House Rules for our UU Game

Click on the play button to listen.

Corinna and Dale Whitaker-Lewis

February 28, 2010

Readings:

Dale: We have two short readings. The first is from William Butler Yeats…

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity

Corinna: And this, from the instructions on a box of cards..

Fluxx, a perfectly simple card game for 2-6 players.  Simple? Fluxx has but one rule: “Draw 1 card and then play 1 card.” What cards could you play?  Well, you could play Time, or War, or perhaps Love. I shall play Chocolate. It is a fine thing to have Chocolate.  What’s this? You have played the card “Play 2.” Well, then, play a second card!  Don’t you know the rule of Fluxx? It is this: “Draw 1 card and then play 2 cards.” Well, that’s what it is NOW.  Perfectly simple.  The goal of the game?  Oh, I’m terribly sorry. No one has played a Goal card yet.  Enter the World of Looney Labs Games.” (Now that’s a fitting name, isn’t it?)

Corinna: Good morning everyone!  My name is Corinna Whiteaker-Lewis,

Dale: and I’m Dale Whiteaker-Lewis, and we have been coming to this church for almost 20 years.

Corinna: We have two daughters who delight and challenge us every day, Audrey who you just heard reading the children’s story, she’s 13, and Bridget’s here as well, and she’s 10.

We hope we will live up to Janet’s expectations today –we are very honored she asked us to speak, and also quite a bit daunted! Please forgive our need to read quite a bit of what we will say to you today.

We have reflected much over the years on this church, this congregation, this religion called Unitarian Universalism.  Having been raised without a religious tradition, this church is the only one I’ve ever known, so it’s all new to me.  We found this church in 1991 because we wanted someone to marry us, but leaving it at just that felt wrong.  We needed to make a connection here, and we did – we made good friends and have left sermons feeling recharged for the week ahead.

Dale: I grew up attending an Irish Catholic church in Cedar Falls, Iowa.  I didn’t connect strongly with the faith or rituals of my parents, and came to hate being forced to attend.  Millions of people have gained purpose and direction from that religion.  But, I came away as a teen bitter and—except for my love of a good hymn—feeling like I had escaped something unpleasant.  When we started coming here in ’91, I overcame my childhood resentment with a bargain.  I would be OK attending church if I: A. Don’t have to dress up –and— B.  Don’t have to “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” I could miss a week or two.

Corinna: And for a while, that was all we needed—inspiring sermons, a casual dress code and no truancy policy. But, our family’s participation in the life of this church has also really waxed and waned, waned and waxed over these last 18 years.  Some years, we maybe came to service once a month. The old bargain didn’t make our church life meaningful by itself.  But seeing that you all accepted our approach made this a safe spiritual environment for us.  In the vocabulary of logic, this was a necessary condition of our growth, but not a sufficient one.

Dale: We sometimes fell back on that basic bargain, but over time both our involvement and our unconscious expectations grew. Over the years we have taught in summer camps, chaired the Social Action Committee, helped form an Amnesty International group, served on the Board of Trustees and worked on the church’s computer network.  My resentment of religion faded, and we enjoyed most of our church activities.

Without thinking about it, though, our expectations grew: for a cleaner RE wing, for support of our personal causes, for a well-oiled volunteer process, and the like.  So, our minimum requirements for church life expanded, but I can’t say that we ever spelled out the new bargains clearly, even to ourselves.  At the same time, we often didn’t know what the church and its members expected of us, and so we weren’t always very engaged.

Corinna: Looking back, the inconsistency of our attendance seems strange to me.  I guess there were reasons why we didn’t come much some years: newborns, new houses, new jobs. So, while I think an expressed tolerance and acceptance drew us to this place, the absence of a request for commitment kept us from making one. Asking for a commitment would have meant this church would have to know itself, and be able to describe that to us.  And then tell us what our role, as church members, would be.  Because to ask us to figure out what this place meant to us was waayy too much work, I mean that’s just waayy too many choices.

Does that mean we were lazy? Does that mean we were not good UU material? I mean, this is all about everyone finding their own truths, right? I think it’s a lot to ask someone new to our church to do on their own, though. I mean, it’s just the kind of work you join a church to do together with others–developing relationships and, dare I say, some rules. I am one of those who work better with constraints than without, and I wonder if that doesn’t have something to do with it. I mentioned this to my friend Natalie, and she talked about how some of the most creative costumes she’d ever seen were for the black and white ball in San Francisco.

Multiple choices tend to stymie me, and I don’t think I am alone in this.  Dr. Barry Schwartz, in his book, “The Paradox of Choice, Why More Is Less” argues that too many choices can erode our psychological well being. He cites a study where shoppers will buy more jam when offered fewer varieties. He argues that after thousands of years working towards the simplification of providing for the necessities of life, the trend is reversing back to foraging behavior, as we are forced to sift for ourselves through more and more options in every aspect of life. I know that after shopping exclusively at little Wheatsville for a while, entering an HEB can feel like climbing Mt. Everest.

Dale: Fast forward to February of 2006, when our minister delivered the only sermon we’ve ever walked out of, about the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.   The experience helped reveal hidden assumptions and expectations we had.  And, understanding those new expectations matters more to us now than what was said, or how it made us feel.  We had made new bargains and had new, necessary conditions for our church life.  We had strong expectations that weren’t being met, about what other church members believed or would accept.

I have been an alcoholic in recovery for nearly my whole adult life—I spent my 20th birthday in rehab.  The lessons of sobriety have shaped my whole life, including church.  I have been taught that, when I have resentments, it helps to look relentlessly at my own part in the matter.  This serves two main purposes, first to take the focus off the offender, since I’m never going to change them.  Second, it helps me see where—to quote recovery literature—I’ve made decisions based on self which later put me in a position to be hurt.

Corinna: After 2006 and through the dismissal to this year, we have thought a lot about our role in the hardship we now face together.   In the example of the 9/11 sermon, Dale and I found we had developed unspoken assumptions about how others must support us, about the type of sanctuary you were required to maintain for us here.  We had built the walls of our sanctuary well inside the walls of the church, and left a lot that we didn’t like outside those walls.  We both feel now that for our church to heal, we must come to see not just a part of the church as our sanctuary, but the whole church body.  Not doing so sets us up for disillusionment.

For example, if you are very in touch with the music program, or the RE program, or the Forum program, and that changes suddenly and drasticly, will you still find peace of mind and sanctuary here?  We were convinced that we personally needed to expand our concept of sanctuary, but we weren’t sure how to accomplish that.  So, we were both relieved and excited when Janet started emphasizing covenant, especially developing something like a “covenant of right relation”.   It seemed to provide an opportunity for us to look at our relationship to the church as a whole.

Dale: To us, it seems like creating a good covenant is a lot like deciding on how to play certain games among friends.   Preparing to play a game might start with months of training for a marathon, or a casual invitation to play cards.  Just so, our activities at church might be well-planned or impulsive.  In each case, though, a lot about what happens and how we experience it depends on the rules of the game.  The rules might all be agreed and well-known ahead of time, as with the marathon.  Or, they might be last-minute, the way kids often make up new rules for each backyard game.  More likely, there are some of each: “standard” rules and “house” rules.

Standard rules to tell us things like which of the 100’s of card games we’re playing with that same old deck.  And House rules to fit the game to the players or circumstance.   Maybe we have younger or inexperienced players that need a break, or less than the usual time to play, or maybe we just think our rules will be more fun, just as we might spice up an old recipe.  If we don’t agree on some rules, though, can we even play a game together?  Or, are we just in the same place at the same time?  Think of that tense feeling we all know from childhood, when a player tries to change the rules to his or her favor in the middle of the game.

Corinna: Our family has always enjoyed playing games together.  In BK times, before kids, we had a lot of fun playing the video game Myst with our friends Karen and Michael, Rod and Carol.  We also had way too much fun with a free CD of Boggle that we got off a box of Cheerios. (Geeks that we are.) The girls started out on these cooperative board games where no one actually loses.  Harvest Time! Let’s all help each other bring in our crops!  But there’s one thing we always do, and that’s set up some house rules.  Do-overs might be allowed.  You can start your turn before amassing 30 points.  Sometimes there are very strict time limits on (some player’s) turns!  Or, you can have all the time you want.

Dale: Amazingly, as you heard in the reading, you don’t need to know the goal to start playing the card game Fluxx! The goal comes in somewhere along the way, and often changes.  What makes it playable is that people sit down together and agree on a single rule, just to start with.  People walked in the door of this church.  It’s reasonable for a person to first experience this sanctuary and our services when they start coming here.  But it’s a church,we are the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, so we don’t think of this place as a lecture hall.  It is a sacred space, for inspiration, for meditation, for transformation. And much of that transformation happens in the relationships between each other, as a people sitting here together, sharing life.

Corinna: I don’t think I was looking for spiritual growth, really, when I started coming here. I was just looking for a group of people who shared my beliefs, so I could feel good and comfortable about having those beliefs. I was tired of being the outsider, the one who isn’t like everyone else.  At 6’2”, as a lifelong vegetarian, as a liberal in Texas, I’ve been in the minority often enough.  Being different was something I long had turned into a strength and used as a defense mechanism.

It served me well for quite a long time, but ultimately it was an easy out, with no opportunity for change.  My spiritual journey now is to be the best person I can be, while contributing to something bigger than myself.  Something that is meaningful, uplifting, and a catalyst for good. So, I make a commitment to this community.  But to adhere to a commitment you make to other people is hard work, and you have to work at it.  It is not easy, but from that hard work comes growth.

Dale: To my mind, the most important rules for a covenant of right relation are the most minimal.  What standard of behavior can I, on my worst day, still commit to uphold.  If some morning I didn’t have time for breakfast, and I just found out a loved one was ill, and my shoes don’t fit right and my car is acting up and I’m late to church and you stop me in the hall to ask me about a problem with a church computer.  Then, what behavior should I tell you to expect of me?   That minimum standard of behavior says:  if I don’t meet even this, you are right to be concerned for me, and it is OK to be upset with me.   You should expect better, and you can and should help me to do better.   I may not be pleasantly receptive to your correction, but the heart of the covenant is that, even on those occasions where I miss the mark, I commit to stay engaged while I try to get my behavior back in line.

Corinna: When you are in community with other people, when you’ve shared a covenant on how to behave, the hardest thing is to call someone on not honoring it.  The fact that we don’t have a covenant yet makes it even harder, since we don’t even know if we agree on what’s acceptable.  I experienced this just recently. I had an exchange with someone here at church that made me feel uncomfortable and maybe even a little bit threatened. This person spoke very judgingly, told me I was wrong, raised her voice, and seemed very irritated and exasperated with me.  I remained calm, and restated my point of view, but ultimately did not let this person know how she was making me feel. I then turned around and talked to someone else about had happened!

Fortunately, my confidant gently let me know that my silence only allowed this person to think that the way she treated me was ok.  And on top of that, I was developing a negative opinion of this person without giving her any chance to explain herself. So, while I upheld a personal commitment to be polite, I also have the harder job of standing up for that value with someone who may not share it. This is the very difficult part of living honestly with other people, of being in community.  But, this experience would have been easier for me if I had known that we both agreed to a covenant, as members of this church, to be caring toward one another.

A covenant of right relation, or some agreed-upon house rules, allows us to leave our suspicions at the door, and have meaningful experiences in an environment that may strain or break our expectations about things that matter to us.  Having that commitment to each other about a minimum standard of my own behavior and yours, even helps me tolerate situations where the commitment is breached, because we have a standard to get back to that is a community standard that we can remind each other of.  Bringing this out of the realm of the implicit helps expose assumptions we have about “normal” or “acceptable” behavior.  And I make the promise here and now, before you all, that I will get up the nerve to speak to this person!

Dale: And, just to give you an idea of how disciplined we were in preparing for this sermon, a very timely article came in yesterday’s UU World magazine.  Written by a consultant with the Alban Institute, Dan Hotchkiss, it talks about covenant, mission, and vision.  When discussing who the board of a church must serve, he says they must serve, quote, “the congregation’s mission, the covenant the congregation has set its heart to and the piece of the Divine Spirit that belongs to it.” He then goes on to ask and what is the mission?  “The great management consultant Peter Drucker wrote that the core product of all social-sector organizations is “a changed human being.” A congregation’s mission is its unique answer to the question, “Whose lives do we intend to change and in what way?” …. Growth, expanding budgets, building programs, and such trappings of success matter only if they reflect positive transformation in the lives of the people touched by the congregation’s work,” unquote.

Corinna: You know, what we have here is such an incredible opportunity.  There are not many chances for a group of people to get together and determine for themselves how they want to be with another.  Like the children in Roxaboxen found, this is a freedom.  But it won’t happen; we can’t be healthy here, unless we are willing to be vulnerable and say that we’re not perfect and would like to change.We must start with ourselves.  And then dare to think that we might know what we would like to be, and that with each other’s help and love, we can get there.

Dale: In the meantime, come play some games with us! The Open Minds Covenant Group is hosting an all ages Games Night in Howson Hall this coming Saturday night at 7 p.m. Snacks. Drinks. Surprises. Childcare provided in the nursery (need to RSVP for that), but there will also be supervised games for kids 5ish and up. But you’ll have to follow the rules, and we know you will! We’ll bring Fluxx…

The Handwriting on the Wall

First UU Transition Team

Margaret Roberts, Sylvia Pope, Wendy Kuo, Sharon Moore, Nancy Bene, Jim Burson, Michael Kersey

January 17, 2010

Margaret Roberts

Some months ago, I worried that our church would become inactive and even lethargic during the two year transition period between settled ministers.  Fortunately, I had no need for concern.  We have remained a very busy and vibrant congregation.  If you doubt me, I encourage you to check the bulletin boards in the hall adjacent to and across from the office.  There you will see hundreds of photographs documenting many recent church activities.  We have come together to worship, sing, celebrate, play, learn, share ideas, cook, eat, feed and shelter the homeless, and conduct church business.

The timeline exercise which we underwent in October and November confirmed what the photographs of our activities illustrate:  we are a healthy and energetic congregation.  Having read the comments posted by our church membership on the timeline, I believe the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin is experiencing an upswing in attitude and outlook.

Many church members expressed pride in First UU’s long history of participating in works of social justice.  One commenter reminded us that as early as the 1950s, this congregation made efforts to racially integrate Barton Springs.  First UU Church is a longtime supporter of the local chapter of Amnesty International.  Our social action outreach continues today with our sack lunch for the homeless program, our regular assistance at the People’s Community Clinic, and our participation in Hands-on-Housing and Freeze Night sheltering programs.  Did you know that six members of First UU donate 3 hours every week to assist Austin’s North Central Caregivers?  And were you aware that our choir performs at an annual concert each December for the benefit of North Central Caregivers?  In addition to addressing local social issues, our church is responsive to victims of world crises.  We experienced this concern earlier in our service as the collection was taken to help the people of Haiti.

Many comments on the timeline expressed pride in our church community’s ability and willingness to take care of each other through the work of our Congregational Care Committee.  This desire to help each other during times of personal difficulty was evidenced by the generous collections taken during our recent Christmas Eve services.

