Welcome to the Harbor Unitarian Universalist Congregation

« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

November 15, 2004

Caring Ministry Needs You!

The HUUC Caring Ministry is forming teams of volunteers who are willing to be called for help with specific tasks. The tasks are divided into the following categories:
(1)Transportation
(2) Visitation
(3) Phone calls
(4)Card writing
(5)Daily phone checks on frail persons
(6)Respite Care
(7)Assistance with memorial services
(8)Assistance to those who are sick (such as food, errands, deliver medication)

Be the first in your pew to volunteer for one or more of these teams!! Call Jackie MacDonald at 231-759-7288); Phil Margules at 231-744-3181; Linda Riehl at 231-798-1305; or Mary Wiggins at 231-777-8072. The Caring Ministry will be actively recruiting members. Join us in the rewarding experience of ministering to members and friends of HUUC.

Posted by harboruu at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

High School RE Class Project

Share Our Abundance During the Holidays

The high school RE class is sponsoring a holiday basket for a family selected by the principal of Nims School (the elementary school a few blocks from our church building). There will be a small tree with ornaments in the fellowship hall starting next week. Each ornament will have a "wish" item for our family. Please take an ornament and return an unwrapped gift by Sunday, December 19. The high school RE class will wrap and deliver the gifts before Christmas.

Our family is made up of a single mother who has not been able to work for some time due to back surgery. She has three daughters, ages 11, 5 and 9.

We will also be delivering a food basket to our family. A list of suggested items will be placed under the tree in the fellowship hall. A holiday traditions book will also be under the tree, and you are invited to share special holiday recipes and traditions that you and your family have enjoyed

Posted by harboruu at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)

Vission and Mission Update

Vision & Mission Statement Update

The HUUC board will lead the congregation in crafting vision and mission statements. The current mission/vision statements are insufficient. They are neither memorable nor inspirational.

Several previous attempts have not succeeded. Therefore the board has come up with a time-bound approach that will give us a vision of where the congregation will go and how we'll get there. Beginning immediately you'll have multiple ways to participate in the process.

While participation is optional, it's essential those with ideas come forward. The more participants the better the process. You'll be able to contribute your suggestions in multiple ways including contributing to our website, and a project that will also help our 50th anniversary celebration.

Then in January the board will host a session to shape the ideas into a concise plan for the future. Multiple sessions will be held if needed. By March a small team will be crafting the language. The statements will be short-approximately 50 words total-written in simple, direct language.

At the annual meeting in May we'll vote on the new statements. This will assure that HUUC begins year 51 with a clear bridge to future accomplishments.

Please contact any board member, Nana’, or me if you have ideas regarding this vital task. Also, you may email me at ike@ikestephenson.com, phone me at 231-343-2518 or write your suggestions down and put them in my mailbox at HUUC. Look for more information on the process in a December service. That day we'll have an interactive opportunity for the congregation to help with the vision process and the 50th anniversary.

Posted by harboruu at 11:50 AM | Comments (0)

November 11, 2004

Elevator Speeches

Recently many members attended a talk back session after Sunday Service. We discusses the concept of elevator speeches. The idea being this is how you would explain Unitrain Universalism to a non UU in the short time an elevator spends between floors. In written form they serve as succinct defitions of UU-isms.

Below find elevator speeches contributed by HUUC members. If you have an elevator speech, let us know and we'll post it.

UUs are free to make their own decisions about spirituality and the world around us. We invite diversity within community, and work for an open society, respecting all people for their unique contributions.

UUs want to build a just world and a world which respects the health of our environment including others species and natural resources.

Brenda Bush

Unitarians and Universalists have Christian roots. The structure of our services would be familiar to Christians. Drawing on Christian and Jewish tradition, our services emphasize living a better life here on earth to contribute to a better world.

Andy Fink

One side of the faith says that there's a single spirit of life, the x-factor that manifests itself universally. The other says that spirit is benign and accepts all. Thorugh an emphaisis on fairness, openess and tolerance we seek to grow a community to search for this spirit.

Ike Stephenson

Posted by harboruu at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)

Elevator Speeches

Recently many members attended a talk back session after Sunday Service. We discusses the concept of elevator speeches. The idea being this is how you would explain Unitrain Universalism to a non UU in the short time an elevator spends between floors. In written form they serve as succinct defitions of UU-isms.

Below find elevator speeches contributed by HUUC members. If you have an elevator speech, let us know and we'll post it.

UUs are free to make their own decisions about spirituality and the world around us. We invite diversity within community, and work for an open society, respecting all people for their unique contributions.

UUs want to build a just world and a world which respects the health of our environment including others species and natural resources.

Brenda Bush

Unitarians and Universalists have Christian roots. The structure of our services would be familiar to Christians. Drawing on Christian and Jewish tradition, our services emphasize living a better life here on earth to contribute to a better world.

Andy Fink

One side of the faith says that there's a single spirit of life, the x-factor that manifests itself universally. The other says that spirit is benign and accepts all. Thorugh an emphaisis on fairness, openess and tolerance we seek to grow a community to search for this spirit.

Ike Stephenson

Posted by harboruu at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)

November 10, 2004

Sinkford Values Statement

In conjunction with a press conference sponsored today by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, UUA president William Sinkford issued this statement about Unitarian Universalist moral values. The press conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, and featured representatives from several denominations addressing the topic, “Defining ‘Moral Values’ For the Next Four Years.” The full text of Rev. Sinkford’s statement is below.

Statement from the Rev. William G. Sinkford

Moral values are not just particular opinions on “hot button” topics in a divisive election year. Moral values grow out of our calling as religious people to work to create the Beloved Community. Moral values instruct us to “love our neighbors as ourselves” and always to ask the question, “Who is my neighbor?” They are fundamentally inclusive rather than exclusive, and they call on generosity of spirit rather than mean spiritedness.

In this post election season, let me express some of the moral values held dear by the Unitarian Universalist community, which I lead, and by many other progressive people of faith:

* We believe that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are moral duties, and we will continue to work on behalf of economic justice.
* We believe that ensuring equal civil rights for gay and lesbian families is our moral duty, and we will continue to work for Marriage Equality nationwide.
* We believe that serving as stewards of the earth is a moral duty, and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the environment.
* We believe that safeguarding a woman’s right to choose is a moral duty, and we will vigorously oppose any efforts to eliminate or significantly compromise reproductive freedom.
* We believe that providing affordable health care for all Americans is a moral duty, and we will continue to advocate for medical rights for the young, the old, the frail, and all of those in need.

Posted by harboruu at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

The Fifth Principle

The Fifth Principle
Andrew Fink
October 24, 2004

Until recently I thought of us as a religion with no beliefs. Whenever I would say that in front of Nana, she would gently disagree. As usual in such things, Nana was right. Our seven principles are religious beliefs. My error was in believing that religion required a supernatural, a god or gods who took conscious interest in our lives. Of course Judaism and Christianity, our Western religious roots, both have such a God. That was the source of my confusion. But Judaism and Christianity are much more than a worship of the God of Abraham. Half of the Ten Commandments are instructions in how to deal with one another. The words of Jesus that we are most familiar with are the Golden Rule, the story of the Good Samaritan, and the admonition to love our neighbor. So, our seven principles are in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our difference is that we have not based them on instructions from a deity.

I speak today on the fifth of these principles:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
 The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

This involves two separate concepts, The Right of Conscience and the Democratic Process. Initially I will deal with them separately, but as we will see they are properly joined.

In its absolute sense the right of conscience means the right to think and feel what we wish. But since mere thoughts are like dreams and incapable of external suppression, the Right of Conscience to be meaningful includes the right of expression of those thoughts --- and within limits for the protection of others, the right to act on them.
Recognizing this principle the UUA General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions designed to induce the government and others to respect the Right of Conscience of the individual. The 1967 UUA General Assembly adopted a resolution reaffirming “the right of all persons to give peaceful and public expression of dissent from established policies.” For you younger people, this was the Viet Nam war era. In 2002 the General Assembly recognized the right of conscience includes the right to dissent even from UUA pronouncements in its Statement of Conscience regarding the failures of the war on drugs. In a 2003 General Assembly Statement of Conscience reference was made to the Right of Conscience in adopting a resolution on world trade regulation.

Abortion is the most prominent area where the UUA has asserted this right of conscience. In many ways at many times since 1973 the UUA has recognized that the right of conscience includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

For me the Right of Conscience is the right to do what I think is right and good, limited only by the harm that exercising such a right might cause others. The reading from John Steinbeck is something I found when I was about 20. I pull it out and read to my friends every few years. I believe it expresses the right of conscience beautifully.

In its most simple terms democracy is majority rule, and the Democratic process is one in which we arrive at decisions supported by the majority. However, in our society and in our church it means much more than that. Our vision of democracy includes rights of the minority to express their view and to dissent. Our vision of the democratic process includes insuring that all have a right to participate in arriving at the democratic decision.

The democratic process is important at our congregation level. At the leadership conference I attended in July we spent a lot of time on how to apply the democratic process to church management problems. As one who likes to jump impatiently directly to the solution, I had to learn to let others process the issues in their own way. I was surprised at how often this process resulted in my changing my mind. The process is also important at the national level. Most of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are what are called a resolutions of immediate witness and by rule represent the view of the delegates to the assembly only, not the position of the UUA. We have a long and complicated process that must be followed before a General Assembly can take a position on a social or political issue on behalf of the UUA. From idea to final resolution process takes years and includes opportunities for congregations to comment and requires a vote of a super majority of delegates at the General Assembly. This ensures that the final resolution is truly a democratic expression. It also ensures that those who dissent can express their views.

