Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

16 November 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button below.

STORY: The Prince Who Was a Chicken

Once there was a kingdom where almost everything was perfect. The king was perfect, the queen was perfect, and the prince – who was only four years old – was being trained to be perfect. He had to become perfect, because one day he would become king.

Each day, the young prince would be brought into the great hall and dressed in a small crown, a junior-sized king’s robe, and seated in a very small but kingly throne. And for thirty minutes every day, he had to stand in front of a full-length mirror, looking at himself dressed up like a little king, and say over and over again “I am the king, I am the king, I am the king.”

It was a pretty silly thing to make a four-year-old prince do. And it didn’t get any less silly when he was five, six, seven, or ten. Every time he grew a little, they would increase the size of his crown, his kingly robes, and his throne. And every day, for more days than he could or wanted to count, he stood in front of that mirror, dressed up in his crown and robe, saying “I am the king, I am the king, I am the king.”

It went on for so many years! Then one day, when the prince was about sixteen, he did a very odd thing. Coming into the great hall, he didn’t walk over to the tailors waiting to fit him with today’s kingly crown and robe. Instead, he went over to the great banquet table, took off all of his clothes, and crawled under the table.

The king and queen were shocked and disturbed, to say the least! “What are you doing?” the king shouted at him. “You’re a prince, you’re going to be a king. What are you doing? Put your clothes on and sit at the table for dinner!”

The prince looked at his father with kingly confidence, and said, “I am a chicken. Chickens don’t need clothes. And chickens don’t eat from plates.”

Never in the history of the kingdom had such a ridiculous thing been heard. “You are not a chicken!” the king yelled. “You’re a prince and a future king!”

“No,” said the prince from under the table, “I am a chicken. And I am hungry. I want food brought and thrown on the floor so I can eat.”

Well, as ridiculous as this was, the servants couldn’t let the young prince starve. So they brought his food and put it on the floor, and he began pecking at it, much like a chicken might.

The king and queen were nearly crazy with this idea that their son was going to be a chicken. They sent for experts in “strange and terrible diseases infecting the minds of young princes,” and several showed up. But they got nowhere. To every assertion to the contrary, the young prince would calmly reply “I am a chicken.” And he would peck at his food on the floor, and that would be the end of it.

One day an old farmwoman came to the king, and told him she could cure his son. The king laughed: “You’re not an expert! You’re just an old farmwoman. Do you know anything about the mental demons that have invaded his mind?” She allowed as how she did not know of any such things. “Then why do you think you can help him?”

“Because,” the old farm woman said calmly, “I understand chickens.” Well, the queen said, they hardly had anything left to lose, so she might as well try.

She entered the great hall, took off all her clothes, crept under the table, and sat down next to the prince. The prince said nothing. In a while, a servant entered and scattered a few handfuls of food, and when the prince began to eat, the old woman also pecked at the food. Even though the prince had been practicing this new way of eating for weeks, she was immediately better at it than he was. She really did understand chickens. They sat together in silence for some time longer. Finally the prince said to the old woman, “Who are you?”

“And you?” she replied. “Who are you?”

“I am a chicken,” said the prince.

“Ah,” said the old woman. “I am a chicken, too.”

The prince thought about this for several days. Gradually he began to talk to the old woman about the things that are important to chickens, things that are different from the things important to kings and queens. She understood as only another chicken could understand. They spoke not about the world as it is but about the world as it could be. They became friends.

After several weeks, the old woman called to one of the serving girls and told her to bring some clothes. When the clothes arrived, she dressed herself. The prince was horrified. “You have betrayed me!” he shouted. “You told me you were a chicken! You’re no chicken!”

“But I am a chicken,” she said. “I can wear clothes and still be a chicken.” The prince thought about this for some time. Then he turned to the pile of clothing and dressed himself also. They continued their conversations as before and ate their food from the floor together as before. (This eating food from the floor wasn’t as bad as it sounds. The floors in the great hall were so clean you could … well, you know.)

After a few days more, the old woman called to one of the serving girls and told her to bring a fine meal and set it on the table. When the meal arrived she crawled out from under the table and, sitting in a chair, began to eat. The prince was appalled. “You have lied to me!” he shouted. “You told me you were a chicken!” “But I am a chicken,” said the old woman. “I can sit at a table and eat from a plate and still be a chicken.” The prince thought about this for some time. Then he, too, crawled out from under the table and joined the old woman. They ate in silence for some time. Then the prince began to laugh.

The prince went on to become a wonderful king. Under his rule, freedom grew in the kingdom much the way that peaches and potatoes had grown in the past. Each person became free to be the person that they were meant to be, and the people who had once been productive and happy became wise.

And all over the kingdom, wherever he went, the people said to him “You are the best king ever!” And so he seemed to be.

But you know, there were stories…. Some people said – though not where anyone from the castle could hear them, of course – that sometimes, on bright moonlit nights, they swore they saw someone who looked a lot like their king, running naked through the fields and shouting “But really … I am a chicken!”

(Adapted from a story told by Rachel Naomi Remen in My Grandfather’s Blessings, pp. 285-287.)

PRAYER

We gather here as faithful people seeking truth that can make us free, love that can bind us together, and spiritual nourishment to sustain us during our journey.

We lose our way so easily.

We stumble over the difference between the transient and the permanent, the illusory and the real.

We accept roles, which enslave us rather than empowering us.

We need truth, yet are too often seduced by habit and convention.

We seek warmth, acceptance, and love – how many times we settle for so much less!

Life is so short, so precious, those we love and those who love us seem to pass so quickly.

We would clarify our thinking, educate our wanting, and harmonize the yearnings of our mind with the longings of our soul. This is the miracle we seek.

We confess our imperfections, our failings, our sins of commission and of omission, and seek the saving truth: the truth that in spite of our human failings, we are children of God, children of the universe, and the world is more blessed because we are in it. If we can live out of that simple but abiding truth, other saving graces will be revealed to us as well. This we believe; this we know.

Amen.

SERMON: How to be a Chicken

This begins, as so much begins, with a story. Years ago, I was a combat photographer and Press Officer with the Army in Vietnam. Besides covering the war, I usually spent a couple days a week in Saigon, making the rounds of war correspondents: the Associated Press, UPI, LIFE Magazine and so on, trying to get them interested in doing some feature stories on my unit. As a result, I knew Saigon fairly well, including some of its fine French and Chinese restaurants, and whenever I came in from the field, I usually visited one.

You could tell what the restaurant owners thought of Americans just by looking at their menu. If they weren’t interested in attracting Americans, they wouldn’t print the menu in English. On this particular trip into Saigon, I visited a new French restaurant called Le Cave. It was pretty ritzy, but the menu was printed only in French, which was like posting a sign saying, “Chinese and Americans stay out!”

I went anyway. Since I couldn’t read French, the menu was a challenge. The food was supposed to be good – it was very pricey – but I had no idea what the food actually was. I recognized a couple famous words, like Chateaubriand and Pomme Fritz, but not enough to make a meal. Finally, I decided to order one item from each section of the menu, thinking they’d probably fit together into some kind of a gourmet meal. As I picked a salad, soup, an entree, a side dish and a dessert, I looked for famous words, thinking if I recognized the word – even if I didn’t know what it meant – the food would probably be great.

This made the whole dinner kind of an adventure. The waiter brought out the salad I had ordered. I didn’t know what it was, but I liked it.

Then they brought the soup. I ate one spoonful, and couldn’t believe it! I waved for the waiter, and pointed to the bowl: “The soup’s cold.”

The expression on his face was a combination of shock and revulsion. “Monsieur,” he tried to explain in a polite but revolted way, “It is Vichyssoise!”

“It’s cold,” I said. “Please take it back and heat it up.”

He looked at me like I was the one who had done something weird! “But Monsieur” – it was a desperate, pathetic pleading voice now – “It is Vichyssoise!”

Now, I’d tried to be polite and all, but we’d been over this already, and I was hungry. “Look,” I said: “I understand you: it’s Vichyssoise! But it’s cold Vichyssoise! Now take it back and cook it!”

The waiter disappeared into the kitchen with my bowl of cold soup. When he returned, the soup was steaming. It was very good. Once it was properly heated up, I realized that heck, Vichyssoise is just potato-leek soup! The waiter was very quiet and polite for the rest of the meal. I figured he was probably pretty embarrassed over having served cold potato soup, so I left him a big tip to show there were no hard feelings.

Back in the field a couple weeks later, I was in the Officers’ Club having some drinks with our Colonel and his staff. We had just finished a major combat operation, and the Colonel was talking about going into Saigon for some high-level meetings – and to sneak in a couple days’ relaxation. I was telling him about the good hotels, bars and steam baths, when he took a slip of paper out of his pocket. Somebody had recommended a new French restaurant named “The Cave” to him. He had lived in France, spoke the language fluently, and wanted to know if I’d heard of this place.

What a coincidence! I told him I’d been there just two weeks ago, that I had had a great salad, French-Fries, an excellent Chateaubriand and my first Crepes Suzettes. In fact, the only complaint I’d had was that my waiter tried to serve me cold Vichyssoise. They were all very attentive, so I told them the story.

Suddenly the Officers’ Club got very quiet. My Colonel had an expression just like that waiter had had. He looked very sad. He told me he didn’t think I should be allowed to leave the base camp any more. The other Colonel asked me if I’d ever read the book The Ugly American. Then they told me that Vichyssoise is always served cold, that the French actually think it’s supposed to be eaten that way! Amazing!

I’ll admit that after my Colonel tried to give me that lesson in culture, I thought of my experience in the French restaurant somewhat differently. And I never went back to that restaurant. But I’ve never looked at that story the way my Colonel did, or that waiter.

Instead, the word “Vichyssoise” became a metaphor for me. And the story has always reminded me of how easily we get confused by the difference between matters of fact and matters of taste.

We human beings always operate out of at least two different kinds of identity, which we seem to have trouble keeping straight. We have our individual identity, that’s marked by our innovations, our differences from others. Those are the things that make us “chickens,” like the prince in the story. And we have our group identities, our regional, national, or religious character. And these group identities are defined not by our innovation but by our imitation, by how faithfully we adopt the customs and tastes of others, whether they make sense to us or not.

It’s not that group tastes and identities are senseless. It’s just that they are arbitrary. They’re matters of taste, not matters of truth. They’re matters of fashion, not matters of fact. And that’s a distinction we have always had a hard time making.

Whether you like your potato-leek soup hot or cold is an issue of food preferences, not right and wrong. It’s your soup; you can eat it any way you like. If you want it cold, go to a French Restaurant. If you want it hot, order it that way. The French aren’t being more correct by serving their potato soup cold; they’re just being more French.

Once you start looking at things like this – like a chicken – everything looks different.

For instance, Protestants aren’t more correct by rejecting Catholic sacraments and authority – that just makes them Protestants. Catholics aren’t more “true” by rejecting Protestantism, Buddhism and other religions; that’s just what defines them as Catholics. The same is true of Democrats, Republicans, and all other religious, political and social identities. Their list of certainties and prohibitions identify the terms of membership in their club, their group identity. That’s all. This isn’t about Truth; it’s about convention. And one of the most important tasks of religion is to help us tell the difference between Truth and Vichyssoise.

I want to try and persuade you to think of this word Vichyssoise as a metaphor for matters of personal taste that pretend to be matters of truth. It’s a good word, it has a funny sound, and I want to make that funny sound memorable for you this morning.

So to help expand the meaning of this word, I have brought you a couple Vichyssoise stories that don’t involve food.

My favorite example of Vichyssoise in religion comes from a tract in the form of an election ballot printed by the Moody Bible Institute in the 1920s. At the top of the ballot is the question “Will You Be Saved?” Then it says “God has voted YES; Satan has voted NO – A Tie! Your vote must decide the issue.” And below there is a place for you to make your X with God or the Devil. Now this may sound a little silly, and the ballot looked even sillier, but it’s the basic recipe for Vichyssoise, because the “Yes” meant you had to affirm their particular way of cooking religion. (Data taken from George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, p. 100.)

A second bowl of Vichyssoise is a musical example. Some of you may know of Wanda Landowska, who was a brilliant and very opinionated harpsichordist whose favorite composer was Bach. Once another musician quarreled with her interpretation of Bach and argued that there were, after all, many possible interpretations of the master. Wanda’s response could have come from a Moody Bible Institute tract: “You play the music your way,” she snapped, “and I’ll play it Bach’s way!”

That’s Vichyssoise!

Since there are dozens of different recordings of the master, Bach-lovers can usually find someone who plays it their way, and so Wanda Landowska’s fundamentalism just added some sparkle to her character, without doing much harm. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes the authoritative suppression of divergent views has important and far-reaching consequences. Rules, laws, religions are to enhance life, not enslave it. When we forget that, we’re serving Vichyssoise.

Nearly every major religious figure in history has made their name by saying that what their listeners had been taught as God’s word was not necessarily sacred after all. They were chickens, and the greatest of them helped turn others into chickens, too. Jesus ate and worked on the Sabbath, the holy day of his people. We weren’t made to serve the Sabbath, he said; the Sabbath is made for us to use. And all the teachings to the contrary — which they held sacred — were just arbitrary teachings without authority. He would say “You’ve been taught such-and-such, but I say unto you…” and then dismiss their teachings as Vichyssoise.

You could say that Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation in 1517 by saying that the Catholic Church was serving its own recipes, which no Christian really had to swallow. When the Unitarians began a couple decades later, they rejected two-thirds of the Trinity as bad food.

I would say that religion is about learning to tell the difference between Vichyssoise and Truth, between customs and wisdom.

Betty Skwarek, our Director of Religious Education, and I recently finished an eight-week adult education course on religion. As part of it, we talked about the fact that some sociologists of religion have studied the way in which we fool ourselves into thinking that opinions are facts. It’s part of the way that we “create reality.” (One of the classic books here is named The Social Construction of Reality, by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.) It’s the recipe for making Vichyssoise, and it’s pretty simple. It has just three steps, but the whole scheme depends on your forgetting the first step:

1. Somebody comes up with an idea: God, women’s roles, acceptable sexual orientations, the requirements of patriotism, the right way to believe, cold potato soup, and so on. Somebody has an idea; that’s where it starts. “The word of God” doesn’t begin when some chap sits down with a regal, glowing fellow named God and takes notes. It begins when a poet, a prophet, or a demagogue has an idea that something feels so important that it is, they’re sure, just the sort of thing God would say if God could talk. So they write the words “Thus saith the Lord,” and it begins with their idea.

2. The second step is that this idea gets projected out onto a really powerful word or symbol, like God, Nature, America, Justice or Love. Then we forget the human origin of the idea, and we are told that God said this, or it’s a law of Nature, or part of being a True American, or that Justice or Love demand this – or because potato soup is always served cold, as though the idea really had an authority from some other realm.

3. Then, since the idea comes from God, Nature or Tradition, we feel that we and others must obey it, so that it will be “on earth as it is in heaven.”

That means that all such absolute rules present us with a dilemma. If we forget the first step and pretend that the rule really came from God, Nature, etc., we lose our creative role in the process, and the rule begins to enslave us rather than enrich us. Then we’re conformed not confirmed. Our soul and our mind are relinquished, not replenished, because somebody has served us Vichyssoise and passed it off as Truth. On the other hand, if we acknowledge that this rule, like all rules, had its origin in someone’s idea, someone’s personal opinion, then the whole idea of a “transcendent authority” vanishes. The idea of “God” vanishes, because Toto has pulled the curtain back, showing that God was, after all, a projection of the dreams, ideas, beliefs and fears of ordinary people. (This three-part process of “creating truths” comes from Peter Berger’s classic little book The Sacred Canopy. It was an elaboration of the theme that Berger and Thomas Luckmann had developed earlier in the even more classic The Social Construction of Reality. I think both books are necessary parts of any adequate education in religion, politics or science.)