A number of members expressed pride in the progress of our healing since our minister’s departure 13 months ago.  Almost immediately after Reverend Davidson Loehr’s dismissal, groups were established within the church for people who wished to share their feelings with others.  Outside experts were consulted and workshops scheduled to help us process our grief and rebuild.  Volunteers stepped forward and new leaders emerged to assure that our church life would continue.

Most of us agree that we need to learn to disagree with more civility.  We need to develop methods of arguing with respect.  As UUs, we like to think of ourselves and enlightened and accepting of others who differ from us; we need to practice this acceptance with each other and strive to be open-minded and kind in our interactions with our fellow congregants.

Despite the challenges we have faced during the past 13 months, our members still hold many hopes and dreams for our church.  For example:

1)     We dream of the re-establishment of our warm, loving church environment where members interact with honesty, fair-mindedness and respect, and where we collectively work to promote the interests of our posterity;

2)     We dream of creating a hospitable church community that welcomes new-comers and guests and celebrates diversity of ideas, faith, culture and lifestyle;

3)     We hope for renewed commitment of church members expressed in terms of increased participation in church activities, and increased financial pledges to assure support of our various programs, generous compensation for our staff, and payment of our “fair-share dues” to the Unitarian Universalist Association;

4)     We dream of a super-successful capital campaign so we can remodel and expand our existing building to meet our active congregation’s needs now and in the future;

5)     We dream of having a greater impact on the local, national and international community expressed through more educational outreach and more social action activities; and

6)     We look forward to calling an excellent new minister who fits our church and our local community, and who welcomes a regular professional evaluation as an opportunity to communicate with the church membership.

Some may find this list of hopes and dreams daunting, but I find it encouraging.  Because so many of us have the courage to nurture hopes and dreams for our church, I feel confident that we have a future.  In fact, I believe we have a strong future, because I believe that this transition experience, as tough as it has been, will ultimately prove to strengthen the First UU Church of Austin.

Sylvia Pope

Many of the contributions to the timeline that resonated most for me were those that spoke about our congregation’s commitments to the environment.    As embodiment of our belief in sustaining “the interconnected web of which we are all a part;” we have cultivated native plants on our campus, installed solar panels on our roof, changed to energy-efficient light bulbs and sought to recycle our paper, bottles and cans.  These “green” steps may seem small but they convey our commitment, care and concern for our planet and each other.

Here are some of the thoughts shared on the timeline:

“I am so proud of our church’s environmental efforts – gardens, solar panels, etc.”

Another Proud Moment:  “Garden’s Wildlife Habitat designation and proud of all who worked to make it so.”

Did you know that our landscaping has been certified a Backyard Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation?  Thanks for the efforts of Dale and Pat Bulla, Barbara Denny and many others who affectionately toiled to transform a humdrum landscape into something wild, beautiful and beneficial to nature.

The All Ages Playground; a welcoming, nurturing place for youth and adults; is a native landscape showpiece that was conceptualized and brought to life by Elizabeth Gray and Earl ??? and many volunteers.  If you haven’t had the time to sit on one of the benches and enjoy the cool breezes on a sunny afternoon, I highly recommend it!

In the Hopes and Dreams portion of the timeline, our environmental commitment was mentioned directly but I believe that is a part of our collective desire to be a community of vibrancy, inclusion and inspiration!

===================================================================================

A second theme mentioned in the Proud section is the strength of our religious education program.   I share a strong interest in RE and I believe that our collective support of this program and our children has kept us together at times when we felt like falling apart.    Does any church have as dedicated and enthusiastic staff and volunteer corps as we do?  I doubt it!  Examples of their energy and creativity are:  the UU Summer Hogwarts School (a fun, unique and free week of community building for our children),  co-hosting  YRUU rallies, the Halloween Haunted hallway and the Christmas pageant.  New members and visitors bring their children to our church because of the warm, welcoming atmosphere.

Sharon Moore

In your notes you talked about 2 of my big passions regarding our church life. One is the quality of the leadership of our senior staff and one is the importance of small group ministry in our church.

You said we should call no more one trick ponies for minister and that we have looked to ministers to make us whole – to save us.

My experience in 3 UU churches tells me that our ministers generally come with 1 of 3 major talents.

  • One is best at administration and strategizing and leads us through all the minutia and vital tasks that make a church run efficiently.
  • Another minister is a great orator who leaves the management duties to the executive director and leaves the pastoral care to a second minister or congregational care team. This person’s strongest talent is in inspiring with words.
  • The third type is a caregiver, a pastoral person who excels in people skills, loves to counsel, visit the sick, perform weddings and memorial services.

All 3 types bring a different set of skills to keep the church strong. Almost never will 1 person have all 3 gifts in abundance. That would be the perfect person, and no one is perfect.

With our new settled minister, we must pool all of our resources, dream our dreams, and work hard to make them a reality.

Many of your notes dealt with wanting us to strengthen community here.

You said, The covenant groups started and are still part of our community. Yes! You said, In Evensong I formed lasting relationships here.

You talked of the positive impact that groups such as sharing suppers, men’s breakfast, adult ed. Classes, Voyagers, Paradox Players, Circle of Friends, Couples Club, and many more groups and committees have had on your lives.

I believe small groups are the key to really getting to know one another. We all yearn for heart to heart contact, to be listened to, validated, and challenged to grow. We can’t go it alone.

You will have several opportunities in the coming weeks to participate in group discussions, working on our church’s core values, covenant, purpose and mission statements that will all help get our church ready to sail on a wonderful new voyage with all of us buying in to where we are going and how best to get there.

Nancy Bene

We are a community. We are a network. A web of interconnectedness.  What we do and don’t do effects all around us.  On the positive side, we are a safe haven where what we do is respected and encouraged.  Our community has existed for over 50 years here in Austin. Through good times and not- so- good times – just like a family. We’ve talked together, dreamed together, argued, laughed, joked, created, destroyed and cried together.

I’m sure you know that the seeds of our present not-so-good times were sown several years ago.  We lost our way toward the principles we value most.  Instead of growing into the workings of a large congregation, we continued doing what we had always done.

Each step taken to break the old ways was difficult and we are in for a few more difficult steps before we can reach out to a spiritual leader and ask him or her to join with us.  We must step back and take an objective look at where we are and where we want to go and then express in writing – for everyone to see- what it is that we collectively hold sacred.

Many of you who posted sticky notes on the time line were proud of this church.  Many thought we could do better.  Now is the time for you to actively influence the direction this congregation will take in the future.  Tell us how we can heal and become the safe haven for spiritual growth translated into action in our community.  There is and always has been a tremendous creative energy in this church.  We can work together to encourage ourselves and others to become the best we can be. I look forward to working with you, all of you, in discovering what this church, as a whole, finds precious. And then sharing our uniqueness, our preciousness within our community – here and everywhere.

Jim Burson

Talk To Me About Our Church

G – O – O – D MORNING —

My name is Jim —

Today I want to ask you to TALK to ME

The comments that were posted on the Time Line that stood out most to me were of two types —

One type asked for more TRANSPARENCY by our church board –

The other type asked us to be more FRIENDLY to visitors and

new members —  people that we do not know —

These messages tell me that THE biggest challenge that our church faces is –

Not enough communication –

Y’all need to talk to each other –

Y’all need to talk to me –

The members of this congregation need to talk to each other –

And  not only to the friends we know –

But, more importantly, — talk to people we do not know –

Talk to me –

Each of you  –

Must talk to our minister, —-  Janet Newman —

You must talk to the board members –

And,  — the board members must talk to you –

And, —  of  course  —  the board must talk to the minister –

And,  —

y’all, — must talk to me –

I am personally  going  to seek out people that I do not know –

To talk to them –

And to listen to them –

We must have dialogue  —

Not just talking –

But, —  talking  AND listening –

And —  you must listen more than you talk –

Y’all listen to me.—

If we had been talking and listening to each other for the last ten years –

We would not be in the situation we are in now  —

We would have  fewer complaints about TRANSPARENCY ––

Fewer complaints that we are  AN UNFRIENDLY people —

Y’all stop to talk –

Stop to listen to each other –

I’ll listen to you –

My name is Jim —

Y’all  talk to me —-

Bryan and the Social Darwinists

William Jennings Bryant and the Social Darwinists

Gary Bennett

December 27, 2009

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

Reading

BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN – Vachel Lindsay

In a nation of one hundred fine, mob-hearted, lynching, relenting, repenting, millions, There are plenty of sweeping, swinging, stinging, gorgeous things to shout about, And knock your old blue devils out.

I brag and chant of Bryan, Bryan, Bryan

Candidate for president who sketched a silver Zion,

The one American Poet who could sing outdoors,

He brought in tides of wonder, of unprecedented splendor,

Wild roses from the plains, that made hearts tender,

All the funny circus silks

Of politics unfurled,

Bartlett pears of romance that were honey at the cores,

And torchlights down the street, to the end of the world.

There were truths eternal in the gab and tittle-tattle.

There were real heads broken in the fustian and the rattle.

There were real lines drawn:

Not the silver and the gold,

But Nebraska’s cry went eastward against the dour and old,

The mean and cold.

It was eighteen ninety-six, and I was just sixteen

And Altgeld ruled in Springfield, Illinois,

When there came from the sunset Nebraska’s shout of joy:

In a coat like a deacon, in a black Stetson hat

He scourged the elephant plutocrats

With barbed wire from the Platte.

The scales dropped from their mighty eyes.

They saw that summer’s noon

A tribe of wonders coming

To a marching tune.

Oh, the longhorns from Texas,

The jay hawks from Kansas,

The plop-eyed bungaroo and giant giassicus,

The varmint, chipmunk, bugaboo,

The horned-toad, prairie-dog and ballyhoo,

From all the newborn states arow,

Bidding the eagles of the west fly on,

Bidding the eagles of the west fly on.

The fawn, prodactyl and thing-a-ma-jig,

The rakaboor, the hellangone,

The whangadoodle, batfowl and pig,

The coyote, wild-cat and grizzly in a glow,

In a miracle of health and speed, the whole breed abreast,

The leaped the Mississippi, blue border of the West,

From the Gulf to Canada, two thousand miles long:-

Against the towns of Tubal Cain, too cunning for the young,

The longhorn calf, the buffalo and wampus gave tongue,.

These creatures were defending things Mark Hanna never dreamed:

The moods of airy childhood that in desert dews gleamed,

The gossamers and whimsies,

The monkeyshines and didoes

Rank and strange

Of the canyons and the range,

The ultimate fantastics

Of the far western slope,

And of prairie schooner children

Born beneath the stars,

Beneath falling snows,

Of the babies born at midnight

In the sod huts of lost hope,

With no physician there,

Except a Kansas prayer,

With the Indian raid a howling through the air.

And all these in their helpless days

By the dour East oppressed,

Mean paternalism

Making their mistakes for them,

Crucifying half the West,

Till the whole Atlantic coast

Seemed a giant spiders’ nest.

And these children and their sons

At last rode through the cactus,

A cliff of mighty cowboys

On the lope,

With gun and rope.

And all the way to frightened Maine the old East heard them call,

And saw our Bryan by a mile lead the wall

Of men and whirling flowers and beasts,

The bard and the prophet of them all.

Prairie avenger, mountain lion,

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan,

Gigantic troubadour, speaking like a siege gun,

Smashing Plymouth Rock with his boulders from the West,

And just a hundred miles behind, tornadoes piled across the sky,

Blotting out sun and moon,

A sign on high.

Headlong, dazed and blinking in the weird green light,

The scalawags made to moan,

Afraid to fight.

II

When Bryan came to Springfield, and Altgeld gave him greeting,

Rochester was deserted, Divernon was deserted,

Mechanicsburg, Riverton, Chickenbristle, Cotton Hill,

Empty: for all Sangamon drove to the meeting-

In silver-decked racing cart,

Buggy, buckboard, carryall,

Carriage, phaeton, whatever would haul,

And silver-decked farm-wagons gritted, banged and rolled,

With the new tale of Bryan by the iron tires told.

The State House loomed afar,

A speck, a hive, a football,

A captive balloon!

And the town was all one spreading wing of bunting, plumes, and sunshine,

Every rag and flag, and Bryan picture sold,

When the rigs in many a dusty line

Jammed our streets at noon,

And joined the wild parade against the power of gold.

We roamed, we boys from High School,

With mankind,

While Springfield gleamed,

Silk-lined.

Oh, Tom Dines, and Art Fitzgerald,

And the gangs that they could get!

I can hear them yelling yet.

Helping the incantation,

Defying aristocracy,

With every bridle gone,

Ridding the world of the low down mean,

Bidding the eagles of the West fly on,

Bidding the eagles of the West fly on,

We were bully, wild and wooly,

Never yet curried below the knees.

We saw flowers in the air,

Fair as the Pleiades, bright as Orion,

-Hopes of all mankind,

Made rare, resistless, thrice refined.

Oh, we bucks from every Springfield ward!

Colts of democracy-

Yet time-winds out of Chaos from the star-fields of the Lord.

The long parade rolled on. I stood by my best girl.

She was a cool young citizen, with wise and laughing eyes.

With my necktie by my ear, I was stepping on my dear,

But she kept like a pattern, without a shaken curl.

She wore in her hair a brave prairie rose.

Her gold chums cut her, for that was not the pose.

No Gibson Girl would wear it in that fresh way.

But we were fairy Democrats, and this was our day.

The earth rocked like the ocean, the sidewalk was a deck.

The houses for the moment were lost in the wide wreck.

And the bands played strange and stranger music as they trailed along.

Against the ways of Tubal Cain,

Ah, sharp was their song!

The demons in the bricks, the demons in the grass,

The demons in the bank-vaults peered out to see us pass,

And the angels in the trees, the angels in the grass,

The angels in the flags, peered out to see us pass.

And the sidewalk was our chariot, and the flowers bloomed higher,

And the street turned to silver and the grass turned to fire,

And then it was but grass, and the town was there again,

A place for women and men.

III

Then we stood where we could see

Every band,

And the speaker’s stand.

And Bryan took the platform.

And he was introduced.

And he lifted his hand

And cast a new spell.

Progressive silence fell

In Springfield,

In Illinois,

Around the world.

Then we heard these glacial boulders across the prairie rolled:

“The people have the right to make their own mistakes….

You shall not crucify mankind

Upon a cross of gold.”

And everybody heard him-

In the streets and State House yard.

And everybody heard him

In Springfield,

In Illinois,

Around and around and around the world,

That danced upon its axis

And like a darling broncho whirled.

IV

July, August, suspense.

Wall Street lost to sense.

August, September, October,

More suspense,

And the whole East down like a wind-smashed fence.

Then Hanna to the rescue,

Hanna of Ohio,

Rallying the roller-tops,

Rallying the bucket-shops.

Threatening drouth and death,

Promising manna,

Rallying the trusts against the bawling flannelmouth;

Invading misers’ cellars,

Tin-cans, socks,

Melting down the rocks,

Pouring out the long green to a million workers,

Spondulix by the mountain-load, to stop each tornado

And beat the cheapskate, blatherskite,

Populistic, anarchistic,

Deacon- desperado.

