unsuccessfully for President as a Liberal Republican and Democrat against incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant.

Horace was born in New Hampshire, the third child of a farmer and day-laborer. His family moved often, and he was erratically home-schooled until the age of 14. A voracious reader, he was largely self-educated. Although he had never heard of Universalism, through reflection and Bible-reading, he early adopted a Restorationist theology. "Upon re-reading that book in the light of my new convictions, I found therein abundant proof of their correctness," he later wrote. He saw the scriptures as "so happily blending inexorable punishment for every offense with unfailing pity and ultimate forgiveness for the chastened transgressor."

Greeley was introduced to Universalism, first by reading periodicals, and then by hearing a sermon preached around 1830 in New York. In 1831, soon after coming to New York City, he visited, and quickly joined, Thomas Jefferson Sawyer's Universalist church on Orchard Street. "Horace Greeley was generally present [at weekly Bible class]," Sawyer recalled, "and entered with great interest into the discussions to which our lessons gave rise. He soon distinguished himself by the quickness of his apprehension, the pertinence of his observations and inquiries, and by the general grasp of his mind upon every topic that came before us."

After serving as a printer's apprentice, he went to New York City to seek his fortune as an editor. Three years later, after working as a printer, he had accumulated enough capital to launch a weekly literary and news journal, the New Yorker, and the Log Cabin, a Whig campaign weekly.

In 1841 Greeley founded the New York Tribune, which he edited and operated the rest of his life. The New Yorker and the Log Cabin were absorbed into the Tribune and over two decades circulation rose to more than a quarter of a million with the Tribune became the most influential newspaper in the country. To customary news reports, Greeley added editorials and commentary on social and political issues. He hired some of the best newspaper men and a few literary luminaries like Margaret Fuller, George Ripley, and Richard Hildreth.

However, Horace's home life was to prove to be comfortless. In 1836 Greeley married a school teacher with whom he shared a passion for poetry and vegetarian dietary reforms. The Greeleys had seven children, but only two lived to adulthood. His wife had frequent nervous ailments and did not care for him as he had hoped. Calling their country home outside NYC, "Castle Doleful," he slept most nights in lodgings close to work.

He did develop great friendships over his lifetime though. Margaret Fuller wrote featured literary reviews and commentary on social issues, briefly lived with the Greeleys, and later acted as a European correspondent for the Tribune. He taught her to write rapidly and tersely; she lectured Horace on woman's rights. He was at first skeptical about the practicality of gender equality, but eventually, in part because of Fuller's influence, his opinion began to shift. In 1850, shortly after Fuller's death, he gave the First National Woman's Rights Convention a moderate endorsement in the Tribune. Although he thought the women who demanded equality were misguided, "However unwise or mistaken the demand, it is but the assertion of a natural right, and as such must be conceded." In 1858 he praised the preaching of feminist Lydia Jenkins in the Universalist pulpit. [Everyone has some area where growth is a challenge.]

In the course of his journalistic career Greeley espoused a wide variety of liberal causes, including the abolition of slavery and capital punishment, communitarianism, socialism, improvement of working conditions, and free-soil homesteading. He was well known as a writer and in demand as a lecturer. One of his assistants, John Russell Young, later wrote, "Greeley labored with the world to better it, to give men moderate wages and wholesome food, and to teach women to earn their living."

Although he may not have originated the slogan, "Go west, young man, go west," often attributed to him, he frequently gave that advice in person and in print. "If any young man is about to commence in the world," he wrote, "with little in his circumstances to prepossess him in favor of one section above another, we say to him publicly and privately, Go to the West; there your capacities are sure to be appreciated and your industry and energy rewarded."

Greeley became involved in the political arena by promoting candidates and causes. He helped to organize the Republican Party and campaigned for Abraham Lincoln. He also ran (unsuccessfully) for the Senate, the House, and the presidency. Greeley's political and social views reflected his strongly held religious views. His reforms aimed at creating a society in which men and women would be less inclined toward moral transgressions and more inclined toward actions that "shall ultimately result in universal holiness and consequent happiness."

Although he was pacifist, Greeley nevertheless came to believe that the South had to be resisted with force. He applied public pressure on Lincoln to immediately emancipate the slaves. In an 1862 editorial addressed to the president, "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," he wrote that he was "sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of rebels." Lincoln answered famously, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it—if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it—and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." When Lincoln finally published the Emancipation Proclamation—at a time of his own choosing—Greeley rejoiced: "it is the beginning of the new life of the nation."

During the 1863 New York draft riots, an anti-Greeley mob nearly succeeded in storming the Tribune building. When weapons were brought into the building to stave off attack, Greeley exclaimed, "Take 'em away! I don't want to kill anybody!" Discouraged by the war and conflicted about the use of deadly force, Greeley made several attempts to bring about peace. Unfortunately, each effort resulted in personal embarrassment when the parties with whom he had been negotiating became known. 

Despite earlier wavering, Greeley returned to Universalism in 1861 and for the rest of his life remained an active Universalist. In 1864 he preached a sermon in New York and in 1870 served as a delegate to the General Convention in Gloucester. To celebrate the centennial of John Murray's arrival in America, Greeley tried to create a Universalist publishing house. His Universalist beliefs have been characterized as both Transcendentalist and anti-trinitarian influenced by his friends Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Having recorded his decided beliefs, he added tolerantly, "I war not upon others' convictions, but rest satisfied with a simple statement of my own."

Unfortunately Greeley's life came to a sad and bitter end. He was mercilessly ridiculed during his campaign for the presidency and lost in a landslide election. He described himself as the "worst beaten man who ever ran for high office." While he was campaigning, he was stripped him of his editorial powers and just before the election his wife died. The combined effect of these disasters led to a complete physical and mental breakdown and he died soon afterwards.