Do you see how tricky, this is? And we’re not just the victims in this very human game. We’ve all served up our own kind of cold soup to others. It isn’t evil. It isn’t something deranged or malevolent. We do it with the very best of intentions. We learn our lessons of life, we collect what we take to be wisdom, and naturally we want to help others learn it. If our life became centered only after we had found Christ, we’ll tend to think that everybody’s life would be more centered if they could discover Christ as we have. If we finally found our sense of integrity only after dumping all kinds of mythic religion and putting our faith in science and rationality, we will probably be pretty sure that everybody else will be better off jettisoning their religion and becoming rational as we have.

It is such a hard lesson! We mean so well, we want so much for others to have a better life, to believe the kinds of things we know to be best. It’s so hard really to believe that life grows beyond even our grasp, that possibilities exist that we are unable even to imagine, that even those people we hate are worthy of love, that even those who disagree with us may well be right. It’s so easy to lose patience with those who can’t find our path, who can’t see what we see so clearly.

And so we stifle them. And so they stifle us.

How many times have you wanted someone just to let you be, to love or accept you even when you had to grow away from them? How often have we all felt alone and distraught because someone stood in judgment over us, and rejected us; because someone was sure there must be a command of God, a law of nature or an official recipe to prevent us from doing and being what we knew we must do and must be? How many times have we played God, and how many times have we had it played against us? And what an awful game it is, playing God! We believe it, so it must be true. And since it’s true, others must need to believe it too. That’s the recipe for Vichyssoise. And when you’re being served Vichyssoise that’s being passed off as truth, it’s time to think about becoming a chicken.

This isn’t to suggest that nothing is true, or that religion is just a matter of personal taste. Some things are, I believe, abidingly true, and necessary to live with hope, with integrity and authenticity. You recognize them when you hear them. Here are just a few things I would argue are really Truth, not convention:

We are all precious and sacred people, with a special gift we need to discover, cultivate, and offer to the world. And what is true of us is equally true of all others, too: including those we don’t like.

There is a peace that passes all understanding, even ours, and we need to leave room for it to enter our lives.

We are not perfect, and need to attend to our imperfections. But we are not condemned by our imperfections. They are part of being human. We are not called to be perfect. We’re called to be alive, awake, aware, and whole.

We should live in ways that open us to the mystery and miracle of life, that let us recognize all others as our brothers and sisters, and that try to make a positive difference in our world, each in our own way.

I think all these things are true. They are true whether we believe them or not. Our lives and our world are enhanced when we incorporate this wisdom in our lives. And the quality of our lives and our world is diminished to the extent that we can not live in obedience to the kind of wisdom embodied in such simple insights as these.

But not everything passed on to us in an authoritative voice is bread for the soul, truth for the mind, or health for the spirit.

When someone says you must accept Christ or God or Allah or you are damned, that is not true.

When you hear that certain types of people are second-class citizens, not qualified to be priests – or bishops – you have not heard the truth.

When you hear any message that judges and sorts people on the basis of their sex, race, sexual orientation, their beliefs, political affiliations, education, or wealth, when you hear anyone from anywhere restricting life to those who look, act or believe just the way they do, you have not been served a truth that can sustain life or cherish its precious mystery and variety.

That’s not truth. That’s Vichyssoise. Vichyssoise!

It’s a good word. Say it with me: Vichyssoise!

Let’s say it again: Vichyssoise!

And one more time, with great feeling: Vichyssoise!

Hallelujah – and Amen!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

2 November 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Prayer

For this Veterans’ Day, let us remember the sacred covenant we have with our soldiers.

As they promise to risk everything, to risk even their lives, we must promise that the cause for which we send them forth is worth the sacrifice of their lives.

We are humbled by the sacrifice they offer us. But our covenant binds both ways; we must meet their courage with our own.

Let us fight for those who fight for us.

Surely, there are causes worth the ultimate sacrifice. But just as surely, they are few and far between.

We must be able to say that the motives behind their war are worth the cost of their lives and the lives of the thousands of those we tell them to kill.

And if we do not believe that, then let us haved the courage to speak, to act, to make it right before it can never be made right again.

Times that call for soldiers call, as well, for our courage. Let us never forget our part in the sacred covenant with our soldiers. Let us have the courage and the will to fight for those who fight for us. That much courage, that much will, nothing less.

Amen.

SERMON: Veterans’ Day 2003

Veterans’ Day is always hard for me to translate into a sermon. I believe the covenant between a society and its soldiers is one of the most sacred covenants in the world. Soldiers do their part by being willing to serve, to fight, perhaps to die. Our part is to assure them that the reasons for going to war are worth the sacrifice of their lives, are worth robbing these young soldiers of the chance to marry, raise children, and grow old, illuminated by the glowing embers of a full life, well lived.

As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I know that soldiers carry more than just their weapons into combat. They also carry the political baggage of their war. If you can be in a Good War – and WWII is the only one we’ve had that is still considered a Good War – then soldiers carry the respect of their country and the approval of history. But if your turn comes up in a bad war, or a war fought for selfish or stupid reasons, then you carry that on your back, forever. Sometimes, the load seems to get heavier every day, as those who served in Vietnam during the early 1970s learned.

So, 36 years after my war, I can’t look at today’s soldiers without wondering what they are carrying on their backs as they go into their war. And you don’t have to be psychic to know that our soldiers in Iraq have a load on their backs. We’re already starting to see headlines like those that came mostly at the end of the Vietnam War. Here are just a few of the headlines from stories I’ve seen this week:

A Fiction Shattered by America’s Aggression

Assassinations Surge in Iraq

Rebel War Spirals Out of Control As U.S. Intelligence Loses the Plot

As Casualties Mount, Doubts Grow

18 Americans Dead, 21 Wounded, a Deadly Day in Iraq

How Many Body Bags?

When Will Bush Address Mounting Casualties?

Judge is Shot Dead as Iraqis’ Hatred of Occupiers Grows

Rage Erupts over Iraq War Profiteering

A High Price for a Hollow Victory

White House Ignored Iraqi Bid to Avert War

And yesterday (8 Nov 03), while I was attending a district meeting in San Antonio, military Families from across the state held a press conference in San Antonio demanding an end to the US Occupation of Iraq and the immediate return of all troops to their home duty stations. These families represented soldiers from all four of the military bases in Texas. And again, it’s very early in the war for this level of outrage and accusation to be surfacing.

You wonder how we got into this mess, and I think of the old story about how to cook a frog. If you drop a frog into hot water, it will devote all its effort to jumping out. But if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and gradually raise the heat, the frog doesn’t notice until it’s too late and it’s cooked. Mind you, I haven’t actually tried this with a live frog, I just trust the old story. And if you have tried this with a frog, I don’t want to know about it!

Oh, I can hear conservatives saying “There go those liberals again, always criticizing, never trusting their leaders. They’re not good Americans. Good Americans follow their leader and support the troops and the war.”

Here’s a quote I just read this week that seems to endorse this view, a quote from a fairly surprising source:

“The job of the President is to set the agenda and the job of the press is to follow the agenda that the leadership sets.” –

Those words are from Lawrence Grossman – longtime head of PBS and NBC News. When the head of NBC News believes the job of the press is to follow the leader rather than informing those who are being led, it’s easy to feel that these darned liberals are just out of touch.

But then I remember another quotation, which you have probably heard at least part of. It’s much older,

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.) as quoted in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations

These two quotations seem to represent the options we find offered to us: conservatives preaching obedience, liberals preaching vigilance and critical inquiries into the motives of those who are now leading our country. These options are framed as though they were merely partisan political choices, where there are no truths beyond our individual opinions. Republicans are supposed to embrace obedience while Democrats try and awaken a country falling asleep in hot water.

But it isn’t that simple, now or ever. The families who protested in San Antonio yesterday came from both political parties, from conservative and liberal religions or no religions. They are among the voices saying that this is not about partisan politics. This is about the fate of America, and the dangers that are beginning to surround us.

I am one of those who believe we are being dangerously and unwisely misled, but I will no longer accept it as a partisan statement. It is a patriotic statement, the kind that must be made by all who realize that liberty is always given to us on the condition of eternal vigilance, that failing to be vigilant is failing to be patriotic, and that we have a sacred covenant with our soldiers.

I want to borrow some comments from two news articles and mix them with my own, to try and show you why some people fear that we are violating our sacred covenant with our soldiers, and with ourselves as Americans.

First, I want to provide a kind of historical background by sharing parts of an essay written by Thomas Hartman on March 23, 2003, on “When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History.” These are the kind of historical parallels that some feel are unwarranted and rude. I feel they are honest, and timely – part of the eternal vigilance we owe ourselves and our great country. Reflecting on economic crises, terrorists and wars, Hartman says:

“It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings. The media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed.

“But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language – reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state – and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he’d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

“When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he … called a press conference.

“He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

“Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if they thought the case might involve terrorism.

“Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland.”

“His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” – God Is With Us – and most of them fervently believed it was true.

“Soon, he proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland…

“To consolidate his power, he reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation’s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the terrorists, and to prepare for wars overseas. … He built powerful alliances with industry…

“He then began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe – at first – denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar’s Rome or Alexander’s Greece.

The story, of course, is about Hitler and the rise of Nazi power seventy years ago. It looks to this writer, to me, and to many others like we are resolutely following the course that Hitler’s Third Reich followed in our ambition to establish an American empire – the German word for empire is “Reich.”

None of this is new information. The seeds were planted in essays going back to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, when some neoconservatives argued that it was time for America to gain immediate military and economic domination of the world: the Fourth Reich, if you like. Nor were they mincing their words. One 1989 essay by Charles Krauthammer was titled “Universal Dominion: Toward a Unipolar World” (National Interest 18 (Winter 1989), 48-49; Krauthammer, “The Unipolar Moment,” Foreign Affairs 70 (1991), 23.)

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document, in which he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure “access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil” and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

He called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when “collective action cannot be orchestrated.” The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document was leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. The first President Bush rejected these extreme ideas of Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense in 1992. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.

That strategy follows the ideas in an earlier paper from September 2000 published by a group of called “Project for the New American Century.” The paper, called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” was the product of twenty-seven neoconservatives including Wolfowitz and Cheney. The report was called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” and was a product of the Project for the New American Century. Six of the key authors of that report now hold high positions in the Bush administration. Others, like Donald Kagen and Richard Perle, hold influential positions as unofficial advisors.

The 2000 paper on “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” directly acknowledges its debt to the 1992 document written by Wolfowitz.

If you believe these plans for an American empire of military domination of the world are the primary mission of the Bush administration, as many people do, then everything going on makes a new kind of sense where all the pieces seem to fit together.

(The following ideas taken from article by Jay Bookman for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9-29-02, titled “The president’s real goal in Iraq”.)

It means “this war [in Iraq] marks the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire…. Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

“Because we won’t be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

“And why did the administration dismiss the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. … The plan dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of “convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.”

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy — he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project — describes the new world order in cowboy-movie metaphors: “You saw the movie ‘High Noon’?” he asks. “We’re Gary Cooper.”

Kagan also acknowledges that we will most likely establish permanent military bases in Iraq. “We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. … When we have economic problems, it’s been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.”

Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview a few months ago that the reason we cared about Iraq but not North Korea was because Iraq was “swimming in oil.” But even in his 1992 paper he had identified Iraqi oil as a major reason for ousting Saddam Hussein and taking effective control of the country. So if people actually claim it’s wrong to accuse the administration of murdering for oil, they either have not done their homework, or are being disingenuous.

To see who the new American empire would serve, you only have to look at the changes in economy and taxes since Bush was elected. It is to be an empire rewarding the corporations and the very wealthy and, as far as possible, eliminating the middle class to create the kind of two-tiered economy that has enriched the few and impoverished the many in Mexico.

Putting Americans out of work to be replaced by cheap foreign labor isn’t only happening at Wal-Mart; it’s happening in the high-tech industries too, as many of you know first-hand.

Corporations such as Cigna, General Electric and Merrill Lynch are already using a loophole called the L-1 Visa to import low-wage technology workers from India to replace their American employees, and have already brought some 325,000 computer ingineers, programmers, and other high-tech employees from abroad, mostly from India. (Jim Hightower, “A Loophole for Busting High-tech Wages,” September 23, 2003)

This is a full-scale drive toward the military domination of the world and the subjugation of anyone and everyone who could protest. That’s why civil rights are being curtailed as part of the “security for the Homeland.” It is also why it is likely that repressive forms of religion will gain both power and influence.

Here’s one more quotation from another important neoconservative named Richard Perle, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, and is in another influential role with this administration, in case it seems like I’m overstating things:

“This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq, then we take a look around and see how things stand. This is entirely the wrong way to go about it… If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” (Go here for one source of this quote.)

These are the battles our soldiers are being used to fight. They are battles for a concept of empire so similar to the vision of Hitler’s Nazi party of sixty years ago that it’s hard to consider the similarities accidental. This is the ideology our soldiers are carrying into battle with them as they fight, kill and die not for freedom or the American way, but for greed, arrogance, and a murderous lust for power that seems terrifyingly insane.

As the water heats up, it is worth considering again some lessons of history from the 1930s and 1940s. Both America and Germany were deep into economic depression.

“Germany’s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society’s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.” (Thomas Hartman)

America’s leaders and America’s soldiers fought for democracy, which means a powerful middle class and rigorous controls on the natural greed of wealthy corporations and individuals. We’re still proud of those soldiers .

Germany’s leaders and soldiers fought for an economic and military tyranny that is the mortal enemy of democracy. They looted the working class and transferred money, power and privilege to their wealthiest individuals and corporations, while restricting the rights of ordinary people to protest. No one is proud of them today.

It is time to celebrate Veterans’ Day 2003, so it is time to ask about the sacred covenant we have with our soldiers. Can we honestly tell them that the mad dreams of a few dangerous leaders are worth their sacrifices, worth their lives, let alone the lives of more than 15,000 Iraqis estimated killed?

If our motives are indeed the motives of dominating the world, then these deaths, on both sides, are not casualties of war, but murders. And the actions of our current administration are, by the definitions we used at Nuremburg, war crimes.

Our soldiers carry into battle not only their weapons and supplies, but also the weight of the cause for which we are asking them to fight and die. Can we honestly look them in the face and tell them that we have honored our part of this sacred covenant with them?

This isn’t a question for our leaders, who seem beyond caring about such matters. It’s a question for those who understand that the price of liberty is always eternal vigilance. It is a question for us, and we must pursue the question wherever it leads. Our soldiers are counting on us.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

26 October 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button below.

Prayer

Let us prepare for the unmasking.

We come here from many places.

We come seeking many things.

Some come for the company,

or at least the stimulation.

Some bring unspoken joys or pains that need the closeness of others.

But beneath it all, we come in the hope that here, somehow,

we may catch a glimpse of something enduring, something true;

something which can support and nourish us,

coax and guide us toward a better life.

We come to remove life’s masks – and our own masks, too.

Let us prepare for the unmasking.

Amen.

SERMON: Boo!

Halloween is a holiday that comes to us in drag. It wears a mask and a costume, covering a much older, costume and mask.

Uncovering Halloween is like going on an archaeological dig, where we go down through layers put down at different eras, each building on what had come before it, and each more watered-down than the earlier versions.

The most recent change came in 1967, by decree from President Johnson. That’s when Halloween officially became UNICEF day, when little children, sometimes dressed as make-believe goblins, frighten you into making the sacrifice of some spare change.