V

Election night at midnight:

Boy Bryan’s defeat.

Defeat of western silver.

Defeat of the wheat.

Victory of letterfiles

And plutocrats in miles

With dollar signs upon their coats,

Diamond watchchains on their vests

And spats on their feet.

Victory of custodians,

Plymouth Rock,

And all that inbred landlord stock.

Victory of the neat.

Defeat of the aspen groves of Colorado valleys,

The blue bells of the Rockies,

And blue bonnets of old Texas,

By the Pittsburgh alleys.

Defeat of the alfalfa and the Mariposa lily.

Defeat of the Pacific and the long Mississippi.

Defeat of the young by the old and silly.

Defeat of tornadoes by the poison vats supreme.

Defeat of my boyhood, defeat of my dream.

VI

Where is McKinley, that respectable McKinley,

The man without an angle or a tangle,

Who soothed down the city man and soothed down the farmer,

The German, the Irish, the Southerner, the Northerner,

Who climbed every greasy pole, and slipped through every crack;

Who soothed down the gambling hall, the bar-room, the church,

The devil vote, the angel vote, the neutral vote,

The desperately wicked, and their victims on the rack,

The gold vote, the silver vote, the brass vote, the lead vote,

Every vote?…

Where is McKinley, Mark Hanna’s McKinley,

His slave, his echo, his suit of clothes?

Gone to join the shadows, with the pomps of that time,

And the flame of that summer’s prairie rose.

Where is Cleveland whom the Democratic platform

Read from the party in a glorious hour,

Gone to join the shadows with pitchfork Tillman,

And sledge-hammer Altgeld who wrecked his power.

Where is Hanna, bulldog Hanna.

Low-browed Hanna, who said: “Stand pat”?

Gone to his place with old Pierpont Morgan.

Gone somewhere… with lean rat Platte.

Where is Roosevelt, the young dude cowboy,

Who hated Bryan, then aped his way?

Gone to join the shadows with mighty Cromwell

And tall King Saul, till the Judgment day.

Where is Altgeld, brave as the truth,

Whose name the few still say with tears?

Gone to join the ironies with Old John Brown,

Whose fame rings loud for a thousand years.

Where is that boy, that Heaven-born Bryan,

That Homer Bryan, who sang for the West?

Gone to join the shadows with Altgeld the Eagle,

Where the kings and the slaves and the troubadours rest.

Sermon

The scene is frozen in our consciousness, one of the defining moments of Modern America: Clarence Darrow heroically defending Science and Intellectual Freedom by placing the champion of the forces of darkness and ignorance on the stand, forcing William Jennings Bryan to show to all the world that he believes absurdities, defends the indefensible, and uses his power to force others to do the same. You’ve seen the play: this yokel believes Adam and Eve were the first human pair, doesn’t know or care where Cain got a wife; believes some sort of whale or fish swallowed Jonah; in short the whole enchilada, whatever the Bible says, however absurd, however much in contradiction of science or even of itself; coming soon to your local school district to punish teachers for teaching biology, geology, physics or history. The Dragon, having been metaphorically slain by St. Clarence, obliges by dying on the Spot, presumably from shame at having been publicly exposed as a charlatan.

I’m afraid I’m going to make several demands on you today, and the first is to suggest that things are not always what they seem, that we have in fact merely caught a man of great and noble character at a bad moment. One of the rarities of Bryan’s career was that, before the Scopes Trial, he had in thirty years lost many political races and crusades, but had steadily gained in esteem through them all. More than almost any other American politician, Bryan had the knack of losing the battles, but winning the war. His causes were adopted, one by one, by people who had originally seen him as a dangerous radical. But in Dayton, Tennessee, he as prosecutor technically won the case, while in the great court of public opinion, in the major newspapers of his day and in the play Inherit the Wind a generation later, he lost the reputation he had gained over a lifetime.

A biographer suggests mitigating factors in Bryan’s behavior after 1920. The diabetes that claimed his life shortly after the Monkey Trial may have been diminishing his mental faculties and clouding his judgment. And we know that he disapproved of laws of the Tennessee model which included punishment for disobedience; he believed strongly in the power of moral persuasion and disapproved of the use of force in most cases. Bryan was not after publicity; rather, as the most revered Christian statesman in America, he was steadily pushed by others, first into a position of national leadership in the fundamentalist movement, and then into helping prosecute a violator of a law to which he had objected. In the end Bryan saw his faith on trial, and he could not back down.

But this is not all there was to William Jennings Bryan. He was one of the greatest men of his time, and it is doubtful that any other American has ever made such a great positive impact upon our public life and then been so thoroughly forgotten.

For the rest of the story, we go back to the year 1896, a turning point in American political history. After the Civil War, American cities and industries and railroads had blossomed, but the wealth created was concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Prices were jacked up by high protective tariffs and the spread of monopolies; labor conditions were abominable, with extremely long work weeks, widespread child labor, unsanitary and dehumanizing sweatshops; company towns that sucked workers’ wages away faster than they could earn them; wages depressed by seemingly endless stream of immigrants fleeing even worse conditions abroad. Attempts by workers to better themselves were bludgeoned to death by management-hired private thugs as well as regiments of public thugs called up by governors beholden to the rich. One of the grandest of these grand larcenies was the adoption of the Gold Standard in 1873. By removing silver as currency while withdrawing paper money from circulation, the plutocrats who ran the government systematically shrank money supply over the course of two decades, even as the population and real wealth of the country exploded. The result was one of the greatest deflations in world history. Debts incurred in the 1860s and ’70s became far larger and harder to repay as time went on. The massive deflation in the US housing market over the last two years, where houses are in many cases worth far less than what is still owed on their mortgages, may give us a sense of what it was like to live in that time, especially for Western farmers. Since prices of monopoly-controlled goods did not share in the price reductions, farm prices fell all the faster.

Both major political parties were owned body and soul by the rich. We think of Democrats as the Party of the Left, more or less, but for half a century before 1896 that had not been the case. The Democrat Grover Cleveland cleaned up some governmental corruption by creating the Civil Service, but had nothing to say about the growing economic inequities, and fittingly lost control of his own party after doing nothing about the suffering engendered by the Depression of 1893.

With the deepening poverty and despair, radical movements began to flourish, particularly in the West and South. The Populist Party grew in the 1880s, but like all American third parties, it was ultimately doomed to irrelevance and extinction. By the way, regardless of what the media might proclaim, there are not now nor were there ever “conservative populists” any more than there are “conservative progressives” or “conservative liberals.” The Populists were angry, but they were also as intelligent, well-read and principled as were the radicals who had made the American Revolution; they even managed to bring Southern blacks and whites together in a party of common interest, something demagogues have not tried to do in any era. In the Democratic Convention of ’96, radicals of this stripe were in control; they nailed together a platform calling for a progressive income tax, control of monopolies, and a return to silver coinage as a way of halting deflation. Then they waited for a candidate.

Bryan, the final speaker on platform issues, became man of the hour by delivering a speech for the ages. Once this was a treasured statement of progressive American principles in much the same way as the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address; perhaps it should be again. These are his concluding remarks:

I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty – the cause of humanity ….

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between “the idle holders of idle capital” and “the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country”; and my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side are we, “the idle holders of idle capital”or upon the side of “the struggling masses”? This is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class that rests upon them.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country …. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor the crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

The campaign was far and away the most scandalous in American history. Republicans owned most of the newspapers then as now, and they painted Bryan in the most pejorative terms imaginable. A Jacobin, an Anarchist, a Socialist (there were no Communists yet, or he would have been one of those too), a demagogue. Mark Hanna extorted from frightened businessmen a war chest which in real terms was in the range of $200-$500 million, in a nation far smaller and poorer than our own; Standard Oil’s contribution alone almost matched the entire Democratic campaign fund. Teddy Roosevelt made plans for a last military stand if the “Reds” won, and John Hay made plans to rendezvous with other emigrŽs in Paris. A number of bosses told their employees not to bother to show up the next day, should Bryan win.

That all this should be the reaction to a candidate who brought back the words and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, illustrates better than anything else the death grip which wealth had gained on America in 1896. In the end the popular vote was close, the electoral vote less so, but Bryan lost.

A pattern had been formed for Bryan’s career. In 1900, new and massive gold strikes in the Klondike and South Africa temporarily eased the vice grip of deflation. But in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, we had become an imperial power in a world mad with colonialism; Bryan dared to campaign against imperialism, saying it was unworthy of America’s ideals and suggesting that we should begin preparing our new colonies for self-government. He lost again, but in 1901 accidental president Teddy Roosevelt became the first of Bryan’s former political enemies to begin adopting his policies, now rechristened the “Square Deal.”

A third principled defeat followed in 1908, but after Woodrow Wilson won in 1912 in a close three-way election, Bryan was appointed Secretary of State. Wilson was another former enemy, but he now called for a New Freedom, also straight from Bryan’s platforms. Aside from his foreign policy responsibilities, Bryan was instrumental in shaping several of the key domestic reforms, most importantly the creation of a new way of banking called the Federal Reserve System.

On most foreign policy issues, the President and Secretary of State thought alike. Their guiding principles were distaste for imperialism, respect for the autonomy of other countries, a desire to spread American values of democracy and human rights, and the attempt to create an international structure of law to curb war and other primitive national atavisms. As is the case today, some of these principles came into conflict with one another; as a result, the level of intervention in the Caribbean and Central America was almost as great as in the “We stole it fair and square” days of Teddy Roosevelt. Still they laid a foundation for a future Good Neighbor Policy to the south and for supra-national organizations to mediate disputes elsewhere.

Only in one area did Bryan and Wilson disagree, and that finally led to the Secretary’s resignation: he was a pacifist who rightly believed that Wilson’s policies toward Germany would lead us into war. Who was right? Without American intervention, Germany would have won, and the result would have been an unpleasantly authoritarian Europe. But given the way events actually played out, the imposition of a draconian peace treaty on Germany, which enraged its people while keeping their economy weak and its democratic government unpopular and the withdrawal from European affairs of the only state capable of controlling it or resolving its grievances peacefully, all of which pretty much guaranteed some variant of Hitler and World War II, it would probably have been better for America to stay out of World War I. Finally, at the end of the war, Bryan’s last failed political crusade was attempting to persuade Americans to join the League of Nations.

While he despaired of his failures, meanwhile, items from Bryan’s agenda continued to be adopted: direct election of senators; progressive income tax; women’s suffrage; prohibition; moving colonies to self-government. And a number of states were adopting Populist reforms such as initiative, referendum and recall. Franklin Roosevelt, coming to power after the Nebraskan’s death, abolished the gold standard, established a principled foreign policy in Latin America, and helped create the United Nations as what Bryan hoped the League of Nations would be. In short, much of the decent middle-class, internationally respected America he campaigned for had come into being by the time some of us were coming of age in the mid-twentieth century.

But we are back to that strange period of his life, starting in 1921, when Bryan abandoned the world of politics and began to champion the teaching of bad science in the schools. It mystified his contemporaries among liberal reformers and has continued to baffle those who know enough about him not to be satisfied with Elmer Gantry / Pat Robertson-type caricatures. We mentioned his illness and pressure from followers as possible reasons. But we also know that he had come to believe that the evils he had been fighting his whole political life had been caused or exacerbated by the influence of one man. For the malefactors of great wealth, the monopoly-seeking capitalists, the gold standard purists, the imperial expansionists continued to expound a world view in which what they were doing was natural and right and inevitable, as they invoked the name of Charles Darwin.

Darwin was a scientist and his theory of evolution through natural selection, first explained in Origin of Species 150 years ago last month, is one of the great documents in the history of science; but his achievement did not exist in a vacuum. The 19th century, particularly in England, America and a few other countries, was a time of rapid change without parallel in world history. The development of industrial capitalism, huge corporations and what seemed a widening distance between wealth and poverty, resonated with the notion that progress in the world came through savage competition; the very phrase “survival of the fittest,” though appropriated by Darwin, was actually coined by the English political philosopher Herbert Spencer and meant to apply to human culture. His basic premise was that government should stay out of the way and let human beings compete for survival as the only path to evolutionary improvement of the species; if the strong survived and the weak failed, then that was what nature intended. It was a very popular idea among the new industrial barons, and both Darwin’s and Spencer’s ideas were pushed and funded by them. Spencer’s ideas did not survive him long in England or Europe, but lived on in the United States and were later pushed by intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

In Europe, Darwin’s name was invoked to push other ideas, such as that of German Premier Otto von Bismarck, that affairs among nations are ultimately settled by “blood and iron;” Marxists saw competition as between economic classes. And everywhere Darwin was used to push racism. The economic and military supremacy of the West was seen as proof that its peoples were more highly evolved and were natural masters of the world; all other races were natural selection’s losers, destined to be slaves. We can group these assorted ideologies under the banner of “Social Darwinism.” Though some were ideological support for actions that would have taken place in any case, others were the direct result of popular beliefs about evolutionary biology. There was the pseudo-science of eugenics: legislators, judges and juries were persuaded to disregard their natural sentiments and authorize sterilization of the unfit. Many of the frightened Republicans who were terrified of Bryan considered his followers to be subhuman; the Darwinist H. L. Mencken was only a particularly skillful writer among the many who habitually used images of apes and subhumans to describe Bryan’s followers and most other liberal politicians and political groups.

Thus it was that Bryan, who as a young man had been open-minded about the origins of humanity, came to be convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. “The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate,” Bryan said, “Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.” He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with “the law of love.” It was not any principle of Biblical inerrancy that motivated him, but a desire to cut off a poisonous political philosophy at its root, to promote a national myth that would motivate the young to high ideals. He prepared himself as a prosecutor not to defend the stories of Genesis, but to present to the court and world the image of Jesus as “Prince of Peace.”

He completely misunderstood his political adversaries, of course. In a Monkey’s Paw sense, his wish for the defeat of Darwin in the political arena came true, in that challengers to the teaching of evolution are strong in much of the United States. But I’m not sure he would appreciate the victory. We might say Social Darwinism has simply evolved, adopted protective camouflage, or mutated. Much of modern fundamentalism shares the same policies at home and abroad as did the Social Darwinists, but uses the language of evangelical Christianity, though there are usually very few teachings of Jesus himself in their dogma. Those Christian groups which preached social justice and were open to the findings of modern science, on the other hand, have declined in numbers and influence. Secular culture in the West has also changed. The horror of Social Darwinist moralities finally climaxed in the 1930s and ’40s when perhaps 100 million human beings were murdered in Nazi and Communist atrocities and in the battles of World War II. There has been a massive reaction in the West since then; for much of the second half of the last century, it was impolite in intellectual circles to imply that any human characteristics beyond eye, hair and skin color might be due to genetics. In general, secular culture in both Europe and America has promoted policies far more progressive than have today’s fundamentalist Christians.

