Welcome to the Harbor Unitarian Universalist Congregation

June 30, 2005

The Religious Right and Christian Fundamentalists

The Religious Right and Christian Fundamentalists
Andrew Fink
June 26, 2005

Hear is a bit of trivia.Within the last few years a leader of a national religion made this pronouncement on stem cell research: “…no human embryos should be created specifically for stem cell experimentation, thus turning human life and human reproduction into a commodity”

We will get back to this at the end of my talk. But I want you to ponder this and consider whether this is a proper position for a religious leader to take; whether the policy makers ought to consider this leader’s view when making policy; and whether following this religious leader’s pronouncement would be a step towards a theocracy.

This week two nephews, both 11 stayed with us. One of them my youngest brother’s son, the other my oldest brother’s grandson. I spent hours at the beach, and more hours sitting at Michigan’s Adventure while they enjoyed the rides and the water park, and a then few more hours just fishing, so one would think I should be rested. I am, but only because I was able to take a long nap yesterday afternoon, after they left.

On Friday my brother Jim and his wife came to pick up the kids and stayed over night. Their six-year-old was with them. Friday night, about 9, their older daughter, living in Grand Rapids, came to see her parents and siblings.

They left at noon. Then about 4 yesterday, my sister Mary called from the highway, saying they were coming home from a camping trip and wanted a restaurant recommendation in Whitehall. So, while Helen slept I went to dinner with sister, brother-in-law, and four of their seven children. Mary’s oldest child has a rock band in Pittsburgh.
There is nothing that beats the love of a family. And I love my family.

Mary and her family, and Jim and his family live in Ypsilanti on the same street just two doors apart. They live in a neighborhood that has a large African American population and is on the edge of what we called colored town when I was a boy. My sister and her husband have helped a neighboring African-American boy get into and stay in a private college in Wisconsin. When this boy is home, he will walk into Mary’s house and Jim’s house, without knocking like any family member.

My nieces and nephews seem to be completely free of any racial prejudice or stereotyping. They live also on the edge of a nearly dead downtown. The theater down the street, that I went to for movies is now a porn theater. Drugs and prostitution are apparent. The thing that has kept their little neighborhood from slipping into complete disrepair is the houses. Many of the homes are magnificent -- what most of us would consider dream homes. The neighborhood struggles to survive because of the schools --middle class people with children choose a different school district. As one friend says, the only people moving into the neighborhood are gays and home-schoolers.

My older brother, Karl, is a retired judge. He lives in the country and commutes to a law practice in Ann Arbor, in a firm whose managing partner is a Jew. Karl’s first daughter practices law with Mary’s husband. His second daughter is married to an American Indian and is trained as a forester. His fourth daughter worried that her tattoo was not covered by her wedding dress.

My mother died when I was 19 and my father married a woman with two children just a little younger than me. Stepsister Peggy has a British Jew for a husband. Peggy teaches school in Ann Arbor. Her only daughter is an assistant producer of television shows. Stepbrother Lester, has a Japanese American daughter in law. His daughters are both on second marriages.

At least three of my nieces were pregnant when they married. I suspect that one of them got pregnant so she could marry.
When my father’s second wife died he married a woman 12 years younger than me. This woman had an African-American daughter, whom my father adopted. Olivia is technically my half-sister. She is 16. Her oldest niece is nearly 40. Olivia is a child who was to be aborted. When her mother changed her mind, my stepbrother’s family made the success of Olivia their personal mission.

With the exception of my Jewish stepbrother in law, all of these families are fundamental born again Christians. They believe the bible is true. They seek guidance from God in making their personal decisions. Then they act on their beliefs.

How many times have you heard it said of pro-lifers “They want to save the fetus but don’t care about the baby after it is born.” Well, that is not the case. My stepbrother’s wife confronted Olivia’s mother at the abortion clinic and persuaded her to keep the child. From that point on the success of the child was a project for the family. It was through this connection that my father met Olivia’s mother.

These people are legitimate participants in our society. They have the same rights as the rest of us. Their religious views do not invalidate their political positions. It pains me when I hear a UU dismiss a conservative political position with a comment about the religious right, as if that were a rational response. If we believe in the democratic process we must recognize it extends to all, even Christians. If we believe in reason, then we must address the arguments and political positions, not merely dismiss the religion of the proponent. In our own church, “religious right” and “fundamentalism” have become swear words, or words of denigration thrown out just to emphasize how bad something is.

Christians address political issues as we do; some trying to decide what is the best policy for society; some trying to decide what policy is best for them personally. You can argue with many of them; but some won’t listen. You can occasionally persuade some of them to change their mind. Some base their opinions on informed views of the world; some have a knee jerk reaction to the issues. As a group they are as imperfect as any group. As a group, they care as much for their fellow man as any of us.

But, some believe that the difference between the religious right and, say, the UUs of the world are that the religious right wants to impose its religious values on the rest of us leading to a theocracy. Well, if imposing ones religious values on the rest of us creates a theocracy, then the danger comes not from the right but from the left. This is what Bill Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, has to say about it. I quote:
“.. 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. [I am pretty sure Sinkford is talking about government action here]“We believe that ensuring equal civil rights for gay and lesbian families is our moral duty, [civil rights in this context means government enforcing our sense of morality] 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. [Again government action to enforce UUA’s moral values.]
“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.“(Because the UUA believes it is the moral thing to do we should all pay taxes to provide medical care.)

Now, I do not think that Sinkford wants a theocracy. I think he wants the implementation of laws he thinks are good for society.
I do not think that Mr. Sinkford is disqualified from expressing his political views by virtue or his being the head of a religion. I wish UUs in general would recognize that those on the religious right have the same privilege to speak out, and should be given respect and dignity when they do.

Okay now back to that first quote. Was the author attempting to impose his religious views on us? Would it be wrong for our government policy makers to consider those views? Would that be a step towards theocracy?

The author of that quote about stem cells was our own Bill Sinkford/
Amen, Shalom {and here I added “that third one” because I had forgotten to type in the closing)

Okay, back to the quote regarding stem cell research. Did you think it was a Christian fundamentalist attempting to impose his values? Was it appropriate for a religious leader to speak on this issue? Would following this standard be a step toward theocracy?

Consider this: This was a statement by our UUA president Bill Sinkford.

Posted by harboruu at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2005

Via Creativa

VIA CREATIVA
April 17, 2005

As I re-read the section on the Via Creativa in Matthew Fox's book, Original Blessing, I remembered the streak of creativity that runs throughout my mother's family. I remember my grandmother sitting with her tatting, always working with her shuttle, creating something lacy and beautiful.

My aunt Nina made braided rugs. She bought all the coats and woolen suits from the Salvation Army store, took them apart, and used the wool to braid lovely rugs. They were in high demand, for her sense of color and careful craftsmanship resulted in beautiful, long-wearing rugs. She also baked special cakes for weddings and parties. In the small community in which she lived there were no bakeries, so her cakes were highly valued.

My mother sewed all her life, until her vision failed. She also had a good sense of color and fine craftsmanship. At Easter-time she blew eggs and painted delicate flowers on each one, decorating them with small bits of lace and ribbons. And she baked the best pies in the county--or at least that's what her family and friends claimed.

One of my brothers was a trombone player, and had a high school band. My cousins painted ceramics, carried on their mother's cake baking, and planted beautiful gardens. I have acted, made costumes, designed and run the lights, and collected and made props for theatre productions. I also was a fabric artist and love to garden.

In the next generation we have writers and photographers, great cooks and a gymnast. My daughter Stacy is a talented artist, and--I have to brag--her son, Aaron is, at eight, creating paintings and collages worthy of framing.

When Matthew Fox says that the Via Creativa is essential to our spiritual life, I embrace his idea enthusiastically. Let's explore this idea today.

Matthew Fox is a former Dominican priest. The ideas he wrote of in his book, Original Blessing, were too threatening to the Vatican to allow him to continue teaching in Catholic Universities. He was dismissed from his positions and officially censured. The Episcopal Church embraced him with open arms, and he is now a priest in that tradition.

This sermon is the fourth in a series presenting his ideas. I first shared with you his heretical teaching that instead of being born with original sin, we are born with original blessing. Fox delineates four paths we can follow in creation theology, the Via Positiva, the Via Negativa, the Via Creativa, and the Via Transformativa. We have examined the Via Positiva which he describes as "a way or path of affirmation, thanksgiving, ecstasy. " (Fox, Matthew; Original Blessing, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, 1983, p. 33.) We have also explored the Via Negativa, the path of depth, the path that recognizes pain and suffering, and chooses to learn from them.

Today we look at the third path, that of the Via Creativa. Fox says that, "Because (Creation Theology) pays equal heed to both the Via Positiva and the Via Negativa, it celebrates the union of the two in the Via Creativa. In letting both pleasure and pain happen, both light and darkness, both naming and unnaming, both cosmos and void, we allow a third thing to be born; and that third thing is the very power of birth itself. …It is the image of God, the image of the Creator, coming alive and expressing its divine depths and divine fruitfulness. It is our creativity which is the full meaning of humanity's being an 'image of God.'" (Ibid. 175)

Fox is a leading contemporary panentheist. You are familiar with theists, who believe in a god, and pantheists who believe that the divine is personified in Nature. Panentheists believe that the divine resides in Nature, AND that there is something larger. The "something larger" may or may not resemble the traditional god of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim tradition.

This idea is closely tied to process theology, which says that the divine is that which creates good. Therefor, humans can be part of the divine. And this is where the Via Creativa comes in. Fox quotes Thomas Berry who says, "Contemporary creativity consists in activating, expressing, and fulfilling the universe process, the earth process, the life process, and the human process within the possibilities of our historical moment." (Ibid, p. 178.)

Fox claims, and I agree that our traditional fall/redemption theology tends to stifle creativity. That is, the faith that says that humans were created, and soon fell into evil through the sin of Adam and Eve, and were only redeemed by God sacrificing his only son, Jesus--this faith leads to rigid thinking, hierarchical constructions of society, and creative impulses rewarded only for inventions that control people. Fox wants to free people to express their creativity in ways that contribute beauty and good to the world

This does not mean that everyone needs to be a professional artist. It does mean that we can all create beauty if we free our right brains to express their impulses. In addition to the traditional arts--painting, sculpture, music and dance--we can create gardens, fragrant nutritious bread, and lovely altars within our homes. We can craft tables and quilts. We can write poetry and play instruments. We have allowed radio, television, and movies to usurp our creativity. They bring us the creations of others, but do not encourage us to produce our own.

To produce art and crafts, we must exercise our creativity. As a myriad of piano teachers told their students--practice, practice, practice. To help you get started, I'm going to offer you an opportunity to practice right now.

In your Orders of Service you will find a blank piece of yellow paper. In each pew you will find a cup with a selection of crayons. Please select one or two crayons and prepare to put something on paper.

Karla will provide us some "music to be creative by." To inspire you, I suggest you take a moment--maybe close your eyes--to remember the emerging green spring landscape you traveled through this morning. Perhaps you will draw inspiration from our beautiful stained glass windows. Maybe there is a dream image residing in the deep recesses of your right brain.

We're going to take three minutes to express ourselves on paper. Let the chatter of your left brain fall away, and awaken yourself to the deep feelings and images buried in your right brain. Three minutes of music and creation--starting now.

…………………………….3 minutes music………….

Please finish your creations now. I encourage you to take other opportunities to create in whatever medium you are most comfortable. Often the act of creating serves as a type of meditation. I am sure my grandmother's tatting was a form of meditation, as is the needlepoint I enjoy.

Panentheism and the Via Creativa celebrate the divine female, which is imaged as Goddess or the Mother of God. Fox quotes Meister Eckhart who says, "We are all meant to be mothers of God, for God is always needing to be born." (Ibid, 222.)

