Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Davidson Loehr

Carolyn Gremminger

January 2, 2005

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

AFFIRMATION OF FAITH:

Carolyn Gremminger

My name is Carolyn Gremminger and I am a member of the Worship Associates. I was raised a Roman Catholic in a Rural North Texas town. As a small child, I found much comfort in the rituals of the church and I was very devoted, taking it all very seriously and literally. The strong sure patriarchal God provided reassurance and a feeling of love and kinship in my small community.

As I grew older and was preparing to leave home for college, I became very afraid about venturing to the “Big City” of Austin. I made the choice at that time to leave the Catholic Church, as I felt they were not “serious enough” about God. I believed at that time that there really was one right way out there to follow God and I began looking for someone to tell me how to do it. It them became my mission to save myself and all others I came into contact with.

I eventually found a very rigid church. As I became more and more devout in that fundamentalist religion, I grew more and more joyless and unhappy. I did not question this. I just thought that is how one lived if one was serious about religion.

After about four years of this experience, my attachment to this form of religion deteriorated. That religion did not honor the fact that in my essence, I am an independent woman who does not only define her selfhood in relation to being a wife and a mother. The religion did not facilitate the authentic processing of difficult emotions. The final straw was when my brother came out of the closet and the only view I was offered was one of judgment and condemnation. I love my brother very much and this was not an acceptable course of action for me. To harken back to Davidson’s prior sermon, I needed to lay down this “raft.” This religion no longer supported my life. It no longer offered acceptable choices and possibilities of relating with a complex world with myriad moral dilemmas and ways of being.

So at that point, when I was about 25, I made the decision to leave “church” all together. I came to consider church to be a place where certain questions could not be asked and certain people would not be honored. I eventually got married. Looking back at that time, the “raft” that I constructed was a lifestyle of acquisition, consumption and comfort seeking.

Then, in the span of less than a year, my husband decided to leave what I thought was our happy marriage, my mother died and my beloved brother was diagnosed with cancer. My current raft was ripped apart and I felt like I was sinking. I needed a new raft to help me through this transition. I was very afraid and knew I needed community, but knew better than to go back to what I had experienced before. However, it seemed like some sort of religion, something that would facilitate a deeper relationship with life, was called for.

So here I am at First UU. I have been attending for about three years. My intention now is to be on a path of developing a more conscious and meaningful way of life. I am once again constructing a raft.

The community I have found at First UU has become a safe place for me to evolve into a new person, to grow and to heal from the hurts I mentioned earlier, and ultimately to become more than I ever could have been without this experience. I want to be able to look back on my life and be proud of the choices I have made, the work I have accomplished and the community I have helped to construct and be a part of.

The method of building the raft is emerging by becoming involved in voyagers and specifically in a covenant group, from the inspiration in the worship services and through daily spiritual practices. I am purposefully changing my worldview from the childhood belief in the story of Adam and Eve to the story of our innate Buddha nature. From the view that we have a fallen nature that we continually have to repent of to the view that we all are inherently good, and that spiritual awakening consists of realizing our essential goodness, natural wisdom and compassion.

To me, authentic religion comforts me and challenges me. It heals me and increases my capacity for love, generosity, wisdom and courage. It builds up my sense of self, while at the same time helping me to guard against self-righteousness.

I aspire to be the best friend, social worker, and community member possible. I think being a part of an authentic religious community and taking part in daily spiritual practices will empower me to become this person.

Prayer

We are nearly paralyzed by the awful scale of the earthquake and the walls of water that have killed more than 150,000 of our fellow humans. They are half a world away, but so poignantly present in our minds and hearts.

Children, families, natives and tourists washed together off the beach. Whole islands destroyed. Old and young, rich and poor, the frightened and the smug, all taken together by a disaster that neither knows nor cares, but only explodes, spreads, destroys and sinks back into the sea.

Centuries ago, an unknown poet wrote a psalm in which he identified these forces as coming from God. And of this God, he said,

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away with a flood; they are as a sleep; in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth. For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled. (Psalm 90)

Whether we assign them to God or nature, we live at the mercy of forces indifferent to us, indifferent to everything, just indifferent.

It is in this indifferent world where we make the difference that matters, by weaving those fragile webs of compassion that let us live not only amidst the indifferent forces of nature, but the compassionate forces of millions and billions of people who see, feel, care, and reach out to one another with aid, with money, with the thousand simple acts of humanity which have the power to turn hell into heaven.

As we mourn the losses in this latest tragedy, let us remember that our grief unites us with all people in all times and places who have similarly grieved. And as we move out of grief, let us work to recreate a world grounded in compassion rather than indifference. Until then, we grieve, we weep, and slowly we begin to heal.

Amen.

SERMON:

Someone sent me an essay from the British paper The Guardian on Christmas Eve, written by an Anglican priest, the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser of Oxford. He is making a distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religions about Jesus, and he does it so well I want to share some of it with you.

Empires Prefer a Baby and the Cross to the Adult Jesus

From Constantine to Bush, power has needed to stifle a revolutionary message.

By Giles Fraser, The Guardian U.K., Friday 24 December 2004. The Rev Dr. Giles Fraser is vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford.

Every Sunday in church, Christians recite the Nicene Creed. “Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.” It’s the official summary of the Christian faith but, astonishingly, it jumps straight from birth to death, apparently indifferent to what happened in between.

Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favour of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire with the conversion of the emperor Constantine in 312, after which the church began to backpedal on the more radical demands of the adult Christ. From Constantine onwards, the radical Christ worshipped by the early church would be pushed to the margins of Christian history to be replaced with the infinitely more accommodating religion of the baby and the cross.

The adult Jesus described his mission as being to “preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed”. He insisted that the social outcast be loved and cared for, and that the rich have less chance of getting into heaven than a camel has of getting through the eye of a needle. Jesus set out to destroy the imprisoning obligations of debt, speaking instead of forgiveness and the redistribution of wealth. He was accused of blasphemy for attacking the religious authorities as self-serving and hypocritical.

In contrast, the Nicene religion of the baby and the cross gives us Christianity without the politics. The nativity scene is the perfect tableau into which to place this Nicene baby, for like the much-lauded celebrity, this Christ is there to be gazed upon and adored – but not to be heard or heeded. In a similar vein, modern evangelical choruses offer wave upon wave of praise to the name of Jesus, but offer little political or economic content to trouble his adoring fans.

Like Constantine, George Bush has borrowed the language of Christianity to support and justify his military ambition. And just like that of Constantine, the Christianity of this new Rome offers another carefully edited version of the Bible. Once again, the religion that speaks of forgiving enemies and turning the other cheek is pressed into military service.

The story of Christmas, properly understood, asserts that God is not best imagined as an all-powerful despot but as a vulnerable and pathetic child. It’s a statement about the nature of divine power. But in the hands of conservative theologians, the Nicene religion of the baby and the cross is a way of distracting attention away from the teachings of Christ. It’s a form of religion that concentrates on things like belief in the virgin birth while ignoring the fact that the gospels are much more concerned about the treatment of the poor and the forgiveness of enemies.

Bush may have claimed that “Jesus Christ changed my life”, but Jesus doesn’t seem to have changed his politics. (The Guardian, 24 December 2004)

This piece is saying that normative Christianity not only has nothing to do with the message of Jesus, but that it exists to stifle that message, as its mortal enemy. And yet, he isn’t giving that evangelical religion which has nothing to do with Jesus the credit it deserves. Not theological credit; there, he is dead on in noting that it is a stark betrayal of the man Jesus. But political credit; for that religion put into the service of military power and economic greed now has more power – at least in America – than it ever has before.

It reminds me of a story from a very different field, the field of music, which I want to use as lens through which to view the rise of literalistic Christianity in America.

When he was a young man, the composer Claude Debussy earned money as a music critic.

Once, he was reviewing a new opera by Wagner, who was The Man in the 1880s, the acknowledged master of virtually every facet of music, drama and staging. Most saw him as the dawn of a new era of music. But Debussy saw something else. “Wagner,” he wrote, “is the sunset which some have mistaken for a sunrise.” Even with all the attention Wagner was getting, Debussy saw him as the end of an era; and history proved Debussy right.

This sermon is kind of a continuation of one I gave at the end of November (28 November 2004, “The Legitimate Heir to God”). It has been observed for decades that in some respects the God of Western religions has died. But that word “God,” which at its best is a symbol of our highest ideals and aspirations, has now been dragged down to the very lowest depths, used to sanction greed, economic inequity, imperialism, war and the slaughter of innocents to such a great degree that nearly the whole civilized world is ashamed of and disgusted with America, as you can read by scanning the world press stories.

I can see three logical paths from here, though I think only two are viable, and only one can work in the longer run. The path that won’t work is to abandon religion and everything it stands for, and go to war over merely political ideologies, which is a bit of what this last election looked like to me. But at its best, religion is about preserving and claiming ultimacy for the highest ideals we can articulate. And abandoning that search seems insane to me.

The second path is the one that Anglican priest wants: to try and force normative Christianity back into a path that follows the demanding and revolutionary teachings of Jesus rather than the supernatural myths created around the baby and the cross, so the religion can be used to sanction precisely the kinds of greed, unjust distribution of wealth, arrogance and war that Jesus spent his career preaching against.

This is the path that virtually all Christian scholars and moderate-to-liberal preachers wish they could take. I wish them luck, but I don’t think they can do it this time. It has simply become too painfully clear that, as that Anglican priest said, the religion of Christianity has become far easier to misuse than to use wisely and well.

But this is true of all three Western religions. I think the God of all three Western religions has become the hand puppet of the worst kind of people – and has found its most likely home among them.

Israel acts in violent and murderous ways against Palestinians, ways that the great prophets of the Bible would condemn in a heartbeat. Their God is used for little but a land grant, and a sanction for revenge and violence.

And the fundamentalists of Islam have dragged the names of Mohammad and Allah through more mud than anyone knows how to remove. They torment and kill women who show the faces God gave them. Saudi Arabia forbids women to vote. They champion a primitive and vicious patriarchy that cannot be defended as being worthy of Allah. They brag about murder and suicide bombers, and speak in terms of blood, violence and death. Mohammed would be disgusted with them. Yet it is almost impossible to find many voices of moderate or liberal Muslims to counter them, even in Austin. Once again, the God of the Bible has been turned into a barbaric and murderous hand puppet by our worst people, and no one within any of the three religions seems able to stop them.

That’s where this reminds me of that music review that Debussy wrote about a Wagner opera. These brutal, ungodly versions of Western religion are clearly holding the reins of power and the guns and bombs of violence and murder. They are all kings of their respective hills, and their arrogant spokesmen brag that this is the dawning of a new and bloody age, to be played by their rules.

But I don’t think so. I think these may be closer to sunsets than sunrises. I think these mean, selfish and arrogant perversions of the God of Western religions show instead that that symbol, that God, no longer has the power to attract enough decent and brave people to rescue it from the gutters.

In the sermon at the end of November, I mentioned that this happened after Franco finally died and his dictatorship of Spain ended. He had brought the Church into power with him, and after he died, people began removing power from the Church as well. It had proven too easy and eager an ally of low and mean motives to be trusted with our tender mercies.

And I think that is what may happen to Christianity in America. I don’t know enough about the state of religious affairs in Israel or the Muslim world to talk about them. But I’ve seen enough bad preachers and politicians here enlist Jesus and God in their greedy, imperialistic and murderous schemes to believe that the symbol of God may well lose its right to be trusted with our highest ideals.