At the same time, the popular understanding of evolutionary biology is better grounded. Natural selection never involved “survival of the fittest” within hunter/gatherer tribes, but pushed trust and cooperation to form cohesive groups that could protect and educate children. Since individuals never had to survive on their own, they were able to carry a much wider variety of genetic traits, and this in turn has given the human species much more flexibility in adapting to different environments; genetic variation has been one of the greatest strengths of humanity, not as eugenicists asserted a weakness. And until recent times, there was very little or no competition for survival between tribes, which were scattered too thinly to interact at all; nationalism and racism could never have been factors in human selection. Thus the major tenets of Social Darwinism have no basis in actual human evolution; it was an ideology that emerged from a particular culture and economic system, not from any insight into the reality of human nature. Bryan too was a product of his time, but one worthy of our highest respect. I would like to end with these words of historian Henry Steele Commager:

. . defeated candidates are usually forgotten and lost causes relegated to historical oblivion, but Bryan was not forgotten and the causes which seemed lost triumphed in the end. He refused to acknowledge defeat, not out of vanity or ambition, but because he was sure the causes which he championed were right, and sure that right would triumph in the end. And, right or not, most of them did. Few statesmen have ever been more fully vindicated by history. ltem by item the program which Bryan had consistently espoused, from the early nineties on into the new century, was written onto the statute books – written into law by those who had denounced and ridiculed it. Call the list of the reforms: government control of currency and banking, government regulation of railroads, telegraph and telephone, trust regulation, the eight-hour day, labor reforms, the_ prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes, the income tax, tariff reform, anti-imperialism, the initiative, the referendum, woman suffrage, temperance, international arbitration. These were not all original with Bryan, but it was Bryan who championed them in season and out, who kept them steadily in the political forefront, who held his party firmly ‘to their advocacy ….

For Bryan was the last great spokesman of the America of the nineteenth century – of the America of the Middle West and the South, the America of the farm and the country town, the America that read the Bible and went to Chautauqua, distrusted the big city and Wall Street, believed in God and the Declaration of Independence. He was himself one of these people. He thought their thoughts, and he spoke the words that they were too inarticulate to speak. Above all, he fought their battles. He never failed to raise his voice against injustice, he never failed to believe that in the end justice would be done. Others of his generation served special interests or special groups – the bankers, the railroads, the manufacturers, the officeholders; he looked upon the whole population as his constituency. Others were concerned with the getting of office or of gain; he was zealous to advance human welfare. And when the [rest] . . . are relegated to deserved oblivion, the memory of Bryan will be cherished by the people in whom he had unfaltering faith.

A Festival of Thanksgiving

Rev. Janet Newman

Vicky, Brian & Geneva Bailey-Miller

Louise Reeser, Rose Ann Reeser & John Payne

Wayne Bockman & Chris Jimmerson

Chris, Toby & Maya Heidal

November 22, 2009

Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.

A Missional Church

Rev. Dr. David Jones

November 15, 2009

Readings:

Matthew 14:22-33

Exodus 35: 20-29

Sermon: Keep your eyes upon Jesus

On the morning of my senior sermon at Princeton Seminary I was shaving and made the dire mistake of nicking a mole on my neck and it required a serious Band-aid. Preaching professor, Dr. Donald Macleod, a sometimes dour Scot, noticed the obtrusive Band-aid and inquired: “Mr. Jones – what is that thing on your neck?”

“It’s a Band-aid.”

“A Band-aid! On your neck – on the morning of your senior sermon! And how did that get there?”

“Well, Sir, I was thinking about my sermon and I cut my throat.”

He replied: “Well you would have done a wee bit better if you had thought about your throat and cut the sermon.”

I’ll try to be succinct today.

Seven years ago my family and I moved to Austin, TX from a little ocean-front village called Amagansett, NY. The cultural shift from the eastern end of Long Island NY to Texas is ambitious. One morning we had breakfast in a southern diner and the waitress, knowing we were Yankees asked me: “Y’all want to try some grits?” To which I replied: “Well, I’ll have one or two.” Like many towns on the L.I. coast, Amagansett has a rich history of instituting Life Saving Stations. I share this story from the Preface of Dr. Howard Clinebell’s book: Basic Types of Pastoral Counseling.

On a dangerous sea coast, where shipwrecks occur often, there was once a crude little lifesaving station. The building was only a hut, and there was only one boat, but the few devoted members kept a constant watch over the sea. With little thought of themselves they went out day and night diligently searching for the lost. Some of those who were saved, and others in the surrounding area, wanted to become associated with the station and give of their time, money, and effort for the support of its work. New boats were bought–new crews trained. The little lifesaving station grew.

Some members of the station were unhappy that the building was so crude and poorly equipped. They felt that a more “comfortable” place should be provided as the first refuge of those saved from the sea. They replaced the emergency cots with beds, and put better furniture in the enlarged building. Now the lifesaving station became a popular meeting place for its members, and they decorated it beautifully and furnished it exquisitely. Fewer members were now interested in going to sea on lifesaving missions, so they hired life boat crews to do the work for them. The lifesaving motif still prevailed in the club’s decoration, and there was even a liturgical lifeboat the club’s initiations were held.

About this time, a large ship was wrecked off the coast, and the hired crews brought in boat-loads of cold, wet, and half-drowned people. They were dirty and sick. Some of them had black skin, and some yellow skin, and some olive skin. The beautiful new club was in chaos. The property committee immediately had a shower built outside the club where victims of shipwreck could be cleaned up before coming inside.

At the next meeting, there was a split in the club membership. Most of the members wanted to stop the club’s lifesaving activities because they were an unpleasant hindrance to the normal social life of the club. Some members insisted upon lifesaving as their primary purpose and pointed out they were still called a “lifesaving station.” They were voted down and told if they wanted to save lives, they could begin their own lifesaving station down the coast. They did just that.

As the years went by, the new lifesaving station experienced exactly the same changes as the first. It evolved into a club, and yet another lifesaving stations was founded. History continued to repeat itself, and if you visit that sea coast today, you will find a number of exclusive clubs along that shore. Shipwrecks are frequent in those waters but most of the people drown.

Whether or not this story is factually true or not I do not know, but I can tell you it is true because it happens every day in the life of Christ’s church. It is true in the sense that it betrays something about the human condition. It’s a parable about the nature of human beings. The story reveals something about how people once dedicated to the simple and noble vocation of service to others can, and usually do, get side-tracked into serving themselves. Allow me to tell a true story that graphically illustrates this.

It was the summer of 1979. I had just finished my first year of seminary and was hired as a summer-intern by the Presbytery of Utica, NY to work with several rural congregations. I served a church of 15 members in a small, up-state NY, farming community. The population of the town, including the dogs, was about 90. My first weekend there, a couple from the church gave me the grand tour in their pick-up truck. Driving down a country lane, the woman exclaimed, with an edge in her voice: “Oh, there’s Stanley Kellogg!” Walking down the road, minding his own business, was a stocky, ruddy faced, older man, with a fishing pole in one hand and a bait bucket in the other. “All he does is drink beer and fish,” she said. “He’s an alcoholic, ya know. He’s despicable.”

Stanley had lived in Westdale all his life. He grew up poor – dirt poor. His family lived in a little shanty with dirt floors and no plumbing. Stanley became an alcoholic after his first wife died. He married again, and his second wife died soon after. The locals say he never recovered from the loss. For almost twenty years, old Stanley lived by himself in a tiny tag-along trailer out in the woods. Right after I arrived, the land on which Stanley kept his trailer had been sold, and the new owner kicked Stanley off. A town’s women took in Stanley as a boarder.

One day, I came upon the house where Stanley was staying. No one was home but Stanley. After listening to some very interesting country yarns, I realized this was the man I saw walking down the road with the fishing pole.

As the summer progressed a fascinating thing happened, Stanley and I became friends. It was a curious friendship–really – a rough old rough woodsman and a green “preppy” seminary student. One day someone offered me the use of a boat to go fishing. I invited Stanley to join me. We went to buy some bait and Stanley tried to convince me the day would go a lot better if I bought a 12-pack of Budweiser. I respectfully declined, but secretly admired his tenacity.

Once on the lake he said to me: “Ya know, you’re the first preacher that took me fishing.” I asked him if he had ever been to the church in town. “Nope, never been invited.” “Well, I invite you,” I said.

Shaking his head, old Stanley got an incredulous grin on his face. He didn’t have to say it because his expression said: “You’re mighty naive young preacher. They don’t want me in that church. I ain’t good enough to go to the Presbyterian Church. Preacher, them folk’s use big words and are different from me.” Remembering the woman’s words I couldn’t help but wonder if he was right.

We shared a wonderful day on the lake, and as we pulled the boat to shore he asked: “What time’s that Bible study you teach tonight?” “7:00,” I answered. “Why?” “Oh, just wondering,” he said.

Later that night as I was leading the Bible Study in Fellowship Hall, who walked in but Stanley Kellogg! He even had an old Bible in his hand. I knew how hard it was for him to come. Thinking I was doing a good thing, I asked Stanley to read a few passages from his Bible. An awkward silence fell over the room. Everyone knew something I didn’t. He looked up and said: “I’d like to preacher, but I can’t read.” He was the first person I ever met who couldn’t read.

Stanley and I became close friends that summer, but he never came back to Bible Study. I can’t say I blame him. He took me to his secret fishing spots that he wouldn’t show anybody else. He continually asked me about the Lord: “Can the Lord really love some old drunk like me?” I saw his faith grow and deepen. Stanley responded to my friendship like parched Texas flowers respond to rain.

You must understand that Stanley was the consummate woodsman – he lived off the land. Most of his food he got from hunting and fishing. He always carried a .22 pistol on his belt – “for snakes” – he said. One day Stanley and I were way out in the wilderness on a dirt road. We had been fishing a very remote trout stream. It was almost getting dark, and he yelled: “Stop the car. Stop the car!” I jammed on the brakes, and Stanley ran out of the car and took his .22 pistol out of its holster, and shot twice in the air.

Two raccoons dropped to the ground and grabbing them by the tails and grinning like a school boy, he brought them to my car. “Can I put these in your trunk?” Just what I needed – two bloody dead raccoons in my trunk! “I can sell their pelts for $25.00 each, and buy a new fishing pole.” He never bought the pole.

The summer passed, and I had to return to Seminary. I was to preach my final sermon and attend a going away party after the service. Everyone was seated and worship was about to begin, when who walks into church–but Stanley Kellogg! He had a haircut and shave, and was wearing a brand new set of clothes! He walked down the aisle and sat in the very front row. He was shaking from nervousness. Although he lived in town all his life, this was the first time he had been in the Presbyterian Church. No one could believe their eyes.

Stanley was at the end of the reception line. “Where’d you get those new clothes Stanley?” “Remember them coons?” he said winking. “I ain’t got no present for you David.” It was the first time he didn’t call me “Preacher.” I said: “Stanley, you just gave me the greatest gift you could ever have given me.” Like the people in Exodus who brought offerings of goods and talents to build the Tabernacle – Stanley’s offerings that day consisted of what little he had – two “coon” pelts, and a bucket of gratitude and friendship.

“I’ll never forget you,” He said. “You got me sober.” “No,” I said – “The Good Lord got you sober.” I have never forgotten the day Stanley Kellogg came to Westdale Presbyterian Church or how he touched the life of a young seminarian. I’ve been telling this story for 29 years.

Some years back, I received a letter saying Stanley had died in his sleep. When I first met Stanley, all he owned were two changes of clothes, a tattered trailer, an old greasy hat with some fishing lures in it, some pots and pans, a .22 pistol, a fishing pole, and the Bible his mother left him. In sixty-five years, that’s all the earthly possessions he accumulated. But by the end of the summer of 1979, Stanley had something else–he had the Lord in his heart. See – his heart got “stirred.” When’s the last time your heart was “stirred.”

I tell this story, not to make Stanley into a saint, because he surely wasn’t, but rather to illustrate how the love of God working through simple human kindness can change people’s lives. Many in that church thought it strange that a seminary student would go fishing with the town drunk. But then didn’t the Pharisees criticize Jesus for eating with tax-collectors and sinners? Didn’t Jesus say: “I didn’t come for those who are well, for they have no need of a doctor.” Stanley was never padlocked out of the church–but he was never warmly invited to participate either. So what’s the difference?

Stanley had built up a lot of resentment towards that church over the years. Some of those good Christian people had watched his mother struggle to feed her children. There were nights they were cold and hungry and the church did nothing. For Stanley Kellogg to come to church he had to forgive. Isn’t it amazing what love can do–how it can change the human heart? In his own way–in his own very special way, Stanley said: “Thank-you.” And it reminds us that the Stanleys of the world are all around us. I bet you know where some are right now.

There are certain laws of life under which we all live. The other day I was washing my car. Have you ever noticed that all the birds watch you when you wash your car? “He’s just about done guys–let’s go!”

But there’s another law of life. Human beings, even spiritually motivated ones, have a propensity to lose sight of their calling and get off track by serving themselves instead of others. So–What is your calling – why is your church here? What mission are you called to embrace in this community?

In today’s Gospel story, Peter gets out of the boat and actually walks on water! But then he did what you or I would probably do. He gets so distracted and concerned with the things of the world–the wind, the waves, and the storm – that he loses perspective. From my Christian tradition–here’s the point of the sermon: WHEN PETER TOOK HIS EYES OFF THE LORD HE SANK–AND SO DO WE! If that tradition does not work for you – maybe you can realize that when you take your eyes off you core mission you will sink.

Proverbs 29:18 says: “Without a vision – the people perish.”

So – remember the stories of the Life saving Station and Stanley because they’re connected–they remind us of the remarkable healing power of human kindness.

Leaders of this church–you and this congregation must be a lighthouse in this community – a beacon of hope and care to a world that is lost in the fog of despair – but only if you focus on your mission. I hope you will covenant to be a lifesaving station amidst the troubled seas of these turbulent times. To all members–help this church be a haven for all who are weary from life’s storms, and may you warmly embrace all who seek the safe harbor of the healing fellowship of this caring congregation.

I hope to hear reports that this congregation continues to step out of the boat of familiarity and complacency and that I hear repeated reports that this church is “walking on water.”

American Roots of Unitarian Universalism

Luther Elmore

August 30, 2009

PRAYER:

Please join me in an attitude of prayer.

On this day at this hour…we pray to remember. We pause to remember those who have led the way for us. We seek to recall their lives…their words…their deeds. We seek to honor their leadership and inspiration.

This day we also pray to remember those in our own lives who have led us to this place… Those teachers…parents…ministers…writers… loved ones… who have safely guided us to be here…now.

We are thankful for their lives and for the path that has led us here.

Today, Let us remember all who have gone before……

Let us remember our past as we look to our future.

Let us remember……

This is our prayer.

Amen.

READINGS:

# 704 by John Murray

# 592 “The Free Mind” by William Ellery Channing

SERMON: American Roots of Unitarian Universalism: William Ellery Channing and John Murray

It is a joy to be here today at the First Unitarian Univeralist Church of Austin.

We are the church of the long and to some confusing name,

We are Unitarian Universalists and one name is not adequate to describe us. The reason for that is, of course, that we spring from 2 religious traditions – Unitarians and Universalists – each having distinctive beliefs, histories, and organizations. The roots for each of these groups began long ago with discussions about the divinity of Jesus, the nature of God, and the afterlife. In America two of our greatest early forefathers along this pathway were John Murray and William Ellery Channing. John Murray brought his universalist theology to the American colonies in the years immediately prior to the American Revolution. Almost 50 years later William Ellery Channing challenged orthodox beliefs regarding the concept of God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and thereby defined Unitarians.