We religious liberals, who often envision divinity as within the heart and spirit of every human, can embrace the idea of mothers of God. For if divinity is in each person, it follows that every mother is a mother of God. However, part of our divinity, part of our godliness is giving birth to more than children. We give birth to ideas and objects of beauty, as well as infants who hold within them the seed of divinity. Each person, male or female, has the potential to birth a fragment of God to help heal our hurting world.

Panentheism, feminism and the non-literal meaning of motherhood are closely intertwined. Adrienne Rich defines feminism as "developing the nurturing qualities of women and men." (Ibid. p. 223.) A society that embraces this definition of feminism, and a creation centered spirituality, would be a society that nurtures creativity. It would also be a society that celebrates the Divine Feminine, including the Motherhood of God.

Fox says that, "Wherever compassion and wisdom are missing, there the full presence of God does not yet exist. … God must be born and must be allowed to grow up into human society and social structures, and …humanity is responsible for the birthing and the nurturing of God--all this has for rather obvious reasons not been heralded as integral to the Good News of late. (Ibid. 226.)

Where does the idea of sin fit in creation spirituality? If we are meant to be creators with the Divine, bringing forth good, what then, is sin? The dominant definition of sin, preached by those who embrace a fall/redemption theology is "privation of good." That is, those people who deprive others of good, whether the deprivation is of life or property or simply decent treatment, are sinners. Fox suggests that this centuries-old definition is no longer valid. He suggests that we define sin as the "misuse of good, the misuse of the greatest good of the universe, which is the image of God in humanity, our imaginations." (Ibid. 231)

It takes imagination to construct concentration camps to facilitate the most efficient means of killing millions of people. It takes imagination to build a transportation system that quickly delivers them to those camps. It takes imagination to build weapons of mass destruction. It takes imagination to devise systems of interrogation that result in the breakdown of the human spirit, and pain and dam-age to the human body. Imagination is a good, however its misuse can result in evil. Therefor those who misuse it sin. Fox suggests that misplaced imagination results in sadism "and its counterpart masochism." (Ibid.)

Creation theology emphasizes freeing the right brain from its restrictions. It calls for people to use their imaginations to do good, to resist the call to sadism or masochism, to birth into being art, literature, music and lovely crafts. "One meaning," says Fox, "of salvation that is uncovered in the Via Creativa, is the awakening to our divinity.

It awakens us to possibilities; it arouses us from pettiness, boredom and acedia. (laziness) … The news of our divinity … brings about an expansion of the mind, of the person, and of the societies we choose to create after our own images. To remain silent on this important doctrine, as most of the fall/redemption tradition has done for centuries is to invite the demonic. Divinity repressed, which is creativity repressed, will not stay for long. Like a cork held under water, it must assert itself in one form or other." (Ibid. p. 235)

The idea of being co-creator of the Cosmos is exciting and salvific. Just think what it would mean if everyone understood him/herself to be a co-creator of the Cosmos. Would it not free every human to exercise his or her creative powers with care and love? If we truly believed that every child carries the seed of divinity within them, would it not inspire us to nurture them with greater respect and admiration? The creation of Beauty is also salvific, for it adds to the good of the Cosmos. If we believed this, would we not take exquisite care in our every day creation of meals, of our home environment, of our relationships with others?

Because Fox is a Christian, though one who challenges orthodoxy, he examines what Jesus means in creation theology. He points out that Jesus was "a poet, a storyteller, an artist. He was not a priest or a theologian, or an academician or a dispenser of sacraments primarily, but an awakener to the sacrament of the cosmos, to the kingdom/ queendom of God in which all persons are immersed and which immerses all persons." (Ibid. 239)

Jesus chose to speak in parables, in the form of story. The Jesus Seminar tells us that the parables are as close as we can get to the true words of Jesus. Therefor, the parables, which often end in a question, or imply one, trusts the listener to use their own intelligence and wisdom to intuit the answer.

Jesus also claimed to be both human and divine. I have long thought that he intuited the seed of divinity within himself, and sensed it in others. I read his teachings as telling his listeners and those of us who follow, that all are children of the Divine. This is a salvific teaching of Creation Theology, one that frees us from the fall/redemption theology we inherited.

Creation Theology calls us to embrace creativity. We are called to reclaim our heritage as creators of beauty. We are called to re-vision what we call art, and re-learn how to make it a part of our lives. We are called to recognize the divinity within our hearts and within the hearts of all humankind. We are called to birth good into the world, and to care for all children on this beautiful earth.

Let us walk the Via Creativa with joy and gladness. Let us bring joy and beauty to accompany us on the way.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by nanak at 01:02 PM | Comments (0)

April 03, 2005

When Religion Becomes Evil

The main north/south artery into downtown Jackson, Mississippi is State Street. When I moved there in 1977 the First Baptist Church occupied about 1 1/2 square blocks of State Street, only two blocks from where it intersected with High Street, the center of the downtown business area. This is one of the churches in Jackson that ordered their ushers to refuse entry to African-Americans during the Civil Rights era.

The city government consisted of three people, all white Anglo-American men, that made up the City Commission. They selected the mayor from their ranks. There was no ward system. All of the inhabitants of Jackson voted for three candidates. This ensured that the commission would remain white. Two of the three members were also members of the First Baptist Church.

The Church decided to expand and purchased more land, growing eventually to three square city blocks, of which one was a very large parking lot. State Street was a busy street, partly because it was a Federal Highway. The parking lot was across the street from the church, thus endangering the worshippers as they attempted to cross.

So the church decided to build a crosswalk over the street to protect their people--a wise and compassionate decision. There was one problem. A Federal Highway cannot have a crosswalk above it, since it blocks certain large trucks. So, the church petitioned the City Commission for relief. Here is what they decided to do for this house of worship that paid no taxes to their coffers.

They stopped the Federal Highway one block before the church, and resumed it one block after the church. It still looked the same, and the traffic it carried did not change. However, the city was now responsible for all maintenance and upgrades on that three-block section of highway.

I have no idea how the City Commission worked this deal with the Federal Government--with which most Mississippians had a testy relationship at best. When I asked questions about this deal, I was met with shrugs and wandering eyes. However, the First Baptist Church of Jackson, Mississippi became, to me, an example of a very questionable relationship between church and governments.

Religion, like all human institutions, is capable of both good and evil. Some of you may nod your heads, and automatically think, "Yes, my religion (whatever that is) is good, and that religion (whatever is not mine) is evil." … No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that most major religions are often good, and perform needed functions in our society; however, all religions are capable of corruption and a descent into evil.

Let us remind ourselves of some of the good things that religions do for their adherents. Religions provide rites of passage to mark the major changes in our lives. They welcome newborns into the community, they mark the passage of adolescents into adulthood, they celebrate the choosing of partners for life, and they devise rituals to formalize mourning when death comes calling. In doing so they give shape and meaning to our lives.

Humans need to imbue their lives with meaning. Religions answer the great questions of our lives, by using sacred texts and tradition, which tell creation stories, myths and often mythologized history. They frequently have a great founder who serves as the ideal person, upon whom they can model their lives.

And religions provide a community in which people find friends and support dur-ing the difficult times of life. The community gives them an opportunity to learn and socialize together with people with whom they are comfortable. It gives them an opportunity to contribute to the perceived well being of society. It gives them an opportunity to practice leadership skills and interact with people of all ages.

These are some of the goods that religion can provide. What are some of the evils? Perhaps it is all-too-easy to think of these. Here are some.

Religions can lead to the oppression of all those who are not-our-religion.
Unfortunately history is full of examples, and we will look at some of these later. They can lead to the abuse of power by those in charge of the religion. In the last few years it has become clear that some priests in the Catholic Church abused children; and it is further clear that, in a misguided effort to protect the institution, the power structure of the church protected them.

The combination of religion and government can lead to war. Unfortunately, al-most all religions are capable of turning their god into a war god, who demands the extension of his or her realm.

We are going to look in more depth at some of these evils. And we are going to look at the causes of this corruption, as defined by Charles Kimball, the author of When Religion Becomes Evil. Kimball is an ordained Baptist minister, a profess-or of religion, and the chair of the department of religion at Wake Forest Univer-sity. Dr. Kimball has studied, written and lectured widely, with an emphasis on Islam and the Middle East.

In this book Dr. Kimball says there are five warning signs of corruption in religion that can lead to evil. They are:
1.Absolute truth claims
2.Blind obedience
3.Establishing the "Ideal" time
4.The end justifies any means, and
5.Declaring holy war

We will look at each of these in turn, starting with Absolute truth claims.

Most religions have a founding teaching, either that of a charismatic leader, or of sacred literature, or both. Every religion is based on a truth, or series of truths, upon which the teachings and practice of the religion rests. "However," Kimball says, "when particular interpretations of these claims become propositions requir-ing uniform assent and are treated as rigid doctrines, the likelihood of corruption in that tradition rises exponentially." (Kimball, Charles, When Religion Becomes Evil, HarperSanFrancisco, 2002, p. 41.)

When the religions espousing these truth claims are missionary religions, as are Christianity and Islam, the likelihood of eventual conflict rises even more. Both Christianity and Islam have charismatic founders and a sacred literature that is deemed to hold the truth for all humankind for eternity. When some members of these faiths claim that the only and absolute truth lies in their teachings, they are on the path to holy war.

Let me be clear that both faiths hold a wide range of believers in their ranks. Both have literalists and fundamentalists, and both have liberals within their ranks. It is the people on the far fringes that escalate tensions.

Let me illustrate by quoting Kimball:

Contemporary examples of fundamentalist Christians attacking, sometimes murdering, doctors and others who work at abortion clinics illustrate the point. On March 10, 1993, Michael Griffin shot and killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Five days later, the Rever-end Paul Hill appeared on the Donahue television program seeking to justi-fy Griffin's act. Hill subsequently became a leading figure among extremists in the antiabortion movement. …Fourteen months after Dr. Gunn's murder, Paul Hill decided he, too, must act; he murdered Dr. John Britton and his traveling companion, James Barrett, as they arrived at the same clinic in Pensacola on the morning of July 29, 1994. (Ibid. p. 44,45)

Hill was part of an organization called The Army of God. The absolute truth claims under which the group works are unambiguous: "abortion is an abomi-nation to God; true Christians must engage in direct action to stop what they see as a slaughter of innocents." (Ibid.) There are many people who oppose abor-tion, but who would never commit murder in order to "save lives." Those for whom it becomes an absolute truth claim are participating in a corrupted religion.

Blind obedience to a charismatic religious leader often leads to corruption and evil acts. During the late 1960's and 1970's, sects controlled by charismatic leaders flourished in the United States. Parents learned to fear them, and the new profession of "deprogramming" was frequently utilized. Often they began with religious leaders who attempted to build an ideal community, as did Jim Jones and his People's Temple.

Jones began his ministry in an Assemblies of God church in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1954. He was preaching a message of racial integration, and was far too pro-gressive for most members. In 1955 he and a few members left and joined the Disciples of Christ denomination in a church called Wings of Deliverance, which eventually changed to the People's Temple Full Gospel Church. He was viewed then as a courageous and visionary leader. (Ibid. p. 76)

Because his advanced social agenda was so controversial in Indiana, Jones moved the Temple, and seventy families (half Anglo-American and half Afro-American) to California in 1965. However, even in California, Jones and his ad-herents were controversial. The members gave all their money and assets to the church to be shared equally--a move that looked very much like communism. Disaffected members charged the church with illegal activities, and Jones de-cided to withdraw from the United States and set up a colony in African Guyana. (Ibid.)

