Thursday, May 30, 2013
Sermon: An Engine Composed of Generations
An
Engine Composed of Generations
Delivered on May 26, 2013 for First Unitarian Church
of Pittsburgh
Tomorrow
is memorial day -- again. When I was young, I was taught that this
was a time to remember those who had passed on before us – at the
time, I thought that meant great grandparents and ancestors previous
to them whom I'd never met. Frequently, while visiting my
grandparents in Western Wisconsin, we would drive to the cemetery
adjacent to the Rush
River Lutheran Church and visit the graves of some of those
ancestors I'd never met. Now my grandparents
are buried there as well.
Over time, I've come to realize memorial day began as a patriotic holiday, originally created in 1866 just after the Civil War. It is a time for remembering our soldiers who have died serving our nation in any of its many wars.
During
my internship at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San
Francisco, the worship group decided to offer a litany of names and
ages of the US soldiers who had died in the last year as a result of
war. SO MANY of them were 18, 19, 20, 21 years old! These are just
past the age of what we call “bridging” (which our congregation
will celebrate next weekend). I don't want to imagine losing our
young people in such a way – in bloody conflict. If you have, or
know somebody who has, for this, we grieve, and deeply.
In our
own hymnal, there is a reading, The
Young Dead Soldiers, #583, which so harrowingly names this loss,
and the unknown meaning of the loss – waiting for us to complete
that meaning. “We were young,
they say. We have died.
Remember
us.”
They died
for their cause. But martyrdom is not the only way, and I reject the
idea that being an adult of any age makes one somehow ready to enjoin
in a war. If you know me, you know I stand for peace – from the
core of my being I pray every day for an end
to wars, and an end to needless deaths of soldiers and civilians
of all ages. So, whether you give your last breath for something, or
whether you dedicate decades of your breathing to something, each
represents a commitment to bending the universe's arc toward justice.
That arc doesn't bend on its own, and surely not automatically.
With every hummingbird
that steps up, and every elephant, every monkey, every human with
a voice, we tug at that arc together – our attention impelling it
toward that which we call justice.
As this congregation's
outgoing campus ministry coordinator and social action coordinator, I
desire for the elders in this congregation to work continually to
more deeply embrace and include the younger generations. So many of
the young among us (in our congregation and in society at large) are
older than those who have died for our country. If people of that
young age are ready for such a task, surely those of such an age
among us are fit for the task of full inclusion in our democracies.
If our culture needs to change to be inclusive in a multi-cultural
sense, with respect to diversity of ages, then that is the work
before us. Not because of duty to some ideal, or because of a quota
to meet. But because of our practice of unconditional loving
acceptance and recognition of the first-principle inherent worth and
dignity within each of us.
In an instrumental sense, I call for
this because it makes our community whole. Because with all
generations engaged, we will have an engine.
And I know off the bat it will be an imperfect engine, but it can
be
an engine that moves us forward, which on its own would speak
volumes. This engine would push from behind, and pull from the
front. My understanding is that the youngest among us (my 4 year-old
son Henry included) know
what they want. Henry knows what he wants so very clearly, in such a
way that he leans in full-force heart, body, and soul (and
occasionally, lungs) to try and satisfy that desire. My
conversations with him about id,
superego and ego, never venture very far past the Id. Superego
gets magically transformed into “Super-Eagle,”
and we have gone from the world of reflection and examination into an
entirely different world of imagination. It's wonderful. And it's
id. He knows his drives, but does not know the complex context that
his drives are rooted in, or the ramifications of carrying through on
those drives.
In a classical sense, the younger generations know
their drives. Meanwhile, the older generation knows the contexts in
their complexity, and would offer its wisdom based on history, while
the middle generation could work collaboratively with everyone to
create and execute a plan balancing the drives of the younger with
the cautions of the elder.
I don't believe that such a classical
model holds up entirely, because it's based on categorical
thinking. There are young people who have learned
history, and attend well to that learning. There are certainly older
people who are
in touch with their drives, and some whom wisdom has somehow eluded.
In other words, youth does not make one naïve or unlearned, and age
need not make one wise, or even experienced.
An excellent example
of a young adult who stepped up, perhaps one of our most famous
living UU's in fact, is Zach
Wahls, the Eagle Scout raised by two moms, who has not waited
until some later stage of development to engage with the world. As a
result of the work he has been a part of, this week we have the very
good news that the Boy Scouts of America have ended
their ban on openly gay scouts – a huge victory for gay youth!
This is “shoulder-to-the-wheel” kind of stuff, which I believe we
do well to encourage. Young people (within UU and beyond) tend to
have great energy for justice and a strong sense of justice, and
those in every generation can realize a win-win scenario through
multi-generational collaborative efforts.
However, as with many
religious groups, Unitarian Universalist churches have tended to lose
people while they're in their 20's, and I believe it diminishes our
drive somewhat, and consequently diminishes the strength of our
movement. This loss need not be the case. We can open this
congregation further to become more young-adult friendly, perhaps
even to the point of being young-adult centered. Or better, since
often a both/and
understanding is richer than an either/or understanding, we could
develop a multi-culture with a strong core of young adult culture.
I
have seen our congregation's younger population grow, even over the
last two years. And I want to be clear on one thing, lest I be
misunderstood. It would be a very big mistake for me to preach here
to the older generation only, and I do not want my words interpreted
as such. If I were preaching about how “we” need to be more
attractive to “them” these words would be marginalizing at the
same time as I'm trying to be inviting. Throughout, I have been
attempting to speak agnostic of generations, because my hope is to
speak to the larger “us.” This work of inclusion and balance –
this movement toward wholeness – requires all to feel welcome, and
all to be in discourse.
This
next minute or so I will
dedicate to the older generation, as I see a tendency which I believe
hinders our efforts at wholeness and inclusion. The perils
of coffee hour conversations! Some of you younger folks may have
experienced this. The issue of age-related social faux pas was
important enough for Carey MacDonald – along with the UUA office of
Young Adult Ministries – to create a flyer called “Coffee Hour
Caution” advising churchgoers on ways that they're lousing things
up in conversations, and some good ways to be warm and gracious
without inserting their feet in their mouth. I've printed up several
of these sheets to share if you're interested – some are here in
the sanctuary, and some will be downstairs. As one young adult
commented, “It [the flyer] might be a little tongue-in-cheek, but
it needs to be said.” Here are just a few things it recommends
avoiding – “How old are you?” “Have you met our other young
adult?” or “We need more young people!” Upon a little
reflection, it's clear to see how these can be experienced as
“othering” and would not be received as a hospitable welcome.
