One Inch at a Time – Emily Tietz

© Emily Tietz

May 27, 2007

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button below.

Prayer

There are voices that would call us to remember to see what is valuable in each other and ourselves. To act in ways which add life to life. This takes more courage and more consciousness than one might expect.

And there are voices that would call us to take the easier and less conscious path. The one on which we don’t take care to notice or acknowledge value in whomever or whatever is before us.

The voices are within us and without.

Let us listen to the higher ones.

Because when we don’t it is all too easy to imprint another with fear. It is all too easy to be the heavy foot that silences another’s hope. And it is very easy to live out of whatever fear we ourselves have been imprinted with.

But life doesn’t have to be like that.

Let us create a world in which even the smallest of us can trust that our words will be heard and welcomed. Let us create a world in which no one around us – not even us – has to be afraid even in silence.

Let us listen to the voices of our higher selves.

Amen.

Sermon: One Inch at a Time

A few months ago Davidson told a Hindu story about the god, Krishna as a boy?

One day his teacher saw him chewing in class and asked what he was chewing. Kids weren’t allowed to chew gum in class. “Nothing,” he replied, and kept chewing.

You can imagine this made the teacher a bit irritated. It was very clear that he was chewing. She marched to his desk, commanded him to stand up, then said, “Now open your mouth and let me look inside!” The boy opened his mouth and when she looked in she saw a thousand million galaxies. That got me to thinking, what would life be like if we remembered to see the thousand million galaxies inside of each other.

When I was in college I took a class that dealt with domestic violence. One afternoon, the professor cited a study that really stuck with me. The purpose of the study was to determine what factors made a difference in how the life of a person who was abused as a child played out.

The researchers interviewed two groups of adults. One group was adults who had been abused as children and who continued destructive patterns in their adult lives – self-destructive or otherwise. The other group was adults who had been abused as children and were able to step outside of destructive patterns.

After interviewing all of the participants, the researchers found that it wasn’t the severity of the abuse, or the kind, or the duration that noticeably made a difference in the trajectory of the individuals’ lives. What made a difference was this: the people who had been able to move beyond destructive patterns could all point to at least one person whom they believed – really believed – in them. The individuals in the other group could not.

It could have been a teacher, best friend, a neighbor, or even just a one-time and brief encounter. It didn’t matter who the person was or how long they knew each other. It simply mattered that someone had shown them that they were whole and valuable.

That’s powerful stuff.

What would this world be like if we remembered to see the thousand million galaxies in each other?How we choose to live in relationship either adds life to life, or diminishes it. Throughout human history we’ve explored questions of how to see each other and how to see ourselves; how to treat each other and how to treat ourselves. We call the endeavor sacred. We attribute holiness to whatever is at the core of the quest. On our innermost level we recognize that recognizing the holy brings life to a higher level. So we incorporate into our religions codes for higher living. To be admittedly simplistic, we say that if we get it right, we spend eternity in heaven; if we get it right, we achieve nirvana; the more we get it right, the higher a being we come back as in the next life.

It’s powerful stuff.

What would this world be like if we remembered to see the thousand million galaxies in each other?

Robert Fulghum offers some thoughts in his book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

He writes “In the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific some villagers practice a unique form of logging. If a tree is too large to be felled with an ax, the natives cut it down by yelling at it. (Can’t lay my hands on the article, but I swear I read it.) Woodsmen with special powers creep up on a tree just at dawn and suddenly scream at it at the top of their lungs. They continue this for thirty days. The tree dies and falls over. The theory is that the hollering kills the spirit of the tree. According to the villagers, it always works.”

Ah, those poor naive innocents. Such quaintly charming habits of the jungle. Screaming at trees, indeed. How primitive. Too bad they don’t have the advantages of modern technology and the scientific mind.

Me? I yell at my wife. And yell at the telephone and the lawn mower. And yell at the TV and the newspaper and my children. I’ve even been known to shake my fist and yell at the sky at times.

Man next door yells at his car a lot. And this summer I heard him yell at a stepladder for most of an afternoon. We modern, urban, educated folks yell at traffic and umpires and bills and banks and machines – especially machines. Machines and relatives get most of the yelling.

Don’t know what good it does. Machines and things just sit there. Even kicking doesn’t always help. As for people, well, the Solomon Islanders may have a point. Yelling at living things does tend to kill the spirit in them. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will break our hearts.

There is a saying that goes, “We give ourselves away one inch at time.” I think it’s also true that we chip another’s spirit away one inch at a time.

What would life be like if we remembered to see the thousand million galaxies in each other?

One night I was flipping through television station and landed on PBS for a while. The motivational speaker whom they were featuring, and whose name I didn’t catch, told a story about a certain tribe somewhere in Africa. When a person commits a crime, large or small, they bring the person to the center of the village. Then all the rest of the villagers surround the person. One by one, they begin to tell the person things they love or admire about them. The session is not over until everyone says at least one thing. This can go on for a long time. When they are finished, the person is welcomed back to the community. The speaker finished by noting that the need for such interventions is rare.

Notice that this is not a practice of “turning the other cheek” or letting destructive behavior go. The tribe takes immediate action. They directly acknowledge what the person has done and that it must not continue. They then address it by calling the individual back to his or her higher self.

And the need for such interventions is rare.