This religious body, begun with such idealism, deteriorated into the mass suicide/ murder that shocked the world in November of 1977. Jones, the charismatic leader, acquired complete power over his disciples.

They followed him blindly into a cul de sac in Africa, where questioning was not allowed, and those who wished to do so threatened and killed. It ended in a ma-cabre scene of hundreds of bodies, poisoned and shot. Evidence showed that parents fed their children poisoned purple Kool-Aid. It is difficult to imagine a scene more evil.

The same sort of blind obedience was exhibited by the followers of Asahara Shoko, the founder of Aum Shinrikyo. This sect, an outgrowth of peaceful Bud-dhism, developed in the 1980's. Asahara hoped to establish an ideal society based on the legendary utopia of Shambhala. (Ibid. p. 80)

Much like Jim Jones, Asahara attempted to found a community in which all would experience salvation through worship of the god Shiva. Through this community he planned to save Japan, and then the world. Members of the sect ran for parli-ament in 1990, but were defeated. Asahara's teachings were already featuring end-of-the-world themes, and they became more prevalent. The practices of the sect became more violent, including forced conversions. Asahara's teachings included a "compassionate" rationale for violence, under his doctrine of poa.

Aum (members) interpreted poa to include killing certain persons in order to prevent them from accumulating more bad karma that would have to be worked out in future lifetimes; hence it was a compassionate act. … The subway gas incident was simply another opportunity to extend an interpre-tation that had already been applied to earlier acts of violence. Anyone who stepped outside this faith and interpretive framework that legitimized vio-lence faced the harsh reality that one had in fact committed what Buddhist teaching regards as the greatest sin--destroying life. (Ibid. 82)

Thus, gentle Buddhists, following a charismatic leader, released poison gas in the subways of Japan, killing and injuring many people.

Many religions look back or look forward to an "ideal" time. Jews look back to the nation of ancient Israel under its legendary King David, and strive to reproduce that nation today. Christians look back at Christendom, when all of Europe was united under the rule of Roman Catholicism, and forward to the utopian "city on a hill" where the ideals and precepts of Jesus of Nazareth will prevail. Muslims look back to the ummah or community of Medina where Muhammad established Islam, and forward to a world united in the worship of the one god, Allah. Kimball says:

Traditionally, Muslims have understood Islam as more than a religion. It is a comprehensive way of life including spiritual, social, economic, political and military dimensions…. (Muhammad) was … the political and military leader of the new ummah…established when the first Muslims left Mecca and traveled north to Medina in 622 C.E. Medina, under the leadership of the Prophet, theoretically presents an exemplary Islamic state.

Its Constitution, coupled with qur'anic passages, and several volumes of authoritative sayings and actions of Muhammad (hadith) provide resources for structuring an Islamic society. Muslims in various settings throughout the centuries have sought to fashion governmental, social, legal, and eco-nomic systems with references to a theoretical ideal. (Ibid. 106)

We need only to refer to the Taliban in Afghanistan to illustrate how this effort to establish the ideal society can be corrupted and turn evil. Their extreme version of Islamic law oppressed women and all those who failed to meet their standards of compliance. Most other Islamic countries recognized the danger they epitomized. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. (Ibid. 105)

However, we need to understand that we Americans have our own would-be Taliban. What Kimball calls the New Religious Right seeks to influence and control the actions of members of our government. Kimball says that these Americans share with the Taliban "a religious conviction that the perceived ideal has been lost and must be restored through instruments of the state. In this country the plan for restructuring the state--the federal government or the public school system--is somehow to be gleaned from a particular understanding of the Christian religion." (Ibid. 118)

Kimball uses Pat Robertson as an example, and names his theology as recon-structionist. He quotes from Martin Marty's book, Fundamentalisms Observed to explain reconstructionism:

For reconstructionists there is no neutral ground, no sphere of activity out-side God's rule. One is either following God in all aspects of life or not following God at all.

One is either engaged in godly politics or is participating in anti-God struc-tures that now threaten the home, the school, and the church…. Like their premillennial cousins, reconstructionists wait for a dramatic change in history. But they are not merely waiting. (Ibid.)

The history of the New Religious Right is too large to complete in this discussion. However, it points to what I think is a primary danger to our democracy in this country. We bear little responsibility for the actions of the Taliban and like-minded zealots in Islamic nations, and only a little more for those radical Ortho-dox Jews whose understanding of God requires them to settle lands in disputed territories of Israel. However, we Americans are responsible for allowing the ac-tions of our home-grown Zealots to control our government.

The fourth sign of a corrupted religion is "the end justifies any means." To illus-trate, let us look at the early history of the Christian church. Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. When gentiles began to be attracted to the sect, there were quarrels about whether they must become Jewish before they became Christians, and the new group began to increase the distance between them-selves and their parent faith. Christians had to define the reasons they were not Jewish.

However, both groups lived in comparative harmony until Constantine embraced Christianity, and it became a state religion. At that point, as James Carroll observes, the sword and the cross merged. (Ibid. 134)

The charge of deicide, the killing of god, was leveled against the Jews. Over centuries of European and Middle East history, Christians oppressed Jews. When the Crusades swept through the area, "brutal assaults on Jews and Jewish communities occurred systematically throughout Europe… resulting in tens of thousands of documented deaths during the Middle Ages." (Ibid. 136) Kimball tells us:

The long history of Christians dehumanizing Jews reached the lowest point with the Holocaust. Such massive violence would not have been possible apart from the history leading up to Nazi Germany. It would not have hap-pened without the active participation of, sympathetic support of, and rela-tive indifference exhibited by large numbers of Christians. (Ibid.)

The end desired by Christians, of separating from and defining themselves against, the parent religion of Judaism, resulted in abhorrent means used to accomplish it. It resulted in the primary horror of the 20th Century, a century of many horrors.

And the final sign of a corrupted religion is declaring holy war. For our example we will again look at Christianity, which began as a pacifist faith. One of the main reasons the Roman Empire persecuted early Christians was because they re-fused to serve in their army. "The weapons of a Christian are prayer, justice and suffering," quotes Kimball.

After its merger with the Roman State, Christianity began developing a theory of war. This took centuries, but was finally completed in the 16th Century. Just war required four criteria: 1. It must be proclaimed by lawful authority, 2. The cause must be just, 3. The belligerents should have a rightful intention, to advance good or avoid evil, 4. The war must be fought by proper means. Sometimes there were additional criteria, a. action should be against the guilty, b. the innocent should not suffer, c. war must be undertaken as a last resort, and d. there must be a reasonable chance of success. (Ibid. 160)

There is much to question in these criteria. For example, the first one says that it must be proclaimed by lawful authority, which rules out any revolution as pos-sible under the theory. However, they provided a guideline that served to some-what restrict violence in a very violent age.

However, this age was a time that included the Crusades. The church and not a lawful ruler declared these violent wars. Contemporary descriptions of the ac-tions of crusaders are horrifying. They describe scenes of thigh-deep blood in which the "soldiers of God" slew every living thing with which they made contact. Clearly this Holy War was a dreadful perversion of the religion of Jesus of Naza-reth. Nor has the language of the Crusades left our lexicon. Apocalyptic lan-guage and a division between good and evil mark our current struggle. Holy War is a mark of corrupted religion.

As I said when we began, religion is both good and evil. Let us return to the possibilities for good that it holds. Kimball says:

Whether one is a true believer or a die-hard secularist, it remains necessary to take the next step from the knowledge of these factors that predict when religion becomes evil to a clear understanding of how religion can remain true to its authentic sources and a force for positive change. (Ibid. 187)

He names this as embracing an inclusive faith rooted in tradition. There are many modern writers who embrace the idea of inclusivity, or pluralism. Some of you have read Diana Eck, a Christian who enriches her understanding of that faith through her experiences of Hinduism. Others have read or heard Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong, both Christians who are pluralists.

Pluralists are those adherents of one faith who embrace it whole-heartedly, yet recognize that others find meaning, truth and guidance in other faiths. They recognize that there are many paths to the Divine.

Within our Unitarian Universalist faith we are pluralist. We hold in our community those who find their primary truth in the teachings of Jesus, and we hold those who find that which is deepest and most dear within human hearts and minds. The teachings of Buddha and those of earth-centered religionists are welcome in our midst. We celebrate the truths of many faiths. In communities like ours, we find hope that the signs of corrupt religions will not surface, and that others will learn that exclusivist claims bring only pain and tragedy.

May it be so.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2005

At Home in the Universe

When I was a child, attending the Methodist Churches of my native Southern Illinois, I was a good and faithful Methodist. I believed the stories I heard from my Sunday School teachers were literally true. I loved them. Jesus was a miracle worker who turned water into wine, walked on water, healed sick people, raised Lazarus from the dead, and came back to life following his crucifixion.

The Methodist Church of my adolescence had a very good youth minister. We gathered in talk sessions that ranged over matters of faith and morals. No question was out of bounds. However, I soon learned that the answer to some of my questions was often, "Oh, you have to take that on faith." I felt like I had bumped my head on a ceiling.

When I left for college at age 17 I also left the church. I was a long time coming back. I knew I could no longer accept the Biblical and Faith stories I learned as a child as fact. But I had nothing else with which to replace them.

In Theological School, I learned that this is a usual path for faith develop-ment. Most of us learn a simple, literal faith when we are children, assuming our parents expose us to religion. In adolescence we outgrow our childish faith and reject it. Later, as we learn and grow, we move on to an adult faith, often within the same church in which we learned our childhood faith.

It took me a long time to find an adult faith. For many years I kept religion at a distance. Finally, in my late 30s I found the Unitarian Universalist church in Jackson, Mississippi. I felt like I had come home. Here was a rational religion that did not insult my intelligence. I embraced it eagerly.

Later, after experiencing tragedy, I deepened my faith. I learned that there was more to my church than a rejection of irrational beliefs. I learned that it offered a faith that supported me through dark nights of the soul. Finally I truly felt At Home in the Universe.

Bringing God Home is the title of Unitarian Universalist minister and author Rev. Forrest Church's latest book. In it he traces the development of his faith, much as I just did for you. The title of this sermon, At Home in the Universe, is taken from a concluding chapter in that book. I was captivated by the title; feeling At Home in the Universe seems like a great accomplishment. One must have gone through a great deal of spiritual development to claim that one really feels At Home in the Universe. One must have battled through the demons of doubt and despair to be able to say those words.

One must have confidence in one's current faith stance, one must have experi-enced testing, and comfort, and joy and sorrow to be able to express that one is At Home in the Universe.

So, how do we get there? In crafting this sermon I began by thinking about the nature of humankind. We humans are certainly based in our animal bodies. We can trace our similarities to other animals. Scientists tell us that we share a very high percentage of the same genes as many other animals--including mice! We are cousins to the dolphins and kissin' cousins to chimpanzees. We are certainly creatures--and yet we are also more than animals.

We are animals raised to consciousness. We are able to reflect, and to reflect on reflection. As far as we know, we are the only creatures able to do so. We don't quite fit with the rest of the animal world.

Orthodox religion expresses this as saying that humans are only a little less than the angels. We are seen as all Children of God, with a spark of divinity that re-sides within each human heart. We are more than animals and less than angels.

There is a classic scene in Stanley Kubrick's movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey that illustrates this uncomfortable fact. Ape-like hominids gather in a circle, a fight imminent. One picks up a stick to use as a club, and tosses it into the air--where it morphs into a space ship. Animals have transmuted into humans, raised to consciousness, but carrying with them the needs and some reactions of their animal ancestors.

Faced with this reality, we look around and say, "Who's in charge here? Surely there is something larger than I, something that planned this whole thing--this earth, this universe, this cosmos. What does this all mean? What does it mean to be alive, and to know that I must die? Where do I fit in this immense universe?"

