Something, Anything More

Aaron White

 August 10, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

A few years ago I heard the story of a woman named Rue. Rue had recently decided to purchase a home in what was becoming the very expensive location of Sag Harbor, New York. When she thought her luck was exhausted, she found what could be described as the deal of a lifetime. But there was a catch. The home Rue was looking to purchase was listed under two different prices. The more expensive price for the home included as she expected “a house, a shed, and a little garden.” The less expensive price for the home ($110,000 less expensive) included “a house, a shed, a little garden, and Ned.”[1]

Ned was the former owner of the home, an older man who was growing quite ill. In exchange for the drastic reduction in price, Ned could live in his larger downstairs portion of the home for his remaining days, while Rue would inhabit the two rooms upstairs. Jokingly, Rue refers to him as the “man who came with the house.”[2]

When Rue first bought the house, it seemed no problem to her. She didn’t take up too much space, was single, and Ned would surely not be around for too long. Within the year, though, she had “[acquired] a puppy, a husband, and a baby.”[3] And Ned was still very present. Now she feels somewhat bad about even talking about the situation, as everyone involved knows, a significant part of her is waiting for Ned to die. “I never expected to live that long,” said Ned. “I’m aware that the other side can’t be thrilled that I’m still here.”[4]

I can’t help but think that a lot of us share an experience similar to that of Rue. Here is a woman, cramped in her own home, feeling as if something drastic needs to change before she can start really living. How many of us here have felt, or are feeling, the same way? So many of us spend our time waiting for something to be different – for something to be over – waiting for something to leave us before we really start to live.

I figure I’ll just throw out a few of the things I know I have thought or said in my life and see if they resonate with anybody else here: “Just after this project is over, then I’ll start really spending time with my partner again – I’ll be in better touch with my family when this crazy month winds down – I’ll have time to be a good person again when this to-do list is a little smaller – I’m just too busy to have a spiritual practice.” And yet I am somehow consistently surprised that the to-do list is never empty, there’s another project after the one I finish, and my spiritual practice doesn’t practice itself. Anyone else? I once heard a Christian monk say that he prayed every day for one hour, and if he was going to have an especially busy day, we would pray for two hours. I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely not there yet!

The rhetoric we hear so often about our modern lives is that we are fast-paced, over-booked and constantly busy. But busy doing what?

I refer to a line by the Quaker author, Parker Palmer, quite often because it resonates with me so much. He says there are “moments when it is clear – if I have eyes to see – that the life I am living is not the same as the life that wants to live in me.”[5]

There is often so much life that wants to live in me, and instead of living it, I’m waiting for Ned to die and leave the house before I get started! I can only speak for myself, of course, but so often I feel like some part of who I am needs to be different or be gone before I can start living like I want to live. How often are we waiting for that perfect moment in life or that perfect version of ourselves to be present before we start living like we want to live?

The truth in my experience, though, is that there is no perfect moment in the future to start really living, that no flawless version of me is ever going to show up that can take risks for me – Ned is never going to leave, and if he does, he’ll be replaced by someone or something very similar. If we wait for that “perfect” moment, it will be too late.

Theologically, most of us as UU’s assert that heaven and hell are not places but states of mind that we experience here on this earth. We talk about believing in “life before death.” But how many of us miss it? Often, it is not the external busyness of life that has me waiting to live, but the busyness of my mind. It is so easy to get caught up in remembering times in the past when I took a risk and failed, or work out the most detailed scenarios of all the things that go could go wrong in the future.

The Buddhists refer to this aspect of our being as our “monkey mind,” and scientists would identify the part of our brain that does this as our neo-mammalian brain. We can be very thankful that our ancestors millions of years ago developed it – it is exactly what helped them to make sense out of patterns and make choices between options. But that doesn’t means it is always easy to live with it now.

We even do this as a religious community. I’ve heard it said that we can’t make the difference of a “real” religious community until we’re bigger than we are, or that we need to all agree on some more things before we get started making communities of justice. I hear all the time that people want their church to grow, but not to look different than it is right now. We can easily spend much of our time as a people worrying about what a newer future would look like with us as a vital voice in our society, but if we wait for that to happen on its own, we will have missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

We spend so much of our lives waiting to live, so much of our lives worrying about the past or the future. But as we know, we have such a brief time to live the life that wants to live in us.

It doesn’t take much to remind us of our finitude, our mortality: a close call in an accident, a scary diagnosis, the loss of a friend or family member. But in the midst of this reality, it is sometimes hard to really believe that one day we will not exist!

One of my favorites musical groups, Spiritualized, summed this notion up in a song, from which I got the title of today’s sermon. Here are a few lines from the song:

“Though my body gets tired, my mind does it no favors at all

And there’s so little time, to do something, something, anything more

And there’s no use in crying about the damage that you’ve done inside

And there’s so little time, to do something, something, anything more

…Don’t cry, baby, cry – as long as you and I

Do more than just survive, don’t cry, [we’ll] have a real good life

…There’s so little time, so do something, something, anything more.”[6]

It brings me some comfort to know that we’re certainly not the first people in history to live with this tension. We may feel busier than ever – our bookstores are filled with texts helping people to live in the present moment, dealing with worry and anxiety, but this has been the human condition for a long, long time.

Spiritual teachers have been addressing this concern for millennia. In the language of the early Christian writings, Jesus reminded those around him that the Kingdom of God was present here and now, not somewhere else! Just as now, this teacher knew that much of our human life is consumed waiting and worrying about our problems around food, safety, money, status, etc. It is almost as if the authors of this text could have been writing today. In the book of Matthew, the text has Jesus saying, “Isn’t life more than food, and your body more than clothing…Can all your worries add one day to your life?”[7] He charged those around him to live their lives now. Verse 34 of the same book reads, “So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”[8]

An author of one of the Psalms in the Hebrew Scriptures says something I feel all the time, just in a little different language. He writes in Psalm 35, “Oh Lord, you know all about this, Do not stay silent. Do not abandon me now…Rise to my defense…take up my case…Then I will proclaim your justice, and I will praise you all day long.”[9]

And yet here we are again: I’ll be happy and grateful for life, just after these good things happen to me. I know I feel this urge to live a life of peace and justice within me – I just need to get all my affairs in order first. There’s so much that could go wrong! I just need enough money to be secure first, have the right job first. Once that happens, I’ll definitely start living the life that wants to live in me.

This issue has not gone unnoticed in our own historical tradition of Unitarian Universalism. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay titled, Prudence, noted this same problem in his own time. “Life wastes itself while preparing to live,” he says, “…How much of human life is lost in waiting?”[10]

In a letter to a friend, Henry David Thoreau also noticed that people seemed too busy to live. He writes, “It is not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?”[11]

My friends, what is it that you are busy about, and what is it that you are waiting for? What great dream of yours, what type of life and love have you wanted to live that you’re waiting on? There is so little time to do something, anything more.

For me, this challenge is not an expression of only one side of liberal religion, that side which continually calls for freedom of conscience and personal expression. This is a vital part, but only one part. It is not the whole story. A true understanding of our finitude calls me to serve life and others as only I can while I am here. I owe it to the life that I affect to live more nobly and lovingly in the time that I have. There is no one exactly like you, never has been, and never will be again.

Here’s one way of putting the length of our time on earth in perspective. If the entire history of the Universe was compressed into 100 years, every day would equal 400,000 years, and each minute would be 250 years long.

In this cosmic timeline, all hydrogen in the universe is created on day two. Our solar system comes into existence in year 67. On this timescale, the dinosaurs died out in May of year 99, and we Homo Sapiens appear on December 31st of the 99th year. Rev. Michael Dowd had this to say about the timeline, “If we show up on the last day of a 100 year process, maybe it’s possible that the whole thing wasn’t meant for us.”[12]

We are so big and yet so small at the same time. Some of this information is very humbling for me. I think, “You mean to tell me my ego is not the most important thing in the universe? But I spend so much time defending it!” This perspective also helps me when I think about my screw-ups. In cosmic time, they are pretty small. Some of this information lets me off the hook a bit for the mistake that I thought was the end of the world, and especially for that load of laundry that went undone last week and caused me so much stress. It just puts things in perspective.

This doesn’t mean, though, that each of us does not matter. We know that what we do lives on, that we make a make upon life itself, each of us affects lives. All of us in this room share a common ancestor somewhere way back. I’m able to speak here today because millions of years ago, some individual primate had the gumption to move out of the way of that falling branch, or thought it was better to gather in community to face an opponent. So don’t let anyone ever tell you that you can’t make a difference! Who knows what life will live because of you?

My point here is this, we have so little time, yet so much is possible. In his book, Canticle to the Cosmos, the physicist, Brian Swimme says, “Four billion years ago the planet Earth was molten rock; now it sings opera!”[13] Friends, in the last 2 minutes of this cosmic time-line I described, we have experienced the coming into being of harnessed electricity, social democracies, the protestant reformation, airplanes, the internet, vaccines, Beethoven, and of course, the IPod. What will the next minute look like because you were alive?

We’re not very big in cosmic time, but we know that in this history of the Universe, shared common interest has driven complexity and cooperation among elements and living things. When there was crisis, it was the cells that joined together, the animals that cooperated, the societies that served one another, who survived to live life. We UU’s affirm that reality is interdependent, that no part of existence exists separate from another – that we can’t easily draw boundaries around one part of reality and call it sacred and that profane. As Emerson noted in The Over-Soul:

“…there is no screen or ceiling between our heads and the infinite heavens, so is there no bar or wall in the soul where [a human], the effect, ceases, and God, the cause, begins. The walls are taken away…”[14]

We know that what we do makes a difference. If we do share a common home and a common good, then what your life has to offer this process can be given by no one but you. It does not always have to be grand or seemingly ground breaking, just the life that wants to live in you. What are you waiting for?

It is sometimes hard for me to even think in these massive cosmic terms, how my life fits into the history of the universe. It’s a little overwhelming to tell you the truth. So it sometimes helps me to scale it down a bit.

How many more times will your friends smile because you have lived? Who will learn something they did not know because you were there to teach them? What stranger might be convinced that people can be good because of your small acts of kindness? What song, poem, painting, family, garden, church, community, would not exist in the same way without you? And what great piece of life have you yet to express?

What are you busy about, and what is it that you are waiting for? What is keeping you from living, as Christians might say, as if the Kingdom of God really is present here on earth, or as our Buddhist friends might say, what is it that keeps you from living in the only moment that is, this present moment?

Friends, in this life, we have so little time. So much of what we focus on in our anxieties of the past or future – so many of our worries – bind us to imperfections or mistakes that remain so small in perspective. Yet at the same time, we are able to change lives; we are able to affect the course of life itself.

It is up to us to offer what we can while we are here. It will be made up of the common elements of life: One more conversation, one more smile, one more song, one more act or forgiveness, of kindness, one more act of justice.

May we realize that there will be no more perfect moment that now to begin living the life that wants to live in us. May we join together, finding the strength of community and friends to build the life we wish to see on earth. As the song says, “there’s so little time, so do something… anything more.”

What better time than now?

Amen.

——————–

[1] This American Life, “It’s Never Over.” Produced by Alex Blumberg (Chicago: Chicago Public Radio, June 23,2006)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Parker Palmer, Let Your Life Speak (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 2.

[6] Jason Pierce, “Anything More.” Spiritualized. From the album Let it Come Down. BMG, 2001. Audio CD

[7] Matthew 6: 25-27

[8] Matthew 6:34

[9] Psalm 35:22-28 (Paraphrased)

[10] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Prudence – http://www.rwe.org/works/Essays-1st_Series_07_Prudence.htm

[11] Henry David Thoreau, Personal Letter to Harrison Blake. November 16, 1857. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

[12] Michael Dowd, Beyond Sustainability: A Hopeful, Inspiring Vision of the Next 250 Years, online video broadcast – http://www.wie.org/unbound/media.asp?id=57 (Accessed August 6, 2008).

[13] Brian Swimme, Canticle to the Cosmos, quoted in Michael Dowd, Thank God for Evolution (Tulsa: Council Oaks Books, 2007), 121.

[14] Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Over-Soul – http://www.rwe.org/works/Essays-1st_Series_09_The_Over-Soul.htm

Doubt is Not Our Product

© Aaron White

 August 3, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

I believe it was Lilly Tomlin who said that “no matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.”

I tend to fall on the optimistic side of the spectrum, but this week I, and I know many of you here too, were hit with a very harsh version of reality. This week, individuals in one of our communities had their foundations shaken. Yet again, a location of worship, sought for its safety and comfort was turned into a place of violence. A community in celebration has become a community in mourning.

As many of you might know, on the morning of last Sunday, July 27th, a man walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville with a shotgun hidden in a guitar case. He entered the sanctuary, and during a performance by the congregation’s children of a song from their musical, Annie, he began shooting at those in attendance. At this point, two adults have died as a result of the attack, and a handful of others remain wounded. Some notes in the shooter’s car gave voice to his anger at the liberal community for our views and specifically inclusion of the GLBT community, but overall, this appears to be the action of a very sick man whose frustrations found a focal point in one of our churches.

As human beings, it is natural to want to make meaning out of a situation like this, but when things appear so senseless, communities of faith can very quickly become communities of doubt. As Unitarian Universalists, we’re often quite comfortable bringing our doubt with us to church and our religious lives. We’re usually quite proud of this fact, and rightly so. However, I think that when we talk about bringing our doubt with us, what we mean most of the time is a skeptical stance toward any creed or doctrine, a questioning mind about the details of any scientific, philosophical, or religious truth.

But the events of this week highlight realities that many in our community bring with them every week into our sanctuary – “doubts and questions that run so deep, it challenges our very being.” It has not taken me long in ministry to realize that in any gathering within our walls, someone is asking questions like these: “Will I make it through tonight? “With all that is happening in the world, how can we make any difference?” “How could anyone love me?” “Do I have what it takes to be a good person again?”

Overall there is so much evidence of good in the world, so many things that go right that we hardly even notice. Just the simple act of getting in our car and driving across town involves thousands of acts of social cooperation, and this very superficial example highlights that our lives are filled with this reality. Yet in the face of all this some events can shake us to the core. I’m sure that most everyone here has experienced something like this, I know I have. Some personal failure, some betrayal, an accident, the loss of someone we love that threatens to call into question our assumption about a good life.

One writer on doubt is the author, David Michaels. In his recent book, Doubt is Our Product, Michaels explains how easy it is for one action or thoughtfully placed question to cast doubt on what we believe to be true, even in the midst of much evidence. He explains that in modern history, our society has been unaware for the most part that there is a doubt industry existing right under our noses. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, when the dangers of cigarettes were becoming more of a public issue, tobacco companies started to hire scientists and spokespersons whose entire job was to create doubt in the minds of the public that cigarettes were actually harmful, that what evidence was telling them was true. Michaels took the title of his book from a cigarette company memo. It reads like this:

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” David Michaels’ book is about how this strategy today is being used again today in science, business, and politics. Some of the same people have been hired again to challenge he science of evolution or global climate change. He says that the motivation behind this creation of doubt is explicit and simple. If we are focused on the controversy, if we spend all our time debating the facts, we are involved in very little action. Many people’s best interest rests in our doubt about ourselves and what we know.

We have been fed doubt, not just this week in events that shake us, but our whole lives. So much of our current consumer society thrives off us doubting who we are as individuals. We’re meant to wonder if we’re good looking enough to attract a partner (I’d better buy something to fix that), wonder if we are smart enough to land that job (I’d better buy something to fix that), wonder if we have enough stuff to look to our friends and family as if we really have value (better buy something to fix that). Much of this society feeds us doubt in the hope of making us find our trust in something we can buy, not something that will last. As one of my favorite musical artists says, “Making you think you’re crazy is a billion dollar industry.”

But we know that in real life no product you can buy can bring back a loved one; no thing you can buy can erase an experience of trauma or restore hope to someone for whom life has become a threat. And so, we gather together in a community like this to offer something different, a different “product.” But what we offer in a place like this is certainly no set of easy answers.

In a reading in the back of our gray hymnal, the Rev. Robert Weston is quoted as saying, “Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth – doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false – it is a testing of belief – those that would silence doubt are filled with fear,” he says, “their houses are built on shifting sands…” I do think that Robert Weston is correct. However, I don’t know about you, but it’s easier for me to praise doubt when I have the luxury of ambiguity, when things seem easy or simple, when my friends and family aren’t suffering, when I am not scared.

But what do we do with such doubt when we encounter events like those that happened in Knoxville last weekend? To me, Weston’s reading points out that doubt is NOT meant to be a final product of anything, but a part of the process, a tool. We use doubt, he says, in order to find trust in something else. We UU’s are fairly good at discovering what it is we doubt. But what is it that we here will choose to trust?

The Rev. Forest Church had this to say about our religious foundations: “We Unitarian Universalists have inherited a magnificent theological legacy. In a sweeping answer to creeds that divide the human family, Unitarianism proclaims that we spring from a common source; Universalism, that we share a common destiny.” In other words, we’re all in this together.

My friends, let us not doubt our power and value as a people gathered here. Do not think that because we do not give easy answers here that we do not give something of value. We have given and will continue to give a voice for justice, a home for inclusion, and loving community that does indeed save lives. So many people have been told they do not matter in this world ? that they do not deserve the love of someone’s god, or any love at all. No matter what, we will continue to build a community that strives to offer more and more love to any and all who would seek it.

People often ask me what consolation Unitarian Universalism has to offer those facing sickness, death, or fear if we have no version of God or an afterlife we all agree on. We have seen a part of the answer to this question lived this week.

Annette Marquis, the District Executive for the Thomas Jefferson District of the UUA, where the shooting took place, said that in her experience of seeing our communities come together in the wake of the tragedy that she had “never been so proud of being a Unitarian Universalist.”

She watched our values being lived as congregational and denominational leaders joined in a response effort, partnered with the outpouring of help from other faiths, and ministered to the pain and fear that was so present in the children and adults affected that day.

She was proud, as am I, that our hopeful faith does not retreat when the hardest of times are present. During the candlelight vigil held in Knoxville on Monday evening, UUA President, Bill Sinkford, said this, “None of us can allow our pain and anger to keep us from living our faith, from welcoming all people, from standing on the side of love. We will not let that happen. We will continue our commitment to welcoming all”

We have been taught so many times what to doubt. What is it that we will trust? Once again, I think that life has shown itself worthy of our faith, worthy of our trust in community and in love. In the response to one man’s act of violence, we saw so many stand up in courage. Even in the midst of so much violence and confusion, the members of the Tennessee Valley Church lived their values.

One of the individuals who died in the attack was said to have placed himself in front of the shooter’s weapon, shielding others, and sacrificing his life for theirs. When it would have been so easy, so understandable, to respond in violence to the attacker, members of that congregation restrained him until the police arrived.

There is no question that for this brave group of people, our liberal religious values withstood a tremendous test. In response to one act of violence, thousands have gathered in solidarity, millions expressed their compassion and good will. We can trust our human connection in this world.

There are many events of human suffering in the world, but this week, members of our religious community especially took pause because in a way, this hit so close to home. Some members of our congregation have friends and family who were present for the attack. Their sanctuary, their gathering in community, and their worship feel so familiar to our own.

Yet this single event serves also as a reminder of our place deep within the human condition and never outside of it – a place where, yes, violence and fear exist in a very real way, yet they do so alongside community and hope. This is not simply bright-eyed liberal idealism, but a fact, a reality we have seen this week and in so many other places.

We are reminded that it is our human experience that is familiar, that with fresh perspective we might see our minor disagreements and labels for exactly what they are, minor. While we would certainly never wish for THIS type of opportunity for reflection, it calls us to see that the work of our lives and the work of our religious communities serve something far larger than ourselves. We can trust that this is true.

We know that there is more to life than the labels we wear, and that one act of violence is not the end of hope. We know that, as a colleague once said in a sermon, “life wants to live,” that creation was not something that happened once long ago being corrupted further and further, but rather that the great story of the universe, the evolving, emergent creative force that has brought us into being continues to create right now – “in the cells of our bodies, in our families, our communities, in our response to life and death.”

We may trust that all humanity and indeed all life is as interconnected as we say it is, literally tying us all to the same ancestors, the same family. As we said in our last hymn, “what touches one affects us all.”

We know that violence will continue, that bad things will happen again to liberals and conservatives, to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs, to people of every color and creed. Yet we also know that communities of every sort will continue to join together and form lives of meaning and care.

Some have this week been left in doubt about when and where we can be safe in practicing our religion. Even a place called a ‘sanctuary? became a home for violence. The events in Knoxville certainly affected many outside of that congregation, but this was one incident, and we can trust that we are as safe today as we were last week, as we have ever been. We are as secure as anyone can be who professes to live a life of radical love and inclusion. And what we read in the paper or see on TV is certainly not always helpful in making me feel safe. Trust in life does not sell papers or increase ratings. Hope will not keep us in front of our TV’s watching coverage; hope would have us living our lives and the values we proclaim.

Nothing is ever certain, and there are things in life far beyond our control. But, a Unitarian Universalists, we know that how we respond is up to us. As First Church’s own Mary MacGregor put it this week in an interview, “How can we close the doors of our churches? We can’t do that. We have to have our doors open.”

My friends, we do have to have our doors open, not only our physical doors, but those which leave us open to continual love and trust in this world.

I am suggesting something a bit unusual in a UU church – I’m suggesting that we give up some of our doubts. I’m asking you to give up doubting that your life is sacred just as it is, to give up doubting that communities such as this can change lives in radical ways, and to give up doubting that in the midst of confusion and pain, life is still precious and good.