The direct pathway to modern UUs began with the Protestant Reformation of 1517. Martin Luther, a Catholic monk in Wittenburg, Germany, objected to what he saw as the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church. On October 31, 1517, he posted a list of 95 articles for discussion on his cathedral door. These 95 Theses set off a revolution in theology and church history as great as the revolution set off by Christopher Columbus who had discovered the “New World” only 25 years earlier.

Luther’s search for true Christian belief and practice in the scriptures led others to do the same. Nineteen years later John Calvin, a French lawyer and theologian, published his seminal work The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Differing from Luther, Calvin emphasized original sin, the depravity of mankind, and predestination by God.

Followers of John Calvin’s brand of Christianity would establish the most successful of the early English colonies in America – Massachusetts Bay. They were “Puritans” who wanted to purify the church and rid it of all improper doctrine and practices. They came for their own religious freedom, but they did not allow it in others. Dissenters from established beliefs were banished – some were executed.

These Calvinist doctrines of original sin and predestination remained mainstream theological thought in much of colonial America. Both of these ideas would be shaken in 1770 with the arrival in the colonies of John Murray. John Murray had experienced a tortuous early life. Born in England in 1741 into a devout Calvinist family, as a young man he lived what he called a “life of dissipation.” However, he then fell under the spell of the great evangelical preacher George Whitefield and Murray became a lay Methodist minister.

During the 1760s a serious challenge to mainstream Methodists was a former Methodist minister, James Relly, who had come to adopt a view of universal salvation for all mankind. Relly supported his beliefs with selected passages from the Bible.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Colossians 1:19-20 “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself.” And 1 Timothy 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved.” For Relly the idea of ultimate redemption of all mankind by a loving God was clear. How could a loving Father purposefully condemn the major portion of his creation to eternal damnation in hell?

In the early 1760s Relly had a universalist congregation in London. He was attacked by orthodox ministers as “a man black with crimes; an atrocious offender, both in principle and practice.” John Murray zealously opposed the universalist theology of Relly and once referred to him as a “detestable babbler.”

In order to save a young female follower of Relly from what he saw as the “pernicious errors” of universalism, Murray tried to convince her of the error of her ways. He did not succeed. As a matter of fact, her defense of universalism raised questions in his mind. He later described his feelings at the time as “I myself carefully avoided every universalist and most cordially did I hate them.” Nevertheless, he could not dispel his doubts. Slowly he became that which he had detested – a Universalist. As a result, he was excommunicated from his church. In the meantime he had married, but after about a year his wife gave birth to a son and shortly thereafter both died. Unable to pay his debts, he even spent some time in debtor’s prison. In 1770 at the age of 28 he vowed to never preach again and decided to come to the American colonies for a new start.

Even his voyage to the colonies went amiss. Bound for New York the ship ran aground off the coast of New Jersey. There they waited for high tide to raise the vessel so they could continue the trip. Murray was sent ashore to purchase supplies in the community which was appropriately named Good Luck, New Jersey. He met a local resident, a deeply religious man who had built a chapel of his own and Murray was invited to preach there. On September 30, 1770, John Murray broke his vow to never preach again and delivered his first sermon in America on the theme of Universal salvation. Historian David Bumbaugh – who graced this pulpit last year – referred to this date as “a date which subsequent generations would fix as the beginning of universalism in America.” Shortly after the service ended, Murray was notified that the tide had come in, the ship had been freed and they were preparing to sail to New York. Some have facetiously suggested that this was “perhaps the only miracle in Universalist history.” (Howe)

John Murray then spread his universalist message. For 4 years he was an itinerant preacher, traveling throughout the American colonies, finally settling in Gloucester, Mass. There in 1779, a group of 61 believers in universalism were suspended from the local parish church for failure to attend services. They established a new congregation, the Independent Church of Christ in Gloucester, and called John Murray as their minister. This is recognized as the first universalist church in America. (Howe)

Murray was regularly attacked for his unorthodox beliefs. He was vilified as a “false teacher” who held “corrupt tenets.” Once while preaching in Boston, a rock was thrown through a window, barely missing his head. He responded by picking up the rock and stating, “This is solid and weighty, but it is neither rational nor convincing.” Another time followers of conservative orthodox minister Rev. Bacon pelted him with eggs. He responded to that assault by proclaiming “These are moving arguments, but I must own at the same time, I have never been so fully treated to Bacon and eggs before in all my life.”

In 1793 Murray became minister of the Universalist Society of Boston where he remained for 15 years. His message of universal salvation had great appeal, as you might imagine, among ordinary people, but not among the highly educated or most wealthy. Like Murray, most early Universalist ministers tended to be emotional, poorly educated, and evangelistic. As a Universalist, Murray remained a Bible-believing Christian who accepted wholeheartedly the doctrine of the Trinity.

By 1790 there were at least 17 Universalist ministers preaching their joyous message in America. That year they held a convention in Philadelphia and adopted a statement of beliefs. These “Articles of Faith” included specific clauses affirming belief in one God, Jesus as the mediator between God and man. Their statement on Universalism proclaimed that they believed that God would “finally restore the whole human race to happiness.” Although there would be differences of opinion as to how God would “restore the whole human race to happiness,” this would remain a core belief for all universalists. For his significant role John Murray is sometimes called “The Father of American Universalism.”

Unlike the Universalists who grew among the common people, the Unitarians grew among the highly educated and well-to-do. Rejecting the dour theology of Calvinism, they would use their minds more than their hearts to reject the concept of the Trinity and hold that “God is One.” In the years immediately before and after the American Revolution some liberal New England ministers led their churches to Unitarian positions. These were independent congregations, accepting and following the leadership of their individual ministers.

Conservative, orthodox ministers denounced this drift away from established acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarians, on the other hand, felt they had sound Biblical basis for their position. After all, nowhere in the Bible is there an explicit reference or definition of the Trinity. Therefore, Unitarians rejected this description of God as an illogical, unscriptural invention by men. They selected specific Bible references that supported their position and indicated a distinction between God the Father and Jesus. For instance, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus says “Our Father which are in heaven hallowed by thy name” and “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory.” (Matthew 6:9) He later is quoted in John 16:32 as stating “I am not alone, but the Father is with me.” At the time of the crucifixion Jesus said “Father if thou be willing remove this cup from me, nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42 and “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:24), finally, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (Luke 24:46) Using such citations, the Unitarians proclaimed that there were numerous Biblical references which made it clear that God the Father and Jesus were not one in the same. Of course, this use of the Bible was not unique to them and they were neither the first nor the last to employ such tactics to support their position.

This controversy between the liberals and conservatives regarding the Trinity would erupt in 1803 over the choosing of a professor of divinity at Harvard. The Harvard Professor, Dr. David Tappan, passed away. The conservatives backed a thoroughly orthodox minister, Rev. Jesse Appleton, the liberals a suspected Unitarian, Henry Ware. After the governing board and Overseers approved the nomination of suspected Unitarian Ware in a very divided vote of 33 to 23, the conservatives raged, attacking Ware as holding secret Unitarian beliefs and claiming that he did not hold “orthodox principles” as the benefactor of the chair had stipulated. In protest, the conservatives resigned and were replaced with liberals, leaving Harvard clearly in control by liberal theological supporters. Only 5 years later the conservatives would establish their own orthodox seminary at Andover to compete with Harvard for the hearts and minds of new students and ministers. For years churches had a clear choice as they called new ministers. They could choose an orthodox, conservative religious leader from Andover or a questionable liberal and Unitarian from Harvard. This controversy at Harvard shattered the union between Trinitarians and Unitarians in New England churches.

One of the conservative overseers who had resigned, Rev. Jedediah Morse, took the controversy to a new level. Rev. Morse established a conservative religious magazine. In an attempt to highlight the orthodox position and challenge the liberals over their position on the Trinity, Morse published a pamphlet entitled “American Unitarianism.” This pamphlet was a reprint of one chapter from the recently London-published Memoirs of Theophilus Lindsey, an English Unitarian. Lindsay had shown a degree of common belief between English and American Unitarians. Having printed this chapter as a pamphlet, Morse then reviewed his pamphlet in his magazine, trying to show that liberal ministers were indeed Unitarians, that they were trying to hide their true beliefs, and that they should be expelled from their pulpits.

Chosen to reply to Morse was the 35 year old minister of Federal Street Church in Boston, William Ellery Channing. Channing denied that the ministers were Unitarian, but also proclaimed that belief or rejection of the Trinity was irrelevant. Such beliefs, according to Channing, did nothing one way or the other to help ministers inspire people to live Christian lives. Channing appealed for tolerance and acceptance of differing viewpoints. Channing now became the primary spokesperson for the liberals and he was well prepared for the task.

Channing had been born into a prominent and prosperous Rhode Island family. His mother’s father, William Ellery, had signed the Declaration of Independence. His father was Attorney General for the state of Rhode Island. At 18 he graduated from Harvard at the head of his class and later studied for the ministry there. Licensed to preach at the age of 23, Channing was called to be minister at Boston’s Federal Street Church, a position he would hold until his death 40 years later.

Thrown into the controversy surrounding the appointment of Henry Ware at Harvard, Channing was soon the intellectual leader and spokesperson for the liberals. The controversy between the liberals and conservatives, the Trinitarians and the alleged Unitarians, became even more divisive. Conservative ministers in the Boston area began to refuse to allow the liberals to speak in their pulpits. Since colonial times, Boston area ministers had regularly swapped pulpits once a month in a “pulpit exchange.” For conservatives this now meant the introduction of unorthodox, liberal viewpoints, so they stopped the practice.

With this controversy as a background, in 1819 William Ellery Channing would deliver the most famous sermon in UU history, “Unitarian Christianity.” Jared Sparks had just been called as minister to Baltimore’s First Independent Church. Channing was invited to deliver the ordination sermon. This sermon of 1819 defined Unitarians.

As his text for the sermon Channing chose 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things hold fast that which is good.” He began by explaining that he was going to depart from the normal sermon and not talk about the nature and duties of a newly ordained minister. Depart he did!! He mounted a defense of Unitarian beliefs. He defended the Bible as God’s revelation to man, but said that “The Bible is a book written for men in the language of men, and…its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We therefore distrust every interpretation which, after deliberate attention seems repugnant to any established truth…God has given has given us a rational nature and will call us to account for it.” He protested against what he called the “irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity,” declaring “We believe in the doctrine of God’s unity, or that there is one God, and one only. We object to the doctrine of the Trinity.” Jesus’ mission, according to Channing, was to bring about “a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind.” He then proclaimed that the true mark of a Christian was a moral life. As he said, “We think that religious warmth is only to be valued when it springs naturally from an improved character…When it is the warmth of a mind which understands God by being like him. We regard the spirit of love, charity, meekness, forgiveness, liberality, and beneficence, as the badge and distinction of Christians, as the highest image we can bear of God, as the best proof of piety.” He closed by admonishing Jared Sparks, “May your life preach more loudly than your lips” and repeated, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” Channing had boldly denounced the Trinity, called for the use of reason in religion, and proclaimed that a moral life was the true mark of religious people.

Before delivering this sermon on “Unitarian Christianity” Channing had prepared 2,000 copies for print. Within 4 months it went through 8 editions. It was the most widely circulated publication in America since Thomas Paine’s Common Sense which in 1776 had urged independence from England. Now the Unitarians were out in the open; there was no hiding their beliefs. Six years later in 1825 they would establish the American Unitarian Association.

For various reasons Unitarians and Universalists did not come together easily. Those early American Univeralists were generally poorly educated evangelicals who continued to appeal to and represent the common people. One historian has described them as “coming from the wrong side of the tracks.” On the other hand, early American Unitarians were generally highly educated, influential philosophers and writers who represented the well connected and wealthy. One historian has said that the Unitarians believed in “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the neighborhood of Boston.” A later day Unitarian Universalist would explain the difference between the two groups as the Universalists believing that God was too good to condemn them to hell, while the Unitarians believed that they were too good to be condemned to hell.

Over the years both groups would dwindle in numbers and influence, would drift to more liberal humanist positions, and in 1961 would join together to form the American Unitarian Universalist Association.

So, what do we take from these roots? Few of us these days are much concerned about eternal salvation or the Trinity. We no longer argue about universal salvation; we no longer shout that “God is one.” We no longer debate eternal bliss in a Kingdom paved with streets of gold versus eternal damnation in hell fire and brimstone; we no longer debate the oneness of God versus the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, I believe there are lessons to be learned. I would suggest that from those old Universalists we take a broad worldview and concern for others. We are all one humankind. We are all one people, inhabiting one planet. We are all in this together. The Universalists point us to a greater love for everyone and an expansive, yes Universal, regard for all. The Unitarians, on the other hand, show us a tolerance for others, an openness for inquiry, and an encouragement to use our reason. We should not sit upon the beliefs and traditions of the past. We should not rest upon the laurels of long ago. We should as William Ellery Channing encouraged his generation seek to free our mind and use our reason. We should as he said, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

Today that is what we are – Unitarian Universalists. We carry it in our name and we carry it in our beliefs. You need search no further than our Seven Principles to see the presence of Unitarian and Universalist doctrine. The Seven Principles state that we affirm and promote “the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

“The inherent worth and dignity of every person.” That is universal.

The Seven Principles go on to state that we affirm and promote a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”

A “search for truth and meaning”. That strikes at the core of Channing’s Unitarian Christianity to “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

In my own personal journey, I did not regularly participate in church services and activities for over 30 years…until I started attending here about 5 years ago.

However, I had continued to read a great deal. One of the many books I read during those years – and I cannot recall exactly why I chose it – was “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” by Robert Fulghum. I found the book filled with folksy, down-to-earth advice, humor, and religious insight. As far as I recall, it did not make a lasting impression on me that on the jacket of the book Mr. Fulghum was described as a “Unitarian Minister.” I should have known. In the first chapter of the book he listed the important life lessons he had learned in kindergarten. These included such gems of wisdom as: “Clean up your own mess,” “Play Fair,” “Don’t hit people,” “Take a nap every afternoon.” And, of course, “Flush.”

He also included this bit of advice: “When you go out into the world, Watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.” I think that is good advice for five year olds… and for adults, as well.

I think we should continue to hold hands, look out for one another, and stick together.

We are not UUs by chance or accident, many have led the way for us as a religious association and as individuals.

Let us remember John Murray and William Ellery Channing. Let us remember who they were and the rich heritage they have passed down to us. Let us remember who we are…and let us work to make our future as meaningful and relevant as our past.

Amen.

Honest Religion-part 2

 

Tom Spencer

August 23, 2009

Thank you for having me back. Today, I am going to present the second part of a sermon on the topic of Honest Religion. More specifically, what does it mean to live honestly as progressive, reasonable, and religious people in the 21st century?

For those of you who were not here – my last sermon started out with a long vamp on why religion makes so many of us nervous and then detoured into speculation about why it really still matters.