From antiquity, even from pre-history, it has been the task of religion to struggle with these questions. Many religions have condensed these questions into one central one: Wherein lies the Divine?

And the differing answers that humans found have shaped lives and tribes and societies and empires. They have caused wars and struggles and pain and distress. And they have inspired writers and artists and peace activists and people who feed the hungry. Wherein lies the Divine? And what must I do in response to my answer?

Our nation is observing with rapt fascination the effects of two answers to those questions. In Florida a young woman lies, near death now, in a comatose state. Her husband understands his response to the above questions in one way. Her parents understand theirs in another. They have been locked in a political and legal struggle for 12 years over their response to her condition.

I weep for all members of the family of Terri Schaivo. I am a bereaved mother and a widow. I know the depths of grief. There is no good and easy answer to the questions raised by such cases. Michael Schaivo understands the Divine in one way, and he is responding responsibly to that understanding. Mr. & Mrs. Schindler understand the Divine to require different action. How our government has responded and continues to respond to their pleas will shape our society.

How each person and each society answers the question of Wherein lies the Divine? shapes their society and how it responds to the world. Through the course of time, many answers have been found. There are theist and non-theist answers. Within theism there are monotheists and polytheists. Within mono-theism there are competing claims for the name and allegiance to of the one god.

Here, in this faith community, there are also differing answers to the central question. And they reflect the variety within the world at large. We have theist and non-theist answers, monotheists and polytheists, and differing understand-ings within monotheism. The difference is that, unlike the larger world, where people war over their differing understandings of the Divine, here we coexist peacefully.

We honor each person's search for truth and meaning, and if we find different answers, we respect those answers as being true for that person. We gather in classes where faith is explored in four paths; humanism, mysticism, naturalism, and theism.

We select which path is most true for us, and we listen to the truths that our com-panions on the path have found. Then we listen to the truths that companions on the other paths have found. We support all our faith companions on their journeys.

Or we explore together as each person seeks to build his or her own theology. And we respect the answers each person finds. To do so, we use several methods. There is a phrase used by orthodox ministers, Search the Scriptures. We utilize this method also, however our definition of scriptures is broader than the Holy Bible of Christianity. We include the writings of many religions, the learning of Science, and the wisdom found in poems and literature. And we search all these scriptures for truth.

We add to the truth that we find there the wisdom of experience. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Unitarian minister, poet, essayist and orator, addressed the graduating class of Harvard Divinity School in 1838. He told the graduates that it was part of their task to present to their parishioners life passed through the fire of thought. Emerson's phrase highlighted the emphasis of the use of reason that marked Unitarians as different from orthodox Christianity.

Reason has been celebrated as desirable and necessary from the early inception of our faith. We do not check our minds at the door. We do not require a suspension of the laws of Nature to make sense of our faith. We take the wisdom of scriptures AND the wisdom of our experience and pass it through the fire of thought. Then we find what rings true for us, and declare it to be our source of faith.

For Forrest Church, that source changed during the course of his ministry. He was a rational humanist at the beginning, adorning his walls with architectural drawings of great buildings. However, over the course of his life, he changed. The challenges of ministry were part of the change. The challenges of living and especially the challenge of overcoming his dependence on alcohol were parts of the change. Now, he counts himself as a theist, and van Gogh's Starry Night adorns his wall.

However, it is not the god of childhood that he embraces. It is closer to the god of process theology. That is the god who creates good in the world. This god continues to create good throughout history. Since humans also create good, they are included in the godhead. It is this god that he posits as a possible part of a theology for the 21st Century.

Let us return to his metaphor of the Cathedral of the World, with an infinite num-ber of windows through which shine an infinite number of patterns of divinity. He says that,

As with any extended metaphor, this one is imperfect. The Light of God (or Truth or Being Itself) shines not only upon us but out from within us as well. Together with the windows, we are part of the cathedral, not apart from it. We constitute an interdependent web of being. The cathedral is con-structed out of star stuff, and so are we. We are part of the creation that contemplates itself. (Church, Forrest, Bringing God Home, St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 2002, p. 219)

The Cathedral of the World is vast, and our lives are short, so we can only experience a small part of creation. We can only speculate on the truths illuminated by a small number of windows. Church then says,

A twenty-first-century theology based on the concept of one Light and many windows promises its adherents both breadth and focus. Honoring many different religious approaches, it excludes only the truth claims of absolut-ists. This is because fundamentalists--whether of the right or on the left--claim that the Light shines through their window only. Skeptics draw the opposite conclusion. Seeing the bewildering variety of windows and observing the folly of the worshipers, they conclude that there is no Light. But the windows are not the Light, they are only where the light shines through. (Ibid.)

He pursues his argument against fundamentalists, saying, "Not only have they been taught to worship at a single window, but they also incite one another to demonstrate their faith by throwing stones through other people's windows." (Ibid)

Church suggests that the one Light and many windows approach can be called universalism. He says that "a twenty-first-century universalism tempers the consequences of inevitable ignorance and meets the need for focus, while addressing the overarching crisis of our times: dogmatic division in an ever more intimate, fractious, yet interdependent world. It posits the following fundamental principles:

1.There is one Power, one Truth, one God, one Light.

2.This Light shines through every window in the cathedral.

3.No one can perceive it directly, the mystery being forever veiled.

4.Yet on the cathedral floor, and in the eyes of each beholder, refracted and reflected through different windows in differing ways, it plays in patterns that suggest meanings, challenging us to interpret and live by these meanings as best we can.

5.Each window illumines Truth (with a capital T) in a unique way, leading to various truths (with a lowercase t) and these in differing measure according to the insight, receptivity, and behavior of the beholder.

And, Church claims, when we find the window through which our own Truth (with a capital T) shines, we will then be At Home in the Universe.

Whether this truth be theist, as it is for him, or non-theist, as it is for many liberal religionists, it is the truth that will help us find meaning for our lives. It will allow us to explore the Light deeply, to search for its subtle shades of meaning, to see how they relate to the Lights refracted from other windows.

On this Easter Sunday, the millions of people who find their Light shining through the thousands of windows labeled Christianity celebrate the resurrection of their god as experienced in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. For them, this day com-memorates the event that was most significant in their faith. I honor their celebration and their faith.

For many of us Jesus of Nazareth was a great prophet, who taught lasting lessons of how to live justly and kindly in a difficult and dangerous world. We celebrate his teachings, and catch a glimpse of his Light through the windows that shape our understanding of the Divine. I believe that Jesus was At Home in the Universe, as he understood it.

However, like Forrest Church, I believe that there are many windows through which the Light shines, and there are many understandings of the Divine that make us feel at home in a world of trouble and an Universe far more immense than we can imagine. I encourage you to honor your family member or friend who celebrates Easter today, and the one who celebrates Seder next month. I encourage you to explore the radical monotheism of Islam with your friend and the mystical polytheism of earth-centered spirituality with your niece or nephew.
I encourage you to look for the colorful window through which your new acquaintance sees the Light.

Let us all see the Light that gives meaning to our lives, and let us all respect the Light that shines through other windows in the great Cathedral of the World.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 08:54 AM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2005

The Age of Prophets

The service today is a continuation of an occasional series on the sources of our Unitarian Universalist faith. We often preach on the seven principles that incorporate our values. However, seldom do we look at the six sources of these values. Both are printed in your Order of Service.

Earlier I have examined the first and fifth source, and the Christian half of the fourth source--Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves. Today I examine the Jewish half of that source.

You will note in our reading today that Jeremiah was a reluctant prophet. "I am not a good speaker", he said, when Yahweh told him he was destined from before his conception to be a prophet. "I am too young." However, Yahweh was familiar with reluctant prophets, and did not take "I'd rather not" for an answer. "Don't be afraid," he said. "I will put my words into your mouth, and you will prophesy to the nations."

Now, this was not the first reluctant prophet Yahweh called. Do you remember the story of Moses and the Burning Bush? Moses also said he could not speak well. And Yahweh had an answer for him. " Your brother Aaron will assist you," he said. And thus Moses became the leader (with assistance) who, according to the Biblical story, freed the Israelites.

We think of ourselves as a prophetic faith. Much of that history comes from our Jewish ancestors. Today we are examining The Age of Prophets.

This week Grand Rapids hosted the Ten Commandments. Not just any Ten Commandments--this was the icon made famous by Judge Roy Moore, who erected it in an Alabama State courthouse. He was ordered to remove it by the Supreme Court, refused, and subsequently lost his job. This huge granite slab with the Ten Commandments is currently on tour in the United States.

Do you know what the very first Commandment is? Thou shalt have no other gods before me. When the ancient Israelites told the story of their founding, this was the most important part of their identity. In a larger culture that recognized many gods, the Israelites were monotheist. Most historians of the Bible think that monotheism developed gradually. They think that the no other gods before me phrase recognized that other nations had other gods. The unspoken name of the god of the Israelites, which we have variously translated as Yahweh, or the Lord, or God, has transmuted into the monotheist claim of the singular God.

Thus, the primary role of the ancient Israelite prophets was to remind the people that there was only one God, and that he was a jealous God. Time after time the Israelites were tempted away by other gods, who were, after all, present in the land of Caanan before the invading Israelites and their upstart Yahweh arrived in the land. There was Baal, a rain god, who was very important for pastoralists in a dry land. And there was the little goddess, Asherah, the goddess of fertility, who was very attractive to Hebrew women, whose worth was measured by the number of sons they produced.

Scholars tell us that the very fact that it was so often necessary for the prophets to remind the Israelites of God's singularity shows us that the transition from multiple gods who took care of differing problems to a single God of infinite power took a long time. Baal, Asherah and Yahweh coexisted uncomfortably for centuries. It took the work of the prophets, who spoke for Yahweh, combined with a difficult history of invasion, enslavement, survival and rebuilding to per-suade the Hebrews to embrace monotheism completely.

The second thing the prophets were called upon to do was to remind the people of their covenant with Yahweh. According to the Exodus story, here is what Yah-weh, speaking through Moses, promised the Hebrew people. "I am the LORD. I shall free you from your labors and deliver you to slavery. I shall rescue you with outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I shall adopt you as my people, and I shall be your God. You will know that I, the LORD, am your God, the God who frees you from your labors in Egypt. I shall lead you to the land which I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I shall give it you for your possession. I am the LORD."

Thus the LORD, or Yahweh, promised to give the Land of Caanan, or modern Israel, to the Hebrews in return for their adoration. However, the Israelites were also required to obey the commandments of Yahweh.

The Ten Commandments were only the beginning of Yahweh's laws. If you wish to read Exodus, chapters 20 forward, you will find many of them listed. (And if you wish to read the fine details, ad infinitum, they are in Leviticus.) They define the relationship of the Hebrews to Yahweh, to other people and to the land. They show a great concern for fair treatment, especially for powerless people. There are laws regarding how one must treat slaves, how one must compensate for accidental losses, and how one must treat widows and orphans. For example, in chapter 22 of Exodus, verses 22 - 24, we read; "You must not wrong a widow or a fatherless child. If you do, and they appeal to me, be sure that I shall listen; my anger will be roused and I shall kill you with the sword; your own wives will be-come widows and your children fatherless."

Many of the rules listed are specific to the land of ancient Israel both in time and place. They were formulated in a society that was tribal in culture. The people were traditionally pastoralists who were transitioning to an agricultural society. Thus, many of the rules are outdated. Few of us have to worry if our ox will gore the neighbor, or his pregnant wife or his slave. However, many of the rules were concerned with basic justice issues. While some of the rules had to do with economics, they expressed a concern that economic decisions be fair and equitable.