This, I believe is how the right of conscience and the democratic process merge into one principle. It is not just democracy, but the democratic process that ensures that the right of conscience is preserved.

It is a beautiful principle.
I wish that the Unitarian-Universalist Association did a better job of following it. Instead, our national organization tends to recognize the fifth principle, the Right of Conscience and the Democratic Process, only when it is useful to promote the political objectives of our social activists. Our national church is a selective adherent.

As I noted, the UUA has passed many resolutions supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. I personally support that right as well. I will not repeat what we have all heard too often of the various sides of the issue. I just wish to remind you that good people thinking about what is best for society disagree over the questions of when human life begins and when abortion is the killing of a human, and whether and under what circumstances it should be permitted. Our position on abortion is not so much a disagreement with those who believe abortion is immoral, as it is a belief that those people should not impose their belief on the rest of us. Our position is consistent with the Right of Conscience expressed in our fifth principle.

Now let us turn to other issues to show how selective the UUA can be in applying this principle. There are children in the world who work in sweatshops sewing clothes or making sneakers. Many feel that it is wrong to exploit them this way and they refuse to buy goods made in such shops. Others note that when children are denied the right to work in sweatshops the result is that they must turn to prostitution or picking through garbage heaps in order to survive. Good people can be found on both sides of the issue. People can in good conscience believe that it is good to boycott child labor products and others can in good conscience believe that it is good to give those children work. The UUA does not respect the right of conscience of those who want to protect the children from prostitution and garbage picking. The UUA has adopted a resolution urging legislation to ban child labor goods from this country. According to the UUA our right of conscience demands we be allowed to kill human fetuses, but it does not let us give employment to human children.

A similar example is the minimum wage. There are good people who feel that the minimum wage causes unemployment. There are workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage. For whatever reason, these people, exercising their right of conscience do not want to be subject to the moral dictates of those who think a low wage is somehow wrong or immoral. The UUA does not respect the right of conscience of a worker willing to sell his services for less than what the UUA believes is a meaningful wage. Instead, the UUA wants to impose its views on all workers, denying them the right to control the sale of their labor.

Similar limitations on the right of conscience can be found in UUA resolutions pertaining to gun control and the exercise of first amendment rights in campaign expenditures. A review of the UUA website will disclose many similar GA resolutions, statements by our president, and positions taken by our Washington office. The Right of Conscience, as applied by the UUA, does not extend to matters with which it disagrees.

Regarding the democratic process the UUA has similar tunnel vision. It seems to respect the right of all to participate only if the UUA favors their position.

Whenever our GA takes a stance on political issue it is a religious organization becoming involved in or attempting to influence government action. On occasion we actually express our political position in religious terms. In 2003 we quoted five of our principles in support of a resolution advocating government action on international trade. In 2004 an amended statement of conscience on civil rights referred to our faith tradition as justifying our political position. Other areas where we have cited our faith or our principles in support of political positions include the war on drugs, freedom of expression, and racism.

However, when Christians wish to influence government, the UUA reacts adversely. It is of great interest to go to the UUA web site and do searches on the religious right. There you will find the religious right is criticized for pretending to speak for God, for suggesting others are anti-family or anti-God. Name calling by the right is criticized. But, you will also find comments that the right is fascist and anti-democratic. We are guilty of the same kind of name calling that we accuse them of practicing.

The most egregious example of hypocrisy in the UUA is the resolution of 1996 called Challenging the Radical Right. That resolution criticizes the Radical Right for joining in coalitions and getting involved in campaigns aimed at gaining control of our public institutions, such as schools, libraries, political parties, and governmental bodies.

The resolution goes on to urge UUA member congregations and individual Unitarian Universalists to proclaim and promote our principles by becoming active participants in public institutions such as schools, libraries, political parties, and governmental bodies. Apparently, it is bad when the religious right attempts to push its agenda politically, but good when the UUA pushes its agenda.

When I asked Nana why it was all right for her to speak politically, but not all right for Jerry Falwell to do the same, her simple response was that she was usually right and he was usually wrong. Nana was joking. The UUA says the same thing. It is not joking. It does not even know it is saying it.

Theodore Parker, a Unitarian Minister and friend of Emerson commented on democracy saying: “Democracy means not ‘I am as good as you are,’ but ‘you are as good as I am.’” I suggest that if the UUA really believed in the democratic process, it would take Reverend Parker’s comment to heart and concede that the religious right has as much right in the political arena we do. If the UUA really believed in the right of conscience for everyone, it would respect god-based religions as much as our value based religion. It would challenge their political positions with reason and argument, not by denying their legitimacy.

The UUA criticizes the religious right for having an arrogant “holier than thou” attitude regarding the strength of its political positions. The UUA is just as arrogant with the other side of the coin, a “not so holy as thou” attitude making its positions more legitimate.

I wish to make it clear, I am glad that the Unitarian Universalist Association feels strongly about social and moral issues. I don’t think our principles are things to be hauled out on Sunday morning and then forgotten for the rest of the week. One of the things I love about this church is the intellectual stimulation I get from discussing political and moral issues with my friends in the church.
My objection is with the manner in which the national church gets involved. If you agree, I hope you will join me in urging our national church to reform its political involvement.
Amen,
So be it.
Shalom.

This is the reading by Steinbeck referred to above:
And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about.

Posted by nanak at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)

Render Unto Caesar....

RENDER UNTO CAESAR……
November 7, 2004

The story I have to share with you this morning is one I read Friday in an online newsletter. It is called Truthout.org, and I recommend it to you. It is definitely progressive, and makes no pretense of being neutral.

William Rivers Pitt, the editor, shared the story. He lives in Boston, and was at the Kerry headquarters during the long Tuesday night returns. When Ohio was called for Bush he left the headquarters, walked to a bar, indulged in a stiff drink and then left for home. He stopped at a 7/11 for a can of Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli and continued home feeling angrier by the step.

As he was unlocking the door to his apartment, a young man emerged silently from the bushes behind him. Suddenly he felt like his head exploded. The man threw what was later revealed to be a large, 20-lb. cobblestone at him. It bounced off his shoulder, blasted into his jaw, and dropped heavily at his feet.

He staggered, but did not fall. The fellow, who obviously thought that anyone hit with a 20-lb. rock was an easy mark started after him. Pitt says, "I turned, and in a moment of truly dumb Braveheart macho testosterone rage, charged the guy. He stepped back in surprise, and then turned to flee. I pursued him down the street, brandishing the can of ravioli over my head while screaming unkind comments about his inappropriate sexual relationship with his mother, until my jaw reminded me that it might be broken."

Well, he had to deal with policemen and emergency care workers, received some pretty potent pain medicine and had x-rays which revealed no broken bones. Pitt says, "I assume this was an attempted mugging...possibly the first mugging in American history to be thwarted by a thick skull and a can of Chef Boy-Are-Dee."

And now comes the point of this story. Pitt is actually glad this happened, because it restored his sense of perspective. If the man's aim had been better, he might well be dead. So he took the 20 pound rock and placed it on his desk. And he wrote an inscription in indelible ink: "There are worse things than losing an election."

When my Christian colleagues ask me, "Do you preach from the Bible?" My answer is always; "Sometimes, but I also use other texts. We believe that revelation is not sealed." The story of Jesus and the attempted trap, which he thwarted with the words "Pay unto Caesar what is "Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" is one of those sometimes.

Before we can understand what we religious liberals, who are not Biblical literalists, can learn from the story about Jesus and his response to his challengers, we need to understand a bit about the context in which it occurred.

Israel was a vassal state of Rome at the time Jesus lived. This meant that Roman soldiers enforced the laws, that taxes paid by the Israelites helped support the Roman Empire, and that Caesar was considered divine. Most Roman procurators were wise enough to mostly ignore the fact that the Jewish people refused to bow down to Caesar as to a god. However, the threat of enforcement was always there.

Israel was in a process of transition from an agricultural, mostly pastoral economy to an urban, mercantile economy. This process caused great disruption then as it continues to do now in similar situations. There was a great deal of poverty, and the illnesses caused or aggravated by poverty.

Jesus was one of many holy men who wandered through the villages and cities of Israel, teaching, prophesying, and healing the sick and the ailing. Roman authorities tended to look upon this phenomenon as one of the peculiarities of the Jewish people, and ignored them, as long as they did not challenge the authority of Rome.

We read this story in the gospel of Luke. The Lukan gospel is usually the favorite of liberal Christians, for it is from this gospel that they derive their conviction that Jesus cared about the sick and the poor and the widow and the orphan, and all manner of oppressed people. He speaks of the Kingdom of God, and envisions it breaking into the world right now! He heals sick people, and calls for people to love their enemies and share what they have with those even poorer than they.

Within this context then, what did Jesus mean, and what might his words mean to us today? Firstly, let us note that Jesus' demand to care for the needy was presented as teaching the people how God (or the Divine) wished them to act. This was in contrast to the practices of Rome, which taxed people into poverty to expand its Empire throughout the known world.

However, Jesus knew he was in a trap, and avoided springing it. "Pay your taxes," he said, "but remember that God's work is also necessary." And, for Jesus, God's work was primary.