Let us have our doubt, as Robert Weston said, so that we may trust in something else, too. Let us have doubt, so that we may have faith. This is not a faith like many associate with that word; this is not a blind faith which would ask you to believe something without evidence. The type of faith we have to offer is that of the theologian, Paul Tillich, who asserted that faith is a verb, the “act of being ultimately concerned.”

In this faith, we join together in devoting our worship and our lives to that which is worthy of devotion, and nothing less. Let our faith be in life itself, faith that love exists, that we know it to exist here on earth and can make it real in our very lives.

Let’s continue to bring a cynic’s mind to creeds and doctrines, but friends, please carry no doubt about the potential of human care, the sacred nature of all creation, and that in an evolving universe, there is potential around every step – or as we say in one of our hymns, “there is more love somewhere.”

The children of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church expressed something similar when they gathered on Monday evening during a candlelight service and sang the song they had been practicing this summer. As rain poured outside and congregants held candles high, the children sang, “The sun will come out tomorrow.”

We know that it will.

May we continue to realize that while we welcome doubt into this place with open arms, doubt is not OUR product. Our products, our ends, are faith, hope, and love, with which we will all continue to build our beloved community on earth.

When we reflect on events such as these and so many others in the world, may we be called to recognize the preciousness of our life and others. Let us live and love as if it is our only chance.

What better time than now?

Amen.

The Sometimes Strange Science of Us – Jim Checkley

© Jim Checkley

 January 27, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Imagine it is 2,500 years ago and you are a Greek with a question. This question has been bothering you for quite some time and you just can’t figure it out. So one day you decide to consult the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, one of the ancient world’s most intriguing and unusual establishments. For there at the ancient temple located beneath the shining rocks of Mount Parnassus, the God Apollo spoke through a Pythia, or human priestess, and offered inspiration and guidance to all who came.

Legends tell that Delphi and its environs had long been considered to have mystical powers. A few years ago I went to Australia for my 50th birthday and actually turned 50 while visiting Uluru, formerly know as Ayers Rock, the largest monolith in the world. I was nervous about going out into the middle of the desert to a giant sandstone monolith for such an auspicious occasion – ironically, I had always thought I’d go to Greece and turn 50 at the Parthenon but I’ve got to tell you, Uluru has a magic to it that has to be experienced and cannot be described. If Delphi was like Uluru, then I understand exactly why the ancient Greeks put an oracle there and why they thought the very land held special power.

When you arrive at Delphi, you approach the entrance to the temple and notice something carved into the wall, something that has come down to us as the best known of all the Delphic injunctions: in Greek it reads: GNOTHI SEAUTON, which we translate as “know thyself.” Some sources say that “know thyself” is the answer the Oracle gave to Chilon of Sparta who asked: “What is best for man?” It is, interestingly enough, the same advice that the Oracle in the 1999 movie The Matrix gave to Neo, only in the movie the phrase was written in Latin over the entrance to the Oracle’s kitchen. Times change, but the questions (and some of the answers), do not.

Now it seems self-evident that knowing yourself would be a good thing. But just what does it mean to “know thyself”? It is a question as old at the Delphic Oracle itself. Socrates said that it meant that “The unexamined life is not worth living,” that it was important on a daily basis to look inward to discover the true nature of our beings and to consciously make decisions about our lives and our dreams. In The Matrix, know thyself meant to know the essence of your inherent nature, which for Neo meant to know, the way we know we are in love, with every fiber of our beings, that he was the One, the savior of mankind. And when asked what he thought of the injunction “know thyself”, St. Augustine replied, “I suppose it is that the mind should reflect upon itself.”

Nowadays we call such self-reflection “metacognition,” the ability to think about your thoughts, to engage in self reflection, to introspect. This ability was for centuries thought the sole province of human beings, but animal research has challenged that old prejudice’some animals seem to have the ability to reflect upon their internal mental states, if only at a rudimentary level. That aside, while I think that knowing yourself certainly includes self-reflection, I think it is more than that. For modern science has shown us quite dramatically that we are more than just our conscious selves, and knowing oneself, truly knowing oneself, would include understanding all the layers of our beings, conscious, subconscious, and unconscious.

So let me suggest that simple – or even complex self reflection will not get you where you want to go. One thing that has become clear over the years is that we humans are not monolithic beings – we are not simply a conscious being that makes fully informed choices about life. We want to think we are, and we certainly behave as if we are, but modern research on the sometimes surprising science of us has revealed that often, our control is an illusion, and that there is something very powerful and very deep going on that we don’t even know about at a conscious level.

Research shows that our subconscious and unconscious selves play a big role in who we are, how we feel, and what we do. More fundamentally, new studies reveal a subconscious brain that is far more active, purposeful, and independent than previously thought. Generalized goals, like eating, mating, traveling, and the like, appear to be instigated by neural software programs that can be run by the subconscious whenever it, and not we, chooses.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

In a recent experiment, psychologists at Yale were able to alter people’s judgments of a stranger by handing those people a cup of coffee. It’s true. What happened was this: the subject of the experiment was handed either a hot cup of coffee or an iced latte in a social setting. Afterwards, the people who held the iced latte rated a hypothetical person they read about as being much colder, less social, and more selfish than did the students who held the hot coffee. As improbable and strange as this seems, this result is consistent with others that have poured forth over the last few years. For example, new studies show that people are more tidy if there is a tang of cleaning liquid in the air, and they are more prone to be highly competitive in their negotiations with one another if there is a leather briefcase at the end of a long table rather than an old, worn backpack, in which case they are more laid back.

Psychologists say that what is going on is a demonstration of how everyday sights, smells, and sounds can selectively activate goals and motives that people already have in their brains. What is going on is that the subconscious is running preexisting programs that strongly influence our choices and our behavior – all without us actually having any conscious awareness that we are being manipulated by our own brains.

These findings help to explain how we can be happy one minute, then for no apparent reason, unhappy the next. I’m sure everybody in here has experienced this phenomenon – you show up to a party feeling great, then, without apparent reason, you get depressed, turn sour, and want to get away. No amount of self-reflection can explain the change, but it could be that one of the women is wearing the same dress that your ex-girlfriend was wearing the night she tossed all your possessions onto the street or perhaps the smell of the house triggered repressed resentments about your childhood. You didn’t consciously realize any of it, but your subconscious did, and initiated a hard-wired program that actually changed your basic equilibrium.

I’m going to go a little further and say that I don’t think that self-reflection is enough to know thyself for yet another reason. No matter how hard we try, I don’t think it’s possible to get a true picture of who we are simply by looking inward. While it’s true that only we can see our deepest thoughts, our deepest desires, and our deepest motivations, one thing we simply cannot see is how others see us. We need more data, data that reflects the who that we are in the eyes of others. In short, to fully know ourselves, we need feedback on the self that others know and experience.

And thanks to the Internet, all of us can do something that the visitors to the Oracle at Delphi could not: While they could ask a god for advice, we can Google ourselves. How many of you have Googled yourself? According to a Pew Research Study, by the end of 2007, about half of all Americans have come a little closer to knowing themselves, at least as others see them, by Googling themselves. But whether one Googles oneself or simply listens to what others who know and care about you have to say, I don’t think we can get close to truly knowing who we are without input from outside of ourselves. That perspective allows us, at the very least, to check on whether who we think we are matches with how we are perceived by others, and, if there is a discrepancy, as there often is, figure out what happened, and correct it.

Another thing about human beings is we are not static. We change as we grow older, more experienced, and, as Billy Joel might say, earn a few scars on our faces. I certainly don’t think I am the same person I was in my early twenties, before my experience with advanced Hodgkin’s disease and all that went with it. I have a sense of continuity, certainly, but deep inside I know that I have changed at a very fundamental level, a conclusion that has been confirmed by many of those closest to me over the years.

While these assertions may seem to run counter to the strong current in our culture that we each have an essence that is eternal and at some fundamental level, unchanging, recent findings in neuroscience and neuropsychology tend to support my experience. I do not dispute that we are born with certain aspects of ourselves hardwired. Nor do I dispute that this hard wiring is sometimes quite difficult to change. Nonetheless, research is showing that while older brains may be less efficient than younger brains, and may in fact, show signs of memory loss and the like, older brains may actually be wiser brains. It has to do with how information is accumulated and processed, but the point is that for this and other reasons, our brains – and with them, us – change over time. So unlike some people who think it’s better to be consistent than right, I think it’s OK to change your mind because, in fact, your mind changes. We change. We become different people with different desires, different wants, different goals, different values. And keeping up with ourselves, not living in the past, is a big part of knowing ourselves.

Which brings me to the point that knowing thyself doesn’t just mean knowing and understanding one’s essence. It also means knowing our dreams, our abilities, our real virtues and even our frailties. It means knowing ourselves in all our aspects, including how we change over time, at least as well as we know the world, our jobs, and those around us. But this often isn’t the case. Just as we are generally good at helping somebody else figure things out, whether it be their love life, money situation, problems on the job, or whatever, we are often not so good at taking care of ourselves, and the same applies here. As I’ve gotten older I have realized just how much I was unaware about my younger self and I think many people have had the same experience and that some, some go almost all the way though life as complete strangers to themselves.

So does all this mean it’s not possible to fully know yourself? I think that’s a fair question. There are those who say that it’s not possible to understand oneself, that an accurate definition of self is impossible from an objective point of view. Others think that the exploding field of neuroscience – the study of the brain at an anatomical, but in particular, at the cellular and even molecular level – is the most hopeful candidate for providing scientific answers to the questions that have perplexed human beings for thousands of years, including who we are and what is our true nature.

Neuroscience is expanding at a fantastic pace. My son, TJ, who is doing the lay leading today, has his masters degree in neuroscience and so I have some idea of how far we have come since the old days of stone knives and bearskins when I was studying biochemistry in graduate school.

But you know, while I think neuroscience is going to be able to teach us a lot about what we are and how our brains work, I think it’s going to be less good at telling us who we are and how we should live. So while it is clear that we are comprised of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious beings, and that our feeling of total conscious control is something of an illusion, no matter what science says, no matter what the limitations, it is vital that we get to know ourselves to the best of our ability, and be honest and accepting of what we learn. If you insist on being ignorant or if you insist on being somebody else, then who will ever be you?

All of which brings me to William Shakespeare. Thought by many to be the world’s greatest playwright, Shakespeare’s greatest play may have been Hamlet. In Hamlet, Polonius is preparing his son Laertes for his travel abroad. Polonius directs his son to commit a “few precepts to memory”, the most famous of which is, “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

Much has been written about this quote, and I certainly am not going to do any literary exposition here. But I do think it’s interesting that Polonius assumes that Laertes knows himself, for how can one be true to oneself without first knowing oneself? Thus, before following Polonius? advice, we first must follow the advice of the Oracle at Delphi, something that is at best a daily exploration, and at worst, impossible. But leaving aside for the moment the very real issue of how do we know ourselves, what does it mean to be true to that self? What does it mean to be true to the self we know and understand today, who needs to get about with the task of living, and hopefully living well?

Well, the first thing we know is that Shakespeare was not trying to grant Laertes permission to behave however he wanted. If you are an axe murderer, it will not avail you to say you were simply being true to yourself. So that’s not what’s going on here. Unless we live in solitude, being true to oneself will always mean being true in the context of culture, society, and law. Thus, one of the most difficult aspects of being true to yourself is how to navigate in a complex society that presents us with scores of often complicated, difficult, and even ambiguous relationships.

And we do live in a complex society that demands much of us, and that, for almost all of us, requires some level of compromise. It is inevitable. So we tend to wear masks, masks that have the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, that are safe, that don’t rock the boat. Sometimes we wear them because we have to, one of those accommodations to reality that just has to be. But sometimes we wear them out of fear, and sometimes we wear them out of a lack of self-confidence. Those are the masks we need to work on, need to shed, if we are to live a truly authentic life of integrity.

Still, we are left with the difficult question of how to choose our path, when to fight and when to yield. There are many answers to this question, of course, but let me quote what Thomas Jefferson had to say: “In matters of style, swim with the current, in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” Looking back on the 1970s, I’m not sure I agree with Jefferson on matters of style, but I do certainly agree with him on matters of principle.

Which begs the question, of course, which principles? Well, if we are being true to ourselves, then the principles we are being true to are the principles we found within ourselves, while we were following the Delphic command to know thyself. You know, taken seriously, this position is a pretty radical one in our culture, one that sits at the core of what I understand it means to be a modern Unitarian Universalist and an adherent of liberal religion.

I’ve been coming to this church for 31 years, and have always believed that one of the important missions of this church is to help people get to know themselves, their real selves, and then assist them in being true to themselves as they live their lives and participate in our world. This is, I think, a very different mission from many other churches. In many other churches the mission is to convince you to distrust your humanity, to almost disavow it, in favor of revealed truth that comes from God, truth that is unchanging, that is to be accepted and obeyed. Our church, and all those like it, are very special places, are sanctuaries of humanity in the broadest sense of the word and I, for one, am grateful for them.

But did you know that some of the people in this church are among the most disliked people in America? It’s true. And I’m not talking this time about being gay or lesbian. According to a study conducted by sociologists at the University of Minnesota, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers are among the most disliked persons in America. They fell below Muslims, homosexuals, and recent immigrants in a poll that measured the respondents? view of whether and how much a number of different groups shared the respondents? vision of America and what it means to be an American. Unitarian Universalists, as free thinking adherents of liberal religion, and by that I mean us – you and me – we are not much liked or trusted by many in mainstream society, something it pays to know when you are out and about in the world.

Having noted that, we all know that no matter who you are, sometimes being true to oneself and one’s principles takes enormous courage and may even put you at risk of harm. It sometimes means having to stand against the majority, or your friends, or even your family. It means engaging in a regular pattern of behavior, and of making choices that are consistent with your espoused values and with the person you claim to be inside. It means having the courage of your convictions, and of being willing to put them out on the table, even when they are not popular. And I suggest to you that it all begins with knowing yourself, and then of accepting yourself, fully and completely, both the good and the bad, in order to be true to the good and change the bad.

Now, I don’t mean to imply that we are always alone in our lives and in our quest to be true to ourselves. Certainly, we have our friends, our family, we have this church, and we have a community of thought and feeling that goes back hundreds of years. All of that is enormously important.

And yet, we are a creedless religion that honors the individual conscious; which leads me to one of the scariest things about liberal religion and trying to know and be true to oneself.

There isn’t anyone else to blame.

When it’s up to you, when you are being true to yourself, then that’s all there is. This is another reason why living authentically, living the life of personal integrity, takes so much courage. Sometimes we’re all we’ve got.

And on this topic, it occurred to me that some Christians wear WWJD wristbands “What would Jesus do?” At first I thought we could wear WWED wristbands – you know, What would Emerson do?” Or even perhaps just get our own WWJD wristbands – only they would stand for What would Jefferson do? But ultimately I realized that none of these would be authentic, that if there was going to be a UU wristband it would have to read: WWID? What would I do?

Finally, there’s more to life than principles. There’s dreams, there’s goals, there’s fun. Yes, even tortured soul UUs get to have fun. But strange as it sounds, being true to your dreams, your goals, and your potential can sometimes be just as scary and intimidating as standing up for unpopular principles. Once we take off our blinders, once we see for real, we begin to understand just how much is possible in our lives and we wonder if we’re up to it. We look out at the vista of possibility and it can be overwhelming.

The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard put it this way: “There is nothing with which every person is so afraid as getting to know how enormously much he is capable of doing and becoming.” We talk about becoming the true beings that we are and then of being authentic and living lives of integrity, and it certainly sounds good, even exciting, but when it comes down to it, sometimes those prospects can be intimidating and scary. Sometimes it’s as if we are waiting for somebody to give us permission to be ourselves and pursue our dreams and our potential.

My message to you is don’t wait for anyone or anything to work on yourself and your dreams. You see, when we know ourselves, then we come into focus, our dreams become clearer, our path becomes straighter, and our sense of purpose and meaning grows until we feel such power and such of sense of belonging to and being right with the world, that as night follows day, we almost cannot help being true to ourselves.

So let me close today by suggesting this: I think there is a way to both know who you really are and at the same time, be true to who you are. And it’s not through ruminating, or self-reflecting, or taking classes, or any other inward looking activity. Ultimately, I think knowing yourself and being true to yourself is best accomplished simply by engaging fully in life and making choices and standing by them.

In the hit move Batman Begins, Rachel Dawes tells Bruce Wayne that it isn’t who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you. You are the choices you make and the actions you take. So if you want to know who you truly are, then put yourself out there, in situations that are challenging, that call for action, because then you’ll know. “There will be an inner voice that will tell you how you are doing.” You can sense it if you are honest with yourself and listen carefully.

So let me ask you to do something today, something we should do every day of our lives. Do something that is you. Do something that is true.


 Presented July 27, 2008

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin

Revised for print.

Copyright 2008 by Jim Checkley

Responsibility and "Easy Religion"

© Aaron White

 July 20, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Although I was laughing, I had to cringe a bit when I first heard it. It was one of the most accurate portrayals of someone stumbling through a definition of Unitarian Universalism that I had ever heard, and I saw it on a 2006 episode of The Colbert Report. After reciting the entire Nicene Creed, the host asks a staff member, Bobby, what religion he is a part of. When Bobby responds, “I’m a Unitarian,” Colbert asks, “So you’re a Christian, too?” Here’s Bobby’s response: “Well, I incorporate Christian values as well as aspects of many other religious traditions in my belief in God, and I don’t mean to imply that I necessarily think God exists or doesn’t exist, or that it even maters to Him, or It, or Whoever, what I do or do not believe. What’s important is that it’s my choice, and that’s what holds the Unitarians together.”

A very confused Stephen Colbert asks Bobby, “So, do you celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah?” – to which Bobby replies, “Sure.”

To hit this close to home with the satire, one of the writers must have known us well.

Has anyone else out there ever felt like Bobby ? tripping over our words and apologizing, doubling back as we try and explain exactly what it is that we do here? It is not necessarily a simple thing to explain a liberal religions community in a few breaths. It would be a lot easier if our religious tradition had its own version of the Nicene Creed, but that’s just not the religion that we signed up for.

I think that my mixed reaction to these types of portrayals of UU’s comes up because it hits on my personal feelings about what it is that we do in this community and how we present ourselves to the world. Most of the time, when friends or family ask what it is we are about, I give them a brief explanation, and then lately I have gotten in the habit of saying, “But the best way to really know more is to come and experience us for yourself; here’s where we’re located.”

After some time and experience, most of the people close to me get it.But not always, and there’s one response that really gets me. Often, a stranger who sees me wearing a UU t-shirt or the person sitting next to me on an airplane will ask me what I do for a living. When I explain to them our vision of universal inclusion of humanity and freedom of conscience in religion, of deed not creeds, I sometimes get the response, “Well, Unitarian Universalism sounds like a pretty easy religion.” I don’t know about any of you, but in my experience of trying to live fully in this dynamic community and tradition, that couldn’t be further from the truth. At its best, Unitarian Universalism is no easy religion.

When I try to live out the values that we hold up as a community in my daily life, it is far from easy. It is not a simple task to assert that no one religious tradition can hold all of the truth, even my own. It is not simple to be humbled in the face of such grand questions of meaning, community, and the sacred. It is not simple to cast aside superstition, and yet stand in awe of the beauty and mystery of the universe, attempting to speak truth while allowing for poetry and metaphor to make its way into our spiritual lives. To imagine that each part of creation, that every individual on this earth (no matter how much I disagree with them), participates in the sacred and deserves love ?this is one of the hardest religious tasks I can ever be asked to do.

At their best, our religious lives are certainly not easy. But they can be sometimes. It would be easy for me to call myself a tolerant and open minded man ? to ride around with a “Coexist” bumper sticker on my car and continue to become enraged at other drivers or look down on others whose vehicle expressions don’t match my “open minded” views.

It is easy for me to think I know all I need to know about someone because of the way they voted in the last election, to assume the worst motives of someone who believes differently and then become enraged when my views are misrepresented.

It would be easy for us as a religious community to call ourselves a “welcoming congregation” and then ignore guests who join us for coffee after the service ? and this happens all the time. How many times in church have I finished singing a hymn like “We’re Gonna Sit at the Welcome Table” or “Enter Rejoice and Come In” and then noticed that I had not met the person sitting right next to me in the pews?

It is easy to talk about how many religious beliefs are welcomed in a community like ours and then never really share them with the people who join us here. And it would be easy to imagine that the reason we join together in a religious community is to only learn new facts or be surrounded by like minded people, and not to be transformed in love.

This kind of spiritual life, this kind of community like we find in a Unitarian Universalist church can certainly be easy. But at its best, when we are truly responsible for the vitality of our spiritual lives and making real the things we say we believe, it will be one of the most difficult journeys we’ve ever begun. But I think it will be worth it.

One hundred and eight years ago, the Universalist minister, Rev. Frederic Williams Perkins, wrote an essay titled, “Why I am a Universalist.” In one section of this work, Perkins explains that for him, the core of his Universalist Christianity of the time rested, not in the correct facts, but in living in the reality of love – that easy religion thinks it is done when it finally gets things right, but a challenging faith calls us deeper than that. Here’s part of what he said:

“The heretic, to the Universalist, is not the man who denies the accuracy of a method of creation portrayed in the book of Genesis; he is the one who distrusts the deathless love of God . . . . It is the depth and earnestness of the religion, and not the correctness of the scholarship, that is of primary concern.”

It is not easy to go deep in our religious lives. It is temping for me to think that if I simply learn enough, I will be at peace or become a better person; that if I just start getting all the facts straight, I’m well on my way. We Unitarian Universalists are pretty good at getting the facts ?we tend to be very curious people, people who yearn after new knowledge. But it seems like the temptation for us, our easy route in religion is to believe that the whole reason we are here is to get those facts.