We may chip another’s spirit away one inch at a time. I think we also help restore it one inch at a time.

What would this world be like if we remembered to see the thousand million galaxies in each other? I’d like to find that out.

Patient Warrior, Passionate Artist Tai Chi and a Spiritual Journey

Nell Newton

May 20, 2007

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

Portions of this service have been abridged. During the service Tai Chi exercises were performed by Nell Newton, Jerry Moore and Phil Joffrain.

Love Makes You Do The Wacky

© Jim Checkley

April 15, 2007

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

I wish I could take credit for the title of the sermon. But I can’t. The title comes from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a show I liked so much I did a service on it a few years ago. What’s going on is that Buffy is in love with somebody and is complaining that he is acting all jealous, but won’t admit it. Buffy is talking to her friend Willow and when Buffy complains to Willow that her boyfriend is being totally irrational Willow says, “Love makes you to the wacky.” To which Buffy responds: “That’s the truth.”

I agree with Buffy. Love does make you do the wacky. I’ll bet everybody in this sanctuary has at least one story of wacky behavior caused by being in love. Which begs the question, why? Why does love make us do the wacky? Why do we risk our jobs, our friends, our futures, our very lives in the name of love? What is it about romantic love that not only does it have its own holiday, but it provides both the greatest joys and the worst agonies imaginable, because truly, what can be better or worse than the total agony of being in love?

I was looking for a definition of love and found several I want to share with you. The first is from Ambrose Bierce and states that love is a type of insanity curable by marriage. You laugh now, but file this one away for later.

How about this one. It’s from a conference of sociologists back in 1977. Listen carefully:

Love is the cognitive-affective state characterized by intrusive and obsessive fantasizing concerning reciprocity of amorant feeling by the object of the amorance.

I dare you to try to turn that into a poem. In fact, I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable with the person who came up with that one dating my daughter. There are, of course, long dictionary definitions, but I think part of the problem we have in defining love is that in our culture, love is required to be all things to all people all of the time.

We love our spouse or our partner, certainly. But we also love our cars, our kids, our favorite colors, our food, our jokes, our art, and on and on. The word “love” has as many meanings and covers as much ground as the word “God.” Eskimos have 20 words for snow and we have one word for love. At least the Greeks had four words for love: Eros, or romantic love; agape or spiritual love; philia or Platonic love; and storge or natural affection, like that of a parent to a child. But we English speaking people, with a language that has by far the biggest, most encompassing vocabulary, we only have one word for love. Why is that? I think part of it is that our culture is very schizophrenic about love and there are enormous sensitivities around it, especially romantic love,

For example, you may have heard of the late Leo Buscaglia who once taught a course on love at UCLA called Love 1-A and wrote many books on the subject. Dr. Buscaglia taught that love is something we need to learn about and that understanding and dealing with love isn’t something that just comes to us by osmosis. As a matter of culture and social behavior, I think we can all agree with that. As you might imagine, however, Professor Buscaglia’s course created some controversy as people complained that university is no place to teach about love – seriously – university should be reserved for important stuff like history, language, science, and engineering. Besides, love is, well, a delicate subject, one that should be kept in a brown paper wrapper and only spoken about in hushed whispers behind closed doors or on the streets or under the covers.

I don’t know about you, but I think all of that is just ridiculous. I agree with, of all people, Benjamin Disraeli, who said “We are all born to love. It is the principle of existence and its only end.” Disraeli was right on at least two counts: first, as I’ll explain in a minute, we are born to love. The mechanisms of romantic love are hard wired and we are bound to that drive, those desires, like nothing else in life except eating and drinking. And second, I believe that romantic love, sex, and reproduction are the very purpose of our natural existence, the focus of life, and the only inherently meaningful thing about life itself beyond simply being.

I have a book called Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice for All Creation by Olivia Judson. It is a very clever book written as if Dr. Tatiana were answering letters about sex, reproduction, and other related issues from a wide variety of members of the animal kingdom. Talk about wacky. I’m telling you, insect reproduction in particular is bizarre and often deadly. Males in several species literally die for the opportunity to mate and pass on their genes. If life on this planet is the design of some intelligent creator, then he or she was on serious drugs when they came up with the myriad methods of sexual reproduction extant in the animal kingdom. If you want to get educated and blown away at the same time, I highly recommend reading Dr. Tatiana.

Now, insects don’t have the capacity for rational thought. At least we don’t think they do. Their behavior is thus controlled by their genetic code and is hard wired into their very being. How else can you explain the sometimes suicidal and often dangerous behavior indulged in by a whole host of critters in the animal kingdom? For a long time people believed that humans were immune to that sort of hard wiring, that our big brains removed us from the ranks of creatures who were programmed for certain responses and behaviors in the world of romantic love sex, and reproduction.

It is becoming crystal clear that we were very wrong about that. Very wrong indeed. Study after study has shown that desire and what we call romantic love is the result of chemical processes in the brain that are not only hard wired, but result in brain activity that is virtually indistinguishable from being on hard drugs, and in particular, drugs like cocaine. Now think about that for a second. Being head over heels in love results in or from, take your pick, brain activity that is indistinguishable from being on hard drugs. Robert Palmer was right: we are addicted to love. Is it any wonder that people routinely behave insanely when they are in that stomach wrenching, sleep deprived, dramatic phase of love? The poets who wrote about love didn’t know the half of it.