What can we liberal religionists take from this reading of Jesus' words? Let us pause and examine another rendering of this scene. This is from the Egerton Gospel, which consists of five small fragments from another narrative gospel. Its existence affirms the fact that the Bible as we received it is very arbitrary. There were many other stories and collections of Jesus' teachings that are now lost to history. Here is one of the fragments from the Egerton Gospel:

They come to him and interrogate him as a way of putting him to the test. They ask, "Teacher, Jesus, we know that you are (from God), since the things you do put you above all the prophets. Tell us, then, is it permissible to pay to rulers what is due them? Should we pay them or not?" Jesus knew what they were up to, and became indignant. Then he said to them, "Why do you pay me lip service as a teacher, but not (do) what I say? How accurately Isaiah prophesied about you when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart stays far away from me; their worship of me is empty, (because they insist on teachings that are human) commandments (…) [Robert W. Funk, and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?, Harper San Francisco, 1998, p. 341]

The Jesus portrayed in the Egerton Gospel is significantly more confrontational than Luke's Jesus. He is exasperated with these men, who ply him with flattering words and do not seem to understand his teachings. He is more radical than Luke's Jesus, more willing to dispute with men who are bent on silencing him.

One reading of this gospel is that Jesus doesn't care whether these agents of the Pharisees and scribes are angry at his response. He's exasperated, and wants the rest of his listeners to pay attention to what he says. He is convinced that the Kingdom of God is at hand, almost here. He wants everyone to help bring it about.

As liberal religionists we hear these stories metaphorically. We honor the teachings of Jesus, but most of us do not consider ourselves Christian. However, I think we can understand this story as affirming our basic belief that we must live out our faith in the world. We must re-visit our deepest values and name them, and then live them to the best of our ability. We are called to do this in our personal lives, and within the institutions in which we live.

And, we can hear the words of Jesus as telling us that bringing into being the beloved community is part and parcel of our faith. We are called to work to spread our compassion, our passion for fairness, our love of humankind and the earth within our society.

Many liberal religionists worked to defeat Michigan's Proposition 2 in the recent election, which denies gays and lesbians the right to marry and other civil rights. This Proposition passed by a substantial majority. My heart aches over this fact. I cannot understand people who are so cruel to their brothers and sisters. I have struggled, trying to think what we might have done, could have done, should have done to defeat this monstrosity that will deprive people of their civil liberties.

I think that by the time it was placed on the ballot it was too late to defeat it. I think we missed the boat by failing to spread our saving words of inclusion and fairness and love for all people for years before this election.

If we are to overturn this proposition, if we are to build a society in which all people are truly equal, if we are to imbue our values of fairness and compassion and love for all people in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, we must commit ourselves to that task right now. And that task, my friends, is the work of the church, not the state, nor the government, nor any particular political party. It is our task.

Like the Grinch, some of our citizens have hearts that are too small. It is our work to help them grow. Please keep this in mind as we shape our future together in this faith, in this congregation.

In our faith we learn from the scriptures of many faiths and cultures, but we also place a high value on learning from life experiences. Let us return to William Rivers Pitt's story. In his article he continues by examining all the really dire consequences that he, a liberal, foresees as a result of the re-election of Mr. Bush. But then he returns to the 20-lb. rock sitting on his desk inscribed, There are worse things than losing an election. He ruminates on the record number of people who voted, and on the increased number of young people who became active in politics. And then he quotes from one of his heroes.

"Howard Dean recently wrote, 'There is more to politics than elections. Thousands of young people have discovered, as generations have before them, their efforts matter. Their actions matter because by getting in the game instead of staying on the sidelines, they are empowered, whether or not their candidate wins.

Historically, whether through the campaign of Gene McCarthy in 1968 or John McCain in 2000, the enthusiasm and hard work waned after the election. This time we cannot let that happen. Democracy is the most highly evolved system of government ever created by human beings. And like everything else we create, it will wither and die unless we nurture it.'" (Truthout.org, Friday, November 5, 2004)

No matter where different members of this faith fall on the political spectrum, we all agree that participation in the democratic process is critical. Howard Dean's words echo my thoughts when I try to come to terms with the results of this election. For years I lamented that too many citizens seemed to be asleep. For years I chafed at those who have labeled our people as consumers instead of citizens, at the reduction of people to materialists rather than participants in democracy. When I read reports that a record number of people voted all across the country, I could only rejoice. Democracy will not survive unless citizens participate. I think they are waking up.

Monday night and all day Tuesday I kept the church open. I lit candles in our lovely sanctuary and had music playing part of the time. A few people came in, but not many. As the polls started closing on Tuesday I haunted my e-mail news sources. That's when I first learned about the tragic death of Cathy Harrington's daughter. Her daughter, Leslie, was brutally murdered twenty years and two days after my daughter, Kathleen, suffered the same fate.

I knew, even before William Rivers Pitt, that there are worse things than losing an election. Facing a major tragedy has the painful effect of building a sense of perspective that never leaves one. A sense of perspective is a great asset when we are required to live through difficult times, no matter their source. However, when people are faced with tragedy, they must make some meaning out of the pain, if they are to continue life and learn to enjoy it again.

My own response, which took more than a year of reading and thinking and meditating, was to craft a personal mission statement. It allowed me to look toward the future, and continues to guide my life. The statement is, "I will spend the rest of my life working to make the world safe for women and children." I know that I did not include men in that wording. I think that most, maybe not all, men are already safer than the women and children with whom they live. I did not intend to exclude men, it is just that my life experience called me to concentrate on women and children.

I have no illusions that I can affect the whole world, only that small area in which I live. When I was considering how to implement this mission statement I thought of entering politics. However, I rejected that idea. While we must eventually pass laws that ensure safety for all people everywhere, the prior task is to change people's hearts.

Only when most people know in their hearts that we will all be better off if the streets are safe for women to walk at night will we pass and enforce laws to ensure that they are safe. Only when most people know in their hearts that all children are precious gifts of the divine, and must be treated as such, will we pass and enforce laws to ensure that they are safe and cared for. Only when most people know in their hearts that our children deserve to inherit clean air and water and fertile soils will we pass and enforce laws that ensure that we can pass on a life affirming inheritance.

And changing hearts is the work of the church. There are many of you who are active in politics. For this, I thank you. We need people, (and who better than our own?), to do the political work that registers voters, reminds them to vote, runs for office, and serves in governing bodies. We can be assured that such people will work to enact and regulate laws that enact our values. I praise your work, and sometimes I join you. I encourage all of you to consider serving your community on boards, committees and in elected positions.

However, my work, and the work of this faith community as a whole comes prior to politics. Our work is defining those values that we believe assure a safe and healthy life for all people. Our work is to speak those values, live those values, and share those values with others that are seeking a liberal faith community.

There are legions of people in our communities who live with a hole in their hearts that needs to be filled. They may vaguely think that love is better than hate and playing fair is to be encouraged. However, they don't have the inner conviction that these messages are from the Divine. They don't know that there are faith communities that don't require members to subscribe to a creed that insults their intelligence. They need to be sought for, invited, and escorted through our open doors. We need to welcome them with our open hearts, and share with them the results of our open minds.

And we need to be about growing the hearts of all our members, and all of those with whom we have contact. Pinched hearts make for unhappy people who resent the happiness or possible happiness of others. This is our task--to grow the hearts of all people until they understand that we are one people, no matter our faith, our skin color, our ethnicity, or our sexual preference.

I offer you a way to begin. One of our members, Brenda Bush, called me with a request on Friday. "Could we," she asked, "have a discussion after church on how to respond to people when they say something that really assaults our values?" She gave an example of a remark made to her that left her unsure of what to say.

I agreed that this was a good idea. So, after the service I invite you to get your refreshments and greet your faith companions. Then, at around 11:45, if you wish, I invite you back into this space. We will talk for a few minutes about crafting an elevator speech that you can make in 3 minutes or less. We'll talk about what to say when someone makes an insulting remark about a minority group. We may even do some role-playing to give you an opportunity to think through possible responses.

This is a small beginning; however, it is a beginning. You are not helpless. You are a child of the Divine. You are able to join with others to help shape the future you crave. For me, that future must include safety for women and children. I invite you to envision the future you need, and to work toward its implementation.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

November 02, 2004

Caring Ministry

The Caring Ministry will meet on the third Thursday, November 18 instead of their regular fourth Thursday. They will craft a Mission Statement at this meeting.

Posted by nanak at 02:21 PM | Comments (0)

Membership Committee

The Membership Committee will meet Tuesday, November 16 at 1:00 p.m. All interested members are invited to attend.

Posted by nanak at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)

Religious Education Committee

The Religious Education for Children Committee will meet Thursday, November 4.

Posted by nanak at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees of HUUC will meet on Thursday evening, November 11. All interested members are invited to attend.

Posted by nanak at 02:17 PM | Comments (0)

Finance Committee Meeting

The Finance Committee will meet November 3 at 3:00 p.m. All interested members are invited to attend.

Posted by nanak at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)

November, 2004

November 2, Election Day: Church will be open to all who wish a quiet spot to meditate and share warm drinks and cookies

November 7: Sunday, Worship Service. Sermon title is "Render Unto Ceasar..." This service will call us to continue working for the principles of our faith, no matter the outcome of the election.

November 9: The Slow Food group meets at 6:00 p.m. for a Harvest Dinner. Special guest is Kathleen Riegler, aka "The Cheese Lady." She will share some of her special cheeses, and tell us about them.

November 12: FODDER, FUN AND FORTUNE! Our annual Service Auction with yummy food and drink and lots to bid on--services and items!

Sunday, November 14: TBA

November 17: Our third discussion of ethics. Guest leader is expected to be Blair Morrisey, philosophy instructor at MCCC.

Sunday, November 21: This Thanksgiving service features "The Bread of Life."

Sunday, November 28: The advent season begins with a service titled "Wholly Families."