However, his funeral was attended by many notables, including the president, vice president, cabinet members, mayor, and three governors. On that occasion, and ever since, Greeley has been remembered as his country's greatest newspaper editor, an outstanding popular educator, and a notable champion of the downtrodden and dispossessed.

This is our legacy.

We have been given a legacy of drive and determination to achieve results.

Olympia Brown (January 5, 1835-October 23, 1926) dedicated her life to opening doors for women. Among only a handful of women to graduate from college, she received her BA from Antioch in 1860 and three years later became the first woman graduate of a regularly established theological school: St. Lawrence University. She was ordained a Universalist minister, the first woman to achieve full ministerial standing recognized by a denomination. As a young minister, she took an active role in the women's suffrage movement and was one of the few original suffragists who lived to vote in the 1920 presidential election.

The first of four children, Olympia Brown was born to Vermont Universalists who had become pioneers in Michigan. Determined to give his children a good education, her father built a schoolhouse on his farm. He and Olympia rode from house to house to enlist their neighbors' donations toward hiring a teacher. The Brown children later attended school in the nearby town of Schoolcraft. Olympia was determined to go to college and persuaded her father to allow her and a younger sister to enter Mary Lyons's Mount Holyoke Female Seminary in Massachusetts. After an unhappy year in the rigidly Calvinistic atmosphere there, Olympia went to Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, where Horace Mann was president. Her experience there was so positive that her family moved to Yellow Springs for all four children to get a good education.

While at Antioch, Olympia heard Antoinette Brown (no relation) preach. “It was the first time I had heard a woman preach,” she remembered, “and the sense of victory lifted me up. I felt as though the Kingdom of Heaven were at hand.” Her next step was theological school, even though theological schools at that time did not welcome women.

The ministry was the first objective of her life,” wrote Gwendolen Brown Willis, “since in her youthful enthusiasm she believed that freedom of religious thought and a liberal church would supply the groundwork for all other freedoms. Her difficulties and disillusionments in this field were numerous. That she could rise superior to such difficulties and disillusionments was the consequence of the hopefulness and courage with which she was richly endowed.”

The Unitarian School of Meadville replied to her request for admission saying that “the trustees thought it would be too great an experiment” to admit a woman. Oberlin replied that she could be admitted but could not participate in public exercises. Finally, Ebenezer Fisher, President of the Universalist Divinity School at St. Lawrence University, offered her admission but added that he “did not think women were called to the ministry. But I leave that between you and the Great Head of the Church.” This, Olympia thought, “was exactly where it should be left. But when I arrived, I was told I had not been expected and that Mr. Fisher had said I would not come as he had written so discouragingly to me. I had supposed his discouragement was my encouragement.”

She entered divinity school in 1861 and completed her course of study in 1863. She had to convince those opposed to women in the ministry that they could complete the required course of study as commendably as she had. Then she had to convince the reluctant ministers to ordain her and allow her to be called to the parish ministry. Despite considerable opposition, Brown prevailed in both goals. This determination characterized her throughout her long and fruitful life.

In 1864 she was called to her first full-time parish ministry in Massachusetts. At this time Olympia Brown became active in the women's rights movement, working with Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone and other leaders. In the summer of 1867, at the urging of Lucy Stone and her husband, Henry Blackwell, she agreed to take on a rigorous campaign in Kansas to urge passage of a woman suffrage amendment. Her parish generously gave their minister a four-month leave of absence to fulfill this commitment.

Although Henry Blackwell assured Brown that he had made all the arrangements for her campaign, she arrived in Kansas to find that little if anything had been done in her behalf. She would have to make her own travel arrangements, find lodgings in each town, advertise her speaking engagements, secure halls in which to speak and deal with those determined to disrupt her speeches. Often she had to face down hostile townspeople who wanted to discredit her and the cause of woman suffrage. Brown took such obstacles as challenges to be surmounted and kept her eyes firmly on her goal. In spite of unbearable heat and brutal winds, she persevered and mounted a spirited campaign, delivering more than 300 speeches. She was not discouraged when only one-third of the voting population (all male, of course) approved the amendment. In spite of the final vote Susan B. Anthony considered Olympia Brown's work a glorious triumph.

By 1870 Brown was ready for another challenge and accepted a call to a Universalist Church in Connecticut, “thinking it a larger field of usefulness.” Even though the church had many members, “some had lost interest and there had even been an inclination to close the church.” She also found that unlike her first parish, “they had no such breadth of vision."

Although her mother and her friends advised her against marriage because they thought it would interfere with her career as a minister, she married John Henry Willis in 1873. She “thought that with a husband so entirely in sympathy with my work, marriage could not interfere, but rather assist. And so it proved, for I could have married no better man. He shared in all my undertakings.” As did Lucy Stone, Olympia Brown kept her maiden name, with Willis's agreement. It was a most felicitous marriage and they had two children, a son and a daughter. When her husband died, unexpectedly in 1893, she wrote: “Endless sorrow has fallen upon my heart. He was one of the truest and best men that ever lived, firm in his religious convictions, loyal to every right principle, strictly honest and upright in his life,....with an absolute sincerity of character such as I have never seen in any other person.”

During her maternity leave for her first child, a faction at the Bridgeport church started agitating to terminate her ministry calling in ministers from neighboring churches...promulgating the doctrine, “what you need here is a good man.” So at the end of 1874, Brown decided to resign her ministry. She and her husband stayed in Bridgeport for two more years, during which time her daughter was born. With characteristic spirit, Olympia recounts “after this tempestuous time at Bridgeport, I considered where I should go to continue the work of preaching, to which I had, as I thought, a distinct calling.”