Going back farther, Halloween first became a national event here after more than a million people from Ireland emigrated to the US after the Irish potato famine of 1848. At that time it was the adults rather than the children who dressed up in costumes, pretending to be all kinds of evil spirits and other supernatural beings. They visited homes where friends made offerings of food and drink to them. And I’ve read that the costumes they used to wear were almost always cross-dressing, with men dressing as female characters and women dressing as male figures – so it was a holiday in drag. But that too was a caricature, a cartoon. Halloween itself is a kind of mask put on over something far older, more primitive, more powerful – and, perhaps, more healing.

The Christian church invented Halloween and All Saints Day in the 9th century, then added All Souls Day a century later. They were invented to “cover” an ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain (“Sow-en”), just as Christmas was moved to December 25th in the 4th century to “cover” the pagan Mithraic festivals, and Easter is a Christian “cover” over older festivals celebrating the vernal equinox. Our November first was their first day of winter, and first day of their new year.

For the ancient Celtic people, this was the most magical time of the year. They had only two seasons: summer and winter, light and dark, and their new year began at the beginning of the dark season. Their days also began at night. Our days and years also begin in the dark, but we have forgotten the reason for it. For the Celtic people the darkness was the time of beginnings because they believed the dark holds whisperings of secrets that we need to know. That’s pretty good psychology, and it’s true.

They had great feasts during the three days of Samhain. The crops were in; they slaughtered livestock and threw a big banquet. Afterwards, they threw the bones into the roaring fire, both as thanks for this year’s feast and as a kind of prayer for good crops and livestock next year. The fire was originally called a “bone-fire,” which we have shortened to the kinder, gentler name of bonfire.

Above all, Samhain was a time when the barriers between the human and supernatural worlds were broken. They believed that the whole spectrum of nonhuman forces roamed the earth to take revenge for human violations of sacred duties.

The Irish also believed this was the best time of the year for looking into the future, and they had some great rituals. Many of these involve apples, which were the sacred fruit of this season, for a couple reasons. First, Celtic mythology talked of an enchanted land over the waters where an apple tree grew in the center, with magical apples. Some old myths told of explorers taking trips over the water to find these magical apples, and some say that the Halloween practice of bobbing for apples is a distant echo of this story.

Also, if you cut an apple in half crosswise, you’ll see that its center is star-shaped, five-pointed, enclosed in a kind of circle. This symbol of the pentagram is prehistoric, with dozens of layers of meaning. It has been found in Mesopotamian artifacts of 5500 years ago. And until the Inquisition, the pentagram was a common Christian symbol, as well.

I’ll tell you a few of their old rituals, in case you’re feeling especially Celtic this week. But listen to them, to understand what they are really about, because they reveal one of the secrets of Halloween we usually don’t see:

1. Go into a dark room lit only by a candle or the moon before the stroke of midnight. Turn your back to a mirror, cut an apple into nine pieces, eat eight, and throw the 9th over your left shoulder. Then turn your head to look over your left shoulder. Let your focus go soft, and look for telling shapes/patterns that speak to your intuition. You may find subtle hints to problems that trouble you.

2. Dreaming Stones. Get three stones from a boundary stream between your thumb and middle finger. Put them under your pillow; ask for a dream that will give you guidance or a solution to a problem, and the stones will bring the dream.

3. Slice an apple through the equator to reveal the five-pointed star center. Eat it by candlelight before a mirror, and your future spouse will then appear over your shoulder.

4. Or, peel an apple, making sure the peeling comes off in one long strand, reciting,

“I pare this apple round and round again;

 My sweetheart’s name to flourish on the plain:

 I fling the unbroken paring o’er my head,

 My sweetheart’s letter on the ground to read.”

5. Or, you might set a snail to crawl through the ashes of your hearth. The considerate little creature will then spell out the initial letter as it moves.

Can you hear how these are working? They are like a psychological Rorschach test, where you can read into ambiguous patterns the sign you want to see, it’s a way of getting in touch with your unconscious desires.

So don’t think of this as what the ancients used for science; it wasn’t meant to be science. That’s the first secret of Halloween; it isn’t about another world, it’s about tapping into the depths of this one. Think of it as what the ancients used for psychology. For the meaning of all these myths and rituals is psychological, and a lot of it is pretty good psychology. After all, they wouldn’t have kept doing it century after century if they weren’t getting results.

There is a witty little poem, a Grook, that I’ve liked for years, that tells the secret of how rituals like this work. It is called “A Psychological Grook.” It’s a little silly, but also a little wise:

Whenever you’re called on to make up your mind

and you’re hampered by not having any,

the way to solve the dilemma, you’ll find,

is simply by tossing a penny.

No, not so that Chance shall decide the affair

while you’re passively standing there moping.

But the minute the penny is up in the air,

you suddenly know what you’re hoping!

Piet Hein, Grooks, Doubleday, 1966.

There is a second important misunderstanding about Halloween, a second secret. It looks like the one day of the year when we wear masks and pretend to be something we aren’t. If you were here for the Halloween party last night, you saw just how scary you all can be!

But Halloween isn’t the only day we wear masks; it’s the only day we admit that we’re wearing masks. We wear masks every day, and each of us probably has at least a dozen different masks we wear, depending on the occasion.

Our understanding of masks goes back to the Greek theater. Greek actors would come on stage holding large masks in front of their faces. The purpose of the mask was both to hide the real face of the actor, and to give the audience some information about the character. It was called a persona, a role, a fake identity being worn for the purpose of playing a role. And that’s still the meaning we have for masks.

But if you think Halloween is the only time we wear masks, you’re kidding yourself! During the week, we’ll take turns playing the roles of worker, spouse, parent, customer and others. And we play differently and use different vocabularies in each role, each persona. Each persona, each mask, calls for different nuances, and we play them, every day of our lives, don’t we?

It’s not bad. But the danger is that we forget to take the masks off, then they start playing us. And then we understand the meaning of a saying like “What does it profit a person if they gain the whole world but lose their soul?”

I remember an old “Twilight Zone” program about people putting on powerful masks that made them fearful and mean. The power was addictive, and they didn’t want to take off the masks until it was too late. Too late, because when they finally took them off, they discovered that the mask had shaped their face into its own image and they were stuck playing that phony role, forever. They realized they had lost their souls, and everything else they gained no longer meant much to them.

So don’t think of Halloween as the one night we get to wear a mask. Think of it as a time when we are asked to be more aware of the masks we wear all the other days, and see if we still believe those masks serve us, or if we’re losing our integrity, our authenticity, our soul to the masks.

And not only our personal masks, either. It is a good time to ask what masks we are wearing as a society, and to ask whether there too we may be gaining a world at the expense of our national soul.

I’ll talk more about the war in Iraq for the Veterans’ Day service, but we need to talk about our economy, and the masks under which it is operating. We have been in a state of hypnosis about our economy for several years now. Most people want to believe that whatever is directing it is basically good or at least well-intended, and that perhaps it’s just going through normal ups and downs. That’s the pure and honest character we want to believe we have as a society, both for our people and for people in other countries.

But is it? Going into too much detail about corporate scandals is simply – as my Jr. High English teacher used to say – redundundant. Democrats have attacked them, Republicans have attacked them, “Business Week” and The Wall Street Journal have attacked them. But it’s worth just remembering a few of the facts and figures, with the point of asking whether the drama that is unfolding is America at its best, or a kind of masquerade, a masked ball where the leading players include some of our greediest rather than our best.

Among the great corporate frauds of the past few years:

Global Crossing, lost $47 billion for stockholders through intentional fraud, phony bookkeeping

Qwest’s exceptionally greedy accounting trick-and-treating cost stockholders $108 billion

Harken Energy Corporation, when George W. Bush was its Director, engaged in insider trading and accounting trickery which was, like so many others, covered up by the Arthur Anderson firm. Harken shareholders lost $850 million.

Haliburton, while Dick Cheney was CEO, used accounting trickery and lost $22 billion for shareholders.

Enron bilked employees and investors out of $68 billion before declaring bankruptcy. Ken Lay was the biggest personal contributor to the presidential campaign of George W. Bush.

Tyco, the business conglomerate which, through exceptionally greedy self-dealing and tax evasion, bilked shareholders of $100 billion.

Worldcom, the exceptionally greedy telecommunications company that bilked shareholders of $191 billion.

Over the last 2-1/2 years, the nation’s stock markets have lost over $5.5 trillion, or about three times what the government spends in a year. Does it sound like the motives driving our economy have lost their soul, like a masked ball where the dance is carrying us over a cliff?

And above all of these shenanigans there is the notion that it is impolite or politically partisan to talk about it, as though economic policies that affect millions are somehow private and personal beliefs to be protected from discussion. No. The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was a bad idea when applied to the military, and it will be disastrous if we don’t start asking blunt questions and removing some of the masks, before they too transform the face of our country into something rapacious and evil.

We’re preparing for Halloween, for Samhain, the time of year when ghosts make contact with us to demand reparations for the violations of the past year. It is a time, and they are ghosts, worth anticipating.

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary, defines a ghost as “The outward and visible sign of an inward fear.” One lesson of Halloween, and of Samhain, is that all of our ghosts are outward and visible signs of our inward fears.

I’ve tried to honor the ancient traditions of Samhain by unmasking some of the ghosts that haunt our lives and our society, having a short feast, then throwing their bones into the bone-fire as the outward and visible sign of an inward hope.

The bone-fire seems important, because another secret of Halloween is that ghosts, like vampires, vanish when enough light is shined upon them, and that fears, once faced, can turn into possibilities. Let us confront our fears, secure in the faith that beneath our fears lie unexplored possibilities. Even here. Even now. Even for us.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

19 October 2003

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 pray without ceasing to the gods worthy of prayer.

Let us pray to the God of love, to guide us in the ways of love, whatever the cost.

To the goddess of compassion, let us ask for enough to grace our relationships with those we know, and those we don’t know who are nevertheless affected by our actions.

To the forces of justice and fair play, let us pledge our allegiance.

Let us, as well, vow to seek understanding rather than prejudice, peace rather than war, and empowerment rather than subjugation – for the many, not just the few.

Where we find ignorance, let us bring understanding.

Where there is despair, let us bring hope;

Where there are walls, let us make doorways;

Where there is loneliness, let us offer familiarity and friendship.

And where the young green shoots of hope, faith and love struggle to survive, let us water them – with out sweat and tears, if necessary.

Let us pray without ceasing to the gods worthy of prayer – the gods of life, love, compassion, hope and courage.

Let us pray to them with all we have in us.

But not only pray. Not only pray.

Amen.

SERMON:

Under the Banner of Heaven

When I read Jon Krakauer’s current best-selling book Under the Banner of Heaven, I decided it wasn’t really about Mormon fundamentalists whose God has told them to kidnap young girls like Elizabeth Smart, to collect women in harems of twenty to fifty or more, and to murder people who got in their way. I decided it was a like a Greek tragedy about America today, and about us.

However, it is also about Mormon fundamentalists, about kidnap, rape, murder, and all the rest of it.

The book begins with the story of two brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, who murdered their youngest brother’s wife Brenda and her fifteen-month-old daughter Erica because Brenda seemed to be convincing her husband that his brothers were dangerous people he should stay away from.

Shortly after she stood up to Ron Lafferty, he received a personal revelation from God, informing him that Brenda and her baby daughter needed to be killed. On July 24th 1984, they brutally murdered the 24-year-old woman and her baby girl.

They were arrested soon afterwards, and lied about the murders until the evidence was overwhelming. Then they admitted that yes, they had committed the murders, but they had not committed a crime, because they were following God’s orders.

A jury decided Ron’s revelation came from his own psychopathic mind rather than from God, and convicted both brothers of first-degree murder. Both men are still in prison in Utah, with no possibility of parole.

The book then traces this idea of self-serving revelations back to the founder of the Mormon religion, the 19th century figure Joseph Smith. As a young man, Smith used to put a special magical rock in his hat, look at it, and receive visions telling him where secret caches of money were buried. After six years of charging people for finding money but never finding any, he was convicted of fraud. But Joseph Smith is known today for his other visions, which he said came from God and gave him instructions for a new religion – which he was to lead.

The books he discovered were written in a language called “reformed Egyptian,” of which no one but the angel Moroni has ever heard, but the angel also gave Joseph a pair of magic glasses that let him translate them to his scribe. Later, he used a chocolate-colored, egg-shaped, magical rock to translate the ancient language. He said that he and his people were like the saints of the early days, but these were the saints of the latter days. They were not tainted with original sin, had nothing to atone for, and they were meant to receive the riches of the earth. After they died, they were to continue receiving money and power, and would even become like gods, each couple getting to populate their own planet, like Adam and Eve.

The religion began with fifty people. A year later, it had a thousand. Now, with over eleven million members, it is the fastest-growing religion in the world. At any given time there are about sixty thousand Mormon missionaries at work making converts at high rates. One sociologist believes that within sixty years it will become impossible to govern the United States without Mormon cooperation. Some say the church of the Latter-Day Saints can be considered the first new major religion since the birth of Islam in the 7th century.

At first, Joseph Smith told all his followers to seek their own “direct impressions” from God. But when he incorporated his religion in 1830, he realized all the personal revelations could undermine the authority of his own revelations. Soon, he received a new message from God, making it clear that only Joseph Smith was authorized to receive revelations.

But it was too late, and the teaching that some chosen individuals can receive direct revelations from God continues to this day among fundamentalist Mormons.

Joseph had immense charisma, and several women have written that they found him completely irresistible. Though he was married, he had an almost insatiable lust for other women and young girls. Over the years, he married about forty women, and had many visits to prostitutes. When Emma, his first wife, protested this new kind of philandering, God sent Joseph a revelation telling him that he could have as many women as he wanted. When Emma then said she thought she might receive a similar revelation, Joseph went back to God, who sent a new message telling Emma that only Joseph could have multiple partners, that she had to serve him alone, or she would be destroyed.

The word “destroyed,” as later events showed, meant killed. Jon Krakauer has subtitled his book “A story of violent faith,” because beginning with Joseph Smith, it has been established that those who oppose the will of God as interpreted by the men who receive his revelations might need to be killed. The book tells of dozens of such murders, including nearly twenty by the members of one clan during the past thirty years.

For the past century, the main Mormon church has repudiated polygamy and all notions that revelations can ever sanction murder. But these early ideas continue a vigorous existence among many communities of Mormon fundamentalists, among whom polygamy, child abuse and occasional murders are, according to this book, facts of life. I know someone raised in one of these families, who has told me that the book understates the case, that it was much worse growing up in it.

There are dozens of themes worth pursuing in this book, but I want to pick just the one about people expecting their opinions or private revelations to be respected by others.

This is a great question for liberals, since we are widely assumed to bless every goofy opinion that comes down the road, as though whatever anyone believes is just fine. Liberals, whether political or religious, can be counted on to defend individual rights, individual choices in everything from religion to abortion. We often forget that freedom of belief really means the freedom to believe things that others don’t respect.

Yet I suspect almost everyone here believes that the jury in Ron Lafferty’s case returned the right verdict when they said his private revelations had no authority at all.

The whole murder case played out like a Greek drama, and the jury played the role of the Greek chorus, who condemned the main characters as unworthy and scurrilous.

The truth is, I think Jon Krakauer intended this book to be about America, about us, and about what these times demand of us. And what these times demand of us is a way to challenge and reject some individual beliefs and choices.

The direct revelations from God seem distinctive to the Mormons. Mystics may feel they commune with gods, but they don’t hear the gods telling them to take teen-aged children as their spouses, threaten them with destruction if they refuse, or exhorting them to kill people who have gotten in their way.

There’s a story that comes to mind, a favorite story of mine that I have told before here, that might point to a way through this morass.