Lest we start walking on eggshells, there aren't magic words, other
than the words you would say to somebody you're initially meeting for
whom age is unimportant: “Can I introduce you to my friend?” or
“What did you think of the service?” The magic attitude for
anyone, regardless of age, is to: Introduce
yourself • Make friends • Be interested • Reach out • and
Respect boundaries.
Now,
to those who identify as part of the younger generation, and to those
newly joined, this wholeness won't work without you. Expect
inclusion, and be ready to speak up for what you want. The minute
you sign the membership book, or even the minute you start to
participate, your voice ought to have an equitable place in the
discourse of this community. It's not necessary to be steeped
in UU culture to have a sharable opinion. In some cases, you may
find it beneficial to learn our ways, and in other cases, it may very
well help for our ways to be instructed by your
ways. If I were not leaving in a month, I would do my best to make
sure we (the all-inclusive “we”) make room for you, wherever
you're coming from, however long you've been in this congregation, or
on this planet.
Now, opening to make space for all to feel
welcome is one thing, and knowing ourselves is another. Here's the
take-home multi-generational pastoral part. Where are you
in the arc of your life, and how do your feelings about it affect
your connections with others? How well do you connect with yourself
at other life stages, either in the past or the future? Sometimes,
even in myself and perhaps among some who've cycled around the sun a
few times more than me, I feel a bit of envy toward the younger
generation, for your energy that seems to recover more easily from
exhaustion, and that hasn't gone stale. And occasionally there is
envy for the youthful insights unhindered by experiences which too
often serve to narrow our perspectives. And to the older generation,
those younger among us may feel envy, toward you for being settled
financially or socially, and knowing who you are. For
accomplishments that have succeeded, and for your attempted
accomplishments that instead have rewarded you with “wisdom.”
Even
if that envy were admiration, I don't see it as particularly helpful
or connective, however. To know the arc of our lives, we are called
to take a step back, and be compassionate with ourselves. We have
each been a younger version of our self. That young person was you.
With any luck, (or for the theists here, God willing or Insha'Allah),
you will progress along your arc and become an older version of
yourself. As we come to terms with ourselves at different ages in
the span of our lives, hand-in-hand we can develop stronger more
authentic connection with others. The corollary – as we connect
with others across generations, we have a greater opportunity to find
ourselves along our own personal arc.
Ultimately,
we are all made
of stars. This star
matter we have been fortunate enough to inherit, and imbue with
the spirit that resides within and beyond ourselves. This star
matter has cycled through humanity for countless millennia. Through
that matter, and the processes it provides a vehicle for, we are
deeply connected to our Earth and to each other. The wisdom and
drives of our long-dead ancestors call to us. The desires and
understandings of our future descendents call to us. Let us make
room for the voices of all drives and wisdom, including our own. Let
us tune and start the engine we are, and race to answer the call.
Blessed be, and amen.
Please
join with me in singing our next hymn, Building Bridges, #1023 in
your teal hymnal.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, ageism, anti-oppression, Henry, multiculturalism, organized religion, our mission, sermons
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Reproductive Justice and other Frameworks
This method of understanding different frameworks was from La'Tasha Mayes of New Voices Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Choice, also here on Facebook. She presented to our congregation at the most recent Sunday morning forum, and opened us up!
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Self-Help:
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
FRAMEWORKS
|
|||
Reproductive Rights
|
Reproductive Health
|
Reproductive Justice
|
|
Mode of Delivery
|
Legal Systems
|
Healthcare
Delivery
|
Movement-Building
|
Issues
|
Abortion;
Contraception; Informed Consent; Privacy
|
Access to full
range of reproductive health services; low/no-cost, and
culturally-competent care; comprehensive sex education;
contraception; pre-natal/pregnancy care; abortion services;
cancer prevention; health insurance
|
RR + RH +
Human Rights; systemic oppression; self-help; intersectionality
|
Key Players
|
Lawyers,
judges, policymakers, elected officials, advocacy groups
|
Healthcare
providers, medical professionals, community and public health
educators, researchers
|
Community
organizers, Women of Color, marginalized groups, social justice
organizations, Allies
|
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Institutional Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Institutional Oppression creates a system of invisible barriers limiting people based on their membership in unfavored social identity groups. The barriers are only invisible to those “seemingly” unaffected by it.
The practice of institutionalized oppression is based on the belief in inherent superiority or inferiority. Institutionalized oppression is a matter of result regardless of intent.And here's a dynamic definition of systemic oppression.
Self-Help:
Central to several key women of color organizations has been the self-help model. Using a process of dialogue and active listening as a way of demystifying the health problems communities faced, the self-help model assumes that collectively participants can thread through the difficult problems — including racism, poverty, low self-esteem and stress — and use their intelligence to find meaningful solutions. This approach is central to sparking self- healing as well as social action.
Intersectionality: My understanding of this is that pretty much every one of us fits into some categories of privilege and some categories of oppression. Sometimes, the intersection can be seen as a multiplier (as in being female and a person of color), and sometimes a mitigator (as in being female and white, or female and able-bodied, etc. Noting the link just above from the WWHATSUP training on white supremacy, "arguing hierarchies of oppressions is not helpful."
And here again, Tumblr is a great resource for providing a conversation on a crowd-sourced definition.
Allies: My understanding of an ally is somebody who is outside of an oppressed social identity group, and who stands with others who are bearing the brunt of that oppression -- because often people in privileged categories are more likely to hear folks from their same categories, rather than writing somebody "different" off as "just acting on their own self-interest." This can be in the form of a group of men who speak up for women or third-gender folks. This can be a white person who marches with people of color. This can be an able-bodied person, or a cisgender person, or a heterosexual person, or anybody who could be identified as outside of certain oppressed social groups, who is there to work together with people within those groups, and use their voice as an amplifier. Note with intersectionality, it is possible for ally-ship to be multi-directional or reciprocal, so working together helps us all.
It's important to note that speaking up for somebody is NOT the same as speaking FOR somebody. It's pretty much always best to speak from one's own experience, and be clear about when you're speaking from your understanding of another's experience. In other words, it's important to work on self-differentiation. And note that being an ally is most effective when it's in collaboration and conversation, on common ground, in community and accountability, with people you are allying with.
And finally, an ally is somebody who comprehends deep-down that the privilege they've been (arbitrarily) afforded is less valuable than the right-relationship of common ground, and willing to do the hard work of dismantling the privilege/oppression paradigms, thereby turning that which each of us inherently *deserves* into RIGHTS.