Discovering that a Universalist church in Racine, Wisconsin, was in need of a minister, she wrote to offer her services. They wrote back that the parish was in an unfortunate condition, thanks to “a series of pastors easy-going, unpractical and some even spiritually unworthy, who had left the church adrift, in debt, hopeless and doubtful whether any pastor could again rouse them.” This was precisely the kind of challenge that Olympia welcomed. Of her career as a parish minister she writes: “Those who may read this will think it strange that I could only find a field in run-down or comatose churches, but they must remember that the pulpits of all the prosperous churches were already occupied by men, and were looked forward to as the goal of all the young men coming into the ministry with whom I, at first the only woman preacher in the denomination, had to compete. All I could do was to take some place that had been abandoned by others and make something of it, and this I was only too glad to do.”

Her husband, ever supportive of his wife’s endeavors, went ahead to find a house and employment. He became one of the owners of The Racine Times-Call newspaper and worked actively to support his wife's ministry.

Rejuvenating the Universalist society in Racine was not a task for the faint of heart, but Brown set about it with her usual competence, dedication and practical skill. Not only did she breathe new life into the society, but she also established it as a center of learning and cultural activities. Bringing famous speakers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Julia Ward Howe, and Susan B. Anthony, she added immeasurably to the life of the surrounding community.

After nine years of rebuilding, she felt that her parish was able to sustain itself, and she made a momentous decision. At the age of 53 she decided to make a career change. Though she would continue to work as a part-time minister in smaller Wisconsin congregations, Brown left full-time ministry to become an activist for women's rights. Because her new role necessitated a great deal of travel, she was fortunate to have both a supportive husband and a capable mother at home to help care for the family.

Olympia Brown was a tireless and effective organizer for suffrage initiatives at the state and national level, leading the Wisconsin Suffrage Association for many years and serving as Vice-president of the National Woman Suffrage Association. Like Matilda Joslyn Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she promoted a broad range of reforms aimed at women. Believing that education was the key to women's advancement, she worked tirelessly to have women admitted to colleges and professional schools.

By the 1890s Brown was convinced that the suffrage movement was languishing under what she considered lackluster leadership. Little progress was being made toward a suffrage amendment, the older suffragists had either died or were being ignored, and in her opinion the fire seemed to have gone out of the movement. Not until Alice Paul and Lucy Barnes started the Woman's Party in 1913 did Brown feel optimistic about the suffrage cause. She welcomed the more confrontational and street-wise tactics of the Woman's Party and was elated with their strategy of mounting large vigils and demonstrations to mobilize support. When she was asked to be a charter member of this more militant and energetic group, she stated “I belonged to this party before I was born.”

Brown joined in many of the demonstrations organized by the Woman's Party. In freezing rain, in bitter cold, in spite of dangerous confrontations and little police protection from hecklers, the octogenarian minister from Wisconsin was there. During one memorable demonstration, protesting Woodrow Wilson's turning his back on the suffrage amendment, she publicly burned his speeches in front of the White House. When the suffrage amendment was finally passed in 1919, Brown was one of the few original suffragists who was still alive to savor the triumph. She voted in her first presidential election at the age of 85.

Speaking in the Racine church in the fall of 1920, she said, "the grandest thing has been the lifting up of the gates and the opening of the doors to the women of America, giving liberty to twenty-seven million women, thus opening to them a new and larger life and a higher ideal." In this sermon, she also testified to the importance in her life of Universalism, "the faith in which we have lived, for which we have worked, and which has bound us together as a church. . . . Dear Friends, stand by this faith. Work for it and sacrifice for it. There is nothing in all the world so important to you as to be loyal to this faith which has placed before you the loftiest ideal, which has comforted you in sorrow, strengthened you for the noble duty and made the world beautiful for you."

The church Brown helped to vitalize in Racine was re-named the Olympia Brown Unitarian Universalist Church and in 1975 a group of parishioners mounted a successful campaign to have an elementary school in Racine named in her honor. Nothing would have made this proponent of education, especially for women, prouder. To honor the centennial of her ordination in 1963, the Theological School at St. Lawrence University unveiled a plaque which reads in part: Preacher of Universalism, Pioneer and Champion of Women's Citizenship Rights, Forerunner of the New Era, The flame of her spirit still burns today.

This is our legacy.

We have also hosted advocates for education. In 1965, through the efforts of Florence Newman, one of our founding members, the church participated in one of the most successful and important public welfare initiatives—helping to establish a Head Start program in Mississippi. Not only was the program part of the introduction of Head Start to the state, but it was also the first racially integrated program in the state. The program was housed at the church facilities which were located on Lynch and Ellis. After our church moved to our present location and purchased the adjoining property, the members honored Florence Newman along with her husband for their support of children by naming our religious education building after them—the Newman building where children still meet today to learn about the principles of Unitarian Universalism.

This is also our legacy.

We have been given a legacy of generosity of spirit that enabled the building up of our world.

Anna Shaw Curtis was born into a family of wealth and privilege. Her father was a Unitarian businessman turned philosopher and philanthropist. Although he was born rich, he used his money to benefit mankind and his own family. Her parents were devoted to their children and their influence on Anna continued throughout her life. They traveled abroad for five years and instilled in their children love, attention, religious tolerance, and culture. In 1855 the family settled in Staten Island due to Mrs. Shaw’s needed medical attention. Anna was married at the age of 20 to George William Curtis in 1856. George was an intellectual, an orator, an author, and their marriage was considered to be a splendid match. Curtis was very much in love with Anna. He said, “she is thoroughly feminine yet conscious of social evils and eager to remedy them....thoroughly domestic, yet intelligent and widely read and able to charm the distinguished visitors.” [How quaint!]

