In order to get a concrete sense of how Unitarian Universalists interested in Buddhism (and Buddhists interested in Unitarian Universalism) are negotiating the similarities and differences between the two religious traditions, I studied Rev. James Ford and members of the Boundless Way Zen community that Ford leads. Rev. Ford is in a relatively unique position, as he operates as both a Zen teacher and a Unitarian Universalist minister. Ford is optimistic about people’s involvements with multiple religions, referring to these explorations as "the great hyphen that enlivens the contemporary liberal religious way." One thing that impressed me during my research was that Ford and other participants in Boundless Way Zen were able to respect the essence of both Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism while being integrating elements of both into their religious lives.

Rev. Ford himself was raised as a "fundamentalist Baptist" but in his adult life studied Soto Zen with Jiyu Kennett, Sufism, Soto Zen from John Tarrant, and Unitarian Universalism. Ford was given leadership status in all of these traditions. Rev. Ford is currently the parish minister at the First Unitarian Society in Newton (FUSN), in Massachusetts, and also runs a Zen community called Boundless Way Zen. The Henry Thoreau Sangha is one of the two sanghas that comprise Boundless Way Zen, a community where Ford is Head Teacher. Those involved with the Henry Thoreau Sangha are, by the sangha’s own account, mostly Unitarian Universalists.

Ford’s joint leadership role illuminates some of the compatibilities between Zen and Unitarian Universalism. A 2001 article by John Dart in The Christian Century focuses on Unitarian Universalism’s compatibility with other religious outlooks and its tendency to draw followers from other religious traditions. Dart describes the Faith Communities Today study which showed that when allowed to choose multiple religious affiliations (in addition to Unitarian Universalism), approximately 25% of Unitarian Universalists choose Buddhism as a religious affiliation. Dart also references a very similar study by John Casebolt, in which Unitarian Universalists were given the opportunity to select multiple religious affiliations. In this case, 16.5% of UU’s chose Buddhism.

However, this is in contrast to the survey done by the Unitarian Universalist Association that is also cited in Dart’s article. Dart notes that the UUA survey only allowed Unitarian Universalists to express one other religious affiliation or interest. In this case, less than 9.5% of respondents (the exact percent is unclear), chose Buddhism. These studies may indicate that while a relatively small percent of UU’s choose Buddhism as their second-most-important religious identity, a much larger percentage consider themselves affiliated with or interested in Buddhism in some way. These surveys may be indicative of a larger trend within Unitarian Universalism where multiple religious identities are common. A 2001 Boston Magazine article by Michael Blanding reported that "Almost 90 percent of UU members have come from other religions." This may mean that even Unitarian Universalists not interested in Buddhism are welcoming of those that are because integrating two or more religious traditions may be a familiar experience for many Unitarian Universalists.

Ford’s perspective is that the interchange between Zen and Unitarian Universalism is a "two-way street." He sees both practical and theological reasons why Unitarianism interests Buddhists and vice-versa. In his This Very Moment: A Brief Introduction to Buddhism and Zen for Unitarian Universalists, Ford discusses the social conscience that is integral to Unitarian Universalism and may interest Buddhists who are drawn to Unitarian Universalism. The issues that Ford highlights as relevant to both Buddhists and Unitarian Universalists include women’s rights, nature preservation, and racial equality. In his interview with Ken Arnold, Ford references some similarities between the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Principles and Purposes and the Buddhist outlook. Ford says: "As a Buddhist, I see these two, the first and the seventh principles—the inherent worth and dignity of individuals and the interdependent web—as sufficient expression of Buddhist insight."

The two principles that Ford picked out (the sanctity of each human being and the network in which we all co-exist) were central themes throughout the research of this paper. Again and again, issues of individual independence were juxtaposed with issues of community, authority and tradition. Although these concepts are very relevant to the world outside the sangha, I found that issues of individual and community were also frequently raised with regard to the structure of Buddhist practice itself.

