Like some of you, I was taught by my parents that religion and politics don’t mix. Yet, any reading of U.S. history shows that these two have been mixing it up in our nation long before colonial America – often by people we admire the most. So it should come as no shock to learn: “A new poll from
the Pew Research Center tells us, predictably enough, that Americans generally like their presidents to be “religious,” and that about half (more Republicans than Democrats) want someone who shares their religious beliefs. Indeed, people who rated a candidate as “religious” were also likely to say that person would be a good president. Sounds clear enough—but is it?” (Religion Dispatches)
The news on Monday night presented a story that confirmed the Pew findings. The story was about the role 
churches were playing in voter turnout for the Presidential primary. They flashed a shot of one church’s lawn display that read: “On February 1, Vote Biblically.” Sounds clear, right? No, not really. “What does that mean?” I asked myself. Without much thought I named six conflicting citations that fit with “Vote Biblically” and if I wanted to be sarcastic/cynical I could have named another six. Let’s just say that the church’s declaration left room for a lot of interpretation (which is not what the congregation’s leadership intended).
This was another reminder for me of just how lose religious language can get and the challenges it poses, especially in a public forum. We speak words from the religious/theological/spiritual lexicon assuming there’s a common or universal understanding and rarely take the time to find out if others understand what we’ve said. You see, I – as you might have figured out – have no issue with using religious language. But then, I enjoy sharing and learning with others what we mean when we talk religiously. For example, last Sunday I had the opportunity to meet with UUCA newcomers during our Middle Hour. Every Sunday there’s a class called “Inquirers” and each 
session presents material about UU and UUCA. The topic I facilitated was about Ministry. I began the session by asking: “What faith communities shaped your idea of ministry?” It was fascinating and a gift to listen as people shared their backgrounds; it was a reminder to me of how theologically diverse UUCA is.
But what struck me most about this diverse gathering was their use of religious language, often as symbol; behind the spoken words was a hope that others would understand what their words meant (the kind of opaqueness that can come with symbols). I heard mention of God, church, spiritual, priest, liturgy, worship and more. And though there was a consensus in the group that their former ways of faith were no longer working, it sounded as though they couldn’t find replacement words that were descriptive of their journey, questions, intensity and meaning.
I don’t think we will live to see a day when religious language is removed from daily use. It’s here to stay. But the “spiritual and not religious” – a story 
that I believe has been over-reported – are really both/and. Like those in the class I facilitated, our congregations are filled with the “spiritual and religious.” And this is good! This is how an evolving and deepening way of faith progresses.
In spite of the religious declarations, admonishments and bromides that come from some candidates and their supporters, in spite of the shaping authority some religious leaders believe they hold, in spite of the mix of religion and politics in everyday life, we Unitarian Universalists straddle a promising place. I hope you find depth, comfort and exhilaration in sharing our promise.
Take care and see you soon,
Fred