Posted by nanak at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)

Voting for the Future

VOTING FOR THE FUTURE
October 31, 2004
Election Sermon

I remember the day Franklin D. Roosevelt died. I must have been about six years old. I was outside playing jacks with some friends. My father was working in the backyard garden, and had the car radio on listening--probably to the ball game. Suddenly he dropped his tools and walked over to the car and leaned against the side. Children can always sense when something traumatic was happening, and I asked what was wrong. "The President just died," he said. And he turned to go in the house to share the news with my mother.

A few years later Harry "Give 'em hell" Truman was running for president. The route of his barnstorming tour took him across southern Illinois, and he drove through our little town. I remember a big car, a smiling, toothy man who wore glasses and waved a hat.

These incidents were my introduction to the world of politics. I knew they were significant events, and they remain in my mind sixty years after they happened.

When I was a freshman in high school my family moved from Democratic southern Illinois to Republican central Illinois. During the campaign of 1952 the debate coach at our high school wanted to stage a student's campaign debate. It was very easy for him to find someone to debate for Dwight David Eisenhower. He selected a football playing, bright member of the senior class to do so. Finding someone to debate in favor of Adlai Stevenson was another matter.

When he asked me, a lowly freshman, I think I was just too dumb to say no. I carefully prepared a speech listing all the reasons Stevenson would be the better choice. All the senior had to do was say, "I like Ike!" and he was over-whelmed with cheers. I started through my careful speech, and was quickly greeted with jeers and catcalls. With the inspiration of anger I threw away my speech and fought back with verbal images of the administration of Herbert Hoover. It was quite an introduction to participation in politics.

We live in a democracy, where all people are expected to participate in the body politic. At the very least, we are expected to vote--and to vote for the future.

George "Kim" Beach wrote "The Covenant of Spiritual Freedom" in response to a continent-wide convocation of Unitarian Universalist ministers in 1995. A call for response to the work of the convocation resulted in a book titled The Transient and Permanent in Liberal Religion. Rev. Beach's essay was selected as the first in the book. He was thinking about the future. He began the essay with these words:

The twenty-first century will bring a new social context and, in conse-quence, a new meaning of "freedom": sharper awareness of the human limits and a narrowed sense of human possibilities. Does this mean an end of personal and social freedom as we know it? As an ideology of individualism, yes; as a socially embodied spiritual reality, no. Abraham Lincoln called for "a new birth of freedom" in the crisis of his age; we must call for a new covenant of freedom in the crisis of our age.

We Unitarian Universalists remain the children of the age of reason and democracy, of science-driven human progress and the discovery of human rights. We remain, also, the heirs of a noble tradition of liberal concern for civic values, social justice, and peace. This secular heritage is rooted in a theological affirmation: the dignity and sanctity of every person as a bearer of the image of God.

A fundamental re-formation of the human spirit is emerging in our time. We must understand ourselves as engaged in that historic mission. We must believe that history is the story of freedom, agonized by the global struggle for justice. Or else our salt has lost its savor and may as well be cast out.

These words are now nine years old. However, I think they speak strongly to our contemporary lives. We are learning more every day about human limits. We share this planet with approximately 61/2 billion people. We cannot be free to just "do what we want". We cannot pursue radical individualism with any sense of fairness. Radical individualism is not compatible with a finite earth that holds 6 1/2 billion people.

Beach points out that we liberal religionists were birthed out of a regard for reason--reason that we apply to our religious as well as our secular lives. We are children of the Enlightenment, and we honor the teachings of science. And we strongly believe that every person should be free to participate in the religion of his or her choice. We base this on an understanding that each and every human is of great worth. This leads us to value civil concern, and engage in peace and justice issues.

Beach then calls us to a new covenant--a covenant of religious freedom. Anne shared his vision with you this morning. I want to use this vision as a lens to examine the issues in this current election, and how they impact on our religious values.

Not all of you will agree with my analysis. This is to be expected. Some of you will vote differently from me on Tuesday, and that is fine. I will not tell you how to vote, however I will tell you that you should vote. If we are to have a democracy to pass on to our children and grandchildren, it is necessary for citizens to vote.

Beach begins his vision by saying, "We covenant in spiritual freedom for a new humanity." He begins breaking this down by reflecting on the words "We covenant." That is, we "freely commit ourselves." One cannot be coerced into covenant. We must be free to commit ourselves, whether it is to another in marriage, or to a larger vision. Thus, freedom is a necessity if we are to participate in a covenantal relationship. Beach asks us to commit to "high and holy aims." These aims will transcend our immediate self. They would be larger than what we call "pocketbook issues." They would be larger than the agenda of a particular group, or even larger than our own nation. "High and holy aims" call us to a large vision of the world and our own role in it.

Then Beach gives us a series of challenges worded as "not in freedom from, but freedom to." "Not in freedom from obligations to others but in freedom to enter into common endeavors for the common good." I hear this as another way of saying that we are indeed, our brother's keeper. We are free to accept the responsibility of caring for and about those who have been damaged by the world. We are free to enter into alliances that struggle to preserve the natural environment. We are free to work for a minimum wage, and we are free to work within the corporate structure to enact the common good.

"Not in freedom from being called to aims that surpass us, but in freedom that springs from knowing that 'we've caught a moving train' (Johnny Ray Young-blood), and, together, we're on our way," says Beach. In a reading in our hymn book, Reinhold Niebuhr says that, "Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime." This is a difficult lesson, for we like our stories to be completed. We like to have an ending, preferably a happy one. And yet, if we aim high, as Beach calls us to do, we may not see the ending of a specific project.

The key word in Beach's sentence is together. And Niebuhr goes on to say, "Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone." We work together with others to accomplish high goals. When we are unable to work further, others will take up the task. Therefore, we must work in community, whether a community of faith, a community of states, or a community of nations.

My father was a southern Illinois Democrat who lived in a central Illinois Republican town. He was highly respected, so the Democrats sometimes asked him to run for local office. Once in a while he agreed, although he, and every one else, knew it was only pro forma. That is, until the year Francis Lehman died. Mr. Lehman had been the chair of the Republican Party in Pontiac for many years. He was their organizer, chief fund-raiser and orator. Then he died. The world did not stop turning, and election time came fairly swiftly. My father was on the ballot for City Council. For the first time in history, a Democrat was elected mayor, and my father was elected a city councilman, along with 2 other Demo-crats. He said it was just that the Republicans had not re-organized after Mr. Lehman's death. By the time of the next election they had done so, and my father, along with the rest of the Democrats, exited the political sphere.

City councils are an example of people working together for the common good. We may argue with the decisions of a particular city council at a particular time, but we then have the ability to vote for someone else who will serve us better. We hope our city council and other elected bodies will aim high and take us to where we want to be.

Beach continues his explication, "We covenant in spiritual freedom." He says that we "find at the center of our faith an energizing mainspring, a drive for meaning and dignity implanted in every soul in every land…" Humans are meaning-seeking creatures. We are, so far as we know, the only species that asks why? As every mother knows, questioning starts with the acquisition of language, and for most of us, it never stops. It is the drive that leads us to explore the questions of science, and to explore the questions of religion. Partnered with this exploration is the demand for recognition of one's dignity. All of us are of value, all of us matter. This is the basis of our first principle--the affirmation that all humans have worth and dignity.

Beach continues with language that speaks of "the wonder of being alive and awakened to life." We are a people who love life and participate in it as fully as possible--and we extend an invitation to others to do the same.

In the 1980's I lived in Jackson, Mississippi. The AIDS crisis was just becoming public, and there were many questions and concerns about how it spread and just how contagious it was.

A community activist named Eddie owned a house in our neighborhood. He decided to turn it into a hospice for patients with HIV. He'd been around the block a few times, so he knew how to operate below the radar. He actually had the house remodeled, and a few men moved in before the neighborhood busy bodies knew what was happening. My husband and I stopped in to welcome Eddie and heard that the new president of the Neighborhood Association was up in arms. She thought the hospice was dangerous.

We had just returned to town, so we did not know that she had filed a complaint, in the name of the association. Now, the interesting thing was that my husband had founded the association, and I was the current secretary. Our by-laws said that the secretary had to call all meetings, and I was fairly sure I had not done that. But the president was speaking in the name of the association.

It was then that I learned the power of the press. I called a reporter I knew and asked a few questions, and the next thing I knew a nine-day wonder was under way. I was interviewed, and the president was interviewed, and we scheduled a meeting of the association, and invited a medical expert from one of the local colleges to come and talk about HIV and how it was and was NOT spread. Of course the president did not believe the expert and tried to explain that because she had horses, which sometimes have a similar disease, she KNEW that HIV could be spread through the air. All you had to do was be in the same room, or the same neighborhood with an HIV patient, and you and your children would be at risk.

I asked about who was paying her lawyer, since we had established there had been no vote of the Association to do that, and her husband spoke up and said that HE would guarantee the fee. My husband and I broke into fits of giggles. You see, they had purchased their house from him, and bounced the first two checks they gave him.

The nine-day wonder was soon over. The city council ruled that Eddie and his hospice were not violating any statutes, and some folks got educated about HIV and AIDS.

My husband and I were fighting for the dignity of these men who were suffering. Their families had disowned many of them. They needed a home, a safe place to spend the rest of their days. And they needed a place to live as fully as possible until they died. Eddie provided that place.

Beach continues, calling us to spiritual freedom, "Not in fearfulness that life runs out but in the courage to turn every crisis of life into an opportunity for growth and spiritual depth." We are called to participate in life to our fullest, even though we know that death awaits us all. We are called to participate in aiding others, even when we are suffering.

After the murder of my daughter I spent a lot of time grieving, a lot of time healing, and a lot of time searching for a way to make meaning out of her loss. I ended up crafting my own mission statement. It was then and remains now, "I will spend the rest of my life building a world where women and children are safe."