Boundless Way Zen describes those involved with the Henry Thoreau Sangha as "relatively highly socially engaged and politically active." Ford argues against the situation in which "Buddhism becomes a nostrum for improving self-esteem or a tennis game or getting an edge in business or war." Ford’s depiction of Buddhism is different from, for instance the Soka Gakkai’s emphasis in the 1960s on self-improvement. But despite the de-emphasis on personal achievements, Ford’s definition of "liberal Buddhism" does not necessarily require that Buddhists act outside their own community. Ford’s article entitled "Liberal Buddhism" focuses primarily on the need for women’s empowerment and gay rights within the Zen community.

One of the most interesting things about interviewing Ford and his students was hearing how they conceptualize their own relationship to Unitarian Universalism even as they practice Buddhism. Ford himself is ordained in the Unitarian Universalist tradition. He explains, "I have a dual identity…which is not always comfortable." However, it seemed to me that Ford claims both traditions in a very elegant way.

It is clear in my interview with him that Unitarian Universalism is a deep part of his spiritual identity. In our interview Ford was firm that he claims Unitarian Universalism as part of his own religious identity. When we discussed his teaching Unitarian Universalists, Ford reminded me, "I’m not accommodating UUs, I am a UU."

Ford sees Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism in synthesis, noting that there is "no theological conflict."

The stories from Boundless Way Zen practitioners of how they became involved with Unitarian Universalism as well as Buddhism demonstrate the importance of both practicality and the intangible spirit in religious identity. Ford’s student Doug Bates commented, "I’m that very odd person who was Buddhist first and became UU."

Bates’ story leans toward the practical view of Unitarian Universalism providing a family-friendly community for Buddhist practitioners. He was particularly drawn to FUSN because it provided a Religious Education program for his spouse’s child. Ford himself comments on the family-friendly appeal of Unitarian Universalism: "There used to be a joke that a Unitarian is an atheist with kids. I’m a Buddhist with kids."

Bates identifies "first and foremost [as] Buddhist—no question." He seemed at first to oversimplify Unitarian Universalism, calling it "ultra-lite Christianity." However, as our conversation continued it was clear that Bates had a distinct understanding of Unitarian Universalism and what it means to him, even though he does not identify as Unitarian Universalist. Through the lens of comparing Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism (which Bates sees as very harmonious), Bates shed light on what elements were important in both.

One of the major themes that emerged was individualism. Bates remarked: "both religions emphasize ‘do it for yourself.’" He noted Unitarian Universalism’s "history of independent thinking," while describing Buddhism as a "heretical independent thinking sect." The emphasis on self-development was a theme throughout my study of Zen Buddhism, so it is not surprising that Bates picked up on this theme in Zen and in Unitarian Universalism. Bates also noted of Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism: "neither of them are particularly proselytizing religions." Coercion of outsiders by either religion would likely be seen as antithetical to the respect for individual conscience that is important to some adherents to Zen and/or Unitarian Universalism.

The theme of individualism also came out in my interview with Arlene Duelfer. Arlene has been involved with the First Unitarian Society in Newton since the early 1990s. Duelfer was attracted to FUSN in large part for its interest in political activism and because she felt at home with the other people there. She was familiar with FUSN even before the 19900s, but decided to become more involved after splitting with her long-time partner. She says, "I was going to try everything…so I went back to the Unitarian church."

When Ford began leading sitting at FUSN in 2001, Duelfer saw an opportunity to bolster her personal spiritual life. She noticed that when others around her faced personal crises, "if they have a strong faith, they seem to do better." She felt that the Sunday worships at FUSN were not sufficient for her spiritual growth.

I thought this observation was particularly compelling in light of Ford’s own assertion that Buddhist practices are a major addition to Unitarian Universalist communities. Ford commented, "Buddhism offers Unitarian Universalism the opportunity to go beyond thinking about religion and spirituality to experience the sacred with our blood and bones and marrow."

Duelfer’s interpretation of Buddhism was very oriented towards independence in some ways. She characterized what she has learned from Buddhism as "if something doesn’t fit for you, you discount it." She emphasized that Buddhism "has to fit for you." At the same time, Duelfer is looking outward with the help of her Buddhist practice. She felt that Buddhism helps her be a "caregiver" for her mother.

