Addressing Poverty, Privilege, and Faith from a Unitarian Universalist Perspective

My final paper for Christian Ethics.

            I am troubled over the issue of privilege and poverty. As someone who has come from a privileged background, I suffer from the common liberal guilt. I was raised to not get stuck in these situations but to take action and fix it. So I have gone on an academic quest to try to reconcile this situation. I came to seminary to find ways to create the Kingdom of God here on earth, not dissimilar to when Rauschenbusch says, “When our moral actions are consciously related to the Kingdom of God they gain religious quality.”[1]

            I have experienced both ends of the economic spectrum, which gives me unique perspective and credibility with both groups. However this is also problematic in that sometimes I forget that I chose my lifestyle(s) and sometimes I make assumptions that do not necessarily apply to those who were not able to choose their circumstances. Additionally, born into a life of privilege, I had access to an education and connections that helped me survive in a way that others do not have.

There are some that believe that we should sell our possessions and become homeless ourselves; Jesus himself calls for us to sell our possessions and follow him (Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 18:22; Mt 19:21) but I know that money equates to power and the ability to be heard within society. Unlike Chuck Collins, the great-grandson of Oscar Mayer and a Unitarian Universalist who gave away the entirety of his birthright when he was 26 years old, I don’t believe that we have to give up everything in order to help the situation.[2] Mainly, I believe in playing fair and want to help others realize that it is possible to share without loss, that generosity builds abundance. I, like most Unitarian Universalists, know “that, regardless of our circumstances at birth, with help and effort most of us are capable of making a positive difference in our own lives and the life of our times.”[3]

As a Unitarian Universalist, I belong to a denomination that holds social justice as one of our highest principles. How far do I go to combat poverty? How do I know I have done all that I can do? How does my faith call me to act in this situation?

        

Gustafson touches on my weakness, “Not being well versed in economics, I can only indicate some hunches in this area; but it does not take much reading to find out that there are differences of opinion about what constitutes a good economics system.”[4] My question is both an ethical one and an economic one; I feel confident in my ability to speak to the ethical nature of it but am lacking in the area of economics. “Yet even at the level of economic policy it is not possible to say that good economics is good ethics, since the reference of the word good in each case is different.”[5]

Unitarian Universalists have the reputation of being the Pollyannas of the religious world, “Too much mercy can squeeze out justice; and too much attention to our better nature can blind us to the awesome human capacity for evil.”[6] Poverty typically has multivalent causes and as Trimiew points out, “What is important to note is the fact that natural evil is not the same as human evil. Oppression as we have described it is not a form of natural evil. Invariably, human agency and human action that are artificial and social, rather than natural are associated with it.”[7] It is important to remember to address both sources of inequality, poverty, and even privilege while searching for a solution to this complex issue.

It seems to me that the middle way is the most logical way to address this issue. I once heard someone proclaim that if they were driving along and saw someone hitchhiking, that they would stop and give their car to the hitchhiker; but it seems to me that does not solve the problem—it only leaves a different person without proper transportation. Instead, I long to create a new way to balance this challenging situation; even if I am uncertain what that will look like exactly.

I am Unitarian Universalist and we have a long-standing tradition of social justice. It is interwoven throughout our Seven Principles of Faith.[8] We live with “the understanding that the embrace of God is meant for all humanity… Early Universalism emphasized that there was a moral community of all people in the Godhead… It is not our individual acts that will save us but our connection with that larger moral force which unites the universe.”[9] I believe that Ottati would agree that this would be where our classical tradition comes in— it gives the UU community its distinctive stance. As Ottati states, “To stand in a living tradition, then, is to participate in a dynamic process of interpretation— one that moves between received heritage and the realities and challenges of the present world in order to express a continuing and vital orientation or identity.”[10] In the Preface to our hymnal Singing the Living Tradition, the editors drive home how Unitarian Universalists truly ground themselves in a living tradition, “We remember the phrase of our predecessors: ‘Religion is a present reality; it is also an inheritance.’ Or to use a more current expression, a living faith must have both roots and wings.”[11] This is where the source of my faith comes from.