It’s a story Joseph Campbell tells of an Australian tribe of aborigines in which the gods spoke to the tribe in the middle of the night when they were displeased. They didn’t use words, they created a horrible low sound unlike anything anyone had heard, created by a secret and sacred object known as a bull-roarer: a long thin board with slits cut in it, attached to a string and swung around in the air to create the eerie noise. Then the next day the tribe’s priest would interpret the sounds, much as Joseph Smith used his magical glasses to interpret the ancient language.

This practice of the priest telling the people what the gods wanted kept order in the tribe, because the gods were angry when the people behaved badly. So the night noises of the gods were the sacred power that maintained order and defined the tribe’s character and culture.

The story gets interesting when young boys reach the age of initiation into manhood. It is a frightening and bloody event. Men wearing masks and painted like monsters kidnap the boy whose time has come, and drag him into the woods at night. There, they tie him to a table, and perform the painful and bloody operation of circumcision and subincision. It must be absolutely terrifying for young boys going through this, not to mention painful.

Then, after the operation is over, one of the masked men dips the end of a bull-roarer in the boy’s blood. He brings it up near the boy’s face. Then he removes the mask so the boy can recognize him as one of the men of the tribe he has known all his life. And that is when the older man reveals the most important secret of life to the boy: “We make the noises.” We make the noises. Not the gods but us, in the woods at night swinging sticks with slits in them. We make the noises.

This is really one of the most important and sacred secrets of all religions, and it is protected by all religions. We make the noises. The revelations always come from us, not to us.

I said earlier that this story was like a Greek tragedy about America, and about us. It is really surprising just how much it is like a Greek tragedy. In those ancient plays, written 24 to 25 centuries ago, the characters were also spoken to by gods; they had their own private revelations. The characters justified their actions as obeying the will of the gods, just as the Lafferty brothers did. Yet at the end of these plays, the Greek chorus declared whether they were innocent or guilty, noble or shameful.

In other words, even 2500 years ago, when everybody was receiving oracles from the gods, people also knew that we make the noises, not the gods. This is such an important point, because we really know it today too, we just sometimes pretend we don’t. But the role of the jury in the trial of the Lafferty brothers was precisely the role of the Greek chorus.

They listened to the brothers tell them that God spoke to them to order these murders. Then they listened to a psychiatrist tell them Ron Lafferty acted out of a narcissistic personality disorder that let him treat other humans as mere things that could be murdered as he wished.

In other words, the psychiatrist said the murders weren’t serving God, but were serving the selfish and evil desires of Ron Lafferty, and that God played no role at all. The jury, like the Greek chorus, weighed the evidence, and decided unanimously that the defendant was a psychopathic murderer, not a prophet, that he made the noises, and that the noises were evil and unforgivable.

They knew that there are standards much higher than individual choice. And we know it, too. We know that we make the noises, we just usually let people get away with it because the noises aren’t harmful to others.

If Mother Teresa felt God wanted her to hug and cleanse lepers, we might still feel those were her values, but we don’t mind if she projects them onto her God because it seems so good-hearted, so compassionate. We say “Well, this is the sort of thing that is worthy of God.”

The word “God” is one of those words we use when we want to claim ultimacy, when we want to claim that we are acting out of the highest and noblest motives we can understand. It’s a word that makes demands on those who use it, that holds them accountable. And something in us knows that such words can not be used lightly. Almost every religion has this notion:

– Zeus & Semele (Sem’-uh-lee), the mortal woman who was mother of Dionysus. Zeus’s wife Hera, always betrayed and always jealous, sought revenge on Semele, so in disguise instructed her to ask Zeus to promise her a favor. Once he had promised, she was to ask him to reveal himself in all his splendor to her. Anyone who has read much world religions knows this is a death sentence, because we can neither hold nor behold the truly sacred. When Zeus complied, the brilliant heat and light of his essence burned Semele to ashes.

– Even if you don’t read Greek mythology, you probably remember Stephen Spielberg’s movie about the Ark of the Covenant, “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” When the raiders opened the Ark and looked on it, the bright light melted them right on the spot. It’s the same story.

– A less lethal practice in religions all over the world is the practice of removing your shoes before entering religious places of worship, in Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic religions. And you may remember a similar passage in the Hebrew scriptures, the instructions to remove your shoes because you are on holy ground. These commands don’t come from gods; they come from the human psyche, which knows that the quality of the sacred that we allude to is more than we can behold.

– And in the Mormon religion, only Mormons can enter their sacred Temple. Again, the sacred center is protected from casual interlopers.

Why? Because one of the amazing things about humans is that even though we make the noises, even though all our gods are born from the manger of our own yearnings, we are aware that we can create words and concepts that point beyond us, that allude to transcendence we can’t grasp but can merely allude to. We can put names on things we cannot see, understand or control, but which feel holy. Jews won’t pronounce the name of their god because there is something about naming things that feels like it gives us power over them. And at our best, we know our ultimate concepts, are beyond our control. They can’t take directions from us, or our religion is just a puppet show, where we drag our gods through the mud of our own lusts, envies and angers.

And whose responsibility is it to police the use of our concepts of ultimacy – words like Nation, America, Justice, Equity, Truth, Beauty and God?

In our courts, it is the responsibility of the state, of judges, and of jurors. More broadly, it is the responsibility of all of us, and it is a sacred duty. Every cheapening of religion, every degradation of our highest concepts, lowers the bar by creating dishonest government, greedy economies, imperialistic wars and tawdry counterfeits of religion.

Owning those norms is the sacred task of all of us, and abuses of our languages of ultimacy must always be challenged, or they lose their ability to call forth our best. As Camus put it, it is our task to purify the language of our tribe. We are always on call for jury duty in the Greek choruses that are needed to comment on the most powerful words in our culture. It is a sacred duty. We cannot shirk it.

If you doubt this, I can prove it to you from within your own heart and mind. Imagine how you would have felt if the jury had acquitted Ron Lafferty. The story really isn’t about Ron Lafferty. He is a narcissist, a liar, a psychopath and a murderer, and he is where he belongs.

But all of Jon Krakauer’s books have used their subjects as lenses for viewing larger aspects of life in our times, and so does this one. In important ways, this story is about the sacred role of the Greek chorus in transcending and trumping individual choices, when those choices demean and degrade our highest values.

The murders of an innocent woman and her baby were sad and tragic. But the worse tragedy would have been if the jury had decided that whatever Ron Lafferty believed was fine, and if his God told him to kill others, who were we to judge the quality of his private revelation?

We now live in times when our society’s highest symbols are being demeaned and degraded by those who claim to have personal revelations about them, and most of our people act as though we have no power and no role to play in the local, national and international dramas that continue to unfold.

But if religion is reduced to ignorant and disingenuous censorship of textbooks and if God is reduced to a subordinate local deity whose role is simply to bless America, then religion is being reduced to an instrument of cynical control rather than empowerment, and the chorus must respond.

If the American flag is waved over wars of greed and aggression, our highest national symbol is being dragged through low and mean lusts, and our soldiers are dying not for noble causes, but for low and selfish ones. And again, the chorus must speak out.

If the laws are changed to permit the wholesale robbery of billions of dollars from employees and stockholders by companies like Enron, then the rules of fairness and justice are being dragged down to the selfish horizons of the most rapacious among us, and the chorus must speak out and do its duty as the jury, the guardian of our highest collective values.

To live under the banner of heaven, we must remember what our highest values demand, and speak up for them. If we don’t, those high values – like Ron Lafferty’s sick little God – will be dragged down to low and mean levels: banners used to sanction disreputable motives and actions. And then we will be living not in heaven but in hell.

One important lesson the Greek chorus carries for us is that we are accomplices to all deeds done in the service of values which we have failed to confront.

Heaven or hell? It’s too early to tell whether religion, economics, civil rights, foreign relations and war will fly under the banners of hell or under the banner of heaven. The jury is still out.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Davidson Loehr

October 5, 2003

The text of this sermon is unavailable but you can listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

This morning I want to take you on a trip to the heart of almost all religions, all philosophies, all psychologies. It begins with the idea of atonement which most of us know as the center of the Jewish festival…

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

28 September 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Prayer

It is time to take stock of who we are, what we serve, and whether what we serve is adequate to who we are meant to be.

Let us choose our beliefs and our religion as we choose our companions and mates. Let us not go where we are not honored and cherished.

Let us seek spiritual paths that take us more seriously than we take ourselves, that lift us up rather than bringing us down.

Let us remember that all great religious prophets have said that the way that leads toward life is narrow, and few take it. We would aspire to be among those few.

May we seek not an easy religion, but a hard one, not a partial challenge but a complete one.

Let us, in this time of taking stock, treat ourselves and others as though we were all, equally, children of God, sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself, made of stardust enfolded in dreams and nearly unlimited possibilities. For we are, we are, we are.

Amen.

SERMON: Happy New Year!

When I began planning this sermon, I didn’t think it would have anything to do with last week’s sermon on the book The DaVinci Code, but it does. One theme in that book, and in the huge interest it has stirred up, is the message that some religions lie, mislead people, or are simply inadequate vehicles for providing enough help with our life questions.

At first, I didn’t think about, or even want to think about, the Jewish festival of Rosh Hashanah in that way. I’ve always liked it, and found it to be very moving, whether you’re Jewish or not.

But then, when I realized that there was another religious festival that also began yesterday, one that is both very similar to and very different from Rosh Hashanah, it reframed the subject.

So now I think what we are doing this morning is taking a trip. It’s a trip through time, around the world, within and without us, a trip to God and a trip beyond God.

That’s one of the things I love most about liberal religion; we don’t need to stop asking questions at conventional borders of religious thought. The only religious “convention” we need to take seriously is the convention of taking ourselves, our lives, and our relationships seriously. And in this quest, we can and do travel beyond the boundaries of any and every more particular religious orthodoxy. It’s comparative religion in the same way we do comparative politics, comparative ideologies, even comparative diets.

Let’s begin with Rosh Hashanah. It is one of the holiest days in the Jewish year, and marks the beginning of their new year. This is now the year 5764 in Jewish tradition, though the Hebrew traditions go back only about 3500 to 3800 years.

Rosh Hashanah is not like our January 1st New Year celebration, except in one important way. It is a time for repentance and serious introspection, for looking back at the mistakes we made during the past year, and correcting them. If you take the tradition seriously, this is important because God keeps books in which he writes who has been good and bad, and who will have a good and bad year next year. The “Book of Life” on last year will be sealed on Yom Kippur in a week, so it’s important to repent, pray, and do charitable deeds this week to impress God with your good intentions, so he might give you a better “report.” Not all Jews care about this part, like not all Christians care about Communion; but it is an ancient part of the tradition.

Saying it this way makes God sound like a Boy Scout troop leader, but that is one of the things about the God of the Bible. Scholars have shown that when he was created, he was created in the image of a Hebrew tribal chief who set the laws, prescribed the behavioral boundaries, and rewarded or punished the people of his tribe. Even the covenant between God and His people was modeled on Hittite suzerainty treaties that predated them.

And Rosh Hashanah shows much of this history, for Jews are supposed to make amends to people in their community they have wronged, before they can “get right with God.” The focus is on us, our tribe, and our tribe’s God. This isn’t news; anyone raised in a Western religion is familiar with those traits of this God. But they’re worth remembering.

Now I want to leave the “Jewishness” of this festival to focus on its insights into the human condition: our human condition. Because it is really quite profound, and there is something for all of us here, whether we are Jewish or not. Many parts of religions are particular, meant to give members, insiders, an identity as parts of that religion. And those outside the religion can ignore those parts, as members of the other religion would ignore our own odd rituals — like lighting a chalice to begin each service, or having 150 votive candles to light in the side windows.

But in most religions, there are “universal” elements with insights into the human condition, and those are often precious fruits, even for outsiders. There is something important, for example, about not just tumbling from one year to the next without stopping to take stock, and that’s what Rosh Hashanah is about. The ancient Hebrews are given credit for inventing the idea of a rhythm to the week, where six regular days are followed by a holy day when we are to stop working and focus on our gratitude for the gifts of life. All of Western civilization owes the Jews a huge debt of gratitude for this notion that time has a rhythm, that we must stop from time to time and take stock.

And Rosh Hashanah continues this sense of rhythm in a bigger way, by saying we should take ten days at the end of every year to look at ourselves and how we are living with real honesty, and make changes rather than just running blindly on from one year to the next.

And we owe Jews another debt of gratitude for insisting that before we can make our peace with God, we must make our peace with each other, with those in our community, our tribe, from whom we have grown estranged. Don’t pray to God for forgiveness until you have done all you can to earn it from those you have harmed, whether intentionally or not.

Think of how much better off we would all be if we did that every year, if we took ten whole days for the task of taking ourselves seriously, our relationships and our relation to all we hold most sacred seriously, and changed our behavior accordingly.

We can go astray for only a year before we need to seek reconciliation with those we may have wronged. Is that worth ten days? Is there anyone here who wouldn’t benefit from this kind of discipline? I know we can all think of ten friends who would be a lot better off if they did this. But the odds are, they’re thinking it might help us, too.

We’re not told how to do this, just that it’s up to us, and God is watching and judging and will write the results down in that Book he’s keeping on us. Frankly, I don’t like that part much. I keep thinking of Santa Claus keeping a list of who is naughty and nice, or of Big Brother watching me. But that has a lot to do with the fact that I don’t think religion is about God, and that the concept of God is often more misleading than helpful.

The Hebrew religion began, in the opinion of some biblical scholars and archaeologists, as a departure from the Canaanite religion, which was a powerful nature religion with a goddess, a Divine Mother, a Mother Nature, as the focus. In their early years, up until about 2600 years ago, the Hebrews were not monotheists, but polytheists, worshiping the gods and goddesses of their surrounding cultures, as well as Jahweh. King Solomon, regarded as the wisest of the wise Hebrew rulers, worshiped both Jahweh and the goddess Asherah, and had a statue of this great goddess in his temple. And even the Ten Commandments endorse polytheism, saying only that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

But around 2600 years ago a very conservative and exclusive change came, and the goddesses were banished from a central place in the religion. The creation story of a nature goddess who created everything out of herself was turned into the highly illogical creation story of a male deity who created everything by himself. It became a religion in which both feminine power and women were second-rate citizens, as hundreds of millions of women in all three Western religions have known for many centuries.

Does it necessarily seem that way to the women in those religions? Not all of them. Even Muslim or Christian fundamentalist women will say they choose and cherish their subordinate roles. But to most of us, it looks very unbalanced. I think it would look equally unbalanced to the men in those religions, if their central deity were a Goddess, most ecclesiastical leaders were women, and men didn’t count toward a minyan, had to veil their faces, or were told it was shameful for them to speak in church, as St. Paul said.

Jahweh remains a kind of tribal chief who wants his people to get along and to worship him, but who has no room for people finding alternate religious paths, or alternate gods. And this notion of a “jealous God” is central to all three Western religions (four, counting Mormons).

In fact, we know it so well you may wonder why I’m bothering to bring it up. I bring it up as a segue to the other religious festival that started yesterday, from an even older religion. Yesterday was the Hindu festival of Navaratri, also known as the Durga festival. I’m betting that almost nobody here has ever heard of it.

Like Rosh Hashanah, this is a time for Hindus to take stock, though the scope is much broader. Hinduism has the broadest horizons and most nuanced depth of any religion I know, and all that shows up here.

The most abiding human failing in Hinduism isn’t sin or estrangement from God, but ignorance. We do not realize our real identity, and live our lives in the service of lesser identities that are not worthy of us. Our real identity is infinite and eternal, not just limited to this life here and now.

