Language is comprised of words…and words have meanings, but the words are only attempts to describe or identify a "something." You’ve all been to a doctor, at least once in your life, and tried to explain why you were there…where it hurt…and how it felt. And you’ve known that frustration of trying to put it into words. To answer the questions: Where does it hurt? Describe the pain?

In a close relationship we may have tried to respond to the question, "How do you feel?" "Or what’s bothering you?" And struggled at times to put into words what we were feeling or what was bothering us. Words can be useful, yet sometimes they escape us.

Sometimes it’s easier to describe ourselves in concrete terms. When asked who are you? Well, I’m a man, I’m married, I’m a husband, a father, a Texan…we say what we do for work?" or what grade we you in? Where we are you from? Some of the things for which we try to use language don’t fit so easily into words. Some of us here today grew up in a specific religious tradition in which we could quickly describe our credentials. The Apostle Paul in the Christian New Testament described his credentials as he stated, that he was circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). In our era and in our area, someone might say: I’m a Baptist, I’m Assembly of God, I’m Church of Christ…Some in our community would say I’m Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. In a traditional church the answer to some questions are simple? Are you a Christian? Yes. Do you believe in God? Yes

Many people come to a UU church and perhaps never had those simple answers or perhaps they have come here because those simple descriptions don’t fit any more. Perhaps, when asked "do you believe in God?" their answer needs to be qualified, "yes, but" or "well, I’m not sure anymore…maybe…I know I don’t believe in God the way I used to believe." Many UU’s are comfortable without having any answers to those questions. OR they are comfortable with some flexibility in describing themselves or their views. Describing themselves perhaps as a "UU—Zen--Christian."

It’s not always easy to put into words why, or where, or how it hurts or feels. It’s not always easy to put into words what our beliefs are or what "truths" sustain us, but at least words are a place to start; a way to begin a conversation.

Those words which we use to describe our physical pain or our emotional distress are important. They may very well lead to a particular response from the doctor in the case of reporting a physical pain or from a loved one in describing how we are feeling. The doctor might suggest a particular treatment or order a medical test to get more information. The loved one might throw their arms around us in an embrace or throw their arms up in the air in disgust. The words we use to describe experiences are important too, including what we might call religious, spiritual, or transcendent experiences.

In the realm of religion and spirituality ‘religious language’ is used. What exactly is "religious language" and why should we reclaim it as the title of my sermon states? As a point of reference, amongst us today are those who were active in church in their lives and those who have had little formal exposure to organized religion, and thus little exposure to religious language, except what has been incorporated into the wider culture. For example, in making the point that a person plays the lottery on a regular basis, the person might say that they play the lottery religiously. Religious language refers to terminology, such as but not limited to: "grace," "mercy," "salvation," or "sin."

I had a friend in college, who would go door-to-door in the dormitories to do evangelism. After the initial introduction, he would next ask the person what he thought "sin" was. I was with him on some of these occasions. It was interesting to hear the various responses to the question about "sin." In responding to the question about "sin," some people responded with "not doing your best" or "hurting someone else." The answer that I would have given back then was something like "sin is falling short of the will of God." That answer presupposed a belief in God and presupposed that there is such a thing called "God’s will," and that this "will" is clear. Looking back from my vantage point now, I can see how my quick and easy answer might have befuddled someone without such certainty in their religious life.

I remember as a much-younger person, seeing a poster advertising "Wednesday night Vespers." And I wondered what a "vesper’ was. And what does the singular form…"vesper" mean? Is "vesper" a verb or a noun? Can one be "vespered"? ….. I did force myself to look in a dictionary for the definition, which defines "vespers" as "any religious service held in the late afternoon or evening." Religious language, as is the case with any discipline-specific language, can serve as a barrier to understanding rather than removing barriers to understanding. It can exclude rather than include.

My academic discipline is psychology and counseling. If I refer to someone as an anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive, some people might not know what that means. Every discipline has its jargon. I experienced this recently when my department at the university moved into new office space. I had a lot of involvement in planning the remodeling of this space. On many occasions, I marveled at the conversations between the electricians as they were discussing the type of wiring, pipes that the wiring goes in, and other assorted electrician terms. I wish I had been able to record it, since I couldn’t begin to repeat those terms and phrases. I didn’t really feel the need to understand it though. My job was to ask: "can you put a light fixture and an electrical outlet up about there?" And then the electricians would use electrician language to talk to each other about how they could carry out my request. And then they would turn to me, and say, "yeah, we can do that."

It may not be that important for a person to be able to understand what electricians are talking about unless that person wants to participate in-depth in those conversations. If a person wants to be in the conversation and to contribute meaningfully or to at least be able to follow the conversation, then a common language needs to be used. There is a common language in religious circles though this can still be confusing because sometimes there are common concepts, though the words may be different, and sometimes the words are the same, but the definitions are different. The particular religious language of a faith-group (such as Christianity or Judaism) will take the form of a creed, which is what people pledge to believe.