So the third path, the one I think is most interesting ahead of us, is the chance to reclaim our highest ideals from institutional religion, and begin expressing them in ordinary language that can belong to all the people. This would reverse the authority of churches and believers, which is exactly what Jesus and the ancient Hebrew prophets also did. It would mean that we would judge the churches by how well they served our high ideals, rather than pretending that they have the moral right to judge us in the name of a God they have turned into a mercenary who fights for the interests of the wealthiest and most greedy and brutal.

This sounds like such a big task, it seems unrealistic to pretend it can be done. But it can be done. In fact, it is being done all the time. Caroline Gremminger’s Affirmation of Faith was one example of it. She left the religion of her childhood when she found that its God served low needs rather than high ones. Once she saw that, she left it because she valued higher ideals than her church did, and she knew the difference.

So do you. Every one of you who has left a former religion to find a new path has left, I’m guessing, because you too decided to hold to your high ideals rather than follow churches or priests who either couldn’t see those ideals or didn’t have the courage to follow them.

In other words, as some of the best theologians have said for centuries, the gods are symbols that we create as vehicles to carry and preserve our highest ideals. We wrap them in rituals and creeds, embed them in worship services, and trust the gods to guard the better angels of our nature. But the ideals belong to us, not the gods.

164 years ago, a great German theologian wrote that all the attributes of the gods are the things that we happen to admire, and we project them onto the gods we have created in the same way that we project noble ideals onto our race or our country. (Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 1841, translated by George Eliot. The “essence” of Christianity was the projection of our own highest ideals onto the gods we created.)

And 206 years ago another theologian who was this man’s teacher wrote that religion is a purely human invention, designed to help us become most fully human. It was, he added, our most important of human inventions, when it worked. (Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, 1799)

Every “reformation” in the history of religion, every instance of higher thinkers correcting the theological errors of lower thinkers, is an example of we who are the true owners of our highest ideals reclaiming them from misuse by those who speak for the churches.

This means that we have some serious work to do.

It means that we as a society need to do what we as individuals do when we leave an inadequate religion. We need to reclaim our high ideals, and look for more adequate ways to express them in ordinary language, rather than the jargon claimed as the private reserve of churches and preachers. That is the most important religious task I think America now faces: reclaiming our high ideals from religions that have proven unworthy to handle them, and have proven to be too cowardly to speak up for them in any effective way.

Perhaps you think this is beyond you, that you don’t know these things, that it’s presumptuous to think you might know what’s moral and right better than churches with two thousand years of tradition behind them? It’s not true.

We have had at least two things in this morning’s service that might show you otherwise. The first, which many of you have told me is your favorite part of the service, is those candles in the windows to your left. A hundred and fifty votive candles there, which you can light to mark memories, hopes, yearnings and prayers you bring here with you. The reasons you light them are your own private reasons. But I am pretty sure those candle lights stand for some of the deep, noble, and loving sentiments that come in here as parts of you. You bring the values, the concerns, the ideals, the personal and spiritual seriousness, and you mark them with those lovely flames. We provide the space and the candles; you provide the yearning, and the meaning.

The second part of today’s service that will show the quality of your religious depth and caring is the offering we will take right after the sermon: an offering which we will give entirely to help the relief efforts of the more than 150,000 victims of the tsunami waves on the other side of the world.

All of our hearts opened for those people we don’t even know as soon as we heard the tragic story start to unfold a few days ago. You don’t have to be told they are your brothers and sisters or children of God; you know it intuitively and deeply. It’s in your genes. The tender mercies that well up in us toward the suffering of all those people we don’t know – they are our tender mercies. Not God’s, not Jesus’s, not Allah’s, but ours. And the better angels of our nature that Abraham Lincoln spoke of so poetically – they are indeed the better angels of our nature. Not God’s, not Jesus’s, not Allah’s. Ours.

Claiming those noble callings is laying claim to our fullest humanity. And all the gods, all the saviors, all the angels we create are not holy in their own right. Their holiness is only on loan from us, as long as they embody our highest aspirations, our own most tender mercies toward ourselves and one another.

I want us to grow beyond thinking that religion is about bowing before an external source of authority or goodness. I want us to grow beyond thinking it is the job of priests to proclaim and believers to obey. I want us to grow into the realization that if there is ever to be an incarnation of truth, justice and compassion – an incarnation of God – that incarnation must take our shape, not the shape of gods, prophets and saviors who have been dead so long they can be turned into hand puppets by our worst preachers and politicians. Some first-rate religious thinkers have said for a long time that this is the deepest significance of the Christian myth of Jesus as an incarnation of God. They see early Christianity – unlike the religions which preceded it – as saying that the form which God’s presence must take to be effective among us can only be human form: our form. No, that’s not how literalist religions have taught it. They have taught it as a supernaturalism, which lets them use these powerful symbols to subdue the masses rather than to empower them. Literalistic religion is, as it has always been, profoundly dishonest.

The soul of honest religion is the human soul seeking its own finest form. The soul of all legitimate religion is the human spirit, aspiring to become an agent of the highest ideals: those angels of our better nature.

I first read this in the Bible. It isn’t an obscure piece; it’s the ending of the 90th Psalm, one of the best known of all Psalms – the one I quoted in the prayer. After praising God for a few verses, the psalm ends with this plea. It may strike you almost as anti-religious, but it is not. It is the most profoundly religious plea we can make. This is the plea:

” and establish the work of our hands upon us.

Yea, the work of our hands; establish thou it.”

That doesn’t mean any work of our hands. It doesn’t mean the dirty work of our hands. It means the work of the hands of those angels of our better nature, the vehicles of our highest and most sacred yearnings. We address those angels, those highest of ideals, and we ask them for the courage of our deepest convictions, saying, ” and establish the work of our hands upon us. Yea, the work of our hands, establish thou it.”

It’s a good place to start, now and always.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

26 December 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Prayer

May we be granted a saving vision, a vision of wholeness, of justice and compassion, a vision of peace. May we be granted that saving vision.

We struggle each day in this land of partial visions, where whole armies and unholy laws serve those whose half-truths have achieved fearful power.

When it is too much, too unrealistic, to hope for the victory of more adequate visions, let us keep the faith that we may have those visions of a healthier kind of wholeness. And let us be sustained and carried forward by those greater visions.

In our lives, in our families, in our relationships, in our nation and in our world, we usually stumble not because we are bad, but because we can’t see clearly enough to discern the higher path. We slip back into our frustrating ruts because we cannot see a better path.

It is said that the longest trip still begins with the first step. But even before the first step, it begins with the vision of where we need to step, where our road needs to lead us.

May we be granted a saving vision, a vision of wholeness, of justice and compassion, a vision of peace. May we be granted that saving vision for our lives, our families, our relationships, our nation and our world.

Amen.

READING:

The reading for this morning is from the Book of Deuteronomy in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And Yahweh said to Moses, “Ascend this mountain, Mt. Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, opposite Jericho; and view the land of Canaan, which I give to the people of Israel for a possession; and die on the mountain which you ascend, and be gathered to your people. For you shall see the land before you; but you shall not go there, into the land which I give to the people of Israel.” (32:48-52)

And Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mt. Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And Yahweh showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, all Naph’tali, the land of E’phriam and Manas’seh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zo’ar. And Yahweh said to Moses, “This is the land which I promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” (34: 1-4)

So Moses died there in the land of Moab, never entering the Promised Land.

SERMON: “The View from Mt. Nebo”

Now there are these people in this wilderness, this land that doesn’t feel much like a home, and their leader is taken up to the top of a mountain and given a wonderful vision of a land where all the different peoples have become one in a land of milk and honey.

This is not your run-of-the-mill view, this view from Mt. Nebo. It is not one seen from down below. The people of Gilead don’t see it, nor the people of Judah, nor Moses’s own people.

Their visions are so much more limited. They are just trying to survive down there, and all those other people are in their way. They each have their own small territories, their own cities of darkness, and they cluster together there in their tight little knots, to protect their flanks.

But this one man is given a view almost beyond belief. Some day, he is told, this land will be a place where enemies have learned to be friends, war has given way to peace, and the people are at last one.

Then he is told: oh, by the way – you’ll never live to see this. Long before the fractious nature of the world ends, you will end. Now go back and tell your people about this vision of the Promised Land you’ll never live to see. Make them believe it, help them to seek it. Maybe they will live to see what is beyond the reach of your own lifetime.

Then, the story says, Moses died and his people finally entered the Promised Land. And after defeating all the other inhabitants of the place through a series of wars, they claimed the land as their own, which they are doing again now in our own time. Now there, we have left religion, and come back into tribalism. There they missed the wonderful point the story had just made, and retreated into the very territorialism that the view from Mt. Nebo had pointed beyond.

Now I wonder: is that right, or is it that there the story ended and reality returned? That after this mythic image, we people come back in, and we don’t do well with all these grand visions, and so proceed to mess it all up again?

I am not sure how a story could be more timeless or true to the human condition than the story we used for this morning’s reading. We are as lost in the wilderness today as that little tribe was 3,000 years ago.

More than any other single thing today, we lack a shared vision with enough depth to bring us together. We are disjointed. We are people, but not a people; we are like a landscape filled with potted plants, but no garden.

Lacking a shared vision, we define ourselves by partial visions. And this sets person against person and group against group. The very differences in race, sex, belief or political bias which separate and make us different from others-those are the traits we use to define ourselves and partition our little area off from the rest. No one has a view of the whole. There is a proverb that says, “Without a vision, the people perish.” And we are without a vision.

We are born straight or gay; male or female; white or black. We decide to define ourselves as liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, and all the rest. We define ourselves by our differences, and then fight for our individual rights. But every victory for a partial vision is really a victory for the wilderness, for a world in which the most fundamental problem is still that we do not share a deep and binding vision.

What would today’s version of the view from Mt. Nebo be? for it would not show us the tribal areas of Gilead, Judah, and the rest. Today’s version of the view from Mt. Nebo, I think, is captured in that remarkable photograph of the earth taken from the surface of the moon that you have all seen. An earth without national, racial, or religious divisions. A living planet where everything on it swirls together into a small but glorious green island in space. So today’s version of Mt. Nebo is that view from the moon. As we grow more and are able to look back upon ourselves from farther out, new and more inclusive visions will take the place of this view from the moon. But the important message in all these progressive views of the whole is that partial visions and little victories for partial visions are the problem, not the solution. The drives and allegiances which once served us now serve to defeat us.

Nationalism served us once. It bonded the people of a country together and made them one. But now the territory we must care for is not a nation but the whole planet, and so the same spirit of nationalism which once brought local people together is driving global peoples apart.

Nor can the great world religions bond the peoples of the planet together. Once they brought people together within the religious framework of their particular faith. But from here on the situation is one of peoples with very different faiths, few of whom will ever convert. And so like nationalism, religions have become associated with the factions, as instruments of propaganda and self-importance. General propaganda for one or another of the local solutions has become a menace.

Let me be clear about this Promised Land business, for we can get into trouble if we confuse poetry and reality. I do not for one minute really believe that the world will ever be united into one happy group of warless people with a single shared common vision, a world where “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them,” as Isaiah put it (Isaiah 11:6, RSV). That is mythic language, not historical language, and the fact that this hope has been given poetic form for most of recorded history must help us realize that this is not a problem to be solved by enlightened social programs, but a timeless picture of the human condition itself.