Our modern physicists tell us that the universe began with a Big Bang, and that everything in the universe, including us, is made up entirely of stardust. A Hindu teacher could have written this story, perhaps forty centuries ago.

But Hindu understandings of God and gods is very different from Western understandings. The overall reality is called Brahman, the sum of all creative, sustaining and destructive forces in the universe. But Brahman is not a god. Brahman is an abstract concept, which can’t be reduced to a human-like god.

Still, Hindus know that people can’t relate well to abstract concepts, and so they have created many gods and goddesses to give more useful images for people to focus on. But all these gods: Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, and all the goddesses, aren’t beings, don’t exist in any except a highly imaginative sense.

And both male and female powers are recognized as essential. In fact, as in all ancient nature religions, the power belongs to the goddesses, not the gods. As one Hindu teacher explains it, the Divine Mother is the cosmic energy, the omnipotent power, of God. She is called by many names, one of which is Durga.

The supreme power of God, they say, is manifested as knowledge, activity, and strength. And each of these is represented by a goddess, on whom we can focus to draw ourselves closer to that kind of energy.

It surprised me to realize how much this is like the teachings of the Gnostics in the first century of the Christian era. They also taught that the highest god was impersonal, a concept much like Brahman, and that Jahweh was just a second-order deity, made to create things. So they said the Jews and early Christians had completely misunderstood the nature of God by worshiping Jahweh, much as the Hindus teach that all the gods and goddesses are imaginative creations to represent some of the attributes of Brahman, the impersonal and ineffable reality behind all reality.

Like all religions, Hinduism grew out of the kinds of human questions and yearnings that have always been with us. So even though it may sound odd and foreign, it really isn’t. All religions grow from the hopes, fears and yearnings of the human heart, given form by the human imaginations of different times and places.

What we’re talking about is that same condition of being disconnected and out of sync that the Jews are focusing on in Rosh Hashanah. But here, our identity is not as members of a tribe or worshipers of a tribal god. In Hinduism, our identity is as parts of all the infinite and eternal elements of the universe; we are made of stardust, and our true home cannot be contained by anything less than infinity and eternity.

What keeps us blinded to our real nature? It is at least three things that we are to try and combat during this time of year, aided by the Divine Mother Durga in several of her forms.

First, we are blinded by ignorance and the unhappiness that goes with it. The goddess Saraswati, one of Mother Durga’s manifestations, aids by drawing us toward knowledge and happiness. We must seek paths that lead toward knowledge and happiness rather than their opposites, and the infinite and eternal energy of the universe is our friend and ally here as the goddess Saraswati, rather than a judge that keeps score in a Book.

Second, we are misled by pursuing the wrong kind of wealth. We are easily misled to put ourselves in pursuit of material wealth. Almost all religions have realized this. Ancient Hebrews wrote about the people fashioning a calf-god out of their gold as soon as Moses was out of sight, which sounds surprisingly modern. In the Christian scriptures, Jesus asks, “What does it profit a person if they gain the whole world and lose their soul?” and the ancient Hindus ask the same question. Here, the powerful and sexy goddess Lakshmi is the part that wants to help awaken us to and excite us by the spiritual and physical pleasures of life that are free for the taking. She wants to make us fall in love and in lust with life. Sex, for Hindus, is a good and natural thing, rather than a sin as so many Western religions often regard it. Again, Lakshmi is not our judge; she is the part of us that is there to help if only we will awaken to her.

And third, we are held captive by inertia, indolence, sleep, and laziness. We may be in a rut, but it’s our rut, and we prefer it to the more unfamiliar life that could be happier. This inertia is very strong, and requires a very strong force to break it apart, to shatter it.

And that’s a job for the goddess Kali, the terrifying aspect of Mother Durga. Kali has the power to break us free, to shatter our denial, to shatter the pretense that we are being true to our highest calling while living according to our lowest callings.

Kali is a terrifying goddess, often pictured with blood dripping from her teeth. But her enemies are spiritual, not mortal. She seeks to destroy the demons of our lower nature, and is there to help us shatter their hold on us.

So we may appeal to Kali to combine with the other aspects of Mother Durga, the Divine Mother, Mother Nature, that great source of feminine powers of creation and nurture who has gone by so many names. She has been excluded in Western religions, but is prominent and powerful in most others. And again, even Kali is not here to frighten or judge us or write our names in a Book. She is the fierce and powerful part of the universe and of us that is always here to help.

And the Durga Festival, or Navaratri, is a reminder, just as Rosh Hashanah is, that we need to stop, take stock, look inside ourselves and at our lives, and retune them. Just as an orchestra gets in tune by listening to the “A” pitch before a concert, so we need to get in tune by listening to those still, small, and powerful voices within us.

In some ways, these two festivals are what religion is about. They are the voices saying “Wake up!” Don’t be less than you are called to be! Don’t spend life living out low values when your deepest nature yearns only for high values. Don’t get walled up in pettiness or hatred when you can become animated by knowledge, life-pursuing passion and a strength of spirit, a strength of character, that will amaze you if only you will take this time to attend to it. Wake up! Life is too important to sleep through, and you are too important to be sleeping when so much knowledge, passion, excitement and happiness are all around you for the taking!

But look at the difference in how these two great religions of Judaism and Hinduism go about calling us to our higher calling. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all struggled throughout their histories to outgrow the shadow of the old tribal deity who lays down commandments, rewards and punishes, and seems unable to offer us the other half, the feminine half, of the holy forces that create and sustain life — except in the mystical forms which make up relatively small parts of these religions. And there is always the theological limit, the hidden message that whatever we do must be in the worship of that one male deity.

How different is the prescription of Hinduism! You can appeal to these powers through either the three-part Divine Mother, or the three-part male deities of Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva. If you protest that you don’t think any of these really exist as beings, Hindu teachers will remind you that of course they don’t, they exist as imaginative vehicles to help carry these important reminders of our highest and deepest nature.

Now you see why I said this was like a trip through time, around the world, within and without us, a trip to God and a trip beyond God. The great German poet Goethe once said that the person who doesn’t know two languages doesn’t even know one language, because they’ll mistake their way of talking for the Truth. The same is true in religion. For centuries, people in Western civilization have been taught there is only one basic religion. They have killed hundreds of thousands of others who didn’t see it that way. That couldn’t possibly be in the service of a true, or even an adequate, concept of God.

We are left with the same kind of insight suggested by that book The DaVinci Code: the suspicion that major religions have misled us in major ways, that they have often failed to give us adequate help, and that they are making us more out of balance, rather than more whole. Examining our religions and beliefs is an essential part of the self-inventory that are at the center of both religions.

And so it is the season of Rosh Hashanah, the season of the Mother Durga festival, when we are asked to take stock, to repent of ways of living that do not honor us or our highest calling. If I were a Jew, I might tell you to think of this in terms of Jahweh or that Book of Life. If I were a Hindu, I might suggest that you honor the divine energies you seek through the imaginative goddesses Saraswati, Lakshmi and Kali.

But I’m a 21st century religious liberal. So instead, I’ll remind you that this is indeed the beginning of a new year, and it is time to take stock. It is the beginning of a new school year, a new church year, a year with a new ministerial intern, a new pledge drive for the money needed to make this church vibrant and aggressive in pursuing its many duties.

It is time to take stock. All around us are materials, people, stories and myths with clues about how we might do it. Some of you will call this power God; some may call it the Divine Mother. Both personally and professionally, I don’t care what you call it, as long as you can call it forth. Call it forth. For that power, if you will seek it, can help you focus on your most holy calling. It’s always here, always available, just waiting to be called forth.

Now it’s our move.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

21 September 2003

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 are enlarged by an attitude of reverence. We are enlarged by putting ourselves in the service of ideals so transcendent they deserve to be called gods. And so let us be reverent. But let us not worship too quickly or thoughtlessly, for there are many gods, and most are not worthy of worship.

Let us never accept other people’s revelations if those proclamations demean us, or if they empower the few at the expense of the many.

Let us never say Amen to a sermon that does not teach abundant life for all God’s children, all children of the universe.

Let us worship at the altars of those ideals and gods which call us all to service, but which condemn no one to servitude or an attitude of servility. For above all things, God is love and not arrogance.

Let us worship only where it is a higher goal to serve truth than to bow before orthodoxy, for truth ever eludes our attempts to put it in the cages of our own limited understanding.

Let us gather where our minds are honored, our hearts nourished, where the angels of our better nature are helped to lift us up toward our true calling.

Our true calling. For we are all the children of God, the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself, in all its wondrous multiplicity. We all carry, and are carried by, what Hindus call the atman, that god-seed that is part of all that is holy and creative in the universe. Let us remember who we are meant to be, and honor that, nothing less. Nothing less.

Amen.

SERMON:

The DaVinci Code, Part One

Dan Brown’s book The DaVinci Code has generated more curiosity and excitement than any book about religion in years. Partly, it’s because he’s just a very good writer, and it’s a good read. But it is a book that basically says that Christian churches have been lying to their people for two thousand years about things as fundamental as who Jesus was, what he taught, whether he was ever really crucified, and his relationship with Mary Magdalen, who is really the central figure in this story.

The book is a novel, but it weaves together a lot of theories, and every theory presented is shared by some biblical scholars; some are shared by many. Some are pretty exciting, some are even sexy. But at a deeper level, the book grows out of, and is a powerful example of, a profound loss of trust and belief — not in God or Jesus, but in the things that Christian churches and teachers have said about them for twenty centuries.

This morning, I want to introduce you to some of the theories about Jesus, Mary Magdalen, their teachings, and the distortions created by those who ruled the Christian churches to hide these truths and mislead believers. Those are strong statements, but if any of the theories are correct, they are justified. And some of the theories are almost certainly correct.

I’m not trashing Christianity, as much as I’m exposing some of the ways it has betrayed and suppressed the original intent of Jesus. For what it’s worth — and to me it’s worth a lot — from my study of the teachings of Jesus, I think Jesus would hate what Christianity has done in his name.

There are so many threads woven together in this story, I’ll just tell the story first, then unweave some of the individual threads. Here’s the story, which will sound fantastic and unbelievable to almost everyone raised in Western civilization:

It revolves around Mary Magdalen, who was portrayed as a whore by the Catholic Church for centuries, it was only a few years ago (1969) that the Church acknowledged that there was no truth to the story that she was a whore, that the story had been invented by the Church. That was 25 years before the Pope acknowledged, in 1994, that they knew Jesus hadn’t really been born on December 25th, the date of the winter solstice in the ancient calendar. The reason such a scurrilous story was invented about her was to hide the fact that Jesus ranked her above all the apostles. The Gospel of Philip, one of the works recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, says that Mary was Jesus’ favorite, and he was often seen kissing her on the mouth.

But even more, some say, she was Jesus’ wife. It was a special kind of marriage, a holy marriage that represented the symbol of the highest spiritual union in their religion, which was not Judaism but the cult of Isis, which Jesus, and perhaps Mary, learned in Egypt. Jesus was a magician who learned his trade in Egypt with the priests of the cult of Isis, which was a very popular cult in the Middle East at the time. Even the Talmudic writings of the first century say that Jesus went to Egypt to study magic with the priests of the Isis cult.

Mary’s name, according to quite a few scholars, contains the clue to her greatness. While some in the Christian tradition claim it just meant she came from the town of Migdal, others say the word Magdalen meant “the greater.” Mary the greater. Greater than whom? Greater than Mary the mother. Some very good and respected biblical scholars think this is correct. (Others suggest her name may have denoted her hometown: of Magdala in Egypt. These suggest that this Mary was black, which is the secret behind the cult of the Black Madonnas, that she was a priestess in the Isis cult, and that her “anointing” of Jesus with the oils described in the gospels was the anointing that made him the Christ: literally, “the anointed one.” However, this would have made Jesus the anointed one in the cult of Isis.

Jesus and his father Joseph were of the tribe of David, one of the two remaining tribes of the earlier ten tribes of Israel. Mary may have been from the tribe of Benjamin, the other tribe. So their marriage was a kind of holy marriage, uniting the remaining tribes of Israel. (Yes, this is a wholly different story than the one suggesting that Mary was an Egyptian. There are many plausible stories. But almost all the alternative stories make more sense, insult the mind less, and have more objective history behind them than the orthodox story.)

But Jesus, as even the gospels make clear, was considered to be born illegitimate. This didn’t mean that Joseph and Mary hadn’t been married. Joseph was a priest in this radical Jewish sect, and legitimate heirs to the line had to be born in September. A priest and his wife were only permitted to have sex in December, to insure this. But Jesus, some scholars say, was born in March of 7 BC. [1] So, ritually and technically, he was illegitimate. Once a son was born, there could not be sex for six more years, so that sons were to be separated by seven years. Jesus’ younger brother James was born seven years later, in September. To many, this made James, not Jesus, the legitimate heir to the rulership of this tribal religious group.

But by staging a crucifixion, Jesus could claim that he had been “raised up” by God, which would give him the political edge over James. That was the purpose of the crucifixion, which was phony but not fatal. Jesus died in the year 67, at the age of 74.[2]

Some scholars believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalen had at least two children: a daughter born in 33, and a son called Jesus Justus, born in 36 or 37, and mentioned in the Book of Acts. Mary was involved in volatile disputes over the leadership of the movement, with Peter. Peter said in one of the recovered gospels that Mary should be sent away because women were not worthy of life. And Mary, in another gospel, said she feared Peter because he hated the whole female race. The misogyny and patriarchy of much Christianity is a reminder of this early struggle — and of which side won.

In the year 44, after losing the power struggle with Peter, Mary went to southern France, as the New Testament gospels say. She took her daughter by Jesus. Some scholars say she also took Jesus Justus, others say he remained in Judea.

But once in France, Mary became immensely important. Everyone knows there are hundreds of Catholic cathedrals dedicated to “Notre Dame,” or “Our Lady,” throughout France. But it is now clear that for over two hundred of them, including the most famous of all, the cathedral at Chartres, the “Lady” referred to in the many cathedrals of “Notre Dame” was not the Virgin Mary, but Mary Magdalen. It is undeniable, I think, that there was a powerful cult of Mary Magdalen in France that has continued to the present day. There is also a town in southern France where the locals participate in an annual sacred festival — a kind of parade through the streets where the skull of Mary Magdalen, encased in metal, is paraded through the streets each year. While it seems unlikely that we could ever verify through DNA or other testing that this is Mary Magdalen’s skull, there’s no clear way of proving that it isn’t, either.

Her worship was mixed with the cult of the Black Madonna and, in southern France, churches whose symbols and history showed them to be concerned with the cult of Isis, the very ancient Egyptian cult of the goddess Isis, of her dead and resurrected husband Osiris, and their holy child. Christian scholars have long acknowledged that the statues of Isis and her son were the models for the sculptures of Mary and Jesus. The lines between these cults of Mary Magdalen, the Black Madonna and Isis seem blurred and confused, as least from the reading I’ve done so far.

So one great secret hidden in this story was the fact that, according to some biblical scholars, Jesus did not die in the crucifixion, that he married, had children, and preferred Mary Magdalen above Peter and all the other apostles.

Another secret, according to the story, is that the royal bloodline of Jesus and Mary continued in France, and continues to the present day. It produced the line of Merovingian kings of the 4th and 5th centuries, who were later betrayed by the Catholic Church. But the bloodline continued, later producing the Stuart kings. Some other books on these subjects have photographs taken in 1979 and later, of a man and a young boy in France who are claimed as living descendents of Jesus and Mary Magdalen.