Early in their marriage, Anna's father made George a loan, and for the next ten years George traveled far and wide and lectured frequently to reduce his business debt to his father-in-law. Anna and George lived with her parents after they were married and eventually they settled near them in a big house where they lived there for the rest of their lives. Anna Curtis helped her famous husband by typing all of his essays and articles, talking over difficult situations frankly and honestly, and showing clear judgment. She was not a social butterfly and avoided public functions. But she took full charge of their home, stables, and grounds with very little assistance from her busy husband. According to her husband's biographer, Anna loved her own extended family above all. Her children -- Frank, Sally, and Elizabeth -- kept her busy especially Sally, her middle child, who was classified as "slow." Anna was very attentive to her needs. She spent much of her adult life devoted to raising her children and helping those in her immediate neighborhood who were in need.

George Curtis was a spokesman for women's rights. On the tenth anniversary of the Declaration of Sentiments he said, "Good wifehood does not consist exclusively of skillful baking and boiling, neat darning and patching but in intellectual and public interests as well. The higher the estimate of women, the better the civilization...in a truly civilized society she should be given the right to vote and the opportunity for higher education." He must have had his wife in mind, and she met his definition of womanhood her entire life.

During the Civil War, Anna and her sisters and mother spearheaded local efforts to help the war effort. Although her whole family was abolitionist, there is no record of her ideas or actions in this regard. There is mention, however, of her knitting socks and sewing garments to be sent to the front. The Underground Railroad was in use during this time to help runaway slaves, and it is believed that the Curtises and the Shaws were very involved in this effort. George Curtis was targeted by Southern sympathizers and during the draft riots in NYC during 1863, Anna and her three children left Staten Island to stay with her grandparents in Massachusetts.

After the war -- and the deaths of her brother, Robert Gould Shaw, and her brother-in-law, Charles Russell Lowell -- Anna and her immediate family spent long summers in Massachusetts where her children thrived. Frank entered Harvard and became a medical doctor. Elizabeth Curtis was well educated, musical, and eventually grew up to found the Political Equality Club for Women, which evolved into the League of Women Voters.

After George Curtis died in 1892, Anna became even more active in her church, taking on leadership and administrative assignments. She served as President of the Board of Trustees for sixteen years and was still active in the church up until 1923 as an active Board member. During her tenure she undertook many substantial and important projects. She instigated the building of a parish hall and a parsonage. She worked closely with several ministers to accomplish much good. One of the ways in which the small church raised over $5,000.00 for these projects was to hold a Dickens festival in 1910. Both buildings are still in use today and are a testament to her efforts. Anna was a successful daughter, wife, mother, and capable efficient and selfless church leader. Although she is rarely mentioned in history books, she gave much to her family, her church, and her country.

This is our legacy.

We also have a history of ordinary lives punctuated with selfless giving to build a future for Unitarian Universalism in Mississippi. In 1955, a mere four years after founding, the members of our church began a building fund to lay the groundwork for a permanent home for our faith tradition in Jackson. By 1958 a new building was completed at our original location on Lynch and Ellis Ave. During the late 1960s the congregation sold the original property and began efforts to rebuild in a new location. They also were undertaking efforts to hire a minister. Eventually the buildings we currently reside in were built and dedicated in 1973 in this location to reflect our desire to serve both suburban and urban populations.

This too is our legacy.

We have been given a legacy of self-examination and envisioning new roles in the world.

James Luther Adams (November 12, 1901-July 26, 1994) was a Unitarian parish minister, social activist, journal editor, distinguished scholar, prolific author, and divinity school professor for more than forty years. Adams decisively shaped the minds of hundreds of students in preparation for the liberal ministry, and other scholarly professions as well. Adams was the most influential theologian among American Unitarian Universalists of the 20th century, and one of the finest 20th-century American liberal Christian theologians generally.

Adams's path to Unitarianism was similar to that of many members of Unitarian Universalist congregations. He grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family in eastern Washington. At home and at church, the Day of Judgment heralding the end of time was constantly held up as a real possibility, perhaps coming very soon. As a college student, Adams was, "on the rebound from fundamentalism." He railed against organized religion and briefly embraced an atheism. Eventually, however, he began to attending the Unitarian church, and was soon listening to the preaching of the Rev. John Dietrich, a leading proponent of a scientific yet religious humanism. One of his professors, also a Unitarian, saw that Adams's outbursts against religion came from a passionately religious impulse. So, in a career counseling session, Rarig calmly told Adams, much to his consternation, that he would make a good minister. The "raving humanist" astonished his friends when, upon completion of his undergraduate work, he left for Harvard Divinity School to begin preparation for the Unitarian ministry.

At Harvard, Adams found the divinity school curriculum stale and lacking adequate intellectual grounds for a modern faith. Growing up, he had learned firsthand the warping effects upon institutions and individuals of an ungrounded mysticism, which, he often said, "begins in mist and ends in schism." Having overcome these effects, he found an ungrounded confidence in modernism, based on nothing more substantive than "the spirit of the age," to be equally unacceptable. Adams would settle for nothing less than a faith which could be held intellectually accountable.

After serving as a minister of two Unitarian congregations in Massachusetts, and discovering the freedom of the pulpit while speaking out about a labor strike at the textile mills despite the mill's owners, managers, and workers who were members of the church he moved toward an academic life.

His early experiences strengthened Adams's conviction that a liberal church can and should make itself a faithful voice for the voiceless oppressed. He was sharply critical of the prevailing liberalism which, because of its excessive individualism, barely noticed and never decisively addressed issues of social justice. A weak liberal religion bestows a spurious blessing on the status quo. This point never ceased to be a major theme of his classes.