I won’t recount the reasons why it makes us nervous – I think it is safe to say that there is plenty of evidence that religion is indeed a very slippery slope… a quick glance through any newspaper usually provides reasonable proof of the abyss that religion can lead to – right?

But, I do want to briefly revisit why I think religion still matters and, more importantly, why I believe an honest religion may actually be our salvation. Now, I know that the word salvation probably makes you nervous too… but let’s all take a few deep breaths and consider the world around us, and what we might need to be saved from…

Let me begin with a brief confession… I am a worrier. I think we live in extraordinarily vulnerable times… I remember watching President Obama step from his limousine on his inauguration day and frankly, I could not catch my breath. At that moment in our history – with an economy in free fall – two wars under way – and a nation deeply divided – I felt as if the world was standing on one foot on top of a steep precipice… all that it would take was one slight shove and the whole edifice of our modern democratic lives could come tumbling down.

Turns out – I am not the only worrier out there… I’m not the only one who frets about what would happen if the “center cannot hold.”

Here are a few verses from a poem that I am sure most of you know… The Second Coming, by William Butler Yeats was written in the gloomy aftermath of the First World War:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Yeats goes on to describe an ominous apocalyptic spirit waking and walking in the world and concludes:

The darkness drops again; but now I know that twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Kind of sounds like a health care town meeting, doesn’t it?

All joking aside…

We live in very fragile times – that bond between falcon and falconer has seemed over-taut for a century… things snap, the center cannot hold… wars, economic calamities, climate change, fundamentalism, terrorism, and assassination all threaten our little island of progress and liberalism and relative civility.

Salvation? Yes, I think we need salvation…

Let’s dig a little deeper into Yeat’s poem. In his book, Reverence, Austin professor Paul Woodruff, uses this poem to illustrate the consequences of a lack of reverence in the world – “mere anarchy,” a cacophony of irreverent voices has disrupted the link between falcon and falconer and the center cannot hold.

We’re not talking about talk show and political cartoon irreverence – which, in Woodruff’s view, can often express a very real of reverence for life, reason and truth. No, we are talking about a nihilistic lack of concern for anything – much less life, reason and truth.

The result of this kind of irreverence in our world is indeed a rising tide where “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” Not innocence itself, though that is sure to follow – but the ceremony of innocence – the reverent ritual of innocence. To my ears, that is beginning to sound like the practice of honest religion.

I do not believe that Yeats is talking about the collapse of religious authority in the way that most people think of it… the kind of authority that issues from literal interpretations of sacred books and religious institutions… No, he is talking about something much deeper and more profound.

The ceremony of innocence is the practice of basic goodness which is informed by and infused with reverence. This reverence may be inspired by ancient texts and religious institutions but it goes well beyond strictures and creeds.

If you were here for my last sermon you will recall that I mentioned that there are two competing theories about the origin of the word religion – one being te Latin “religio” or reverence – the other is “religare” which means to bind together.

Both are essential to the honest religion that I hope for – and that is so beautifully expressed in Yeat’s poem – a reverence that binds and holds us together.

Let’s listen to Yeats again – “the best lack all conviction.”

Where is our conviction? What should we hold in reverence?

In our search is for honest religion – don’t we mean a religion of conviction that we feel in our bones, that makes sense to our heads, and speaks to our hearts?

I certainly think so.

But, even more importantly, and the focus of my sermon today – is that an honest religion needs to move beyond the house of our individual bones, heads and hearts. It needs to live in the world that we share if it is to be our salvation from Yeat’s “blood dimmed tide.”

When I was here last I said that an honest religion must make demands of us – And I believe we must answer those demands with conviction. The ceremonies of innocence those circles of goodness around us, must be widened and become an example to the world.

In my view, there is no certainty in this honest faith except that belief that goodness enacted is God enacted – it means salvation in the here and now – not in some world to come. Though we must act as if that world depends on our every act and breathe, for surely the world of our children and our grandchildren depends on what we do today.

So, here we go – this is the heart of the matter – what does Honest Religion look like when it is enacted? If the ceremonies of innocence are a command performance – how do we perform them?

Here are my ideas- inspired largely by experiences I have had and the deep hunger within me to see the center hold…

First reverence is its essential glue – no ceremony, no belief, no creed, or any other of the human products of honest religion should be our first concern – but cultivating an attitude of reverence should be – only reverence will hold our raging egos and dogmas in check.

Professor Woodruff says it better than I can, “No one owns reverence. It is not cruel or repressive in itself. It does not put down mockery or protect pompous fools. And most important, it cherishes freedom of inquiry. Reverence sets a higher value on truth than on any human product that is supposed to have captured the truth.”

And so reverence also provides that sense of humility that is essential to an honest religion – as I said last time – no certainty that we concoct will ever provide all of the answers – no matter the beauty of our equations or the power of our telescopes, mystery will always – always be with us and so we must be humble – we should never stop inquiring but we should also admit to the limits of our inquiries.

So reverence keeps us humble. But it is also the key to all of the other virtues towards which any honest religion should try to steer us.

Listen to these words from the Analects of Confucious… “Without reverence, courtesy is tiresome; without reverence, prudence is timid; without reverence, bravery is quarrelsome; without reverence, frankness is hurtful.”

Courtesy, prudence, bravery, frankness… to that list let us add compassion, forgiveness, gratitude, humility and dozens more. These virtues are the measure of an honest religion and of human goodness. But only true reverence can counterbalance these human potentials and save us from turning into annoying virtue potentates.

So, honest religion is reverent and humble – it loves inquiry and yet values the limits of what can be known – it sounds like a religion that really values questions and questioning – and yet it demands we move beyond questioning to action – that we embody goodness that we practice the virtues that make goodness and, I would add, God possible.

Because it must be brought off of our book shelves and into the world – an honest religion must also be a communal activity – it is in community that our goodness must be honed, taught, shared, and lived. There is a very real experience of salvation in connection and the bonds of community. That sense of Religare…

Yes, we grow from listening to and learning from one another as well as holding each other accountable, helping each other towards being better people. But perhaps more importantly, and more practically, we need community for survival.

Here is my worrying side again – these are threatening times – terrible things can happen – we need to be bound together in a practical way to support one another through tough times. Think of how quickly things would become uncivilized if, for example, the power went out… after 48 hours without air conditioning I don’t think Texas would be a very civil place.

I often think about the early days of the great religious traditions – the beginnings of both Christianity and Islam. The persecuted Christians of the Roman Empire won many of their converts because of the extraordinary way that they took care of one another in the face of terrible persecution. People learned to admire their charity and their compassion long before they bought into their theology. In the early days of Islam – during Mohammed’s exile in Medina, it was the power of the Islamic community which first attracted the admiration of others, not necessarily the utterances of the prophet.

Today, sadly, there are many Christians, Muslims and others who seem to actively advancing a truly irreverent “end times” theology.

Sad to say it, but I think an honest religion should take them at their word. We should be countering them with our convictions – we need a beginning times mentality that looks at every action as an opportunity to widen the circle of virtue and reverence – Yeat’s ceremonies of innocence.

I think that if we took it seriously – an honest religion born today amid a small group of exiles – could inspire thousands if not millions more to work feverishly for a world that is busy being born – not busy dying.

This can happen by bringing reverence and ritual to the small everyday occurrences of our lives – ritual doesn’t imply spectacle – the earliest ceremony of the new born Christian church was the simple practice of sharing a meal.

You’ve heard me say that an honest religion should make demands of us – well, what if it demanded that we share our meals – not retreat to our separate entertainments. What if is asked that we say grace – or simply give thanks before our meals. Could we bring ourselves to do just that?

I made a new friend recently – a really extraordinary young man. Our conversation was intense and went deep faster than most conversations do – as dinner time approached we went out to a stylish local restaurant, and just as I was about to dig into my genuine interior Mexican tacos, he stopped me and asked if we shouldn’t give thanks.

Shouldn’t we give thanks? In that moment he was doing everything I would hope for from another practitioner of honest religion. He was bringing reverence to our table, he was reminding me that we can be better people through the humblest of acts. Wow… it was so refreshing. A breathe of honest religion between sips of Mexican martini! Talk about your ceremonies of innocence!

Finally, I want to pick up a theme I mentioned in my last sermon. In the year 2009, an honest religion must make sense – common sense. I admit that this boundless universe and the universes beyond are beyond my comprehension – that it is filled with mystery – and unanswered questions. Bu my inability to answer all of the questions shouldn’t empower me to leap to super natural and superstitious conclusions.

When our little corner of our universe is imperiled by our own actions – we do not need to beseech or invoke the supernatural – we need to roll up our sleeves and start doing good.

The only miracle we need to believe in is the one that proclaims that we make God happens when we are kind, when we are patient, when we tell the truth – because anything that lifts up life and virtue and quiets the din of anarchy and nihilism allows the falconers voice to be heard and the ceremonies of innocence to continue.

This is not the God of our fathers. We offer this up as an alternative for a God hungry world whose salvation can only be delivered though one simple act of human goodness at a time.

So, when we stop to give thanks – think of all of those who have preceded us stretching back over the millennia. Be thankful for those who brought reverence and goodness to their work, to their tables, their communities, families, and friends.

Be grateful to those who somehow managed to steer us to this moment in time when we have gathered here to ask questions, to search for honesty, to widen the circles of love and beauty.

When William Butler Yeats wrote the Second Coming, he too sensed a kind of end times. But here we are, ninety years later, having survived so much horror since that time, and we are still heeding the falconers call, still longing for the ceremonies of innocence.

Let us move forward confident in a new beginning – a beginning times illuminated by reverence, humility, community, ritual, and common sense.

May our grandchildren read our words and remember our actions and be thankful that through our conviction we did not surrender to the blood dimmed tide.

 

 

Holy Vision

Ron Phares

August 16, 2009

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

A Reading from Mathew 6.19-6.24

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Sermon

Being that this is likely the last Sunday I will occupy this pulpit for some time, I thought it only fitting to begin this sermon, not with a confession as has become my habit, but with a word of gratitude. I want to thank you all, and the members of the worship comity in particular, for allowing me to preach so frequently this spring and summer. It has been a blessing to me, a great learning experience and I think a very positive step on my road to ministry. So, thank you.

Truthfully, this has me a little sad and wistful. But I’m also very excited for two reasons. One, it means I can rest. Writing and giving sermons is like any worthwhile exercise: it invigorates and exhausts at the same time. And, especially now that my summer hospital chaplaincy internship has, just this past Friday, come to a close, I am righteously, if I don’t say so myself, exhausted.

The other point by which I am excited for this to be my last time up here for awhile is the reason behind that circumstance. Soon and at long last, we’re going to have a minister again. And that is truly exciting. Given the trauma ensuing during and in the aftermath of Davidson’s dismissal, I have been impressed by the commitment exhibited by the members of this church, committee participants, the staff, the board, workshop leaders and volunteers. In rocky waters, you kept this ship afloat. And for that you all deserve a tremendous amount of praise. So, if I may be so bold, on behalf of…. all of you, I would like to thank… all of you.

However, unlike me personally, we, corporately, cannot rest. In fact, the time is coming to double our efforts, to increase our commitment, to invest our character even more fully into the realization of the potential possessed by this church, which is at last, the aggregate talent, energy and disposition of the people on either side of you, and the people on either side of them and so on, which, of course includes you.

Yet, to this point, all that energy remains potential. All this commitment remains inert.

In the hospital I have come to learn that there are those patients who posses a talent for surviving. Then there are those who posses a talent for thriving. With the later group, the thrivers, it seems like they come to the hospital almost for the sole purpose of teaching me something. Their disposition and perspective are such that I find myself changed for the better without being taxed. They have life in such abundance that it overflows their being and energizes mine.

Now, with the former group, the survivors, yes, they have a sometimes miraculous talent for surviving, but not for thriving. A talent for surviving means that they are frequently sick. To be sure, they are to be admired for surviving some difficult circumstances. But they do not thrive. My friends, we have survived.

How, then, are we to thrive?

When I was a little kid, my parents hung a sign over the toilet in my bathroom. I know that’s a strange segue, but it’ll make sense when I tell you that the sign read, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll probably end up somewhere else.” A worthy sentiment. It occurs to me only now how curious that this was hung over the toilet. “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll probably end up somewhere else.” I suppose this was my parent’s sense of humor and their way of saying, with a nudge and a wink, “Hey kid, try aiming.” Of course there was a spiritual and existential message here as well. And that was not lost on me. And I think therein is a clue to how we may thrive. It strikes me though that wanting to know where you’re going and knowing where you are going are two different things. Perhaps this is the difference between surviving and thriving. After all, the process of discernment, discovery and decision making can be every bit as arduous as the execution of their conclusion, if not more so. This, among other things, is what our minister is here to help us do, to discern, discover and decide where we are going, and, indeed, who we are.

The leadership is hers. The task is ours. It reminds me of a story I was recently told. As I understand it, this is a true story. Whether or not it actually ever happened is beyond my powers of evaluation. Nonetheless it was an inspiring story in so far as it resonated perfectly with the point to which I am speaking today. As such, it may be that I’ve made most of it up. It’s still a true story.

So, this friend grew up in a family that was not exactly traditional. Nothing radical necessarily, just an atmosphere created by the parental versions of the free-thinking 60’s. The family was as functional as any other, which is to say, not very. It’s my understanding that they had less trauma, but more drama than many families, in the sense that there was no violence per se, but some wildly divergent personalities that were, in some ways, encouraged. But this led to some problems, chiefly embodied and brought to bear by their annual summer vacation.

You see, what they liked to do was pack a bunch of stuff for any and all potential circumstances, pile the five of them in a car and set out for something impressive, if ill defined, like a coast or a region. They reveled in the freedom to stop along the way wherever the interest struck them. And truth be told, they had a lot of interesting experiences going down a few of those rabbit holes.

Unfortunately, it was frequently the case that one of the siblings had to remain behind. Either one had to work off community service or another had to attend summer school. What’s more, invariably, they would find that their publicly vague destination was personally not so obtuse, just un-communicated. For instance, when they determined they were going to hit the west coast, they each had a different idea of what that would ultimately entail. One thought that meant Venice Beach, while the other thought that meant sipping lattes in the rain shadow of the Space needle and another thought it meant Sea World. Thus arguments were inevitable. Once they were resolved, it was frequently the case that they didn’t even have the necessary money to get all of them into the main attraction because they had spent most of their funds chasing passing interests on the way.

Almost invariably these trips would end in hurt feelings and pervasive disappointment. Finally, my friend took the initiative to sit the family down together and pick a particular, if peculiar destination. This was more difficult than he thought, of course, but eventually they hammered out an itinerary that was oriented to a rather more specific target they could all be excited about while still allowing some wiggle room, though not too much, for flights of fancy. But this fancy was normed by the destination, not the other way around. Now, the part that really was interesting to me was, that year, the whole family got to go. The kids stayed out of trouble and were more focused in school because they did not want to be left out this time. The two who were old enough even took part time jobs to contribute to the vacation fund. And since they had determined to go overseas, to really shoot for something grand, the family realized they had to cut back on eating out and give up cable T.V. etc, which in turn had the unforeseen effects of the family eating healthier food while also creating more time for homework, creativity and friends.