Back to the importance of the presentation itself, and what I see as a clear call to work for the larger vision of holistic justice: I believe that when women and girls of color (all colors actually -- from 2B1505 to F5F1E9 to 4D7BD1) achieve/receive/perceive equity and justice, we will ALL be free in an age where we each can be our authentic selves. ALL justice is connected, and the human rights (or lack thereof) in this area is a clear indicator of the condition of justice at present.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, classism, Community, education, equal rights, oppression, sexuality, universal health care, women, Women's Rights
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Sermon from Last Sunday: Owning and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Owning
and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Delivered to First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh,
February 3, 2013
Well........ today is Superbowl Sunday. And I recently heard that 27% of Americans polled believed that God plays a part in how teams perform at sports. Now I know that our group here tends to be a big mix of theists, atheists, and agnostics. However, on behalf of this town's definitely very faithful fan-base, it crossed my mind to offer a prayer for a miracle. Namely, that today, the Steelers might be able to pull off their seventh Superbowl win.... though I think the odds are probably pretty low of seeing that today. Yet, if I recall correctly, there are things that we see at pretty much every football game. I haven't watched much football in the last decade, so please straighten me out if any of these things have changed. There's still a coin toss, followed by a kick-off, yes? Do coaches still make frustrated faces at the referee or quarterback, and go like this [hand motion, hit head, wave downfield]? And are there still people with giant John 3:16 signs in the section just behind the field goal?
I
want to talk to those folks. Ever since I read it growing up as a
Lutheran, I have felt that John 3:16 is entirely incomplete without
the important clarifications of the next verse. Many of you who are
come-outers from Christian religions – or those of you have been
frequently evangelized – likely know the gist of John 3:16, “For
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who
believes in him may have eternal life.” Now, John 3:17, printed at
the top of your bulletin, goes on to clarify that the reason for this
offering was not for the purpose of judgement, but rather for saving.
In
December from this pulpit, I offered my thoughts against
the theology of substitutional atonement in which one person may
expect to be saved by the distant actions of another. I also take
issue with the male-gendered language regarding God, and the way many
people interpret their salvation as coming exclusively from the
person known as Jesus of Nazareth, putting him on a pedestal,
separate and far-removed from everyone else. I imagine many people
in this room have their own thoughts and history around such a
theology, some perhaps painful. Today I hope to name some of the
pains, and to offer some balm for healing to begin.
The
important thing in my mind is that judgement was not Jesus' purpose
and should not be ours. “Judgment” here I see as similar to
condemnation, rather than judgement as discernment or
recognition. Condemnation says, “This is unworthy, or is
qualitatively lesser, and should be cast out,” whereas discernment
more neutrally says, “Things appear to be this way, or that way,
and perhaps these steps will work toward making the situation
better.”
A
problem I see is that in many of this world's cultures (including our
own), on several levels, we've gravitated toward an expectation of
judgment, of condemnation as the natural order of the day. This
expectation and acceptance of judgement has created a wound so
profound and pervasive that we are immersed in it. More often than
not, we do not recognize the omnipresence of condemnation.
Condemnation appears anywhere there there are situations reflecting
an attitude in which a person sees their agenda as more important
than the life or well-being of another person.
For many in the world, there is a theological understanding of a deity fit for meting out punishment. We may identify somebody else as evil-doers, and hope they get what's coming to them. Or we may condemn ourselves as somehow unfit, and expect that we will be individually punished for our nature, or our bad life choices. While indeed, bad choices sometimes lead to bad results, I don't view this punishment-and-guilt-based framework as healthy. When we see someone as the evil-doer, is it possible to meet them on common ground? When we feel unworthy somehow, are we then really capable of stepping up to meet others on common ground?
On
the social level, these condemnations can come from oppressive
prejudices – a word that means “early judging, before taking time
to check out assumptions.” This is often a result of categorical
thinking, in which a group of people are thought to deserve different
treatment. This can appear in the amount of pay different classes of
people should receive for their contributions to society; Prejudicial
condemnation appears in expectations about racial segregation by
neighborhoods – still
very much an
issue in 2013! – and a status quo many people continue to take
for granted. And of course, this condemnation appears as roadblocks
preventing marriage equality to same-sex partners. In a host of
other ways certain categories of people are condemned to second-class
status, because they do not conform to the dominant mono-culture's
narrow expectations. Here, of course, I'm speaking to the culture in
the USA, but also to the culture right here in Unitarian
Universalism.
“We
also underestimate the reality of resistance in our congregations, a
resistance rooted not so much in racism as in matters of class and
culture. We forget when we talk about cultural competence in
ministry, or cultural change in ministry, that it is not just those
other people who have a culture. Unitarian Universalist congregations
have a culture. Consider who many of us are, and who we are pretty
proud about being, no matter what our race or ethnicity. Many of us
are the people who brag about not owning televisions because there is
nothing worth watching, unless it is PBS. Many of us are the people
who refuse to listen to popular music because it is misogynistic and
violent, and more than a few of us regard rap music as nothing more
than noise and confusion. Many of us change the channel, and listen
to NPR and love Garrison Keillor and Prairie
Home Companion,
and laugh when Keillor makes fun of us.... Many
of us are unapologetic nature lovers, and the only thing we might
love more than hiking in the woods is building our congregations in
the woods, complete with tiny elegant signs that blend in well with
the natural environment but cannot possibly be seen by a seeker on
the highway.
Many of us eat locally, we shop at farmer’s markets, and we would
never be caught in Wal-Mart, unless it was a dire emergency. Many of
us do look ahead in our hymnal to see whether we agree with the
words, and forget that the person sitting next to us may need exactly
the words we are refusing to sing.”
*Gray
part is edited out. See this
link for her full lecture and here
for Paul Rasor's accompanying lecture.
When
we strongly identify expectations about the culture that McNatt names
(or whatever ours tends toward), who are we condemning to somehow
feel outside? In what ways are we advertising ourselves as
multicultural, only to have newcomers arrive, or members stay, trying
to make a good fit, but feeling the way I do when I try the
one-size-fits-all gloves at Home Depot? These extra-large hands
those gloves would not fit, but if my hands were cold, I'd see them
as the best thing going to keep my hands warm. I wonder how many
people are here not because Unitarian Universalism (or First
Unitarian) as it stands is a perfect fit, but because it's the best
thing going. AND I invite you, to make space, here, for your
authentic self. If you are willing, to do the work of transforming
our culture to be a bigger fit – to wear the not-quite-perfect
gloves until they're broken in to fit your (figuratively) knobby
hands, your long fingers, or your giant thumbs until they become
gloves finally comfortable – so that our culture (or more properly,
our cultures)
make a good and welcome fit for people like YOU.
