May I let my voice be a clarion call. I will use these words for justice. I will use these words for truth. And humour.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

 

Sermon: The Guardian of the Garden

Delivered to First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh in the Undercroft Gallery (with wireless headworn mic), on June 30, 2013
On nights when it's my turn to get Henry ready for bed, after bedtime snack and toothbrushing, we read two books in his bedroom and turn out the light and maybe a prayer, and then I sing to him. Our standard default is “This Little Light of Mine” which I've been singing to him since he was an infant. But sometimes he asks for something new. And when “Swing Low Sweet Chariot” and “Hot Crossed Buns” didn't cut it, I offered him one of my own that I'd been working on called “Ode to Glen Eden.” The chorus and closing goes a bit like this:

♪♫“This is a beautiful garden, it has a dangerous guardian (x2).
We're going to melt that guardian down some time, we're gonna press our flames to that heart of ice (x2).
That heart of ice, (x3)
is my size....”♫♪


H: Dad I really like that song. What's the beautiful garden? (That was the easy question.)
J: Well son, the beautiful garden is the Earth, the only place where we can actually live, and we're so lucky that it provides us with food and wood and everything that people and animals need to live.
H: Tell me about the guardian Dad. (Of course I had no clue how to articulate this to Henry without going into adult details, so I punted a bit.)
J: Well, the guardian watches over the Earth to make sure and keep it safe, but it's not always friendly, especially when people are not good to the Earth.
He's getting to the stage of inquisitiveness now where he keeps drilling down with “Why?” followed by “Why?” followed by more “Why?” and... I don't recall how it ended up.
       I really do find the Earth as a source of reverence – I learned that while preparing for my first time preaching here at First Unitarian – Winter Solstice 2011. How amazing is this Earth in all the idiosyncracies that somehow exist so it can support life like us.
       And how very dangerous is the Guardian that protects it? Freewill creates its own karmic vehicle when we choose something harmful. And at the moment, collectively, we are choosing an abundance of things either harmful or potentially so – in our reading, Wendell Berry mentioned fossil fuels. The list continues: nuclear weapons; GMO foods and other genetic experiments; polluted air, water, and soil, imprudent use of medicines leading to more virulent drug-resistant pathogens that could one day bring us a pandemic. It's difficult to even imagine, but any of these things could potentially bring the end of the homo sapien species. And at the same time, there is very little likelihood that any of those could end life on Earth as a whole. The Earth would go on living, and perhaps vibrantly again without the avaricious hubris of competitive humanity plundering Earth's land, animals and people for industrial profits. The guardian would use humanity's selfishness and ignorance to end humanity's selfishness and ignorance.
       This is my pastoral message then to what Emerson called “the Oversoul” or as I see it, the collective soul of humanity – underneath our day to day perceptions is a common sense of dread, that humanity is living so recklessly beyond its balance that it may crash. Recently, Rolling Stone Magazine published an article entitled “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math.” A brief summary: credible climate scientists have estimated that humanity can only pump out 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere before Earth's temperature will raise 2 degrees Celsius, a point at which ecosystems – and humanity – would experience devastating effects. And unfortunately, just with the presently-known fossil-fuel reserves, we are capable of adding 2800 gigatons of carbon dioxide – five times that amount! The biggest problem – cutting back would cut into the fossil-fuel industry's profits, and they have no plans to stop. I wonder if this is humanity's way of doing the guardian's work, judging itself as unfit for the garden it's been offered. [pause] The answer to that question I do not know....
       Prior to coming to Pittsburgh, I was a hospital chaplain, and met many people who were dying. I worked to comfort them, along with their families, and help them arrive at reconciliation, closure, and sometimes acceptance. It's a strange feeling to be with somebody soon to be breathing their last, a natural future experience we will all share. What's strangest is if/when they come to tranquility, understanding that “everything's going to be all right” and that means that they're going to be on the other side of the impenetrable existential barrier known as “dying.”
       For the collective human existence, however, the timeframe need not be limited to 100-odd years. Humanity could expire in a year, in 100 years, or 20 million years.
       On a rational level, we could say that “Species die off all the time. The fossil record indicates that prior to human intervention, up to 100 species went extinct every year. And now since the fruits of human activity have taken hold, scientists estimate an extinction rate of 27,000 species per year. Actually of all the species the Earth has ever seen since it first gave birth to life, 99.9% of them have gone extinct, most before humanity even entered the picture.” But of those that did go extinct, many of them lasted a million or more years. Humanity's known history is a fraction of that – perhaps humanity is practicing, “Live fast, die young?”