A teacher of mine once challenged me to ask three questions in all of my spiritual life: “What, So What, and Now What?” We UU’s have the “what” part of the equation down. Also, it is getting much easier to gain information in our world. With every portable electronic device imaginable, we can carry libraries in our pocket. We can “Google” almost anything. It is going to be hard to take that new information we gain and ask, “So what?”

How will my life be transformed by this knowledge? How might this help me to fashion a life of justice or grow to better love and trust this world? An easy move in our religious life is to believe that our community, which calls us to self expression, values that above understanding and compassion.

I can believe that my highest virtue was sitting strong in the face of someone’s anger, or really proving myself to friends or family that disagree with me (and these can be great things). However, the challenge for me, in the face of that same anger or disagreement, is going to be asking, “How is that they are hurting?” A responsible religious life calls me to see the fear in defensiveness and the pain behind ego. It calls us to bringing what the Zen Buddhist, Suzuki Roshi called a “beginner’s mind” to our relationships and to the world. In terms used commonly in the Unitarian Universalist world, a search or truth and meaning that is both “free” and “responsible” is going to take some radical new forms of understanding.

I think that one of the most profound and yet simple examples of this type of depth in religion came from a man named Krister Stendhal, a recently deceased Swedish theologian who formerly served as the dean of the seminary I attended. In 1985, as a response to much opposition to the building of a Mormon temple in Stockholm, Stendhal developed a brief set of guidelines to use in responsible ecumenical and interfaith work. Now, since almost everything we do in a UU church is in a small way “interfaith,” it seems like these might be valuable for us in many ways. He called them, “Three Rules of Religious Understanding.”

They are phrased in very simple language and some appear to be self evident, but I think they leave no room for the easy road in religion. Here they are:

1) “When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.”

Our society has lately become one that is more and more comfortable with black and white, right and wrong, with little shade of grey. How much confusion, misinformation, and fear might have been avoided in the last seven years if the majority of our citizens learned about Islam, for example, from Muslims, instead of cable news or emails form a friend? I am afraid that we religious liberals have not been immune from this infection of polarity and simplicity either. I wonder how much of our understanding of traditional Christianity, for example (especially the evangelical sort), has come to us from its enemies and critics, and not its followers.

2) Stendhal’s second “rule of religious understanding” is this: “Don’t compare your best to their worst.”

I think this is probably the rule that I have the most trouble following. I think that we have a lot of “best” here. In fact, if I didn’t think that this was the best religious tradition I could be a part of, I would be somewhere else this Sunday morning. I am so proud of the history of our tradition – that the Universalists were the first denominational body to ordain a woman in this country, that we have led the pack in our support and inclusion of the GLBT community in our religious life, that we have made great efforts toward anti-racism and social justice, and so many other things.

 

However, how many of us (myself definitely included here) start off our definitions of who we are by saying what we are not? How often do we introduce this place by saying, “As opposed to religion X where they tell you that you can’t to this or that, we say”… Many of us are fresh out of another religious home, or trying out a spiritual community for the first time in a long time, and it’s completely understandable to define ourselves somewhat by some distance from this past. But as we grow together in our religious journeys, it will be easy to continually say, “I know who I am, because I am not one of “them.” When we begin taking responsibility for our religious development, it will be challenging to say, “I know who I am, because this I know, this I believe, this I have experienced – we know who we are because we believe in life and the radically transformative power of love, inclusion, and justice.”

3) Stendhal’s third rule of religious understanding goes like this: “Leave room for “holy envy.”

By this, he means to find some part of another’s tradition that you admire and wish was incorporated into your own. For me, the easy path often looks a lot more like holy pride than holy envy. During my least admirable moments, I can get so caught up in the excitement of being in a community of like minded people, of finding a place where I can be authentic and religious, that I sometimes catch myself thinking that we might somehow be more evolved, more human, than others. Anybody else?

I catch myself thinking that I’d just assume never have to talk to one of “them” again because, as we know, they don’t talk to anyone who disagrees with them. This is when I begin to use my holy pride to build up walls, and it is very easy to feel safe inside them. I have to say that I think Krister Stendhal’s rules could be pretty helpful in understanding ourselves as well. Ask the adherents, not the enemies, don’t compare your best to their worst, and leave room for holy envy. I wonder what it might look like during a period of overwhelming self-doubt or criticism to turn those rules around and say, “When you are trying to understand yourself, ask your supporters and not your enemies – count the “yes” votes in your life, not the mistakes. Don’t always compare the best of others to the worst in yourself, and do leave some room for holy envy, but don’t think that what you stared off with isn’t sacred already.

The responsibility that comes with a free religious life is certainly no simple thing, and it is definitely not easy. Nowhere in our literature or our history do we find a promise of an easy answer or a simple journey together.

I find it very interesting that in the narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Israelites wait exactly one verse after celebrating their release from the Egyptians before complaining about their newfound freedom. In Exodus 14 and 15, Moses has just led this small group of escaped slaves out of their camp, miraculously through a parted sea that swallowed their foes, to celebrate with song and dance at their new location. At their camp the people sing a celebration hymn that reads, “With your unfailing love you lead the people you have redeemed. In your might you guide them to their sacred home.”

They begin their journey in the first verse of chapter 16, and the second verse reads, “There, too, the whole community of Israel complained about Moses and Aaron. “If only the Lord had killed us back in Egypt,” they moaned. “There we sat around pots filled with meat and ate all the bread we wanted. But now you have brought us into the wilderness to starve us all to death.”

This freedom and responsibility in religion and in culture is hard. How much of our society has felt like it might be easier back in Egypt lately, where there are many more constraints, but more security also? In our community here, too, how many of us have longed sometime for a simpler faith where at least we all agreed on what it is our church believes? But we know that it wasn’t better in Egypt, and we have chosen together a free religious life. The word “heretic” merely means one who chooses. We have chosen to walk together in a place (like the invocation often says) where questions are more profound than answers, where we have cast off the security of the simple fix in religion, to seek new truth every day, and to affirm that we “need not think alike to love alike.”

My friends, what this community, what this history and this free religious vision has to offer us will not be easy. I know that for any visitors here today, I am not offering you a simple sell on our religion. But I can tell you, it is worth it. This free and responsible spiritual life calls us to be transformed by participating in it, and to therefore transform the lives of others. It calls us, not to simply throw away the old stories of our religious past, to define ourselves by what we are not, but to reuse and recycle that past, to retell those stories in a way that makes meaning for us now. It calls us to use our freedom, not to build walls, but to go deep and dig wells from which we can all draw – to see the best in others and ourselves.

In this tradition, no minister, no denominational figure, no staff person or district official bears the responsibility of coming up with answers, with a statement of faith. It is not that one person is responsible for the future of a free religious life, every person is, and each of us has enough of what is sacred inside us to play a significant role.

I’ll conclude today with the words of the UU minister, Rev. Rebecca Parker. They might be familiar to some of you:

“Your gifts, whatever you discover them to be, can be used to bless or curse the world. The mind’s power, the strength of hands, the reaches of the heart, the gift of speaking, listening, imagining, seeing, waiting,”

Any of these can serve to feed the hungry, bind up wounds, welcome the stranger, praise what is sacred, do the work of justice, and offer love.

Any of these can draw down the prison door, hoard bread, abandon the poor, obscure what is holy, comply with injustice, or withhold love.

You must answer this question: What will you do with your gifts? Choose to bless the world.?

My friends, in a free religious community, it is the responsibility of each of us to offer such a blessing. It is not easy, but it is ours to make real.

What better time than now?

Amen

Honest Religion: One More Honest Adult

© Aaron White

 July 13, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

A few months ago I received an email forward. You know, one of those forwards that has a new piece of information that will shock me, something I am supposed to send to all of my friends and family before it is too late. No, this email was not the one informing me that one of our presidential candidates is a secret Muslim intent on turning our government over to Iran (although I have received that one), nor was it one of the string of emails warning me of evil men lurking in the parking lots of Wal-Mart, Target, or my local gas station waiting to attack at any moment. Has anyone else been getting these, or is it just me?

No, this particular email forward wanted to shock me by bringing some truth to light about a public figure who was not who he appeared to be – someone who represented our highest aspirations of innocence, education, and family. This email was about Mr. Rogers.

I was told that Fred Rogers had a violent criminal past he hid from us, that he was forced to work on public television for children as part of his parole, that he had served in the past as a sniper in the Navy Seals with many confirmed kills – that the real reason he wore those sweaters was to cover up his many tattoos from his time in battle.

Of course, this email was far from honest, but I got sucked in for a moment. The truth about Mr. Rogers is far less shocking. He had never served in the military but instead was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, and his trademark sweaters were all hand-sewn by his mother.

After spending some time online debunking this email, thinking to myself that my beloved internet had once again stolen another hour of my life, I found something that moved me. In an interview on the television show, Hour Magazine, in the 1980’s, Fred Rogers discussed the philosophy behind his show and his interactions with children. “I’m sure you know this,” he said, “but the best thing you can ever do is just be yourself.” The best thing we can do for children and others, he said, is simply to “give them one more honest adult in their lives.”

Throughout the last few years, this church has been placing ads in the newspaper, one of which reads, “Honest Religion.” After seeing this interview, I got to thinking: “What does honest religion look like on the ground?” What would it look like for a place like this to call us each to give to the world “one more honest adult?”

Our Unitarian Universalist community has a long tradition of its members searching to build an honest religion and an honest spiritual life. We have hundreds of years of experience attempting to build a faith whose members don’t have to take for granted what they hear in church. A faith like ours challenges each and every one of us to ask whether what we hear and experience here honestly fits with what the real world looks like, with what our lives teach us.

This is not a simple religion. In an honest faith like ours, none of us can have our worth determined by what some book, some society, some theologian, or any other person says. Each of us is constantly, every day, called to ask these questions for ourselves: “Who am I, really? What moves me? Am I living the life that wants to live in me?”

In my own experience, when I slow down and take this challenge of honest religion in my life, I experience two things that seem to contradict one another at first. One the one hand, I discover that there are places in my life where I could be doing a lot better, that I could be in much better relationship with my family, friends, with what I call God. On the other hand, though, I find that no person in the world deserves more love by birth, that the world is not divided into “saved” and “damned,” that what is sacred is infused within all people and creation. It is funny ? I find that we are not yet as good as we could be, and yet more precious than we can ever know.

I’m willing to bet that there is at least someone else here today whose has found it’s not simple to live as an authentic person. It is not always easy to be honest, even with ourselves. A struggle in much of our society today is people trying to appear as something different, something they think would give them more value. The lower and middle classes are buying themselves into poverty trying to look like the upper class. So many of us spend our time and money trying to appear thinner, smarter, more educated – or just anything but ourselves. In the film version of the book, Fight Club, one character laments, “Advertizing has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so that we can buy [things] we don’t need…we’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars??

Our culture often has its own suggestions as to what we should strive to be. What is it that honest religion would ask to us to be? Long before modern movies, of course, people were dealing with issues just like ours. In the book of Luke, the teacher Jesus cautioned his disciples not to be deceived, that a person’s life is not measured by the sum of their possessions. The Buddha, too, knew this when he proposed that in a world full of deception, full of distractions about who we are, a world in which we can constantly cling to attachment, one of the most radical things we can do is be aware in this moment, present for life as it really is – living instead of labeling.

I cannot speak for you, but in my life, this honest religion is easier said than done. It is so tempting for me to have others believe that I’m strong enough to deal with any adversity. It is tempting sometimes not to ask for help, to present this version of myself to the world that is smart enough and competent enough to handle anything that comes my way. Anybody else? It is almost too compelling to wear the label of most talented, best looking, most creative, the perfect friend, parent, or partner. I wonder what it would look like to live such an honest life, to let go of those masks, to shake off the weight and the stress of trying to be perfect people that we cannot be – that no one can be.

For me, honest religion means finding out who I am in this world without the negative stories we tell about ourselves as well. How often have I told myself that because I failed once, I could not succeed again? How often can we replay that mistake, that dumb thing we said or did over and over again until we start to believe that’s who we are?

Let this religion call us to give the world one more honest adult. Many of us left traditions that told us human beings, just for being born, were so depraved and sinful that we would deserve hell without someone’s assistance – that real change in the world would not be possible if a supernatural force did not do it for us. Let’s be honest, we can’t wait for that to happen if we want justice in this world.

However, it seems that in liberal religious communities, we’ve also sometimes told a false story about what it means to be human. Many of us, including myself, have sometimes let ourselves believe that human beings were born so inherently good that we will continue every day to progress onward and upward. We get shocked when evil things happen. An honest religion, I think, is going to have to live within the tension that the 20th century brought us – that human beings can be beautiful and frightening, all at the same time.

And a religion such as this is not just a challenge for individuals, but for our communities as well. Honest churches must continually face with courage the core questions of our identity. Who are we? What are we called to do? Whom/What do we serve? We have to ask ourselves, “Are we called to be a sanctuary for the like-minded? Are we called to be the religious wing of the DNC? Is our purpose in this world to be the best kept secret in religion?” I don’t think so.

But in being honest with ourselves, again this means that we are confronted not only with our imperfections, but also with our best selves – our amazing selves. This means also that we must live up to the honor of this religious tradition (and this is a good thing). To be honest with ourselves, we do have something to offer this world. We have something to offer people who come looking for community, who come looking for change. As a community, we DO have history. We didn’t just arise from the vapor somewhere in the 1960’s. Thousands of years and countless individuals brought us to where we are.

I think it is safe to say that, for many here, our past selves would be pretty surprised to see us sitting in this church on Sunday morning. I know mine would be. An honest religion knows that you aren’t a bad person for not going to church, but that those of us who do have come for a reason. We seek to renew our minds, to learn more about life itself, to find community, to call our best selves into the world. Each of us had a lot of choices of where we could have been this morning: sleeping, seeing a movie, reading a good book, catching up with friends. But something brought us here, together. If I am a UU Christian, something has me here this morning instead of the liberal Christian church down the road. If I’m a UU Buddhist, something calls me to a place like this instead of the Zen center or local sangha, etc.

For those that might be newer to our community, you’ll find that there is a tremendous amount of theological diversity in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. However, this strength can sometimes lead us to believe that we’re more different than we are alike. But we can see the unity in this diversity; we can experience the shared values that bring us to a place like this. When we are honest, we know that there is something to sink our teeth into here. But it’s hard to admit that what we do matters, because if we do, we have to live up to it.

Last week, I talked about the well known UU theologian and ethicist James Luther Adams. In the book, On Being Human Religiously, Adams points out what he believes to be the central, necessary assumptions of religious liberalism, and, using an image from the biblical David and Goliath story, he calls them the “Five Smooth Stones of Religious Liberalism.” Here’s what Adams offers:

1) “Revelation is continuous.” Here, an honest faith proclaims that there is always more truth to be found in our religious lives. All the truth of the world cannot possibly be contained in one book, one teacher, one tradition, and so we keep searching.

2) All relations between people should be based on consent, and not coercion. The honest religion cannot make you believe something or join its congregation. It is an invitation into a shared life together. It invites you to bring your mind with you.

3) We have a moral obligation to direct our efforts toward justice in this world. In other words, the honest church knows that we do not only serve ourselves; justice is shaped with human hands.

4) We deny “the immaculate conception of virtue.” Here Adams means that there is no abstract good, we must bring goodness into the world. “The good” is brought about in our history, in our relationships, in good partners, citizens, friends, and leaders.

5) The resources that are available for achievement of meaningful change justify an attitude of ultimate optimism. There is hope in the ultimate abundance of the Universe. Adams was not naive about the evil in the world. Indeed, he saw it firsthand when we worked with the Underground Church movement in Nazi Germany. However, he asserted, as can we, that the honest religion knows things do not have to be the way they are. We can change the world.

Finally, Adams concludes this essay with an optimism about the core of liberal religion: “Thus, with all the realism and tough-mindedness that can be mustered, the genuine liberal finally can hear and join the Hallelujah Chorus, intellectual integrity, social relevance, amplitude of perspective, and the spirit of true liberation offer no less.”

I don’t know about you, but this is the kind of honest religion I would like to be a part of. We know that religiously liberal does not have to mean religiously timid, but it must mean honest; it must mean humble. When it comes to addressing questions of the sacred, of God, of value and meaning, a common statement coming out of an honest church is going to have to be “We don’t know yet.”

When asked to define the call of a religious life, the prominent Unitarian Universalist minister, Rev. Forest Church, offered this: “Religion is our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die.”

What does an honest religious life call us to do? If anything at all, to give to the world one more honest adult. We cannot make each other compassionate, we cannot remove human greed or all violence from the earth, but we can be present and real for this world as it is and each other as we are. Honest religion is not always grand. In fact, it seems that it is made up for the most part of the common moments of life. It might mean saying what we mean when we mean it, like “I love you,” or “I’m sorry.” It might mean giving voice to that uncomfortable fact or emotion in the room that everyone feels but is afraid to admit. It might mean living with our imperfections, our vulnerabilities knowing well that we are not the only ones, that we are not alone.

It asks of us each day, “Who is this self I’m presenting to the world? What masks am I wearing to protect me, and what are they keeping me from doing?” It calls us to speak up, not to remain silent and complicit in the midst of bigotry, racism, or injustice when we know that there is more potential for our beloved community to become real. It calls us to speak up when injustice is done in our name, especially when injustice is done in our name. The prophets of the biblical tradition focused on Israel first.

My spiritual friends, let us give to the world one more honest adult. If we “believe” as Rev. Adams said that revelation is not sealed, then let us search for more truth together. If we can believe that honest religion invites and does not coerce, let us begin the conversation now, let us invite others here. If we know that no supernatural force will bring justice in the world, let us prepare for much work. If we can say unashamedly that there is more hope in this world, let us not be quiet about it, let us make it known in our words, our songs, and in our lives.

Let us offer the chance for some real “honest religion,” because this world needs it. May this place and our communal lives together give the world for each of us, one more honest adult. What better time than now?

Amen.

A Prophet's Authority

© Aaron White

 July 6, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

I’ll begin somewhat unusually for a Unitarian Universalist service today with a reading from 1 Kings:

“And He said: ‘Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.’ And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.”

On July 17th of 2006, I found myself on the 11th floor of Massachusetts General Hospital, sitting on the ground, in the dark, testing out my broken Spanish with a patient for the very first time.

J. was an elderly man, a Spanish speaker, and a victim of a very serious recent stroke. J. could barely speak, and the little I could hear I strained to understand. My religious and medical vocabulary is almost non-existent in Spanish, and I have trouble speaking in anything but the present tense. J and I had communication problems, to say the least. But there was one thing J said to me that I know I understood.

Jesus was in the room.

His head jerked back, yelling as he called out to God, I watched J slowly move his finger in the air as he pointed to the space above his bed. This UU seminarian asked, “Is Jesus here in the room with us?” He gripped my hand and pointed right above our heads. “Yes, there.”

My visit with J was part of a ten week unit of training in ministry called “Clinical Pastoral Education” that I completed a few summers ago at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. A frequent issue that arose there for me and my fellow students was one of spiritual authority. I asked and heard this question many times, “What gives me the right to say anything here?”

Now, I shared my story about J with my other student colleagues as part of a “verbatim.” Basically, a verbatim as a weekly assignment, in which you record one of your more memorable patient visits as accurately as you can. You then take this into something like a small group setting, and you read them aloud and reflect on this in your CPE group. In my CPE group, we had one woman from the United Church of Christ, one Reformed Jew, three Catholics, and one UU. It sounds like one of those jokes where everyone walks into a bar together, but it was every day of my life for a summer.

After recounting this visit in my verbatim, one of my colleagues, a devout Catholic seminarian preparing to be a missionary, asked me if I really believed that the man I spoke to saw Jesus in the room. Now, from what he knew of me as a Unitarian Universalist, I think he expected me to say “no.”

But there was something more to my experience here, and so I told my friend “yes.” I could tell he was a little surprised. He then asked me if I saw God in the room that day. This is where my natural “Aaron defines Unitarian Universalism” self began to step in. I was about to explain how that word “God” means many things to UU’s and how what I say can’t represent everyone. But before I could get my usual anxiety-filled routine going where I apologize for my faith, I simply said, “Well – yeah, I mean, we were already talking in translation.?

After our weeks together, I think that my colleagues expected me to do my normal shuffle around such questions. And they were completely right for doing so. For the longest time, I tried to provide informational facts about our church or make statements I thought would represent every UU. In a setting where my job was to make sense out of my religious experiences with others, I had yet to be honest about any of them with my colleagues, or myself for that matter. I had been so worried about my inability to say something entirely true about my experience of the Divine, that I said nothing at all.

Lately, this question of religious expression has been at the front of my mind, and its manifesting itself in one common word: prophesy. When I say “prophesy,” like many UU’s, I don’t mean the ability to foretell what will happen in the future. For me, prophesy means the courage give expression to my experiences of the world, of the Holy, no matter how imperfect my expressions may be. People sometimes call it ‘speaking truth to power.? At its most authentic, prophesy is a radical act.

The late Unitarian Universalist ethicist, James Luther Adams, spoke much about what he called the “prophethood of all believers.” Adams wanted to extend Luther’s call for the priesthood of all to extend to our prophetic witness as well. “The prophethood of all believers.” This is a phrase that has stuck with me since I first heard it, and it is crucial to my understanding of Universalism. All human beings, simply by the fact of being alive, have some access to the ground of our being, from which we can speak.