The idea of personal agency in the creation and interpretation of Buddhist practice was also a prominent theme in my discussion with Duelfer’s partner, Sue Allen. She also joined Unitarian Universalism in large part because of its focus on justice. Allen is particularly interested in koan practice, which is a significant part of Ford’s training and teaching. In interpreting koans, Allen said, "you’re answering them totally based on your own experience…very individualistic." She identified primarily as a Unitarian Universalist, but considered her Buddhist practice integral to her religious life.

One of the interesting points that Allen touched on is the power dynamic between teacher and students. Although she has worked with Ford on koan study for approximately one and a half years, she is still sorting out her opinions on the hierarchy of Zen practice. Allen noted of her introduction to Buddhist practice: "I was not used to bowing—and bowing to a statue." This feeling seems to have carried over into her relationship with Ford. She says that "a big change for me has been dealing with him as a teacher," based in part on the gender dynamics. Sue noted that in the teacher/student relationship "it’s a trust issue…you’ve really got to form a relationship with this person." However, Allen has chosen to continue receiving guidance in Zen practice from Ford, stating firmly "it’s my issue to deal with, not his." Her attention to the power dynamics at work in the Zen teacher/student relationship is indicative of a larger trend in American Zen, in which both students and teachers are reinterpreting questions of power and ethics.

One of the most notable features of Zen in the West is its adaptation of the roles of religious leaders. On the one hand, as Ford notes, "Zen groups are all cults…centered on one individual." In this kind of situation authority and power could be monopolized. On the other hand, authentic lineage is a way of hopefully insuring the quality of Zen teachers in the United States.

Ford addressed the value of lineage in his essay "A Note on the Dharma Transmission and the Institutions of Zen." Ford argued, "While there is an inner truth to the transmission being outside institutions, nonetheless institutions are important. This is not just to sort out poseurs and fakes, but also to find people who have been adequately trained to actually help us on the way." At the same time, Ford acknowledges that lineage alone does not guarantee that a teacher will behave ethically. It seems to me that Ford takes a very nuanced approach, both affirming the value of lineage while also confronting the history of abuse by some Zen leaders.

In her Zen in America: Profiles of Five Teachers, Helen Tworkov writes of the American scene: "The question at stake—and it is a crucial one—is to what extent can Zen become integrated into the American system of democratic organization without jeopardizing the idiosyncratic intimacy of the student-teacher relationship." It is interesting that Maureen Stuart Roshi (profiled in Tworkov’s work) also sees Zen leadership being shaped in the future by "American democratic traditions." Stuart speaks specifically about sexual abuse, insisting that women must assert themselves and refuse to be taken advantage of. While I think Stuart is right that women should not feel they need to submit to inappropriate advances, at the same time it is concerning that there is so much room for this kind of abuse in the first place.

Despite Ford’s belief that lineage can play a role in protecting students against abuse, he does not deny the problems of Zen leadership. After pointing out that many Zen teachers conduct themselves well, he writes, "But we also find Zen teachers having inappropriate sexual relationships, abusing the power dynamics of their relationships and otherwise acting in ways contrary to the mythic status of their position as teachers." Ford’s essay expresses a struggle with the issue of how to reign in unethical teachers while at the same time maintaining interest in and respect for the value of transmission.

Allen is not the only one of Ford’s students attuned to the issues of authority in Zen study. By his own account, Chris Bell is an "informal student" of Ford. Chris Bell commented on the Buddhist student/teacher dynamic: "no one is really sure what that relationship is supposed to look like, yet, in the West." He seemed pleased with his time with Ford, saying that he would have "the right to say ‘Are you kidding?’" in reaction to a request from Ford. At the same time, Bell takes seriously the fact that in studying with a teacher "you’re basically giving permission to be led." Bell pointed out that his interaction with Ford has multiple dimensions, since he is also training for Unitarian Universalist ministry, and Ford is "also a mentor to me as a Unitarian Universalist…And a friendly mentor at that." He summed up his interaction with Ford by saying "it’s a little bit weird." I think this comment from Bell, in the context of his tone of respect and gratitude towards Ford, demonstrates that Ford’s relationship with Bell is complex and multi-faceted.