So, when a Jeremiah was called forth to speak God's words, the words were concerned with treating people fairly. He berated the rich and powerful, and those who worshipped Baal. Here is Jeremiah 2:29 - 34:

"Why argue your case with me? You are rebels, every one of you. This is the word of the LORD. In vain I punished your people--the lesson was not learnt; your sword devoured your prophets like a ravening lion. Have I shown myself to Israel as some wilderness or waterless land? Why do my people say, 'We have broken away; we shall come to you no more?'

Will a girl forget her finery or a bride her wedding ribbons? Yet times without number my people have forgotten me. …

Yes, and there is blood on the corners of your robe--the lifeblood of the innocent poor, though you did not catch them housebreaking. For all these things I shall punish you."

In this passage Yahweh speaks through Jeremiah, condemning the Israelites for straying from his worship, and for mistreating the poor. And he speaks of punish-ment.

Jeremiah lived in Jerusalem just before, during, and for a short while after the Babylonians conquered the city and destroyed the temple. He interpreted this event as the just punishment Yahweh meted out because of the unfaithfulness of his people. Today we would probably name this as "blaming the victim." However, at the time his work helped the Hebrews find meaning in the disaster.

He, and those writing in his name, interspersed threats of righteous punishment with messages of hope and consolation. Always the LORD called his people back to him, pleading for their love and esteem. Jeremiah did not have an easy life, nor an easy vocation.

So, what do Jeremiah and the other Hebrew prophets have to do with modern liberal religion? Classic Unitarianism developed because minister scholars studied the Bible and could not find satisfactory evidence of the doctrine of the trinity. They moved to an affirmation of the unity of God. They were radical monotheists, along with Jews and Muslims. Today, we embrace a variety of theologies, which range from atheism to earth-based spiritualities that may embrace polytheism. However, in the development of our faith, we moved from understanding God as a trinity to God as radically one.

We also understand ourselves as a prophetic faith. We have been concerned with helping the widow and orphan, just as were the ancient prophets of Israel. I use the term widow and orphan metaphorically to stand for all those suffering people with little or no power who are oppressed by systems of injustice, or by individuals or events that deprive them of basic necessities. We too, have prophets who spoke or acted to change society to bend toward justice.

I name Theodore Parker, who spoke out against slavery when many other churchmen found it uncomfortable or impolitic to do so. Parker founded a church in Boston that nurtured abolitionists who struggled for years to rid this country of our deepest societal sin. He helped runaway slaves on their route to Canada and freedom. He was nearly lynched by a mob as he struggled to help one such slave to a ship ready to set sail for freedom land.

One member of his congregation was John Brown, a fiery eyed prophet who took his passion to Kansas in the struggle to keep that territory free from the taint of slavery. Brown and his small militia saved Lawrence, Kansas from a raid by pro-slavers bent on murder and mayhem. Later he planned the failed raid to free slaves at Harper's Ferry. He wrote Parker that if it had been white folks he was trying to free, he would have been hailed as a hero. Instead, he was hanged.

We have modern prophets also. The Rev. James Reeb answered Martin Luther King's call for clergy to support his march from Selma to Montgomery. Reeb was attacked and beaten with an ax handle. He died of his wounds. When King pulled back to regroup, he again called for support. The Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Association was meeting in Boston. They recessed their meeting to fly to Selma and join King, along with many Unitarian and Universalist ministers. One of them was my friend, Gordon Gibson, retiring this year from his pulpit in Elkhart, Indiana. Gordon is writing part of the history of Unitarians and Univer-salists in the Civil Rights movement, so those examples of modern prophetic action will not be forgotten.

I believe that the prophetic voices modeled by the great Jewish prophets con-tinue to influence our faith today. Justice is the only concept that is lifted up twice in our Seven Principles. We covenant to affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all. Justice is seldom achieved without prophets who are willing to name the injustice, and who then rouse others to act to correct it.

In the last 40 years, members of our faith have taken active roles in several prophetic movements. Some ministers and churches were very active in the anti-Vietnam war movement. Some churches served as sanctuaries during the struggles in Central America. Some churches opposed the war in Iraq, and hosted peace groups, and still do. Some of our churches have pursued racial justice issues and reconciliation between the races. Because we embrace a diversity of opinions about these and other issues, the appropriate actions to bring about justice often require a great deal of discussion.

The role of a prophet is uncomfortable today, just as it was in 587 B. C. E. when Jeremiah challenged his neighbors and friends. And yet it is as necessary now as it was then.

To speak out for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people brings the wrath of right-wing ideologues pouring forth. I am proud that the leaders of my faith have spoken and acted on this issue.

The lead plaintiff for the lawsuit in Massachusetts that brought legalized gay marriage to that state was a Unitarian Universalist. Our headquarters in Boston, located next door to the State Capitol, carried a banner in favor of gay marriage. And the president of our Association, the Rev. Bill Sinkford, performed the marriage of the lead plaintiff after the State Court ruled that it was legal to do so.

The right to marry is a symbol of many rights that are denied our gay friends and family members. It is right in the middle of the culture wars that have divided our nation for at least the last two decades. As such, it is an uncomfortable place to be. To speak out in favor of it places one on the firing range of public dissension.

Recently I met and talked with a teacher at Muskegon High School. She asked if she could give my name to the student/teacher coalition that is attempting to start a gay/straight alliance there. "It was difficult," she said. "When they put up fliers about the first meeting, some of them were taken down by teachers, who said, 'I'm broad-minded, but I'm not that broad-minded.'" When I stopped pounding my head on the table, I told her to please have them call me. I don't know exactly what, if any, role I can play in their endeavor, but at least I can express my support.

Our Jewish friends continue to work for justice. One of our members sent me an essay from the Jewish World Review by Lenore Skenazy. She wrote that she managed to ignore the Darfur catastrophe UNTIL her rabbi gave a sermon about a national four-day Darfur letter-writing campaign.

So she called up the coalition sponsoring the program, Save Darfur. She learned three things:

"First: Yes, there is a war going on in Darfur. The government is bombing its own villagers, by helicopter. The government's allies, a group called the Janjaweed, kill the villagers, too, in horrible ways.

Second: (She lists) the ways. (They are very nasty. I don't want to assault your ears with them at this time.)

Third: … (H)ere's what you can do: Join Save Darfur's "100 Hours of Con-science." Through Sunday, (that's today) you and I are asked to write letters to Congress and the President urging them to 'Do Something.'"

The coalition believes that China is the key. China purchases most of the Sudanese oil that is part of the underlying reason for this tragedy. They believe that if President Bush were to call the Chinese leadership, the situation could be solved. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0305/skenazy031705.php3)

The tradition of prophetic voices and actions continues from ancient Israel. Modern Jews speak out and write letters and make telephone calls. And our faith, inspired by the example of our Jewish forbears also continues to bear witness to injustice, and to struggle for justice.

As we go forth, let us remember this Jewish gift from the sources of our faith. Let us find strength in the example of prophets, ancient and modern. Let us lend our strength to the struggles that call to us in our day. "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing sea."

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 08:58 AM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2005

Growing Our Hearts

GROWING OUR HEARTS
March 6, 2005

When I first heard the story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes I thought it was a miracle. As a young girl, my thinking was literal. As an adult I learned to think of this, and the other parables of Jesus, as meta-phors. I learned to look for the lessons they taught, rather than their literal meaning.

And so I came to think of the story as the origin of the potluck--that ubiquitous institution present in all churches. Potlucks are the modern manifestation of the ancient love feast. One of the first things Jesus taught was that we share our food without sorting our table mates into categories. Jesus did not divide the multitude into those people who were good, and could be invited to dinner; and those people who were for some reason, not good, and thus not fit to eat with. He invited all to share.

This was radical in ancient Israel, and it is radical today. I still think the feeding of the five thousand was a miracle; however, it was a miracle of love, of the growth of hearts, of learning to share with others. Jesus was sure that those five thousand people had not gone on a long walk on a hot day without something to eat and drink. No one did in ancient Israel. He was sure that hidden in cloaks and bags and folds of sleeves were loaves of bread, skins of water and wine, and maybe even some dried fish.

There is an old tradition that it was a few young people, teenagers maybe, who first volunteered their bread to help feed the people. Even though five loaves would not feed five hundred, let alone five thousand people, Jesus took them and spoke the ancient Hebrew blessing. I picture the disciples passing among the people, who slowly unwrapped the food they brought, bread and fish, and shared it with their neighbors. And thus was born the tuna fish sandwiches that we still enjoy at many potlucks.

The challenge remains with us to grow our hearts, so that we can share with joy the food, material goods and wealth that we possess.

It is easy to say--Be generous! Give until you feel good! Love others and share with them! It is easy to say, but sometimes difficult to do. What keeps us from being generous? What keeps us from helping, generously helping, tsunami victims, the starving multitudes of Darfur, the students at E. Grace Loftis School, or Supper House?

The need in this world is great, and we are only one small church. We cannot solve all the ills that we are called to address, but we can make a difference in some people's lives. Members of this congregation have responded generously in many ways. What keeps us from doing more?

I think fear is a major factor. We are afraid that there is not enough. We fear that there is not enough food, clothing, and shelter for everyone to be comfortable--and of course we want to be comfortable. There are good reasons for us to think in this manner. Although pundits tell us that the economy is improving, they also acknowledge that it is a jobless recovery. In many places, such as West Michigan, there have been significant job losses.

You may know that I recently housed four young adults who were searching for jobs. Two of them found brief employment through Manpower. The two who remain with me have found only odd seasonal jobs. West Michigan is not a good place for unemployed people to find jobs.

In addition, many employed people are experiencing job insecurity. No longer do most of us feel that we are safely employed in a job that will give us lifetime security. We fear the loss or diminishment of our jobs, and it is difficult to share when we fear that our future may not include a paycheck.

The political climate adds to our fear. After 9/11 we know that we are no longer safe in Fortress America. We join the rest of the world in realizing that we are not immune to violence. Terrorist activity can strike at any time. Add to this unease the images of tsunami devastated coastlines, hurricane damage in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic states, and tornadoes over Kansas, and we can become consumed by anxiety about possible disasters.

Some of us are old enough to bear scars of the Great Depression. We remember times when our parents worried about having enough food for the family. I was born post-depression, but am deeply affected by it. My parents struggled to get an education, and told stories of scarcity and the loss of family farms. These old messages of deprivation are deep in our bones. We cannot forget that hard times can, indeed, strike at any time.

Fear keeps us clutching our checkbooks protectively. We forget that paleo-anthropologists tell us that the naked apes of the African plains survived and evolved because they learned to cooperate and share with each other. Richard Leakey, of the famous family of anthropologists lost both of his legs in an air-plane accident. Perhaps this heightened his understanding when he was study-ing the bones of early and pre humans found in Kenya. Among them was an intact male leg bone, with a healed fracture. He concluded that the man could not have survived and healed alone, that he must have been supported and cared for by his tribe. Sharing and cooperation are major skills that allowed humans to not only survive, but become the planet's dominant species.

We are social creatures who need to share companionship with others. Our societies become richer and more complex because we draw on the talents of many people, who share their knowledge and expertise. Sharing is necessary for our survival and for our growth.

When we help others, whether through nursing them through an injury, or feeding them food, it makes us feel good. Those of you who serve hungry people at Supper House know that it makes you happy to do so.

Of course, really facing the fact that there are hundreds of hungry people right here in Muskegon is disquieting, and that fact that a large percentage of them are children downright discouraging. However, the knowledge that this congregation is making a positive difference in their lives warms our hearts. And each of you who contributes to Supper House by buying bread and bagels makes a differ-ence. Every one who helps serve the diverse assortment of people who come to Supper House makes a difference. And that makes us feel good.