Now, our age in society makes us well aware of the dangers that can arise in assuming a voice of prophesy. Just turn on the television or read a newspaper and you can see that prophets don’t always do well for the world. What we see of fundamentalism, the post-modern condition, our training in schools, and the liberal nature of our own churches often caution us against assumptions that lead to simple grand statements about the world, and rightly so. Yet I cannot help but think that as people of the spirit, we have a place from which to speak. In our prophetic voice, should our inability to say everything keep us from saying something?

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the biblical prophet, Amos. Amos was a people’s prophet. He came not from the stock of politicians, but from farmers, and raised his voice loudly against a government that would not care for the poorest of its people. Not surprisingly, Unitarian Universalists have historically taken a liking to Amos. We sing his words in our Hymn, “We’ll Build a Land,” when we talk about creating a society in which “justice shall roll down like waters, and peace like and ever-flowing stream.” In a decadent society crashing down around him, Amos, the text says, was visited by God in the form of visions which served as the start of his ministries.

I don’t know about you, but I have to say that I am very different from Amos in this regard. I’ve yet to have a vision, and more often than not, my religious inspiration resembles the ‘still small voice? of Elijah that I read about at the beginning of the sermon. Elijah is portrayed on a mountainside amid storms, earthquakes, and fire, none of which contain the word of God. When all is settled, he strains to hear the message in a ‘still, small voice? that passes by. (1 Kings 19:12). I love this image, a still, small voice.

The 20th century musician and Zen Buddhist, John Cage, had his own experience of hearing something amazing when he visited Harvard some years back and stepped into what’s called an anechoic chamber, a room without echoes.

Here is what Cage says about the experience:

“I entered one at Harvard University several years ago and heard two sounds, one high and one low. When I described them to the engineer in charge, he informed me that the high one was my nervous system in operation, the low one my blood in circulation. Until I die there will be sounds. And they will continue following my death. One need not fear about the future of music.”

I feel something similar with respect to religion. Again, this for me is Universalism. It is the conviction that there is some reality within the world that all human beings have access to, not just a chosen group, a chosen time, not just those who have the grace of god and on and on. Our Universalist ancestors put forth the catalyst for a theology which affirms that all human beings, simply by the fact of being alive, can have connection with that which sustains all the web of life, with a spirit of community and love. Until we die, I believe there will be for every human being the sounds of the Divine, that still, small, astonishingly inescapable whisper of the sacred.

I can, of course, speak only for myself. But it is in these experiences of awe of the world around me, of feeling a force greater than myself surge through my veins, that I find my inspiration to speak to my greatest values. It is not always the source of my beliefs, but it is always the energy from which I speak about them. What happens, though? Why do I fall into the role of politician instead of prophet? Why is it so easy for us to shy away from being honest with our friends, family, and strangers about some of the most important experiences of our existence?

We are worthy to speak. Each and every one of us. Despite what others might have said; despite the constant messages we hear in our culture that we must become something different than who we are before we can give ourselves and our voices to the world, despite the dominant religious voice we hear in the American religious landscape ? in the face of all these things, you, me, and all those who will join us, our voices are worthy of being considered prophetic.

But why don’t we always use them? Often for me, it is fear. Fear of ridicule mostly, or not being understood. But I don’t think I’m the only one. Looking to the Hebrew Scriptures, even Moses was afraid to speak prophetically. He was a stutterer and didn’t think people would listen.

Sometimes I stutter spiritually. Sometimes my best efforts at giving voice to my religious life, even in times where like-minded people surround me, they just fall short. I find that often when I voice the earlier question I mentioned from the hospital – “what right do I have to speak?” – what I mean most of the time is “I’m so afraid that you won’t believe me.” But we remain called to speak.

There is a great story about the 18th century minister John Murray preaching in Boston. At the time, his notion of Universalism was even more radical than it is today, and it was not always well received. During one of his sermons, a rock came flying through a window and landed by his pulpit. Almost as if it were planned, Murray reached down and picked up the rock, saying: “This argument is solid and weighty, but it is neither reasonable nor convincing – not all the stones in Boston, except they stop my breath, shall shut my mouth.”

In our speaking as prophets of liberal religion in this world, there will be stones, my friends, but which ones will shut our mouths? Which ones are shutting our mouths right now? Real prophesy is a radical act. We hear the stories and see the images of those speaking truth to power facing death or violence, and many times meeting it.

The truth of the matter here, I think, is that most of us won’t face physical death for expressing our faith. I’m worried that we as prophets die spiritual deaths, because we did not hear the voice within us, or did not feel worthy to speak it when we did.

Our voice of liberal religion has something to offer this world. At this point, we have not only the right to speak, it is our duty. On this week of July 4th, we take time to celebrate the greatest principles of our nation. And yet the news speaks also this week of increased secret plans for war with Iran, of a despicable widening gap between the richest of our citizens and those who starve daily in this country. In yet another election cycle, I find myself being told to hate my neighbor, to fear the foreigner and the immigrant, to feel God’s love for my country over all others in the world.

Our history, our vision for a world made fair has so much potential. My friends, we have not been marginalized as a community, but we have been on the margins ? we have been too silent.

It is time for a different religious voice to make itself heard in our society, for a different religious voice to be the one featured on the news. It is time for us.

Our messages of tolerance, of peace, our dedication to individual freedom of conscience and equal voice for all in religion. Our religious commitment to the rights and dignity of every human being, of all the world around us – I cannot keep these messages to myself anymore.

There are things to be said. Let us say them. What would it look like if just the people in our congregations ? in just this room – really took their religious voice, their prophesy seriously? I think that it would be life changing. We will not always be right, and each one of us cannot know the truth alone. This is why we join together in community. This is why we have one another.

My friends, my prayer for us is that we may live fully the sometime terrifying task of the religious life, which challenges us to speak clearly and unashamedly our most intimate religious experiences, with the knowledge that we are not alone. We are not alone. May we, as if for the very first time, take seriously the voice within each of us, and the voice that this community of faith has to offer – not only in our places of worship, but with our family and friends, in our whole lives.

Like Elijah atop the mountain, may we strain to hear that still, small voice ? on hospital floors, in classrooms, in nature, in subway cars, and indeed within our very hearts; and may we have the courage to say with all of our breath, I hear you. It is waiting to be heard. What better time than now?

Amen

Should I?-Emily Tietz

© Emily Tietz

 June 29, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER

We pray from a place that knows there is much beauty in the world to behold.

 We pray from a place that knows there is endless love that has the power to connect us all.

 We pray from a place that knows that it matters what we believe.

 The Angels of our Better Nature call us to notice the beauty.

 The voices of our Higher Selves call us to remember love.

 Let us listen to them.

There are voices that would have us judge someone else’s worth to be less because their approach is different than our own.

 There are voices that would make us feel “less” because we don’t match someone else’s set of ideas.

 There are voices that would focus us only on ugliness, and disconnection and tearing down.

 But we know there is more love somewhere.

 Let us listen to the Higher Voices.

 The ones that add life to life; the ones that encourage us to come alive, and allow for everyone and everything around us to do the same.

Let us listen to those voices.

SERMON

This sermon started over breakfast one morning. I sat across the table from my husband and saw a man who looked like he had something exciting to tell. “What,” I asked. Well, he had spent the morning brainstorming things he tells himself that he should or shouldn’t do/ be/think/feel. Several pages later, he felt quite light.

That’s when we sat down to breakfast.

“I should like cats!? He said. – I always thought that I should like cat’s because my sister liked cats and not dogs.”

When we were first married 8 years ago, there was some discussion about whether we’d get a cat or a dog. He was a cat person. I was a dog person. I’d grown up with dogs. Beyond that, when I was very young, my dad developed severe asthma and cats were one of the triggers. So in a very serious way, I learned that we should not have cats and that stayed with me into adulthood.

I had to laugh at David’s revelation because sometime during our college years, my sister Mary announced that all dogs, as pets, should be big and black. She had read that somewhere and seemed to put stock in it, so I adopted the idea.

In 38 years, Mary has never had a large black dog. In 36 years, neither have I. But for some reason the idea had weight and for years I thought that if I got a dog, it should at least be big, if not dark. But that didn’t appeal to me and I wondered if something was wrong with me because of it. It’s likely that Mary forgot about this “should” shortly after our conversation, but I held onto it because it came from my wiser older sister. It’s funny how that can happen.

David and I now have two cuddly 12-pound miniature dachshunds. One is red, and one has white, brown, and black spots. Getting them was his idea, and I happily obliged.

My dad now lives happily in the same house as a cat. His allergies are under control.

Each one of us let go of a “should” and we are all happy for it.

The funny thing about “shoulds” is that they often originate as an appropriate response to a specific situation. And then they turn into absolutes inside of us so even when a situation changes, the “should” stays. It may or may not be relevant or even helpful anymore. And it can hold us back from some really great experiences.

My resistance to cats well beyond the years I lived with someone who was allergic (and apparently beyond the years they were detrimental to his health) to them is a light-hearted example.

There is a story about a woman who always cut the front and back ends off of a ham before putting it into the oven to bake. Her husband asked her one day why she always did that. She didn’t know precisely, but that’s how her mom had always done it so it must be the way to cook a ham. She called her mom to find out why. Her mother laughed and explained that her baking pan was too small to fit the entire ham so she had to make it fit somehow.

The behavior was a relevant response to having a small pan. It wasn’t so relevant in the daughter’s life. And she had thrown away a lot until she examined the ‘should.?

From the time we’re born we take in messages. Messages about how we should behave, what we should like, how we should act, who we should be, and how to apply these standards to other people or situations. These “shoulds” affect our lives and they affect our souls, often in profound ways.

What might our lives be like if we consciously examined our “shoulds” ; if we figured out where they came from, who they belong to, and whether or not they are helpful in our lives now; if we looked at what choices are presented to us by our “shoulds” , and what choices are denied.

What might our lives look like?

That’s what I’d like to consider this morning.

So dogs and cats were the lighter side of the breakfast conversation that David and I had one morning. It turns out that I needed to give the church a sermon topic that day and now I had one.

Of course the next thing to do was to have a party. I invited my girlfriends over for good food and drink and thoughts.

Only some of the time did we directly talk about ‘shoulds.?

But we talked about them all night.

We told stories about growing up. We talked about motherhood a lot ? either about our own mothers or the newness of being a mother that many of my friends are now experiencing.

We gathered to talk about “shoulds” ? and talked about motherhood.

Interesting.

I don’t think that is a coincidence.

As girls, we often try to emulate our mothers, or be the opposite. Either way, we define ourselves by them for at least a while. Then we become the age our mothers were when we first tried to emulate them, maybe we become mothers ourselves, and we try to figure out what womanhood means in light of her. There is bound to be a lot of “shoulds” there.

The same could be said of a man’s experience.

It is from our parents that we learned that we shouldn’t run out into the street, or touch a hot stovetop, or pull the ears of a dog. It is from our parents that we learn we should say “please” and “thank you,” brush our teeth, and get a good night’s sleep.

And things much more profound.

Things like self-respect, or shame. Things like self-care, or denial. Things like trust, or fear.

And so on.

We learn these things from countless other places too. But they start at home.

The “shoulds” and ‘shouldn’ts? that we learn build the essential framework for the codes we live by. I don’t think our experience of life can be separated from these codes, or even (should) be. After all, it’s these codes that make groups of people able to function together. They give us identity. They give is direction. They keep us safe.

But they can also do the opposite. And then they’re detrimental.

And then, of course, there are the “shoulds” that start out as appropriate responses to a certain situation, and stay with us long after the situation has changed and the should is no longer helpful.

So much of what we believe we should or shouldn’t do comes from layers of indirect conditioning. Then we are compelled to live by a code that we’re not fully conscious of or can’t really articulate. We just know somewhere deep in our fibers certain do’s and don’ts.

We tend to assume others live by the same do’s and don’ts

And we get surprised when we discover that they don’t.

And we even get offended when someone doesn’t live up to our unspoken ideas about what should and should not be.

Then we set ourselves up for a lot of struggle and a lot of trouble and a lot of missing out on neat things.

Examining our “shoulds” ? and choosing our “shoulds” ? is a helpful thing to do.

There is a saying that goes, “We give ourselves away one inch at a time.” How far can you go before there’s nothing of You left?

I think it’s also true that we can chip away at another person one inch at a time. How much can we chip before there’s nothing of that person left?

I think so much of what allows us to give ourselves away one inch at a time is to believe that another person’s “shoulds” are more legitimate for our own lives than what our own soul tells us.

And I think so much of what allows us to chip away at someone else is the belief that our own set of “shoulds” is more valid than his or hers.

Jim Hightower spoke here about a month ago and he quoted someone ? I can’t remember whom, and I may not even accurately remember the quote, but it went something like, “Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.”

That’s a little hard to do without consciously examining what should messages we live by, who they really belong to, and then choosing the ones that work for us now.

We formulate our “shoulds” and ‘shouldn’ts? one inch at a time, too. And we rarely notice.

But it’s helpful to notice.

It is helpful to notice because then we can actually decide which ones add life to life; which ones make us come alive; and which ones allow us to be wholly ourselves.

This has everything to do with the soul. It’s really no different than examining and consciously choosing one’s religion ? both are about what we fundamentally believe, and how we intend to live, and what we want to pass on.

Becoming conscious of the “shoulds” we live by allows us to discern which ones belong to the voice of our Better Nature, our Higher Selves, or something more squashing.

How many people choose a profession, or a partner, or make other major life choices that kill their spirit a bit more each day because of an adopted should?

And then how many other people suffer because of that person’s frustration?

Becoming conscious of our “shoulds” is not about navel-gazing. It is about coming alive.

It is an essential part of being able to find the path that makes us come alive, because we can only do it if we shed someone else’s idea for us.

What might our lives look like if we examined the choices presented to us by our “shoulds” ?

A few stories came to mind as I was thinking about this theme.

One is a story about Gandhi. It may be true, it may be legend, it may be a bit of both. But it’s good?

A woman came to Gandhi and asked him to please tell her son to stop eating sugar. It was ruining his teeth and hurting his health. Gandhi thought about this for a minute, then asked her to come back in a week.

A week later she returned and made the same request, and Gandhi thought again, and again asked her to come back in a week.

This happened a couple more times before Gandhi finally advised the son to stop eating sugar.

The mother was both relieved and exasperated. If that’s all Gandhi was going to do, why did he make her wait so long and come back so many times?!

Well, he had to successfully stop eating sugar himself first, and it was much harder to do than he had expected.

There is a “should” in that story. A big one – and it’s not about sugar. One that makes us go, “Ahhhh – yesss.” The “should” has something to do with integrity ? and the Angels of our Better Nature recognize a kindred voice here.

There is another story about Lance Armstrong in the 2001 Tour de France. Lance and his strongest competitor, Jan Ullrich, were neck and neck. Then Ullrich crashed. Armstrong pulled over and waited until his rival could return to the race. He said that he couldn’t imagine taking advantage of the situation.

There is a “should” in that story. A big one. One that makes us go, “Ahhhh-wow.” The “should” has something to do with humanity, or respect ? and our Higher Selves recognize a kindred voice.

So please don’t hear me saying that “shoulds” are bad and we need to throw them out the window. They can be very life giving. They are even necessary for life. It’s just helpful to think about the ones we’ve got and the ones we want, and how that affects our lives and those around us.

I’ve been reading a book by Renee Peterson Trudeau called The Mother’s Guide to Self-Renewal. I’m not a mother, but my neighbor, who is a new mother, discovered it and invited a group of friends ? new mothers and non-mothers alike ? to join her in reading a chapter a month and then getting together to discuss it.

Last month’s chapter observed a “should” that is alive and well in our culture ? the “should” that says we must be strong and independent and not need to ask for help if we’re going to be worth much. The author observed how demoralizing this can be, especially when one is trying to figure out how to be a new parent while keeping the rest of life functioning.

Then she shared the story of a woman whose husband travels often for work. When he goes out of town for a week or more, Sarah, mom of two toddlers, has her sister babysit one night so that she can go out to dinner with a girlfriend. She also has a high-school neighbor come over a few evenings to help with dinner, baths and bedtime, and she makes sure she has easy-to-prepare food going into the week. Sarah says, “I used to dread these business trips and would want to dump the kids on my husband the minute he returned from his trip. Now I have learned that I just have to build in extras support when he’s away on a trip. Not only is the week more peaceful and enjoyable, but my husband returns to a family that’s happy to see him. Rather than being resentful that he’s been gone.”

She examined a should ? the one that told her she should be independent and able to take care of everything in her life herself. She challenged it and found a way to invite others in. What she came up with has added life to her life, and to the lives of the ones she loves the most.

What might our lives look like if we examined the choices presented to us by our “shoulds” ? And then found the courage to choose a better path?

Here’s a different kind of story. One with weighty consequences.

I knew a woman when I lived in Chicago who had a very strong Christian faith. Her particular understanding of the faith was that, when someone dies, one should celebrate and only be glad because that person was now experiencing the ultimate eternal life. This is not every Christian’s understanding of an appropriate response to death by a long shot, but it was hers, and she is not alone in it.

Penny was very close with her mother, and during the last years of her mother’s life, her mother lived with Penny. One of the things that brought mother and daughter together so strongly was their shared faith. Her mom told Penny that when she, the mother, died, Penny should not feel sad. She should only feel happiness and rejoice that her mother was in heaven.

Her mother probably meant these words to be comfort.

And Penny expected to only feel happiness and rejoicing.

But that’s not how she felt when her mother died. Penny felt the awful aching hole that gets wrenched in us when someone we dearly love dies.

And it scared her.

It made her feel very ashamed.

Grief naturally brings crisis of it’s own. Penny’s was layered with a confusion and self-doubt that made her feel worthless, and it was all because of a ‘should.?

What kind of faith did she actually have if she felt sadness at the loss of her mother, instead of joy? Did it mean that she didn’t believe strongly enough? Would God reject her because of her unfaithfulness? Could she show her grief and still be acceptable to other people? How selfish must she be to feel pain for her own loss, and not exuberance at her mother’s gain? Did she not love her mother enough to be happy for her? And her list went on.

Her beliefs about what she should feel and ‘shouldn’t? feel, how she should and ‘shouldn’t? respond were so ingrained in her that when she was confronted by her actual experience, her “shoulds” shredded her.

It’s helpful to take notice of what should and ‘shouldn’t? messages we live by. It’s helpful to ask ourselves whose voice they belong to. Is it a voice that builds up, or beats down?

Only when we ask ourselves these questions can we actually decide which “should” messages add life to life; which ones make us come alive; which ones allow us to be wholly ourselves and present with others. And which ones would be better given back to their source.

We would choose to keep many ‘shoulds,? but now they would belong to our own voice and that kind of should feels very different. We would choose to let go of other “shoulds” and while that wouldn’t always be easy or pain-free, it would ultimately feel good and be a step toward gaining our own lives back.

What might our lives look like if we examined the choices presented to us by our “shoulds” ?

A couple of weeks after my party, I sat with one my friends on her front porch well into the night.

At the party, she seemed to redirect the topic anytime a “should” came up. “I figured out why I didn’t want to talk about “shoulds”,” she announced. “I feel so bad anytime I think of them. They’re just a weight hanging over my head or a finger waiving at me. I think of all the things I’m not getting to, or the person I’m not being with my son or my husband or at work, and I feel overwhelmed and like I’m falling short. And I feel stuck.”

Exactly.

She shared that she was trying something new. Anytime she thought she should be doing something, she changed the “should” to a “could” to see how that felt. It always felt freeing. It gave her choices.

This has everything to do with the soul. Not just our own souls, but those around us. We give ourselves away one inch at a time. We chip away at another’s soul one inch at a time. We also affect people around us by the well-being of our own soul.

I don’t think it’s accidental that all religions end up with a list of them. We recognize that there are certain codes that make life meaningful and full and larger than our own meiopic world and these codes deserve the qualification of “holy”.

As we spoke together in this morning’s reading:

“It matters what we believe.”

Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged.

Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper sympathies.

Some are like shadows, clouding children’s days with fears of unknown calamities.

Others are like sunshine, blessing children with the warmth of happiness.

Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved from the unsaved, friends from enemies.

Other beliefs are bonds in a world community, where sincere differences beautify the pattern.

Some beliefs are like blinders shutting off the power to choose one’s own direction.

Other beliefs are like gateways opening wide vistas for exploration.

Some beliefs weaken a person’s selfhood. They blight the growth of resourcefulness.

Other beliefs nurture self-confidence and enrich the feeling of personal worth.

Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a changing world.

Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with the upward thrust of life.?

It matters what we believe. And our “shoulds” have everything to do with that.

Life Passed Through the Fire of Thought

© Aaron White

 June 22, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

In January of this year I was astounded to hear that on this planet, a human language dies every fourteen days. The radio program I was listening to said that “by the end of this century, half of the world’s nearly 7,000 languages will be extinct.” One of those languages that died this year was that of the Alaskan Eyak tribe. But, before she herself died, this language’s last fluent speaker did what she could to make sure the legacy, culture, and memory of her language lived on. Before the time of her death at age 89, Chief Marie Smith Jones worked with researchers in putting together both a dictionary and formalized grammar of her Eyak language. Here, something of her story will live on.

Another dying language, however, will face a different set of challenges. Here’s a brief quote from NPR’s Morning Edition from November of last year:

“Two brothers in southern Mexico had a falling out. They aren’t speaking, and that has linguists worried. It might have remained a family feud but the brothers are the last two speakers of the local Zoque language. Experts at the Mexican Institute for Indigenous Languages fear that the version of Zoque the brothers speak will disappear if they don’t come to terms. No details on exactly what drove the two apart.”