It turns out that the brain is, in fact, the most important organ related to love, sex, and reproduction. At every turn, genetic programs, working through the brain, guide humans in their dances of love. And, I know it’s not exactly politically correct to say this, but the scientific truth is that men’s and women’s brains are significantly different in the programs they run, the systems they create, and the desires they generate when it comes to romantic love. This is true about almost every aspect of romantic love and reproduction, including sexual orientation, desire, and how the sexes view their role in the courtship dance. And the most recent studies show that socio-cultural influences are less important on these very fundamentally hard wired programs than anybody suspected. Thus, while it is true to there is a large variation in what signals and stimuli people respond to in actualizing romantic love impulses, those impulses and the genetic programming underlying them are resistant to socio-cultural influences.

Here are a few specific (and I think amusing) results to ponder:

In a study of the effect of pictures of beautiful women on the brains of men, researchers found that the pictures activated the same reward circuits in the brains of heterosexual men as did food and cocaine. Here is proof – as if we needed it – that men truly are visually stimulated. As co-author of the study, Dan Ariely of MIT, said, “This is hard-core circuitry. Beauty is working similar to a drug.”

Another study showed men a slide show of random women, each being projected for several seconds; but the men could extend the viewing time for each picture by pressing keys on a keypad. You can guess the result. The men worked frantically to keep the beautiful women on the screen, on average pressing the keyboard more than 4,700 times over a 40 minute span, prompting one researcher to observe that “these guys look like rodents bar-pressing for cocaine.” As far as women are concerned, studies have demonstrated, for instance, that a woman’s choice of which men she says she finds “sexy” changes depending on how close she is to ovulation.

When close to ovulation, women tend to prefer the almost stereotypical tall, dark, rough-hewn guys, while selecting more round faced “nice guys” at other times. Women are also thousands of times more sensitive to musk-like odors than are men, which makes perfect sense when you think about it.

When it comes to studying romantic love, there is one person who stands out beyond all the rest. She is Helen Fisher of Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Dr. Fisher is a leader among the army of scientists who are studying the biological bases for romantic love.

Dr. Fisher has written two popular books on the subject, Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love and The Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. And in 2002, she published a landmark study on what is happening in the brains of people who claim they are head-over-heels in love. I cannot possibly do justice to her work here, but let me talk about Dr. Fisher’s theories on how human beings fall in love.

Dr. Fisher has proposed that human beings fall in love in three stages.

Stage one consists of simple and generic lust – that undifferentiated general sense of desire. Studies show that lust is mediated in the brain by the hormones testosterone and estrogen, with testosterone having been shown to play a large role in women. These hormones appear to function to get people out looking, so to speak.

The second stage is attraction to a specific person. This is that truly love-struck phase where each instant apart is a lifetime, where you call each other 20 times a day, and where you can’t eat, can’t sleep, and can think of nothing else. In the attraction phase, a group of neuro-transmitters called “monoamines” play an important role. These include dopamine; adrenalin’the chemical of fight or flight; and serotonin, which plays a role both in romantic love and depression – big surprise there, right?

Dopamine is the “reward” chemical and its production is what we are after when we desperately need to be with our beloved. It’s also the chemical that is made in bucket-loads when are brains are exposed to cocaine. Serotonin is the tricky one in that it can actually induce temporary insanity. Thus, many of the millions of people who do crazy things for love, who swim rivers naked, jump out of airplanes with friends to hold up gigantic signs of proposal while they parachute into a lover’s back yard, and all the other stuff you’ve ever heard about, many of those people may actually qualify as temporarily insane.

The third phase in Dr. Fisher’s scheme is called attachment and it involves becoming bonded with and attached to a specific person. It is marked by the sense of calm, peace, and stability one feels with a long-term partner and is driven by the brain chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin. Crazily enough, oxytocin and vasopressin seem to interfere with the production of dopamine and adrenalin, which is why the madness of the head-over-heels attraction phase fades as the attachment phase progresses – a finding that actually provides a basis for the otherwise cynical definition of love I quoted earlier as a type of insanity curable by marriage.

In fact, studies have shown that vasopressin is responsible for monogamy in a critter called the prairie vol. Once vasopressin is triggered in the brain of the prairie vol, that vol is faithful to its mate for life. Block the vasopressin and that very same vol becomes promiscuous. These are very powerful chemicals. Things are obviously much more complicated in humans – history teaches us that vasopressin does not work nearly as well in people as it does in prairie vols – but, Dr. Fisher nonetheless cautions that you should never mess around with somebody you do not want to fall in love with, because if you generate enough oxytocin and vasopressin, you very well might fall in love despite yourself.

As a result of her’s and others’ studies, Dr. Fisher has drawn the remarkable conclusion that romantic love is not actually an emotion like joy or sadness. Instead, she claims it is a motivation system, a drive, a need that compels people to go out and find a partner and is more akin to the need to eat than being happy or sad. Romantic love, the attraction phase, says Dr. Fisher, is an even stronger desire than simple lust. “People don’t kill themselves just because they don’t get sex,” she says. But they will and do kill themselves over failed romantic love adventures.

There is so much more going on in evolutionary biology, but I don’t have the time to go into even a fraction of it. What I will say is the discoveries of how deeply hard wired we are for lust, attraction, romantic love, and attachment are not a surprise to me. Put simply, reproduction is much too important to leave to the whims of consciousness and culture.