Helping others is one very important way to give our lives meaning. This can happen in many different venues. Many of us contribute to organizations that help others. We select, out of the myriad of worthy groups that solicit our sup-port, the ones that best reflect our values. Out of those, some of us select a few to which we give our time and talent, as well as our money.

My father-in-law died this last week. His Memorial Service was Friday morning, and the family asked me to give the eulogy. To prepare for it I asked them to share stories from his life with me. I was reminded again how very caring were both my parents-in-law. Engraved on a plaque in their home is a statement from the Special Learning Center in Jefferson City, Missouri. It names Rogers and Thelma Kratochvil the parents of that institution. And it is most appropriate.

Thelma was a schoolteacher, and when she retired, she really went to work. She and Rog, and a few other people envisioned a school for severely challenged children. I saw the first incarnation, a three-room center in the basement of a commercial building. I saw the second, a little larger, with more classrooms and equipment. Today the Center is housed in a new building, designed for the special needs of the children who attend. There are numerous classrooms, a speech therapist, other special teachers, and a large playground. My parents-in-law chaired the fundraising committee that obtained the financing for the Learn-ing Center. They planted trees in the playground in honor of their deceased son and grandson. They suggested to one friend that she might like to play the piano for the children, and until her death she came out once a week to do so. And they supported the school and its staff in as many ways as was needed.

They received a special honor from the United Way for contributing to their community. At Rog's service the director, teachers and parents of the children who they helped came, wiped away tears, and hugged Thelma. However, it was not for honors or gratitude that they did all their work--which they would not have called work. They did it because they wanted to, and because it gave meaning to their lives.

The Rev. Richard Gilbert, one of my mentors, said, "To be is to be for others." It is how he lives his life, it was how Rogers Kratochvil lived his life, and how many happy people live theirs. To be for others gives our lives meaning.

How do we get from the fear of not having enough to finding meaning through sharing with others? It is a tough financial reality out there--so tough that this congregation is behind in receiving its pledges. February is always difficult for Finance chairs and church treasurers. It is post-Christmas, we are paying taxes and high utility bills, and it is easy to postpone paying our congregation. I en-courage you to celebrate the knowledge that spring is really, really on its way by reaching for your checkbook and bringing your pledge up to date.

Given this tough reality, we need to grow our hearts so that we may fully explore the warm glow and deep meaning generosity bestows upon us. I have some suggestions.

First, allow yourself to hear the stories of need. Allow yourself to identify and put a face to the people who need our help. I knew that there were homeless peo-ple, and that Muskegon had quite a few, and that a significant percentage of them were teens and young adults. However, it was not until two of them moved into my home temporarily that I actually knew them personally, knew their stories, their aspirations, and their desire to work and be independent.

I learned a lot. I learned again that not all parents are loving and supportive. I learned that good people can be trapped in bad situations. I learned, from observation, rather than words on a page, that it is a full-time job to find a job. I learned that even young people will pass up minor luxuries when they have a goal they want to reach. I really heard their stories.

I do not expect nor recommend that each of you take one or two homeless people into your living space. We can hear stories in a less drastic fashion. When we take the time to read and think about the reports of unemployment, when we hear from our faith companions that over 125 people showed up for food at Supper House, when we see the sad playground at E. Grace Loftis school, we are metaphorically "hearing" stories of need.

Next, I suggest that we allow ourselves to do some imagining. Here is a series of "what if" questions we might ask ourselves. What if the hungry person at Supper House was my son or daughter? What if I was unemployed and unable to find a job? What if the person who suffered discrimination was my parent? I am asking you to put a known and beloved face on the bare fact of need. Most of us are only a few paychecks away from economic trouble. A recent study shows that the majority of bankruptcies result from overwhelming medical bills of people who have insurance and are working! Putting a face, even imaginary, on the statistic will help us grow our hearts.

Then we can ask ourselves, What if I help? Sometimes one person can make a difference. More often, it takes people working together. We could each feed a hungry person once in a while. However, banding together, the churches of this community are making a big difference in the lives of many people. Five even-ings a week, over one hundred hungry people can come to Supper House and have a hot, tasty meal. We are really helping.

Habitat for Humanity is an organization that is addressing homelessness. Instead of standing by and wringing their collective hands, a small group of people decided to build one home at a time. They recruited volunteers to help, raised money from churches, organizations and individuals--and together they built one home -- and then another home--and then another home.

By opening their hearts to people who needed help, by each one contributing what they could, they are making a difference in people's lives. When they answered the question--What if I help? with their money and their time, they discovered the answer--happy families in their own homes. And their hearts grew even larger.

The third question is What if I don't help? What if I refuse to see the pain, if I refuse to hear the stories, if I can find no possible relation to those in need? Then I fear there will be no change, either for the person in need, or for the person who refuses engagement.

Fear can keep us frozen. Fear can deaden our hearts. Fear can allow us to ignore the reality of the world around us that needs our interest, our engagement and our love.

Opening your heart to the needs of the world, really hearing the stories, and putting a face on the person in need will help grow your heart. Exploring what might happen if you answer the call to help helps grow your heart. And looking at the results of what might happen if you refuse to help serves as a wake-up call.

Mary Oliver looked at the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, and she wrote of love, of the felt ferocity of love, the felt necessity of love. I think she was thinking of the large heart of Jesus--Jesus who looked at hungry people and loved them, and who challenged the multitude to share what they had. They responded generously. In the exaggerated language of story, there were 12 baskets of bread and fish left over, after everyone ate until they were satisfied.

The story concentrates on Jesus, and does not tell us what happened to the 5000 after that day. Some of them followed him, hearing more stories. Some of them went home and said, "Oh, well that was interesting. I wonder what the next wandering prophet will do to top it?" However, I think something else happened.

When people share, they build a relationship. They learn from each other and they are no longer isolated and alone. Their hearts grow, and they are not the same. They learn to love more deeply. I think the experience of the people who shared their food made a difference in their lives. They experienced the warm glow that generosity lights. They related to their friends and neighbors in a different way. Their lives acquired a deeper meaning.

Let us learn to do the same. Let us share with our faith companions, and in the life of this congregation. Let us share with our families and friends, and with the larger community. Let us grow our hearts, so that we may have the courage to reach out to those who need.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 09:00 AM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2005

Marryin' Folks

A minister is called upon to do many things. We preach and we teach. We attend many, many meetings. We counsel people and we design rituals. We pray at public functions and at the bedside of sick and dying people. We envision a future for the congregations we serve, and work to share it and to inspire others.

We plan programs and demonstrations. We try to grow hearts and spirits. Among these various tasks, two stand out as the most enjoyable. They are naming and dedicating babies, and Marryin' Folks.

During the time I have been here in Muskegon, I have officiated at weddings here at HUUC, and at St.Jean's Catholic Church. I have joined lovers in wedlock on the shores of Lake Michigan and in clearings in the woods. Small homes and large have housed weddings. Back yards and parks, meadows and motels--all have served as sacred places in which loving couples exchanged vows.

I am delighted that Helen Fink is joining me in this out-reach to the larger community. I always feel bad when I must say to the excited voice on the other end of the telephone that I will be out of town, or am already booked for that time. Now we can expand our presence in the religious life of this area.

I have one major regret. Neither Helen nor I can legally marry some of the couples who come to us. Although we are happy to join in loving partnership the same-gender people who come to us, state law prevents us from legally marrying them. Marryin' Folks is fun. I just wish I could do it for everyone who wishes to marry.

When a couple calls me to see if I am available to officiate at their wedding, there are certain requirements that must be met. Some of them are very simple--am I available for that date? If not, I can now offer them Helen as a possibility. Where do they want it held? (I rule out very few places, but will not consider underwater or parachuting.) They want to know what it will cost, and I require at least three interviews.

I want to get to know the couple before the wedding. Partly, this is to help them craft a significant wedding, and partly to see if I can flag emotional land mines that might cause problems. I ask them about their families of origin, if their parents marriages are still intact, what their religious background is, how many siblings, and whether there will be small children involved in the ceremony.

Some of this I learned at theological school in a workshop about accompanying couples as they join their separate paths into a joint path called marriage. How-ever, the importance of taking a thorough family history was learned through experience.

I was in my internship year when I was approached by a lovely couple to officiate at their wedding. They were school teachers, it was the first marriage for both of them, and they had purchased a home in an integrated neighborhood because they wanted their children to grow up there. I really liked and approved of them.

When I took their history I discovered that the bride's mother had died about five years ago. "But," she said brightly, "my aunt and cousins will be here. The cousins are bridesmaids." They wanted to write their own vows, and I encour-aged them to do so. They also wanted to recite them from memory--a practice that I had been warned was not to be encouraged. But they, especially the groom, were adamant.

They held the wedding rehearsal in their home--a lovely old home with a beautiful staircase. I was introduced to the family, including the aunt and cousins. Now, you know that I lived in the south for many years, and I grew to like it and its people. However, it is also true that there is a stereotype of southern women that pictures them as gushy, overbearing, and fluttery. The aunt was such a stereo-type, and her daughters slightly modified versions. They greeted me with excla-mations of what a WONderful occasion this was, and what a WONderful couple they were, and what a WONderful wedding it would be.

I also met the bride's father, who had just flown in from California, with a younger woman at his side. She had not been expected.

We began the rehearsal, the bride and cousins walked down the lovely staircase, and all was going well, until we came to the vows. The groom recited his from memory, and the bride, tears welling in her eyes, began hers in a quivery voice. I prompted her a few times, and then she burst into tears, sobbing uncontrollably. We stopped the rehearsal, she retired to her room under the ministrations of the fluttery aunt and her daughters, whose voices had risen two octaves. After about 30 minutes we tried again, with me coaching the bride, saying that I would feed her the lines, that she didn't need to worry, and that all would be well. She was distraught, still weeping, and saying she didn't deserve the groom, who was looking a little frayed. Of course that take didn't work either, so we called it a night, agreeing that all would be well tomorrow afternoon.

It was not. When I entered the club in which the wedding was to take place, I was greeted by the manager. I asked if the bride was there, and she replied, "She's upstairs, hyperventilating." Greeting the groom, who was partaking of the generous bar, I went upstairs. I found the bride, standing in the middle of the room in her wedding undergarments, weeping profusely. The aunt was fluttering around her, gushing endearments, and attempting to redo her make-up, which kept being washed away.

I elbowed my way through the wedding party, and talked quietly to the bride. I asked her if she had any reservations about getting married. "Do you," I asked, "really want this marriage?" "Oh, yes," she cried, "I don't know why (the groom) wants to marry me, but I am the luckiest girl in the world." "Okay," I said, "don't worry about anything, especially the vows. I'll feed them to you, and we'll be fine."

And that is what happened. She continued crying as she walked down the lovely staircase. She wept during the first part of the service. She sobbed as we did the vows, but managed to repeat the words I gave her. She cried during all the pictures, and in the receiving line. When I left she was still crying. However, I got a note from them from Paris, where they honeymooned. They were fine, they said.

I learned two things. One is that trying to memorize vows is sometimes the final stressor in a stressful day. And the second is to pay more attention to that family history. I think the unexpected woman her father brought to the wedding was what set her off. And the fluttery aunts and cousins certainly did not help.

Another of my requirements for wedding couples is a character test that explores their preferred ways of learning and decision making. This test gives us a focus for talking about how they work and play together, and how they plan their future. And we plan a ceremony together. I ask them to try to craft a service that will show to those who love and care for them that they have been well and truly wed. And I ask them to pay particular attention to their vows. For that is the heart of the ceremony--the promises they make to each other.

Do I ever say "no" to a couple that wants to wed? Only once. It was a couple who fought a great deal. At our second meeting I recommended couples counseling before they proceeded. The wedding did not take place.