Now, while the English I’m using right now is certainly in no immediate danger of extinction, I can’t help but think that all of us are in a situation similar to that of the people I just mentioned. Each of our communities, and each of us as individuals, has such a unique experience of the world. And, unless we express what we want now, much of it will pass with us. How is it that we translate the language of our life into something that will carry on?

When I was in seminary, I commonly heard from fellow students and ministers the notion that every preacher actually only has one sermon that they give over and over again in different forms. This is not to say that the minister only has one good sermon in them, but that for many people, their ministry is driven by a religious motivation so strong, that most of their sermons and material are really variations on that larger theme. I’ll leave it to you to decide if this description fits for your current minister, but I know that it is definitely accurate for me.

One night, some members of my ministerial support and study group were sitting around a table discussing what our one sermon might be. My good friend, Julia, offered hers, and I will never forget it. Julia said that the one theme that runs through all her preaching is this: “Life is weirder, harder, and better than you think.” So far in my life, I’ve found her to be correct.

When I came to my own, it was no surprise to me that as someone with a theatre degree, mine would reflect the title of a musical: “I love you, you’re perfect, now change.” I find that this theme runs through much of my ministry and is grounded in our Unitarian Universalist tradition. Our Unitarian and Universalist ancestors passed down to us the theological notions that every part of creation, every individual participates in what is sacred, but that it is still hard work fashioning a fulfilling spiritual life and making justice in this world.

It is certainly not possible to describe an entire life in one sentence. I have to be honest with you. When preparing for this first sermon of the summer as your Summer Minister, I had a bit of writers? block. This question kept creeping up on me: “What can I say to this place? What is it that I have to offer to this historic, vibrant, and growing community of faith?” I certainly don’t think I could offer any sort of grand wisdom that many or all of you don’t already have. But what I can do is ask you the same questions I was asking myself.

Why does this place exist? If this church were to disappear tomorrow, what language would disappear with it? For each person here today, what is it that your life says to the world, and what do you want it to say?

We are living in a period of time where advertisers are constantly telling us to express ourselves. But they want that expression in our cell phone plans or MySpace pages, with the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, or the music we listen to. I was lucky enough to be invited to sit in with the Young Adult group that met here this week. And, as they wisely said in our conversations, being sold something all the time is not the fullest expression of who we are as human beings. Our religious tradition affirms that the great story, the religious wisdom of the world is not complete without your life. What is it that you want it to say?

I know that, for me, it’s often really hard to find that answer or to say it when I have even some idea. As romantic as I’d like to present it, I don’t spend the majority of my waking hours thinking profound thoughts or acting like some sort of saint. A great deal of the time, I’m worried that I won’t be able to make a difference in this world as just one person, especially THIS person.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but there is so much that keeps me from offering my true self to the world. In this culture, I often feel like I’m just too busy to offer some saving message. I’ve got a job, bills to pay, family to deal with, a house to clean ? there’s just no time for some sort of prophetic message to the world.

I wonder if anyone else here has ever felt like it’s a little embarrassing to seem hopeful in this society? It seems easier to get up in front of strangers, or even my family and friends, to talk about some pain in my past, stories of doom and gloom to come. It seems like it’s easier to get up and show off some scar from when I got hurt than to speak of my real love and hope for this world.

The good news here is that we certainly are not the first people to feel this way or struggle with these types of issues. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the author of the book of Ecclesiastes gives voice to the real frustration we can experience in this life. The first sentence of the book begins like this, “Everything is meaningless,” says the teacher, “completely meaningless.” The more traditional translation makes me think he could have been living in 2008: “Vanity of Vanities,” he says, “All is vanity.” I say, “He,” because as a court author of the time, the author was most probably male.

“What is the use of all this,” he asks. He looks to gaining wealth, power, and wisdom, and finds that each of us in the end shares the same fate. He finds that the sunshine and rain fall upon the just and the wicked equally. In one of the passages where he is perhaps struggling most, the author writes, “History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new – We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.”

I can tell you that I have definitely been frustrated enough to feel like this. Anybody else?

In the midst of all this, though, I’m happy to know that what we do and say actually does make a difference. When our congregations came together to adopt the principles of Unitarian Universalism, we included this, that we affirm an “interdependent web of existence, of which we are all a part.” A little wordy and vague, I know, but in my understanding, this is meant to be a statement about the nature of reality -that each and every part of existence affects and is related to all others. Our religious tradition, and what we are learning from science, affirms that the language of our life, what we offer to this world, makes a difference far beyond ourselves.

In his book, Thank God for Evolution, the Rev. Michael Dowd notes that in the evolution of species, we know that one animal looks and acts the way it does because of what its ancestors did. A Rhinoceros is thick skinned and horned because its ancient ancestors chose to stay and fight. A gazelle is fast because its ancestors were able to flee. What will our descendents look like? What will the future of this church and this faith, of this world, look like because you were here?

For me, another piece of good news here is that, in my experience, to make the right kind of difference, we do not have to be anything but who we are. But the challenge is that we do have to be who we REALLY are – our most authentic selves. Our message to the world, what each and every one of us has to give, does not have to be the smartest, most unique, interesting thing to come about. In fact, that is not always what is most helpful. It seems that what really matters is presenting ourselves, not the selves that get bought or sold into an image, but our REAL selves to the world in a way that alters lives.

The former Unitarian minister, Ralph Waldo Emerson, knew something about this when he addressed the graduates of Harvard Divinity School in 1838 and talked about bad preaching. I know that is a dangerous subject to bring up while in the pulpit, but I think it is worth it here. In this address, Emerson asserts that we have the option between choosing to give freely to the world our real selves or something far different. Here is a bit of what he said to the graduates that day:

“I once heard a preacher who sorely tempted me to say, I would go to church no more… A snow storm was falling around us. The snow storm was real; the preacher merely spectral” He had lived in vain – If he had ever lived and acted, we were none the wiser for it…This man had ploughed, and planted, and talked, and bought, and sold; he had read books; he had eaten and drunken; his head aches; his heart throbs; he smiles and suffers; yet was there not a surmise, a hint, in all the discourse, that he had ever lived at all – The true preacher can be known by this, that he deals out to the people his life, ? life passed through the fire of thought – It seemed strange that the people should come to church. It seemed as if their houses were very unentertaining, that they should prefer this thoughtless clamor.

What Emerson taught that day is not just a lesson for preachers, I think, but for anyone who wants their life to matter. We don’t have to present some perfect version of ourselves to the world in order to make a difference. What we give to each other doesn’t have to be, and cannot be flawless, but it does have to be real. When people read the story that your life gives to the world, what do they find? Will they know that you lived, smiled and suffered, “ploughed and planted” as Emerson said.

It is not always easy to feel like we’re in the right part of our lives to give something to the world. Some in this community are moving out of home for the first time, trying out new ways of living that feel right for them. Many of us are just trying to get the basics of life in order: making a living, starting a family, or finding some type of work that gives us meaning while paying the bills. Many people in this community are facing extraordinary or terrifying things, sometimes all at the same time. In this room right now, there is inspiration, loneliness, sickness and suffering, ageing and youth, anxiety and hope all living side by side. Sometimes, it is hard to believe that what is happening here in our lives could be holy, and other times it’s obvious.

I am proud to be a part of our Unitarian Universalist faith. Our living tradition has held for hundreds of years that new truth about reality has been revealing itself in many ways for eons in the past, and is doing that same thing right now. Religious inspiration and revelation about the nature of this world, of our very existence, is happening right now, right here in this room, in me, and in you.

It is easy to be humbled in the face of how big the world is. And, sometimes, it’s easy also to be humiliated by it. I feel compelled to say this in almost every sermon I give, because it’s often so difficult for me to truly comprehend myself. We are so much more than our jobs. We are so much more than where we went to school, how we dress, where we live, or who we voted for. These things surely affect us, and much of it is so important to us, but in the end, we are so much more than all these. In the midst of all this mental chatter, in all these messages that are sent to us in society, how is it that I even find part of a bigger self to identify with?

Recently, I read a passage from scientists Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams that offer one source:

I can trace my lineage back fourteen billion years through generations of stars. My atoms were created in stars, blown out in stellar winds or massive explosions, and soared for millions of years through space to become part of a newly forming solar system ? my solar system – Intimately woven into me are billions of bits of information that had to be encoded and tested and preserved to create me. Billions of years of cosmic evolution have produced me.

It’s a good thing that we don’t have to believe this, because we know it’s true. Looks like each of us can speak from a very spectacular place.

As I said in beginning this morning, over the course of the summer, I know that I have much more to learn from your community than to teach it. But I will begin with at least with these questions. What it is that this place gives to the world? What is it that you want your life to say, and what is it saying? At a White House Conference on aging 1961, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said, “There is no human being who does carry a treasure in [their] soul: a moment of insight, a memory of love, a dream of excellence, a call to worship.” What is yours?

My spiritual friends, each of us has the chance (and a very brief one at that) to let our lives speak something true to the world. It may be something grand, something beautiful, a call to justice, a subtle compassion, or a quiet wisdom. No matter what, know this, even in our silence, our very existence will present a message. The interesting this about being a free religious community is that we do not have one book, authority figure, or set of rituals that will continue after us all by itself. The future of this place and its saving message is up to us.

I am sure you have noticed, but a lot of the world is in trouble right now. So many are suffering. So many here are suffering. We do not have the privilege of letting our lives remain silent, or say anything less than prophetic to the world. In this community, our lives must speak to the deepest growth and potential of existence itself.

The term gospel means “good news.” But I have to tell you, I am convinced that good news will not be enough. Your life, and the life of this community, needs to show the world some great news: The great news that the potential for what we can say and be in this world is amazing. The great news that there is always more love, more joy, more truth to be found in this world. The great news that there are no saved and damned, none excluded from the sacred. The great news that gay or straight, conservative or liberal, any race, creed, or nation – each of us shares in one humanity and one fate.

However, I believe that the call to action in a Unitarian Universalist community and in those of other religious liberals is not an easy one. This is not some sentimental view of our role here ? not just some religion where we can say “we’re all ok as we are so we have no work to do.” This is a call to the most radical reimagining of society we have ever seen, where we each cultivate a radically free mind and heart. Its starts this very moment. In how we greet those who come into the doors of this church as if they were in our own home. It starts in how generous we can be to this living tradition and to our communities. It starts in seeing the history, the essence of being itself, something sacred in every single human, including those who differ with us (especially in this election year).

The call of our community is one to give genuinely of yourself to the world ? all of you, the real you ? to give forth our life “passed through the fire of thought.” This does not have to be the “you” defined your religious group, political party, or any other single label we use to confine ourselves. This might be the simplest and most challenging thing any of us could do, but I believe this is exactly what is going to have to happen if we want to see the beloved community on earth.

Just like the languages dying of every fourteen days, something of our lives? song will go with us unless we give what we can right now. May we at this very moment find the courage to give voice to our hope; may we breathe our most authentic selves into this world, and may the language of our lives, sing songs of justice. What better time than now?

Amen.

Brokenness

© Davidson Loehr

 June 15, 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER:

Let us give thanks for this amazing and miraculous gift of life, and let us work to complete it. Life comes to us in kit form, with some assembly required. But most of the pieces are blessed indeed – far more than are not.

Let us never doubt that we are a gift to this world, and let us pray that our world will be a blessing to us as well.

So much is uncertain in life: how long we will live, how well we will live, the balance of our happy and our sad days, how we will love and be loved. So much is uncertain.

But all the uncertainties take place within the larger miracle of life itself. The miracle and the gift is the fact that we are here at all. Let us not become so confused or jaded that we let ourselves become numb to that most important of facts.

If the only prayer we ever uttered was simply “Thank you,” it would be sufficient. Thank you to Life, the universe, God, the unnameable mystery by whatever names we call it forth. Thank you.

Let us give thanks for this amazing and miraculous gift of life, and let us show our gratitude by becoming a gift to ourselves, and to others. For we are not only gifts, but the bearers of gifts, and the world would not be as complete without us. So let us, above all else, remember to give thanks for the sheer gift of just being alive. Just being alive.

Amen.

SERMON: Brokenness

I’ve never preached on “brokenness” before. When I Googled it, I found it is a very popular word among many Christian writers. I love good and insightful thinking from all religious traditions, but the things I read on this word “brokenness” have an odd, even morbid, undertone. Let me read you the comments of six different authors who were among the first dozen or so to come up on the Google search, and you’ll see what I mean:

One says, “An unbroken person cannot be trusted.” (Gary Rosberg)

Reknowned Catholic priest Henri Nouwen wrote (in his book, The Return of the Prodigal Son) that “it is often difficult to believe that there is much to think, speak or write about other than brokenness”.

Another author (Mark Buchanan) wrote that brokenness “molds our character closer to the character of God than anything else. To experience defeat, disappointment, loss”the raw ingredients of brokenness”moves us closer to being like God than victory and gain and fulfillment ever can.” This sounds like some of the teaching of 12-step programs, and it’s true that sometimes we have to hit the bottom before we’re willing to wake up. But as a model for living our lives? We can do better.

Another (Alan Redpath) says, God will only plant the seed of his life “where the conviction of His Spirit has brought brokenness.”

A fifth author (Charles Brent) says that every call to Christ is a call to suffering, and every call to suffering is a call to Christ.

And a sixth says that “Worship starts with a broken heart.” (Calvin Miller)

I want to say that these voices are coming from another world, but not the one most of us are living in or would want to live in. They are speaking from within only one vehicle of insight and wholeness, the vehicle of one popular version of modern Christianity, and I want to suggest that what’s broken is not us, but that vehicle. I want to bring in a couple evangelical writers who speak to that, and then offer you some wisdom from a very different, perhaps unexpected, source.

A couple weeks ago, I talked about a new book by Christine Wicker called The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church. She was raised in the evangelical Baptist church, came to Jesus at age nine, then grew away from the church, but kept a soft and warm spot in her heart for it. A major publisher asked her to write a book about what great successes the megachurches were as the spearheads of the evangelical movement. But after more than a year of research, the leaders within the churches convinced her that she was writing the wrong book. She went back to her publisher and took another year to write, instead, about the unreported fact that evangelical churches and numbers are declining, have not kept up with population growth for the past hundred years, and that we”ve been duped into thinking they were strong because they learned to manipulate the media very cleverly. They represent perhaps 7% of Americans, not the 25% we”ve been told – and the churches know this. She includes herself among the duped, as she was a religion writer for the Dallas Morning News for seventeen years.

The reason for the decline is the same as the reason for the decline of almost all traditional churches: our world has changed, our minds and hearts have changed, we no longer need the kind of God traditional religion has to offer, and we need other important things that it can’t offer. If you think about it, that’s a revolutionary statement. On Father”s Day, this stands out to me more, because this sounds like the data that say far more women attend church than men, because men want more hard-nosed empirical stuff than all the airy-fairy poetry of religions. I don’t think it’s quite that simple, though there’s something to it. But I think it is more about parents than just fathers.

In the world today, we need to be able to act, to adapt quickly, to think on our own, rather than blindly following authority. We feel a visceral imperative to be more open and flexible than humans have been in the past, which is another reason we may see the blind obedience taught by evangelical parents as dangerous thinking that will not prepare their children to live in the real world after they leave home (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, p. 171).

It’s in families, raising children, where the real world and the world of religious dogma are most incompatible. Evangelical children, says Christine, are learning to obey authority while other American children are learning to question authority, to voice strong disagreement, to follow their own ideas. While evangelical parents may protect their children from growing up too fast, other American parents – both fathers and mothers – begin preparing their children to make decisions at earlier ages. These deep-seated differences in what parents believe their children must have and in how children are being formed as a result are the greatest reasons Americans will never, and cannot ever, return to the old-time religion. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, p. 173)

The idea that a happy, self-reliant person with adequate self-esteem is more likely to be a moral, good citizen has replaced the Christian image of humans as sinful, broken creatures in need of outside salvation. What was once called sin is now considered sickness. So health rather than holiness is the modern parent’s goal. And I want to say, that’s a good thing. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, p. 185)

It seems that a new way of judging what’s moral and what’s not is coming into being. It means people don’t feel the same need for the kind of God traditional religion supplies. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, p. 187)

This kind of thinking makes our children flexible, thinking, reasoning, searching, very unorthodox people. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, p. 187)

It leads to deeper, more aware, honest, nuanced and integrated kids. This state of hopeful wholeness was once called “salvation,” but today we call it health. So one point is that traditional religion has lost its roots in, and lost the ability to prepare us for, the real world outside the walls of the church and many fathers and mothers don’t trust their kids to it.

Let’s hear from one more evangelical who”s writing from inside that faith, rather than having left it as Christine Wicker did. Alan Jacobs is a professor of English at Wheaton College , and wrote this for the Wall Street Journal just over a week ago. (“Too Much Faith in Faith”, 6 June 2008, p. W11). Here’s some of what he wrote:

“If there is one agreed-upon point in the current war of words about religion, it is that religion is a very powerful force. Is it, though? I have my doubts, and they begin with personal experience. I am by most measures a pretty deeply committed Christian. I am quite active in my church; I teach at a Christian college; I have written extensively in support of Christian ideas and belief. Yet when I ask myself how much of what I do and think is driven by my religious beliefs, the honest answer is “not so much.” The books I read, the food I eat, the music I listen to, my hobbies and interests, the thoughts that occupy my mind throughout the greater part of every day – these are, if truth be told, far less indebted to my Christianity than to my status as a middle-aged, middle-class American man.

“When people say that they are acting out of religious conviction, I tend to be skeptical; I tend to wonder whether they’re not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all.”

Now this man isn’t a Christ-hating savage. He teaches at Wheaton College in Illinois , the alma mater of Billy Graham, which has never been known as a bastion of liberal thought.

So one former evangelical author says the membership in the churches is declining, that they can’t convert enough new people to keep from shrinking because they’re too out of touch with the world we’re really living in. And a current professor at evangelical Wheaton College says that even within the religion, the truth is that the religion has very little to do with what we think, read, feel or do. This is a measure of a religion that has become a broken vehicle for helping us find more meaning and purpose in life. Its wheels have come off.

So I began with the idea of brokenness, which is a concept deeply embedded in a lot of modern religious thinking in our culture. I shared some of the research by a former evangelical who now, as an outsider to that worldview, reports that even the churches know they are losing more members and more appeal every year. She suggests it’s because their message is grounded in biases that have lost their roots in the world we’re really living in, and a growing number of us prefer the real world. Then Alan Jacobs, who is not only still an evangelical, but teaches at one of the flagship conservative colleges, says that even as a believer, he has to admit that his religious beliefs actually play almost no role in how he thinks, feels, or lives. I think there’s good evidence that many of the loudest religious voices telling us we’re broken and need their special salvation are, in fact, themselves broken, and failing as useful vehicles for our most important hopes, fears, dreams and yearnings.

So what if, instead, we were to seek out some wise figures who live in the real world, are at home in it, and are also asking questions about life, meaning and purpose? How different would their advice sound than these messages insisting that God only cares for broken souls?

Well, it just so happens that we have some of these voices among us. So I want to read you a few things from their wisdom, so you can hear and feel the difference. Remember, the question guiding us this morning is the question of brokenness: are we broken, is brokenness really a healthy and useful way of looking at our lives, or is there a way of understanding ourselves that is not broken, and is better for us? Some of you have already heard these voices, because they are four of our own high school students, who presented short homilies during their Youth Service last Sunday. If you missed it, you missed something very special. Listen to a few insights from four teen-agers who live in the modern world, are creatures of that world, and believe what they’ve learned in this church – and I hope could learn in any good liberal church – that their questions and feelings matter, that they can trust their minds, and can find their own healthy and whole path through life if they choose to.

Now as you listen, don’t mentally patronize these young people. Don’t think “Oh, that’s so good for a kid, it’s just swell.” Don’t mentally pat them on the heads. Be tough. Listen to them as you would listen to anyone offering wisdom, and see how it stacks up. See, especially, how it stacks up against advice about how we’re broken or sinful. They didn’t come here to show off; they came here to try and offer something that might be both true and useful for you, so hold them to the high standards they’ve requested.

Josh is one of our students, and says, “As our lives change, we lose and discover things about ourselves. We change from what we were, to what we are, to what we could be. Sometimes we also find friendships we thought we could never have, without even trying. In my short 16 years I have moved a total of 10 times and every time I seem to find these wonderful and amazing people without even looking. They seem to pop out of nowhere and change my life. That I think is the greatest thing anyone could find: the love and joy of friends.” He doesn’t sound broken.

Listen to the trust here. He has found a way to back off and see life as a moving picture. He isn’t trying to cling to a dogmatic truth, he knows already that life is about change. He isn’t looking for water wings, but for swimming lessons, and he’s swimming pretty well.

One youth reflected on a Rolling Stones song from her parents” generation, about how “You can’t always get what you want”but if you try sometimes, you can get what you need.” She says, “No matter how much we want something or how much we think we must have something, or how hard we try to get it, sometimes the universe just won’t let it happen. But, if you try sometimes, if you try new things and expand your world, you can get what you need,” even if you hadn’t known you needed it.

She told a story to illustrate this, about a time she was digging through the family couch, looking for loose change to buy candy at the movie. I imagine nearly everyone here remembers doing that. She didn’t find enough change to get the candy, but she did find something without which many teenagers might not be able to survive for even one day – her cell phone. She didn’t even know she’d lost it. And so the world, she said, is like a big couch, “littered with all sorts of random objects, and waiting for us to dig around in it. Maybe we will find what we want. Maybe we will find what we haven’t been looking for, but need more than we thought. Nevertheless, the choice is ours whether or not to look in the first place.” And she thinks we should be out there digging around in the couch of life. She doesn’t sound broken.