This was in 1980, when Central America became a political issue, and a moral and ethical issue, and for me, a spiritual issue. It was very clear that no one was safe in Central America, especially women and children.

I belonged to a group called Witness for Peace that worked to raise awareness about the injustice that reigned in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. When Congress was scheduled to vote on whether to continue funding the Contras, Witness for Peace planned a nation-wide event. In every state members would ask their congresspeople to vote against the bill. If the congressperson refused to speak with us, we would sit in.

We knew our congressman would vote to support the Contras, but we hoped to at least talk with him on the telephone. We planned this carefully because we knew it was likely that we would be arrested. I was one of six people who went into his office and refused to leave. My husband was one of several who picketed outside, but was careful to obey the laws. I was arrested and charged with trespassing.

This took place in Jackson, Mississippi. It was only a decade after the arrests of Vietnam War protesters, and 15 years after Civil Rights protesters were beaten as they were arrested. We ran the risk of being sent to Parchman Prison, which was one of the worst prisons in the nation. It was scary.

However, Mississippi was trying to improve their damaged image. We were treated well, merely fingerprinted and sent home on our own recognizance. There was a trial, and we were each fined $50.00, and put on three years probation.

I was very clear that I was doing this work in honor of my daughter. I knew that there was no real difference between the death of my daughter and the deaths of other sons and daughters. I had to work for all of them.

"We covenant in spiritual freedom for a new humanity." This is the completed form of Beach's suggested covenant. He talks of "a better world where all peoples can flourish." His is not a small or limited vision. He calls us to share the resources of planet Earth AND sustain her natural ecology. He calls us to engage the world, to step outside our comfort zone. We are tasked with opening our eyes to the world around us, which includes those in need, and the destruc-tion of segments of our environment.

We are asked to affirm hope in the midst of the reality of the world and claim "the sacredness of the image in which we are made." My faith calls upon me to affirm hope, for there is always something that one can do to help those around us. It may be only a small thing, but that is often all that is needed to inspire us to con-tinue our work.

Beach concludes his essay with these words: (We are) not stone-hearted when we are called to make a new beginning, nor giving up when our need is to persevere, but affirming our quest for wholeness and holiness."

We are often called upon to begin again. We may lose a job, we may suffer the death of a relationship, or the death of a loved one. We may need to re-locate and must re-build the network of relationships that makes our community.

Beach tells us to persevere through difficulties and affirm our quest for wholeness and holiness. We often need help at times of transition. We need help from our friends, and from our several communities. And we reciprocate with help to others when they are beginning anew. It is part of the function of a community, whether a faith community or a political community to provide its members with their basic needs.

I have suggested that the covenant Beach proposed, "We covenant in spiritual freedom for a new humanity," is a lens through which we can look when we are deciding who will best serve our ideals and values. I am aware that not all of you will choose to use this lens, and that those who do may not come to the same conclusion that I did. We can affirm the same values and goals and choose different ways to affirm the values and different paths to the goals.

However, when I use the lens I see that Senator Kerry and Edwards fit this model. I am aware that my background, which I shared with you, deeply influences my choice. Your background will influence your choice. I choose to support the Democratic ticket, and you may do so also, or choose to support the Republican ticket. Neither one makes you a better Unitarian Universalist.

However, I do encourage you to vote! As Andy Fink so ably reminded you last Sunday, our 5th Principle encourages us to participate in the democratic process. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to vote on Tuesday, if you have not already done so.

We are opening the church on Monday evening between 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. to light a candle for democracy. We will also be open Tuesday from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Our sanctuary will be open, we will have music and candles lighted. If you need a breather--a place to withdraw from the fray for a peaceful moment, I encourage you to stop in. All are welcome. All are welcome. All are welcome.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 01:53 PM | Comments (0)

OPEN DOORS, OPEN HEARTS, OPEN MINDS

OPEN DOORS, OPEN HEARTS, OPEN MINDS
October 10, 2004

I want to welcome you once again to this very special day in the life of HARBOR UU CONGREGATION. Today we begin the celebration of our 50th year as a liberal religious presence in Muskegon.

50 years ago this month, the Reverend Monroe Husbands came to Muskegon and called together a small band of religious liberals. They began to meet together to see if they wished to establish a Unitarian Fellowship here on the Western Shore. They were young then and many had children. They were looking for a faith community in which they could educate their children. They were looking for a worship experience that reflected their beliefs and values. They decided to begin a Unitarian Fellowship.

We have only one person with us who was part of that very first meeting. Ruth Berlow and her husband were present and active from the very beginning. Ruth, would you please stand?

However, very shortly afterward, Lucile Mason and her husband Keith, Unitarians from birth, read a notice in the paper and decided to check out the group. They visited and joined the fledgling congregation. Lucile, would you please stand?

The small group gathered a few more and then a few more people to their meetings at the YWCA. By spring they applied for membership in the American Unitarian Association. In April of 1955 that membership was granted. This April 24th we will complete our celebration. We invite you to return to enjoy that special day also.

During these 50 years this congregation has kept their doors open for all people whose faith is liberal. They have opened their hearts to all who come here, and extended that caring to the community and the larger world. And, because we believe that Revelation is not closed, their minds are ever open to new ideas. 50 years of Open Doors, Open Hearts, and Open Minds, here in West Michigan.

When Lucile and Keith Mason came to their first meeting of the group that would become the Unitarian Fellowship of Muskegon, they drove to the YWCA downtown. They marched up to the door of the meeting room, and Keith knocked. The door was opened by Nate Berlow, who invited them in. Keith hesitated, and then asked, "If I were a black man, would you invite me in?" "Yes, of course," answered Nate. And Keith and Lucile joined the group.

The doors of this congregation have always been open to all who profess a liberal religious faith. Our congregation welcomes all those who enter our doors whatever their race or ethnicity, their gender preference, their economic level, their sex, their age, or their ability to climb stairs. We open our doors to traditional families and non-traditional families. We invite in single parents and grandparents. The faces in our pews reflect many ethnicities.

We honor the ancient Hebrew tradition of hospitality, and we honor Jesus of Nazareth who invited tax collectors to his table. For those who seek a liberal religion, our doors are always open.

We not only welcome all who come seeking, but we also honor their differences. Unitarian Universalists were among the first churches to racially integrate. The first Universalist church in America had an African American man on its initial list of members. Unitarians were in the forefront of the Civil Rights struggle, some losing their lives for that cause. We welcome all races and ethnicities.

Norm Naylor, a Unitarian minister serving a Canadian church officiated at the first gay "marriage" in the late 1950s. Many Unitarian and Universalist ministers followed his lead in the ensuing decades, and by 1974 the General Assembly, our annual nationwide gathering of members, was calling for an end to discrimi-nation against homosexuals. In 1984 the General Assembly affirmed and en-couraged UU ministers who lead services of union for gay and lesbian couples. And, as we gather today, the Marriage Equality Caravan is touring the country with two straight UU ministers on board. In addition to performing weddings in localities that are trying to pass restrictive legislation, they held a memorial service in Laramie, Wyoming on the sixth anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's death. We honor the diversity of people who enter our open doors.

We also value the aspirations, talents and dedication of all our people.

In our larger association, the gifts of women in ministry have been recognized, honored and valued for many years. Slightly over 50% of Unitarian Universalist ministers are now female. We rejected Paul's admonition that women should be silent in church over 100 years ago. And women lay leaders are prominent in our circles also. This congregation reflects the reality of our larger association.

Mark Morrison-Reed, whose words were read just a few minutes ago, is an extremely talented African-American minister who shares the pulpit of the First UU Church in Toronto with his (white) Canadian wife. And out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians serve in our pulpits and our leadership positions. We value the gifts of all our people. We welcome all through our open doors, honor their diversity, and value their gifts.

In 1976 this country celebrated their 200th anniversary. And in 1976 this congregation decided to throw a birthday party in the city. They commissioned a huge birthday cake and planned a party in Hackley Park on July 4th. After fun and games and an appearance by Charles Hackley, participants adjourned to the Muskegon Mall (of blessed memory) to partake of a multi-tiered birthday cake. When I look at the pictures of this event I see many, many people smiling and licking their fingers. I have never been able to count exactly how many tiers were in that impressive cake.

This congregation opened their hearts to the community on that significant anniversary and gifted them with a celebration to remember. I think it must have been a healing gesture in a country and community still divided over the Vietnam War. Open hearts are a characteristic of Harbor UU Congregation.

When I first visited this congregation the people told me that they were a people who cared for each other. In the ensuing years I learned that this was true. We have a designated group, named the Caring Ministry, who organize support for people who are ill or in pain. However, most members join in visiting sick friends, providing transportation and comforting their grief-stricken faith companions.

Their open hearts are not restricted to this congregation, however. For several years we have joined with Temple B'nai Israel and the Christian Scientists to serve a meal at Supper House. On the third Friday of the month we gather this interfaith crew to serve hungry people. Thanks to the efforts of Anne English Rapoport we buy the meal with the proceeds from the sale of bagels and bread that Goodgrains Bakery donates. If anyone doubts that we have hungry, home-less people here in West Michigan, I invite you to join us at 4:00 p.m. on the third Friday of the month.

Hearts that are open to the needs of our community led us to join with the Islamic Study Center to support E. Grace Loftis school in Muskegon Heights. Nancy Stier helped organize volunteers to tutor and mentor children. Jean Scarbrough helped organize their library. Barb Conn inspired us to collect money to refur-bish their playground. And all of us donated for that cause.