In 1935, Adams joined the Unitarian and Universalist Meadville/ Lombard Theological School in Chicago because they believed the Unitarian movement urgently needed him to help raise the intellectual standards of theological education, lest the churches be unequipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. He accepted on the condition that he might study for a year in Europe beforehand. There he watched as the Nazi government of Hitler ruthlessly crushed any and all dissent as it marshaled forces for its coming march across the continent. Interrogated by the Gestapo, he narrowly avoided imprisonment as a result of his engagement with the Underground Church movement. Using a home movie camera, he filmed Karl Barth, Albert Schweitzer and others, including those who were involved in clandestine, church-related resistance groups, as well as pro-Nazi leaders of the so-called German Christian Church. Adams returned to the U.S. more convinced than ever that the tendency of religious liberals to be theologically content with vague slogans and platitudes about open-mindedness could only render liberal churches irrelevant and impotent in face of the world's evils, and he stated his convictions loudly and frequently.

While teaching, he worked vigorously with an independent, grassroots political organization whose goal was open and honest government. This work brought him friendship with liberal politicians.

In 1957 Adams went to Harvard Divinity School where he faced an age-mandated retirement in 1968. He continued to teach at Andover Newton Theological Seminary and Meadville/Lombard. His essays and articles focused largely on the theology of social ethics, addressing an exceedingly broad range of topics, from politics to the grotesque in the arts, from the significance of angels to AIDS. Especially notable was his work on the history and theory of voluntary associations in a democratic culture.

Adams's conception of the meaning and importance of voluntary associations grew from his understanding of authentically free spirit in the free church. He described the free church as a body of believers freely joined in a covenant of loyalty to the holy spirit of love, intentionally inclusive of dissent, governed by its own members and fiercely independent from government control, with the reign of the spirit of love among members to be seen in their voluntary assumption of responsibility for the just character of their whole society. He came to see the free church as the root idea of the Judeo-Christian tradition of which Western civilization is the fruit, as it is manifest in the deliberate and carefully preserved limitation of the government's power to control thriving, independent voluntary associations in a democratic society. He interpreted participation in voluntary associations, whatever the character of the government, as the chief means by which beneficial social change has been effected throughout history, and as key to the meaning of human history. To Adams, the notion that any group might hold a monopoly on the spirit of love was preposterous and idolatrous. In the Western world, the free church provides the historical model for many other voluntary associations, whose purpose is to maintain high standards or to promote constructive change. As a theologian, Adams was interested in voluntary associations because his experience and his studies had brought him to the belief that through voluntary participation in groups humanity may respond in all times to "the community-forming power" of God's love, present in and available to every human heart and mind.

Paraphrasing Jesus, Adams said, "By their groups ye shall know them." He also summarized his point in the short piece in your hymnal "I Call That Church Free." For Adams, the free church has special value only insofar as it has varied membership (including people of all ages, social ranks, occupations, various types & levels of ability, degrees of wealth, etc.,) then the church will address a much broader range of human concerns than do other more narrow groups.

Adams believed that all organizations embody a theology, implicit in their assessments of legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Adams insisted that the language of the liberal free church must be richly flexible, not doctrinaire. "People can die," he often said, "from hardening of the categories." He mourned the confused weakness of liberal churches whose members will not strive, in the ongoing mutual dialogue of their church, to examine and explain their own personal, central, essential loyalties. Said Adams, paraphrasing Socrates,"An unexamined faith is not worth having."

Busy as he was in his profession and many other associations, Adams was ever an active participant in his own church and always present at Sunday services. He was active, too, in the Unitarian Universalist Association, serving on numerous UUA committees.

Adams was a brilliant teacher, so much so that his classes always drew students from many faith traditions. Through them, his influence extends to the many institutions his former students now serve, not a few with high distinction. He had a capacity to expand the horizons of his students' minds and fire them with his own enthusiasm for the life-giving spirit of ideas, especially ideas of freedom and justice. He was impatient with lifeless abstraction. He wanted to know and be able to document the dramatic stories of ideas, the situation of their origin, the struggle for their acceptance, whose interest their suppression served, and how they worked out in ongoing, daily human lives. And that is what he required that his students learn and scrupulously document in their assigned coursework.

In his early days, Adams's criticism of liberal religion rankled his more established colleagues. He was occasionally told that if he found so much wrong with the Unitarian church he was welcome to leave the Unitarian fellowship, but over the years he came to be respected by a great many Unitarians as a constructive reformer, worth listening to for the depth and breadth of his concerns.

This too is our legacy.

 

Now why recount these lives? Are they the most prominent or best examples? No. But they are some examples of the people who have come before us, and their lives are instructional about the ability of people to make extraordinary change armed with a strong will to do so and in league with a community of support.

We are the inheritors of this legacy and we are part of the chain that passes it on. But we cannot rest on our laurels—and even more to the point, we cannot rest on the laurels of others. We must earn laurels of our own. We must make the future we long to enter and ensure that our stories will be added to those from which we have read.

No matter your course of action, you are leaving a legacy now. That is not a question. There is only question that remains: Is the legacy we are leaving, the one we want to leave? I would charge you with the words of Horace Mann, perhaps his most famous words, he gave to Antioch's graduating class of 1859, two months before his own death: “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” How’s that for encouragement?!

Well I’ve had some interesting conversations with some of you, and hope to have additional conversations with the rest of you about that. Not surprisingly we also have a desire to leave a legacy of strong moral convictions, of seeing the possibility, of hope for our future, of drive and determination to achieve, of generosity of spirit that enables the building up of our world, and of self-examination and envisioning new roles in the world.