And it makes sense that humans would be subject to the same forces that other higher animals are since we share common ancestors and evolved together on this planet. Said another way, before there was consciousness, there was reproduction and all the drives and hard wiring that nature provided to insure the continuation of life. For the last handful of millennia perhaps, humans have been able to cogitate about love and sex and reproduction. But a million years ago, those things just had to happen for the species to continue and nature had to insure that they would by hard wiring in the proper mechanisms. And nature was obviously successful since we are all here today. Science has and continues to confirm that we have inherited those mechanisms and we call them romantic love.

My point in telling you all this is not to pretend to be able to fully explain

why or how we fall in love, or even the biological basis for romantic love. It’s much more complicated than this, of course. Rather, my point is to simply suggest that there is in fact a powerful biological basis for romantic love, that it matters, and we should openly and fearlessly take account of it in our lives.

But these revelations do not sit well with many people, who bristle at the

thought that humans might be subject to instincts, hard wired instructions, and that something as sacred in our culture as romantic love and all the trappings of courtship, marriage, and the like that go with it, might be the product of brain chemicals that mimic the actions of drugs. As unsettling as the scientific discoveries may be, I think the truth is that we humans are a natural part of the natural world and are certainly a product of evolutionary biology. But we are also conscious beings with the ability to make choices that either compliment or reject the signals, motivations, and desires that our DNA has made part of our experience of life.

This is why it is useful to think of ourselves as both a “what” and a “who”.

The what is the primate creature that Mother Nature created out of the raw materials of life and that is subject to the same laws, the same forces, and the same desires as the other higher level creatures on the planet.

The who is a relatively new entity, a conscious being who seemingly at least,

can make choices about how to proceed with existence and at present, seems to be a little bit confused about what life, the universe, and everything is supposed to mean. These two aspects of humanity coexist in one body. Both matter.

This is also the reason I think people are often confused when they ask the

question, “What is the meaning of life?” Life is a process that goes on all around us, has been going on for millions upon millions of years. Humans are included in the process of life, but so is a snail darter or an elephant or a wasp. So when we think of life in the broadest sense, it is clear that the purpose and meaning of life is survival, reproduction and all that goes with it.

But when they ask the question,”What is the meaning of life?”, many people use

the word “life” to substitute for consciousness and sentience. And that, as they say, is a very different question and not one I have any desire to tackle today. Well, actually, I will say this. Whatever purpose or meaning there is to human existence, as opposed to life generally, has to been created, invented as it were, which is the role of culture, religion, and other philosophical enterprises that seek to imbue our conscious existence with meaning. But the meaning of life itself, the purpose of life, that is clear: it is to survive, today, tomorrow, and always.

Up until thirty to fifty years ago, most educated people saw a human baby as a

tabula rasa, a clean slate upon which anything could be written without the pesky influences of instincts and other hard wired instructions, or drives. Virtually nobody who studies these things today thinks of a baby as a tabula rasa. That concept has been relegated to the same graveyard as phlogiston and the ether.

Having said that, I must emphasize that just how much has been pre-programmed

or hard wired and how powerfully is subject to debate, some of it fierce. Still, it is clear that we are born with hard wired drives, call them instincts, call them predispositions, call them an inborn style, but they are there. And probably the most powerful, the one that dominates so much of our lives, is the need for romantic love. Like every other creature on the planet, human beings modify their behaviors to accommodate those incredibly powerful desires – or as Willow says, “we all do the wacky.”

Can these drives and desires be overcome by the who that we are – our conscious

selves? Of course they can. People routinely choose to do behaviors that conflict with the urges and desires brought about by romantic love and its chemical addictions to a person. It happens all the time. It’s one of the things that distinguish us from insects and the rest of the animal world. A praying mantis will go ahead and get its head bitten off in exchange for the opportunity to mate. Even the most testosterone and dopamine driven man, however, is most likely to decline that offer.

But does the fact that we can control our behaviors mean we should not acknowledge the drives and desires that are making our lives both wonderful and miserable? Shall we pretend that we have conscious control of who -and what gender – we find attractive and that any feelings we experience that are not sanctioned by the dominant culture are to be labeled as sinful and wrong?

My answer is an emphatic no. I think it is time we looked at these feelings,

these desires, without embarrassment, without shame, without feeling defensive that we are, after all, the product of evolution and are children of the Earth as much as children of our conscious souls.

While the idea that romantic love is a hard wired mechanism might spoil some of our notions of romance, it is also liberating. I suggest that if people would let go of the notion of the tabula rasa, would let go of the notion that falling down the rabbit hole of romantic love is a conscious choice, and realize that all those powerful feelings and urges are perfectly natural and are deeply imbedded into the essence of our natural being, perhaps we could all relax a little and not be so harsh with each other and ourselves.

Moreover, once that admission is made and the feelings themselves brought out into the open without embarrassment, they are much easier to deal with. Suppressed feelings and desires have a way of growing in the dark, just like mushrooms, but tend to lose their almost preternatural hold on us once we put them in the light of day.