But our open hearts led us even further to an international project. Our children's Religious Education Department is supporting the education of Bikram Rai, a young Nepalese boy. It was again Nancy Stier who connected us with the organization that answers the need for education in this poor section of the world. The children however, led in the projects that raised money for Bikram Rai. Our child-ren are learning that open hearts are part of our identity. They are learning to care for people whom they may never meet.

In the children's story today, I told the story of Maria Mitchell. Maria asked many questions about many things as a child. When she was an adult she asked questions about religion that few people asked in the middle of the 19th Century. She asked, "How do we know God exists? Is all of the Bible true?" And she asked the really big question, "Why are we here?"

When she talked with William Ellery Channing, the great minister who defined Unitarianism in 1819, he "woke up her mind" by saying that not all questions have definitive answers. Certainty about the big questions is not possible. Later Unitarian leaders came to the understanding that Revelation is not sealed.

We have, from our inception, used our minds to reason about religion.

When the leading graduates of Harvard Divinity School traveled to Germany to study with the best scholars of the early 19th Century, they learned to read the Bible in a different way. They learned a new technique of study called Historical Critical Biblical Criticism. This technique allowed scholars to study the Bible as a piece of literature, placing it in the history of its authors and the context of their culture.

When they did so they began to question many of the assumptions of Calvinism. They used their reason to define a new and different kind of religion. They saw God as loving and merciful, rather than judgmental. They understood Jesus as a divinely inspired human rather than part of the godhead. They believed the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans, fallible by nature. Their open minds quested for more information, for more revelation.

Succeeding generations of Unitarians and Universalists found truths in other cultures and other faiths. They did not claim an exclusive path to The Divine. Rather, they honored the paths of other sincere religionists, while remaining devout members of their own congregations.

Today, some people of this congregation find their center in Jesus, in Humanism, in Judaism, in Buddhism, and in Earth Centered religions. We honor all these paths, for we believe that revelation is not sealed, and truth is available in many forms. Other people are still seeking, still questing for more information.

Our faith communities are unafraid of science. We do not find a conflict between the facts revealed about our natural world by science, and the mythic truths that inspire us. We teach our children about the wonder of the natural world and the glory of the cosmos, and we draw inspiration from them. We teach them the parables of Jesus and the great exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. We teach them about World Religions, and what they have in common with us, and how they differ. We teach them to have open minds.

In our congregations we encourage every person to ask the same kinds of questions that Maria Mitchell asked. We encourage people to seek the answers that give meaning to their lives, and recognize that others will find different answers to the questions. Each person uses his or her mind to explore the questions, and find the answers.

Earl Morse Wilbur, the famous Unitarian historian, said that Unitarians actually do believe in a trinity. He named that trinity as freedom, reason and tolerance. This trinity may well be the subject of a later sermon. For today, let me lift up that reason, or the use of the mind, is part of our DNA. It is critical to our identity. You do not check your mind at the door when you enter this church.

You are encouraged to use your mind to engage in reflection on the sermon, or discussion in the classes we offer, or in conversation at the coffee hour. Revelation is not sealed, nor is inspiration located in only the minister.

The story of this congregation continues today, and will continue into the future. Our doors are still open. Our welcome this morning reflects our community. We really do welcome all into our midst.

Our hearts are also open. We include in our care not only the members of this congregation and faith, but also the people of this community and the larger world. We will carry this care forward into the future.

And our minds are open to new revelations and new truths. As astronomers continue to explore more distant spaces and times, we anticipate what they will learn about our far distant past, and the future that awaits space travelers. What will they learn about how our cosmos began? Will they learn anything about our ultimate end? And then we must apply this to the study of that penultimate question--Why am I here?

We will be here, wrestling with the questions, finding possible answers. We will be here with open doors and open hearts, looking for the open minds that wish to join us.

Today we celebrate 50 years of engaging questions of ultimacy. We look forward to the next 50.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 01:28 PM | Comments (0)

Via Positiva

Via Positiva: Befriending Creation
October 3, 2004

A few weeks ago I talked with you about Original Blessing, the book by Matthew Fox about creation spirituality. I told you that there were four paths Fox recommends to experience creation spirituality. The first of these is the Via Positiva. I promised to share with you more about this and the other paths. Today I begin that sharing.

As I was re-reading this section of his book, I was struck by how similar Fox's language is to the writers of process theology. This subject has interested me for several years, and I have shared that interest with some of you. I think that Fox explores this subject from the side of spirituality, rather than theology, which makes it far more interesting and accessible to most people.

Fox says that, rather than the doctrine of original sin, upon which Christianity has been based for 2000 years, we should be teaching the doctrine of Original Blessing. The plants, animals, humans, earth and the cosmos are all gifts of great value. Creation is good. The earth is good. Humans are good.

Process theology says that God, or The Divine, consists of that which creates good, which includes people. Creation continues and humankind participates in it. When we participate in creating good, we are part of The Divine. I'll do a process theology sermon later. Today we will concentrate on The Via Positiva: Befriending Creation.

The overarching theme of Fox's work is that life/religion/and his religion, Christianity, should be a journey of life, not death. The Fall/Redemption theology he rejects concentrates on the inherent evil it claims is within each human. This theology is not present in Judaism, from which Christianity grew, and it is not present in the teachings of Jesus. It appears first in the writings of Augustine, who invented the art form, autobiography. Augustine wrestled publicly with the temptations of the flesh, which he came to believe were evil and inherent. Christianity adopted his philosophy, which became its primary teaching. It is a teaching that denigrates physical life in favor of spiritual life, envisioned as life after death. It denigrates pleasure in favor of asceticism, compassion in favor of judgment, and Eros in favor of Thanatos.

Fox follows a different tradition, a life affirming tradition that always existed within Christianity. However, it was a subterranean tradition, living on the margins of the dominant Fall/Redemption tradition. It is Creation Spirituality, and its first and basic path is that of the Via Positiva.

If we want to follow this path, we must first look at, recognize, and give thanks for the overwhelming Glory of Creation. From the tiniest ant to the overwhelming vastness of the cosmos, this creation in which we live is glorious. Unitarian poet Walt Whitman said, "I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars,/ And the pismire is equally perfect, and a grain of sand, and the egg of the wren…."

Creation is glorious however you believe it occurred--through the efforts of a Creator, or through the Big Bang that "just happened." The creative energy that brought it into existence, gifted we humans with a rich banquet of life on a beautiful planet.

Fox explores the meaning of the Hebrew word Dabhar, which is used in the Creation story in Genesis. Our bibles translate dabhar as word or spoken word. For example we say, "And God spoke, "Let there be light, and there was light." Dabhar is more complex, it means more than word, it means accomplished, it includes action--creative action. Creative energy, however one envisions it, is at the heart of the cosmos. And it takes more than left-brain words to accomplish, it also take right-brain creative action.

To follow the Via Positiva path we must learn to understand Creation as a blessing--a blessing placed into our care. Frederick Turner writes:

To those who followed Columbus and Cortez, the New World seemed incredible because of the natural endowments. The land often announced itself with a heavy scent miles out into the ocean. Giovanni di Verranzano in 1524 smelled the cedars of the East Coast a hundred leagues out. The men of Henry Hudson's Half Moon were temporarily disarmed by the fragrance of the New Jersey shore, while ships running farther up the coast occasionally swam through large beds of floating flowers. Wherever they came inland they found a rich riot of color and sound, of game and luxuriant vegetation. Had they been other than they were, they might have written a new mythology here. As it was, they took inventory. (quoted in Fox, Matthew, Original Blessing, Jeremy M. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, 2000, p. 43. [first published in 1983]).

Creation is good. As the dominant species on this planet, we reap the benefits or blessings of its marvelous, fecund, beautiful reality. However, every gift has its obligation. As the dominant species on this planet, we also have the responsibility of caring for this marvelous, fecund, beautiful reality. It is Fox's contention, and I agree, that because Western Civilization, which has conquered the world, relies on a Fall/Redemption theology, we are unable to appreciate the glory of creation. We are unable, even forbidden in some versions of Christianity, to appreciate pleasure.

Henry Hudson and his men were "temporarily disarmed by the fragrance of the New Jersey shore." No one would experience that now. Hudson and those that followed him "took inventory," and now the fragrance of chemicals and car fumes permeates the air. We who came to this land from European nations were afraid to be disarmed by beauty and pleasure. For most of us our faith told us that such things were sinful and would lead to eternal punishment. Let us reclaim Creation as a blessing filled with beauty and pleasure.

If we reclaim Creation as a blessing, and can truly see its glory, we are poised to explore panentheism. Pan-en-theism is different from both theism and pantheism. Theism sees the Divine as radically different from everything else. Pantheism sees everything as Divine and the Divine as everything. Panentheism hinges on a preposition. Panentheism sees that everything is in the Divine and that the Divine is in everything.

Fox writes that:

Panentheism is desperately needed by individuals and religious institutions today. It is the way the creation-centered tradition of spirituality experiences God (or the Divine.) It is not theistic because it does not relate to God as subject or object, but neither is it pantheistic. Panentheism is a way of seeing the world sacramentally. (Fox, p. 90.) (Parenthesis added.)

Panentheism is often expressed in maternal images of god by such writers as Julian of Norwich and Meister Eckhart, and in some images in the Bible. As Fox says, it expresses "the deep with-ness of God." (p. 92) Panentheism is often the spiritual expression of process theology.

Panentheist writer Wendell Berry says, "Nothing could be more absurd than to despise the body, and yet yearn for its resurrection." (Ibid, p. 58) And yet this is what classic Fall/Redemption theology teaches us. We are taught that our bodies are evil, that they will lead us into temptation. We are also taught that Jesus Christ triumphed over death by rising after being crucified. And we are taught that if we follow the teachings of the church that is named for him, we will also experience physical resurrection. Berry names this absurd.