In other words, determining a destination had a systemic effect and, of course, the trip went well.

Now, I heard that story and I immediately thought about our Unitarian Universalist tradition in general. I thought of our congregation in particular. And I thought of my own faith.

You see, as effective as our tradition, congregation and faith are, they can be oh so much more so. What we need is vision, a holy vision of who we are and what we do. Recall today’s reading, “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light.” This is from the Sermon on the Mount as it is described in the book of Mathew. Note here that the eyes are themselves instruments of illumination. They illuminate that which they light on. Vision illuminates. Now in this case the eyes are connected inward, toward the body, so to speak. And, as is the case in much of the Bible, the clause, “so to speak,” is crucial. For here, it is enough to understand that the eyes are essentially instruments of discovery, discernment and empowerment (for they do not merely perceive but themselves illuminate). Meanwhile the body spoken of here could indeed be the biological body or it could be any system of which you are a part. Essentially, I take the passage to be in line with what so much of the modern sciences are currently saying, namely, “What you see, so will you be.”

So, what is your vision?

But beware. Vision alone is not sufficient. In fact, it may be absolutely detrimental if that vision is distorted. The passage reads, “If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light.” But it goes on to reveal that, “if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness.” We’re talking about spiritual vision here in this passage and here in our church. Distorted vision leads to darkness. It leads to idolatry, a charge that is easily leveled at most of the incarnations of the Abrahamic traditions, that is, at most all monotheists. But idolatry is a charge that can be leveled at each one of us as individuals as well. That is to say, the self can be an idol, can distort our vision, and plunge us into darkness.

Let me give you a personal example from my recently concluded stint as a hospital chaplain. Part of the program was to get together with my fellow interns to try and uncover our blind spots as a way of helping us relate to our patients. As part of this process we read a book by the German neo-Freudian, Karen Horney. As she sees it, a great deal of neurosis can be attributed to the gulf between the idealized self and the actual self. For our purposes today, consider the idealized self a distorted vision of your character, an idol or false god, as it were. Most all of us have this distortion. When the process of life inevitably confronts you with the gap between how you are and how you think you are, you find yourself in the midst of a psychological crisis. The severity of the crisis is variable, depending on any number of factors. But what is assured is that the reaction to the threat, for such an event is always experienced as a threat, the reaction to the threat is entirely out of proportion to the reality of the situation. You are effectively insane and, more to the point, in no small amount of pain.

Consciously exploring this gap for yourself (with the quite necessary help of others or one other) is also initially painful. And here, you’ll just have to take my word for it, it is painful. And yet while the pain is acute and psychologically invasive, it is also corrective and preventative of an equally painful, frightened and chronic way of life. I had the opportunity this summer to be confronted with my own neurosis of the idealized self and am better off for it, if a little bruised yet. This is not to say that I am now perfectly aligned between my actual and idealized self. Rather, I am hoping to illustrate one of the pitfalls and benefits of vision as it applies to the individual. If your eyes, so to speak, are good, your body will be full of light. You will see the idealized self for what it is. If your eyes are bad, your body will be full of darkness and will think you are your idealized self. Pain endures. Thus, discernment is critical.

As I hope I just illustrated, this process of discernment is not merely a challenge to our corporate self, that is, our spiritual home at First UU. It can be and should be a challenge to our most intimate sense of our individual characters. As such, I can guarantee you this: pain lies ahead. For we are about to embark on a journey of self-discovery that will reveal those places where we have been lying to ourselves as a community. And if we have integrity, we will pursue those lies until we find where they are rooted in our individual selves. That action makes this place, truly, a holy place. This then really does become a sacred event. Do not pretend you can bring distortion into this venue without it destroying the event and all the intentions of those who participate in it. That may sound melodramatic. But you come here to feed your soul. What are you feeding on? This place is powerful merely by virtue of our shared attention. On top of that is the intent of that attention. What you bring here is what you find here.

So where do we start? I will offer two possibilities. They are not the only possibilities, but they both attempt to articulate where we are as a community. They are baselines from which we may begin as a global body, a local community and as individuals to envision a particular way of being and thus graduate from merely surviving to the more powerful mode of thriving.

The first possibility is a statement of faith as articulated by one of the modern sages of our tradition, Dr. David Bumbaugh. Some of you had the pleasure of hearing him offer this statement from this very pulpit during his keynote address delivered at the 2008 spring South West District Conference. In the midst of our diversity, Dr. Bumbaugh has noticed that we have a stunning amount in common in terms of our faith. I have only a little time left here. So I will paraphrase.

We believe that the universe is the expression of a process that has evolved from singularity to multiplicity, from disorder to order.

We believe that the earth and all who live upon the earth are products of the same process that swirled the galaxies into being, that we are expressions of that universal process.

We believe that all living things are members of a single community. We hold the life process itself to be sacred. Therefore we affirm that we are called to serve the planetary process upon which life depends. We believe that in this interconnected existence the well-being of one cannot be separated from the well-being of the whole.

We believe that the universe outside of us and the universe within us is one universe. Because that is so, our efforts, our dreams, our hopes, our ambitions are the dreams, hopes and ambitions of the universe itself. We believe that our efforts to understand the world and our place within it are an expression of the universe’s deep drive toward meaning. We believe that the moral impulse that weaves its way through our lives is threaded through the universe itself and it is this universal longing that finds outlet in our best moments.

We believe that our location within the community of living things places upon us inescapable responsibilities. We are commanded to serve life and serve it to the seven times seventieth generation.

We believe that those located on the margins have important contributions to make and that in some curious way, we are all located on the margins.

We believe that all that functions to divide us from each other and from the community of living things is to be resisted in the name of that larger vision of a world everywhere alive, everywhere seeking to incarnate a deep, implicate process that called us into being, that sustains us in being, that transforms us as we cannot transform ourselves, that receives us back to itself when life has used us up. Not knowing the end of that process, nonetheless we trust it, we rest in it, and we serve it.

The second possibility that I offer is from a much less esteemed, though I hope, no less earnest a source. Namely: me. One of the first runs in the pulpit I invited you all to take part in a ritual that I felt embodied our faith. And if you will indulge me, I would like to return to it. It is not only a part of my vision for our movement and our congregation to develop embodied symbolic articulations of our faith, it also seems like coming full circle, that I will leave on a similar note to how I began. So, if you would, please take a moment to move so that you are all sitting next to one another.

When we have completed this ritual, please stand, stretch out, shake hands and say hello and thanks to the folks in your vicinity. These are the people with whom you share your spirit and who will cooperate with you to find a vision that carries us from surviving to thriving. Look on them with good eyes. For what you see, so you are.

For now, if you would, hold out both of your hands, palm up. This is a gesture of openness, of asking and receiving. If this next gesture makes you uncomfortable, it’s okay. Honest religion often takes us out of our comfort zone. Keep your left hand open. But with your right hand, place two or more fingers on the wrist of the neighbor to your right, over here on the side a little and under the thumb. If you are on an aisle or sitting by yourself, hold your hand open and feel the qualities of the air.

You may close your eyes or not. However you are comfortable. Breathe in and exhale slowly, as if you were meditating. And keeping that breath intentional, consider how touch affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, how touch embodies acceptance of one another and is a first step towards the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice.

Consider that through your fingerprints, you can feel the pulse of your neighbor. Through your singularity, you touch the life force.

Finally, see if you can coordinate your breathing with the rhythm of your neighbor’s heart beat and let that coordination expand in your imagination to include the rhythms of everyone here as nodes on the interdependent web of all existence and facets of the sum that is greater than all these parts. Listen now to breath and blood and life. At one time, be grounded, be here, transcend.

Amen.

Take a minute and say thanks to the folks around you. This is your church.

Honest Religion

Tom Spencer

CEO, Austin Area Interreligious Ministries

August 2, 2009

Sermon: Honest Religion Part 1

This is the first of two sermons that I will share with you on the theme of honest religion, a phrase that I have heard in this community and which strikes me as being an essential idea.

Today, I will share some thoughts about why I believe the idea of honest religion is so important, and later this month I will talk a great deal more about what I think an honest religion for the 21st century should look like.

Let me say this strongly right at the outset – I believe that honest religion may be humanity’s best and perhaps last chance of saving itself. More on that in a few moments…

But, speaking of honesty… isn’t it somewhat amazing to many of us that we are still struggling with ideas about faith and religion in the year 2009?

I am taking it for granted that most of us would self-identify as spiritual or religious progressives… and who among us has not wondered to ourselves, honestly, “when will all of that go away?” And when we say “that” we aren’t talking about just old time religion – evangelical, radical, or even reactionary religion – we are talking about religion itself.

Be honest now – How many of you refuse to use the label “religious” when you are talking about yourselves – preferring to use the word “spiritual” instead? Isn’t it more socially acceptable? Doesn’t it just fit more comfortably? I know that in certain circles I have fallen back into that more politically correct stance.

And, don’t we all have secular friends who see religion as the root of all evil and wish it would simply go away now – this very moment?

In fact, there is a small army of newly assertive atheists out there who have turned their disbelief into a cottage industry where they delight in (and profit from) shadow boxing with fundamentalists.

The truth is that each side in that debate is delighted that the other exists… the atheists of the academy with their arch disdain are the perfect foil for the fundamentalists who are only too happy to have atheists banging at the gates. Likewise, the academics relish in the antics of the fundamentalists – it is all so amusing. But what really drives this debate is fear. Fear driven faith needs visible enemies – and fear works as an effective tool in the market and in politics too. All of this sells a lot of books, gets a lot of votes, and fills a lot of pews.

But is there any real honesty in the current atheist / fundamentalist debate? Here is a quote from our fellow Austinite, Dr. Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize winning physicist – “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

Really, Dr. Weinberg – religion is the only thing that makes good people go bad? What about crushing poverty? What about patriotism? What happens when love is betrayed? Or, what happens to good people when someone throws verbal hand grenades at traditions they revere? Seems to me we offer each other all sorts of temptations to shed our goodness. Some actually delight in that sport.

And here is a quote from Jerry Falwell, “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.” …You know, I won’t even bother with a retort for that one.

On and on it goes:

The fundamentalists keep insisting that there is an intervening God who orders every hair upon our heads and who wrote the demise of the Do-Do bird into history before there even was such a thing as history or Do-Do birds.

And the atheists insist that all religion – even “progressive” religion is a mirror of fearful, primitive minds that demand fairy tales to deal with the terrors of existence. They say that all we need is logic and reason – that if we would only educate ourselves, the long march of progress will someday purge us of every irrational impulse. Love itself, I suppose, will lie dissected on a petri dish – understood by its chemical code.

Is that honest? Really? Do you want that world – really? Good luck with that mathematical equation that solves everything. My hunch is that mystery will never, ever, curl up its toes and expire regardless of the beauty of our equations or the power of our telescopes.

A point of real interest for us is that some of the new atheists, like the author Sam Harris, hold religious “moderates” up for special scorn – they argue that religious moderates provide cover and context for the radicals.

This is one of the points I’ll concede to Harris, I actually think he’s on to something here. For example, nearly every “liberal” Christian I know feels queasy about mouthing the Nicean creed or one of its watered down versions in church – and yet millions of them do it every Sunday… declaring before their children their faith in 3rd century concepts of the divine that fly in the face of reason, science and common sense. What is honest about that?

When we recite ancient creeds with our fingers crossed behind our backs, we are on our way down that slippery slope where moderation winks and nods at fundamentalism.

So, where does all of this leave us, in this place and in our search for honesty? Do we dispense with all beliefs that cannot be proved by physical evidence? Or, do we just go “spiritual” hoping that new age vagueness will provide the balm that the age old certainties can no longer deliver?

In some ways don’t you feel that we are right back where I began – don’t you just wish all of this – all of it – would simply go away?

I have struggled with this question for years and my answer is – NO. I don’t want religion to go away – in part, because I know that it never will go away and wishing it would is just as delusional and yes, just as irrational as believing in the legend of Noah’s flood. Sorry, Dr. Weinberg and Mr. Harris it ain’t going to happen.

We see evidence of the allure of religion – even radical religion all around us. Why? Because it is the fate of mankind to suffer and to look for answers to that suffering – we crave explanation and look for that one-encompassing answer.

Mark Lilla is the author of The Stillborn God, a brilliant book which explores the still prevalent attraction of theocracy – that system which unites the “Kingdom” overhead with the kingdom that collects our taxes. In his book he writes, “When the urge to connect is strong, passions are high and fantasies are vivid, the trinkets of our modern lives are impotent amulets against political intoxication.”

What trinkets was he referring to? You’re not going to like this: he’s not talking about cell phones and i-pods, no, he was talking about the bequest of the enlightenment – liberalism, reason, and our notions of progress. He argues, these are impotent amulets when the scales have been tipped and passion and rage are unleashed. Think about the simmering rage in our own nation – the irrational resentment stoked by the angertainment industry of the reactionary right. How does reason reason with that?

Lilla argues that classical liberalism is the exception to the rule – that our progressive little world is the odd man out, that it is imperiled.

So how could I not want religion – that world of passions and vivid fantasies – to go away?

And so, here is the second part of my answer – I don’t want it to go away because I believe that honest religion is neither an evolutionary dead end or a suicide pact – I believe that honest religion is our last best hope to withstand the ever present threat from that other shore described by Mr. Lilla – where alienation, passion and fantasy are being stoked into a raging fire.

The truth is that honest religion can’t inoculate us from every danger in the world – that is the trouble with all religions that promise ultimate deliverance – ultimately they can’t deliver. But, honest religion can help us help one another through the perils we face – it can help us live our lives more deeply and, hopefully, help us to pass on a better world to our children. And what more should be asked of it?

So, how will this work?

Let’s take just a moment to consider the origins of the word religion itself… there are actually two theories about that. One holds that the word religion comes from the Latin, religare which means to bind together – and the other says that it is more closely related to the word religio – reverence.

I think that what we need is a fusion of these two concepts – that only a reverent bond in the form of honest religion can sustain us and strengthen us for the challenges of the 21st century. We need the binding together – the acute awareness of our interdependence – as well as the tempering and humbling force of reverence.

What does this look like in practice here on the ground, in this place? Well, let me be very clear about this – if religion is to be honest it must make demands of us.

I remember having a conversation some years ago with University of Texas Professor, Paul Woodruff, who wrote a beautiful book about reverence. In this conversation he really opened my eyes to the critical distinction between what most of us call spirituality and religion. I had invited him to participate in a taping about “spirituality” thinking that that word would be more acceptable to an academic than “religion” – but, much to my surprise he bristled and said that he rejected spirituality. Taken aback, I asked him why, and he said he felt it was a “conceit that makes no demands of you.”

This is a powerful insight. Don’t many of us think of spirituality as an adornment or as a commodity? Dr. Woodruff’s rebuff helped me realize why spirituality is so popular – it’s because it is, like so much else in our culture, disposable – you can toss it away when it becomes an inconvenience. And what is more inconvenient that something that demands your attention 24/7.