To stand in a living tradition is to participate in a community that is consciously informed by its common memory, actively engaged in the realities of the present, vitally concerned about its future direction, and genuinely responsive to personally creative acts of appropriation. It is to acknowledge that the identities of individuals and groups are formed in creative responses to past, present, and future. In short, it is to recognize that a historical tradition, although indispensible, is not an exclusive source for a community’s present identity. Vital contributions are made by other resources as well.[12]

Farley, citing Gustafson, points out, “experience is prior to other sources for Christian ethics at both the beginning and the end of moral discernment. It is chronologically and psychologically prior because it is what needs to be interpreted with the help of other sources. And, in the end, it constitutes the final test of the accuracy and adequacy of the interpretation achieved.”[13] As a Unitarian Universalist, I am called to an active faith that is questioned, interpreted, and acted out. “We are a liberal church community which has not only dared to preach freedom but to live in freedom as well, which has not only prophesied a more just day to come but has dared to live prophetically right now.”[14] Farley says, “The moral authority of any source is contingent on our recognition of the “truth” it offers and the “justice” of its aims. No source has real and living authority in relation to our moral attitudes and choices unless it can elicit from us a responding ‘recognition.’”[15] You can clearly see how we take our received heritage (our Principles) but continue to reinvigorate it, to churn it (via continued conversation and activism) insuring that it is still vital and relevant.

“Traditions by their nature require change, since there can be no tradition without interpretation. And interpretation is the constant adjustment that is required if the current community is to stay in continuity with tradition.”[16] “For such thinkers, traditions are ongoing conversations or arguments subject to dramatic reversal and, at times, revolutionary innovation. Tradition, for them, far from being opposed to critical reason, is its necessary embodiment.”[17]

Unitarian Universalists have a long-standing history of “adopting the methods of the German higher criticism of the Bible [and] rational investigation of the Bible, insisting that the scriptures be read in their historical context.”[18] Hauerwas illustrates, “The formation of texts as well as the canon required the courage of a community to constantly remember and reinterpret its past. Such remembering and reinterpretation is a political task, for without a tradition there can be no community.”[19] He then continues on, “For the narrative requires a corresponding community who are capable of remembering and for whom active reinterpreting remains the key to continuing a distinctive way of life.”[20]

This situation is not peculiar to the Christian community, for the very meaning of authority is community dependent. Though authority is often confused with power or coercion, it draws its life from community in a quite different manner. Like power, authority is directive; unlike power, however, it takes its rationale not from the deficiencies of community but from the intrinsic demands of a common life. The meaning of authority must be grounded in a community's self-understanding, which is embodied in its habits, customs, laws, and traditions; for this embodiment constitutes the community's pledge to provide the means for an individual more nearly to approach the truth.[21]

As a Unitarian Universalist, our Fourth Principle is the free and responsible search for truth and meaning. In other words- we are called to question everything and make certain that it works for our own theology. Which means that a divine command ethic does not speak to me. Similar to when the Buddha says, “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” However, when Mouw states, “we in turn receive divine guidance as persons who are in the process of internalizing the spirit of Jesus, as temples of the divine Comforter. The intimacy here between God and ourselves is, to be sure, not one of metaphysical merger; rather it is an interpersonal intimacy—not a unity of undifferentiated being but as increasing merger of purposes in the context of covenantal mutuality.”[22] To me, this is the idea of “Namaste” which is frequently translated as: I honor the place in you in which the entire universe dwells. I honor the place in you, which is of love, of truth, of light, and of peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are one. Rauschenbusch puts it another way, “To love men, then, is an avenue to the living experience of God.”[23] Or as 1 John says it, “because as he is, so are we in this world” (4:17). As a Unitarian Universalist, I am called to act out of social justice and to create God’s love, here on earth.[24]

Hauerwas argues against structuralism, which calls for an established framework of rules and principles. Both Aristotle and Aquinas saw virtue as the ongoing way a person behaved, so that acting ethically becomes a habit. Robin Lovin speaks of the balance of justice in choices. He claims a just person will know, via experience, how to balance different types of goods, between those of the self and those of the other.  In other words, virtue ethics is when the moral character is the guiding principle.