Never however, have I turned away a couple because they were of the same gender. The right to participate in a ceremony that blesses their union is not limited to heterosexual couples. But unfortunately, the laws of this state, now enshrined in its by-laws, do not allow a legal wedding between same-gender couples.

I believe this is morally and ethically wrong. I believe that same-gender couples have worth and dignity, just as do different-gender couples. I believe that justice, equity and compassion call us to work for the right of same-gender couples to legally wed and receive all the rights and benefits of marriage.

The denial of such rights constitutes a separation of our people into first and second-class citizens. The passage of the constitutional by-law denying such rights enshrined legal discrimination in this state. I believe it is morally wrong because it denies full humanity to a class of people. I believe it is ethically wrong because it denies equal rights to this same class of people.

The passage of this amendment also negates previous state employee contracts that would have given unmarried couples, including gays, domestic partnership benefits. Michigan State University and Kalamazoo are among the public entities that continue to provide domestic partner benefits in the wake of the amendment. In Ann Arbor, the Thomas More Law Center, funded by Domino Pizza magnate Thomas Monaghan, is trying to stop the Ann Arbor public schools from providing domestic partner benefits to employees. Jay Kaplan of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan told the Detroit Free Press that the benefits offered by the district were not equivalent to marriage, “partly since same-sex couples do not get the 1,100 rights and protection that married people receive.”
(Website 365gay.com.)

Neither Helen nor I nor any of the many Unitarian Universalist ministers who support gay-marriage can perform a legal wedding of same-gender couples in the state of Michigan. However, if such a couple wants a religious ceremony that blesses their union and allows them to declare before their family and friends that they are a partnership, we stand ready to do that.

Our larger faith community, the Unitarian Universalist Association has publicly supported same-gender people and couples for many years. In 1980, the General Assembly, our national decision-making body, voted to encourage non-discrimination in ministerial employment. They voted to support gay and lesbian services of union in 1984, although some ministers had been doing them for al-most a decade. In 1987 they called for legal equity for gays and lesbians. And in 1996 they voted to support the right of Same-sex couples to marry. I am proud of this record, which continues today. "On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts be-came the first state to legally recognize same-sex marriages. The UUA's presi-dent and staff cheered as couples applied for marriage licenses all over the state and hosted the wedding of Julie and Hillary Goodridge at UUA headquarters. (presided over by UUA President, Bill Sinkford). Three days later, after the wait-ing period imposed on most couples by Massachusetts law, fifty same-sex coup-les were married in historic Arlington Street Church in Boston." (www.uua.org)

I have personally officiated at a few same-gender unions here in West Michigan. I would be happy to do more. I would be even happier to officiate at a legal wedding for some of my friends and faith companions. Sadly, that is not possible.

However, it is possible to make gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people welcome in our congregation. It is possible to affirm that they have worth and dignity, that they are fully human in our eyes and in our hearts. It is possible to go the extra mile to welcome into our congregation people who may well have been rejected by the faith of their childhood.

A Welcoming Congregation Task Force is beginning its work in this congregation.
They are meeting and planning programs and workshops to help us learn the depths of pain that some of our brothers and sisters suffer. They will help us ex-plore the rich culture of our gay siblings. They will help us come to consensus on claiming the label--A Welcoming Congregation. We will begin next month to offer a nibble of what we think will ultimately be a rich feast of opportunities to learn and explore together.

We are unable to offer to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters a legal marriage in the eyes of the laws of Michigan. However, we can offer them a liberal religious home that values them as worthy people. We can offer them a religious ceremony for the partnerships they form. We can offer to all people a faith community that crafts rituals that joins them in blessed unions. We offer a liberal religious congregation that values all people and wel-comes into covenantal membership those who embrace our values and practices.

Let us share the good news of this community with all with whom we interact.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 10:12 AM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2005

Where the Heart Is

When I was a child my mother always came to say good-night after I was in bed. She would tuck in the covers, read me a story, and then we recited the classic child's good night prayer:

Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.

My childhood idea of God was like most of us who attended Christian main line churches. God took care of us. God could be petitioned. God was also a judge, who kept an eye on what we were doing. God was the father of Jesus, who loved little children. And so forth.

Most of us moved out of this stage of faith. Most of us rebelled against the Great Father in the Sky model of God. Most of us in this room moved away from Christianity. And we looked for something else, because if we have nothing larger than our self to idolize, we have what some have called "a god-sized hole in our hearts." We found divinity in a different place, and sometimes we named it a different name.

I left my childhood faith when it failed to answer my questions. For many years I was mostly unchurched, although my reading kept me in a tenuous connection with religion. When I walked into the Unitarian Universalist Church in Jackson, Mississippi, I found the religious community for which I had been unconsciously searching.

My definition of the divine is now very different from my childhood, and it is a moving target. It is based in humanism, informed by feminist understandings, fed by my connection to the natural world and enriched by process theology. When I try to encapsulate this in words, I come up with the phrases you have often heard--Spirit of Life and Love, God of Many Names and Many Nations, Creator and Sustainer of Life.

Our hearts yearn toward love; the love of one specific human, the love of family and friends, and the love of that undefined, nebulous something that we sometimes call God. Where the Heart Is, our topic for today.

The Reverend Forrest Church is minister of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City. He is also an author of numerous books; a biography of his father, Utah Senator Frank Church, The Devil and Dr. Church, The Seven Deadly Virtues, and with the Rev. John Buehrens, the classic book we give to all new members, A Chosen Faith. His newest book is Bringing God Home, and it inspired my sermon today.

It is, he says, a traveler's guide. It draws upon his spiritual journey, but also upon other writers who have preceded him. The guide shows us where he has been on his journey, and how he got to where he is now. His hope is that it can pro-vide a model for others on a similar journey. (Church, Forrest, Bringing God Home, St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 2002, p. 4)

Church acknowledges that by most standards he was a successful man. He married and fathered children. He graduated from a prestigious school, Harvard. He was called to the pulpit of a large and very public church in our largest city. He wrote books that received good reviews and sold well. He frequently ap-peared on nation-wide TV shows to talk about his books, and to give the liberal religious perspective on issues. However, he says, there was a "hollowness" in his life. (Ibid, p. 6.)

He learned, he says, that "when we don't believe in God, its not that we believe in nothing; rather we believe in almost anything." And he tells of believing in a string of smaller gods, "all of which failed me." (Ibid.)

Church never defines God completely. He does not understand his task as tell-ing his readers the identity or characteristics or appearance of God. Rather, he lets the simple three-letter word with which English-speakers have been obsess-ed for centuries stand as a metaphor. I use it that way today. I ask you to under-stand it as a metaphor for your conception of the Divine.

For many of you that will be the best and brightest that lies within the human heart. For many of you that will be something larger--outside humanity. It is the yearning, the love, of which we speak today; not the futile attempt of humans to define that which is indefinable.

Church's thesis, with which I agree, is that we humans need to relate to some-thing larger than ourselves. In our search for meaning, we need to seek a relationship with that which we name as Divine. If we fail to do so, we experi-ence the hollowness that Church named, or a God-sized hole in our heart as others express it. Because we yearn for completion, we will find something else to which we give our love. Church admits that, for a decade at least, alcohol filled that hole for him. (Ibid p. 7) For some it may be a career that receives ultimate loyalty. For others it may be another human, or their larger family. For some it may be a nation-state that receives their love and adoration. These are substitute gods.

The three forms of love I mentioned earlier, Eros, Filia, and Agape, were defined by the Greeks centuries ago. The first, Eros, is romantic, or passionate love. This is the love that we most commonly celebrate on Valentine's Day. When we say the word love, eros is often what we mean. Eros is fun, exciting, pleasur-able, and sometimes painful. Eros is what encourages the human race to repro-duce successfully. Eros connects us with each other in deep and loving relation-ships. Eros encourages its partners to heights of nobility, and sometimes to depths of foolishness. It can bring us transcendent moments of togetherness, and the depths of despair when the loved one dies. It is necessary, meaningful and holy.

According to the ancient Greeks, the second form of love is filia, or brotherly love. We might term this affectionate love for family and friends. It is the love we feel for the younger brother who drove you crazy when you were a teen-ager, but surprisingly grew to be an adult whose company you enjoy. It is the deep attach-ment that exists between parents and children. It is the affection present be-tween friends who shared kindergarten, middle school and high school gradua-tion. It is present between neighbors who share long years of child-rearing and the appearance of grandchildren. It is there in the casseroles that appear when a death strikes a family. Filial love is deep and loyal; it is sometimes disappointed and often joyous. It is necessary, meaningful, and holy.

And the last form of love is Agape, divine love. Agape love is a yearning love for something greater. Our hearts yearn toward the best and brightest in and around us. We yearn toward completion, wholeness. We yearn toward the one human who will share our life, we yearn toward other humans who provide us with com-panionship, and we yearn toward the something larger that will fill the hollowness we experience when we remember that we are finite humans in an unimaginably large cosmos.

One way we express this is to say that we love God, and that God loves us in return. Few of us image the divine as a being that experiences emotions similar to humans. However, we may say that we believe that we "live in a Benign Universe," as did one minister. We may hold in our hearts a personification of our world as an ever-fruitful Mother Earth. We may think of God as the process of Creation, in which we participate, and name that good. Agape love is neces-sary, meaningful and holy.

Church tells us that we need all three forms of love in our lives, lest we raise idols to worship that betray us. He retells the story of David and Bathsheba as a warn-ing against allowing eros to take precedence over filia and agape. (Ibid, 111.)

David, the king of Israel, watched Bathsheba, wife of Uriah, one of David's generals, as she bathed on her rooftop on a moonlit night. David exerted his royal power and had Bathsheba brought to his room. Before the night was over, Bathsheba was pregnant.

When she informed David of this inconvenient fact, he sent for Uriah, who was away fighting the Philistines. When he returned David suggested that his loyal general, for whom he should have felt filial affection, spend the night with his wife. However, Uriah had taken an oath to forbear from such comfort until his sovereign and his nation was safe from the Philistines. Fully armed, he lay down across the doorway to David's room to ensure his safety. Even after David plied him with wine, Uriah remained steadfast.

When David sent him back to the front, Uriah carried with him a message to his commander to put Uriah in the front of the battle, and withdraw that he might be slain. He did so, and Bathsheba became one of David's several wives. David betrayed filial love in the service of eros.

Nathan the prophet challenged him with his infidelity through the use of a par-able, causing David to recognize that he had also betrayed his God. Eros had caused him to betray agape love. Powerful eros must be balanced with filial and agape love. Those who successfully balance all three types of love are complete and whole.

And where do we find agape love? Church uses several examples to tell us that we find love right at home. He quotes Rumi, from Pilgrims on the Way:

Pilgrims on the Way! Where are you?
Here is the beloved, here!
Your beloved lives next door
wall to wall
why do you wander
round and round the desert?
If you look in the face of Love
and not just at its superficial form
you yourselves become the house of God and are its lords.

It is when we stop seeking in foreign places and unfamiliar faiths that we find the meaning for which we are searching. It is when we seek right at home, within our selves that we find the Divine.

Church retells the story of the Hasidic Rabbi Isaac of Cracow.

One night Rabbi Isaac had a dream. In it, God tells him to leave his home and travel to Prague. There, beneath the bridge, he will find a great treas-ure. Isaac is far from superstitious, but this is the third time the dream has recurred. So Isaac sets out on the long journey to Prague. Exhausted, he finally arrives at the bridge underneath which the promised treasure is reportedly buried. But soldiers guard the bridge day and night, and Isaac cannot dig for the treasure without attracting their attention. Hours pass and then days. At last, abandoning all hope, he turns to leave, empty-handed. As he walks away, a soldier calls to him, "Old man, for the longest time you've been hanging about, and now you are leaving. What strange quest brought you here, and why do you now go?"