Our third student, Shane, thought about the whole idea of gaining experiences. He said that unless you live under a rock, you’re experiencing things every day. And that even if you do live under a rock, you’re probably experiencing things too, like pain and boredom. But it’s not like you can go to the movie store and pick out which experiences you want, and skip the bad ones. If you want to have really valuable experiences, you have to be patient, because not all experiences are either valuable or pleasant. And when the really valuable experiences do happen, it may not be when or where you expect. Does this sound like a modern teenager, or an ancient sage?

Then Sierra talked about happiness. She’s already learned that you can’t buy it – even with money from the couch. “You have to know where to find it. And this is the tricky part. How can we get it? You can try as hard as you possibly can to reach this happiness, and still not get it. You can’t control it. You can alter your mood and surround yourselves with things that supposedly “make you happy”, and some days the happiness just won’t come.”

She decides that maybe happiness is more complex than we think. Maybe it has to include the sadness, the fear, the satisfaction, the contentment, the surprise, and the regrets. Like Natalie, she invents an analogy for us. She says maybe happiness is like white light. White light is made up of all the colors, and if one color were missing, it wouldn’t be pure white, just like if one of our experiences was missing or an emotion was suppressed for a lifetime, it wouldn’t be as full, as complete a life. It isn’t about pretending we can only have happy, fun experiences. I”d say that’s not the real world; that’s Disneyworld . She says, at age 15, that in our real-world pursuit of happiness, we are gathering experiences that at the end of our lifetime might just combine and finally give us our greatest happiness – the most full and satisfying life – the way all the different colors combine to make pure white light.

These young people are not finished growing, but they’re not broken. They see the good and bad as inherent parts of life, and see happiness as living in a way that can let them integrate all of our experiences, and weave them into a character with depth and nuance.

We are completely at home in the real world. Whatever is sacred, is there – which means that whatever is sacred is already within us, too. We are linked with all other life on earth. We are part of this world, all the way down. We are at home here, all the way down. And our salvation, our wholeness, must be rooted deeply in the real world around us to its most profound and life-giving parts, all the way down.

That’s the voice you hear coming from our own high school students. Not because they were taught a doctrine or dogma, but because they were taught that they must think, they must interact with the world and that it can mostly be trusted, and so can their own powers of reasoning and meaning-making. We are saved, today, not by dogmas or orthodoxies, but by an empowered imagination, and our ability to imagine our own most fulfilling paths through life.

we’re not broken. we’re unfinished. We don’t need to be made holy; we need to be made whole. And that has changed everything. We can trust life. We can trust ourselves, we can trust in the best of human relationships, and it’s ok when we occasionally fail, because failing is part of living, just as succeeding is part of living.

Let me sum this up in the words of some local sages. As we go digging through the big couch of life, we can find things we want, and things we need, as we change from what we were, to what we are, to what we could be. If we want to have really valuable experiences, we have to be patient, because not all experiences are either valuable or pleasant. And when the really valuable experiences do happen, it may not be when or where we expect. But don’t be afraid of the wide range of life’s experiences, because in the end they can all go together like rays of different colored lights to create a kind of white light so complete we can call it by its ancient religious name: Enlightenment.

That isn’t broken. It’s whole. It’s blessed. And it’s very, very good.

Can Evangelicalism be (Gasp!) Dying?

© Davidson Loehr

 1 June 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER:

Let us not confuse hype with hope. We know all that glitters is not gold, but let us not be misled when the glitter looks good anyway. Let us not be taken in by someone else’s excited messages that don’t feed our enduring hungers.

We are here to grow into our highest callings as children of the universe, children of God, the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. Let us not accept messages that don’t bless us.

May we learn to shun voices that say, “You’re nothing without me. You’re nothing without Jesus. You’re nothing without God.” These messages don’t come from Jesus or God, but from those acting like “used God” salesmen who hawk them for personal profit or power.

Our good news – the kind of truth that can set us free – may indeed be a truth that passes all understanding, but not a truth that bypasses understanding.

We are all looking for good news. We need truth that makes us feel more cherished, more alive and whole, a truth that commands us to serve higher ideals than we might otherwise have done, and live a life of greater integrity and courage than we might have stumbled into. And it must bless us and make us feel beloved of this place. Without these things, it isn’t our good news, and we need to keep listening. For it will come, our good news. Let us keep listening for words of truth and empowerment, the good news that can make us free. For it will come. Amen.

SERMON: Can Evangelicalism be (Gasp!) Dying?

We’ve been told, for years, that Christian evangelicals make up 25% of the U.S. population and are growing, that evangelicals and “values voters” delivered the last two presidential elections – rather than that both elections were stolen. We’ve read that atheists are the most distrusted group of people in the country, and that they are at any rate far less moral than the kind of evangelicals who have given the Religious Right so much political power since 1980. Now I like evangelism, and even think of myself as an evangelist. The word means spreading the good news, and I think that’s what honest religion should be about: spreading the good news. But when evangelism isn’t done honestly, when it’s more about deceit than delivery, then it’s a bad thing, the good news lies elsewhere, and we need to know about it.

An author named Christine Wicker has written a new book called The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church. She was in town for a presentation last week, and I had several hours to talk with her over a long dinner and longer lunch. I’ll draw on some of her work for the sermon in two weeks. But I want to introduce you to it today in the time we have left, and talk about why she sees the evangelical movement dying, how she says we”ve been duped about the strength of the movement for almost 30 years, and what it might all mean for us: what the good news really is.

Christine was raised an evangelical Baptist, came to Jesus in an altar call when she was nine years old, left the church some time later, and still has a warm place in her heart for evangelicals, though she says she can’t imagine ever wanting to go to church again. She was a religion writer for the Dallas Morning News for seventeen years, and understands how to find good sources. She quotes a lot of figures that are quite damning to that picture of evangelicals in America, but all the figures come from inside the churches themselves. Here are a few of the things she says.

Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. ix)

The facts are that about a thousand evangelicals walk away from their churches every day and most don’t come back (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. xiii). As a whole, American Christians lose six thousand members a day – more than two million a year. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 123) The real figures are that fewer than seven percent of the country are really evangelicals – only about one in fourteen, not one out of four. The fastest growing faith groups in the country are atheists and nonbelievers. In just the eleven years from 1990 to 2001, they more than doubled, from 14 million to 29 million, from 8% of the country to 14 percent. There are more than twice as many nonbelievers and atheists as there are evangelicals. And since it’s hard to believe everyone would have the nerve to tell a pollster they were an atheist or nonbeliever, I suspect the real figures are higher. You don’t read this in the media because there are no powerful groups pushing the story.

And as far as respect goes, when asked to rate eleven groups in terms of respect, non-Christians rated evangelicals tenth. Only prostitutes ranked lower. In an almost comic side note, I wonder how the prostitutes feel about that. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 143) Atheists and nonbelievers are looking pretty good.

Misbehavior is so widespread among evangelicals that one evangelical author (Ronald Sider) calls the statistics devastating. When pollster George Barna, himself an evangelical, looked at seventy moral behaviors, he didn’t find any difference between the actions of those who were born-again Christians and those who weren’t. His studies and other indicators show that divorce among born-agains is as common as, or more common than, among other groups. One study showed that wives in traditional, male-dominated marriages were 300 percent more likely to be beaten than wives in egalitarian marriages. (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 80) Evangelicals make up only seven percent of the population, but about twenty percent of the women who get abortions (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 81).

Every day the percentage of evangelicals in America decreases, a loss that began more than one hundred years ago (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 198). This is part of the bigger picture of the continual decline of Christianity in our culture, which is another story that’s been underreported.

These are just some of the headlines. I’ll go into more facets of this in two weeks, because they have deep and compelling implications for us and for all liberal churches.

Who’s to blame for all this? Not the bible, not God, and not the churches. Modern life, changed circumstances, the new realities that we live among are to blame (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 4). Evangelicals tried to fight the modern world and the world won.

What’s eroding Christianity is the rise and victory of the more scientific and humane worldview we’re a part of: a worldview that incorporates almost all the basic assumptions of liberalism. It affects all religions, but in different ways.

I’ve heard for 25 years that 95% of Unitarian kids leave the church after high school. I don’t think anyone has actually done a methodical study that could produce reliable numbers like that, but I suspect that it’s probably in the ballpark. Why? Because evangelical youth are leaving at about the same rate. Josh McDowell, who has worked for Campus Crusade for Christ since 1964, says that 94% of high school graduates leave the faith within two years. The Southern Baptists estimate that 88% of their kids leave the church after high school. So this is not an indictment of liberal religion; it’s a description of American 18-to-20-year-olds. On the surface, it looks like we’re all in the same situation.

But when you look at why evangelicals or religious liberals leave their church, it gets more interesting, and suddenly we’re not all in the same situation.

The world evangelical kids enter when they leave the control of the church isn’t much like the world the church has offered them. There’s more freedom to question, no subjects declared off-limits, less self-righteousness, more science, more independence. And nineteen out of twenty of them find the real world more appealing than the world the church had given them. Evangelicals lose their kids to the modern world. But we don’t lose our kids to the modern world, because we”ve worked to prepare them for it. It’s the worldview they learn in churches like this. We just want them to find more depth of fulfilling meaning and purpose within it than the soul-killing “market value” idols offer.

During the past century, evangelicals have never kept up with the population growth in this country. Not for a century. They don’t have anywhere near the real power they have claimed. They have fought to make abortion illegal for 35 years. It’s still legal. They have fought for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw homosexuality. Nobody’s buying it. And though they have done harm to and through the Republican Party, they don’t have anything like control there either. Remember that the recent court decisions permitting homosexual marriages in Massachusetts, California and New York all came from Republican judges. They have censored some school textbooks, but one result is that American students now lag far behind students in Europe and Asia, especially in science education, which will make us less competitive. Eventually, even market forces will have to improve the quality of our public education, because we need independent thinking workers, not just obedient ones. They are training for the world of yesteryear, but we and our children are learning to live with imagination and hope in the world of tomorrow. We and the modern world are winning, and will win.

What is at stake is whether children must become independent minded and able to reason through tough decisions on their own at early ages or whether they will be sheltered from such decisions until adulthood by families in which obedience to parental and allegedly godly authority is more highly valued. Parents who”ve changed their parenting style have come to believe that their children need new strengths as they face a rapidly changing world, and those strengths need to be developed early. For these parents, physical punishment encourages violence in later life. Bolstering the child’s self-respect and autonomy is important. The idea that a happy, self-reliant person with adequate self-esteem is more likely to be a moral, good citizen has replaced the Christian image of humans as sinful creatures in need of outside salvation. What was once called sin is now considered sickness. So health rather than holiness is the modern parent’s goal for their children and for themselves (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 185). This is the way you’ve raised your own children, but so have a growing army of more conservative parents. As Christine says, when was the last time you saw a child being beaten in public? Public standards have changed, and have become more humane and civil than those of the conservative churches. That’s one way to lose parents and children by the drove.

Trying to hold back the modern world and our sciences and our intellectual freedoms is not like the old picture of the Dutch boy with his finger in the hole in a dam trying to keep the water from squirting through. It’s more like a crowd of believers standing side by side in a river, imagining they can stop it. But the water just goes between, around and through them, and the river goes on as if they weren’t there.

The saving message here, the good news, is that America is a very different place than many of us have been led to believe it is. And Americans themselves are a very different kind of people. More thoughtful. More reasoning. Less doctrinaire. More changeable. More flexible. Less religious. This is news of a new and powerful form of salvation that comes from knowing the truth, being aware, and acting in fair and compassionate ways. And growing numbers of people are finding it offers better salvation than the traditional Christian stories (Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation, p. 56). Sometimes they find it in more liberal churches like this one. Sometimes they just find it on their own. But more and more, they know where they’re not going to find it.

Another way of putting this is that repressive and regressive religions tried to fight the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is winning. The spirit of truth, freedom and empowerment is winning, and religions that can’t embrace that spirit cannot make their people whole. Any way you cut it, from any informed religious, ethical or moral perspective, that’s good news. It’s the kind of good news that can save you – It’s the kind of good news that can save your mind, save your souls and save your children. It’s the kind of good news that can save the world. You can get that good news at a lot of liberal churches. You can get it here. That’s not just good news. That’s Halleluja news! And that’s worth an Amen!

Understanding Evangelical Christianity

Eric Hepburn

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button below: [display_podcast]�

Invocation:

A wise person once said to me, you get to choose how to live, and there are basically two choices, you can choose to be right or you can choose to be peaceful.

The more I have reflected on this the more clear it has become that choosing to be right is about ego, while choosing to be peaceful is about wisdom.

Peace be with you.

Let us join together in song.

Prayer

How can we become more compassionate?

It is helpful to think of a generic situation where you are engaged with another person.

You perceive their actions, and from this perception you normally confer onto them motives and thoughts.

It is by these motives and thoughts, which we have imagined, that we determine how we will react to their action.

One form of compassion happens when we are clear and honest about the actions of others, but kind and generous when we infer thought and motive.

There is an expression for this in English, it is called ‘giving the benefit of the doubt.’

One way to cultivate our capacity for giving the benefit of the doubt is to keep in mind that we do not know what others are thinking.

Another way is to confer to others a range of possible thoughts or motives, and to be intentional when we treat them as if their motives are the noblest ones.

One of the side effects of this practice, is the way that it helps and encourages others to live up to the generosity of your interpretations.

Let us pray this morning that we can learn to become masters at giving others the benefit of the doubt.

Sermon: Understanding Evangelical Christianity

My first chosen religion was evangelical Christianity, I was a holy roller, I sang and danced and spoke in tongues, and I shouted Amen, whenever I was moved. My second chosen religion was Atheism, I was a professional skeptic and debunker, proud in my claims not to believe in anything that hadn’t been proven. And now my chosen religion, they say the third times a charm, well my chosen religion now doesn’t have a name, I attend this Unitarian Universalist church and I stand in this pulpit from time to time, I search for the truth, and I am honored that you have agreed to spend this morning with me so that I can share some thoughts with you about this journey.

In the home where I grew up religion was not a serious issue. We subscribed to the pedestrian mainstream American view that Christianity was true, but that you didn’t have to go to Church to be a good person, and good people go to heaven, which is important, because hell is not a very nice place.

During my childhood I spent summers with my maternal grandparents. When I was twelve they moved back to rural Illinois where our extended family lived. My Great-Uncle Web was a preacher at a Free-Will Pentecostal Church there, and since all my cousins who were my age went to Church three times a week, I wanted to go with them.

Now, I had been to Church before, but I had never seen a Church like this. I don’t think I will ever forget the first time that I saw someone speak in tongues. I didn’t have to wait long, it was about seven minutes into my first service when my Great-Aunt Rose got to her feet and began making noises not unlike ululation at first, and then transforming into a kind of wailing string of syllables. It was eerie and a little frightening, but by the end of that service, I knew that this wasn’t just an eccentricity of my Aunt Rose, but a normal part of how these people, many of them my family, worshiped.

Three weeks later I was saved, the next week I received the spirit of the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues for the first time, later that summer I received the gift of healing and performed a faith healing on my great-grandmother’s chronic headaches, which she swore lasted a whole week. I also participated in casting out my first demon that summer, it was a spirit of man-hating in a young woman in the congregation who had been abandoned by her father, and who later went on to marry one of my cousins. As the summer drew to a close, I became concerned about how I was going to continue ‘walking in the light’ when I returned home. My uncle’s Church didn’t have any affiliates in my area, but he assured me that if I prayed and searched, God would find me a home congregation.

I returned home, filled with hope, not only of finding a spiritual community, but of rescuing my family from their religious malaise and bringing them once more under the direct protection of Jesus Christ. Both of these quests were disastrous. My family rejected my evangelical advances and my search for a local congregation was even worse, I was told by many ministers and preachers that speaking in tongues was wrong, that it was a misinterpretation of scripture, that it was even the work of the devil. This practice of Speaking in tongues had become central to my way of worship, as had dancing in the spirit, and raising my hands in the air, and shouting Amen when something the preacher said really resonated with me. Sitting quietly and listening to someone talk, standing still with a hymnal in hand singing dirges, I couldn’t reconcile these methods with my desire to worship and glorify God. I searched, and after a while I stopped searching, I read my Bible, and after a while I stopped reading, I worried about my salvation, and after a while, I stopped worrying.

My life became much as it had always been and when I returned to my Grandparents’ home the summer of my 14th year, I inititialy refused the invitations to go to Church, I didn’t want to repeat the cycle, I preferred to forgo the ecstatic experiences of church to avoid the pain of losing them again. And I also felt let-down by God because I believed that he had not helped me to find a home congregation.

But it didn’t last long, a month maybe, and I was back at Church, on my knees weeping, asking forgiveness for my failure to stay on the path. So I sang, and I danced, and I shouted Amen, and I spoke in tongues. And this time when I went home, I didn’t struggle. I rendered unto Caesar the things which were Caesar’s, and unto God the things that were God’s. In this case, the God that I worshiped was in rural Illinois and my normal life; school, immediate family, friends, these things belonged to the secular world of Caesar. That was my last summer in the Church.

Religion once again became a non-issue in my daily world, but that all changed during my first semester at college. I was taking a philosophy course on contemporary moral issues, and when the topic of homosexuality came up, the quiet (or sometimes not so quiet) bigotry of rural Christianity was waiting there in the back of my brain, ready to argue the point of why homosexuality was wrong. I bolstered my claims with biology, with logic, with everything but the kitchen sink. But when the professor asked me what was wrong with two people loving each other, with two people wanting to be each others’ best friends and helpmates, I had no answer. Like most people who had never actually known or been friends with any gay people, I was all focused on the sex act. Once I was forced to step beyond the bedroom into the world of life, where people love each other, where people care for each other, and where sex is simply a physical expression of that love, I was left without a leg to stand on. On that day, in that class period, I abandoned the God of rural Illinois, I publicly changed my position on homosexuality, apologized if I had offended anyone, and began to self-identify as an atheist. Because my professor was right, hate and intolerance are incompatible with love. And I knew then that Love and justice were more important to me than the God of the Bible, than the God of rural Illinois.

I spent the next few months reading psychology texts and talking with people, trying to reframe my religious experiences into this new atheistic framework. I rewrote my narrative of those years using terms like: social pressure, group think, and brainwashing. I researched the Bible critically, embracing a deconstruction of both the text and the life of Jesus. I believed that I had been duped, that I had been sold a Santa Claus type lie, the only consolation was that the people who sold it had believed it to be true. In reality, this simply increased my feelings of condescension toward grown-ups who had failed to realize that the Jesus story was just another myth. I patted myself on the back for being smarter than they were.

Luckily for me, my journey was not over. It took two other mentors to help me find a deeper and more honest view of the truths of those years. The first one was a Sociology professor named Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. He issued a challenge at the beginning of his Sociology of Law course. He said that anyone can read a theory and tear it apart and find all of its weak points; deconstruction is easy. What is hard, he said, and more rewarding, is to give each author their strongest possible reading. What problems or issues is the author most concerned with? What truth or truths are they trying to deal with? As a reader, can you give the author the benefit of the doubt and confront him on his strongest ground, instead of searching for his weaknesses. It was a serious challenge and it had a profound impact on the tenor of the class, every week we had serious discussions about the merits and strengths of different theories and we looked at how different theories actually addressed different domains of problems, and how much of the criticism that was written about them was really missing the point. We learned how to build better theories.

The second influence was Dr. David Hackett, a religion professor, I took the Sociology of Religion course primarily as a way to improve my background knowledge and debating skill when I challenged the evangelical literalist Christian missionaries who regularly visit college campuses with their confrontational style of ministry. It had become a favorite pastime of mine to spend hours in the middle of the day debating them, challenging them, winning over the crowd. I wish I could say that I had done it with love, I wish I could say that it had meant more to me at the time than winning the debate, in the background was always this justification of keeping them from preying on students’ insecurities and feeding them lies, but, in reality I knew that I was preaching to the choir. My sparring with them was about my own ego, my need to show my superiority, so I got what I deserved when I took this Sociology of Religion course.

When I found out that the professor was a practicing church-goer, I almost dropped the course, luckily for me, my ego was too big for that. Just like the philosophy professor had pulled the rug out from under my homophobia by asking the larger question about love, this professor pulled the rug out from under my sense of atheistic superiority by asking if there was value in the story. He claimed that one didn’t have to believe that the Bible was the literal word of God in order to be a Christian, that one did not have to subscribe to the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection, or miracles, or any of the things I had spent the last two years lambasting. If the Roman myths served Roman culture, and the Greek myths served Greek culture, why couldn’t the Christian myths in the Bible serve as a moral framework for Western Christian culture.

Well, he had me there. If we had permission to view the Bible as a collection of stories, a collection of myths, then we could apply the same ‘strongest-reading’ approach that I had learned in the context of social theory. I became a fan of Jesus, of Buddha, and of Mohammed in that class. I read their words, and the words from other world religions in that class, I looked for the passages where they saw the truth most clearly and didn’t worry about the parts where their culture, or their fear, or their greed, or their other human frailties got in the way. I began to believe in the universality of truth, in the idea that we are all seeking this truth, that it is a fundamental part of our nature, that it is this truth that unites us and makes us whole.

In graduate school I began to integrate my love of the prophets with my own narrative. I began to critically evaluate both my early religious experiences, my atheism, and my atheistic contention that those early experiences had been meaningless. Ultimately, I was able to reconcile my understanding with my history and reclaim the genuine aspects of those early religious experiences.