The modern-day Unitarian Universalist church has not, as a group, adopted a creed. For instance, a person can be a UU and believe in god or not believe in god, and still be a "card-carrying" UU. Thus, this church does accept and promote the right of individuals to accept and to live by the creeds of other religious faiths, if they so choose. In the monotheistic religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity which claim one God, the terms "sin," redemption, atonement, sacrifice are in common usage.

If we as a religious group want to be able to participate in conversations with the other churches and religious organizations, it would be helpful to be able to use religious language. It helps to know what is meant by the term salvation, sin, redemption. But do we have to accept the definitions imposed by other faith communities? No, we don’t. Of recent local interest and the topic of our adult forum before the service today, is the practice of "prayer." What is "prayer?" Is the term meaningful or useful to us collectively or as individuals? This must ultimately be an individually answered question. Some persons here today may find the term prayer to be both useful and meaningful, but the person sitting next them might not. Another person might find the term "meditation" to be more useful, or might find neither term of use to them. Being a non-creedal faith, Unitarian Universalism does not require that one pray, meditate, nor practice either. That freedom of choice is left to the individual.

Some folks come to a UU church as newcomers to an organized religious faith. If we have come-out of other faith traditions, we may have brought with us a vocabulary from that faith: "God" means this…" "Sin means this…" Having been exposed to rigid meanings of those terms may have been so unpleasant that a person might reject those terms completely. Perhaps…no longer believing that God is a grandfatherly bearded man on a throne with powers like Santa Claus, an individual may decide they have no use for the term "God." Having been hammered by the term "sin" and the phrases "sins of omission" and "sins of commission," I might find that the term "sin" has little use for me. By the way, a "sin of omission" is something that a person should have done, but didn’t do. A "sin of commission" is something that a person did, but shouldn’t have done. Dancing, for instance, might be a sin of commission, to a Free-will Baptist. Not-dancing, to a Shaker, would probably be a sin of omission. The Elder in a Shaker Community, might say "Brother, thou hast not been dancing lately. Is something the matter?" Whereas the Free-Will Baptist Deacon might say, "Young man, I heard that you went dancin’ on Friday night." Woe unto thee!

Our UU President Bill Sinkford has been in the news lately, as stating that we as UU’s ought to consider reclaiming a language of reverence. He borrows this phrase from UU Seminary Professor David Bumbaugh who describes himself as a religious humanist. In addressing the issue of religious language, Bumbaugh states that "We have manned the ramparts of reason and are prepared to defend the citadel of the mind". By this he means that as UU’s we have made the point, at least to ourselves, that reason and science have a place at the table of faith and religion. "But" he says "in the process . . . we have lost . . . the ability to speak of that which is sacred, holy, of ultimate importance to us, the language which would allow us to enter into critical dialogue with the religious community."

President Sinkford’s concern is that our Seven Principles, which are not a creed, but a statement of how we endeavor to live in this world, don’t include religious language. I think he is showing leadership in challenging us to take up this issue, study it, discuss it, and make decisions accordingly. We don’t have to let others define "sin" or salvation, or heaven or hell for us. We can choose to reject those terms outright, however, I think that we can participate in conversations in the wider religious community, if we can use terms such as salvation and hell, mercy, and grace, and god. Some in our community and many other communities as well, want to so narrowly define the word "prayer" that to be a legitimate prayer it would have to conclude with "in Jesus name." I know devout Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and Humanists who I would describe as holy, good, persons who manage to live their lives quite well without concluding their prayers with the phrase "in Jesus name." We don’t have to let others take the word away from us. I think there is benefit to us as individuals and as a faith community to reclaim religious language, and that in doing so our faith and our religious practices will be self-chosen, and thus we will be better able to participate in the religious conversations that go on in our community. I think that our UU President is onto something very important. Whether the outcome is that more religious language gets included in our Seven Principles is not as important to me as the process, the process of "finding language to capture our individual searches for truth and meaning".

This process of finding language doesn’t have to become a dichotomy between humanism and theism, or humanism and traditional religious language: As Bumbaugh states: "Humanism . . . gave us a doctrine of incarnation which suggests not that the holy became human in one place at one time to convey a special message to a single chosen people, but that the universe itself is continually incarnating itself in microbes and maples, in hummingbirds and human beings, constantly inviting us to tease out the revelation contained in stars and atoms and every living thing." Incarnation is religious language and in Christianity traditionally refers to the idea of God becoming a real tangible thing in the form of Jesus." But "incarnation" is not limited to that meaning, to restate Bumbaugh: "the universe itself is continually incarnating itself in microbes and maples, in hummingbirds and human beings, constantly inviting us to tease out the revelation contained in stars and atoms and every living thing."

This is truly religious language. As Bumbaugh says, it "whispers of a larger meaning to our existence," and carries with it implications for how we should live. In our search for truth, meaning, and purpose, we can each be open to finding language to describe our experience, even if it is traditional religious language; and we can be open to re-defining traditional terms to fit our religious journey and our spiritual experiences. In doing so, I think we’ll be the better for it as individuals and be able to have a more positive influence in the wider-community.