There are other secrets involved in this complex story, and not all of them seem to be known. Perhaps the existence of Mary’s skeleton or other skeletal relics, or of John the Baptist’s head: John the Baptist is regarded far more highly in these groups than Jesus is. I’m not yet clear on the exact role of John the Baptist, but it does seem clear that he had a different and more important role than the tradition has given him. Many scholars who studied the Dead Sea Scrolls are quite sure that the person called The Teacher of Righteousness there was John the Baptist, and that his enemy, called the Man of Lies and similar things, was Jesus.

There’s sex in this story, too. The highest spiritual union in the Isis cult was symbolized and acted out in a ritualized sexual union. This, some say, was the nature of the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen. It was also reenacted at least annually in the secret religious rites. Historically, this seems to be true, and it seems to be true that these rites were practiced in some of the religious groups in southern France that were known publicly as Roman Catholic Christians, but which were secretly still following the ancient teachings and rituals of the cult of Isis, as taught by Jesus and then Mary Magdalen.

This may sound like a bad soap opera or a worse “reality-TV” program, and a student of history or religion might wonder “So what?” But these teachings, and these sexual rites, had an important theological message which posed a fundamental threat to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, if not of all Christian churches.

What Jesus and Mary were teaching, they say was a kind of salvation that was the complete opposite of the kind of salvation taught by the Catholic Church, as well as nearly all other Christian churches. The message was that salvation — which meant a kind of wholeness, completion, here and now — was achieved, in the perfect union between a man and a woman, as symbolized by the sexual rite. Salvation is free, it is open to all, and it involves embracing life and sexuality.

About now, a politically correct question comes to my mind, as it may also to yours. That question is “What about homosexuality?” And while it isn’t included in The DaVinci Code, it is a recent historical discussion. I’ll tell you this side story quickly. In 1958, a biblical scholar from Columbia named Morton Smith said he found, in a library in a monastery near Jerusalem, some papers stuck in the endnotes of a 17th century book. These papers were transcriptions of a letter supposedly written by Clement of Alexandria, a late second century giant of the Christian church. Clement was explaining that there was a secret ending to the gospel of Mark which was not put into the Bible because it would confuse or offend new Christians — he and others called them “Babes in Christ.” These teachings, he said, were only for the initiates, the insiders, not the Babes.

The passage is shocking. It is about a naked young man covered only in a white robe who approached Jesus. It says Jesus spent several nights with him, and introduced him to the kingdom of God. The Greek language used is specifically sexual. It is referring to a homosexual encounter between Jesus and this naked young man.

When Morton Smith published this forty years ago, almost no one took him seriously, and for a variety of reasons. For one, no one else had ever seen these papers. For another, Smith was homosexual, so people didn’t trust his motives. However, it was curious that the monastery would not let anyone else in to look for these papers. It remained a minor mystery for decades.

But a few years ago, other scholars did go into the monastery, and they found the documents, which said exactly what Morton Smith had said they did. The Jesus Seminar has now published photographs of these documents in their quarterly magazine for all the world to see. Was Jesus involved in a cult in which sexual initiation played a key role, and did that initiation involve both heterosexual and homosexual unions? So far, there is not enough data to know, or to make a very strong argument. But the papers about the secret part of Mark do exist. Maybe we’ll learn more about this in years to come. Some people feel this would be terrible news if it’s true; others could see it as a liberation that’s long overdue.

All of this, as you can imagine, is highly damaging to the orthodox picture of Jesus, Mary, Christianity and the churches. That’s why it has had to be kept secret.

And history shows us a very real and bloody example of the danger of letting this secret out. In the 13th century there was a Christian group in France known as the Cathars, or Cathari. Among their beliefs was the assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalen were sexual lovers, though not married. The Roman Catholic Church organized armies of men to capture, torture, murder, and burn alive all the Cathars they could find in what are called the Albigensian Crusades, named after a town where many Cathari lived. Tens of thousands, perhaps many more of them, were slaughtered in what may be the first example of genocide in the past thousand years, perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church to exterminate those who held this belief. So it was indeed dangerous to hold beliefs about Jesus that threatened the authority or teachings of the Church.

The book The DaVinci Code, and quite a few other books in these areas, argue that several organizations have been created to protect these secrets. The one mentioned most in the book was the Priory of Sion. This is a fascinating organization, which seems to have existed and may still exist. Its grand masters have included some of history’s most brilliant geniuses, including Leonardo DaVinci, the scientists Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton, Claude Debussy and Jean Cocteau. One thing all these men had in common was a profound interest in the occult. As many of you may know, Isaac Newton spent four decades practicing alchemy, and his personal writings include more than ten thousand pages on the subject.

But other groups involved in protecting these secrets have included, they say, the Knights Templar from the late 12th century, the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons. And while I’ve read a few books on these other groups so far and am still not clear on all the details, there seems to be something to this, too.

So what do you do with all of this? After I’ve done more reading in these areas, I’ll add another sermon or two to this series. But for now, there are some important things hidden behind the fascination so many people are finding with the ideas presented in The DaVinci Code.

To borrow the title from Al Franken’s understated new book, you could say this story is about Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. It is a story of a major religion which has betrayed and suppressed the message of Jesus, a message which empowered people directly, without the need for any mediators. Jesus didn’t come to start a church; he came to set people free by telling them that God loved them, loved all of them equally, and that when we treated one another as children of God, the kingdom of God would be here. Amen, end of sermon, end of religion.

Jesus never preached sin and salvation, he never promised heaven or threatened with hell, though the writer of the gospel of John does. He came to empower people. The church changed the story to empower the leaders of the church and, later, the political and military rulers of countries, Christianity is still being used this way by our president and many conservative preachers even today, when they order God to “bless America” and whip up the believers for a holy war against Arabs and Muslims who coincidentally happen to own a lot of oil. The same tactics are being used by fundamentalist Muslims who demean and dishonor the teachings of Muhammad by reducing Allah to the same kind of patriarchal, hierarchical, violent deity.

In Jesus’ religion, there is no mediator; no one stands between you and God. In Christianity, the pope, priests and churches become mediators, who write the rules of your salvation. The two could not be more opposed.

Jesus celebrated life. In his own time he was called a glutton and a drunkard, and there is growing evidence that he was indeed married and a father, and may even have played a role in the sexual initiation of a young man. These secrets, even 1800 years ago, were hidden from the newcomers, from the “Babes in Christ,” who the church leaders thought needed the superstition and magic, and were not ready for the simple teachings of Jesus that could set them free from the powerful rule of the church. Both political leaders and churches have suppressed this through most of Western history, to make leaders powerful and people obedient.

It is a question of trust, of truth, of lies, betrayal and deception of several billions of people who were sold a religion that Jesus would have detested.

The orthodox will see this, I suspect, as a bad thing, an assault on faith, an enemy of God. I see, or at least hope I see, something else behind this. I see some glimmer of hope that some of the “Babes in Christ” have had enough, that they want the truth that sets them free rather than the untruths that bind them to inadequate models of human life and bad theology.

I see, or at least hope, that we might be seeing people in our time decide to replay the story of Eve in the Garden of Eden. Originally, Eve’s decision to seek knowledge and to share it freely was condemned. Maybe this time Eve will win. And if Eve wins, maybe we will too.

———————–

[1] The source of this dating is the Australian biblical scholar Barbara Thiering. She is a controversial scholar, which means she colors outside the orthodox lines. I know Barbara, and have been on an invitational worldwide e-list of scholars discussing her work with her for three years. I respect her absolutely; her arguments are footnoted with references to original sources in several languages. But though I think I’ve read a fair amount in this area, I don’t have a clue whether she’s right. She is being quoted fairly regularly by other authors working in these non-orthodox areas of interest.

[2] Barbara Thiering again. See her books Jesus the Man (also called Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Jesus of the Apocalypse: the Life of Jesus after the Crucifixion). While other authors (like Lawrence Gardner) have made similar claims about Jesus’ life, marriages (two), and children (two with Mary, one daughter with Lydia), Barbara says all such claims have come from her work, or from distortions of it.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Davidson Loehr 14

September 2003

The text of this sermon is unavailable but you can listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

This Holy Cross Sunday Dr. Leohr focuses on the Christian symbol of the cross seen in a new way: As two axis, one horizontal and one vertical.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

31 August 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button..

Prayer

In everything we do or fail to do, we’re writing the story of our lives.

Too often, the fantasy and the reality of our lives are a world apart.

Sometimes we can’t find our way, or can’t recognize the way when we have found it.

Sometimes it seems the cost is just too high to take the high road, so we settle for a lower road because we believe it is all we can really afford.

Let us take this time, this place, these moments, to remind us of our higher calling. Let us be open to hearing the voices of gods rather than idols, consulting those angels of our better nature rather than the little demons and goblins of our lesser selves.

Let us think and act in ways that can do honor to us and to those who love us.

Let us act as though God were watching, as though those whom we love were watching, as though all the great and noble souls of history were watching.

For we are the gatekeepers of our better tomorrows.

We are, all of us, brothers and sisters, children of God, and the best hope of a more compassionate world.

Let us live in such a way that when we are finished, we can say, “In my time here, I was as compassionate, as courageous as I knew how to be. In my time I was, if even only in my small way, a blessing to those whose lives I touched.

“I came, I cared, and in the most important matters I tried to be authentic. I wasn’t perfect; but I was the best person that I knew how to be. And that is enough, it is enough, it is always enough.”

Amen.

SERMON: The Shadow Knows

One of the most famous and ancient story plots we have is about people going out on long adventures in search of a treasure they finally discover was buried at home all the time. I think of the movie “The Wizard of Oz,” where Dorothy left Kansas and went to Oz, which had the same characters she had known in Kansas. She finally discovered that the home she was looking for was always as close as clicking her heels.

Also in that movie, the three other main characters were searching for something they thought they didn’t have: brains, courage, a heart. But it wasn’t true: they had them all the time, they just didn’t know it.

I try to look at religion and life’s questions in a lot of different ways here, because the same road doesn’t work for everyone, so I think it’s worth knowing a lot of paths. This morning, I’m looking at life through some lenses from Jungian psychology. I think the Jungians offer some fertile ways of understanding what we think of as salvation, or a kind of healthy wholeness.

For Jung, that especially meant bringing together the favorite parts of our personality, which he called the persona, and the equally important parts that stay hidden, which he called the shadow. The notion of a shadow may sound spooky, but it really isn’t.

Our society, our families and our relationships tend to “edit” us. They prefer certain parts of us, and encourage them. But there’s a lot more to us, and it doesn’t go away. When we shine a light on the parts of us we like, our other parts go into the shadows. The shadow is the despised quarter of our being, or at least the unknown part. It often has as much energy as our ego does. If it gets more energy, it can erupt with its own terrible purpose, and run our lives like a mad puppeteer.

In our culture, especially recently, when we find two opposing forces we are taught to use the bigger one to destroy the weaker one. Whether this will work in international relations remains to be seen. But it doesn’t work psychologically, or in relationships. The two sides are both parts of us, and must be integrated. Otherwise, we’re more likely to flip from one extreme to another: the abused boy who becomes an abuser, religious fundamentalists who attack heretics, or a country that defines itself as peace-loving while claiming the right to declare preemptive war on anyone it chooses. These are some ways the shadow can erupt to define or control us, if we can’t grow big enough to integrate it.

Since we don’t have effective means of integrating our shadow sides today, we project them into our horror movies, gangster epics, violence, rap, garish or shocking fashions, etc. But that can’t integrate them.

To refuse the dark side of our nature is to store up the darkness. Then these things erupt as symptoms: a black mood, psychosomatic illness, or unconsciously inspired accidents – or war, economic chaos, strikes, racial intolerance, etc. The front pages of our newspapers hurl our collective shadows at us every day.

It is a dark page in human history when people make others bear their shadow for them. Men lay their shadow on women, whites upon blacks, blacks upon Hispanics – as I learned when I moved to Austin – Catholics upon Protestants, capitalists upon 3rd world countries, the poor and powerless, Muslims upon Hindus, on and on.

– That was all a kind of theoretical introduction for those who like theories. Now let’s get more specific, because in real life, examples of people whose shadows control or cripple them are usually simpler. I’ve brought you three examples of this, from a personal, institutional and societal scale.

On an individual level, I think of a woman I knew some years ago named Betsy. She was in a shadow rut. She dated a series of men who were all just as judgmental and dismissive of her as her father had been. Her shadow was running this show, trying to win approval from her father through this succession of stand-ins. She was doomed to repeat this plot until she finally got in touch with the parts of her that needed her father’s approval, understand she was never going to get it, and get on with her life. Then, when her father or others like him charged her like bulls with demeaning and hurtful remarks, she could play the matador, just letting the dangerous bulls pass by, without trying to confront them.

For an institutional example where the shadow is running the show, I think of Christianity, especially now as we see the fundamentalist versions gearing up for holy war against Muslims. Hucksters like Jerry Falwell are teaching that Islam is an evil religion teaching war and murder – apparently ignorant of the Christian Crusades, where Christians were told to kill Muslims and promised an eternal reward in heaven for doing so. This entire script is being acted out by the shadow, because it is these Christians who are teaching war and murder, and embodying an attitude Jesus would have regarded as evil. For this kind of wounded Christianity to become healed, it would have to grow big enough to integrate its own shadow, to acknowledge its own contributions to hatred, war and evil in the world today. Only then could Christianity have power to focus the profoundly good energies and ideals of that great religion. This is the task many liberal Christians are taking on, though they have an uphill fight.

And for a really broad current example of a script written by a shadow, I think of the U.S. and our claim that we are the only country on earth with the right to wage preemptive war against any country we choose, without provocation.

We do this while wanting to believe we are a peace-loving nation. It is already having effects that our administration seems not to have expected. William Kristol – who has been a shadow figure in U.S. neo-conservative politics for twenty years – has been interviewed on national radio and television, calmly acknowledging that yes, members of his group, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, had been urging that we invade Iraq and control it since 1991. Yes, he says, we will control Syria and Iran next, and think we can do it without using our armies. What would you expect the effect of these statements and plans to be in Arab and Muslim countries? When people all over the world know our blueprints to establish economic and military dominance of the world, including plans to prevent Asia or the European nations from becoming a threat to these imperialistic goals, what do you think the effect will be in Asia and Europe? Our media don’t carry the stories that we have become the most hated nation on earth, and that G.W. Bush is regarded as more dangerous and murderous than Saddam Hussein. But a quick check of world news outlets shows us this is the background against which our denial is operating.

North Korea has already made public its plans to mobilize and strengthen its forces in response to U.S. imperialism. Don’t we think Europe will too? Do we honestly believe we can boss the entire world around, invading wherever we like without consequences? We claim to be a nation of democracy, goodness and peace, but people all over the world, and a growing number here, see our behavior as arrogant, murderous and evil, as our shadow side acting out a kind of adolescent and deadly imperialism that we are publicly trying to pretend doesn’t exist.

There are encouraging signs that the shadow side of America will make it into our collective consciousness. The fact that “Bowling for Columbine” could win an Oscar and get a standing ovation, the fact that Michael Moore’s incendiary and angry book Stupid White Men rose to the #1 bestseller in non-fiction four or five times in the past year and a half, the fact that America’s imperialist plans are being discussed by some of our own journalists in prime-time spots, and by others all over the world, the fact that the protests don’t seem to be diminishing – these are much stronger signs that the citizens are awake than we had anywhere nearly this early in the Vietnam War. So maybe we will insist on facing our own dangerous shadow sides. Maybe not. Time will tell, along with the collective vision and courage – not of our leaders, but of our citizens.

We tend to think of our shadow sides as bad, like these examples. Often, it is. The shadow isn’t necessarily bad, though; it’s just invisible to us, not integrated into our consciousness, so it has great power to mislead us. But a lot of our very best traits are also hidden in the shadows.