Nevertheless, the view from Mt. Nebo is a vision we are called to live by, if we are to live this life deeply and caringly, if we are to aspire to become most fully human or most nearly divine, whichever way you prefer to put it. And it is fundamentally different from the visions which really do rule the world as humans know it and seem always to have known it. It is a vision calling us to see each other not in terms of our differences, but in terms of those human or divine things which we hold in common, those yearnings that lie deep within us all.

It is a vision of the earth like that photograph taken from the moon, and we are called to live as if it were true. The Promised Land would be what the world would be like if everyone lived as if it were true. That is what I believe we are called to do: you and I and everyone who wants to try and become part of the solution rather than part of the continuing problem. That is the fundamental religious task before the world today: the task of finding, articulating, and living a vision of wholeness that can begin to bring us together.

I’ll give you two examples of more recent people who preached and tried to live by this vision. One you will know, the other you may not. I was told recently, though I have not read this myself, that the native Americans, or American Indians, had a wonderful policy that could teach us this greater vision. When they had to make a major decision for the tribe, and the grand council was called together, they were commanded to make the decision based upon the effects of that decision on the next seven generations of people. That’s about 150 to 200 years. Can you imagine what our world today would be like if all major decisions concerning the environment, social programs, and war were made taking into account the needs and benefits of the next seven generations? Or how grateful we would be if that had been the law of the land for the past five or six generations? There is a modern view from Mt. Nebo.

The second example is one that most of you will know. It comes from thirty six years ago: April 3rd, 1968, to be exact. It was in a speech delivered by Martin Luther King Jr., just a few days before he was murdered. You have probably heard these words, but unless you knew your Bible very well, you probably didn’t know just what they were referring to before. Here is what King wrote:

“We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountain top. I won’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will.

And he’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land.

So I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

This story about Mt. Nebo is not as ancient or forgotten as we may have thought. And one of its messages is that we will be judged, you and I-both by ourselves and by others-according to the bigness of the vision we served with our lives. Long after Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson have been forgotten, Martin Luther King Jr. will still be remembered and quoted and missed, because he had a view from that mountain. And he proclaimed that promise, and lived that promise, even though he suspected that he, like Moses, would not live to see it fulfilled.

Neither will you or I. But we will be remembered according to the vision we served. And it is far nobler to struggle with a great vision than to champion a mediocre one. Think of the people you most cherish from your own lives and see if this isn’t true. They aren’t the clever or arrogant people, but those who reached out to the world around them as if they belonged to it, who acted as if we really were all together in this. You know those people from your own life, and you know-whether you would use these words or not-that in those special people the most sacred dimension of life was touched, and was brought to life.

We gather at this church and at many other churches today to ponder things like this, to think about them, but I want to say there is more to it than that. It is not just a mind-game, this religion business. There are things at the depth of life which call us, which make demands on us, which say to us “look, if you are to be serious about this life, you must care about it. You must care about the people who need you, and about the planet, which is your home. Whether you like it or not, whether it is intellectually interesting or not, there are things you are simply called to do, and you must answer that call!”

The view from Mt. Nebo is not the view looking back toward our own small group, trying to see the whole world in terms of only our own beliefs. It is looking ahead, to a place we have never been, to a vision of foreigners become friends, strangers become brothers and sisters, a place where the deep awareness of our commonalities is so strong that it can absorb our differences, the way it is done within healthy families and loving friendships.

We will not live to reach the Promised Land. That is not our goal. Our goal is to live to reach the vision, and to begin to live that vision out in our lives. We need each other. This community of Austin and its environs needs us. This country needs us. This desperate world needs us, every single one of us. We don’t need any more ways to be apart, we need ways to be together, and our world calls us to that task.

Partial visions in our community and our world must be replaced by more complete ones. Who will do it, if not us?

New moral perspectives are needed on so many issues of the day: the questions and problems raised by the AIDS epidemic, all of the issues surrounding abortion, programs for human services and the prioritizing of our local and national commitments, which must be guided by a more humane and moral vision. Who will do this, if not us?

There are hungry and desperate people in our town, in our country, and in our world. Who will care for them, if not us? And who will try to change the structures of the community, the country, and the world to help make them productive people with their own earned dignity-if not us?

Who will wipe their tears, who will reach out and touch them, if not you and I and the rest of us?

The view from Mt. Nebo is a view of the Promised Land. It is a metaphor. It uses geographical symbols and describes this Land as if it were out there. But you don’t get there in a car. For this is the language of religion, not geography, and like all religious metaphors, it points within and among us, not across some fields or oceans.

The view from Mt. Nebo is the vision of a coordinated soul, reunited with its own depths, and reaching out for completion, reaching out to clasp to its breast all of its long-lost brothers and sisters, reaching out in recognition and compassion to bring the human family together again, and to make of this place a home.

The journey begins here. It begins in our own hearts and souls. It can begin simply with a recognition, a feeling, a tear, and a touch. It seems a simple, even an ineffectual, beginning.

And what a grand vision: a world made whole, where a vulnerable and simple truth is honored more than powerful lies, where naked humanity trumps an ensconced hierarchy. It is a vision of what has been call a world of truth, justice and love, the kingdom of God, the Promised Land.

We won’t live to see the whole thing, ever. Neither did Moses, or Martin Luther King, Jr. But to be inspired by the vision, by the view from today’s version of Mt. Nebo, and actually to begin taking steps toward it – that view, and those steps, can transform all the lives they can touch. Even ours, even here, even now.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

12 December 2004

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 prepare a manger in our hearts for the birth of the sacred. When we are offered a choice between certain but sterile doubts and fragile but fertile faith, let us choose a faith that feeds our souls. For something sacred needs to be born: born from the mating of what is, and what might be.

Living in a tragic world, let us remind ourselves it is also a hopeful world, with a future yet to be constructed, a future wanting to enlist builders of a better tomorrow. Let us enlist in that army who will build a better future.

And let us be comforted by the fact that it is never foolish to believe in a better tomorrow. It is never faithless to believe that the tender mercies of love, truth and justice are on the side of the angels. Indeed, they are the only aspirations that are on the side of the angels.

Those angels are messengers from the gods, from that unconquerable realm of hope, faith and love. And this is the season when those angels tell us that something sacred wants to be born. It needs a manger. Let us prepare a manger in our hearts for the birth of the sacred.

Amen.

SERMON: Advent

Advent is about preparing ourselves for the birth of something sacred. Advent isn’t the holiday; it’s getting ready for the holiday. It’s the personal homework we have to do to enter into the spirit of holidays. This week, in trying to get myself into an Advent kind of mood, I Googled the word “Advent” on the Internet. Two of the first things I saw were ads. One said:

“Advent Blowout – incredible prices on electronics at Amazon.com. Free shipping.” The other told me that I could buy a LEGO Advent calendar at Target for only $14.99. This wasn’t helpful.

But while I was doing this, an e-mail arrived from a colleague, containing some quotations he was forwarding for general usage. One that struck me was from the medieval Christian mystic, Julian of Norwich: “This is the cause why we are not at rest in heart and soul: that here we seek our rest in things that are so little there is no rest in them.”

Her quote seems so much more appropriate for this season than frenzied ads for Advent Blowout sales or LEGO calendars. Especially since the ads are such good examples of just what any holy days are supposed to be lifting us beyond.

But for its whole history, Advent has been an attempt to lure Christians away from the low and trivial concerns that are too little in which to find rest for our souls. If we do it right, this whole season is about trying to find things big enough to rest in. Christmas is the season of that spirit.

This search for a spirit big enough to rest in is one of the deepest yearnings we have, and you don’t have to look far to find us pursuing it.

The special choral piece today is an example. Brent chooses these larger works, and the choir learns them, because they find something large there, something coming from a large spirit, and they want to share it with both themselves and with you, as a place worth resting in.

The new twist on the food collection we’ll be starting next week is also one of these. We’re aspiring to a bigger generosity, both because others need it, and because we are enlarged by acting out of a bigger generosity.

And the new members we welcomed today are part of this spirit. People join a church hoping to find that bigger spirit, hoping to become a part of it as it becomes a part of them.

There are a lot of things this season that celebrate this larger spirit. We are right in the middle of Hanukkah, which began Wednesday. It’s the Jewish festival of lights, but it is to remember a time in ancient Judaism when some brave people during the Maccabees’ revolt of twenty-two centuries ago were so filled with that bigger spirit that they transformed Jewish history.

But you can find the calls of this larger spirit everywhere. Friday (December 10th) was the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. I read that story, which said it was “the first occasion on which the organized international community of nations has made a Declaration on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms…. It is to this document that millions of men and women in countries far distant from Paris or New York will turn for hope and guidance and inspiration.” (NY Times, December 10, 1948) Well, this is a good season for the anniversary of that hopeful declaration, because it celebrated the same large spirit that we’re trying to get ourselves attuned to during Advent.

And nearly five centuries ago, on December 10, 1520, at the start of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther publicly burned the papal edict demanding that he recant or face excommunication. He did that because he was serving a bigger spirit than that being served by what was at the time a very corrupt Catholic Church. He rested in that bigger spirit for the rest of his life, as many millions of Protestants also have.

Tacky ads for Advent Blowout sales are parasites on the spirit of this season in the same way that orchestrated flag-waving as a conditioned reflex is a caricature of true patriotism, and Valentine’s Day cards are hobos riding the rails of real love. They are all too small to rest in. But behind all these little things that are too small to find rest in, there is that bigger spirit.

Still, it can be risky blowing the horn for these holidays. Because so often, voices urging us to serve a bigger spirit come soaked in guilt, and just represent more work to do, as though we weren’t already doing enough. As though the choir just hasn’t done enough big works demanding extra rehearsals, so they needed to squeeze one in before Christmas. Or we should feel guilty about having enough to eat, so bringing food to share is a kind of penance to make us feel bad. Or you haven’t done enough spiritually, so it’s about time you sinners joined a church! Or you better tell the Hanukah story to remind yourself that once there were people who really suffered, really knew how to make sacrifices! And while you’re at it, go buy more Christmas presents! Oh sure, the workers in China and other poor countries are paid slave wages to produce them, and suffer the kind of human rights violations we resolved to end back in 1948. But companies like Wal-Mart make 1/3 to 1/2 of their annual profits during this season and their stockholders would like your money, so go make their stock prices rise by running up that 20+% interest on your credit card debts, like a good American should!

You see how easily this could become an absolutely miserable Christmas season? Realism can slide into cynicism seamlessly. Lego Advent calendars, Advent Blowouts – and of course, guilt: the gift that keeps on giving? One bit of advice I have for us this year is that if you are offered that kind of a holiday, just say No! And remember those poetic words from Julian of Norwich:

“This is the cause why we are not at rest in heart and soul: that here we seek our rest in things that are so little there is no rest in them.”

You don’t have to be Christian, or Jewish, or Lutheran to enter into this season. Christmas has been a cultural holiday for over a century: virtually all the public decorations are paid for and put up by merchants, because some of them really do make 1/3 to 1/2 of their annual profits during this super-hyped season. Many bemoan this, but I like the fact that our winter solstice celebration has returned to being a cultural holiday, open to all. No religion owns it. You just have to be alive and awake to the fact that when we can find a bigger spirit to serve, we can find a kind of rest for our souls, and that rest is worth seeking.

A bigger identity is calling to us, every season but particularly this season. It sang to us through Benjamin Britten’s wonderful music, it glows for us in the Advent and Hanukkah candles. It welcomes us as the church welcomes new spiritual seekers and spiritual finders into our membership. And sharing our food with some of Austin’s hungrier people reminds us that even in simple ways we can make a big difference in the lives of our brothers and sisters here and elsewhere.