In
institutions, mono-cultural ways of being find their ways into our
codified laws, bylaws and policies, which serve to favor the groups
with the loudest voices. It is likely not surprising that members of
these most vocal groups also tend to conform to cultural norms which
offer privileges. And that these in-group members are often among
the decision-makers who create the policies. In these cases, the
policies created and maintained may still reflect an agenda that
subverts the well-being of some categories of people, yet may not
even be consciously intended. Systems of privilege and oppression
can sometimes be very very difficult to discover
and root out.
There is perhaps no stronger evidence of an attitude of one person's agenda being more important than another's well-being – or their life – than the intentional use of violence. My choice for today's sermon on judgment came as a result of the recent spate of gun violence. Guns are tools useful both for coercion and for absolute judgement. There is a wound of judgment there, a wound that goes deep maybe in every one of us, and I believe it needs attending to. The Sandy Hook massacre brought upon me a moral doubt so deep, I asked the question, “What is the worth of our culture at all, if we cannot respond with a collective will to do what is necessary to safeguard our children, and dismantle this thing underneath our culture that keeps bringing this violence?” Then only a week later, during our time-for-all-ages, a child suggested shooting somebody as an answer to the problem in the story I had told. While I imagine the parents may have been mortified, I knew the same could happen from my own child. In fact, at Christmas when given a gift of a lovely and ornate cross made by an uncle, Henry's immediate response was quizzical (not being very familiar with crosses), followed by him grabbing one side of the cross and aiming it like a gun.
This
is after we have done so much to dissuade him from guns. What is
happening in our culture that young children think of guns so easily?
What pressures are built into our culture that young adult males
decide to pass judgement in such an indiscriminate way? The
solutions to this must be multi-faceted, and I believe they must move
away from the mindset of “punishment for perpetrators.”
Answering one type of condemnation with further condemnation does not
build a just society, but instead it serves to further undergird a
culture in which we pass judgement on each other.
There
is a better answer than punishment, one that would produce lasting
positive results, but it has heretofore been rejected. This better
way is restorative
justice. Whereas a system of punitive justice assumes that
“Penalizing this particular perpetrator will bring justice,” in
contrast, restorative justice asks “What must be done – what must
change – so this crime doesn't continue to happen?” This is a
radically different approach that calls upon us to be both mindful
and dutiful. We must be mindful to pay attention to the present
moment, without judging, without assigning a value to what is
happening or introducing non-observable interpretations. And our
call to duty then is to find the source of the injustice, or the
cause of the prevention of justice, and work to lessen the energy of
that source.
Because,
as Allan G.
Johnson tells us [in today's
reading], even though we should be able to find ways to
get along just fine, something powerful is keeping us from it.
I believe that something is inertia – participation within a
system that doesn't value life, a system that encourages us to
compete against each other, to value our agendas more than right
relationships and beloved community.
Black
History month has just begun, and Women
of Color Herstory month begins February 15th. In
recognition of that, I will share this quote from Harriet
Tubman, an African-American abolitionist and women's suffrage
advocate : “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a
thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” I do not know
for certain who these “thousand more” might be that she refers
to, but I interpret this as a broader all-encompassing statement
acknowledging the bondage we have to participating in systems that
does not allow us our full freedom, and acknowledging the difficulty
we have even recognizing that participation. But our duty to justice
asks us to find our way to freedom.
We find our way free when we recognize the truth within our theologies. That the judgment so many people expect upon the return of some great prophet is already laid bare in the crucified condemnation of Jesus of Nazareth and the various condemnations put upon countless other prophets and light-bringers, as recently as former CIA agent and whistleblower John Kiriakow, sentenced to prison while the torture crimes he brought to light remain un-investigated. We live in an upside down world where those who most loudly advocate for justice are often most quickly cast out.
If
and when the new great prophet comes, whether in the form of a
returned Zoroaster, Elijah, Jesus, or Mohammed, or somebody
unrecognizably new, they will not need to bring down fire, and their
message will not have to be anything special. It will be not much
different than before, saying to the people of the world, or the
people in their sphere of influence: “Look around you. The
cornerstone the builders rejected was one of love and justice! The
cornerstone they chose has a nature of avarice, and uneven privilege.
Look at what the building created from this cornerstone has
wrought.”
“LooOOK!”
would be fire-from-the-sky enough. But according to his gospel
biographers, Jesus' attitude was one of forgiveness. Somewhere
between harshness and mildness, he found the middle ground of mercy,
in which the gospels record him as saying, “Forgive them Father,
for they know not what they do....” Rather than the sword of
condemnation, which would have been understandable, he offered an
olive branch of hope for reconciliation, to which the powers of this
world have yet to respond in kind. The invitation remains: How can
we build each other up to create a world more heavenly, rather than
grind one another down as the world descends into something that
represents our values less and less? Restorative justice asks what
must change so that sibling is not set against sibling in an ongoing
state of adversity.
Restorative
justice asks what must we do to be in true equitable relationship, to
create the deepest form of solace in our hearts by reaching for
common ground? I believe we must not have a too-high or too-low
opinion of ourselves. We must recognize our equal inherent value –
not superior or inferior – to the person who drives the fanciest
car to the halls of great power, and to the person who walks in
ragged clothes to ask for spare change a half-block from the Market
District grocery. I believe that to achieve the destiny of authentic
common ground, we must include all voices as valid, and listen
non-judgmentally without feeling a need to interpret or immediately
respond.
Restorative justice
also asks “What must we do to keep our bodies and our communities
safe?” A start is to educate ourselves and our children of the
moral
injury brought on by living in a world where weapons of
condemnation are normative. I do believe that to respect each
others' dignity, we ought to minimize the energy that goes toward
creating, owning, and using weaponry that works to harm life, and we
must add to energies that uplift our connection to each other, which
in itself increases our safety.
I
will close with this quote from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King: “Power
at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice
at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”
I
advocate that we recognize the power we do
have. I advocate that we build
our love by committing
our
power to tear down any system that denies life, or impedes
flourishing, or quashes organic harmony. And may we at the same
time, build up new systems based on a cornerstone of love and
justice, with respect for harmony, individuality, and lives that may
flourish and bloom. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 0th UU principle, 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, anti-racism, Community, freedom versus freedom, John 3:17, multiculturalism, peace, prophetic voices, racism, restorative justice, sermons
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Trenchant Commentary on Obama's Performance from Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Director Steph Shearer
Steph Shearer tells the story about the hope Obama gave for positive change on this front, and disappointment of drastic negative bait-and-switch changes so clearly.