Hero-worship is also projecting our shadow. And it’s dangerous to us too, if we then expect the hero to save us, as we become passive.

And falling in love is projecting parts of our shadow, when we fantasize that this person exists to complete us, then later get angry when we find they were, after all, just a human, and their job really wasn’t to complete us.

Still, sometimes someone can help us find our shadow in a way that’s healing. But even then the power hidden in the shadows usually blindsides us.

One of my favorite stories about this is a story about my oldest friend, John. We met in 1968, while I was finishing an undergraduate degree in music theory and he was working on his Ph.D. in psychology. John rode a big Kawasaki motorcycle, which he could take apart and put back together. He loved fixing things. He loved fixing people, too. And it seemed that every woman he dated had something wrong with her that he thought it was his job to fix. This produced a fairly colorful list of girl friends, none of whom lasted very long – usually because they got tired of being another of John’s work projects.

Once when he was between girlfriends, I said, “John, what would happen if you found a really healthy woman who loved you, was compatible with you, but didn’t need any work done?” “Oh,” he said, “that wouldn’t be at all appealing!”

About 25 years ago, after visiting England several times, he finally moved there. He said the U.S. felt like an adolescent society, and he wanted to live among grown-ups. A few years later, he wrote to say he’d met a woman named Mary, so I realized that, grown-up or not, England had some work projects for John. Mary was going through a divorce, and the legal and emotional hassles of dividing the assets from a successful travel agency she and her husband had owned. I couldn’t imagine that John would know anything about much of this, but I was sure he could find something to work on in her, so he’d be content.

Then they visited while I was living in Chicago, and I got to meet Mary. She was John’s worst nightmare: a perfectly healthy woman who loved him, was compatible with him, and didn’t need any fixing at all. I said I didn’t understand why she was attractive to him. He said it had blindsided him. Since she was stressed out when he met her, he thought she could be another good work project. When the divorce was over and the business had been divided, he suddenly discovered that she wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing at all. But by then, he said, it was too late. They’d learned to love each other, and he had been seduced into a healthy relationship in spite of himself. They’ve been married over twenty years.

His shadow, the part of himself he hadn’t learned how to integrate, was the part that simply enjoyed living, that could find healthy people attractive because they were healthy. It was the part that trusted life and trusted others. He had moved to England because he wanted to live among adults rather than adolescents. And then he met one of those adults, and outgrew his own adolescence.

In some ways, I can identify easily with John and Mary. But in others, they are very different people from me. They are both into every screwy supernaturalism known to humankind: astrology, numerology, palm reading, crystals – they’ve got ’em all. They also told me that they had been together in a previous life, where they needed to work through some things, but this time around it was just about perfect.

I was alarmed by all that supernatural hokum, and I thought about trying to make them a work project. Then I realized I was in the presence of two people who had found their own path toward wholeness and happiness. I decided to leave them alone, and just bless them.

So much life comes from the shadows, you’d think we would get over our fear of them. Yet we are often afraid of the dark. We are afraid to go there, to find what hides there, to face it. We are afraid because we fear that the truth will be bad.

Betsy was afraid she could not live without her father’s approval. But in truth, she couldn’t really live until she no longer needed his approval.

Some Christians are afraid that if they welcome Islam and all other religions as equally legitimate paths to salvation, then theirs will lose its special appeal. In fact, for many people, a religion secure enough to build bridges rather than walls is much more appealing, and much more religious. Many Christian apologists feel that if they ever acknowledge the truth about a very human Jesus or the fact that there are many roads to spiritual fulfillment that need not go through Christian doors, that they’ll lose their flocks. Maybe. But I think what they lose through fear they might more than make up for through what they gain in trust and respect.

Our current administration seems to think we can only be safe by threatening everyone else on earth. That too seems unlikely.

It is easy and natural to wonder how the answers could come from what seems our weakest area. But thousands of years of mythology and religious teachings say it usually comes from the shadows.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, Isaiah says the stone the builders rejected will become the cornerstone. In the Christian scriptures, a voice asks, “What good could come from Nazareth,” a backwater place of low repute. Yet that’s where they said Jesus came from.

In virtually every great story we know, the hero comes from the fringes, the shadows. From Jesus to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, to Frodo in the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, it is the weakest character who turns out to be the strongest, the one able to build bridges between parts of a disjointed world.

Within and among us too, it is often our hidden parts that hold the power and knowledge we need. And so we perch between two kinds of life, two kinds of belief: the belief that the truth will be bad, and the belief that the truth can set us free. We perch between fear and life, even as we know there are mostly two kinds of people in the world: those who are alive and those who are afraid. And the message I’ve tried to pass on this morning is a simple message, taken from ancient religious insights and modern Jungian psychology. It is simply this: don’t be afraid of the dark. Those things you need to know to be more alive are as close as clicking your heels. You can trust the shadow. The shadow knows.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

24 August 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

INVOCATION

“Today is a day the Lord has made,” says an old religious writer, “let us therefore rejoice and be glad in it.” It is indeed!

It is so good to be together again!

For it is a sacred time, this

And a sacred place, this:

a place for questions more profound than answers,

vulnerability more powerful than strength,

and a peace that can pass all understanding.

It is a sacred time, this: let us begin it together in song.

PRAYER

We pray to the angels of our better nature and the still small voice that can speak to us when we feel safe enough to listen.

Help us to love people and causes outside of ourselves, that we may be enlarged to include them.

Help us remember that we are never as alone or as powerless as we think.

Help us remember that we can, if we will, invest ourselves in relationships, institutions and causes that transcend and expand us.

Help us guard our hearts against those relationships and activities that diminish us and weaken our life force.

And help us give our hearts to those relationships that might, with our help, expand our souls and our worlds.

We know that every day both life and death are set before us. Let us have the faith and courage to choose those involvements that can lead us toward life, toward life more abundant.

And help us find the will to serve those life-giving involvements with our heart, our mind and our spirit.

We ask that we may see more clearly in these matters, and that we have the will to hold to those relationships that demand, and cherish, the very best in us. Just that, just those.

Amen.

SERMON

I hardly ever do sermons on old theological arguments – especially on topics as arcane as whether we are saved by faith alone, or whether we’re to be judged by our works as well as by our words. It really is an old argument, in both Eastern and Western religion. Eastern religions are pretty clear that your deeds determine your karma, and the kind of reincarnation you’re likely to have. They usually don’t give a lot of credit for just thinking good thoughts.

Judaism has always taught that the two great commandments are to love God with heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Those teachings didn’t originate with Jesus. He learned them as a Jew. Even on their day of atonement, which they celebrate on September 15th this year, it is made clear that in order to make atonement with God, you must first make peace with those friends and neighbors you have wronged.

And Catholicism has also taught that it takes both faith and good works – plus a little grace – to be saved, and that the grace is most likely to come to those who have done good works. All of these teachings came from times when the vast majority of people were illiterate, and almost all teaching was done through stories passed down from generation to generation.

But after the printing press was invented and people began reading, things changed. Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago by teaching that we are saved by faith alone. We need to read the book, to know what we believe, and we are saved by faith alone without the necessity of doing the good works to earn it, he taught.

I’ve always thought Luther was dead wrong there. But since I’m one of those people who likes to read and think, I’ve also always hoped he might be right. It’s easy for me to slip into believing in salvation by bibliography. Like if I can just get all the footnotes in the right places, I’ll be ok.

Luckily, when I get that far gone, I usually wake up, or whomever I’m talking to will roll their eyes or doze off. Then I snap out of it and remember, again, that life is both bigger and better than books – even my books.

But I’m not alone here. Everywhere, I think, in all times and places, those who love to think about things have always been in danger of falling off of the world. It’s the special curse of intellectuals.

One of our oldest Western stories is about an early Greek philosopher who was walking around one day, head in the clouds, staring at the sky, when he fell into a well. For centuries afterwards, the Greeks told this story about those who think too much: people whose heads were so full of the heavens that they were of no earthly use.

It’s the same story we still tell about absent-minded professors, who forget where they left their hat or parked the car, or who drive to school without their shoes on.

We think over here, the world’s over there, and we lose touch with it as we get seduced by our thoughts. You know what I’m talking about!

It’s the story of thinking rather than doing, faith rather than works. It comes out again and again in some of the jokes about intellectuals.

A friend who taught undergraduate philosophy courses told me that every year, her students’ very favorite story was the one she told about another great intellectual, the French philosopher Rene Descartes, whose most famous line was “I think, therefore I am.”

One night, Descartes went to a fine restaurant, and each time the waiter suggested another course, Descartes ordered it until he was so full he could hardly move. When the waiter returned to ask if he would like to order dessert, Descartes said “I think not” – and he disappeared.

Sometimes I think that’s the abiding fear of people who think too much. We’re afraid that if we stop thinking we’ll disappear. As though thinking were enough. As though faith is enough, as though it isn’t really necessary to spend time in the world after all. We tend to follow Martin Luther’s goofy idea in this, whether we’ve ever been inside a Lutheran church or not. This tendency to over-intellectualize shows in some of the best jokes about Unitarians, too.

I’m remembering a famous scene from the television series “Welcome Back, Kotter” from twenty or thirty years ago. Someone had been hurt, or was lying unconscious. One person shouted “Get him a priest!” Another said “He’s a Unitarian.” “Oh,” said the first, “then find him a math teacher!”

And the great joke about what you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah’s Witness: Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason. In a perverse sort of way, I think we like these stories, because they imply that we’re smarter than the average armadillo, and we like thinking that religion is about being smarter, rather than being more whole and authentic.

But there’s another side to these jokes, another side to the idea that just faith, just thinking, is enough to make a religion or a life out of, and it isn’t always funny. Maybe you’ve had the experience of running into someone who didn’t live in their head, and whose down-to-earth style brought you up short, and made you question the incompleteness of your intellectualizing. I certainly have, and I love these experiences, because they always teach me something and help me grow.

About a year ago I had a sobering experience in this area. I was preaching in Fort Worth, and went a couple days early to have some time with my colleague Diana and her sister Georgia’s family. We were guests at Georgia’s home in Ponder, Texas. Ponder is a small town (about 450) north of Fort Worth, known for a great Texas restaurant (The Ranchman’s), and the bank that “Bonnie and Clyde” robbed in the movie of thirty years ago. (They also have a great bumper sticker that just says “Ponder, Texas – Just Think About It!”) Georgia owns the bank, it’s where I sleep when I visit.

We were all sitting and rocking on Georgia’s front porch – it’s what you do in Ponder – and Diana and I were heavy into talking about work: how to talk to Unitarian churches about giving money to the church, since we were both getting ready for our church’s annual pledge drive.

Georgia belongs to a fundamentalist Baptist church, I think it’s in the holiness movement. Diana and I had been talking for about ten minutes when we realized we had left Georgia completely out of the conversation, and were ignoring her on her own front porch. Diana said something about not meaning to be rude, but thought Georgia probably wasn’t very interested in this topic.

Georgia allowed as how she had been listening in, but was very confused. “I just can’t imagine having to plan tactics to talk to people about supporting the church,” she said. “Each week when I go to church, I put a $100 bill in the collection plate. If I don’t have money that week then I don’t, but usually I do. I figure if we don’t support it, who will?” I don’t mean to be offensive here, but I honestly don’t understand how ministers could be confused about this!”

Georgia’s little church has sent their youth to Montana for a summer to help Blackfoot Indians clean and repair the homes on their reservations. They’ve done this for years, the church pays for it. They’ve also paid to send youth into Mexico for two or three weeks at a time to do the same for needy people there. And one of Georgia’s daughters has had two trips to Thailand, where she spent two months teaching English to Thai adults. She went back again this summer. Thailand is 95% Theravada Buddhist, about 4% Muslim, less than 1% Christian. When I asked her daughter if she thought there was much chance of converting the Thais to Christianity, she seemed shocked and said no, they’re pretty happy being Buddhists. “Why are you doing it?” I asked. “In our church,” she said, “we were taught to serve, because faith without works is dead. Isn’t that what you teach at your church?” I lied, convincing myself that it was really just a “little white lie.”

To me, it was astounding that a little Baptist church could do such far-ranging good works. I don’t know what percentage of her pay Georgia is giving to her church, but it must be 15-20% or more. And she isn’t doing it because she’s scared of hell. Georgia isn’t scared of anything! She’s doing it because she can’t imagine ever doing otherwise. She’s doing it because she really believes that faith without works is dead, and that a religion without a spontaneously generous heart is a contradiction in terms.

I wasn’t raised that way. The Presbyterian churches of my youth never taught us to serve like that, and we never discussed money in church. We weren’t taught to believe we could make a positive difference in the lives of Indians in Montana, or strangers in Mexico, or in Thailand. I never belonged to a church that routinely sent its youth to other states and countries to lend a helping hand to people they have never met. In the churches I grew up in, we weren’t taught how to have generous hearts that open out to ourselves and others. So it’s something I had to grow into as an adult.

Why is this so hard for liberals when it seems so easy for Georgia’s church and other conservative churches? I think it’s because there’s an assumption in a religion just of faith, or thinking, that we haven’t examined, an assumption which is false. There’s a lot more to religion than just thinking or having discussion groups.

Liberal religion often acts like it’s only for adults, like people are already finished by the time they arrive, like their character is already formed, and all they need to do is discuss interesting ideas. Salvation by faith, salvation by thinking, we think therefore we are. But that’s not true. We’re not finished. We come to church partly to get finished, to learn and experience more of the activities and involvements that can make us more complete people.

A healthy church is the best place we have to develop a whole range of sensitivities and skills that make us more complete people. And while faith – thinking – plays an important part, it doesn’t play the biggest part. The biggest part of becoming whole comes from doing, from works.

Faith without works, thinking without doing and being, are dead because they can’t give us the depth and breadth of life we need. The form of today’s service was unusual because its real message came in the prayer. The sermon was designed to flesh out the prayer. Now see if this morning’s prayer makes a different kind of sense to you:

We pray to the angels of our better nature and the still small voice that can speak to us when we feel safe enough to listen.

Help us to love people and causes outside of ourselves, that we may be enlarged to include them.

Help us remember that we are never as alone or as powerless as we think.

Help us remember that we can, if we will, invest ourselves in relationships, institutions and causes that transcend and expand us.

Help us guard our hearts against those relationships and activities that diminish us and weaken our life force.

And help us give our hearts to those relationships that might, with our help, expand our souls and our worlds.

We know that every day both life and death are set before us. Let us have the faith and courage to choose those involvements that can lead us toward life, toward life more abundant.

And help us find the will to serve those life-giving involvements with our heart, our mind and our spirit.

We ask that we may see more clearly in these matters, and that we have the will to hold to those relationships that demand, and cherish, the very best in us. Just that, just those.

Amen.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

15 June 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

SERMON

One of my favorite discussions of religion happened some years back with a group of Presbyterians. Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and most others, as you may know, say all the same things about their uniqueness as a group that UUs do. You’ll hear them say that steering a bunch of them is like herding cats, you’ll hear them say things like “Presbyterians are all like that,” “What would you expect of a bunch of Lutherans?” or “Nobody tells a Baptist what to believe!” and the rest.

About fifteen years ago, I belonged to an ecumenical ministers’ group. About thirty or forty of us met together every Thursday for lunch, and our churches took turns hosting the lunches, so we got to meet a nice variety of people from other religions – mostly the women who prepared and served the lunches. We were visiting a small rural Presbyterian church one Thursday, and before lunch I overheard a small group of Presbyterian women talking. They were trashing Catholics or Baptists, and one of them said “Well, I’m glad we’re Presbyterians!” After a little silence, a second woman said “We’re not supposed to be Presbyterians. We’re supposed to be Christians.” After more silence, another said “Even that sounds arrogant. We’re supposed to love one another, that’s all.”