There is an old Jewish story about this, because there is an old Jewish story about everything.

A small synagogue was struggling to stay alive. There was no generous spirit there, nothing to rest in, and the people had taken to bickering. Finally, one of them set out to visit this great wise rabbi in the next town, to ask his advice. He told the rabbi their sad story.

“Well,” the old man said, “your problem is that you are suffering from the sin of ignorance. The Messiah is among you, and you are ignorant of this fact.” When the man returned to his small synagogue and related these words, nobody could believe them. “How could it be one of us?” they would ask. Then, to prove that it couldn’t be true, they would go down the list of each one of them, outlining all the reasons it certainly couldn’t be that person, or that person, or any of them.

Still, the old rabbi was known for a surprising kind of wisdom. So they thought “My God, what if it is that person? Or that person? And just in case it might be, they started treating one another much more generously. As you can imagine, this changed the spirit of the place completely. They had found a bigger spirit in which to reside, and as they resided in it and it in them, both they and their synagogue grew into a very great blessing in the world.

That’s a kind of Hanukkah story, a kind of Christmas story, a kind of holy music sung by a choir of angels. The music is set to the words of that wise old rabbi and the words of Julian of Norwich. It contains the secret of this season, and the secret of finding that bigger place in which to rest.

Our sin is a sin of ignorance. The Messiah is among us, and we are ignorant of this fact. What is the Messiah that can save us? It is the spirit of life carried in good music performed with love. It is the generous spirit that feeds the hungry, right here in Austin. It is the yearning to join a church, to join together in a community of spiritual seekers and finders. These are some of the Messiahs among us, some of the spirits big enough to rest in.

But there’s more, too. The Messiah, the light of the world and hope of the future, is also within us – within each of us – and we are often ignorant of that fact, too.

Now I’ve shared the great secret with you, for you to share with others. The Messiah is both among us and within us. Let us learn to become the midwives for the birth of the sacred. For something sacred wants to be born among and within us, and it needs our help.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

28 November 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

In thinking about this service, which deals with learning how to express our beliefs in ordinary language rather than the language owned by religions, I thought back to the first time I had to do this.

It was over 20 years ago, during my ministerial internship at a vibrant and exciting Christian church in south Chicago. My first turn to preach was coming up (the church had three interns, so we each got to preach only twice a year). The minister said I was responsible for writing not only a sermon, but also a prayer.

I’d never written a prayer, and tried to get out of it. “No,” he said, “and this will be tougher for you than for the others, since you’re a Unitarian. You have to offer a prayer on behalf of this Christian congregation, to connect them with their own spiritual depths, and the source of life – by whatever name you call it. And it must have the integrity of coming from an honest place within you, as well.”

It was a tough assignment, and the first prayer I ever wrote. This sermon topic reminded me of it, so now I offer it to you, twenty-odd years after it was first written:

Prayer

We pray not to something, but from something, to which we must give voice;

not to escape from our life, but to focus it;

not to relinquish our mind, but to replenish our soul.

We pray that we may live with honesty:

that we can accept who we are,

and admit who we are not;

that we don’t become so deafened by pride and fear

that we ignore the still small voices within us,

that could lead us out of darkness.

We pray that we can live with trust and openness:

to those people, those experiences, and those transformations

that can save us from narrowness and despair.

And we pray on behalf of these hopes

with an open heart, an honest soul,

and a grateful reverence for the life which has been given to us.

AMEN.

SERMON: The Legitimate Heir to Christianity

The Buddhists tell a wonderful story which they say goes all the way back to the Buddha. It sounds simple, even funny, like a child’s tale. But it’s one of the most revolutionary stories ever told. You’ve probably heard it before:

A man was on a small island when a flash flood came up, surrounding him with a deadly rushing river on all sides. He might have drowned or starved, but was lucky enough to find a raft left there by someone else. He found a long pole, and rode the raft to safety on the other side. He was so grateful to the raft for saving him that he put it on his back and carried it there for the rest of his life. The Buddha asked whether that is the right way to use a raft, and said No.

The raft worked once, now put it down and go on your way. Because your next passage may not need a raft at all, but a vehicle of a very different kind. And we must be prepared to change vehicles – including our beliefs about ourselves, about relationships, about work, about our nation, or about God – if we are going to use beliefs wisely rather than foolishly. For beliefs are only useful if they help us through the transitions we are facing, not if we are carrying them on our backs, or sticking with them because they were prescribed by someone authoritative.

This is really one of the most radical and empowering stories ever written. It encourages heresy; it sanctions experimentation, and it endorses change. It trusts us more than our religions, trusts us to know what kind of a vehicle we might need at any point, trusts us to change vehicles – and grants us the authority to do so.

When you apply this to religion, it could get you burned at the stake in most times and places. But it’s profound and wise. Sometimes even our religions become like rafts that must be put down as we search for their legitimate heir. A legitimate heir is one that can carry us through tough transitions with integrity and hope.

For instance, the more our current administration claims it’s being guided by God, the more warlike, greedy and imperialistic it becomes. If you take them at their word, they are Christians – or at least people who believe in God, since they mention God a lot more than they mention Jesus. And if that is how the word “God” is being defined and used in our society, then we need a different way of talking about what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. We need a legitimate heir to it, and fast!

This topic came up from a couple directions. The first is just looking around at the way the very worst kind of religion has now gained a potentially dangerous degree of political power. Also, I am trying to write a new nine-hour program on this question to teach at SUUSI, the large Unitarian summer camp in Blacksburg, Virginia next July. So I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and this sermon is the first result – there will be more as the year goes on.

Still: why would anyone suggest such a thing as the legitimate heir to Christianity or God? On the surface, it just sounds rude. While America was never founded as a Christian nation, Christianity has still been the dominant religion here since we began. So whether we are Christians or not, our whole society is shot through with the symbols and myths of that religion, for both good and bad.

The words to the song “Blowin’ in the Wind” that we sang this morning were a protest song, and part of the message was that whatever was carrying our notions of decency, civility, and peaceful behavior – whatever the vehicles of our nobler aspirations were, they were failing. We needed a legitimate heir to the culture that said yes to an immoral war and no to decent treatment of even our own people. That’s really the message this morning as well.

Cultures look to their religions, when they are healthy, to carry deep and healthy assessments of the human condition. Religions, at their best, have produced some of our species’ finest outcries against the injustices of the powerful against the powerless, those who control money over those who earn it and the rest. When people like MLK Jr. refer to their religion as an aid in unjust times, those are the passages they refer to, not the other, inhumane, even murderous and embarrassing passages.

History shows us that all gods die, though the great ones die more slowly, and can linger in a moribund state for centuries. They can die in several ways. They can die when the cosmology supporting them collapses. They can die when they no longer inspire passion or affection in people’s hearts. — And they can die when their stories and symbols are more easily hijacked by preachers and politicians of low and mean purpose than by those of high and noble purpose.

And all these things have happened during the past couple centuries to the primary God of our American culture.

But back to my question: Why does the God of Western religions need an heir, and what does it mean to be a “legitimate” heir?

One measure is political: the degree to which only the very lowest forms of Christianity have attracted and been attracted to the political and military power in our time. Pat Robertson has said that a democracy is a terrible form of government unless it is run by his kind of Christians – the kind that will not tax the rich, will not support social services, welfare or public education, and so on. And the Rev. Jerry Falwell said during a television interview a couple weeks ago that we should hunt down terrorists and blow them away in the name of the Lord.

Jesus would detest these men. Don’t be shocked, that’s not a bit overstated. Heck, Jesus called Peter Satan, and that was just because Peter didn’t understand him! Peter wasn’t even offering to blow people away in the name of God. Jesus would detest these men, and the low and hateful religion they sell.

The God of people like Robertson and Falwell – and a growing number of other bad preachers – is not a God worth serving, and has nothing to do with the far higher teachings of a Jesus who instructed people to love one another and not to judge one another, and who said that whatever we did to the least among us we did to him. The God Jerry Falwell worships is little more than his own bigotries, writ large and nasty. And ironically, the fact that he can proudly chant such hateful and murderous advice while holding a bible shows that he doesn’t really believe in the God of Jesus for one second, and knows that nothing will happen to him for insulting the very idea of God with his smallness. That’s the measure of a religion whose God has died. And when gods die, their corpses almost always become hand puppets for the worst kind of charlatans and demagogues. Conversely, and importantly, when a God can become the hand puppet of low-level charlatans and demagogues like these men, it is a sign that that God is dying.

This has happened before. When Franco (Francisco Franco Bahamonde, 1892-1975) established his fascist dictatorship in Spain, he brought the Catholic Church into power with him – but, again, just the low and mean parts that oppressed women, the poor and the different. But when Franco’s reign finally ended, so did the power of the Church. People had seen that it became the willing toady of the worst kind of people all too eagerly, and they didn’t trust it with their hearts or minds. In some ways, Spain now has a more liberal set of abortion laws than our own country does. When a court grants permission for a third trimester abortion, for instance, the country pays for it. That’s a sign of the Church losing authority in people’s minds and hearts, and it happened because the religion seemed like far too natural a bedmate for fascism.

Now in our own country, the phrase “Christo-fascism” is beginning to appear in more and more places — Google it, and you’ll find an increasing number of hits, over 300 now. Some feel it is happening here. I’m one of them. And once again, the religion seems more available as a tool for the rich, greedy, powerful and mean than for the poor, for whom Jesus spoke. Jesus didn’t think rich people could even get in to heaven. Now they own it, and the tickets so expensive the poor can’t afford them. You can hardly betray Jesus more fundamentally than that!

A second reason the raft won’t float is scientific. It’s that the symbols and myths of Christianity lost their footing in the real world more than two centuries ago, as the best Christian thinkers have pointed out for at least that long.

Western religions were grounded on the idea of a male God who was a being. He walked, talked, saw and heard, planned, rewarded and punished. To do these things, he had to live somewhere, and eventually they assigned him to heaven, which they believed was right above the sky.

But during the past couple centuries; we have realized there is nothing above the sky but endless space. God lost a place to live. And that means – though few people want to take it this far – that we lost the kind of God who could do human-type things like seeing, hearing, or loving. We haven’t seen through this revolution yet, but it is a profound one.

If somebody tells you that God wants you to do something, you should be asking how you could check that out for yourself, independently. If there is not a way – and it’s not clear how there could be a way – then the command doesn’t come from God. It’s the command of those who have turned the corpse of this God into their hand puppet to serve their agenda – often at your expense.

Now, we could go on listing all the logical or scientific or common-sense reasons that the myths and symbols of Christianity are anachronistic, but it wouldn’t achieve much. Because religions aren’t primarily vehicles of truth about the world. Primarily, they are like the rafts in that Buddhist story. Rafts to carry us across certain kinds of human dilemmas, with honest insights into the human condition and wisdom to help us live wisely and well.

It’s true that once we’ve been helped by a religion we tend to carry that raft around on our backs from then on, whether it’s the right vehicle for us or not. But it’s more true that we need some kind of a vehicle for our hopes, dreams, yearnings and tender mercies. And the very best stories and teachings of Christianity honor those, even if its loudest and most powerful preachers and adherents do not.

So it isn’t enough to set the raft down. A legitimate heir to God would have to carry our yearnings and help us to live more wisely and well.