I believe that Lovin’s interpretation of virtue ethics (especially where he speaks to the narrative) helps in the approach to my question. When he says, “the balance between self and others has to be struck in each particular case; but unless those choices add up to a coherent plan of life for the person who is making them, any good that person may do is unlikely to continue for very long.”[25] Just as Aristotle calls for us to develop a pattern of behavior that becomes so engrained that it becomes second nature, I work to make conscious decisions to help create a more just society.  Chuck Collins states, “You can’t be too rigid or ideological.”^[26] Just as Collins walks the middle way, I attempt to use him as a model of how to better serve humanity. My moral question is about striking a balance- not selling off our possessions and also becoming homeless, nor ignoring the problem, but finding the middle ground where we can live in community and help each other.

The Kingdom of God, at every stage of human development, tends toward a social order which will best guarantee to all personalities their freest and highest development. This involves the redemption of social life from the cramping influence of religious bigotry, from the repression of self-assertion in the relation of upper and lower classes, and from all forms of slavery in which human beings are treated as mere means to serve the ends of others… We can see its advance wherever the free will of love supersedes the use of force and legal coercion as a regulative of social order… The highest expression of love is the free surrender of what is truly our own, life, property, and rights. A much lower but perhaps more decisive expression of love is the surrender of any opportunity to exploit men…. The reign of love tends toward the progressive unity of mankind, but with the maintenance of individual liberty…[27]

The process of social redemption is divinely inspired because the basileia, which can be understood as a call to action, promise of accompaniment, or an energizing spirit.

“In short, responsible selves have an obligation to participate in the struggle for the fulfillment of basic human needs, whether the threat to the fulfillment of those needs comes from a natural or a human source, and they need not fear claiming that their struggle harmonizes with providence, even if it cannot be represented, without qualifications, as the specific intention of God.”[28] Francis Greenwood Peabody, “an influential social gospel pioneer”[29] and Harvard professor, “sought change within existing structures, saying that much could be accomplished through service… Peabody’s idea of service was an appeal to the rich and controlling classes to be more responsible in their stewardship of the nation’s wealth.”[30] I believe that Hauerwas would agree, “our convictions are in themselves a morality. We do not first believe certain things about God, Jesus, and the church, and subsequently derive ethical implications from these beliefs. Rather our convictions embody our morality; our beliefs are our actions… our moral life is the process in which our convictions form our character to be truthful.”[31]

“You feel that you have heard or read a very clever and entertaining paper, embodying a good deal of clear and deep thought, and you ask, ‘What shall I do?’ and pause for a reply, and pause in vain.”[32] I fear that is the downfall of this paper—I have researched and explored the methodologies, I have written a clever and coherent paper that does not come up with a cogent answer to my question. However, as Peabody points out that, “Jesus had not offered a systematic plan… only a case-by-case demonstration.”[33] Hauerwas also speaks to my insecurity, “This lurking suspicion that we really have no firm grounds for our beliefs makes us all the more unwilling to expose what we think to critical scrutiny.”[34]

Yet, here I am exposing my Pollyannaish ideas, feeling brave about it and then I read an article in The Huffington Post, which was recently reprinted from Scientific American,

Given the growing income inequality in the United States, the relationship between wealth and compassion has important implications. Those who hold most of the power in this country, political and otherwise, tend to come from privileged backgrounds. If social class influences how much we care about others, then the most powerful among us may be the least likely to make decisions that help the needy and the poor. They may also be the most likely to engage in unethical behavior.[35]

It’s reading paragraphs like this one that I wonder why I fight this battle. But my faith calls me to continue to be a positive role model. “In a pluralist social movement, different forms of spirituality will develop. These spiritualities will nourish and sustain a social movement, and provide a deeper moral basis and direction for the movement.”[36]

An important thing to keep in mind is the issue of dignity. Laura Stivers and Boulton et al remind us that just giving handouts does not restore lost dignity.[37] This is not dissimilar for the Unitarian Universalist “Communitarian societies [who] faced a dilemma. If they imposed strict rules of communal property, they risked destroying the features of individuality and private gain that some members sought to retain. If they allowed for more individuality and private gain, they risked breaking the cohesive bond that fulfilled the communitarian purposes of the society as a whole.”[38] It is a tricky balance to stike.