       In case we do come to an early “live fast, die young” demise, I want to affirm that even then, it will be okay. It has to. After we're gone, the struggles will be over, along with the exhilaration and joy. And then there will be rest. But here's the rub.... What happens when one lives fast and recklessly, and doesn't die young? Humanity has been rough on itself and rough on its host planet. I can personally attest that being rough on my knees in high school sports, and on my shoulders in college – these things have brought injuries, making some activities painful. When I was high jumping at 18 and trashing my left knee, 45 years old seemed a long way away. Joel 45 would send Joel 18 a message, were that possible. In a similar way, Humanity 2100 will probably not have “died young” by then, and would ask us to prevent the injuries presently being created through these present generations' ways of living.
       And I'm not ready for humanity to buy the farm just yet, or even to go on causing itself such long term harms. To put this clearly, I'll quote Wendell Berry, “Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.” I interpret this “downstream” to mean later in time, where “upstream” means earlier in time.
What are we to do? Humanity seems somewhere between directionless, and directed toward this quarter's financial statements. I believe a small portion of humanity are developing a clear understanding of what is happening in a systemic sense. I believe that we would do well to continue communicating with each other, and with the rest of humanity, to counter the stories of those seemingly hell-bent on creating an early end, or perhaps only hell-bent on gaining power, money, and influence at any cost. Our stories and our perspectives are our light, and in their telling, the darkness within us, among us, and between us is diminished.
     (Include if appropriate energy: I'd like to go out on a limb and take a break and invite you all to tell stories to each other for a minute – without words. I was thinking maybe we could stand up and walk around and do this, but it's a bit too crowded to do that without introducing real chaos, so just from your chairs, I invite you to connect wordlessly – using your eyes, your faces, and your body language – to communicate with those around you, that for matters to you, for which words do not suffice. If you find this too intense, or you'd rather not participate, please feel free to just close your eyes and take a break. After several moments, I have these bells to ring. My family used to have these on the doors of our house that rang each time we exited or entered [wait 5 breaths, ring bells]. May we find ourselves in a new place and a new sense of purpose through this new connection to each other.)
         I propose that humanity does not know its true purpose. Because “true” is monocultural thinking in that it focuses on a single objective, assuming some prior nugget of truth was somewhere buried. Humanity must wait to discover its purpose amidst all its other activities? No. Humanity is ready to evolve from adolescence, no longer wanting to live recklessly on some Amish rumspringa – a period of hard-partying the Amish teens do as part of discernment of their values, then choosing whether to return back to their own culture. Rather, humanity entering into its adult phase aches to determine itself – not in a “mightiest-most-influential-voices-get-the-megaphone” kind of way, but through the speaking and hearing of all voices.
Unitarian Universalist values set an excellent model for this process. Democratic processes will be critical. A goal of world community is seriously important for coming together around a common human determination. A lack of respect for the interdependent web is how we got here, and something we as UUs say we want to change. Human worth and dignity – including humans now living, along with those whose legacy we carry and wish to respect, and those further on in the timestream who call to us for a good world in which to safely raise healthy children. Equity in relations is important as well. Our quest for spiritual growth, and our responsible search for truth and meaning calls us to then respond with our findings, and with our whole being.
         I know I said earlier that the democratic process will be important, however I believe that it may take considerable time for humanity to really come together for a determined unified purpose. Especially difficult for some reason is getting cooperation of those who have privilege to choose less privilege and convenience in a world like the one Wendell Berry speaks of.
       And I'm white, straight-appearing, male-appearing – I come from white monoculture, so I want to see THIS democratic process expedited (impatience with process is part of the white monoculture I grew up in and am accustomed to). I would like to prime the pump regarding our present purpose. Because I hear the voices of 2100 calling me; I think you might hear them as well. I propose that we choose for our present purpose the creation of a safe, healthy, and harmonious world for the people of the 22nd century, composed of safe, healthy, harmonious local communities. And I propose that we come together and have fun while we do it.
        I say that because I also hear the voices of 2013 calling to me. People suffering from great emotional and social distance with even their nearest neighbors; and more to the point, people suffering from lack of the basic necessities of life, even. Because when injury comes to humanity at large, the brunt of the injury tends to accumulate upon the least fortunate and most oppressed among us. I hear them saying that there is so much struggle over who gets how big a slice of pie that we're actually making less pie. I hear those voices say we should be focusing on just making sure that everybody gets an adequate slice at this Garden Family Picnic (side-note not mentioned: family picnics are much less enjoyable when monetized – can you imagine bartering with family over baked beans, chocolate chip bars or corn on the cob?)
        The way to a harmonized 22nd century is to harmonize the 21st, here and now. May we commit to finding the courage to risk joy. May we find our flame to melt the ice of each human heart we meet. And may we allow for the flames of our friends to work their magic on our own ices within. In this way – one by one – we will melt the heart of the guardian.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 08:18 0 comments