Religions, like their gods, lose their roots in the hearts and minds of people when they are no longer seen as having the power to resist being dragged down by the lowest kind of preachers, politicians and media. But neither morality nor ethics rely on religion as their vehicles – and that’s good news. Across Europe, for instance, religion has lost its power of persuasion. Only about one or two percent of the English and French attend church, and it’s only a few points higher in Germany. And as a nation, Japan is officially secular. Even closer to home, so is Canada, whose ties with Catholicism are little more than ornamental. Yet these cultures have moral standards at least as high as ours, both as individuals and as society.

To take just a couple examples, they all have lower infant mortality rates and higher educational standards than we do. They all have far fewer citizens without basic health insurance than we do, and they all have higher standards of living for their citizens over age 65 than we do. And in Germany and the Netherlands, all citizens who want it are given a free college education, because the government believes that informed citizens able to think are preferable to ignorant citizens who just obey.

Don’t think of these as merely “political” values. These are profoundly religious values. They show the souls of these nations. They show how these nations regard others, how they treat their own weakest members, whether their “pro-life” stance is dishonest rhetoric or healthy governmental programs to serve the life of their people throughout their lives. These are religious values, nothing less. If the tree is known by its fruits, as Jesus said, than America is the least religious and compassionate country in the developed world!

So. We look outward to a world of countries that are more moral and ethical than we are, though far less religious. Some say this means that religion is bad. I don’t agree, but I say it means that bad religion should be dropped like a hot raft.

I want us, both individually and collectively, to develop a more adequate religion, and a more adequate sense of compassion and responsibility toward others that our national policies show us to have. It can happen within Christianity or any other religion if that religion can be raised to its higher levels of aspiration rather than sinking to its lower ones. It can also be done without any organized religion. Well, that’s a good thing, because nobody has a more disorganized religion than Unitarians.

But however it is done and wherever it is done, it needs to inspire us, and needs to inspire our nation to change its direction from a greedy, selfish, imperialistic nation that is now disliked or detested by most other countries in the world.

Here are seven things the legitimate heir to God will have to have, I think:

1. It must be reality-based, consistent with the findings of our best contemporary sciences. Pretending the Grand Canyon is only six thousand years old is an insult to the intelligence of an attentive twelve-year-old, and not worthy of us. If you can’t serve truth, you can’t serve God. And ignorant ideology does not trump truth, except under fascism.

2. The legitimate heir to God must be inclusive and expansive. The Greeks made the best picture of this that I know. They pictured the completed human being as a series of concentric circles. In the center was just the individual. Next were the relationships that expanded the individual’s awareness, compassion and responsibility. Next, the relations with other friends, other citizens, and society. Then the world, all of history, and all the high ideals often associated with gods, but which the Greeks of 2400 years ago associated with our own fuller humanity.

3. Liberals may not like this next one: the legitimate heir to God must be compelling, even commanding. Conservative Christians speak of the need to feel “convicted” before we can see the light, and this is true. We must not only hear of higher possibilities, but also be awakened, “convicted” and converted by them.

4. It must be – in Origen’s wonderful 3rd century phrase – both “useful to us, and worthy of God.” “God,” here, means the highest set of demands we can articulate, the highest ideals, the most inclusive attitude, and the most demanding kind of life. The way, as Jesus and many others have said, is very narrow, and not many enter it.

5. It must be the biggest, most inclusive, most compassionate framework we can imagine – otherwise, it wouldn’t be worthy of the name “God,” let alone God’s legitimate heir. And it must be both more accepting and more demanding of us than psychology, politics, religion or nationalism can be. Why must it be bigger? Because in a pluralistic world where people hold many conflicting beliefs, you either need a larger God, or a larger army. The path of nationalism and imperialism is always to go for the army; the path of honest religion is always to try and articulate a larger concept of God – by whatever name it’s called forth.

6. But it must give us life. That’s the mark of a God. The basic covenant people make with their gods is always the same, and it’s very simple. We say, “I’ll serve you heart, mind and body, I’ll give my life into your service.” Then whatever we have made into our God must give us a life worth living. If it can’t do that, it isn’t a real god, but a phony, or a hand puppet.

7. We need a bigger vehicle than the raft our society is offering us under the banner of approved Christianity or the God sanctioned by our loudest and worst preachers, politicians and media. We need a larger vehicle for the wisdom which has helped the great religions to endure in the hearts and minds of countless generations of people who are trying to grow into their full humanity, trying to grow into children of God, to realize their Buddha nature, to understand that atman really is one with Brahman, to incarnate the rhythms and rules of the Tao, and act out of that infinite and eternal identity rather than something lesser.

All of these are saying about the same thing, in the jargon of their individual religions. In a pluralistic world, however, jargon just separates us. We need to be brought together, and that means we need to be able to say what we actually believe, in ordinary language so people in other religions can understand us, and can realize that we’re not so different after all.

And the more we can put these things in ordinary language, the easier it will be to communicate with people of good character, no matter what their religion is. Because these are the goals of all decent religion. So this rebirth can happen within any existing religion. But it can also happen in ordinary language, without any religious beliefs attached at all.

I’m buying something for the church through my Minister’s Discretionary Fund that I hope will help us begin generating discussions of the things we believe, and help us create a church culture where high ideals are felt to be commanding to us.

I solicited some people I don’t think we’ve solicited for special donations before, in order to raise a little over two thousand dollars. We have enough promised, have collected almost all of it, and this week we’ll be ordering a new and powerful projector that can project VHS, DVD or from a computer, and a large screen.

I have a series of videotapes of the six-hour program Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers did almost twenty years ago, and have bought the DVD of the movie “The Corporation” for showing here and in other churches.

But I hope we will have Friday movie nights here, as many Fridays as we can get groups to organize. Movies on the economy, social criticism; anti-war movies, but also contemporary movies with powerful human themes that are worth exploring, as well as family movies meant to include children, but with themes that are uplifting and educational.

That’s enough for now. The subject of finding the next step, the legitimate heir to what was once called God, is one of the biggest and most important steps people can take. And it is taken, like so many things, step, by step, by step.

But spend some time with this, will you? Spend some time asking what you really believe, what beliefs you think might guide you better than the pronouncements about God you’re hearing – and will be hearing more of from our worst preachers, politicians and pundits.

We say we’re all in this together. But first, we must all be in this search for beliefs worth living by that we can live with. It’s your move. It’s our move. Like always.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr 2005

24 October 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER:

Much of the information about the goddesses I’m using here came from Jungian psychiatrist Jean Shinoda-Bolen’s book Goddesses in Everywoman, which I think is an excellent book for understanding the ‘goddess’ styles as psychological dynamics that are alive and well today. In the book, she creates a prayer to the goddesses, appealing to the kinds of dynamics they represent. It isn’t appealing to distant divinities, but to inherent tendencies and awarenesses. Here are just the lines directed to the goddesses in today’s sermon:

ATHENA – help me to think clearly in this situation.

ARTEMIS – keep me focused on that goal in the distance.

APHRODITE – help me to love and enjoy my body.

HESTIA – honor me with your presence, bring me peace and serenity.

Let’s combine them into a more straightforward simple prayer:

Spirits of life, goddesses of our psyches, be with us here. Help us to think clearly. Keep us focused on our distant goals. Help us to love and enjoy our bodies, and honor us with your presence; bring us peace and serenity. Amen.

SERMON: “Myths to Live By,” Part Three

In going over my notes about how the Greek goddesses divided the wide range that women have of being into separate deities/dynamics, I realized that this is really about the difference between politics and religion. That may not sound right: after all, we’re talking about goddesses, not political parties. But I think it is right. We’ll come back to this.

Two weeks ago, I brought you the three ‘dependent’ goddesses: Hera the wife, Demeter the mother, and Persephone the maiden. Today I want to bring you the uppity goddesses. They were called the Virgin, or Independent, Goddesses. They never married, and men were not necessary to make them feel completed. These goddesses were Artemis, Athena, and Hestia, plus the Wild Card: Aphrodite.

Artemis (Diana, to the Romans) was the hunter who spurned both men and society, and traveled with a band of women who served and looked up to her. She was not a friend of men. In fact, men were downright unsafe around her. Two of the most famous stories about her testify to this. One involves a lover named Orion whom she accidentally killed through her intensely competitive nature. He got to be a constellation, but if I were Orion that would be, at best, a consolation prize.

The most famous story about Artemis involved a young hunter named Actaeon, who was unlucky enough to see her naked ‘ in other words, to see her vulnerability. Artemis could not be aware of her vulnerability. She was so furious at him for this intrusion that she changed him into a stag and his own dogs killed him. This was the goddess whose mottoes could have been ‘Don’t fence me in’ and ‘Don’t tread on me’ ‘ or ‘Men Beware!’ Her close friends were women’she was also the only goddess who repeatedly came to the aid of her mother. During the heyday of the women’s movement, Gloria Steinem was the incarnation of Artemis, and Artemis was seen as the guiding spirit of the women’s movement.

Another of the Independent goddesses was Athena, whom the Romans called Minerva. Athena wore armor, and was a warrior goddess who protected her chosen heroes, all of whom were males. She was her daddy’s girl: the myth had it that she sprung full-grown from Zeus’s head, and she never acknowledged her mother. When Athena was pictured with another figure, that other was invariably a male: Achilles and Odysseus, for example, the heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey. This is a woman who fought for the male values and the patriarchal establishment. Unlike Artemis, she often fought for men and against women, and it was seldom safe for women to cross her path. Two of her stories show this.

The first was the story of Agamemnon, where it was Athena who would not give him victory in battle unless he sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia. In some versions of the story, Artemis insisted on sparing the girl’s life, but Artemis was never a match for Athena. Agamemnon killed the girl, after which Athena helped him win the military battle.

The second story – one of the great Greek stories, and the source of one of our scientific designations – is about the young woman Arachne. Arachne was, like Athena, a superb weaver. In fact, Arachne was so good she said that not even Athena could match her.

A dozen years ago I was stepfather to two young girls, the younger of whom loved the Greek myths. I would read them to her every night, and we went through four or five books of them, until the stories were old friends of hers, and she looked forward to revisiting them in each new book’s version. About the third time we revisited the story, we got to this point where Arachne said she was a better weaver even than Athena. Allison suddenly looked at me, shook her head, and said, ‘She’s dead meat!’

Athena challenged Arachne to a weaving contest, and both of them made flawless weavings. But the subject that Arachne chose for her weaving was her undoing, and shows where Athena’s real allegiance lay. Athena wove a heroic tapestry of Zeus’s great achievements and glories. Arachne wove a humiliating picture of three of Zeus’s sexual seductions and infidelities. And this so infuriated Athena that she tore Arachne’s weaving to pieces, then turned her into a spider, condemned forever to hang from a thread and spin: to this day, the biological name of spiders is ‘Arachnids.’ It was not Arachne’s impudence to Athena that doomed her; it was her impudence to Athena’s father and his privileges. For every Artemis who comes to attack men and their rules, there will be an Athena to protect them. In all the Greek mythology, Artemis never once won against Athena.

The third independent goddess, and the least known of the Olympians, was Hestia, whom the Romans called Vesta. Hestia was the only one of the six who was never portrayed in human form. She was more of a spirit, like a spirit of a contentment derived from going within, either in involvement with homemaking or spiritual meditation, like a nun in a convent. Hestia’s spirit is what makes a house a home, or turns a mere church service into a real worship service. Like the other self-contained goddesses, Hestia had no significant or necessary men in her life.