While I do not consider myself a teleologist, I learned a lot from Walter Rauschenbusch and his interactions with Norman Rockefeller. Rauschenbusch, theologically, called for society to give everything to the poor but he was still able to navigate a relationship with Rockefeller and cultivate him as a benefactor for his church.

Rauschenbusch’s argument came to typify a tendency of several social gospel leaders who cast divine judgment upon the wealthy power brokers of American capitalism… Although his writings placed the upper class and wealthy under judgment, in the face of social-economic inequalities, Rauschenbusch was extremely diplomatic in his dealings with the prosperous… he hoped to stir the consciences of the wealthy, believing that the benevolence of the rich was vital in the social regeneration of society. [39]

Of course, Rauschenbusch had help navigating these tricky waters: his wife Pauline was his best publicist, creating social networks on his behalf and that of their family.[40]

Historically, Universalists believed, “For if there is one God (truth or reality) for all, and if we all have equal access to this, regardless of the specifics of our respective faiths, the only thing that differentiates one person’s righteousness from that of another is reflected in his or her deeds.”[41] This brings up Niebuhr’s point of action vs non-action.[42] Is it more responsible to take action or more responsible to not take action? As Niebhur points out not taking action, in itself, is an issue of responsibility. But whatever you decide, Niebuhr emphasizes that you must stand by the consequences of your action (or non-action, whichever the case may be). Stivers points out, “Such a process will always be a ‘perpetually unfinished task.’ Therefore, courage, vigilance, and deep spiritual resources will be necessary to uphold such an approach.”[43] As a Unitarian Universalist and as an academic, I will continue to strike forth and clear a path as we as a society learn to navigate the issues of social inequality, privilege, and poverty. May it be so.

---

[1] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (New York: Macmillan Company, 1917), 140.

[2] Kimberly French, “From Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).

[3] John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church, A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 45.

[4] James M. Gustafson, “The Relationship of Empirical Science to Moral Thought,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 168.

[5] James M. Gustafson, “The Relationship of Empirical Science to Moral Thought,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 169.

[6] John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church, A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 43.

[7] Darryl M. Trimiew, The Voices of the Silenced: The Responsible Self  in a Marginalized Community (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993), 84.

[8] Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, “Our Unitarian Universalist Principles,” Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.  https://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/index.shtml (accessed March 6, 2012).

[9] Mark W. Harris, Elite: Uncovering Classism in Unitarian Universalist History (Boston: Skinner House Books, 2011), 56.

[10] Douglas F. Ottati, “What it Means to Stand in a Living Tradition,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 82.

[11] Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Singing the Living Tradition (Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1993), vii.

[12] Douglas F. Ottati, “What it Means to Stand in a Living Tradition,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 86.

[13] Margaret A. Farley, “The Role of Experience in Moral Discernment,” in Christian Ethics: Problems and Prospects, ed. Lisa Sowle Cahill and James F Childress (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1996),137.

[14] John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church, A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 41.

[15] Margaret A. Farley, “The Role of Experience in Moral Discernment,” in Christian Ethics: Problems and Prospects, ed. Lisa Sowle Cahill and James F Childress (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1996), 147.

[16] Stanley A. Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 61.

[17] Jeffrey Stout, “Tradition in Ethics,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 62.

[18] Kathleen R. Parker, Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism (Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007), 31.

[19] Stanley A. Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 53.

[20] Stanley A. Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 54.

[21] Stanley A. Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 60.

[22] Richard J. Mouw, The God Who Commands (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 19.

[23] Christopher H. Evans, The Kingdom is Always but Coming: a Life of Walter Rauschenbusch (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 242.

[24] Please take note that this is my individual interpretation. Most UUs agree on social justice but not all agree on relevance/presence of a God.