Preachers routinely, and for thousands of years, have taken nature to be sinful. Western culture definitely assigns passion to the dark side, the night side, the female side of life, the side that is opposed by the light of reason, the cold hard facts of rationality that is ruled by the day and the male sky god. But when you pull all of nature over into the side of sin, you degrade the deepest and most fundamental parts of what we are as living creatures and deny the

importance of millions of years of evolutionary biology.

Our behavior matters, of course, and I am not advocating or justifying rampant

infidelity and wackiness just because we are hard wired for romantic love and all the feelings and desires that go with it. But I do think our ancestors and our Western religions got it totally wrong. I think that the world being split into male and female with romantic love and sexual reproduction, however those drives and desires may manifest in any individual, creates most of the pure joy

and happiness we experience in life.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that when we accuse a young man or woman of being “superficial” because they are attracted to somebody because that person is beautiful or sexy, we’ve got it backwards. There’s nothing superficial about it; rather such attraction is one of the most deeply rooted aspects of our natural existence. It is not only not sinful, it is part of the very essence of the inherent meaning of life.

Let me conclude by reaffirming that Willow was absolutely right when she told Buffy “Love makes you do the wacky.” We understand why that is so just a little better now than our mothers and fathers and their mothers and fathers did, but the feelings, the desires, the power of love remain undiluted and are eternally ours. No matter the cultural spin we put on them, love, sex and reproduction are simply fundamental to us and our beings. We truly are born to love. It is our birthright, our purpose, our meaning, and our glory.


 Presented April 15, 2007

Revised for print

Copyright – 2007 by Jim Checkley

Heeding the Advice of a Unitarian Friend

© Bren Dubay

December 3, 2006

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button below.

PRAYER

Jack R. Harris-Bonham

Mystery of many names and Mystery beyond all naming, we joyfully gather here this morning in the presence of new friends and old acquaintances.

We’re thankful for the many and varied blessings that have been bestowed upon us. We hope that in the coming weeks we can be reminded of those who have less, who are impoverished both physically and spiritually.

May our thoughts turn into actions as the season of giving rapidly approaches. This morning we also hope and pray that the war, which rages in Iraq, will come to a peaceful and equitable end. So many have suffered and some many more will suffer until this war is over. We pray for that end.

Help us to listen carefully to the message of community that is being offered to us this morning. Remind all of us that community starts with risk and continues through risk and, if it is to be successful, the risking simply never ends. If we can’t risk, then we can’t have community. Also engender in us today the feeling of tolerance for those who do not hold the same opinions. Let us make room in our hearts for everyone – especially those with whom we have had problems.

We pray this in the name of everything that is holy, and that is, precisely, everything.

Amen.

SERMON

Thank you for your warm welcome. It helps these trembling hands and shaky knees. Every time I approach a podium I think of an exchange with our daughter, Jillian. I’d been invited to deliver a commencement address and she had recently graduated from St. Edward’s here in Austin. So I thought, with her graduation fresh in her mind, I’d ask her for advice about speech making. What she told me was “Be funny, be clever, be brief.” Then she looked at me as only a twenty-two year old can look at her mother and said, “You don’t stand a chance.” It’s fear and trembling all the way to every podium now.

But you’ve made feel welcome and the hands and knees are a little more calm. Thank you. I especially want to thank Jack Harris-Bonham. Jack, it’s been a pleasure exchanging phone calls and e-mails with you. And I, of course, want to thank you, Mary. Because of you and people like you, Koinonia was able to survive some dangerous times. We’re grateful for your support over all these years.

I hope all of you will return this evening to see the documentary about Koinonia, Briars In the Cotton Patch . You’ll see what I mean about dangerous times – about those times when Koinonia was being shot at, dynamited. About the boycott when no one in the county would sell anything to or buy anything from this small group of people living together on a farm in southwest Georgia. You’ll learn of how Koinonia started a mail order business to survive. That same mail order business continues today and remains our main source of income. Among other things, we grow pecans – when that mail order business began in the 1950s, co-founder Clarence Jordan came up with the slogan: “Help us ship the nuts out of Georgia.” And we’re still shipping the nuts out of Georgia today. I’ve brought catalogues.

When you see the film, you’ll get a glimpse of how some impressive organizations were born at Koinonia? the most famous being Habitat for Humanity. And of how we continue today to serve others, of how we welcome visitors from all over the world. I hope you will want to come visit.

But this morning rather than focus on the story you will see in the film this evening, I wanted to share with you three stories, some thoughts about language, about labels, titles, what’s in a name.

Koinonia – it’s a Greek word found in the Christian Scriptures. It means “community,” “fellowship.” Truth is I had never heard the word and certainly had never heard of the place before visiting Americus, Georgia in May, 2003. Koinonia. I had never heard of it. Couldn’t spell it. Wouldn’t even attempt to pronounce it for months after I first saw the name. It was a chance visit. I was in a hurry to get back to Texas. I only stopped by Koinonia because I was being polite – at least outwardly. Someone had asked me to stop. Inwardly, “I don’t have time to stop at some farm. I’ve got to get back to Houston.” Eight months after that first brief visit, I was asked to be the director, twelve months after that first visit, I moved to Georgia. I wasn’t looking to leave Houston, to leave my home, my life, my work in Texas. But I did. And I had to face some things. One of the people that helped me to do that the most was my Unitarian friend, Carla.