The final goddess is the most complex: the goddess Aphrodite, whom the Romans called Venus, the goddess of love and beauty. She was married to the lame craftsman Hephaestus, though she was never faithful to him and bore him no children. She had numerous affairs with both gods and men, however, and bore several children to them. Her favorite consort was the god of war, whom the Greeks called Ares and the Romans called Mars. Here was the union of our two most uncontrollable passions, love and war. If they can be kept in balance, they can produce harmony; otherwise, their offspring will be only terror and fear. And when you learn that the names of the three children from the matings of Ares and Aphrodite were in fact Harmony, Terror and Fear, you may begin to understand that mythology is not a fiction about some other world. Mythology is about insights into the deeper levels of our own lives. It is to help us in our search for harmony rather than fear and terror.

Aphrodite was, paradoxically, most like the introverted Hestia, in that both of them found their completion by following their love, their lust, or their inner bliss. Hestia withdrew from men while Aphrodite interacted with them, but Aphrodite interacted with men the way a wine connoisseur interacts with a fine wine: enjoying its qualities, but just for a while. The T-shirt slogan “So many men, so little time” is one of Aphrodite’s slogans. And while no one could dissuade either Aphrodite or Hestia from the directions their feelings took them, the feelings they followed, while strong, were not necessarily wise.

A Hestia-type woman can become absorbed in the rituals of housework within an unfulfilling or even an abusive marriage. And while meditation or spiritual exercises can help center and deepen a busy life, they can also become opiates that remove you from a healthy participation in life, or numb you to the pain of a life that desperately needs to be changed.

And Aphrodite’s stories show that love may be powerful, but that it is blind. The passion was always consuming, but Aphrodite’s spirit was never known for its wisdom. Among the Aphrodite stories are two where she made a girl fall in love with her father and a mother fall in love with her stepson: both stories had tragic endings. Two modern incarnations of the Aphrodite spirit might be Madonna and J. Lo. In Marilyn Monroe, you could perhaps say that the spirit of Aphrodite was combined with a deadly vulnerability, and the combination was more than Marilyn could hold together.

When you think of these character styles in terms of the ancient Greek goddesses, and then look back over the past fifty years of our country’s history, some surprising patterns emerge, for there have been major shifts in our scripts about what a woman should be over the past few decades.

After World War II, our society strongly endorsed the submissive and compliant roles of daughter, wife and mother for women. Women went to college to get their “M.R.S. Degree” and, once married, often dropped out of school. American women were not stopping at having two children, but were having three, four, five, or six. By 1950 the birthrate in the United States equaled India’s for the first and only time (Jean Shinoda-Bolen, Goddesses in Everywoman, pp. 28-29). These were the years of Hera and Demeter.

Twenty years later, the 1970s was the decade of the women’s movement – vintage years for both Artemis and Athena, when feminists and career women took center stage. More women than ever before were now in school, pursuing doctoral, business, medicine, and law degrees. That was the era when the University of Texas Law School was finally opened to blacks, Hispanics and women – by then-Senator Oscar Mauzy, whose wife Ann is still a member of this church. Divorce rates soared and birthrates dropped as ‘independent’ women took the lead, and women whose identities were involved with being a wife and mother found themselves in an increasingly unsupportive climate. Or, to put it another way, our society’s story was changing, and the new script gave a different kind of women’s role the leading part. The roles of wife and mother, which had had the leading parts, were now made into minor characters, or even ridiculed, as overly independent and aggressive women had been made into minor characters and ridiculed just two decades earlier.

Now Artemis styles burst forth with their powerful fury against men’s rules and, often, against men themselves. They burned their bras, they made posters that said ‘woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle,’ they organized women’s movements to strengthen sisterhood all over the country, and they began working to add an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution.

We usually think of the 60s and 70s as the time of women’s liberation movements, by which we mean Artemis-type movements. But what happened in the 60s and 70s was not that simple. It was the rise of women who acted under their own authority, and that includes both the Artemis types of the women’s movement and the Athena types who fought against it and its attack on a status quo in which they had found their own myth to live by, a script in which they seemed to live comfortably. All this is replaying now, coming around again, as mythic themes tend to do, so it’s worth trying to understand it better.

In the 1970s, a nearly archetypal Athena figure appeared. She was a Phi Beta Kappa woman with a master’s degree from Radcliff: a woman named Phyllis Schlafly. Before her leadership of the opposition, ratification of the ERA seemed inevitable. In the first twelve months of its life, the year before Phyllis Schlafly formed her organization called STOP ERA in October 1972, the ERA rolled up ratifications from thirty states. But once Schlafly led her troops into battle, the momentum stopped. In the next eight years, only five more states ratified ‘ and five other states voted to rescind their ratification (Bolen, 82). That’s what an Athena looks like in action, and it is awe-inspiring, even if you’re on the other side.

Framing current events in terms of mythic Greek goddesses is not unavoidably relevant to the real historical events of our times, but it is interesting to note that if the confrontations between those who were for and those who were against the ERA, those who were pro-choice and those who were against it and so on ‘ if these conflicts are seen as confrontations between Artemis and Athena, Artemis would not stand much of a chance. Not even the greatest male heroes of Greece were a match for Athena.

But the lesson I want to draw from seeing the women’s movement as a fundamental change of scripts and myths is a different kind of lesson. What should be most obvious about exalting the characters of only wife, mother and maiden is how woefully inadequate they are by themselves, how incapable of doing justice to the whole range of styles that women carry within them. Without some Artemis, Hestia and Aphrodite, women will be little more than victims and slaves. The pendulum had gone too far to the right, and the women’s movements of the past generation were desperately needed to restore both balance and even humanity to some of the women of this society.

But – all this was politics, not religion. Dividing the goddesses into competing dynamics, siding with one against the other ‘ all this is politics, not religion, and it’s the road to strife, not integration.

There is a very simple definition of the difference between politics and religion. Politics is the conflict between partial visions, in which one partial vision seeks a controlling power over another partial vision. This means that every political victory is at the same time a defeat of our efforts at integration and wholeness. Because empowered partial visions are still only partial visions.

Religion, by definition, has to be the search for a holistic vision, an integrated vision, and a balance between the competing dynamics that are inherent parts of us. In religion, every victory of a partial vision is another form of idolatry: exalting a partial vision to ultimate status. We live in political times, not religious ones. Even the virulent and war-mongering conservative Christians seek power for a very tiny vision – one which Jesus would have detested – rather than seeking the religious vision of oneness, of seeing all people (including Iraqis) as our brothers and sisters. So Christianity has been transformed into a political movement whose very aims are profoundly destructive of any honest religious impulse. It is an irony common to barbarous times.

These seven ancient Greek goddesses represent very different kinds of allegiances, many of them at odds with one another. Superficially, praying to the ancient goddesses could sound like someone is worshiping them, as distant powers. But more deeply, the Greeks were seeking their energies and perspectives, in search of a kind of harmony that transcends all of the goddesses, a kind of harmony that is not within the reach of any one of them.

This is the same kind of harmony that America has lost sight of, and so has lost the ability and the will to seek. It is a harmony that must be a wholly human achievement. We must fashion it. It can be fashioned only by fighting for what we love, but fighting in a way that brings the various parts of our life together, rather than letting any one of them rule us. It was not done in the lifetimes of those who invoked the spirits of the gods and goddesses. It will not be done in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of those who follow. That’s why it is a religious quest, always with us, and a task each person and each new generation must always accomplish for them.

It is what Joseph Campbell once called “the quest for the lost Atlantis of the coordinated soul.” It is the most essential quest of religion, and of life. The gods and goddesses we have created along the way can be clues and guides, and may open us to the better path we need.

But the gods cannot do it for us. It is our task: our task alone, and our task together. Let it be a task that calls us to it, and graces us with the inspiration of the gods – all of them.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr 2005

10 October 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER: An Invocation to Three Goddesses

For our prayer, I want to recapture some of the prayers of ancient Greeks, to three of the female figures that became goddesses: Persephone the daughter, Demeter the mother, and Hera the wife. They are simple prayers, but hear what simple human things they are praying for:

PERSEPHONE – help me to stay open and receptive.

DEMETER – teach me to be patient and generous, help me to be a good mother.

HERA – help me to make a commitment and be faithful.

Let us claim those petitions as our own:

Help us to stay open and receptive.

Help us to be patient and generous, to be good mothers.

Help us to make a commitment and be faithful.

Help us reclaim these gentle parts of ourselves, that we might become more whole.

Amen.

SERMON: “Myths to Live By”, Part Two

According to Greek mythology, the three Fates spin out the thread of our lives, stretch that thread as far as they choose, and cut it when they will. That was their way of saying life is a gift of unknown length. During the little span of life we are allotted by the Fates, we often puzzle over just what kind of gift it is, this gift of life. We wonder who we think we are, or who we should be, what we think we’re doing with our few years, and how to pull it all together in a better way. We try to find the path that feels most true, most worthy of a gift so short, yet so precious. We try to live a life that makes a story worth telling.

The question of who we are is complicated because there are so many levels to it, so many competing scripts. Babies in the crib have personality styles that are still a part of them twenty, fifty, eighty years later. Some of them whine, some gurgle and coo, and the odds are those dispositions will remain parts of their characteristic styles. This is what makes children become later attracted to some stories and myths, but not to others. In some, they recognize a part of themselves, and the story gives it words and form. In other stories, they see nothing but senseless make-believe.

I’ve been aware of much of this in my own life. The stories that have been most important to me stories like ‘The Little Red Hen,’ ‘The Little Engine That Could,’ the parable of the blind men and the elephant, and the story of the Greek god Proteus who remained something sacred even when he changed shape’these are nearly all expressions of styles that my parents and relatives assure me I had exhibited while I was still in early childhood. The stories were attractive because they gave voice to parts of my own soul. And the stories and proverbs that are most important to you probably also reflect personality traits that have been yours since infancy.

So if we look at our dominant scripts, or myths, and then look within, at our own psychobiography and whatever innate styles life has given us, we see several layers, some reinforcing and some conflicting with the others, like the voices of the three goddesses in the invocation I read you. And when we look outside of ourselves toward our larger world, there are also many scripts in which we play large or small roles. Family, friends, and peer groups have their own ideas of how things should be, so we learn to play parts in many different kinds of scripts. Some of them feel unnatural or wrong, but we get used to them: we learn to play roles that we would not have chosen, and in which we never feel fully comfortable. A society also has myths it lives by, and roles it assigns to its citizens: consumer, follower, warrior.

The picture of who we are and why we are living the lives we are living is a picture made complicated by the fact that there are so many different roles thrust upon us, so many levels of scripts in which we play small or large parts. And the best way we have of finding our way through this maze, of getting a better picture of who we are and what parts of our life fit or do not fit, is by sorting out the stories we are living out.

We could do this by talking about fairy tales, children’s stories, movie or television scripts, or even the words to popular songs. But this subject is so full it can get out of hand almost immediately, so I thought it would be more manageable, and perhaps more helpful, to spend two sermons going back to some of the classic character styles that the Greeks molded into their Olympian deities that show some of the enduring attitudes with which women in all eras have been able to identify.

Three of these seven goddesses form a kind of trinity. Jean Shinoda-Bolen, a Jungian psychiatrist, calls them the Vulnerable Goddesses, because all were either seduced or raped by male gods. You could also call them the Dependent Goddesses, because they required men or families in order to be complete. These goddesses were Hera, Demeter, and Persephone, whom the Romans called Juno, Ceres, and Proserpine. Together, they form the trinity of wife, mother, and daughter, and if the majority of men wrote the scripts, these would be the main roles assigned to women.