[25] Robin W. Lovin, Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 74.

[26] Kimberly French, “From Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under last section, http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).

[27] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel (New York: Macmillan Company, 1917), 142-3.

[28] Darryl M. Trimiew, The Voices of the Silenced: The Responsible Self  in a Marginalized Community (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993), 85.

[29] Kathleen R. Parker, Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism (Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007), 161.

[30] Kathleen R. Parker, Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism (Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007), 163.

[31] Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 16.

[32] John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church, A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 46.

[33] Kathleen R. Parker, Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism (Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007), 162.

[34] Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 16.3

[35] Daisy Grewal, “How Wealth Reduces Compassion: As Riches Grow, Empathy for Others Seems to Decline,” Scientific American, April 10, 2012, under “Rich People Have Less Compassion, Psychology Research Suggests,” The Huffington Post, April 11, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/rich-people-compassion-mean-money_n_1416091.html (accessed April 12, 2012).

[36] Laura Stivers, Disrupting Homelessness: Alternative Christian Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 18.

[37] Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey, eds. From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 447. and Laura Stivers, Disrupting Homelessness: Alternative Christian Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 7.

[38] Kathleen R. Parker, Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism (Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007), 75.

[39]Christopher H. Evans, The Kingdom is Always but Coming: a Life of Walter Rauschenbusch (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 242.

[40] Christopher H. Evans, The Kingdom is Always but Coming: a Life of Walter Rauschenbusch (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 137.

[41] John A. Buehrens and Forrest Church, A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 43

[42] H. Richard Niebhur, “The Meaning of Responsibility,” in From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics, eds. Wayne G. Boulton, Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994), 202.

[43] Laura Stivers, Disrupting Homelessness: Alternative Christian Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 19.

------------------------- Bibliography ---------------------------------

Boulton, Wayne G.. Thomas D. Kennedy, and Allen Verhey, eds. From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1994.

Buehrens, John A., and Forrest Church. A Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998.

Evans, Christopher H. The Kingdom is Always but Coming: a Life of Walter Rauschenbusch. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010.

Farley, Margaret A. “The Role of Experience in Moral Discernment.” In Christian Ethics: Problems and Prospects. edited by Lisa Sowle Cahill and James F Childress, 134-51. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1996.

French, Kimberly. “From Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under last section, http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).

Grewal, Daisy. “How Wealth Reduces Compassion: As Riches Grow, Empathy for Others Seems to Decline,” Scientific American, April 10, 2012, under “Rich People Have Less Compassion, Psychology Research Suggests,” The Huffington Post, April 11, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/rich-people-compassion-mean-money_n_1416091.html (accessed April 12, 2012).

Harris, Mark W. Elite: Uncovering Classism in Unitarian Universalist History. Boston: Skinner House Books, 2011.

Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

Lovin, Robin W. Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Mouw, Richard J. The God Who Commands. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990.

Parker, Kathleen R. Sacred Service in Civic Space: Three Hundred Years of Community Ministry in Unitarian Universalism. Chicago: Meadville Lombard Press, 2007.

Rauschenbusch, Walter. A Theology for the Social Gospel. New York: Macmillan Company, 1917.

Sider, Ronald J. Just Generosity: A New Vision for Overcoming Poverty in America. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Stackhouse, Max L. “Rauschenbusch Today: The Legacy of a Loving Prophet,” Christian Century, January 25, 1989, under http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=803 [accessed April 17, 2012].

Stivers, Laura. Disrupting Homelessness: Alternative Christian Approaches. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.

Trimiew, Darryl M. The Voices of the Silenced: The Responsible Self in a Marginalized Community. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993.

Trudeau, Richard. Universalism 101 God is Love: An Introduction for Leaders of Unitarian Universalist Congregations. [SP] 2009.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Singing the Living Tradition. Boston: Unitarian Universalist Association, 1993.

Woo, William F. “Fools in Faith: Taking Religion to the Streets,” UU World, Sep/Oct 2001, http://www.uuworld.org/2001/04/feature1.html (accessed March 6, 2012).