Many of you expressed desire for growth, but not just in the numbers game of more people and more stuff. I heard voices asking for support in their personal growth and development –the maturation of their beliefs and challenges to put them in action. Many of you expressed some of your moral convictions and wanted ways to live them out together. I heard many voices lifted by hope, amazed at the possibility within our own realm, and backed by a drive and determination to get there. Many of you have expressed your desire for outreach to others and outreach for others. Thoughts of caring for those who struggle and are downtrodden are never far from our minds. However, our actions have often fallen short and I heard that acknowledged by the group. But this month people expressed renewed vigor at engaging and affecting those in hardship among us in more meaningful ways. And I have been inspired by those of you who dug deep to find the generosity to make the dreams a reality. We are not there yet. There is still a long arduous journey ahead, but together, I heard people will to make an investment in their lives in the honor of this faith tradition, to live out their legacy right now. This year pages are being added to the history of UUCJ. And decisions will be made that affect the future of this church, its congregants, their families, and the community at large.

In Jack Mendelsohn’s book Being Liberal in an Illiberal Age, which a small group is currently studying, he reminds us that we are part of a church that is not merely a structure but a center of sanity and inspiration in a deranged world; it is not merely a place of private cultivation and retreat, but a temple for revitalizing our beleaguered values; a place that stands as a symbol of humans aspiring together, tracking truth together, and demanding social justice together; a place that has within it the exuberance of play, the blessings of shared celebration, and a symmetry with life’s rhythms.

And boy do we need that. I know I could not make it week after week, if I didn’t come here and get filled with love, and care, and encouragement. And you must know it too, because that was the most consistently stated comment about UUCJ, the importance of the people, the community, the relationships formed here. Especially gripping are the words about how being cast out by their family, rejected for their non-conformance or unwillingness to ignore their own mind and heart, people come here and find the family that they lost. They find acceptance and the ability to face the world for one more week. What a sacred and special part we have in healing each other and our community through our stubborn determination to exist.

In the words of Kenneth L. Patton,

This house is for the ingathering of nature and human nature.

It is a house of friendships, a haven in trouble,

an open room for the encouragement of our struggle.

It is a house of freedom, guarding the dignity and worth of every person.

It offers a platform for the free voice, for declaring,

both in times of security and danger, the full and undivided conflict of opinion.

It is a house of truth-seeking, where scientists can encourage devotion to their quest,

where mystics can abide in a community of searchers.

It is a house of art, adorning its celebrations with melodies and handiworks.

It is a house of prophecy, outrunning times past and times present

in visions of growth and progress.

This house is a cradle for our dreams, the workshop of our common endeavor.

 

May it be so!

 

 

The Spiritual Life of an Atheist

By Amy Craig Griggs

And How Long? 

By Pablo Neruda, translated from the Spanish

How much does a man live, after all?

Does he love a thousand days, or one only?

For a week, or for several centuries?

How long does a man spend dying?

What does it mean to say ‘forever’?

Lost in this preoccupation,

I set myself to clear things up.

I sought our knowledgeable priests,

I waited for them after their rituals,

I watched them when they went their ways

To visit God and the Devil.

They wearied of my questions.

They on their part knew very little.

They were no more than administrators.

Medical men received me

In between consultations,

A scalpel in each hand,

Saturated in aureomycin,

Busier each day.

As far as I could tell from their talk,

The problem was as follows:

It was not so much the death of a microbe—

They went down by the ton,

But the few which survived

Showed signs of perversity.

They left me so startled

That I sought out the grave-diggers.

I went to the rivers where they burn

Enormous painted corpses,

Tiny bony bodies,

Emperors with an aura

Of terrible curses,

Women snuffed out at a stroke

By a wave of cholera.

There were whole beaches of dead

And ashy specialists.

When I got the chance

I asked them a slew of questions.

They offered to burn me.

It was all they knew.

In my own country the dead

Answered me, between drinks:

‘Get yourself a good woman

And give up this nonsense.”

I never saw people so happy.

Raising their glasses they sang

Toasting health and death

They were huge fornicators.

I returned home, much older

After crossing the world.

Now I ask questions of nobody.

But I know less every day.

 

Here is something I have never said in front of a large group of people, and not to very many people in private: I am an atheist. It’s not that I am ashamed of my beliefs; in fact, I’m really quite comfortable with them. I think it’s more that I don’t like the word: atheist. Would it be better if I described myself as a humanist? As a Unitarian Universalist? As a wife, mother, sister, daughter, friend? A teacher, a student, a listener, an observer? A reader, a thinker? I think all of those tell you more about who I am than atheist. The word atheist tells you what I don’t believe. And there are so many wonderful things that I do believe in.

I believe an act of kindness can change the course of someone’s life forever. I believe walking in the rain can cleanse the spirit. I believe the universe holds truths we will never know. I believe in the Scientific Method, alternative medicine, and thinking outside the box. I believe I was born with more than most people will ever have. I believe it is my responsibility to make the world a better place.

A few years ago, the Denton UUF which I was attending did a series on Personal Spiritual Journeys, where congregants would take turns sharing the paths their lives had taken. At the time, I declined, worried that I was overextending myself with work, school, and personal responsibilities. Now seems a good time to return to this charge. I would like to share with you my journey, thus far. 

I have been told that the world-view of an atheist must be dim, drab, dark, but nothing could be further from the truth. I make my own meaning as I go, and the sun shines just as brightly for me without a chariot pulling it across the sky. I try my best to keep my eyes wide open and I am eager to discover new truths that will come my way from philosophy, from science. From thinkers I will only read about, from neighbors I meet in line at Wal-mart. From those whose beliefs are different from mine (I guess that includes just about everybody), from soul mates and strangers, friends and enemies. I’d like to read to you a brief passage from the introduction of a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking about the freedom of inquiry that comes from not tying oneself to organized religion.