And shouldn’t an honest religion demand our attention? I certainly think it should – I don’t think honest religion is something you pull from a bookshelf when you’ve got a few moments to spare or are feeling spiritual. But we need to recognize that paying attention is the most counter-cultural thing we can do in 21st century America. We live in the age of distraction – not the age of information. We have made careers and an entire economy out of not paying attention.

However if our’s is to be a religion that really binds our world view, holds us together as a community, awakens reverence within us and helps us to embody it – to live it– then, yes, it should demand our attention. But demand our attention to what end?

First and foremost – the test of honest religion should be whether it actively helps us to become better people – to be kinder, more compassionate, more patient, more generous, and more grateful – in short, more virtuous. Honest religion should have one great purpose and that is nurturing human goodness… a goodness that attracts goodness to it – that inspires reverence and awakens a deep gratitude.

Only through human goodness can we be saved – after all we are the ones who are messing everything up – and now, with our life-giving planet endangered, we need goodness enacted more than ever. This is the real promise of honest religion. My friend Michael Benedikt says that God is the Good We Do. I say Amen. That is honest.

An honest religion should also be humble – because none of us will ever be purely good, there will always be a need for humility as well as a well-developed practice of forgiveness and contrition. It is a difficult balancing act, but an honest religion should remind us of our imperfections and help to sustain our aspirations simultaneously.

An honest religion should also make sense – common sense. While our humility should remind us that there are things that we can never know – there is no reason to embrace supernatural theories that fly in the face of first-hand experience. The following quote from Buddha says it better that I could: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Another way to say this might be that honest religion should not require theological trampolines. Sure, it should appeal to our heads and, yes, our hearts, but its real business is in helping us to ask better questions and to live better lives not in making up myths about crystals or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And, speaking of dancing, I believe that an honest religion should speak to our bodies as well as our heads. Enacting or embodying our reverence is an essential part of honest religion. I recently returned from a long trip to Turkey where the call to prayer echoed across the cities five times a day – imagine that – stopping your busy life five times a day to say thank you. Frankly, I found myself feeling inadequate because I had no way to share my own reverence in that beautiful communal and physical manner.

The most important part of the ritual comes right at the beginning – you stop, stand, clear your head and silently declare your intentions. You then give thanks and praise – wishing peace to those who stand to right and peace to those on your left – you bow, kneel, touch your foreheads to the ground together.

Let me be clear – and honest – about the call I feel in my own heart: I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with brothers and sisters – to bow, kneel, and pray with them – but when I do, I want to speak in words that that reflect the realities of the world as we see it and experience it every day. Here in the 21st century.

Frankly I long for this kind of honest religion. And I believe that if it existed as a living community – a real binding of brothers and sisters who practiced goodness and shared reverence– it could, by example and deed save the world.

I’ll have a great deal more to say about what honest religion might look like in our lives in my next sermon on the 23rd of this month. But for now, I will close with this thought …

The real question for those seeking an honest religion is simply this – would we honor it? How would we respond to it if it were to spring to life right here before us? Would we embrace it, or, inconvenienced by its demands, would we come to wish that it too would simply go away?

The Miracle of Metaphor

Ron Phares

July, 26, 2009

Prayer

How strange and heavy that we are here occupying these pews, this place, and this planet, wild minds as the cosmos in process, we are the universe as dream. We are bound by its emptiness and lit by its energy Lit so as to see there are ways of seeing, ways of seeing that emptiness and that energy Ways of seeing the sky above, the earth on which we stand, water. Father. Mother. Child. We are the universe dreaming. Let it be a good dream.

Sermon

I think I’m developing a little ritual. It is self indulgent, I know, so I hope you don’t mind. But I have been, quite naturally and organically, developing a little ritual or habit that I do when I step into the pulpit. You see, the pulpit is like a circuit between the congregation and the better angels of their nature. That makes me the circuit breaker. Sometimes I worry that I might blow. Which brings me back to my ritual. Here it is; I feel like I’ve begun most of my sermons with a confession. Something about preaching makes me want to confess. It’s the same today. I am simply compelled to name my transgression with regards to this role. You see, as I sat down to write this sermon, as I put on my theological space suit, climbed into the ontological rocket chair and hit the ignition switch, I realized that I had no idea where I was going. I had, quite simply, forgotten the topic and title that I had some weeks ago given to the communications wing of this outfit.

Now, in my defense, I did recall that whatever the topic I had given, I had made it intentionally broad so as to be able to fit whichever shape the spirit moved me to take. I remembered that it had something to do with metaphor. And fear not, it most definitely will have something to do with metaphor. So my legal team says I’m in the clear, even if we do take the long way around.

And we will take the long way around, because first I want to talk a little bit about preaching. It’s this compulsion to confession that’s really got me going right now. It goes way beyond the imprecision of my memory. Right? There’s more to my sense of inauthenticity than that because its not just today. This confessional thing happens every damn time. I come up here and offer my inadequacy right off the bat. Maybe I’m just beating you to the punch, just protecting myself and it’s the preacherly equivalent of asking you if this dress makes me look fat. Maybe I am cowed at the immensity of your trust and curiosity in the face of the elusiveness of the spirit. Maybe.

I do think part of my compulsion to confession is some sort of back door approach to authority. I mean the one thing that I am an authority on, is that I am not an authority on anything. And so that is honest or at least a pass at honesty. And so now you think I’m being honest. And it’s through that honesty that you then, in spite of my disclaimer, may grant me authority. Or so I think it goes in my mind. At any rate, it is rhetorical jujitsu. It’s kind of a neat trick.

This doesn’t make it bad. Or untrue. In fact, it is not only true, but necessary in order for me to allow myself to be up here at all. The confession is born only out of the good intention to clear the air, so that you see me, or rather, the message, clearly. So that I see you clearly, so that I see myself clearly and so that I might pursue and communicate those things which I have been charged to pursue and communicate when accepting the invitation to fill this pulpit.

To put it plainly, I come up here and speak to you of things we need to consider, that I do not consider, of things we ought to do, that I do not do, of facts that I present as obvious, if ingenious, but that I had never even heard of until the night before. It’s just a role, or… more like a dream. I am, like this, my own figment. To step into this pulpit is to step into, to inhabit, my dream. It is shocking because it produces in me a feeling of discord that borders on dishonesty. But the beauty is that it forces me to face it. My dream and my being are so divergent here, but inhabit by force of commitment, the same space. Maybe there’s a place in your own life where you feel similarly. At any rate, for me, sometimes this coincidence of divergence feels like atoms splitting.

The energy released from that explosion – it has a sound. And that sound has a shape – in my mouth and in my notebook. And that shape surrounds an idea, rendered, as everything is, by metaphor. And it goes something like this: Religion is a fiction and I am a charlatan.

The word charlatan comes from the Italian word cialare, which means, “to prattle.” Huh! The more full bodied rendering of the word connotes a person, “who is being accused of resorting to pseudoscience in order to swindle his victims.” Well, I admit to not understanding half the science behind the science that I report from the pulpit. Yet, the very medium in which I ply my trade, the very context within which I work, the material of my profession, at its heart, defies evidence. It is, as I said, a fiction. It is a dream. What fact can capture the religious event? What scientific method can empirically measure meaning? What proof can we touch that there is anything beyond machine here? What test is explicit enough to convince me of god or art? There is none. It is all fiction and figment, experience ordered and recast in the storybook of memory. And then, who better to speak of it than a charlatan?

Fiction and figment. Our most basic response to the knowledge that we are alive and that we will someday not be alive… is a fiction. God is a fiction. The big bang is a fiction. History is a fiction. Memory is a fiction. How we relate to one another is a fiction. In fact, in nearly every way, the you that you know – is a fiction. Reality as we understand it and experience it – which does in fact stand as other than or in addition too or sometimes even in contrast with material, chemical fact Ð reality as we understand and experience it is a fiction.

David J. Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University has written that our brain, “responds to only one particular slice of possible sensory space. Our brains then process this sensory stream to extract certain kinds of information, ignore other kinds of information, and then bind the whole thing together into an ongoing story that is understandable and useful.” To which I might add, “we hope.” We hope it is useful.

Because what is NOT at stake is whether or not it is story or whether or not I am a charlatan or religion is a fiction. That is not at stake at all. It may, I hope, have sounded shocking at first. But shock is a mere parlor trick, a rhetorical slight of hand we charlatan’s use to advance the rubes from A to D without then having to bother with the boring details of B and C.

No, fiction is our reality. So fiction is therefore primary and of the highest esteem, not the other way around. It is because it addresses fundamental fictions via myth and its intersection with experience and logic, that religion occupies the center square of the great game.

And what is a charlatan, preacher, priest or parishioner if not a poet with both hands sunk deep into the ink of this central fiction? So while it may have sounded like I was wallowing self-loathing by calling myself a charlatan, I was doing anything but. In fact, I was not only calling attention to myself, but then paying myself quite the compliment. And I called it confession. What a strange dream.

And it is beautiful. Fiction is beautiful because it is truth unbound to evidence. That is why, for instance, the Bible or say The Grapes of Wrath, are such beautiful works, precisely because they are not evidence. They are truth, not fact. It does not matter, not to me at any rate, if there ever was a King David, Jim Casey, resurrection, or Holy of Holies. They are as true to me as my own name. They are as true to me as my mother, as true to me as my father, as true to me as water, and the sky above, and the earth on which we stand. They are all fictions. They are a dream. And I, as I mentioned before, am also, and especially up here, a dream.

In fact, I had a dream the other day that was similar to this and most peculiar. Have you ever had a dream where you were talking about a dream you had? It’s a strange thing, because you begin to lose track of what you thought was a dream and what you thought was not a dream. See, in this dream I was preaching. Here. Or it looked like it was me preaching. The dream was in the third person, so to speak. I could see what looked like me, dressed in this suit and tie. But even though I could see a person that looked just like me, the only reason I knew it was a dream was because the person that looked like me was not in the pulpit.

He was walking around up here, away from the pulpit. And I do not leave the pulpit. That would terrify me.

And in the dream the preacher was confessing about his inadequacies and how he felt like an atom bomb when his dreams conflicted. He was barking about fiction being a first thing and primary. “It’s like breathing,” he said, and then he took off his coat because walking and talking had made him warm and because he’d seen other preachers and politicians do it repeatedly and at the same time in their talks and so, he supposed, there must be some magic to it. Then the preacher continued pacing, and talking from note cards about dreams and how God is a dream (and he loosened his tie here because he new the stakes were high if he was wrong). The preacher then tried to explain that we are vulnerable in dreams in ways that our culture discourages in waking life, and how that very discouragement winds up creating a nation of neurotics who are out of touch with their inner conflicts. “Dreams,” he said, “are a venue for healing.”

I then saw the preacher roll up his sleeves and for a moment I wondered if this was going to be one of those dreams where the preacher, who looked, really remarkably like me, was going to wind up preaching in his underwear.

“Don’t worry,” said the preacher, “it’s not one of those dreams.” It was weird that he would say that. But dreams are like that.

And in the dream I could tell the preacher was nervous that maybe he wasn’t getting through, maybe he wasn’t communicating as clearly as he had hoped, maybe he wasn’t speaking to the body, to memory, to dreams themselves. He did not know what to do and he began to sweat. And then, I saw the preacher stop preaching and, he seemed pray. He said, “I don’t know that I’m getting through. What do I do?”

And then, in the way dreams do, there came a voice, from everywhere and nowhere. And the voice said, “It’s in the song.”

Well that didn’t make any sense. But that’s okay because dreams often don’t make sense until you analyze them and I wasn’t analyzing just yet. I mean, what the hell is a pulpit, really. And why can’t I leave it? And the voice came again and said, “The truth is in the song.”

The preacher seemed to get it though because he started to lead the congregation in a song, a round, which they sung twice through, where this section started it and then this section came in and then this section over here and they all started singing ROW ROW ROW YOUR BOAT when he said, “One, two, and..”

No, it’s okay. In the dream, the congregation was confused at first, but then they started singing the round when the preacher, for the second time now, said, “One, two, and…”

Hopefully that was memorable. And germinating. Look, dreams are not argument. In keeping with that, I have eschewed presenting much of an argument today, but instead tried to craft into explicitness what is often implicit and ignored: Life is but a dream. The world is but a stage. And Stanislavsky said, “There are no small roles, only small players.” And Ruykeyser said, “The universe is made of stories, not atoms.” So let’s split those stories and play our lives wholly. Holy.

Stories are dreams reigned and harnessed. We are surrounded by them: day dreams, movies, books, advertisements, comics, history, music, dancing, sporting events, reports on science, memory, you, me, everything is rendered in symbols and metaphor. Our lives. Our positions in a room, where we stand in a conversation, who we are in conversation with, our context, colors, where we work and play and how, all mean something and reveal our needs… if we are brave enough to see them as dreams to be harnessed. Truth to be discovered. Now, to make some argument this morning and to throw a bone out to the scientific minds out there, it is compelling that during REM sleep it looks, more or less, from a recording of brain activity, like the person is awake. And see here, its not that dreams and reality are equivalent. I can fly in some of my dreams. And, as of yet, I can not fly in reality. But the meaning we take, the way we form ourselves, how we interact and achieve some kind of happiness, satisfaction and quality of living – the poetics, the fictions are true in similar ways.

And so now we are in the deep end of metaphor. Having stripped reality of its pretense to not pretending, we are left with only metaphor. We are left in a world where meaning is relative, a world drowned in deep symbols. And we can breathe under water, when water is like that. It is here where the speculative art of interpretation can help us live a life more full. It is in dreams where we are forced to confront aspects of our selves we have buried or forgotten. It is in dreams where the genius of our inner artist is allowed free reign and we are reminded, soothed, indulged, lifted and exposed in ways we think are unavailable to us in waking life. But if, as I’ve offered, waking life is a dream, a fiction that can be deconstructed and opened up… well now things get interesting.

I wonder what would happen if we practiced the art of dream interpretation and then applied that art to our waking life. What would happen if, having become somewhat practiced at exploring the metaphors of dream, we turned that metaphorical exploration onto our lives. What institutions, activities, illnesses and relationships that look so necessary as to be taken for granted, suddenly become ripe for personal revelation? What are we really doing? This is what is at stake.

It is a highly, gloriously, subjective mode of being. But it is a way of being that investigates the mode in which we already, subconsciously, bio-chemically live. It is a move away from an oblivious life. Imagine what happens when you bring the subconscious under conscious scrutiny and appreciation or vice versa? We are, after all, myth-makers. We construe our life and the lives of others as beautiful or tragic and that construal IS reality, it is the way the world works. But usually, the myth-making is retrospective. What if we made a practice of making the myth in real-time? What if real-time and dream-time intersect? What depth of meaning and richness of life might we uncover and live into?

How strange and heavy that we are here occupying these pews, this place, and this planet. Wild minds as the cosmos in process, we are the universe as dream. We are bound by its emptiness and lit by its energy, lit so as to see there are ways of seeing, ways of seeing that emptiness and that energy, ways of seeing the sky above, the earth on which we stand, water. Father. Mother. Child. We are the universe dreaming. Let it be a good dream.

For as the bard says, “And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name.”

Out of airy nothing. This is how we live. This is life as god’s process, life as art. You are the poet, accidental or otherwise. The question is: what are you saying?