Creation spirituality teaches that our bodies are part of the Glorious Creation--and that they are good. It declares that Eros is a powerful and good symptom of the power of creation. It teaches that no part and no function of our body is to be despised. Starhawk has been teaching modern pagans the same lessons. She, like Fox, recognizes the power of Eros, as do Beverly Harrison and Carter Hay-ward, modern feminist theologians. All such writers recognize the power of Eros and passion.

Thomas á Kempis, the great Fall/Redemption theologian "counsels people to 'fight against your passions,' to 'get rid of passion and desire,' pray to be 'set free from evil passions'." (Ibid, p. 60.) And so forth. However, Eckhart and the crea-tion tradition counsel us to "put on them the bridle of love." (Ibid.) A bridle is a steering mechanism, and a bridle of love does not imply unreasonable restraint. Passion and desire should be guided by genuine love, but not repressed.

Asceticism sets up dualisms--the good spirit or soul opposed to the wicked body and emotions. This is a false dualism under which the majority of Christians have lived for 1500 years.

Creativity is often a messy process, whether it is a child's creation of refrigerator art, or the creation of new life by two adults. Psychologist Carl Jung wrote:

Life itself flows from springs both clear and muddy. Hence all excessive "purity" lacks vitality. A constant striving for clarity and differentiation means a proportionate loss of vital intensity precisely because the muddy elements are excluded. Every renewal of life needs the muddy as well as the clear. … (Ibid., 61, 62.)

Creation spirituality recognizes that Eros and earthiness are holy. And it defines holiness in a very different way from Fall/Redemption spirituality. The Bible verse that is often used to define holiness is "Be ye therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Holiness, according to this dominant theology is perfection.

As I reminded you on Yom Kippur, none of us are perfect. What, therefore, does it mean to define holiness as perfection, and perfection as impossible? Is that not a recipe for frustration? One prominent writer and theologian names this an ego quest, not a spiritual journey. (Fox, p. 110)

Fox proposes that rather than perfection, holiness means hospitality, a cosmic hospitality. (Fox, p. 112.) He says,

Hospitality comes from the word host or hostess. … (T)he Creator God is a gracious, an abundant, and a generous host/hostess. She has spread out for our delight a banquet that was twenty billion years in the making. A banquet of rivers and lakes, of rain and of sunshine, of rich earth and of amazing flowers, of handsome trees and of dancing fishes, of contemplative animals and of whistling winds, of dry and wet seasons, of cold and hot climates. But it is a banquet that works, this banquet we call creation, the human planet. It works for our benefit if we behave toward it as reverent guests. God has declared that this banquet is "very good" and so are we, blessings ourselves, invited to the banquet.
(Ibid, p. 112, 113.)

Hospitality requires relationship. To be hospitable, one must have guests. And the first proper response of guests is gratitude. The second response is imitation. When one is gifted with great gifts, and a banquet of plenitude and beauty spread before one, one is required to share the plenty and celebrate the beauty. Therefore, to be holy is to be hospitable, to share one's banquet with those who have not been so generously blessed, and to be thankful for the gifts of Creation.

In addition to recognizing and celebrating the glories of the Cosmos, Creation Spirituality teaches us to trust. The Fall/Redemption Spirituality that dominates Christianity and the societies built upon it teaches fear. Fox writes:

It teaches consciously and unconsciously, verbally and non-verbally, fear. Fear of damnation, fear of nature--beginning with one's own; fear of others; fear of the cosmos. In fact, it teaches distrust beginning with distrusting of one's own existence, one's own spirituality, one's own originality, and one's own glorious entrance into this world of glory and of pain. (Ibid. p. 82.)

And then he asks, "What if, however, religion was not meant to be built on psychologies of fear but on their opposite--on psychologies of trust and of ever-growing expansion of the human person?" (Ibid.)

This is what Creation Spirituality does. When we study the cycles of nature, we know that all things live and then die. We know that even in the dark of winter, life exists below the ground, waiting for the warmth of spring to burst forth. We know that the glorious leaves of autumn now brightening our landscape are saying good-by as they dry and prepare to fall. We trust that life will return in the spring.

The culture of fear based on Fall/Redemption theology permeates our political as well as our spiritual lives. We fear for our safety, we fear for our economic well-being, and we fear change in our culture. Politicians of every stripe play on those fears.

If we learned from our faith communities to trust the abundance of creation, and to care for its gifts, we would be far less susceptible to politicians, salesmen, and media moguls.

No spirituality, however positive, can ignore sin and salvation. Fall/Redemption theology focuses all its energies upon sin and salvation. This is a grave error. However, no one who has lived in the 20th century and/or studied its history can ignore the fact that humans can and do commit evil acts. Even though Creation Spirituality starts with the premise that creation is good, evil still happens. Fox addresses this problem:

Sin, one learns from reflection on the Via Positiva, would consist in injuring creation and doing harm to its balance and harmoniousness, turning what is beautiful into what is ugly. In this sense all ecological damage is a sin against the Via Positiva and…such sin is a break, a rupture, in creation itself. It represents the most basic injustice, that of humanity to its own source, the earth. (Ibid, p. 119.)

It is possible to sin in this way when one submits to dualism, to subject/object thinking. Only then can we manipulate and control the other parts of creation. Fox continues, "Another sin of omission …is the sin of limiting, always guarding against or policing, pleasure. This sin of omitting Eros or love of life expresses itself in a preference for Thanatos, love of death." (Ibid.)

When we do this we cannot fall in love with life, nor recognize and celebrate beauty, nor fulfill our roles as Guest and/or Host or Hostess at the great banquet of Life. We will fall into consumerism, the buying and selling of the symbols of our egoistic search for perfection.

Just as the definition of sin in Creation Spirituality differs from Fall/Redemption teachings, so does the definition of salvation. Salvation means healing, healing the broken strands of life in the Cosmos. All justice-making work helps heal and is salvific. Building relationships among the beings that populate creation is sal-vific. I include in this human beings and animal beings and plant beings and cosmic beings wherever they may lodge.

Reverence for Life, proclaimed by Alfred Schweitzer, is salvific, and a return to Eros is salvific. All acts that help heal the individual, society, and the world are salvific. Recognizing the kernel of divinity within each person, which Fox names the Kingdom and Queendom of God, is salvific. Fox calls this the Royal Person-hood of every person.

Concentrating on the now, rather than seeking to return to a mythical past perfection can help us find healing. Working in the now, rather than waiting for an uncertain future can help us find healing. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. (Ibid, p. 104.)

Concentrate on now, while honoring the past and looking toward the future. Salvation is available to all.

Matthew Fox relates a story about the great psychologist, Erich Fromm, "who turned to his friend, Robert Fox and asked, 'Why is it, Bob, that the human race prefers necrophilia to biophilia?' A significant question, this. Why do we prefer love of death to love of life? Missiles to celebration? Power-over to power-with? Greed to letting go?" (Fox, p. 33.)

Fox believes, and I agree, that the answer lies in our long history of practicing a religion that has Fall/Redemption as its center. Today, I shared with you some aspects of the Via Positiva, the first of four paths in Creation Spirituality. I will return to Original Blessing and the other three paths later. On the Via Positiva we are called to celebrate the beauty and glory of creation, we are called to radical trust in the ever changing, yet always renewing natural world, and we are called to cosmic hospitality, eliminating dualism from our thinking and seeking to heal the world.

Let us go forth then, with joy into the glories of creation. Let us be grateful, and let us celebrate.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

That All May Be Free to Wed

THAT ALL MAY BE FREE TO WED
October 17, 2004

I had a visitor this week, Pastor Kwame from Ghana. He called me because he saw my name, Nana', in the paper. In his dialect Nana' has a very special and honorable meaning, and he wanted to see if perhaps I was Ghanian. He asked to visit, and I agreed. Let me add that I checked with his local host, a minister whose name I recognized as the pastor of an evangelical church.

I liked Pastor Kwame. I experienced him as a good pastor. He wanted to come here today to participate in our service. I somehow sensed that his theology and mine would not be in sync on this topic, so I explained to him that I intended to preach on the subject of Gay Marriage, and that I was in favor of it.

His reaction was that of a good evangelical Christian pastor. He did not condemn me, nor did he condemn homosexual people. He explained to me that God had designed men and women differently for a reason. That reason was to make babies. We had a very interesting discussion, and neither persuaded the other to change their mind.

Our liberal religious tradition has a very different view. Our tradition supports people who are gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual. We think that all people are deserving of respect and dignity, which includes the right to marry the person of their choice.

That All May Be Free to Wed is the topic of today's sermon.

Let us begin this discussion with the idea of covenant. The concept of covenant grew out of the practice of contracting. Contract is a legal term, which involves two or more people. In a contract one side agrees to do something, and the other side agrees to do something, i.e., an employer agrees to pay a specified amount of money for the specified work accomplished by the employee.

Covenant uses the same idea, but adds another party to the contract, The Divine, or God. Our prototype for covenant is the agreement at Sinai between Yahweh and the people of Israel, "You shall follow my commandments and be my people and I shall be your God." Thus covenant involves at least two people and The Divine. It is more than a contract. Legal language evolved into religious language.

Let me specify again that I am using the word God, or The Divine, as a short reference to that which is best and brightest in your life--to that which helps give your life meaning and depth.

Another characteristic of covenant is that it involves relationship. Contract does also, but it usually involves a business relationship. When you sign a contract, it often needs a witness. Covenant is concerned with personal and social relationships. And one of the parties and/or a witness to the covenant is God. Breaking a contract is a legal concern, and breaking a covenant is a religious concern, which may involve legal matters.