Koinonia is an intentional Christian community. It started in 1942; about 25 of us live there now. We’ve pooled our talents and resources, we live simply, each according to need and together we take care of the farm and do whatever we can to help our neighbors and each other; we work for causes of social justice. Everybody is welcome at the farm – Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, Christian of any stripe though our fundamentalist friends seldom have much patience with us, seekers, non-seekers, Unitarians – all our welcome. I was and am comfortable with all that. But what I had to face when moving to Georgia was this word “Christian.” I never used it. Never called myself by that name. It would stick in my throat. I didn’t have that same problem with the label “Catholic.” I am a Catholic. I cut my teeth on the likes of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, co-founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, on the likes of the Jesuit social justice activists Dan and Phil Berrigan, of Mother Teresa, Saint Frances of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, Hildegarde of Bingen. I attended a university where serving the poor, the hungry, the prisoner, the orphan, the widow, praying, meditating, learning to think, appreciating other traditions and attending Mass were all on equal footing. I saw priests, nuns, brothers, lay people whose names will never be known give of themselves unselfishly, untiringly to others. When I said the word “Catholic,” these are the people that came to mind not the crazies who also bear that name. But “Christian” crazies, definitely the crazies. All that was lousy, awful, disgusting about them and that history – that was the image that made the word stick in my throat.

Then I moved to Koinonia. Founder Clarence Jordan, who died in 1969, was a New Testament Greek Scholar and a Baptist minister. A Baptist? Now that name conjured up some images for me. But from the beginning, the people at Koinonia have been a diverse group of people. That’s what I saw when I got there. What I also saw was a reluctance to use the word “Christian.” This intentional Christian community choking on its own name? Why? When did this happen? What made it so? And here I was coming to join Koinonia and I had the same problem. Then that Unitarian friend I mentioned helped us. I read from an e-mail she sent.

[Bren,] you said something at Mama’s [Caf] over breakfast that caught my attention, I didn’t want to let it go, or forget. And it seems more important now. Something about not letting people forget, or blow off, Koinonia’s Christian underpinnings, its foundation in the Gospel. And I wanna say, as a second generation Unitarian with a deep suspicion of anything that comes with a cross on it, YOU GO, GIRL!

It matters. Language matters, and calling yourself Christian, if you are, matters. Language – names, labels, they carry identity, and we’ve seen a genuinely creepy, sad and dangerous thing happen over the last 50 years or so – our names get stolen and corrupted, and we’re left without our identities, confused and robbed of the power our names held.

Remember “feminist?” It used to be a very simple word that meant a person who believes that the world should be run as if women matter. Then the Opposition stole it and twisted it. They took women’s anger with domestic violence, and called them “man haters.” They took women’s efforts to be heard and called it “strident.” It went on and on, even as essential feminist ideas became the law of the land. And the Opposition was really, really effective. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard a woman say, “I’m not a feminist, but?” then proceed to proclaim a perfectly ordinary feminist philosophy. But the Name, the Word, “feminist? is ickyickyicky and they won’t claim it. If you can’t describe yourself, can’t identify yourself – well – people like that have no power. Notice any feminist movers and shakers, and politicians or writers in the last ten years?

And “liberal.” Every great political effort that moved us a little closer to the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” had liberals behind it. But the Opposition got their teeth into the word. Have you heard it said without a derisive sneer any time since, oh, – 1975? And by the sheer force of repetition it worked. Now even the most dyed in the wool liberals struggle with words like “leftist” or”moderate” or “progressive” or any number of things that don’t quite fit. Because “liberal” sounds ickyickyicky, weak, wishy washy. But there were no liberals [that fit that description] marching in Selma, going to jail during Viet Nam, getting women the vote, or running the Underground Railroad. Not only do liberals lose the power and cohesion that comes from a name, they lose the great history that goes with it.

The same thing is happening with “Christian.” With the rise of the Radical Right, a small vocal camera-hungry group of extremists took over the label “Christian.” They identified their narrow, angry views as Christian views, claimed to be the voice of Christian America, and dagnab it if a lot of people didn’t believe them. Even my most ditzy apolitical friends associate “Christian? with hostile, ignorant, hateful people. Just like the women who mumble “I’m not a feminist, but?” liberal Christians have a fumbling discomfort with the word. And why wouldn’t they? The Christians of Leviticus are in charge of the name, and the Christians of the Beatitudes are homeless.

So, yeah, the Koinonia folks need to reclaim the name from the Nasties who grabbed it, and clean it up a bit, and wear it proudly on their sleeves. Otherwise the Nasties get to define you for the world, and you lose the great power, and the great history of the name.

Carla wrote this first part prior to the presidential election of 2004. She continued on after the election – I’ll have to wade a bit into her politics here – but you’ll see the point she wants to make. She finished the e-mail with this:

Now it’s after the election. I don’t know where my brain has been, or why I’m feeling so blind sided by it. This sudden revelation that many ordinary people voted for Bush because he seems better fit to be a “moral leader?” A moral leader? Since when is our national CEO supposed to be our moral leader? There are countries where they do that, but they’re not democracies, and the CEO isn’t called a president. So what inspired this vision of George Bush as Desmond Tutu – what has he identified as a key moral issue? Not poverty. Not hunger. Not illiteracy, social alienation, despair, addiction, violence. No, the great moral issue that he used to bring his voters to the polls – gay marriage. That is his idea of a great moral problem. And what’s scarier is that so many people agree with him. We desperately need to start a loud conversation in this country about what’s really important, and why. And we really need progressive Christians to reclaim their name and their history, and take the lead. They have history, they have credibility, they have the language, they can be heard by people on both sides of the Divide. And they can recognize a moral issue when they see one. Tell your hesitant Christians at Koinonia that we need them to save the country, and be snappy about it – Onward through the fog. [Your Unitarian Friend,] Carla.