Regarding Obama campaigning in 2008: "I went to sleep that night excited about a new direction for this country that would include me as a recognized medical cannabis patient."
Now in 2012: "In fewer than fours years of President Obama, we have seen more raids on dispensaries than during the Bush Administration's entire eight-year tenure. The Obama Administration has taken property from landlords, threatened local officials, forced the release of patient records, used the Internal Revenue Service to bankrupt legitimate dispensaries, told banks to purge medical cannabis clients, evicted patients from low-income housing and denied a petition to recognize the well-established medical value of cannabis."
This is perfidy of the first-order. The rallies, the political pressure, and the petitions he has either ignored or pooh-poohed. I'm not a one-issue voter and hate the prospect of Romney in the WH, but while bending the arc of the universe toward justice on many other issues, why did Obama choose to bend it backward in this case, and what are we who care about this issue supposed to do with our vote?
Some reserve hope that he will make changes once he gets a second term, but I think of Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, and how the best indicator of future performance is past performance....
I like him in SO MANY WAYS, and just want him to do the right thing here. Instead he (and most democrats, actually) appears to be kowtowing again and again to corporate sponsors in the pharmaceuticals industry, in oil, in alcohol and tobacco, in law enforcement, and others, who give hundreds of millions to keep things as they are. The MMJ industry doesn't have that kind of money--they're not even allowed to put their money in banks!--and in today's post-Citizens-United decision, doesn't have access to their inner ear. In the meantime, Americans for Safe Access is losing access because of this perfidy.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 5th UU principle, drug war, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, politics, USA
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Why Talk about Cannabis?
A friend on Facebook recently questioned why I have a bug up my butt regarding President Obama's position on cannabis. Here is my initial response, which I am saving here for later honing toward a more succinct draft:
Regarding your comment, "Cannabis? really?" I am led to believe that it's not really an issue for you? Our president has also laughed it off several times as a non-issue. That is most marginalizing to a community of people already in danger of becoming lower than second-class citizens.
Regarding your comment, "Cannabis? really?" I am led to believe that it's not really an issue for you? Our president has also laughed it off several times as a non-issue. That is most marginalizing to a community of people already in danger of becoming lower than second-class citizens.
In case you consider cannabis to really not be an issue, consider these three things. First, among the wide diversity of cannabis strains, there is definitely legitimate medicine for many people suffering from MS, Crohn's/IBS, cancer, glaucoma, arthritis and epilepsy. It is arguably (although less so) medicine for some people with chronic pain/inflammation, anxiety, ADHD, Alzheimer's, and a host of other maladies. And everyone knows it has side effects, such as euphoria, paranoia (likely amplified by its illegality), lethargy, and short-term memory issues. Compare those side effects to the cautionary list at the end of your average pharmaceutical commercial, and you may be surprised at what some people consider 'acceptable' side effects. After giving states the green light in 2009, the Obama Administration has recently done a 170-degree turn on its states' rights policies, and has used the IRS, the DOJ and the DEA to force the businesses with the best practices and the best reputations--operating as model members of their communities, and within the state laws--out of business. These are not the thug-operations that are basically no better than drug dealers with a lease on a shanty. They were doing their best to follow state laws, turning people away with incorrect authorization, testing the products for potency and to make sure there are no fungus, mold, or pesticides, and labeling as accurately as possible. They were/are truly trying to serve those who need it medically. As the feds attempt to shove it all back underground, those people are running low on quality options.
The second important consideration is that the drug war is: a race war, a class war, and a culture war, all wrapped up into one. It is not a war on drugs. It is a selective war on people--our own people. A quick look around at the arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates can tell you which categories of people are most affected. People of color, stopped for DWB and a car search that finds a baggie of weed for example, become ensnared in a system that benefits from keeping them ensnared. The prison-industrial complex is alive and well, privatizing profits while taking our tax dollars, requesting the government to help keep their prisons full! For more on that, read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow." Our nation's young men of color (though probably anybody would do) are worth more to some segments of the investor class behind bars than anywhere else. Meanwhile, in richer, whiter neighborhoods, people have custom-made marijuana-infused cakes and pastries delivered to their parties. If caught, they can pay for a good lawyer and get off scot-free like Rush Limbaugh. That touches on the class and race war elements. Regarding the culture war, it's no coincidence that the war on drugs started in 1970 on Nixon's watch, directed against the countercultural elements who happened to not only like being intoxicated in this fashion, but were also against Vietnam. With the rise of the military-industrial complex, we've seen the militarization of the drug war as well. Not a coincidence. The poor, the people of color, and the people of the counterculture all have common cause here even if they're from different social locations. Meanwhile, those who perpetuate the drug war are interested in marginalizing the voices of all of these people.
The third issue is money. Five hundred leading economists, including Milton Friedman, have stated that it makes clear economic sense to legalize. Money spent incarcerating people for using a substance safer than alcohol and tobacco is wasted money. With federal support, however, drug programs are easy money to collect for local law enforcement looking to bolster their budgets. It's money that goes down the tubes, however. Putting a person needlessly in prison costs >$30k/year. Meanwhile, the person who comes out of a punitive prison system is not likely to be a better person, and with a felony on their record, will no longer be as employable to our economy simply because of that mar on their record, and we have another person either struggling at odd jobs, returning to the drug trade (which perhaps they didn't even do before, but now have scarce options), or living on the dole if they can. Instead of spending that $30k on prisons, it could be spent on educating our youth, or on really rehabilitating and restoring people with real drug problems. Obama has talked a good game on the benefits of treating the drug problem as a public health issue, but the proof is in the pudding. As a portion of budget outlay, police intervention is still the lion's share of the strategy. On the flip-side of the coin, there are arguments that with regulation and taxation, the government could earn a great new revenue stream. I think that while it could certainly bring in some money--enough to counteract the additional public health costs of legalization--it wouldn't be enough to make a dent in the federal debt, or even in the annual deficit: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/commentary/wastler/wastler/ But $10-20 billion isn't chump change either. The real money comes indirectly from productivity gains as we are no longer decimating lives, families, and communities with a drug war that has done far more damage domestically and abroad than the drugs themselves could have done.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 5th UU principle, anti-oppression, changing the prison paradigm, drug war, equal rights, freedom versus freedom, marijuana, racism, USA
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sermon: Sustaining Your Inner Superheroine
Sustaining Your Inner Superhero,
delivered to First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, April 15, 2012.
I'm
glad you're here. I'm glad we're here
together. Thank you.
I
invite you to think back to when you were just starting out in this world. Now that we've got our three year old son
Henry in our life, so often the things he does and says remind me of when I was
that age.