If you’re my age, you grew up when these were the roles all women were expected to fill: the age of Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, Donna Reed and the rest of them.

After World War II, our society strongly endorsed the submissive and compliant roles of daughter, wife and mother for women. Women went to college to get their ‘Mrs. Degree’ and, once married, often dropped out of school. American women were not stopping at having two children, but were having three, four, five, or six. By 1950 the birthrate in the United States equaled India’s for the first and only time (Jean Shinoda-Bolen, Goddesses in Everywoman, p. 28-29). These were the years of Hera and Demeter.

But if you grew up when Jonobie did, it was a world of very different expectations for women, as she learned from her mother: very different goddesses, which we’ll talk about in two weeks.

We all know the roles and stereotypes of wife, mother and daughter so well, it’s hard to see what we could hear that’s new. While wondering how I could get your attention, I remembered a conservative friend I used to have who hated to have her assumptions challenged. Once she said to me in exasperation, ‘I hate it when people make me think – it’s irritating!’ But everyone is irritated when their comfortable assumptions are challenged. So that’s what I want to do this morning: irritate you and, hopefully, let us see some things differently.

To do it, I’ll combine these ancient mythic roles with modern biology. Liberals like to quote biological studies showing that homosexuality is encoded in our brains before we are born, because it makes homosexuality as natural as left-handedness. There, science is on the side of liberals.

But on the subject of woman being designed for nurturing roles like motherhood, the same biologists using the same methods have supported conservative biases.

The biases of social and political liberals of the past thirty years have said women can compete with men, that it’s just cultural conditioning that makes women seem designed for roles of motherhood and homemaker.

No, the biases of liberal social and political ideology have been much stronger and more arrogant than that. They have made it clear that choosing a career is preferable to choosing the ‘old’ roles of wife and mother. After the first service this morning, a woman came through the line to tell me she had been a Unitarian for over fifty years. She grew up in the 50s, went to college to get her Mrs. degree, got married, and raised a family ‘ which she found profoundly fulfilling. But for about two decades in her Unitarian churches, she heard her choices reviled from the pulpits, in adult programs, and during coffee hour. Looking back, the liberal song of the 70s seems to have been ‘Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?’ It was a dumb song, and did violence to some of our own women.

And it was ironic that, from about the 1960s through perhaps the 1980s, when it was politically and academically incorrect to suggest that we, like all other animals on earth, came with biologically shaped and directed behavioral programs, social scientists in psychology, sociology and anthropology were studying and publishing a large number of papers showing that without the role of biology, we simply can’t explain the difference between men and women. (For an excellent and dispassionate book on this, see Carl Degler’s 1991 In Search of Human Nature.) The sexes are profoundly different in deep ways that are not the result of education but biology. Women are made for relating with others, caring about them, nurturing them ‘ all the traits that we identify with the role of Mother.

The differences between boys and girls are apparent in the first hours after birth. Girl babies are much more interested than boys in people and faces; the boys seem just as happy with an object dangled in front of them.

From the outset of life, girl babies show a greater interest in communicating with other people. One study involves babies of only 2-4 days old. It shows that girls spend almost twice as long as boys maintaining eye contact with a silent adult, and girls also look longer than boys when the adult is talking. The boys’ attention span was the same, whether the adult was talking or not’showing a relative bias towards what they could see, rather than what they could hear. . .

This female bias towards the personal shows itself in other ways. At four months old, most baby girls can distinguish photographs of people they know from photographs of strangers; boys usually cannot. A one-week-old baby girl can distinguish a baby’s cry from a background of general noise of a similar volume. Baby boys cannot. (Anne Moir, Brain Sex, p. 56)

Boys will make up stories full of zap, pow, and villainy. Girls’ narratives focus on home, friendship, emotions; the boy will tell the story of the robber, while the girls tell the same tale from the point of view of the victim . . .

Of course we all remember, from the playground, girls and boys who did not conform to this pattern. Indeed, they stick in the mind precisely because they were so different from most of the other girls and boys.’ (Brain Sex, pp. 59-60)

What all the innate differences add up to is what poets and regular people alike have been saying for centuries. Women are the gender with a higher awareness of and sensitivity to the existence and needs of other people. They come wired to care about the needs of their children. Both biologists and religious conservatives say it is very significant that there is no known culture in which childrearing is done mostly by men. This recognition that females have a natural role as mates and mothers is so widespread, so obvious, it describes females of every species we know, including ours.

So when religious or political conservatives fight for laws that define and defend women’s roles as mothers and wives, when they oppose abortion as violating a natural law so ancient it could be called the will of the gods ‘ when they do this, they are standing on some solid ground. And they would say what biologists say: that when we find exceptions to these rules, they stand out precisely because they are so unlike the norms. And laws, they say, should be grounded not in exceptions but in the rules, the norms, the deep voice of gods of nature, reflected in the way things really are.

Are you irritated yet? We liberals always assume that science is on the side of our political biases, but sometimes it is not.

And these deep predispositions in many women come up again and again. My favorite line in Jonobie’s Affirmation of Faith was when she said the reason she couldn’t succeed in a man’s world as her mother had done was not because of sexism, but because she had no passion inside of her for it. That kind of passion, as the Greeks knew, is the presence of a god. Jonobie has different goddesses directing her life than her mother did, and some of them are more like the traditional and biological tendencies of women than her mother’s were ‘ though as she and I discussed it, her guiding spirit, or goddess, isn’t Hera or Demeter, but Hestia: one we’ll talk about in two weeks.

Passion means the presence of a god. The word ‘enthusiasm’ contains the whole story. Look it up: it means to be filled with a god. And we must go where we are filled with gods, not where we have no passion for something.

I was reminded of a paragraph I read years ago by a Canadian psychologist named Sandra Witleson:

To have power, like riches or lovers, one has to want it, work for it, and strive to maintain it. Men will make the most extraordinary sacrifices of personal happiness, health, time, friendships and relationships in the pursuit and maintenance of power, status and success. Women won’t; most of them simply are not made that way.’ (Brain Sex, pp. 161-2). In other words, they have no passion for it.

Even at the simple chemical level, hormones play an important part in making woman the less aggressive sex. Estrogen, for instance, has a neutralizing effect on the aggression hormone, testosterone. Several clinical studies show how the female hormone can rescue violent males from extremes of aggressive behavior. It has even been used to control the behavior of male sex offenders.’ (Brain Sex, p. 79)

And another woman scientist wrote that ‘Marriages work, against all the odds, not because women are submissive, and accommodate their domineering males; marriages work because women’s natural social skills ‘ it’s been called ‘social intelligence’ ‘ enable them to manage a relationship so much better than a man. Women can predict and understand human behavior better than men, can sense the motives behind speech and behavior; so, if he is the engine of the ship, she is the rudder. She is also the navigator, because she alone has the chart and knows where the rocks are.’ (Brain Sex, p. 140) Notice there is no hint of inferiority in that woman’s description of women, just profound difference. But it’s a very different notion than seeking ‘sensitivity training’ to make men respond more like women, one of the dated liberal fads of the 70s and 80s. If you’re younger and have never heard of this, it’s because it didn’t work.

The message of biology is that there are sets of choices hard-wired, that we are not free to choose otherwise because it won’t feel natural or right to us. That’s almost exactly what the Greeks were trying to say by calling these things gods. They are eternal parts of the human condition. The Greeks saw the Dependent styles as the traits of being open, receptive and committed, the traits praised in the prayer this morning. And those, they identified with the female rather than the male styles of being ‘ as poets have always done, too.

So biology seems pretty strongly in the corner of political and religious conservatives on the subject of some of the roles nature or God have equipped women for. All this will bring a satisfied grin to the face of conservatives, and will often bring an irritated grimace to the faces of liberals, won’t it?

Now here we have ancient Greek myths of Hera, Demeter and Persephone ‘ the roles of wife, mother and daughter ‘ and findings of modern biology saying that yes indeed, these styles of being are programmed, hard-wired, into women. They are both natural and enduring parts of the human condition.

How would understanding this challenge our views of women, including some of the women here today? The liberal view of thirty years ago, that there are no permanent differences between the sexes, that it’s all about education rather than biology ‘ these views are wrong. They are not true to sciences, and not true to human nature.

I’ll continue this in two weeks when we consider the other kind of goddesses, the powerful and independent ones. There too, however, there will be an unpleasant surprise, for the most powerful of the independent goddesses is firmly in the camp of conservatives.

Jonobie’s mother sounds like she would fit in any Unitarian church in the country and be on the right side of most discussions about women. But Jonobie’s story is one of the very different stories characteristic of a great number of women in their 20s, 30s and 40s, as you can learn by talking with some of them in this church. Unitarianism has long been so identified with the assumptions of political liberalism that for many, it simply is liberal politics, with hymns and occasional candles. But I think cultural, political and religious liberals, in order to live in the present rather than the past, need to revisit and expand our understanding of the great range of spirits that guide the women among us and in the larger world.

I said I wanted to irritate you. But I don’t mean the kind of irritation that just causes a blister. I mean the kind of irritation that a grain of sand is, when it gets inside an oyster ‘ the kind of irritation that might, with time and work, produce a pearl of wisdom.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr 2004

3 October 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Prayer

The theologian Howard Thurman once said, “Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive and go and do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”

It sounds easy, but often seems hard. Let us focus on what makes us come alive, that we may go and do it.

Let us seek to live within stories that know our true name. And those places where we feel safe, real and cherished: let us seek them as well, and learn to dwell near them.

Let us muster the courage to listen for those voices that demand only the best from us, and let us grow comfortable in their company. For they are angels of our better nature, and we need to put ourselves in the company of the better angels of our nature.

For our calling is a high one. We are made, as scientists and poets have told us, entirely of stardust; of the stuff of gods are we made. And that noble origin grants us much honor, and a task.

The task begins with asking what makes us come alive and going to do it. Because more than anything, the world needs people who have come alive. Let us seek that which makes us come alive, nothing less. Amen.

SERMON: “Myths to Live By”, Part One

Over the next few weeks, I want to talk with you about stories, so let’s start with one:

The Great Stone Face

Once there were people who lived in a valley at the foot of a large mountain. High at the top of the mountain there was a face, a great face carved in the stone. The people said it was the face of a god. And if you could see that face clearly, they said, it would show you who you were, and how you were meant to live your life.

That sounded easy enough, but it was not. For the face was in a part of the mountain impossible to climb, and so high up it was almost always obscured by clouds or fog. Furthermore, the face seemed to look differently in different light, and no two people ever saw it exactly the same.

But it was important, this face, because if only it could be seen clearly’well, then you would know who you really were, and who you were meant to be. And so the people studied what they could see of the face, as best they could, and they told others what they thought they saw.

Stories even arose, stories about times that the great face had actually spoken to someone, and what the great face had said. People wrote these things down, and tried to make a list of do’s and don’t for living, but no two lists ever completely agreed. Still the people told their stories, and listened to the stories of others, because after all there was so much at stake, if only they could get it right.

And as they believed they understood the message of the great face in the stone, they tried to live in the ways they felt they were meant to live. Usually, this meant they tried to be kind to one another, to be good neighbors, to work hard, to make their little valley a better place for their having been there, and so on, as you would expect. There were always a few, of course, who did not care much about making the valley a better place. They lived to chase after power or wealth or other things like that, and they too, if pressed on it, would argue that this was the way the great face of stone had intended things to be.