"I had a dream," Isaac confesses. "God told me to go to Prague, where I would find a great treasure buried beneath the bridge."

"Fool," the soldier replies. "I once had such a dream. God told me that if I went to Cracow and looked up Rabbi Isaac, I too would find a great treasure, buried beneath his stove."

Thanking the soldier, Rabbi Isaac returns home to find his promised treasure where it always was, hidden under his own hearth. (Ibid. p.9)

"The key," says Church, "to spiritual fulfillment is always in our pocket. By no accident, this same key unlocks our hearts." (Ibid)

If you would seek love, agape love, look at home within your own heart. It is far less important to correctly classify your understanding of the Divine, than it is to experience Love, the love of that which is larger than the self or your partner, your family, or your nation. It is by growing your own heart that you find agape love.

Life on this earth is short, and we humans are both blessed and cursed with the knowledge that it will cease. Church charges us to live fully while we have life. He reminds us of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the protesting pastor in Germany who knew of the plot against Hitler's life, and did not warn him. He was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While awaiting his execution he wrote a letter to his fiancee, Maria von Wedemeyer-Weller, just before Christmas, 1944:

These will be quiet days in our homes. But I have had the experience over and over again that the quieter it is around me, the clearer do I feel the con-nection to you. It is as though in solitude the soul develops senses that we hardly know in everyday life. Therefore I have not felt lonely or abandoned for one moment. You, the parents, all of you, the friends and students of mine at the front, all are constantly present to me. Your prayers and good thoughts, words from the Bible, discussion long past, pieces of music and books--(all these) gain life and reality as never before. It is a great invisible sphere in which one lives and in whose reality there is no doubt. … Therefore you must not think I am unhappy. What is happiness and un-happiness? It depends so little on the circumstances; it depends really only on that which happens inside a person. I am grateful every day that I have you, and that makes me happy. (Ibid. 116)

Bonhoeffer had learned to live fully while he yet had life; and he had learned that love and happiness was found within his own heart.

Living fully in the present allows one to engage with love, eros, filial and agape. And it is in love, in relationships, that we find our meaning and our satisfaction.

Go now, to your homes. Search within for the love that makes you whole, for the love that gives meaning to your life. Love with passion, love with affection, love with yearning. And may your days be rich and satisfying upon this earth.

Amen.
Blessed Be.
Shalom.
Saalat.

Posted by harboruu at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

February 06, 2005

Is Money the Meaning of Life?

I was not originally scheduled to preach this Sunday, but miscommunication resulted in a blank spot on the calendar. We did have another possibility, but I gave Andy Fink my February 27 slot, so it seemed a good idea to preach this Sunday in its place. And I was full of the information I received at the Heartland District Minister's conference I attended at the beginning of the week.

Every winter we gather at Pokagon State Park, which is just across the Indiana border. It is a lovely place, wooded and snow covered in February. There are trails one can walk, and from which one can spot tracks; deer, squirrels, rabbits, and other unidentified small animals. There are cross-country ski trails and a toboggan run. We stay in a comfortable lodge with adequate meeting rooms. And we gather with colleagues to share stories of our lives and ministries.

We also study. The topic this year was Finances, or Metafiscal Realities. Two presenters talked to us about personal and congregational finances, and Socially Responsible Investing. So, I was filled with ideas and stories about money and our relationships with it.

We need sufficient money to live comfortably, we need to save for a comfortable retirement, we want to be generous givers to the institutions and causes that embody our values, and we want to invest our savings to both grow our wealth and reflect those values.

I want to share part of what I learned with you today, concentrating on personal finance--Is Money the Meaning of Life? Let us discover the answer.

When you opened your Order of Service today, you found some questions for reflection titled Money and Spirituality. They were designed by the Rev. Marni Harmony for a workshop with her congregation. I offer them to you as a basis for reflection and self-questioning. I will explore some of them in today's sermon, as a model for how you might explore the topics.

The child comes to you, excited after the seeing the colorful T.V. advertisement. "Mom, mom," she says. "There's a new Barbie out. She's an astronaut Barbie, and she's wearing a silver suit! Mom, can I have her? She's really cool. Mom, I really NEED this Barbie. Let's go down to Toys 'r Us right now, I need this Barbie!"

It is not too difficult to smile at the child's enthusiasm, and explain gently that while she wants Astronaut Barbie very much, she doesn't really need her. Persuading her of the truth of this statement is another matter, and I leave it to you to do so. However, for a parent to see the difference between that want for an attractive toy and a real need is not difficult.

However, if the item in question is a lovely red sports car, and the person a 48 year old male; or if the item is a beautiful apricot cashmere sweater and the person a 35 year old female, the difference may be more difficult to discern. We need to be alert to that fine line between what we really need and what we want. We need sufficient healthy food to keep our bodies working at top efficiency. We don't need to obtain that food at a high-priced restaurant, or a fast-food drive-in. (And I would argue that healthy food is more difficult to find at the drive-in.) We don't need to derive our protein from steaks or roasts, or even (sigh) The Cheese Lady's wonderful stock of treats. We don't need out-of-season strawberries or tomatoes. We don't need imported wines or truffles. These are wants instead of needs.

This is not to say that we must always deny ourselves our wants. We just need to keep them in balance. We need to keep ourselves fed and clothed and warm and sheltered. Beyond that, a healthy relationship with money balances the wants that flood our senses with the reality that we also need to save for education costs, medical expenses and retirement. We need to keep our wants in perspective if we want a healthy relationship with money, a relationship that encourages a healthy spirit.

How much is enough? For each of us the answer will be slightly different. How many C.D's do you really need in your car?
How many rooms in your house are enough for you and your family and its activities? How big a car do you need? Do you really need a car?

I was listening to The Commonwealth Club on NPR a few weeks ago. I don't remember the speaker's name, but he was speaking on the current trials of those people involved in the corporation corruption scandals of a few years ago. He asked the audience, "How many of us actually have $1,000 shower curtains? Put up your hands. (A pause.) Oh, well I guess they are more common than I thought."

Few of us would question the need for a shower curtain, assuming we have a shower. The idea of one that costs $1,000 seems over the top for most of us. But apparently, for some people, a $25.00 shower curtain, or even a $250.00 shower curtain is not enough. I think that $1,000 shower curtains are a symbol of a life that is out of balance, a spirit that seeks meaning in things.

One of the questions Rev. Harmony asks is, "Do I possess my things or do they possess me?" My aunt used to collect teapots. She had a china cabinet filled with teapots, plus others on display on many surfaces throughout her home. Of course her kitchen contained several that were used as opposed to displayed. I was fascinated with them as a child, and she could always give the history of each one. When I grew up, I often wondered how much time that she spent dusting and cleaning those teapots. I think the teapots grew to possess her.

I think this is true of other collections. I think it is true of beautiful but impractical furnishings, such as white carpets or upholstery. I think it is true of demanding, hard to maintain automobiles. I remember Coyote's words when I see drivers of SUV's at the gas station. "Humans buy things to show that they have money left after they have everything they want." We need to be on guard against our possessions possessing us.

"What makes me angriest or most resentful?" asks Harmony. Does your rela-tionship with money sometimes make you angry or resentful? Do you regret buying that new book, even though it got a good review and everyone is talking about it? Do you resent your neighbor's new car? Do you get angry with a child who responds to a television ad just as its designers intended? Are you angry with the office-mate who got a raise, or the neighborhood grocer who hired his cousin instead of you or your teen-ager? Our economic system may justifiably elicit anger and resentment. Our spiritual challenge is to discern at whom that should be channeled, and to behave accordingly.

One big question for the relationship of money and spirituality is its effect on generosity. Do we spend money in a way that allows us to be generous? One recommendation is that we set aside 10% of our income to give away, that we save 10% of our income, and use the rest for our expenses. That means if your income were $30,000 you could save $3,000, give away $3,000 and live on the other $24,000. If your income were $65,000 you could give away $6,500, save $6,500 and live on $52,000.

Is this practical? It depends, of course on circumstances, including your number of dependents, medical expenses, and the area's cost of living. However, I ask you to keep the formula in mind--10% for giving, 10% for saving and 80% for living expenses.

The last item I wish to engage on Rev. Harmony's list is the question of Being or Having--and I want to spend some time on this, because I think it comes to the crux of the relationship of money and spirituality.

One of our presenters at the retreat was Fred Campbell, retired UU minister who lives in Lansing. He has spoken here a few times, and we have used his curricu-lum, The Four Faiths. When Fred retired, he also quit the ministry. Unlike many of his colleagues, who retire from parish ministry, but are "available" for weddings and memorial services, or do pulpit supply and consulting--Fred really quit. He talked about learning the difference between Being and Doing. He said retirees had to learn to "be", not "do." Our worth, he said, comes from being, not doing.

Let us substitute the word "have" for "do", and extend his thinking to all of us. Is our worth based on how large a car we drive, or is it based on our relationship to our family and friends? Is our sense of esteem based on an up-to-date wardrobe in the most fashionable colors, or on how we live and love and have our being?

The media, driven by advertising, wants us to believe that we need the right sneakers to get the esteem of our peers. It wants us to believe that driving a SUV allows us to experience transcendent moments of delight at the top of a cliff. It wants us to believe that a large house at a good address is necessary for us to be accepted as a good, worthy person. It wants to make its products status symbols that we think we need.

And it wants to sell us toys. Barbie doll advertisements are easy to see through. However, let us think about the adult toys that we acquire. The port city of Mus-kegon is filled with boats of all kinds. Only a small percentage of them are work-ing boats. I've been in the channel with everything from personal watercraft to 50-ft sailboats to 1000 ft. freighters. Then there are snowmobiles, radio-controlled model airplanes, and sports equipment of all sorts that fit the category of adult toys.

I am not saying all such "things" are bad. Sailing enriches my life considerably, and I feel refreshed and renewed after a day on the water. If these toys are used to enhance one's life, there is nothing wrong with them. However, it is not from "things" that we derive our worth. Because I spent a large part of my life sewing for recreation, I still get a chuckle out of the bumper sticker, "She who dies with the most fabric, wins." However, I recognize that it is bad theology.

It is using the fabric to create that enriches one's life. It is sailing, rather than possessing the sailboat that brings the possibility of a transcendent experience upon the water when the wind and waves and skill of the captain blend into becoming one with the lake. It is cross-country skiing on a sunny day in the winter woods that gives meaning to one's life, not the skis stored in the attic or garage. Experiencing such moments allows us to return to our family and friends renewed and refreshed.

Dick Gilbert, UU minister and my mentor, used to say, "To be is to be for others." I believe he is correct. A life lived only for the self is a lonely life. It is a selfish life. It is from relationships that we derive our meaning. Being fully present for our family and friends is necessary to develop healthy relationships. In today's economy it is necessary for parents to work, and in two-parent households, both often are employed. However, sometimes examining one's life and finding a frenetic schedule and little quality time together makes us re-think our priorities.

An interesting model for ministry and family life is present in one of Heartland's congregations. The church employs a team of three ministers. Originally all of them were at three quarter time, which allowed them to spend more time with their families. However, the family life of one is shifting, and she is now at one-fourth time, and scheduled for retirement. The other two are in negotiation, and looking for another minister willing to explore this kind of teamwork.

What would it mean for your family life if you only had to work 3/4 time? What would it mean if you had firm boundaries about what demands upon your time your job required? Would it give you more time with your family and friends? What things would you be willing to give up to have that time?

In addition to relationships with family and friends, giving priority to being instead of having allows us to be fully engaged with the world. We do not want to be dominated by the needs of the larger world, but we do want to be engaged with