It is difficult to imagine an American Zen that does not include hierarchy and does not focus on the student/teacher relationship. However, it is my perception that Ford falls somewhere in the middle of a spectrum of American Zen leaders experimenting with how to be authority figures in American culture. Tworkov notes that teacher Maurine Stuart’s status derives from Nakagawa Soen commenting to her: "Please tell everyone that Soen has made you a roshi." According to Tworkov many doubts were raised about Soen’s remark to Stuart. Tworkov writes that Stuart in turn interpreted what happened as "dharma transmission" and "a horizontal understanding between teacher and student independent of the vertical concerns of Zen genealogies." Stuart engaged with her students in a variety of friendly activities and in Tworkov’s portrayal was eager to avoid the rigidity of old structures. Stuart’s approach may be reflective of the desire among some in Western Zen for unautocratic leadership.

Ford defines the "emphasis on lay practice" as one of the positive "threads of liberal Buddhism." Ford does not favor a residential model of Buddhist practice, but rather believes that "there is absolutely no barrier to regular laypeople achieving awakening." Ford’s Henry Thoreau Sangha is a non-residential model that is accessible to lay people.

The Sangha sits every Monday night in the First Unitarian Society in Newton, Massachusetts, where Ford is a minister. It is worth noting that on the January night I visited the sitting space (which is the church’s worship hall) was not heated, which might turn away the casual visitor. However, the church’s geographic location makes it an ideal location for accessible Zen practice. FUSN is located very close to the Massachusetts Turnpike and there is ample street parking available.
Boundless Way Zen offers several levels at which laypeople can become involved. All are welcome to attend weekly sittings. At the Henry Thoreau Sangha these sittings are held Monday evening on a rotating schedule. Meetings include a fifteen-minute orientation for new visitors that includes simple instruction on meditation posture and hand gestures, as well as a short opportunity to ask questions. On the 3^rd Monday, students are invited to set up an appointment to talk one-on-one with Ford if he is available.

One of the most important things about Boundless Way Zen is that it does not require any sort of residency schedule in order to be a student of Ford’s. There are several prominent teachers that have required students to live in residence or adhere to a schedule of practice that limits their other life choices. Tworkov addresses the choices of different teachers whether or not to go the residential route. Her profile of Maurine Stuart is particularly explicit about the disadvantages of requiring students to maintain a monk-like lifestyle and live or near the practice community.

Stuart was strongly opposed to the residential model. She believed that the residential sangha was appropriate in Japanese society, but that in the American context it breeds an unhealthy attitude. She believed that residential centers emphasize the authority of the teacher to the detriment of student growth. In addition, Stuart was not keen on the idea of students joining residential Zen centers "to fulfill a need to belong or to identify with a group," perhaps because Stuart believed so strongly in that students should develop individual conscience and agency.

As an interesting side note, Ford’s disinterest in a residential model does not mean that he downplays the importance of community. Ford does not have a problem with students living independent lives outside of practice time. However, Ford also took a firm stance against what he called "our inclination to privatize our spirituality." Of people who are not religious in community with others, Ford said: "they don’t get deep."

My research on James Ford and other Unitarian Universalist Buddhists indicates how concerns about power dynamics and accessibility are negotiated when traditions merge in small group practice. In my experience, Unitarian Universalists tend to be very attuned to power dynamics and concerned about excessive hierarchy, so it is not surprising that some of them are bringing this concern to their involvement with Zen Buddhism. At the same time I noticed something interesting in my interviews with Bates and Duelfer. Bates became involved in Unitarian Universalist community, but identifies as Buddhist. He describes a commonality between the two traditions as their emphasis on individual conscience. Duelfer, although committed to Buddhist practice, identifies as Unitarian Universalist. She also describes the common thread between the traditions as individual conscience. During this research I discovered what seem to be genuine shared values between the two traditions that Ford has expertly incorporated into his religious leadership. Finally, this community of people has engaged with both religions in order to further develop models of Zen (and Unitarian Universalism!) and to meet the need for both structure and freedom.