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:
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: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 07:43 0 comments

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.

As Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt shared as part of the 2009 Berry Street Lecture,
“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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 10:13 0 comments

Monday, November 19, 2012

 

Regarding the Ongoing Catastrophes in the Middle East, Most Notably in Gaza

Hello World,

I suppose it's time I write something again.

Regarding the situation in Gaza, the Bible story of King Solomon threatening to cut the baby in half comes to mind.  I wonder who, among Jews or Muslims (or Christians, even), would step up and show true motherhood (and how that would manifest) right about now.

There is a law that is more profound than Islamic law.  A law more powerful than any so far revealed* in any religion, yet hidden in view so that only those who would wish can know it.

I await a humanity that cares to seek for this law through consensus from establishable common ground.  Else, destruction.  Even utter annihilation.  Every beautiful garden must have a dangerous guardian, and I'm trying not to be too attached to the outcome.

It does bring a tear to my eye and to my heart to reflect on all we love that we'd lose, and all we've lost already.

Lyrics: "This is a beautiful garden.  It has a dangerous guardian." from Ode to Glen Eden
Mood: Wistful
Colors: Orange, yellow, blue

Pax hominibus,
Agape to all,
Joel


*This is true only because although the texts do reveal this law, they cannot force any person to accept the revelation.  The ears have a difficult time hearing it amid the deafening noise floor of life in 2012.  I believe, however, that the heart of every human will begin to seek out this law, because it longs to know it. This law is simple to find, actually.  Just ask your neighbors about it, and your heart will begin to know.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 12:53 0 comments

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

 

Sermon:Tending a Sensitized Conscience


Tending a Sensitized Conscience

Delivered November 11, 2012 at First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh



       During my twenties, I drove taxi for a year at Union Cab in Madison, Wisconsin. I remember early on, the dispatcher – his name was Tim, but everybody called him “Hat” – I remember Hat telling me, “You've got to really listen to your radio.” I thought to myself – Did he mean just always be tuned in to the CB radio so we could listen and put in a bid when a trip became available in our area? Did he mean to listen closely to the songs on the FM radio stations? Or did he mean to really listen to the voice of the dispatcher, to hear the tone of his voice, and try to find out from his inflection whether the calls he was giving were good calls that would take me and my fare all the way across town, or they might be just a few blocks, for which I'd have to drive a couple miles to get there? Or I thought maybe he meant even deeper listening, and his use of the word “radio” was a metaphor – in which he wanted me to listen to others so closely, and figure out the stories prior to the stories, to hear what was happening in their hearts and their heads. Then again, maybe it wasn't about people at all. At the very beginning of the teal hymnal, we have a song that says, “Listen more closely to things than to beings...”
       This is a sermon about listening deeply. Listening with the purpose of educating our conscience – our internal sense of right and wrong, also known as that still, small voice within. This education I'm talking about assumes that our conscience is not some static entity. That our sense of right and wrong is dynamic. It assumes that as we open to receive new experiences, the conscience is capable of fine-tuning its compass toward the good, and also of becoming more keenly attuned to nuance. The invitation I'm investigating today is for each of us to consider sensitizing our conscience, according to our present ability and desire. To make it capable of detecting things that it previously could not.
       First comes the question of why to do this. Having a sensitized conscience means being ready to take on some of the sting of life, feeling a little more tender, maybe even raw. It may be preferable or easier to just go out and numb the pain we already have. And maybe your life does have a lot of pain. And if that's the case, this sermon may well not be for you, at least not in this moment. But if you are willing and have the capacity to move to a deeper level of connection with suffering, the question of why still looms. 
       I think of the enlightened Bodhisattva from the Buddhist tradition who, upon reaching a state of enlightenment and understanding suffering, then and there makes a vow to go back to the human world and work to guide people to the alleviation of their suffering. To choose that is to enter into a world of discomfort. There's a good reason to go back and engage (from whatever state of enlightenment you already have). Taking on some level of discomfort is bearable, especially with the knowledge that the discomfort you take on with a new sense of awareness may help alleviate some actual pain in the lives of others. To my understanding, pain is an order of magnitude stronger than discomfort.
       There's another reason why you might want to develop a more sensitized conscience – spiritual growth. There is always room for increasing our awareness, thereby allowing for a better-informed conscience. I have a brief story to illustrate this point. The first General Assembly I attended was Portland in 2007. I was staying in a hostel 3 miles from the assembly floor. I got on the bus in the morning, and got halfway there, and realized I'd forgotten my name badge. If you forget your name badge, there is no way you can get onto the floor. So I turned around, knowing I would be at least 45 minutes late, and wouldn't be able to make it to any of the workshops during that morning session. And I had an epiphany! There were three different workshops all at the same time I had wanted to attend, and I would've been unable to take in two of them anyway. Missing all three wasn't really that much different, in a way. Right there on the bus I realized that if I were at GA, I wouldn't be able to pay attention to what was going on on the bus! And from there, I realized that we are missing almost everything, all the time. I imagined there were even a million things going on in that bus that I wasn't aware of and would never be aware of. But that's no excuse not to try and pick at least one thing to pay attention to. The key is to prioritize what gets your attention.
So, a second question then is 'How to cultivate a sensitized conscience?' The first step is to be curious. Ask questions – of yourself, and in dialog with others. “What am I experiencing? How do I feel about it? What experiences have I had in the past that lead me to feel this way, and not some other way?” Can you imagine how others with different perspectives, based on different life stories might feel in the same experience? It's easier to do if they're right there in the room sharing the experience with you, especially if you can just ask them.
       A really good way to sensitize is to ask, “What am I missing?” The things on the surface, at least, you and I try to catch. But, as I like to interpret my old taxi dispatcher “Hat” as saying, find out what's under the surface there. When there's a conversation or dialog, it's often more telling to listen into the noise-floor for what's NOT being said, either something that's under the surface, or may actually just be an elephant in the room that people are focusing away from, either consciously or unconsciously. I've learned to know my senses only take me part way. As humans, using our senses, we do not have the ability to see in the Infrared or Ultraviolet light, we cannot hear the high-frequency sounds that dogs can hear, or the 7.8 Hz low-frequency sound of the earth's constant rumble. We do not have the inherent ability to detect radon gas in basements, not can we detect radioactivity. We have to stop and ask, I wonder if there's something I'm missing here, and then go out and get (or devise) an instrument to find out. The same is true with developing a keener sense of conscience.
       So once we do begin to have a more sensitized conscience, what happens? We do, indeed, start having to ask questions of ourselves, and begin calling ourselves into accountability. Accountability is uncomfortable, especially when one is less-than-willing to engage, or not sure how to go about engaging (I have been in both situations myself). You may start to feel guilt or shame for things you've done or left undone, or you may feel fear of what might happen (such as 'doing it wrong') now that you're doing something. Another thing that happens is that we begin to see and feel new nuances from new perspectives, and may feel compelled then to report back on what we've discovered on this free and responsible search for truth and meaning. A sensitized conscience is a very good tool for that search, and practicing the right of conscience may very well be the result of that search.
       There's a sacred text -- actually a rather profane text, but sacred in that it serves a purpose worth studying -- I came across in late-August of this year. In this case, the sacred text was words spoken by Clint Eastwood, at a political convention. I don't mean for this to be a political sermon. In fact, the only way I see it as political is that the root of the word 'politic' refers to “how we choose to be together in community.” Eastwood's way of being in community was quite remarkable, actually.

Near the beginning of his speech, he says: “So I -- so I’ve got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he’s -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions.” I thought to myself, “Is this performance art? Is he acting? He must be acting.”
He went on to ask the silent and invisible man in the chair questions regarding his 2008 promises vs his record regarding Guantanamo and then interrupts himself, saying, “What do you mean shut up?” He continues to ask questions to which the invisible man in the chair remains silent, and then Eastwood interrupts himself again... “I am not going to shut up, it is my turn.” He speaks for a while longer, and interrupts himself again, responding indignantly to the chair... “What do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself.” Then later, “I’m sorry. I can’t do that to myself either.”