If
you were like me, the rocketship in your hand was a real rocketship, as were
the dinosaurs, the Hotwheels cars, the Tonka trucks and the dolls.
To
my adult mind now, those toys held an astonishing allure, and I see a serious amount of
imaginative play at work in Henry's life as well.
I
recall back when imagination ran full-tilt.
My bicycle was the batcycle. When
I laid down on the top of the sofa with my arms out, I was flying.
Since
then, something’s changed. I got
educated into the world, I became more and more aware of the world, and adult
reality set in.
I
still want to cling to the idea that there are good guys and bad guys,
superheroines and supervillainesses. I
know that’s no longer true. Actually
it’s my understanding that’s changed, not the world. I know that the good-slash-bad binary has
never been true. As Alexandr
Solzhenitsyn tells us in The Gulag Archipelago, “If only it were all so
simple! If only there were evil people
somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to
separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts
through the heart of every human being.”
We
have a tendency to lose track of our superpowers, or our plain old power even,
and just settle in to what we've been assigned, or what's expected of us, and
this is what divides our hearts. But to
really connect with our superpowers doesn't take superhuman effort.
It
takes imagination, and it takes the will to bring that which you
imagine into real being. That's it.
Before
we can sustain our inner superhero, we need first to imagine it, to find
it, to discover it. What is the self
within us that—as our first reading tells us—wants to do the right thing: to
act for justice and peace, and at times, kick serious ass? I believe we each have this potential within
us. We just need a good process to help
our inner superhero come out into the light of our awareness.
First, we need to recall that justice and injustice are not monoliths. If we treat them as such, they are gigantic inseparable abstractions that we can't get any grasp upon. We must find specific justice targets which really match our individual passions. There are plenty of areas in the world that need justice, and when the good people of the world are working as a team, there will be plenty of people to address those areas. Otherwise, to try and take on “injustice” as a category is simply overwhelming. As Howard Thurman says, “Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”
First, we need to recall that justice and injustice are not monoliths. If we treat them as such, they are gigantic inseparable abstractions that we can't get any grasp upon. We must find specific justice targets which really match our individual passions. There are plenty of areas in the world that need justice, and when the good people of the world are working as a team, there will be plenty of people to address those areas. Otherwise, to try and take on “injustice” as a category is simply overwhelming. As Howard Thurman says, “Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”
Last
month, myself and three other members of this congregation attended the
Gamaliel community organizing training.
One of the key learnings for me was that every person has experiences in
their history that guide their vision.
Figuring out those formative experiences can clarify and unlock your
self-interest.
Recognizing
self-interest is a healthy habit. It's
not selfish where you just try to get others to do for you. And it's not selfLESS where you put on a
martyr's altruism and help others fulfill their dreams, and put your own on the
backburner or even take them off the stove.
When you know your self-interest, you've got your foundation under you,
and are one important step closer to being strong for what you believe in. You have the river of truth at your side, and
are ready to say “No, YOU move,” or are ready to interrupt the situation when
you witness an injustice you've prepared yourself to face.
A second element of this discovery process is to be gentle with yourself. You're not magical, and the world does not rest on your shoulders. At least it shouldn't. Wolverine made an important point about superheroes and superheroines—that they're made, not born, and it's their guts that make them super. Here's a little aside: Back when this sermon was hatching almost twenty years ago, I heard some song lyrics by an English band named Black Grape:
A second element of this discovery process is to be gentle with yourself. You're not magical, and the world does not rest on your shoulders. At least it shouldn't. Wolverine made an important point about superheroes and superheroines—that they're made, not born, and it's their guts that make them super. Here's a little aside: Back when this sermon was hatching almost twenty years ago, I heard some song lyrics by an English band named Black Grape:
Don’t talk to me about heroes
Most of these men sing like serfs
Jesus was a black man
No Jesus was Batman
No, no, no,
That was Bruce Wayne.
Most of these men sing like serfs
Jesus was a black man
No Jesus was Batman
No, no, no,
That was Bruce Wayne.
That curveball about Bruce Wayne
kind of cracked me up, and I figured Jesus probably wasn't a black man—I bet he
looked kind of like the people of the Eastern Mediterranean, though the part
that really stuck with me was “Jesus was Batman.”
I
didn't really make my own real meaning of it until after finding Unitarian
Universalism. See, many Christians
understand Jesus as some type of otherworldly being begotten outside of time
and space, more akin to Superman from another planet with powers that none of
us could ever hope to accomplish.
As
a Unitarian, I came to appreciate Jesus as being closer to the style of
Batman--of being one of us, working smarter, doing pushups, and developing
skills. Wonderwoman, while working
tirelessly for justice—originally fighting against the Nazis during world war
two—like Superman, also has superhuman abilities, descended from a mythic
Amazon warrior culture. It's good that
she's on the side of justice, but no amount of pushups is going to help bridge
that gap between where we are and her super-humanity. I could go through the Marvel and DC comic
superhero inventories trying to determine whose powers were innate and whose
were developed, but the inclusion of these three makes my point without going
past my depth and into an area which would only entertain the most hardcore
comics fans here today. The superheroes and superheroines within each of us—which
need not match our birth gender—require our work and intentionality to come
into being. We start with what we
are—what we really are, not what we're told we are (in so many
categories)—and find a way to become more ourselves. We don't have to have superhuman strength or
speed, or be able to turn back time by flying backwards around the Earth until
Lois Lane comes back to life. Our
superpower can be as straightforward as preparing ourselves, then having the
courage to show up and speak our truth when it matters.
Now that we've identified the
superhero within us, we're ready for the third element of this discovery
process. Here, we get to the part about
actually sustaining our inner superhero.
Sustaining is the key, and is what will really serve our momentum. An example from the world of music may shed
some light. Each instrument has its own
style of making notes. A guitar is
strummed and then the strings slowly die down.
A drum or percussive instrument gets hit for a very short sharp
transient note. And a violin or a
synthesizer (or a wine glass) can hold a note steadily for a long time. This ability to draw out a note is called
“sustain.” In the quote at the top of
your order of service, from Deep Purple guitarist Ritchie Blackmore, he notes
that by playing the music loud, his guitar has extra long sustain. That sustain comes from a mild form of
feedback. The oscillations in air
pressure caused by the loud amplifiers are actually strong enough that they're
like wind blowing on the guitar strings, which allows them to keep ringing on
for a long time. Feedback is what we
need to sustain us.