 

We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. We give little thought to the machinery that generates the sunlight that makes life possible, to the gravity that glues us to an Earth that would otherwise send us spinning off into space, or to the atoms of which we are made and on whose stability we fundamentally depend. Except for children (who don’t know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why nature is the way it is; where the cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow backward and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know. There are even children, and I have met some of them, who want to know what a black hole looks like; what is the smallest piece of matter; why we remember the past and not the future; now it is, if there was chaos early, that there is, apparently, order today; and why there is a universe.

In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely recalled religious precepts. Some are uncomfortable with issues like these, because they so vividly expose the limitations of human understanding.

But much of philosophy and science has been driven by such inquiries. An increasing number of adults are willing to ask questions of this sort, and occasionally they get some astonishing answers. Equidistant from the atoms and stars, we are expanding our exploratory horizons to embrace both the very small and the very large.

 

I was raised unchurched, but my earliest memories of religious fanfare were of attending Easter service with my paternal grandparents. I was about 4, I think. I had been dressed up in a green dress with white gloves, my hair pinned up on top of my head. I understood I was to be shown off, to be on my best behavior. My grandparents were members of a Disciples of Christ church. It wasn’t until much later that I learned that my grandparents, both divorcees before they married each other and produced my father, had both been raised Southern Baptists but were unwelcome in the Church following the failure of their first marriages.

Going to church, I found out, was like going to a play, only you didn’t clap. I asked why, and Memaw told me that it was because the music was for God, not for us, but He didn’t mind if we enjoyed it. Later, stuffed with Easter candy, with chocolate smeared on my new dress, I looked back on the day feeling special, as if something beautiful had been shared with me.  Sitting in the pews with joyful, friendly people is what I remember. Sacred space.

Memaw may have been a regular church-goer, but her personal ideas about religion tended towards the unorthodox. Sitting in her living room, she could talk for hours about her hometown up on top of a mountain in Alabama, about her travels as a military wife, and about her belief that she was an Indian Princess in a former life. I loved to listen to her talk. And her stories, though often repeated, taught me as much about life as any church service.

There were stories about the winning high school girls’ basketball team, about being Rosie the Riveter, about riding a donkey at the Officer’s Club. About sewing lace on the bottom of my father’s shirt tails so he’d tuck them in. My favorites, though, were about growing up on a farm with her sisters: Sula, Beuhla, Ula and Brownie. The best was about the day she wore pants to school. It was cold, she explained. The teacher sent her home from school, and her father marched her right back and said that the school was built on his land and if his daughter wanted to wear pants to school she damn well could. The next day, all the girls on the basketball team and a few daring stragglers came to school wearing pants and continued to do so for the rest of the winter. That story told me a lot about who I wanted to be, and now that I’m a parent, it tells me what kind of parent I want to be, too.

Growing up in South Florida in a happily integrated neighborhood is an experience I try hard not to take for granted. Though not unique, our neighborhood with black, white, and Hispanic families was not the norm in the 1970’s. I didn’t know that of course. I just knew that our house was open to any friend I brought home. We’d spend hours “playing pretend.” Mom made us elaborate birthday cakes and funny hats to celebrate our birthdays. One neighbor had a pool, and that’s where I learned to love the water. Another neighbor would feed us fresh tortillas with butter while we waited for the school bus. I knew we were all different. And all the same.

Dinner time was always filled with laughter and intellectual debates, as far back as I can remember. I still feel sorry for people who come to the Craig house for dinner. I think you have to be raised that way in order to keep up with the conversation. It was with some forethought that I decided to ask my Dad about religion because I knew the answer was going to be long, and once Dad hit professor mode, you may be sitting there playing with the last of the green beans for quite a while.

“What religion are we?” I asked.

“Who wants to know?” replied my Dad.

“Well,” I do. I said.

“We’re WASPS.” I considered this. I had never heard of a WASP. Further explanation was cut short by my brother announcing that he had learned to drink chocolate milk with a straw through his nose at lunch that day.

The unexpectedly brief explanation left me wondering…what am I? It was about this same time, in fourth grade, that we started learning Greek and Roman mythology. I loved it. The wonderful stories about Gods and Goddesses with difficult names caught my imagination. I could imagine living there, in Greece, with a toga and curls in my hair, worshipping the mighty Aphrodite. I believe the teacher purposefully tried to slip by us one little detail that I caught during my own extracurricular reading: People who lived at the time these stories were told believed they were true.

“Well no one alive today believes they are true,” stammered my teacher when I pointed out her omission in front of the class. “So you mean all those people were just wrong?” I asked.  “Yes,” she said.

I couldn’t believe my toga-ed alter-ego could be so easily duped. “So all those people, the people who believed these stories, they’re all in hell now?” Wisely, my teacher told me I should ask my parents that question. I did of course, and that’s when my parents’ reluctant agnosticism became clear.  I found this comforting. I had been really worried about all those Appolonians rotting in hell.

Still, at one point, I decided I should try being a Christian. I wasn’t particularly worried about my soul, mind you, but all the other kids were doing it. So, how is it that you become a Christian? As far as I could tell, all you have to do is believe just like in Peter Pan. If you believe you can fly, and you have some pixie dust, you can fly. 

But can you choose what you believe? Can you will yourself to hear angels? I closed my eyes and concentrated. And I waited for God to speak to me. I got bored after a while and concentrated on trying to get my clothes to pick themselves off of the floor and put themselves in the laundry basket like in Mary Poppins. That didn’t work either. Maybe I just didn’t have any pixie dust. So I went and played Ms. pac-man instead. And then I got in trouble for not cleaning my room.