From time to time, as you would also expect, there were also people who said that all of this was just nonsense, that there was no face at all in the stones above, that these were just these silly myths. And it was certainly true that if there was a face up there in the rocks, it was very faint, so faint that you couldn’t even be sure you were seeing anything at all.

Yet others would then say that without the face, and the stories about the face, the people in the valley might not have been so eager to be decent to one another, and then what kind of a valley would they have? After all, they would say, you needed something to live for, and some kind of rules to live by.

But as any visitor or other objective person could see, if there was any face at all up there, it was too vague to be clear about, even on a sunny day. All you could be sure of was that the people had these stories, and they lived by them. Should there be an expedition to the top of the mountain to try and see once and for all what the great face of stone was trying to say? Or should they instead be paying more attention to their stories, and their lives? If they could never see the great face clearly, then all they had were their stories, and their efforts to live well together. And if someone swore that the great face had indeed spoken clearly but the way it wanted them to live made no sense, either to individuals or to the community, then who would have cared what the great stone face said, anyway?

Well, as you can tell, this is not settled, neither within that valley nor elsewhere. And yet there is something here of importance, and we cannot seem to stop thinking and talking about it.

The psychiatrist Rollo May wrote a book not long before he died, called The Cry for Myth, which I recommend to anyone interested in this subject. These are some of the things he wrote about myth in his book:

“A myth is a way of making sense in a senseless world. [And all worlds are senseless until we can find a way to make sense of them!] Myths are narrative patterns that give significance to our existence. Myths are like the beams in a house: not exposed to outside view, they are the structure which holds the house together so people can live in it. Myth making is essential in gaining mental health, and the compassionate therapist will not discourage it. Indeed, the very birth and proliferation of psychotherapy in our contemporary age were called forth by the disintegration of our myths (p. 15).”

“Whereas empirical language refers to objective facts, myth refers to the quintessence of human experience, the meaning and significance of human life (p. 26).” He has also defined psychotherapy itself as the search for an adequate personal mythology.

What is a myth? Well, it is a script for our life, a kind of story buried deep within us and probably going back beyond our childhood even to the crib, a story that defines our peculiar style of living, and makes us who we are. This is the story, the script, that we live out in more ways than we can count. So a myth is a script.

The psychiatrist Alfred Adler spoke of these stories as our ‘guiding fictions,’ and that is another good phrase. A myth is a guiding fiction, an internalized story that assigns us a role within it, that tells us who we are and should be, and we tend to follow that script throughout our lives, both as individuals and as a society.

It does not do any good to ask whether myths or stories are ‘true’ or not. True and false are the wrong questions to ask of these scripts for living. They are good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, adequate or inadequate. They can serve as good or bad guides for our life. But once they are in place, once we are living out our lives in their terms, they are very hard to change, or even to be aware of: one of the images that Rollo May used was the image of myths as the beams in a house, not exposed to view, but holding the structure together from within.

Here’s what a myth can sound like in real life. Some years ago, at the Unitarian summer camp at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, I spoke with a woman who told me her problem was that she just couldn’t seem to do enough. She was working hard at everything, sacrificing herself to her husband, her children, and nearly anyone else who asked. But her life felt empty, she didn’t seem to be getting anything out of it, didn’t seem to be getting anything back from all this giving she was doing. I asked her if she thought she was supposed to be getting something out of it, and she said yes, it’s supposed to work that way: you give and you give, but eventually, you get back, too, and that’s what makes it all worth it.

That’s what I mean by a script, a guiding fiction. There is a story being lived out not only by that woman, but by millions of women and men ‘ though that one is mostly a women’s story. But there is no way to help this woman do well enough to get what she wants, because she is living out a story that is not likely to have a happy ending. It is like the story of Cinderella, who works and slaves for others, and whose only hope is that somehow a fairy Godmother will see her pure heart, reward her with a handsome prince, and usher in a kind of Judgement Day, when all who have wronged her will be punished. The only way to win is to get out of this story and find a different kind of role to play, because in real life there is a great scarcity of fairy godmothers.

Cinderella is only a fairy tale. But the best fairy tales have plots that have been told many times in many other ways. This Cinderella script, for example, is very much like a traditional script of Christianity, especially for women, that says you spend your whole life giving to men, to children, and to all others who ask, you spend your life as a Suffering Servant, and you’ll get your reward in heaven.

Now you have to say that this role is not always, or even necessarily, bad. It depends on the other characters in the story, and what roles they are playing. This is often a very rewarding role for women, because their husband, children, and friends appreciate and love them not in heaven but here and now for their hard work and their good heart.

Nor do you have to be a woman to find yourself in this story. College students living on no money in crummy apartments with three-inch cockroaches can identify with Cinderella too, where the role of the fairy godmother will be played by their eventual employer who makes all of this sacrifice worth it. And that usually happens. So it is not necessarily a bad story. But sometimes, a story like that Cinderella story, that ‘pay now, fly later’ script’sometimes it only makes people perpetual victims. And then the only way out of it is to get out of the story, and find a better script for your life.

Let’s do another story. You see a teen-aged boy who acts like a caricature of every macho role he has ever seen. He is a little blowhard practicing to become a big blowhard. He is arrogant with girls and with everyone else. His guiding fiction is a very old story. He is acting out the ancient warrior role, even the ancient barbarian role: the role of one who believes that through strength and bluster he can intimidate opponents, win the battle, get the girl and win respect.

It is not hard to see where a boy could learn a story like this. He could go to action movies or listen to Neo-conservative speeches about war and America’s manifest destiny to rule the world, and he would see this same old script being played out. It can govern a whole life, that myth, no matter how inadequate or silly it is.

And when a boy is frustrated because he can’t seem to win the battle or the girl or whatever, it will do him no good to take karate or courses in how to succeed through intimidation. Oh, he might become a successful businessman that way, but he will not become much of a human being, and that is what we are after here. To do that, he has to get out of that ridiculous story, and into a bigger one, into one that can steer him toward a more grown-up and responsible kind of life.

As in the case of the Cinderella story, this macho role you see in movies and television programs is an ancient part of our human repertoire. Just as you could understand the Cinderella role to be a variation on the ancient Greek goddess Persephone, the obedient daughter who was forever trying to please people, so you could see this macho script as another incarnation of the old Greek war-god Ares.

Do you see how different the discussion of life’s problems is when we do it in terms of the stories and scripts we’re living out instead of talking about tables of moral absolutes, theological mandates and forbidding lists of ‘Thou shalts’ and ‘Thou shalt nots’? We’ve taken it to a deeper and more important level, when we can identify the scripts we are living out, and begin to ask whether these are really adequate models for a mature and integrated human life. When we are living out stories rather than God’s Orders, then we can aspire to a creative role in the picture ‘ editor, perhaps. Or at least collaborator.

When you understand your life as a story rather than a set of rules, then there is the possibility of changing the story: changing the setting, the plot, and the ending. That is another way of understanding what a religious conversion is about, or someone going through a significant personal transformation in psychotherapy: it is someone changing their story, finding a different role to play, finding a new myth.

While there are a lot of images and stories that are important to me, you can learn most of what you need to know about me by understanding how I have been both attracted to and shaped by two children’s stories, a fable, and a minor Greek god. The children’s stories are ‘The Little Engine That Could’ and ‘The Little Red Hen.’ The fable is the old story of the blind men and the elephant, and the last is a little-known Greek god named Proteus. These stories, at least as I have understood them, have been characteristic of my views of what is most sacred in life, what is to be avoided, and how I have gone through difficult changes in my life.

You can learn more about me by understanding the stories that have been important, especially those four, than you can learn by knowing my education, my occupational history, or my family background.

And the same is true of you. Neither you nor anyone else will learn much about you from your resum’. If you really want to learn who you are, you will need to know what your guiding fictions are, your stories, your scripts, the myths you live by.

I want to give you an assignment. I want you to think of the stories, images, fables, proverbs, slogans and so on that are your favorites. Write them down if you need to, but make at least a good mental list of them. Or make a list of what you think are the five best rules to live by: they will be a good start.

Make a list of them, and then look at them and see how they are alike and how they are different, whether they seem related to one another. Then try to think of stories that they bring to mind, stories that seem to make the same points. The stories may be from movies or television shows you have seen, books you have read, fairy tales, Aesop’s fables, stories from the Bible, or just favorite personal anecdotes from within your own family. But you have such a collection of proverbs, fables, guiding fictions and myths, and they have played a central role in who you really are. They have a lot to do with what matters most to you, what you think life is about, who you see as the winners and losers in life. Learning to know your own stories is like learning to know your own soul.

It is said, at least in legend, that some of the Native American Plains Indians painted what amounted to psychological self-portraits on the decorative shields they carried, much like some of the shields our own kids made a few months ago. These shields showed, through symbolic animals like the eagle, bear, buffalo and mouse, what this person’s spirit was like, what they brought to life, and what they most likely still lacked, so that those who met them along life’s ways might better be able to help them on their journey toward wholeness. Sharing our stories is a little like carrying such a symbolic shield. It is a way of telling ourselves and others who we are, what we struggle with, and what is sacred to us. Try it with someone you trust, or just do the exercise by yourself. If you are willing to share your stories with me, I would love to hear them, and you can call me either at church or at home, I’m usually up until midnight.

Your stories, slogans and so forth may seem silly when you become aware of them, like stories of the Little Red Hen or the Little Engine That Could. I can assure you that they are not silly, and that there is probably a classic myth, thousands of years old, that tell the same stories. The Little Engine That Could, for example, is a child’s version of the ancient myth of Prometheus, and the Little Red Hen is telling the same story that Aesop told over 2500 years ago in his fable about the ant and the grasshopper. These things may sound silly, but they are not. The myths we live by are some of the most important things about us.

There is a wonderful old story about stories, it is the legend of Sheherezade. She was condemned to death by an immature, woman-hating tyrant. To save her life and the lives of others, she began telling the tyrant a story the night before he was going to have her killed, and she ended the story in mid-air, to be finished the next night. He let her live another night because he wanted to hear the ending. But she was no fool, and the story kept going on, for a thousand and one nights, according to the legend, until through her stories she had finally softened his heart, and opened his eyes and ears. She awakened the decent person that was inside of this tyrant. It was waiting like a Sleeping Beauty, for someone who could reach his soul and break the evil spell his life was being lived under.

But you see, we are all under the spell of Sheherezade. We all tell our stories in order to live. And we tell them, as well, in order to transform both ourselves and others into the people we think we were meant to be. We live in that valley where we look up to see a vague but important face carved in the rock high above. We know there is something terribly significant about that face. Somehow, it calls us toward a noble, even a sacred, destiny. We are not quite sure what that is, for the face seems to change as you move through life, or as you view it from different perspectives.

Actually, this is a myth. There is no face up there in the rocks at all. There may have been long ago, but the image is worn away beyond recognition now, and all we have are the stories. They are not much. Children’s stories, fables, old myths, tales and images from our sacred scriptures – these are about all that we have. And so we tell those stories, as Sheherezade did. That is why it is so important to know these guiding fictions that shape our lives, and to find better myths to live by: because we are all under the spell of Sheherezade. We all tell our stories in order to live.

Perhaps the people in the valley had it backwards. Perhaps it was their stories and the way they lived their lives that created the great face of stone. It is still unfinished, still worth pondering. Let us leave this place and ponder the meaning of our stories, and the meaning of our lives. Let us go seeking stories that have parts for us, for our families, community, nation and world ‘ parts that are worth playing.