Feedback in community. When we're
loud enough in words or action such that others hear us and some
resonate—though certainly not all will resonate, (and that's okay)—when
some resonate with us, we find a momentum that sustains. Through conversation you may find that your
imagination matches theirs, or your imagination may inspire others, or their
imaginations may inspire your own.
And
good conversation may include agitation and clarification as
well. We tend to shy away or give
complimentary feedback, perhaps so that we'll be liked by the listener, or
because we want them to feel liked. But
that's not genuine. I invite you to be
both kind and clear when reflecting your feedback, whether it be critique or
praise. Critique, not to be confused
with it's negative cousin criticism, spurs people to go deeper and find their
genuine selves. Conversations of this
sort—deep, connected interactions beyond small talk and the events of the
day—are a path to spiritual growth in community. In this congregation's behavioral covenant,
we're seeking to acknowledge each other's value and treat each other
accordingly. To me, this means that we
will level with each other, and do our level best to stay in relationship with
each other. When we know that we can offer
genuine feedback and not fear rejection, that to me indicates that we value
each others' authentic selves.
And
all of this serves to help vivify our imagination, so that we may become more
adept at fostering it into becoming real.
After all, almost everything that comes into existence in the human
world begins as a thought in someone's imagination. From there, if voiced, it turns into a
conversation, and if worthy of action, may even turn into an institution.
[slower]
Now this feedback, this conversation, happens within each of us as
well. From Howard Thurman's advice, we must
seek community within our own spirit, searching in our experiences with the
literal facts of the external world, to bring order out of chaos from this
collective life, and we will be sustained and supported by life. In other words, as our inner sense of
community is in conversation, we become harmonious to our own self.
This
work within ourselves and beyond ourselves in accountable community is crucial
for sustaining a steadfast spirit. I
will close with this question: Against all the messages which may make you feel
separate from your inner superhero, can you imagine yourself developing a
pattern of responding with a steadfast spirit?
Amen.
lyrics: How could anyone ever tell you you were less than whole?
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 1st UU principle, 3rd UU principle, 4th UU principle, sermons
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Nudity is Vulnerability, yet Vulnerability can be Empowering
Labels: 1st UU principle, angry at organized religions, anti-oppression, Islam, sexuality, women, Women's Rights
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Sermon on Love as a Foundation
Delivered at First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Feb 5, 2012
Love is a Source of Truth and Meaning
On Tuesday of last week, the staff had a belated holiday lunch at the Thai Place down on Walnut Street. If you enjoy Thai food, I highly recommend the Pad Thai. At the end of lunch, we went around the table reading aloud the fortunes from our fortune cookies. Mine was about as uninformative as they come: “You will be successful in your work.” Well, I hope so, but how do they know? Eh... In my opinion, Phil, who works evening security, got the gem: “Great thoughts come from the heart.” It's been said that Unitarian Universalists can find sacred text anywhere, and I agree. There is sacred text to interpret not only in ancient cultural books, but also in novels, newspapers, remarkable experiences, plain old day-to-day experiences, and also in fortune cookies.
“Great thoughts come from the heart.” A little research shows these words come from Marquis de Vauvenargues (vo-ven-arge). I don't fault the fortune cookie writer for plagiarism. I am only grateful to the universe for bringing these words to me, because they're such a perfect fit. “Great thoughts come from the heart.” Those words say that the heart is the source of thoughts. Not just any thoughts, but great thoughts, important thoughts that matter to our world. Thoughts that clamber their way from our minds to our mouths, thoughts that then may turn into actions or events, or even institutions!
“Great thoughts come from the heart.” A little research shows these words come from Marquis de Vauvenargues (vo-ven-arge). I don't fault the fortune cookie writer for plagiarism. I am only grateful to the universe for bringing these words to me, because they're such a perfect fit. “Great thoughts come from the heart.” Those words say that the heart is the source of thoughts. Not just any thoughts, but great thoughts, important thoughts that matter to our world. Thoughts that clamber their way from our minds to our mouths, thoughts that then may turn into actions or events, or even institutions!
Last weekend, Paula Cole Jones was here to present a workshop on reconciliation and anti-racism on Saturday, and then she and I co-led worship on Sunday, so I got to hear her sermon twice. :) I was glad to see about 25 people at the workshop, and the sanctuary was pretty full on Sunday as well. This tells me there is a desire in this congregation to begin, or re-begin some heavy spiritual transformation around becoming a multi-cultural congregation. I commend that, and back in Oakland, I've been a witness to the hard work that it takes to transform. It means asking some deep identity questions about who each of us are, and sitting with it and reflecting for a while. It means identifying the context of how our cultures are set up. That hard work means getting over ourselves and the mixity of privilege and oppression (more than likely, each of us has some of each), and it means finding that still small voice within to guide us and impel us on. The heart is a source.
More than anything else last week, what I learned from the sacred text Paula Cole Jones brought is that we as UU's have a tendency to start by thinking, and that doesn't generally get us where we want to be spiritually. In this congregation, we say the seven principles every week as a part of worship. I'll be the first to say that I believe the seven principles are wonderful. And we treat them as our foundation. There is a deeper question, however. A question that provides a deeper foundation: “Why do we have the seven principles?” “Why do we covenant to affirm and promote these principles?” I say the answer to that is Love. A desire to be in beloved community, to care about each other, and to know we are cared for. The principles work best when we recognize them as a natural extension of our desire for love. When we start from love, and stay with love, we'll be in balance throughout. Even with love, I'm sure we're going to make mistakes, people may disagree, people may misunderstand, and somebody may get hurt. Yet with a humble love as the foundation, we know that we're committed to each other and we're not going to abandon anybody, and we'll get back on that horse once we're ready again.
More than anything else last week, what I learned from the sacred text Paula Cole Jones brought is that we as UU's have a tendency to start by thinking, and that doesn't generally get us where we want to be spiritually. In this congregation, we say the seven principles every week as a part of worship. I'll be the first to say that I believe the seven principles are wonderful. And we treat them as our foundation. There is a deeper question, however. A question that provides a deeper foundation: “Why do we have the seven principles?” “Why do we covenant to affirm and promote these principles?” I say the answer to that is Love. A desire to be in beloved community, to care about each other, and to know we are cared for. The principles work best when we recognize them as a natural extension of our desire for love. When we start from love, and stay with love, we'll be in balance throughout. Even with love, I'm sure we're going to make mistakes, people may disagree, people may misunderstand, and somebody may get hurt. Yet with a humble love as the foundation, we know that we're committed to each other and we're not going to abandon anybody, and we'll get back on that horse once we're ready again.