       I felt so appalled, I had to pause the video. It took me a day or so after experiencing this for my conscience to begin to sort things out. The issue was not with just the words. The real issue I saw was with the process, the way it was done. I can only imagine President Obama sitting with his family in the White House living room, or at work with his staff, watching this pseudo-conversation. Were it me, I would be nonplussed perhaps, and I don't know whether I would be amused or very not amused. Here, Eastwood had brought an imagined likeness of the president, the most powerful man in the world, and dressed him down. He made this man – this African-American man who had been vested with power by over 50% of the voters three years ago – he made him invisible, put him there into the narrative without his permission, and then, of all things – he made this imagined character into the fabled (and fearsome) angry black man, without ever having his invisible man in the chair even speaking a word of his own. For all listening, it was like hearing one end of a telephone conversation – the profanities were unspoken, but they were there to be sure. After almost four years of keeping his cool amid being treated like a second-class president in so many ways -- as if he can't be legitimate, or "our" equal or better than us -- finally somebody had conveyed anger on his behalf, and strangely, it was Clint Eastwood who did so. Wordlessly. Unexpectedly. Without permission.
       What did it mean to me? I still don't fully know. Not without complexifying, by being in conversation. My conscience tells me that what Eastwood did was mean-spirited and unethical, and may eventually somehow serve something good – but at a huge cost. This was not microaggressions, this was aggression. And to be clear, I call this racism. And by shining his light in this way, Eastwood unconsciously gave others permission to do the same. In this sacred text, is a conversation that needs to be had, if we are to come together.
       Throughout this election cycle, and since the results came in, I have been feeling the gravest sense of broken community. Among white people, straight people, and men, with the unacknowledged privilege of being white, or straight, or male, it seems there are large groups of people feeling their privilege slipping away. I see them in fear and anger regarding this change, and believe they are avoiding invitations to come to common ground. I see a power still entrenched, and refusing to let others speak for themselves, instead speaking for them and plastering them with labels.
       With no universal conversation happening, the signal-to-noise ratio is low [the children's story involved exploring the noise floor of various situations with respect to audio recording]. In order to hear each other, to have a conversation that doesn't make the Abby in each of us want to cry, we need to turn the noise down AND come to common ground. Until all parties are ready to come together and talk, however (and some are still not ready), I will be taking my dispatcher's advice, and listening to the radio, trying to find what's underneath and behind this. I want to see more than just the surface of this pain, fear, and anger. And I want to get to a place where we desire to have this conversation not only for the instrumental purpose of creating greater community, but also for the intrinsic value of bringing each person back. to. wholeness.       As one granted privileges in several ways, who seeks to be a better ally, I want our congregation to be ready to call out oppressions wherever we see them. And I don't want the people with dark skin to have to call out their examples of oppressions each time they come. Or the women to call out theirs, or the LGBT folk, or the people who have disabilities, or the people with oppressions marginalized enough that they didn't even make this list. I want us to be sensitized allies, who step up and into the conversations before the persons on the receiving end have to become their own last line of defense. And because I want to honor the dignity of all, when I do step up and speak, I will try not to speak on behalf of others. I will speak for myself. It has taken me a long time to figure that out, and I doubt I still have it completely right. This spiritual growth is a work in process.
       So, now. How to tend a sensitized conscience? The rewarding part is knowing you're coming into closer connection with others, and making room for – as Leslie Takahashi Morris states it – the more gorgeous rainbow world, where there is room for a river of identities. The reward is knowing that in closer connection, you're listening back in time for the seeds (both the wondrous and the tragic) that made them what they are. And you're listening forward in time for the flowers they hope to bloom, that make them do as they do.
       Another way to cope with this new awareness is to know the reason why you chose it. Principle zero – love! – the foundation and predecessor for all our principles. Principle zero says step forward with a spirit of confident love. That spirit of confident love says your still small voice within is not a burden to carry as you make your way, but is a blessing to guide you each and every day. 
       Amen.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 15:16 0 comments

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

 

Nine (9) Important Keys to Real Democratic Elections in the US and Elsewhere

In time for 2016, I am convinced we need a National Election Amendment, including some semblance of the following.  Multipartisan task forces should hash this out and negotiate the details for maximum democratic process.