I no longer find it surprising in retrospect that one of the most socially bizarre and controversial aspects of my early practice, speaking in tongues, has ended up being one of the most important to me. When I was an atheist I was ashamed of this part of my past, ashamed because I believed that I had been socially pressured into faking a religious experience. But the more I reflected on the experience, the more I realized that I had been wrong. The social pressure theory wasn’t true to the story, it wasn’t true to my experience. The pressure I felt was not pressure to fit in, it was not pressure to please my family or the church, it was the pressure of what to say when you believe you are face to face with God. When you are in that moment of prayer and you feel yourself in communion with God, with the Universe, what do you say? What can you say? Such immense beauty, such immense pain, such immense love? That is what speaking in tongues taps into. When you want to shout your feelings to God, but you can’t put them into words, you just let those raw feelings out in the form of sound. And in that church, you were allowed that freedom and I experienced it, and I cherish it still.

Now, I’m not suggesting that UU’s should start speaking in tongues, it wouldn’t be genuine, and it wouldn’t produce the desired result. What I am suggesting is that we start thinking, individually and collectively, about how we can foster an environment, how we can produce a spiritual haven here in this sanctuary every Sunday, where people leave their self-criticism and their criticisms of others at the door. A space where people can clap, sing, dance, meditate, sit quietly, hum, think, pray, do whatever they do, but do it without worrying about being judged or without spending any energy judging or thinking about what others are doing. Can we, the distracted intellectuals that we are, find a way to experience communal peace and joy here together every Sunday? I think that we can.

I think it starts with looking inward, with using this time we have here together with the unconditional love and support of our community to bask in the light, love, and joy of the truth. Because the truth is joyful. Let me reiterate that for all of us intellectual doubting Thomases who have a much easier time seeing everything that is wrong with the world, and I include myself. The truth is joyful. This didn’t sink in for me until I went to see the Dalai Lama when he came to town, and I tell you friends, the truth has set that man free. And that freedom radiates from him like a warm light of love and joyfulness. He is not joyful because he has comforting illusions, he is joyful because he has spent his life smashing the illusions that separate us from the truth. There is ever-present in his life the radiance of God, the radiance of an interconnected and interdependent universe, the radiance of the power of life and love.

That radiance, the radiance of the truth, is the light that has inspired all religion. It is the same light that the Evangelical Christians are seeking to capture when they go to church, the same light they are trying to share when they come knocking at your door, the same light that you were searching for this morning when you made your way to this sanctuary. The truth is not fractured, but we are often fractured. The truth is not exclusive, but we are all too often exclusive.

The next time you are confronted with someone who has a religious symbol system that you don’t share, I want you to try and translate. You don’t have to subscribe to God language in order to use God language. Maybe internally, you prefer to use the word Universe instead of God, or maybe you don’t like to assign a word to that concept at all. That’s OK. You can translate into their language, and if your heart and intentions are in the right place, your translation into their symbol system will work out.

This doesn’t only apply to Evangelical Christians, it can apply to anyone. If you remember that the differences are often differences in religious language, differences in symbols and not differences in ultimate truth, then you come to realize the possibility of breaking spiritual bread with any of your brothers and sisters. This does not negate the reality of differences in belief, those differences are real, they exist. What I am suggesting is that when we focus on our differences in opinion, we create divisiveness and discord. When we focus on what we agree on, on the magnificence of the universe, the beauty and the pain of living, the importance of love and compassion, the comfort of human companionship, when we focus on these core truths of religion, we create peace and joy. The choice is up to you, you can choose to be right, or you can choose to be peaceful.

Benediction

I would like to close today with a greeting, because today’s sermon, if given its strongest reading, was about changing the way we meet people, it was about conferring the greatest benefit of the doubt to all of our brothers and sisters, without any reason to do so but faith, without any reason but love.

The greeting is Namaste and it means ?I see the light in you that is also in me.?

Namaste.

Life as a Work of Art

© Davidson Loehr

 18 May 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER:

Let us not tell paltry stories about ourselves. We don’t just work at a job, we have a mission that is part of the cosmic effort to improve and perfect the world.

We’re not just sweeping the floor, throwing out stuff and trying to get this place cleaned up before guests arrive. We are a modern incarnation of the goddess Hestia, the one whose sacred gift is to transform a house into a homey place, to let those who enter feel cared for. We’re not just a doctor sewing stitches into the fourth patient to cut himself this hour. We’re healing the sick, caring for them in the spirit of old Aesclepius, the patron saint of physicians. We’re not just taking a lawsuit to court so we can stick it to whoever we have in our sights. we’re agents of fairness and social trust, working to help the powerless balance the scales of justice. We’re not here just to whistle little ditties, but to sing small spiritual symphonies with our lives.

We are, whatever we are, so very much more than we have given ourselves credit for being. Our biggest failures are failures of imagination. We need a story worthy of us. We need the largest story that wraps us in the most imaginative tapestry of life lived skillfully, caringly.

Let us find a story worthy of our spirit, and tell it. Salvation can come through telling and believing the right stories about ourselves. It may be the only way it does come. Let us become spirited parts of stories that are worthy of us.

Amen.

SERMON: Life as a work of art

Life as a work of art: what does that mean? I want to begin with a quotation that Catholic theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote over eighty years ago:

“Every person, in the course of his life, must build – starting with the natural territory of his own self – a work, an opus, into which something enters from all the elements of the earth. [She] makes [her] own soul throughout all [her] earthly days; and at the same time [she] collaborates in another work, in another opus, which infinitely transcends, while at the same time it narrowly determines, the perspectives of [her] individual achievement: [that greater work is] the completing of the world.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu (1927)

He used the word opus for the work of a life. That word opus is also used for a musical composition or an artist’s total production. We are also works of art. We are partly the artistic designers of our own life, and it is the most important work we will ever do. (Thomas Moore, A Life at Work, p. 2)

Boy, does that sound easier said than done! How to make a life? When most people hear this, their first thoughts are probably more economic, like how to make a living.

Some of the older folks here will remember how much this has changed in the last half century. In the 1950s, the object was to get a job with a good company, work for them your whole life and they’d take care of you. You”d have health care and a good retirement. For women, the work options were severely limited – most were steered to becoming nurses or teachers or stewardesses (and in the 50s only young women could be stewardesses, and there were no male flight attendants). For all, the goal was to get married (heterosexual only – nobody was “out” in the 1950s), have kids, raise them to be good Americans. America was the most respected nation in the world after WWII and its Marshall Plan to help Europe recover. We were generous and just, trusted by almost everyone.

It’s amazing how much of that has changed now. Our nation is no longer respected by many. There’s little or no job security – I think I read that people entering the work force today should expect to have eight different jobs in five different fields during their career. Job benefits keep getting cut, unions have largely been disempowered, and it’s been widely reported that this is the first generation that can’t look forward to a higher life style than their parents. The divorce rate is about 50% – so many people have neither a job nor a partner for life.

There is a lot more competition for good schools and jobs, school loans put people into far greater debt. Twenty-five years ago, I spent seven years in a very expensive graduate school and graduated owing a total of $17,500. Today, Unitarian ministers leave a three-year seminary owing between $50,000 and $80,000 or more, and I’ve talked with at least one student here at UT who’ll owe $100,000 for a four-year Ph.D. program in Latin American studies. And it can get much worse. I have a niece attending medical school in Israel through a Columbia University world medicine program, who”s also getting a Master”s in public health from Johns Hopkins. When she’s done in two more years, she’ll owe about $300,000. She had wanted to be the next Albert Schweitzer, devoting her life to helping needy people in Africa – but not with student loans like that.

So it’s harder to make a living today than it was fifty years ago.

It’s easy to get depressed, or go into a rant.

But the job of making a life – as opposed to the job of making a living – really isn’t fundamentally different now. It’s still a religious task, though today we use the word “spiritual” more, and it doesn’t need to involve churches or even gods.

Many churches still talk about this life as though it were just a meaningless prelude to some life in heaven forever – if we obey a certain concept of God or church. But I don’t believe the world is built that way. I think we do it here and now. So in many ways, it matters even more, to try and make a good life. What’s it mean?

By a good life, I really mean something as simple as a life that lets you stand in front of a mirror in ten or fifty years and be able to say, “If I only get one shot at this, I’m glad I lived the life I’ve lived.” In your whole life, there’s hardly anything you could say that’s more important. It may not be the life someone else would choose, but you’re not supposed to live other people’s lives. You’re supposed to live your own. And to some extent that involves making it, crafting it, like a work of art. And while I think that’s a little more complex than it used to be, it isn’t fundamentally different.

We need the sense that we are here for a reason, that life wants something from us, that life grants us honor, and a task. Being part of a larger purpose can give meaning to our smallest acts and helps create a strong identity. (Thomas Moore, A Life at Work, p. 17)

If I were an old-fashioned preacher talking in old-fashioned ways, this is when I could say, “Come to Jesus! Come to Jesus and be saved!” I think very few people here think or talk that way, but there can be a powerful kind of truth to that Come-to-Jesus invitation. It means, “Recast your life as a beloved part of a larger reality, as a child of God rather than just one more lost person stumbling through life. Then it can be about the larger you precisely because it’s no longer primarily about you, but about your part in a bigger story, a transcendent scheme. You’re no longer just doing the kind of fairly menial work we all do; your work has now become part of the plan of the creator of the universe. So come to Jesus, and be saved!” There’s both poetry and power there.

What’s right about it is that we need to be able to cast our lives as parts of a bigger and more enduring story than just making it through another day.

But we have to try to say it in less parochial terms today. Fewer and fewer people are learning to talk about their lives as though they were about Jesus or God. The fastest-growing “faith groups” in the country are not evangelicals, but non-believers, even atheists, as I’ll talk about more in two weeks. But no matter how we put it or what we call it, we need to call forth this image of our life as part of something greater. And it isn’t hard, though we’re not taught how to do it. I want to give you some examples of recasting life as part of a bigger story, in a few different styles, both with and without gods.

One is a story that Rev. David Bumbaugh read to you three weeks ago, and it’s worth repeating.

In the 12th century, when the great cathedrals were being built in France, a visitor went into one of these huge buildings. Over to the right were carpenters, and he said to them, “What are you doing?” They looked at him like he was an idiot, and said “Can’t you see? we’re carpenters. we’re building pews!” Then he went to some stone masons. Again he asked, “What are you doing?” They laughed, and said they were members of the masons’ guild, the finest of all the guilds. They acted like just belonging to that group meant they didn’t actually need to be doing anything at all.

On the other side of the room there was a peasant woman with a broom, cleaning up after the carpenters, the masons and the others. Of her too, he asked, “What are you doing?” This woman stopped sweeping, stood up to her full height, and announced proudly to him, “Me? Why I am building a magnificent cathedral to the greater glory of God!”

We could look at her job and say it was the least important of the three, just sweeping, cleaning up. But it gave more to her than the jobs of the carpenters and stone masons seemed to give to them, because she had made her life part of a much larger story, in which even cleaning up was helping to build not only a magnificent cathedral, but a magnificent cathedral to the greater glory of God! It’s hard to beat that. There’s a simple life transformed into a work of art through an imaginative story. We all have simple lives, and we all need that kind of transformation.

Many Hindus can still do this through their belief that their soul is part of the soul of the universe, their spirit is part of the creative spirit of everything. And that’s not just a belief; it’s true. All of our lives are parts of that bigger picture. But it’s so hard to see them that way. I think that’s why “Come to Jesus” is so appealing. It sounds so simple, so quick. No waiting in line, Just BAM! You’re saved!

I often envy the ancient Greeks, who knew these spirits were eternal, and turned most of them into gods. And so craftspeople and artists weren’t just making pews or doing stonework; they were serving the gods of art, music and beauty: Hephaestus, Apollo, Athena. They were doing sacred duty in their work. Parents planted seeds of tomorrow, and nurtured them, as part of the creative force of the universe. They were the current incarnations of the spirits of Zeus, Hera and Demeter, as the Greeks would say. Homemakers, those with gifts for making a house feel like a home, or making a church service feel like a worship service, were serving the invisible goddess Hestia, the goddess of that feeling of being deeply at home.

Thinkers weren’t just ivory-tower eggheads, overeducated chatterers – look at some of the ways we describe ourselves! Mechanical, cold, condemning, not loving. But in Greece, thinkers were those who helped bring fire, bring light into the darkness, modern incarnations of Prometheus. Soldiers weren’t just murdering foreigners. They were serving the dangerous but sometimes necessary god Ares. Even politics could be transformed – even today”s politics. A Hillary Clinton could be recognized as the spirit of the goddess Athena, and maybe Artemis, and Obama could be seen in the role of Hermes, the messenger of the gods who carried the message beyond comfortable boundaries, because the message was more holy than the boundaries. Heraclitus once said that everything is filled with gods, and in his world it was. You didn’t have to come to Jesus. You didn’t have to go anywhere because the gods were everywhere. You just had to understand your gifts and your passions as gifts from the gods, callings, duties – because they were.

Look how this could transform human lives! It still can. Arianna Huffington is a Greek, born in Athens and educated at Cambridge, and the ancient Greek gods still help frame her life. She wrote that as an ambitious single mother of two daughters, she saw her life as a constant dialogue between the demands of Artemis and Demeter. How much more dignifying, and also descriptive, that is than just calling herself an ambitious single working mother with two girls. It’s so much easier to view our life as a work of art when we think of ourselves as incarnating eternal spirits. But today, our spiritual vocabulary is so sparse, we hardly know how to talk about it. Talking about gods leaves many people cold today – even ancient Greek gods. It sounds so “otherworldly,” in a bad way.

So let me share part of my own story with you, two of my own “Come to Jesus”-type moments that transformed how I defined myself and my job as a minister, as your minister. I’ve told parts of this before, and I’m not doing it to talk about myself, but to offer you more ways to talk about your own life.

I went to one of those elite graduate schools, worked as hard as the others there, and earned my Master”s and Ph.D. degrees. I saw it as a pretty solitary adventure. You go to seminars, you read, you read some more, you discuss, you read, you write, eventually you graduate. Graduation ceremonies have never meant much to me, and I’ve avoided them. But a classmate told me I had to go to the ceremony to be given my Ph.D. “Why?” I asked. “They can mail it.” “You don’t understand,” he said, “You have to hear what President Gray says to all the Ph.D. graduates.” Hannah Gray, who was then president of the University of Chicago, was the first woman president of what they called an elite university. I admired her, and was on a committee with her. But come on – commencement addresses are like political speeches: all predictable rhetoric, no significant substance. My classmate assured me I was wrong and I trusted him, so I bought the cap, rented the gown, and went.

It was a come-to-Jesus moment. I’ve never been the same since that day. When the other degrees had been awarded, she called the doctoral students forward, and she said those magical words which were burned into my memory instantly. She said, “I welcome you into the ancient and honorable community of scholars.” It was transformative. Suddenly, we were no longer just a few more unkempt graduate students hiding out in libraries working on papers and dissertations nobody but our three readers would ever be likely to read. No, now we were part of something grand: an ancient and honorable community of scholars, of which I hadn’t even been aware until then. Plato, Aristotle, and us! You try not to dwell too long on Plato, Aristotle and those at their level, or the magic would wear off and it would just feel really embarrassing. But for the first time, I believed I was part of an ancient tradition of millions of people who had been so curious and passionate about something that we wanted to devote years to its study, and lives to its service. I knew it was obsessive – but I didn’t know it was also sacred.

The other come-to-Jesus moment had happened a few years earlier, during some of that reading. I read a book by a very influential 20th century conservative theologian (Karl Barth), where he was addressing a group of young ministers. David Bumbaugh and I talked about this when he was here, and he said he also memorized this the first time he read it over forty years ago, and also took it as a sacred commandment. The theologian had said, “Your people expect you to take them more seriously than they take themselves, and they will not think kindly of you if you fail to do so!”

I think of this every Sunday, every week when I’m preparing a sermon. It isn’t about me, it’s about that ancient and honorable community, that sacred duty to take people perhaps even more seriously than they take themselves. In my mind, those ancient and honorable people are watching me; I can feel their eyes. That isn’t always a good thing. I don’t always succeed at this, as you know. Nobody does. But those two statements transformed my life from the life of a single fairly unimportant Unitarian minister to someone who feels empowered and commanded by an ancient tradition far larger and more enduring than I am. These are the same feelings as coming to Jesus, but without the Jesus, the gods, or the dogma.

Now this isn’t your story, so you might say, “Oh, come off it. You’re just a preacher at a church most people in Austin have never even heard of, preaching to less than one-tenth of a percent of the population!” And that’s true. Just as it’s true that the peasant woman was only sweeping the floor, or Arianna Huffington is just a driven woman with two kids. But these larger callings – whether her seeing herself as incarnations of the spirits of Artemis and Demeter or my believing I’m part of an ancient and honorable community of scholars charged with helping people take their lives more seriously – these larger callings transform solitary lives into little works of art, because they reconnect us with those enduring, perhaps eternal spirits that we serve.

And what about you? After all, that’s the point of all this. How would you describe your life? In ways that make you seem isolated and small, or in ways that connect you with a life force that transcends, empowers, and commands you? Are you just insignificant little you, or are you one of the masks of God, an incarnation of holy spirits, a small but significant part of a cause, a belief, an ideal that is timeless and incredibly necessary? Sweeping the floor, or building a magnificent cathedral to the greater glory of God? Putting a few bucks in the collection plate here, or becoming the church rather than merely attending it? It’s your choice. I”d like you to discuss these things this week with your friends, your family, somewhere you can feel safe and won’t get put down for dreaming. You can choose the story of which your life is a part, whether small or large, and that choice makes all the difference in recasting your life as a work of art.

And so. What about you? As happens so often in this church, it’s your move.

Forgiveness

© Davidson Loehr

 11 May 2008

 First UU Church of Austin

 4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

 www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER:

Let us not be so filled with ourselves that we cannot forgive others their sins and foibles when we knew they meant better. And let us not be so empty of ourselves that we let others use our forgiveness as a license to behave badly.

The balance between justice and mercy is always a dynamic balance, meant to empower the best kind of life within and around us. If our sense of justice is no more than punishment, it is a poor justice. And if our sense of forgiveness does no more than enable bad behavior, it is a poor forgiveness.

Let us try to balance a rich sense of justice and an empowering kind of forgiveness, as though the quality of life both within and among us were shaped by them.

Amen.

SERMON: Forgiveness

This is the third sermon I’ve done on a one-word theme. I’m planning to do one a month, and am developing a list of 36 themes, so we’ll revisit each theme once every three years. The themes may be only one word, but they don’t seem to be simple. Forgiveness – perhaps especially within Western religions – is very complicated. In fact, I’d start by saying that “Forgiveness isn’t always a good thing.” And the reason is that forgiveness suffers from a deep imbalance in Western religions, and when it’s unbalanced, it can be a very dangerous and bad thing.

The best-known story about forgiveness in the Bible is probably the Prodigal Son story. You know the story. A father had two sons – their mother is never mentioned – and one of them demanded his full inheritance in advance. That was permitted within Jewish law at the time, but if a son did it, he had no more claims on his family, ever. The father had to come up with cash for half of all his property was worth. It probably meant he would have had to sell things, and it also meant that after the younger brother left with the money, both the father and the older brother would have had to work much harder to get the work done. The young brother squandered all the money on wine, women and song, and returned home to ask if his father would take him back – this time, just as a servant, since he had forfeited all right to be taken back as a son. To the older brother’s disgust, the father welcomed him home and threw a great feast to celebrate.

Most adults who hear the story side with the older brother, and don’t think it was right of the father to forgive the young brother.

To see and feel how sex-linked notions of forgiveness are, all you have to do – especially on Mother’s Day! – is change the story to one about two sons and a mother. Suddenly, it changes everything. We would expect the mother to forgive him!

We expect the father to stand up for justice, but the mother to offer forgiveness, don’t we? Forgiveness seems closer to a feminine trait than a masculine one. It might be interesting to ask trial lawyers whether, if they were defending the younger brother, they’d rather have a jury of men or of women.

Forgiveness does seem to be a feminine trait, especially in our Western religions. In Hinduism, the goddess Kali is a fierce and judging and punishing presence, and in Greek mythology, the goddess Dike is the goddess of justice, and is equally fearsome. So in other religions, goddesses can be fierce. But not in Western religions. It’s hard to think of stories from the Bible or in Christian history of women who are that fearsome, or men who are terribly forgiving. In the Bible, the traits seem deeply sex-linked. It’s worth asking why, and the answer goes all the way back to the birth of the God of the Bible. There is no story of the birth of God in the Bible. I mean the story that biblical scholars have discovered about where the ancient Hebrews got the idea for their God.

The Hebrew tribes were surrounded by people whose gods were nature deities, and almost always that means that the main deities will be female, as it’s females who give birth, nurse and nurture. But the ancient Hebrews’ god wasn’t a nature god. He grew out of the idea of a tribal chief. He didn’t want to put you in touch with nature. He wanted to be obeyed, and could be ferocious when he was disobeyed. Scholars have found that the Biblical covenant between God and his chosen people was modeled on an ancient Hittite sovereignty treaty between a ruler and the people he ruled. If they obey him, he will protect him. If they disobey, he may destroy them. It isn’t about understanding or forgiveness. It’s about obedience. It’s hard to think of many good stories about forgiveness – as opposed to favors shown to obedient believers – because there aren’t many.

Maybe that’s why so many people find it odd or even wrong for the Prodigal Son’s father to forgive him, but would expect his mother to forgive him.

The psychologist Carl Jung talked about the human psyche, or soul, as divided into a masculine style, which he called the animus, and a feminine style, the anima, and that framework seems helpful here.

They act in different ways, and in different directions. The animus, or masculine style, acts outward. It can be a fierce protector of things like duty, obedience and justice, and when it is unbalanced it can be quite dangerous to others, because it will insist on a kind of obedience and justice without any rounded appreciation for our human frailties. Even the word animus is the root of the word animosity.