Thank you, Jesus, for Unitarians. That’s what I really wanted to title this talk today, but I was afraid none of you would come.

What Koinonia went through in the 90s was perhaps more frightening, and certainly more insidious, than the bombs, bullets and boycott of the 50s. We grew “embarrassed?” about our name and slowly, over time, not at an instant death, but a slow eating away of our soul? Some of us forgot who we were. But not anymore.

Claim your name, live your name, embrace other names.

Claiming the name may be the easy part, but it is living it … By living it you become secure in it and if you truly are, you reach out to all other names, embrace them, learn from them. You don’t fear them. If you don’t fear them, you don’t harm them. I don’t have to tell you that Christians continually get into trouble because their actions don’t match their name. What happens though when they do? Remember recently, the attack on ten little Amish girls? Remember the response of the Amish? They went to the family of the killer and said, “Stay in your home here. Please don’t leave. We forgive this man.” That more than the senseless killing shocked us. It was the Christianity so many profess but which the Amish practiced that left us stunned.

Part of what you’ll see in the film tonight is the story of three Koinonia children. To our knowledge, they are the only white children in our nation’s history who had to go to court to win the right to be allowed to attend a public school. And, oh, my goodness, what they suffered at the hands of their classmates – but what may shock you more is their response to it. Greg Wittkamper was one of those children. He graduated from Americus High School in 1965. Forty-one years after his graduation, he was invited, for the first time, to his class reunion. Living your name matters. Finally, a group of Greg’s classmates reached out to him, apologized for what they had done to him. Greg sent us copies of the letters he received. Perhaps if there is time this evening, we can take a look at them, but for now I want to read you a story written by one of Greg’s classmates. It was sent to him along with a letter of apology asking him to come to the reunion. [ Greg & TJ ]

“What’s going on over there?”

“TJ’s fixing to whip Greg!”

“Naw!”

“Yea! He claims Greg called him a bad name in Mrs. Bailey’s government class, and he’s gonna beat his butt!”

TJ and the crowd caught up with Greg just as he reached [the baseball stadium parking lot] – Since we all knew he parked his car beneath a colored friend’s house a block beyond the park, it was not difficult to determine direction he would take after the dismissal bell rang. He was not dim-witted as to leave his vehicle on campus in the morning and expect to be able to drive it home.

Our class of 1965 was not the only class to study with “white sympathizers,” but we were the first to have colored students pictured in our annual. LBJ had just said they could go to school with us. We cussed them. We sneezed on them. We wanted to hurt them.”

[As teenagers in Georgia in 1965], we knew what was expected of us. We were to be seen in church regularly, we were to be at the football games in the fall whether on the field or in the stands, we were to look forward to voting for Democrats when we reached eighteen, and we were to have no use for people different from us.

Greg looked like us, yet he was drastically different from us. His family had taught him from the same Scriptures where we memorized verses, yet – but – well?

Well, Greg lived toward Dawson on a farm where Negroes and white folks lived and worked together. Back then the notion of whites and blacks living together was wrong! Caucasian teenagers approaching voting age in Sumter County in the middle of the 1960s were reared to believe nothing else. Some say this communal living is still wrong.

There must have been fifty of us standing four deep around a ten foot circle on this particular day. TJ challenged Greg to hit him first.

“Thomas, you know I did not call you a name, and you know I do not want to fight you,” Greg calmly replied.

“Knock hell out of him, TJ,” someone sneered.

Each witness knew Greg did not talk ugly, nor was he belligerent, but we wanted to see a fight. We wanted a victory.

History books will say Selma was worse, but there were not many newsman with cameras in Sumter County like there were near the Edmond Pettis Bridge during the Freedom March. Americus had beatings, shootings, and killings “

“Kick the crap out of him!” came another taunt.

TJ eventually threw the first punch – the only punch – landing it high on Greg’s face.

Greg winced and staggered backwards, maybe five steps. His knees buckled. He reached back with his left hand to cushion his fall. Greg did not fall. Nothing ever touched the ground other than his two feet.

Over the past forty years I have often recalled Greg’s inconceivable counter.

He hastily recovered and repositioned his full stature within arm’s length of the seasoned football player. Without one word, Greg clasped both his hands in the small of his back, jutted his chin forward toward his opponent and waited for the inevitable.

The inevitable did not happen. A coach came and the crowd dispersed. Greg whipped all fifty of us that afternoon without throwing a punch! I did not realize it until years later though.

I saw a sermon that afternoon. Because I did, I understand the Scriptures better today – one verse in particular.

As a boy, I, that day, went home feeling embittered about life and a miss opportunity to get even with someone I violently disagreed with. As a man, I admire a young man whose actions matched his words. I want to thank him for what he taught me.

Claim your name, live your name and if you do, you will embrace other names.