1. Approval-voting instead of plurality-voting (allows everyone to vote with absolute sincerity, and dismisses the problem of "lesser-of-two-evils" and ALSO eliminates the need for "primaries" and all of the weird distortions caused by insincere voting at that stage); 

 

2. Public money only -- no private donations, or privately-purchased advertisements (allows free speech to be equitable, and mitigates opportunities for candidates/representatives to be corporately-beholden); 


3. Democratically-elected *media*, with ~20% of the FM spectrum dedicated to news and opinion from people we elected (bandwidth and time given according to proportion of popular vote -- allows all people to have their voice heard through representatives in the public media, rather than the overwhelming skew of voices only representing corporate media ownership, and narrowly defining the bounds of discourse);

4. Eliminate electoral college (we're not delivering vote-counts via pony express anymore, and direct voting makes every person's vote count);

5. End to gerrymandering.  Set the congressional district boundaries and keep them as-is until it comes time to add or subtract.  When that happens, each of the significant parties (define at whatever threshold) in the state should get to pick counties in a rotating draft, such that the Republicans get to pick one county for the district of their choosing, then the Dems, then the third party, then R then D, etc, until they're all spoken for.  To simply have dominant state legislatures recreate district lines in ways that secures their continued dominance has an ossifying effect for democracy.
 

6. Consensually-agreed-upon secure voting (either paper or transparent, secure machines with audited paper record) with sufficient resources at every precinct (It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.)  The electronic voting systems frequently used do not in any way merit public trust.

7. Adequate resources for voting.  Nobody should have to wait more than 2 hours to vote.  Ever.   A standardized system.  The secure voting system should be standardized.  Citizens in Florida shouldn't have remarkably different voting experiences than those in Iowa.

8. Penalties for intimidating, harassing, or intentionally misleading anybody about voting should be severe (e.g. 2+ years in prison), and should be enforced.  "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
 

9. No term-limits (if representatives are naturally popular, the constituency would suffer if they need to seek somebody else less qualified with less experience).

10. Everyone gets the day off for election day (this allows for people who work long hard hours to have their voice heard)!


Please, get talking in social media, until this framework gets pushed into the mass media. Another quadrennial election cycle with this kind of ramped-up toxicity and inanity, and our nation is kaput.

In order: Approval-voting, no private money, elected media, eliminate electoral college, end gerrymandering, standardized secure equitable voting, term-changes, national holiday.


OR do we not have the political will to establish true democracy and overcome corporate oppression? 


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 10:30 0 comments

Sunday, November 20, 2011

 

I ought to watch this video every day

When my faith and trust falters, this video is the paradigm shift I need to wake up my trusting self.




pax hominibus, agape to all, joel

Labels: , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 12:45 0 comments

Sunday, October 2, 2011

 

Some books to read on civilization vs. egalitarian pastoral cultures

from http://www.sodahead.com/living/what-is-civilization-by-aric-mcbay/blog-282673/ 

In contradiction to the idea that the dominant culture's way of living is "natural", human beings lived as small, ecological, participatory, equitable groups for more than 99% of human history. There are a number of excellent books and articles comparing indigenous societies to civilization:

Chellis Glendinning's My name is Chellis and I'm in recovery from western civilization is an amazing and readable book, and it's one of my favourites. You can also read an excerpt of the chapter "A Lesson in Earth Civics" online. Seehttp://www. eco-action. org/dt/civics. html. She has also written several related books, includingWhen Technology Wounds: The Human Consequences of Progress..

John Zerzan's Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections composed of excerpts from the works of a wide range of authors..

The Culture of Make Believe by Derrick Jensen chronicles the violent hatreds that have been overwhelming our planet, tracing them back through their sources in imperialism, slavery, the rise of global capitalism, and the ideologies of possessiveness and consumerism..

Marshall Sahlin's Stone Age Economics is a detailed classic in that same vein. You can read his essay "The Original Affluent Society" online at numerous places, including: http://www. primitivism. com/original-affluent. htm

Anthropologist Stanley Diamond's book In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization

Richard Heinberg's essay "The Primitivist Critique of Civilization" is also highly readable, and available online in many places including http://www. eco-action. org/dt/critique. html. Other good reading is at http://www.primitivism.com and http://eco-action.org/

What these sources show is there were healthy, equitable and ecological communities in the past, and that they were the norm for countless generations. It is civilization that is monstrous and aberrant..


. . lyrics: colors: mood: chant/prayer/mantra: pax hominibus, agape to all, joel

Labels: , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 21:37 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

free page hit counter