The anima or feminine style is inward, and seems to be the key in which a forgiving kind of understanding is played. But it also needs to be balanced with a concern for what’s fair: for justice. Unbalanced, it can be dangerous to us, by endorsing abuse without insisting on justice or respect.

I’d say that great religions are all trying to develop our animus for its sensitivity to justice, and our anima for its sensitivity to forgiveness and mercy. Justice and mercy. The conflict is between “mercy that negates justice” and “justice that negates mercy.” For either of them to be humane and safe, they have to be balanced. And in Western religions, because of the nature of their God who evolved from, and in most ways has remained, a tribal chief, we are raised with both justice and forgiveness out of balance.

Now many Christian scholars like to jump on this and say “Oh yes, the Jewish God was a God of judgment, but you see that’s what Jesus brought: a god of forgiveness rather than judgment.”

For example, whereas it’s hard to find clear stories teaching forgiveness in the Hebrew scriptures, Jesus once told people that he didn’t expect them to forgive just seven times, but seventy times seven. He also said you shouldn’t judge, so you won’t be judged. So it sounds like he is emphasizing forgiveness over judgment. But now it is an unbalanced kind of forgiveness. In Christianity, forgiveness too often has no component of justice in it, no holding others accountable to a social contract. And without that balance, forgiveness can be dangerous to us, just as an unbalanced sense of justice can be dangerous to others.

Jesus’ saying we should forgive seventy times seven has inspired at least one book by that name, with hundreds of short tales of people who forgave all manner of things, with no concern for justice at all. There’s even the story of a man who had been badly physically abused by his father – sometimes beaten unconscious – until he finally ran away from home in his teens. A few years later when he joined a church and told his story to the minister, the minister insisted that he write his father and beg his forgiveness for running away! That’s as unbalanced and dangerous as the passages in the Hebrew scriptures listing all the disobediences for which your children, wives and neighbors should be stoned to death. This is the kind of forgiveness that can be demanded by a tribal chief who can do what he likes without accountability. It’s unhealthy and wrong. And it’s not rare in Christian history. We have been taught to transfer the obedience owed to the tribal-chief-god to those who dress up in his clothes, or just those with money and power, however obtained.

Mother Teresa provided a memorable example of an unbalanced and dangerous forgiveness, when Union Carbide essentially hired her to do their PR after their chemical spill in Bhopal, India which killed 3,800 people. They made a donation to her Sisters of Mercy charity, then flew her to Bhopal. When she landed, the media were there, wanting to know what she advised following this horrible tragedy. She said, “Just forgive, forgive, forgive.” That’s not enough. This is a forgiveness that becomes an accomplice to corporate irresponsibility, a forgiveness that is the active enemy of justice – especially when the company had hired her. I think Mother Teresa only meant the inward kind of forgiveness, but she had been bribed by a large corporation, and her message suited their non-religious agenda perfectly. Nor do I think she was unaware of this.

Other examples of forgiveness so unbalanced that it becomes dangerous to the ones doing the forgiving are the many battered women’s shelters in our country. A majority of the battered women return to the men who beat them – probably not for the first time, nor for the last. This license to abuse seems granted only to husbands, not wives, as St. Paul taught the early Christians that men are made in the image of God, while women are made in the image of men. (As ridiculous as this sounds, it comes from a literal reading of one of the two creation stories in Genesis, where the male God first created the male – in his image – then created the female to be like the male, as his helpmate.) Once again, these are the ethics of deference to a powerful male tribal chief. The biblical God’s birth story has colored almost all the ethics of Western religion.

My dictionary offers two definitions of forgiveness that might be helpful ways to understand it. American Heritage Dictionary (1969) defines forgiveness:

1. To excuse for a fault or offense; to pardon.

2. To renounce anger or resentment against [someone].

The first definition is forgiveness that goes outward, pardoning someone for their behavior. The second goes inward, releasing their psychological hold on you so you can move on. Ideally, both kinds are possible. But they often aren’t.

The first kind of forgiveness is only safe if the other person is in a mutually respectful relationship with you. If an abuser can’t or won’t come into respectful relationship, it’s unwise and probably unsafe to forgive them, because it won’t be much more than permission for them to do it again, as tens of thousands of battered women have discovered the hard way.

There has to be a social contract in order to forgive someone for bad behavior against you. Then it’s a restorative kind of forgiveness, meant to restore a good relationship. There is a Proverb from the Hebrew scriptures that shows how important the social contract is. It’s one of my favorite Proverbs from the Bible – and on the surface, one of the strangest.

Proverbs 25:21-22 – “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; so you will heap glowing coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.” Now there is something weirdly delicious about this image of being kind to those who have abused you because it dumps hot coals on their head as God applauds, but the real meaning is less bizarre. A note says that these “hot coals” really mean deep shame and remorse. So acting in a forgiving way will shame them back into behaving well. This is restorative forgiveness, meant to restore a respectful and healthy social contract. If they can’t or won’t feel shame, however, forgiving them will only give them permission to abuse you again, because you’re an easy mark.

Without the mutual relationship, the first kind of forgiveness can’t be done. Sometimes, people just aren’t capable of or interested in a mutual relationship. But sometimes, they’re dead or gone, and you have to move on because you can never restore the relationship with them, and so have to settle for resolving it within yourself. Then it’s more of a rejuvenative forgiveness, meant to rejuvenate your spirit, to reconnect you with your life force and your sense of optimism and hope.

I have a story about this that I’ve told before, but is worth telling again. About fifteen years ago, I was the Theme Speaker at a Unitarian summer camp in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. There were about five hundred adults there for the week, and while I didn’t know any of them, I conducted the worship services every morning, so everyone sort of knew who I was, and would come up to talk, or to confess something, during the week. The most memorable was a woman who asked me, after lunch, whether she could talk to me about something very painful and awful she was going through. We sat on a bench under a tree outside, and she told me about what sounded like an absolutely horrible divorce she had been through. It was so painful, it hurt to listen to it. It was like a wound still completely raw. I felt very sorry for her. “When did this happen?” I asked. She looked at me sadly, and said, “Ten years ago.”

Ten years ago, and she was still bleeding from it! Of course, I don’t know any of the facts of the story for sure. Maybe he’s a jerk, maybe he just fell out of love with her, maybe it wasn’t as good a marriage as she thought, maybe she didn’t even notice whether he was happy, maybe she was the jerk. I don’t know. But it really didn’t matter any more. There can be no restorative forgiveness, because the relationship can’t be restored. The only kind of forgiveness she can hope for is the second kind, where she lets go of the hurt and the hate, and moves on with her life. She had a dream for her marriage, and it didn’t come true. Not all dreams come true, but all dreamers deserve the chance to dream again, and they can’t do it if they’re wrapped up in hate and hurt.

This kind of rejuvenating forgiveness, which we do not for others but for ourselves, is a decision to let go of resentments and thoughts of revenge, and to move ahead with our life.

This internal forgiveness takes away the power the other person continues to wield in your life, where your pain and anger have possessed you like demons. Through forgiveness, you choose to no longer define yourself as their victim. Rejuvenating forgiveness is done for yourself, not the person who you think wronged you.

It’s this second meaning that has the most religious and psychological power. The first, the restorative forgiveness, can be powerful within a relationship of trust and respect. Without that trust and respect, it just frees the person to do it again; it rewards abusive and selfish behavior. The second can be powerful within our own psyche, by cutting loose the hold that anger, resentment and hatred can have on our hearts. Be careful confusing the two categories of forgiveness. People don’t have a right to demand forgiveness: that’s a gift only we can give, and we shouldn’t give it if it will be likely to hurt us or be understood as a sanction for abusive behavior.

You don’t have to forgive the person – the person may be long dead. But (like the woman divorced ten years earlier) the anger lives on as though it had happened yesterday, keeping your heart from even being open again, let alone loving again. You can’t dream again when you’re possessed by the demons of hurt and hate. You’re trapped, not your partner or parent. Do yourself the favor, not them.

You can forgive within yourself what you would still hold the abuser responsible for. That inward forgiveness does not necessarily mean you want to be around the person again. It means you relinquish the hold that anger and hatred have on your own heart, so you can move on and dream again.

It seems important to say over again that restorative forgiveness only works within a relationship of mutual respect and trust. Otherwise, it’s enabling the worst behavior in another, and rewarding it. And there must be transparency. A mate who cheats in secret, then tries to rationalize it by demanding his/her privacy is not to be trusted. No one is safe in that relationship. Without honesty and transparency, there will be neither respect nor safety.

Now I want to go back to an earlier point, left over from that version of the Prodigal Son story with a mother rather than a father. It almost sounds like it’s the mother’s job to forgive, while we don’t really expect it from the father. This could sound like it’s the mother’s job, or women’s jobs, to teach men how to forgive – and I don’t want to say that, especially on Mother’s Day, because it’s just assigning women another job. But the other piece from the story is that if women do most of the forgiving, then where do they find forgiveness? Where do they find the understanding and forgiveness they need for their own sense of failure? – which may be that they weren’t able to accomplish a list of tasks not even Wonder Woman could manage. Maybe this is a good hint to the men and the children in their lives on this Mother’s Day. There is a woman living with you who may have been more forgiving of all of you than you’ve been. Now where is she going to find the understanding and forgiveness she needs?

And while the men and children are figuring out just how and where they might be more understanding, a final word to the mothers. If you are good at forgiving, don’t forget to forgive yourselves.

Just like justice needs an element of humanity in order to be a safe thing, so does forgiveness need a sense of justice to be a safe thing.

Let us try to balance a rich sense of justice and an empowering kind of forgiveness, as though the quality of life both within and among us were shaped by them – because they are.

The Rapture in America- Reverend Meg Barnhouse

Meg Barnhouse

May 4, 2008

 

Do we have it in our power to begin the world over again? If it were possible, would you want to ? Do things seem to you to be worse than ever, straining painfully toward a doomed future? Are there people you would like to see get what’s coming to them? There are a lot of people who feel this way, and to them there is strong appeal in the picture of a cataclysmic end of the world, where the good are rewarded and the evil “get theirs” and everything burns up and crumbles, leaving a cleansed planet where a good world can finally begin.

There have been people writing down their visions of the end of the world since ancient days. The Egyptians have their Apocalyptic literature (apocalyptic means “the revealing of hidden things), the Akkadians, and the Jews. In the Hebrew Bible, the books of Ezekiel and Daniel are the ones that speak of the end of time.

[Daniel 2: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. A great image, frightening and bright. Head of gold, arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. A stone was cut by no human hand, struck the image, and it all broke into pieces, and the wind blew the pieces away. The stone became a great mountain and filled the earth. Daniel interpreted it as the rise of successive kingdoms, each inferior to the king’s. In the days of the kings of mixed iron and clay, God will establish his kingdom.

Daniel 7: Daniel dreams of four great beasts from the sea. First was like a lion, with eagle’s wings. Then its wings were plucked off and it stood like a man, and was given the mind of a man. The second beast was like a bear, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. The third was like a leopard, with four wings and a bird on its back, with four heads, and dominion was given to it. The fourth had iron teeth and devoured and stamped things to pieces. It had ten horns, and among them was a little horn.

The ancient of days took his seat on a throne and the books were opened. The son of man came and the ancient of days gave him dominion and glory.

Daniel was told that the fourth beast was a great kingdom that would rule the earth, and ten kings will arise, and after them a king who will put down three kings, and speak against the most high, and will wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law… (Antichrist)

Daniel 9: Gabriel comes to Daniel and says 70 weeks of years are required to put and end to sin and bring in everlasting righteousness. From the rebuilding of Jersalem to the coming of an anointed one will be 7 weeks. Then it will be rebuilt then after 62 weeks the anointed one will be cut off, and someone will come destroy the city with a flood. …etc.

This is the flavor of the scriptures people try to interpret to tell them what is going to happen at the end of time. The writings are obviously allegorical, which means each image corresponds with a something in the writer’s external world. The interpreter of the allegory has to decide what the images mean and how they fit together.

Interpreters in every age have found things in their world that correspond with these images since they were first written, and declaring that the end was at hand. Many Jews in the time of the Romans thought they were living in the end-times. Certainly the writers of the New Testament, having just witnessed the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE thought they were going to see the end soon. The book of the Revelation of John, the book that ends the New Testament, seems obviously to be talking about the Roman Empire, where the Caesars claimed Divinity, and where the persecution of Christians was beginning as he was writing.

The world didn’t end during the Roman Empire, though, and there was no more country called of Israel about which so many of the prophecies spoke. That didn’t stop people who wanted to believe they were living in the last days, though. Martin Luther, in the 1500’s, interpreted all the scriptures to support his belief that he was in the last generation on earth. Sir Isaac Newton, after he discovered gravity, spent most of the rest of his career puzzling out the dates and sequences of the events at the end of time, poring over Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and writing reams about what the nations could expect. Some critics commented dryly that as a Bible scholar, he was a pretty good scientist.

When the Europeans discovered North America, they called it the “New World”; it fired their imaginations and many crossed the ocean to start their world over again. Some came because they were convinced that they could make a perfect Christian society if they could just start everything from scratch. Believing that God was on their side, they braved tremendous hardships. Believing God was on their side, they eventually forced the land’s inhabitants onto reservations. America became the New Israel, the land of people who believed they were God’s new chosen nation. That belief has remained at the core of American self-image. That is just one of the ways in which prophecy belief has had a tremendous impact on US domestic and foreign policy. I want to mention just two areas: our relationship with Israel and our nuclear policy.

Prophecy belief gained momentum with the re-founding of the state of Israel. Finally one piece of the puzzle did not have to be interpreted allegorically any more! Also, seeing America as the shining New Israel was getting harder by 1948, so it was good to have the real Israel back.

The founding of Israel was helped in powerful ways by the prophecy beliefs of policy makers. In Great Britain, Lord Anthony Copper, Earl of Shaftesbury, argued in 1839 that the Jews must be returned to Palestine before the Second Coming. Through his influence, the British opened a consulate in Jerusalem. The consul, a devout evangelical, was instructed to look out for the interests of the 10,000 Jews living there under Ottoman rule. Many Christians are taught that the Jews are God’s Chosen people, and that whoever helps the Jews will be looked on by God with favor, and whoever hurts the Jews will be punished.

Bible believers saw Palestine as granted to Israel by God, and looked to the reconstitution of the nation of Israel as a necessary event to bring Christ back.

In 1891, 400 business and religious leaders signed a letter urging President Harrison to support establishment of Jewish homeland in Palestine.

When the nation of Israel was established in 1948, one Bible teacher out of LA said this was the most significant event since the birth of Christ. Many were disappointed by the secularism and even Marxism of the Zionists, but managed to be happy for them anyway.

Evangelical tour groups come through filled with folks who believe Israel is the only nation to have its history written in advance…

In the NT book of Matthew 24, Jesus is quoted as saying: “Now learn a parable of the fig tree: when his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh;

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say to you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things shall be fulfilled.” Many interpreters said the establishment of Israel was the leafing of the fig tree. They figured a generation as 40 years, so 1948=40=1988…or the fig tree’s “budding” in 1967 when they took the old city, that makes 2007. Take away the seven prophesied years of terrible tribulation (the time when plagues, wars and cruelty will ravish the earth)and you get the “rapture” where all the Christians are taken up into heaven before the real bad stuff starts–in 2000! Do you remember all of the hype about planes falling out of the sky? People were stockpiling water. It passed, as do all the prophesied dates, with just a murmur.

When I was living in Jerusalem I used to travel sometimes alone and attach myself to tour groups, where I would hear preachers say things like “if we need our return tickets…”

It is in our nuclear policy, though that the prophecy beliefs have exerted a frightening influence. (read 2 Peter 3:10) Until the creation of the atomic bomb, the “burning day” of II Peter 3:10 and the terrifying astronomical events woven through the three short chapters of Joel (O Lord, to thee will I cry; for the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field…the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.) Also evocative is Zechariah’s description of the people’s flesh consuming away while they stand on their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.. ..typically were interpreted in terms of natural disaster: The earth’s core exploding or earthquakes, fires, etc. Since 1945 technology has caught up with scripture in that now there is something that actually could catch the heavens on fire.

A country music hit in 1945 “Atomic Power” by Fred Kirby talked about brimstone falling from heaven, and atomic energy as given by the mighty hand of God.

Even Truman, in his diary, mused that the A-bomb may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates valley era after Noah and his ark.

My fundamentalist grandfather Donald Grey Barnhouse suggested in one of his books that when Zechariah asked “Who has despised the day of small things?” that he was alluding to nuclear fission. He felt that NYC was Babylon, whose obliteration “in one hour” was foretold in Rev. Not to worry, because believers will be in heaven the next second after the bombs fall.

Prophecy writers dismissed efforts to ban nuclear weapons, or to improve relations between countries. The unity of governments was a sign of the coming of the anti-Christ. World government increases the potential for world tyranny.

People who think they are going to heaven the very second after the bombs fall aren’t interested in preventing such a thing from happening. They say things about the state of the world like: “The only way out is up.” Jerry Falwell taught that nuclear war would make room for the new heaven and the new earth. Pat Robertson said, “I guarantee you that by 1982 there will be a judgment on the world.” He predicted the ultimate holocaust, the world in flames. When he ran for President he backed off the doomsday stuff a little.

If preachers believe nuclear war is prophesied in the Bible, that’s one thing, but we have government officials who believe that too. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, in 1982, when asked about the end of time replied ” I have read the book of Rev. and yes, I believe the world is going to end–by an act of God I hope–but every day I think that time is running out.”

Reagan?s Interior secretary James Watt, when asked about preserving the environment for future generations said “I do not know how many generations we can count on before the Lord returns.”

In the 80s, Regan’s interest in prophecy alarmed some. In 1971, then Governor Reagan spoke to a group at a dinner in Sacramento after a leftist coup in Libya (One of the nations mentioned in Ezekiel as invading Israel) “That’s a sign that Armageddon isn’t far off… Everything is falling into place. It can’t be long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained down on the enemies of God’s people. That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons.” In 1983 Reagan told a lobbyist for Israel: You know, I am turning back to your ancient prophets in the OT and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we’re the generation that’s going to see that come about. I don’t know if you’ve noted any of those prophecies lately, but believe me, they certainly describe the times we’re going through.”

Our current President, that young man from CT who tries to claim to be a Texan is in this same stream of thought, as are many of the folks in the administration. Who cares if Armageddon comes? The good stuff comes next!

If you think it is futile to try to prevent nuclear war, you lose your energy to do that. Why spend energy on peace activism if it is doomed to failure? If you subscribe to the idea that nuclear competition among nations is part of God’s plan for the world; if you believe that prophecy must be fulfilled in order to bring about the return of Christ; if you believe God is in control, and he is going to use nuclear war to end all things, who are you argue with that?

Now let me talk about “The Beast” sometimes the same as The Anti-Christ, sometimes different. The Beast is a character who controls the economy, who keeps the good guys from getting the food they need, and forces them into terrible hardships. There is a sense among prophecy writers that society has become depersonalized, centralized, and that individual autonomy is doomed. The more centralized government becomes, the easier it would be to take over.

Every bit of evidence that power is being centralized, that automation is replacing human involvement, that governments are merging or currency is becoming alike is seen as a sign of the end time. The debit card is one step away from having your own bar code tattooed on your hand that will be how you pay for everything. Those who don’t conform or obey will not be able to get one. When I was in Jerusalem people were saying there was a new computer in Brussels for the Common Market that could control world currency. They said “They call it—The Beast”

The UN (p.264) is bad. Peter catches 153 fish in the gospel of John, which was in 1979 the membership of the UN minus Israel. To some writers, that signifies the UN’s destruction.

There is a sense of a “web of intrigue” linking the world’s most powerful families. In this way the prophecy buffs are parallel to the New Angers.

The space program was dangerous because it might encourage people to think in terms of “one world”, making it easier for Antichrist to rule over it all.

Computers now link the world, making world domination technologically possible. All talk of oneness, global consciousness is dangerous.

666 is from Rev 13:16-18. quote p. 281

Do these beliefs make believers unwilling to become involved in the world? “We have maintenance crews to maintain our buildings even though we know they won’t last forever.” Hal Lindsay said “I came here to fish, not to clean the fishbowl.” Now fundamentalists are getting more involved in politics. That’s good. Now sometimes they espouse “Dominion” theology, a version of postmillennialist theology. Make it happen here.

What is the appeal of all of this? It feels good to know that there is a symmetry, rationale, harmony coherence and overarching meaning to history. People feel they can understand what is going on. Maybe there are other reasons for the enduring appeal of thought about the End. Maybe it’s like the Flannery O’Connor story called “The Misfit,: where a family runs their car into a ditch, and an escaped bad guy comes along with a couple of henchmen. The family’s grandmother, who up until this point in the story, has been a self-righteous complaining harridan, says the thing to the Misfit that is the last straw, and he holds his gun at her head. As she realizes he is about to kill her, she is transformed in some way, reaches a hand to touch his face, and says “Why, you could have been one of my children.” He shoots her. At the end he turns to one of his men and says “She could’ve been a pretty nice lady if she’d had someone to shoot her every day of her life.” Maybe it’s easier for people to be kind and good if they think it’s not for very long, and that their enemies will get what’s coming to them soon. If you believe the world is going to go on and on and on, your priorities are quite different from what they would be if things were going to be over in a week. I think it is a profitable spiritual exercise to try it on both ways, to ask yourself what you would want to do if it were all going to be over in the year 2010, who you would spend time with, what things you would say. Then imagine it’s going to go on forever, and see what seems important then. Each perspective has its own insights to uncover.