Love is our reason for wanting to have truth and meaning. We want to have meaningful beliefs that lead us to good ends. Love wants us to have openness and truth in our relationships, so we don't hide from fear of what others might think. That openness also means that we make ourselves vulnerable. As beloved community grows, a feeling of greater safety develops, with more space for vulnerability. Some truths are very difficult to share even among those we're close to--there's not a requirement to open up and be vulnerable—only an invitation.
On the prophetic side, there is often an invitation to speak one's conscience where there is not safety, and some people accept the challenge to open up nonetheless. The search for truth in human religion has been fraught with heretics who have braved contempt, ridicule, ostracism and even death to advance deeper truths into religious discourse. Unitarian and Universalist history has many such prophetic voices. For an example, I'd like to invite you to come back in time a couple centuries with me to May 5th, 1819. On that day, William Ellery Channing delivered the seminal sermon called “Unitarian Christianity” at the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks. In his sermon, Channing boldly cemented a new clarity of what this novel “Unitarian” movement was about, claiming the name that opponents had previously used as a pejorative. Sitting in and listening to portions of the sermon, you would also be able to hear between the words a context in which the Bible was considered the only real sacred text worth considering, and there was a pretty heavy trinitarian orthodox view. I have two brief sidenotes: First, the quotes I will be sharing from Channing's sermon were originally non-gender-inclusive, and I leave his words intact for the effect of greater immersion into the culture of his time. Second, I will be offering a more in-depth study of this sermon as part of an adult religious education course beginning in a couple weeks. If you're interested, check the website for details.
So strong was the biblical context of Channing's time that the first portion of his sermon is devoted to the full use of our faculty of reason when examining the Bible. In response to accusers, he states, “Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We believe that God, when he speaks to the human race, conforms, if we may so say, to the established rules of speaking and writing.” For him, context is key: “We find that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages which have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of temporary and local application.”
From a full read of the sermon, it is evident to me that he spoke this sermon of truths not for his own ego, or to gain control, but to satisfy an underlying love he felt from God. Using the Bible as his text, he sought to clarify the unity of God, stating that claims about God being three separate persons in one were untrue and caused great confusion. Regarding these inconsistencies, he preached, “If God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers [of discernment].”
From a full read of the sermon, it is evident to me that he spoke this sermon of truths not for his own ego, or to gain control, but to satisfy an underlying love he felt from God. Using the Bible as his text, he sought to clarify the unity of God, stating that claims about God being three separate persons in one were untrue and caused great confusion. Regarding these inconsistencies, he preached, “If God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers [of discernment].”
He sought to clarify that Jesus was fully human—as we are--and that the variety of theories on his special dual divine/human nature tended to disparage his character. In answering this theory of dual nature, he states, “We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.”
Channing sought also to clarify the moral perfection of God, stating, “We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the proper sense of these words; good in disposition, as well as in act; good, not to a few, but to all; good to every individual, as well as to the general system.... God's justice has for its end the highest virtue of the creation.” Accordingly, he also was clear on the Unitarian rejection of substitutional atonement: “We believe that Jesus was sent by the Father to effect a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness....We recollect, however, that, not long ago, it was common to hear of Christ, as having died to appease God's wrath, and to pay the debt of sinners to his inflexible justice; and we have a strong persuasion, that the language of popular religious books, and the common mode of stating the doctrine of Christ's mediation, still communicate very degrading views of God's character. They give to multitudes the impression that the death of Jesus produces a change in the mind of God towards man, and that in this its efficacy chiefly exists... It naturally leads men to think, that Christ came to change God's mind rather than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to avert punishment, rather than to communicate holiness.”
Fast forward back to 2012. Many of these theological suppositions we UUs now take for granted, and have moved well beyond. Those following in his footsteps have brought further realities into the conversation, including rejection of biblical miracles, a greater understanding of this present life as the one that matters, and the inclusion of many other sacred texts, even including fortune cookies. Which brings me back to... love as a foundation. I believe Channing truly came from a place of love and humility, and desired for connection across theological differences. “We can hardly conceive of a plainer obligation on beings of our frail and fallible nature, who are instructed in the duty of candid judgment, than to abstain from condemning men of apparent conscientiousness and sincerity, who are chargeable with no crime but that of differing from us in the interpretation of the Scriptures.” Underneath his words was a desire for beloved community in one large family, an earlier part of an arc preceding and leading toward our principles.
In the “Guess How Much I Love You” children's story today, the father and son nut brown hares make a game of expressing ever greater love for each other. There is never the slightest thought that they could be out of relationship with each other. It's a pretty good model for us to strive toward, for times when we turn inwards to build a stronger core community in this congregation, and also for when we are turning outwards.
But again, the anti-oppression work of changing our collective soul—it can be difficult and consuming. Even a mantra of “just add love” means asking some tough questions as we become vulnerable to our own inner searchings, as well as to the searchings of others. If you/we step further into this work of building beloved community here at First Unitarian, and I hope we do, my prayer is that we recognize our limits, and be gentle with ourselves and each other. For we often don't know the storms and struggles others carry within, and sometimes hardly acknowledge our own.... For those times, may we foster a love that undergirds meanings and the truths we make about ourselves, each other, and our world.
In the “Guess How Much I Love You” children's story today, the father and son nut brown hares make a game of expressing ever greater love for each other. There is never the slightest thought that they could be out of relationship with each other. It's a pretty good model for us to strive toward, for times when we turn inwards to build a stronger core community in this congregation, and also for when we are turning outwards.
But again, the anti-oppression work of changing our collective soul—it can be difficult and consuming. Even a mantra of “just add love” means asking some tough questions as we become vulnerable to our own inner searchings, as well as to the searchings of others. If you/we step further into this work of building beloved community here at First Unitarian, and I hope we do, my prayer is that we recognize our limits, and be gentle with ourselves and each other. For we often don't know the storms and struggles others carry within, and sometimes hardly acknowledge our own.... For those times, may we foster a love that undergirds meanings and the truths we make about ourselves, each other, and our world.
Because... “Great thoughts come from the heart.” I wonder if, rather than competing as these rabbits did, we were to cooperate in a determined outspoken love. I wonder what might this world become if we started an inclusive cooperative competition based on mindful love. I wonder if, from a base of embodied love, we can create an entirely novel meaning to this collective spirit we call life. And I wonder how vulnerable and strong we can become if we support each other side-by-side holding each other's hands and hearts, and what spirits we may be able to brave to bring our truths and meanings. I don't believe we can know until we try, and I do wonder. Amen.
Labels: 0th UU principle, 1st UU principle, 6th UU principle, anti-oppression, multiculturalism, sermons