As I got older, I occasionally attended services with my best friend, Katie, at the Methodist Church. Sometimes, I actually listened. It was just more stories, really, only these were from the Bible rather than Ovid. I would like to tell you I went to church in search of spiritual enlightenment, not just because I had to go if I wanted to sleep over at Katie’s on Saturday nights. Actually, there was one other reason. 

His name was Shawn Andre. He had a beautiful name and a beautiful soul and I loved him. He sang in the choir, and he looked just like George Michael. I went to youth group meetings to catch a glimpse of his red hair and green eyes, and we even danced once at the Halloween Ball. He was a pirate.  I was a bunny rabbit. Sadly, our romance never really made it off the ground. After my freshman year of high school, we moved. I didn’t keep in touch with Shawn, but I heard that towards the end of high school he announced that he was gay, and he no longer felt comfortable attending that church.

High School was a whirlwind of learning to fit in, and I was lucky enough to find places where I did fit in. Church was not one of them. I had learned to see Church as a place where differences were not welcomed, and my ideas and beliefs were different every day. High School was too small a place to explore all the possibilities, so when it finally came time for college, I chose one of the largest Universities in the country.

Here are the most important things I learned in College: (1) If you need change for laundry, put a dollar bill in the coke machine and hit coin return; (2) Olive Garden serves lunch until 4:00, and if you eat plenty of salad and bread sticks, you can take the entrée home for dinner; and (3) Anthropology explains everything. 

I loved Anthropology and quickly abandoned journalism, my intended major. Here was my world view with an entire scientific discipline to back it up. I now had a framework that explained how millions of people can worship different deities and all think they’re right. I learned the term “cultural relativism” which I had always believed in but needed a word for. This means that things that are perfectly acceptable in one culture may not be in another culture, and there are no right or wrong values systems, just cultural conflict. That if you worship Athena, or are divorced, or gay, you are no better or worse than anyone else. I learned that groups of people are different biologically, but they are more the same. That taboos can be explained by environmental and socioeconomic factors. That the story of the resurrection of Jesus is no more or less weird than cargo cults or trance states.

I quickly found a group of friends who would have felt very comfortable at the family dinner table. My social life became a series of debates, intellectual challenges, and new ideas. I was asked, for the first time, to define myself. What did I believe?

Thanks for asking.

I believe the universe is governed by natural laws. 

It’s really that simple. 

I also met my first UU. Christy had actually been raised a UU and I was impressed by her knowledge of world religions. She offered to take me one Sunday, and I really meant to go, but Sunday mornings really didn’t exist for us in college. It took quite a bit to get me out of bed on a Sunday morning.

One semester, though, I took a class in Anthropology of Religion. We spent Sunday mornings all semester attending services at different churches. By far, my favorite of these was the Methodist AME church. I had never felt so welcomed. The service was upbeat and joyous.  Nobody threatened me with hell. The children wandered happily up and down the aisles singing along to the proud gospels. The preacher even introduced me at the end of the service. But at the last second, he couldn’t come up with my last name. So he introduced me as Amy Carter. I was mobbed by hugging. Your father has done so much for our people, they said. I didn’t have the heart to tell them that my father researched the history of radio, but I was pretty sure he’d voted for Carter.

Jason and I joined the UU church in 1999. We went rather nervously to our very first service at DUUF, not sure what to expect. The sermon that day was called, “More on Trees,” and was followed by a heated debate about the best time for planting. They told us to come back even if we didn’t really like the topic of the day, so we did, and we kept going. I was looking for a place that my children could learn about religion—all religions, and a place where I could make friends who were open-minded. I’ve gotten so much more out of being a UU. I’ve learned to be much more tolerant of other people’s beliefs, and I’ve learned that my own beliefs are still growing and changing. 

And now, at 37, here in Mississippi, I am facing new spiritual challenges. I can handle an intellectual debate about the origins of morality. My grasp of evolutionary theory is pretty good, so if you want to discuss Intelligent Design, bring it on. But how do I live my life as part of an invisible minority? When do I stick up for what I believe in? How do I choose my battles? How do I exercise my rights? Is enough that I skip over the Under God part of Pledge of Allegiance?  Or should I be writing angry letters to the paper about how atheists are Americans too? When the topic for the PTO meeting is on child discipline for Christian parents conducted by a local minister at my children’s public school, do I quit the PTO or complain to the same people I’m going to need on my side the next time one of my kids does something crazy? 

And I’ve had some personal conflicts in the last year or so with people I like and admire.  Cultural relativism is all fine and dandy, but when people I love have spiritual beliefs directly in conflict with my own, can I forgive them? Can they forgive me? Can true friendship survive when one believes the other is damned to hell? When one believes the other is misled at best and brainwashed at worst?

And I’m still finding my place in this community, both in Jackson and the world at large.  I believe deeply that this year’s election affects all of us and every voice must be heard. I want to make sure that my children and their friends are free to ask questions about subjects some people may find uncomfortable and free to have unpopular opinions. I’m thinking about my global footprint and my lust for long hot showers and transportation on demand. I’m exploring vegetarianism, knowing the world will be a better place if I choose to consume fewer animal products in a society where meat is optional for good health.  

There are 2.1 billion Christians today, 1.3 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 276 million Buddhists, 23 million Sihks, and 14 million Jews. There is at least one guy who worships Thor. I met him at a really great party in college. I had trouble coming up with a number for atheists, but we rank somewhere below Muslims and above Roman Catholics as far as I can tell.  It would be so terribly conceited of me to stand here and tell you that we’re the ones who’ve got it right. I can only tell you what I believe in my heart, what I’ve discovered on my own spiritual journey. I know I still have a long way to go. Thank God for that.

 

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? ---Douglas Adams