My relationship to this congregation is through our covenant. When I first came here we had a start-up weekend at which we drew up a mutual covenant. We set up the guidelines for our relationship together. We did this by freely choosing to work together for the good of our community. And we have been operating under these guidelines for ten years.

Marriage is also a covenant that is deeply concerned with relationship. It is a covenant between two people and The Divine about the nature of their relationship.

When I counsel couples before their marriage, I ask them to consider carefully the words of their vows, which is the covenantal portion of the ceremony. I have samples of vows, and I tell them other sources for examples. I tell them they may choose one of the samples, or they may alter one, or they may write their own vows. However, they must pay attention to them, because this is the heart of the ceremony. They must choose the parameters of their covenant. They are free to modify or create the terms under which they enter into covenant. This is the promise they are making to each other. It is their covenant.

God, or The Divine, is also a part of this covenant, a witness to the promise. I think this is why people who have not been to church for a decade or more will search for a minister willing to marry them. At some deep level they need a representative of The Divine who will witness and bless their marriage.

Other people are also a part of the covenant. All weddings require witnesses, those people who sign their names on the marriage license. They are the representatives of the community. They stand in for the larger society as witnesses to the covenant that makes the ceremony of wedding a marriage of two people. Family members are often included to demonstrate that the couple's marriage is blessed by the families. And friends are present to lend their support and approval. These relationships are deeply affected by the covenant of marriage enacted to make two people a wedded couple.

And there is another party to the covenant. It is the state, which represents society at large. The state is involved because marriage has legal and business consequences. Married couples have many legal advantages, which include insurance for the spouse and children, the right of inheritance and tax advan-tages. I will say more about these later. For now, let us acknowledge that the state and society have an interest in the laws that govern who may and may not be married.

All states have laws regarding marriage. They set guidelines as to how old one must be, and often that differs for males and females. They define how long one must wait after receiving a license until one can wed, and when the license expires if it is not used. They may require medical exams or tests, they may require classes, and they may tighten or loosen restrictions as long as they do not inter-fere with the constitution of the state or nation.

Until recently all states stated that marriage would consist of a covenant between a man and a woman. Recently that requirement has been successfully expanded to include same-sex couples in Massachusetts by appealing to the constitution of the state.

Now this state of Michigan, among others, is attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that says that marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one woman. Michigan already has two laws on the books with that provision, but the backers of the amendment want to enshrine it in our constitution.

Do we really need to specify that there shall be one of each major gender in our definition of marriage? What is the deep theological reason behind this push to disenfranchise a significant minority of our population?

My friend, Pastor Kwame, explained it to me very carefully. "God," he said, "designed males and females to combine to produce children. Two men," he said, "cannot have children and two women cannot have children. Therefore we cannot have marriage between two men or two women." This is a very popular view, most especially in the evangelical Christian movement, and in traditional societies throughout the world.

Thus, if the purpose of marriage is only to produce children, gender-defining language is important. (Let us also acknowledge that adoption is always an option, as Heather, in our children's story, discovered in her playgroup. Some families of varying configurations choose to adopt their children.)

However, my response, and I think that of many other people, is that marriage involves much more than producing children, critical though that may be.

Marriage is also about living with a loving life partner. We know that this is a romantic notion that evolved after many centuries of more practical reasons for marriage. These include combining the assets of two families, ensuring a dynastic succession, as well as producing and caring for children.

In our over-populated world marriage is often mostly about sharing life with a partner one loves. Humans are social beings. We are designed to be part of a society. Most of us yearn to share our lives with a special person who under-stands us, loves us even when we are less than perfect, who hugs us when we are unhappy, and comforts us when we are sad. To deny this need to a group of people is not only unfair, it is, to my mind, cruel.

Marriage also provides a system of support. Partners can share their assets, both financial and personal. One partner may be the major financial support, while the other brings color and life into the marriage. One may be better at child care and the other excels at small repairs. One may be a terrific cook and the other a master gardener. In our current economic environment it often takes two sources of income to provide a comfortable home.

Part of the support available to married couples is provided by the state. We know that married people receive a deduction on their income taxes. Personally, I often wonder why widows do not receive some sort of tax credit. After all, we are single through no fault of our own. Most widows and divorcees see their standard of living go down, with no compensation. I think that perhaps we don't have a large interest group to communicate with legislators. I am sure that there are other single people who wonder about the marriage tax credit.

Our laws reflect a bias toward married couples. A long-term same-sex relationship has no legal standing when illness or death strikes one member. We have heard the nightmare stories of same-sex partners denied access to their dying partner. We have heard the stories of families of origin who refuse to allow the distraught partner to help shape the memorial service of their deceased loved one. Married couples have no such problems. Married spouses have legal right of access, and inheritance rights.

Enlightened companies have begun offering benefits to their employees who are in a committed relationship, without specifying its gender configuration. Some cities and towns are also taking care of their valued employees by providing health insurance to non-traditional families. The amendment proposal that will be on your ballot this November 2 would remove such benefits. It would also remove pension benefits for domestic partners regardless of their gender formation.

Marriage also confers inheritance rights on its partners. Laws vary from state to state, but generally allow the surviving partner to claim a significant portion of the estate of a deceased person. Unmarried partners have no such protection, and antagonistic family members can often break the will of a gay or lesbian attempt-ing to provide for their surviving spouse and children.

In addition, the institution of marriage provides recognition of a special, loving relationship. Partners often wear rings that identify them as part of a basic family unit. They are allowed to hold hands in public with no eyebrows raised or averted glances. Friends ask about their spouse openly, without having to check to see who might be listening. They can assume the support of society in keeping their relationship healthy and long lasting.

To deny these benefits to our brothers and sisters who are members of same-sex partnerships is patently unfair.

The proposed amendment permanently outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships. That is, no partnership, whether same-sex or different sex would be legally allowed benefits.

It also takes away local control. City and county governments will no longer be able to make decisions about which policies are appropriate for their communities.

One of the scare tactics used by the proponents of this amendment is to say that soon churches will be required to marry same-sex couples. This is nonsense! No government can require a religious community to perform a sacrament contrary to their teachings. If same-sex marriage were allowed, most weddings would probably take place at city hall, although I certainly hope that more couples would find their way to our door. The amendment would not change Michigan's legal definition of marriage.

The proposed amendment would prevent public-sector unions from negotiating for domestic partner benefits— even if they have been offered under previous contracts. Thus, it would lessen union rights.

The Constitution exists to protect the rights of all Michiganders. This amendment, if approved, would not establish new rights or even affirm existing rights; in fact, it would be the first time the Constitution has ever been amended to take away rights that people already have.

I find this deplorable. Our faith has always been in the forefront of the struggle to expand civil rights. To be faced with the very strong possibility that our state will deprive our friends and relatives of rights they already possess makes me very sad.

Let us return to the idea of covenant again. We said it required the freely given consent of two people, who agree in the presence of God or The Divine to live within certain parameters in their relationship. There is nothing in this under-standing of covenant that limits it to only different-sex relationships.

We base our first principle, the affirmation of the worth and dignity of all people, on the belief that all people are created equal. We may word that in different ways. One way is to say that every person is a child of God. Another is to say that we are all more human than otherwise. (Richard Gilbert)

The love of one human for another cannot be regulated, nor proscribed. We are complex creatures, we humans. We love in many ways. Some of us are fortunate in that our love falls within the rigid guidelines of state and traditional faith. Some of us love beyond boundaries. This takes courage and commitment. Any long-term relationship takes work and dedication. One that challenges tradition-alist mores requires more of its members.

I admire a love that can survive such challenges.

I also believe that it is counterproductive to a healthy society to deliberately place challenges in the path of those who wish to build a loving life together. In my view, the world needs more loving relationships, not less.

If this amendment loses, nothing changes in Michigan. The official definition of marriage will remain that it is composed of one man and one woman. If, at some time in the future, the consensus of our society moves to embrace legalizing same-sex weddings, it could be done through legislation.

If, however, this amendment passes, then many people in Michigan will lose some of their rights and benefits. And, if at some time in the future, the con-sensus of our society moves to embrace legalizing same-sex weddings, it could only be done through amending the constitution, which is more difficult.

I intend to vote against this Proposition #2, and I hope you will do the same. My decision is based on my understanding of our faith tradition and its affirmation of freedom for all people, and the value it places on every person. I have also signed the statement crafted by the Religious Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which will be presented in press conferences in several locations on Tuesday. This is an interfaith group organized by the American Friends Service Committee. Here are the words of the statement:

"As religious and spiritual people, clergy, and community leaders, we are com-mitted to working for justice and equality for all Michigan citizens. While we are diverse in our understanding of homosexuality as a moral issue, we are one in affirming the full rights of all people and families to equal legal protections that secure and strengthen the family. Therefore, we strongly oppose consideration of any State constitutional marriage amendment or ballot proposal that would limit the rights and benefits of same-sex couples and families, and would only serve to heighten a climate of discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples and families in Michigan."

Our faith tradition encourages clergy to perform same-sex Civil Unions. This allows us to offer recognition of a covenanted relationship to our gay and lesbian members and friends. We have supported our brothers and sisters as they struggled to legalize their relationships. We continue to support them as they face the backlash of the decision in Massachusetts that allowed them to legally marry. I hope we will join them in defeating Proposition 2.

Love is too precious to be left in the hands of people who are threatened by progress. Love needs to be strengthened, supported and honored. Let us love together, and let us love all our people.

Amen.
Blessed be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)