There is a whole graduate-level course in the difference between religion and a special club in that little interchange. Social clubs are about who we are, what we believe, what is distinctive about us. So this includes political parties, fraternities and sororities, college boosters, and parts of all religions. But these identities are always about who we are. I think of them as roosters crowing to draw attention to themselves. They’re not really doing anything, just crowing.

But religion has always been very different. It isn’t about who we are or what we believe. It’s about what we owe to others, to the world, how we are commanded to behave, like the third Presbyterian woman knew. Religion is always about trying to get people to seek a higher identity than the ones we usually seek. Left alone, we identify with ourselves, or with our club, our class, our kind of people, our political party, fraternity or sorority, even with the sports team we root for. These identities can be so powerful people will kill or die for them, as has happened a few times in world soccer matches.

That Presbyterian discussion about the sacred and the profane reminded me of a bible passage, and a movie made about that bible passage. The bible passage is in the gospel of Matthew where Jesus says, “Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone?” (Matthew 7:9, NRSV)

And the movie, which is one of the favorite movies of many who have seen it, is a picture that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 1988. It’s a Danish film with subtitles, about a small religious group whose favorite Biblical question was “Who, when your child asks for bread, will give a stone?” Yet the movie showed it was this dour little group that was doing just that. They taught conformity to their style, they really just worshiped their way of being. Even the bread they served at their meals was stale.

Who offers a stone to people who ask for bread? Lots of people, and lots of groups. It’s what the first two Presbyterians were offering: club membership rather than a transformed life and world. All you have to offer is being called a Presbyterian or a Christian, a Unitarian Universalist or a Muslim? Those are stones, not bread. And it became clear when the third woman spoke and said they were just supposed to love one another, just that. There was bread. Manna, bread from heaven, bread for the soul and for the soul of the world.

Do you see and feel the difference? It matters so much!

I want to use another word to talk about the difference between honest religion and lesser identities like club or denominational identities. It’s about the different kinds of authority that religion and clubs, political parties or social groups have. These latter, the social and political clubs, have only the authority of their group. They say “This is true because we say it is, and if you don’t agree you need to join another club or church or party. If you don’t like our truth, join the club down the street.” Political parties are not concerned with the truth as much as they are with toeing the party line, and the same is true of all religions at their most superficial level. It’s always about them: so Presbyterians are people who say they believe this but not that; Catholics believe that but not this. It’s never about their character, the kind of people they are, how they treat others. Religious wars and heresy trials are never about character or behavior, always about public profession of the beliefs demanded by the club with the club.

Religious truth must always rest on what is called ontological truth. Sorry for the two-dollar word, but it means a truth that is not determined by what we do or don’t believe, not determined by any authority. Saying something is an ontological truth is saying this is really the way life is, taken deeply, whether we like it or not. It is the only authority an honest religion can ever claim. Every religion I know has a way of saying that the quality of our life is determined largely by the quality of the values we’re living out, and that the focus isn’t on how special we are, but whether we love one another, especially those who are different from us.

The Greeks had a formula for this that I’ve always loved:

Plant a thought, reap an action;

plant an action, reap a habit;

plant a habit, reap a character;

plant a character, reap a destiny.

The Greeks believed that the authority for living well is written in the depths of the human condition, understood rightly, and that we must try to live this way or pay the price. This is so similar to the messages of Taoism, Buddhism, almost all religions. Some religions make some of the eternal dynamics and values into gods, to indicate that they are powerful and persistent and must always be dealt with. This is one way to understand the whole pantheon of Greek gods and goddesses: projections of natural and psychological dynamics that have always been with us, that frame the possibilities of living.

And the task of living wisely is the task of Zeus: to mediate between competing desires and demands, in service of a balanced life directed toward serving the greater good of ourselves and others. What is the prize for this? It is salvation by character, it is personal and communal authenticity.

You can’t get that second-hand. You can’t get it by joining a club, a denomination or a church, or putting fish named “Jesus” on your car trunk. You only get it by doing the self-examination and the work. It’s free, but it isn’t cheap.

And, as every religion I know teaches, there is a penalty for not taking our lives this seriously. Hinduism and Buddhism have you coming back until you get it right. Taoism and many nature religions talk about being out of touch with the essential balance of life, saying you pay the penalty of a diminished and less connected life. Western religions talk about Hell as a place for those who failed worst. But you don’t have to think in supernatural terms. In fact, it’s probably better if you don’t think in supernatural terms.

I’ve quoted a paragraph here before from my favorite Western religious thinker, the Danish existentialist Søren Kierkegaard. Movie critics say the movie “Babette’s Feast” was all about Kierkegaard’s ideas, too; and it was certainly shot through with them. He didn’t think you could fool yourself, others and life forever. He thought there was a price to pay for identifying only with clubs, churches, denominations – Lutheran, in his case. It was a kind of existential Judgment Day he called “the Midnight Hour.” It could come in the morning when your face looks back at you from the mirror and says “Who are you? Why weren’t you your more true self?” –

“Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself.” (from Either/Or, in A Kierkegaard Anthology edited by Robert Bretall, Princeton University Press, 1946, p. 99)

When something posing as an adequate identity short-circuits the process by giving people prizes simply for being Christian, Unitarian Universalist or Republican, then it has become a betrayal of the religious calling that’s lost beneath the shallower rewards of a group identity.

And I want to persuade you that the difference between liberal religion and a religion called UUism defined by the seven principles is the difference between religion and a social club, a political party, a secular or cultural identity. It is the difference between the authority of life taken deeply, and the authority of a club.

Now how did this brand-new faith called Unitarian Universalism, defined by those seven principles, come about? This isn’t hard to see. The UUA is funding an advertising campaign in Kansas City costing about a quarter of a million dollars, to establish brand-name recognition for UU churches in a city where almost nobody has ever heard of them. One of the women working with the project called me a few weeks ago to say that while more visitors are coming to their churches, the visitors want to know what the religion is, and when she shows them the seven principles they just roll their eyes and often don’t return. “I don’t like them either,” she said, “but it’s all we’ve got.”

They have brand-name recognition, but they don’t have a product to sell, which means a lot of the money is probably wasted. People are coming asking for spiritual bread, and feeling like they’re being offered stones. Even the woman offering the stones is aware that something is missing. That something might be called religion.

One of the slogans used in this billboard campaign is very helpful in understanding what the problem is. That billboard reads, “Many religions, one faith.” Look what they are saying – and saying honestly, I think. There are many religions in our churches, we all know that. You can be Christian, atheist, Buddhist, wiccan, whatever you like. But then there is this “one faith.” The “one faith” that they call Unitarian Universalism. This means that the “one faith” is not a religion. And it sounds like that “one faith” trumps the religions, is the higher category that defines everyone who joins the churches, no matter what they may personally believe. Where did this “one faith” come from?

Let’s look at the origins of UUism – the faith defined by the seven principles. We don’t have to go back very far, it’s a brand-new faith. But its origins were not religious.

When the Unitarians and the Universalists merged in 1961, both religions were moribund. American Universalism had the supernatural teaching that all dead people go to heaven, there is no hell. But people really haven’t worried or written much about where dead people might go for over a century, especially in liberal circles. By about 1900, the Universalists had an answer to a question few liberals were asking any more. Their last seminary closed in the 1970s (Crane, at Tufts University).

And the American Unitarianism of the 19th century as a bible-centered monotheistic religion was also about dead in liberal circles forty years ago. Most who came to our churches were asking their questions in scientific language, language about this life in this world, and they weren’t talking much about God.

Both Unitarians and Universalists, however, were cultural and political liberals, usually supporting the same individual-rights causes. So there was a common identity, it just wasn’t religious.

So as soon as the two religions merged 1961, the question of what on earth they believed arose. Some of you will remember this arising in the 1970s, when Unitarians were saying “The problem is that our children don’t know what to tell their friends they believe!” That, for the record, was a lie. That wasn’t the problem at all. The problem was that the adults, including many of the ministers, no longer knew what they believed, or even what was worth believing. They were really in about the same nebulous place as most of the liberal culture in America – as they still are.

Imagine what might have happened if Unitarians, 25 years ago when they realized they didn’t know what was worth believing, had actually become leaders and asked religious questions. They might have used some of their grant money to bring together theologians and religion scholars from around the world, to discover common themes and common beliefs that underlie all the world’s religions. They might have discovered that there is a core of beliefs that have marked people of good character in all times and places, and might have made those beliefs central – not to their shared cultural habits, but to their religion – hopefully, something with a name shorter than eleven syllables.

Theologians, sociologists of religion, cultural anthropologists, existential psychologists, historians, philosophers – think of the panels of experts, poets, religious thinkers from around the world that could have been assembled! And the results might have marked a watershed in religious history. The first time people might actually have looked beyond confessionalism, beyond religious jargon, to ask what on earth really is worth believing, what ideals must command the attention of all good people. I’m not exaggerating, I think it could have been revolutionary, both for our churches and for others.

But nothing like that happened. Nobody was interested in it. The early 1980s were very self-absorbed times in our country – it was the “Me” generation – and our people reflected that as products of the times. Also, as a religious movement that didn’t have a clear religion, there was a lot of defensiveness, and almost no faith that a set of real and necessary beliefs could be discovered.

So instead of looking outward, they looked inward. Instead of conducting a study, they took a poll. It was a poll taken to ask what current members in the early 1980s happened to believe. Not what they should believe, not what things could be argued to be most profoundly true, not what beliefs have been accepted through history as necessary in helping to form people of good character. No religious questions were asked, no religious scholars were consulted. They just took a poll. They held a mirror up to themselves to admire the beliefs they happened to bring into church with them, since they weren’t clear what beliefs worth having anyone would pick up in church.

What such a poll had to reveal, and what it did reveal, were the secular assumptions that cultural liberals of the early 1980s brought into church with them, the beliefs they had absorbed from the broader liberal culture. And the principles have been used, since then, to describe “our kind of people” – not their religion, which is at best a secondary concern, but the secular faith of cultural liberalism: the “one faith” that constitutes the ersatz new faith called “Unitarian Universalism.”

“UUism” is the religion for our masses, just as Presbyterianism is the religion for those masses. It was created by people who wanted to be able to speak for their masses, people who were frustrated by religious pluralism and wanted, finally, “one faith.” That is only likely to happen in a mass religion, a group faith. And mass religions have a different faith than religions do.

The faith of religions for the masses is the faith that there is safety in numbers and security and identity in belonging to a group of like-minded people. The faith of honest religion is fundamentally different; it is the faith that life really does have some abiding truths that can guide, strengthen and comfort us if only we will listen, hear, and obey them, even when they put us at odds with our group – which they usually will.

Club membership, society identity, religion for the masses, is easy and secure, and can feel really good if what you seek is acceptance without work, just for being you in a group of people just like you. It’s the feeling a Democrat gets at a Democratic convention, but – curiously! – doesn’t get at a Republican convention. It’s the feeling a Republican gets at a Republican convention, but – again, curiously – not at a Democratic convention. This is because political parties, like denominations and other group identities, aren’t in the pursuit of truth; they’re in pursuit of conformity with a party line that can bestow an identity on their kind of people.

I am not and have never been a “Unitarian Universalist,” though I’ve identified with the American Unitarian tradition. But even as an outsider to this new “faith” called UUism, it’s easy to see that it is in trouble, lost in the woods. Even Bill Sinkford, the president of the UUA, has said publicly that the principles are so empty and boring that nobody would want them read by their bedside in a hospital. This isn’t just my rant: even the president of the association knows that the emperor has no clothes – and suspects it isn’t a real emperor, either. That’s the definition of stones, not bread. Who would give stones to people asking for bread? The UUA would and does.

I imagine people coming to the UUA twenty years from now, or even one week from now, saying “We came to you asking for bread, and you gave us this silly faith based on principles that came from taking a poll. How could you do that? We trusted you to take us seriously. How could you do that?”

It is sad and frustrating to have watched the new and vapid “faith” called Unitarian Universalism replace the focus and purpose of an honest religion with such self-absorbed pap. Because bad faith drives out good faith. It’s also sad to observe that when a religion is dumbed down to the self-descriptive boasts of its members, people follow it to that lower level because they trusted their leaders to lead them in the ways of righteousness and wholeness, and to feed them bread rather than stones.

This isn’t finished. The mistakes made 20 years ago through lack of vision and courage are related to the fact that the adult membership of the UUA has declined 44% since 1970, and has declined 5% per decade since 1980 relative to the population of the U.S. [1]

The lack of religious vision and courage are also related to the president of the UUA saying that the seven principles of the “one faith” of UUism are so hollow and boring that nobody would want them read by their hospital bedside – even as we spend more money creating religious education programs based on them. It is material for a Garrison Keillor joke, and might be funny if we weren’t paying for it – in more currencies than we care to count.

So this isn’t finished. And I can’t finish it today with one critique. This “movement” – the one that’s moving backwards – is lost in the woods, led there marching to the chant of the “one faith” composed of seven principles no one can remember. The way out, I believe, will not be under the banner of “Unitarian Universalism.” It will only come, I think, when individuals, ministers, churches and leaders (probably in that order) forego the simple comforts of club membership for the engaging challenges of the same spirit of honest religion that has animated every great religion, every serious quest for noble character, in history.

I think a motto we use in this church could help the UUA shift their vision toward something that might point toward an exit from the woods. Not “Many religions, one faith,” but – as you see printed on all our orders of service – “One church. Many beliefs.”

The many beliefs are variations on timeless themes. Those themes are the range of commandments that have always stirred the human soul to higher and nobler aspirations, to become better people, partners, parents and citizens. They sing through the prayers of every honest religion of history, and are recognizable immediately:

– Don’t to do others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.

– Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god.

– Whatsoever things are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, or good report – think on these things

– Be a blessing unto the world

– Speak from the Buddha-seed within you to the Buddha-seed within others.

– A good man is a bad man’s teacher; a bad man is a good man’s job.

While these themes are legion, they are all sung in the key of honest religion, not the self-absorption of smaller identities. We know them by their sound and the seriousness with which they take both us and all of life. No two people will find exactly the same combination of variations on these themes to find their own way out of the woods, so though we can be one church – meaning a sangha, a place where religious concerns are valued higher than lesser concerns – there must be many beliefs, many variations on these themes. The variations are negotiable; the themes are not.

The way out of the woods can, I believe, only be walked along paths of religious beliefs, not the mass recitations of groups in love mostly with their kind of people. It is an unending journey, this succession of paths out of the woods, and along the way are many stones to trip us up. But there is also food for this trip, nourishment for head and heart, body and soul. We’ll be serving – well, you know.

————————-

[1] “UUism” and its growth or decline, compared with the growth in the US population since 1970:

in 1970, UUs (167,583) were .081727% of the US population (205,052,000)

in 1980, UUs (139,052) were .06138% of the US population (226,545,805)

in 1990, UUs (145,250) were .0584% of the US population (248,709,873)

in 2000, UUs (155,449) were .05524% of the US population (281,421,906)

The 2000 figures show UUs have lost over 32% since 1970 (.05524% is 67.6% of .081727%) They’ve lost 10% since 1980, 5% since 1990.

Here are some more ways to play with those figures:

Since 1970, the US population has increased by 37.244%, while UU adult members have declined by over 7.2%. If UUs had kept up with US population growth, there would be about 229,998 adult members today instead of the 155,000+ we have. So we are about 44.5% behind where we would need to be, to have kept pace with US population growth. And we’re about 45% behind where we’d need to be actually to say we had GROWN in the past thirty years.

(Figures obtained from the UUA and the Internet.)