Over the past two years, several of us from Koinonia have traveled with an interfaith delegation to meet with Palestinians and Israelis who are working together for peace in that troubled part of the world. There are peacemakers there though it’s not their stories that are often told by the media or by the politicians.

I share, in closing, a story from my recent trip as an example of embracing other names.

“I am Palestinian,” he said. “I will tell you about four of my friends. When they were young boys, just children, the Israeli Army came into their home and killed an uncle right in front of them. They tried to move his body, but before they could, the bulldozers came and knocked down their house. They grew up with hearts set on revenge. One of them often brags to me why he’s here, in prison. But today I heard him and all his brothers. They were weeping. There was no bragging today. It was a letter that made them weep. They showed it to me. It was a letter someone had sent to their mother. I will read it to you.”

“My name is Sarah Holland. I am the mother of Micah who was killed by your son. I know he did not kill Micah because he was Micah. If he had known him, he would never have done such a thing. Micah was 28 years old. He was a student at Tel Aviv University working on his Masters in the Philosophy of Education. Micah was part of the Peace Movement. He had compassion for all people and he understood the suffering of the Palestinians. He treated all around him with dignity. Micah was part of the movement of the officers who didn’t want to serve in the Occupied Territories. But nevertheless, for many reasons, he went to serve when he was called up from the reserves.

What makes our children do what they do? Do they not understand the pain that they are causing – your son for having to be in jail for many years, and mine whom I will never be able to hold and see again, or see married, have a grandchild from him. I cannot describe to you the pain I feel since his death, nor the pain of his brother or his girlfriend or all who knew and loved him. All my life I have spent working for the causes of coexistence, both in South Africa and here. After Micah was killed, I started to look for a way to prevent other families, both Israeli and Palestinian, from suffering this terrible loss. I was looking for a way to stop the cycle of violence. Nothing for me is more sacred than human life. No revenge or hatred can ever bring my child back. After a year, I closed my office and joined the Parents? Circle, Families? Forum. We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian families who have all lost immediate family members in the conflict. We are looking for ways to create a dialogue with the long-term vision of reconciliation.

Then your son was captured. Afterwards, I spent many a sleepless night thinking about what to do. Could I be true to my integrity and the work that I am doing? This is not easy for anyone. I am just an ordinary person, not a saint. But I have come to the conclusion that I would like to find a way to reconcile. Maybe this is difficult for you to understand or believe. Yet, I know in my heart that this is the only path that I can choose, for if what I say is what I mean, it is the only way. I understand that your son is considered a hero by some. He is considered to be a freedom fighter fighting for justice and a viable Palestinian State. But I also feel that if he understood that taking the life of another may not be the way, if he understood the consequences of his act, then he could see that a non-violent solution is the only way for both nations to live together in peace. Our lives as two nations are so intertwined.

I give this letter to Nadwa, a Christian, and Ali, a Muslim, both members of Parents? Circle, two people I love and whom I trust to deliver it. They will tell you about the work that we are doing and perhaps it will create in you some hope for the future. I do not know what your reaction will be. It is a risk for me. However, I believe you will understand as it comes from the most honest part of me. I hope that you will show the letter to your son and that maybe in the future we can meet. Perhaps you will want to join the Parents’ Circle. Let us put an end to the killing and look for a way through mutual understanding and empathy to live a normal life free of violence.

With respect and hope, Sarah Holland”

When he had finished, the Palestinian prisoner neatly folded the letter then stared out the window as he spoke.

“This was the letter that my friends gave me to read. If everybody signed this letter, perhaps there would be peace. If governments would read? To me this Sarah Holland is wise. What she writes – this is the essence of what we must do, this process of reconciliation and dialogue, this sense of forgiving. Without them, I don’t care how many peace agreements you sign, without dialogue and reconciliation, without forgiving, without serving one another there will not be any quiet in this country for any of us.”

Thank you, Jesus, for Muslims and Jews – and Christians. And thank you for allowing this Christian to speak to you this morning. Thank you.

Listening to the Whispers- Emily Tietz

© Emily Tietz

November 19, 2006

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER

Mary Oliver wrote:

To live in this world

 you must be able

 to do three things:

To love what is mortal;

to hold it

against your bones knowing 

your own life depends on it;

And, when the time comes to let it go,

To let it go.

We pray for the wisdom, the courage, and the heart for all three.

Amen.

SERMON

As I sat in my living room to write this sermon, I found myself looking out the window at a canopy of trees. The chilly wind was blowing through the leaves and I could see some leaves already changing colors.

I smiled.

I love this time of year.

The air seems to be energized with promise.

Soon the leaves will flutter down and blow around our feet. Tree limbs will be bare and the soft sunlight of winter will stream through them. It’s a time energized with promise because it’s when nature intentionally lets go of things it needs to let go of. It seems to snuggle into the earth to rest. And then when the time is right, it will wake up, stretch its limbs, and flood with new life.

The new life couldn’t come, though, if the trees weren’t willing to let go of the leaves they need to let go of. And it wouldn’t come if nature didn’t then find time to rest from the labor of producing and sustaining leaves.

Plant life recognizes this need.

Humans know of this need too, though we don’t always recognize it.

Maya Angelou writes:

Carefully

the leaves of autumn

sprinkle down the tinny

sound of little dyings

And skies sated

of ruddy sunsets

of roseate dawns

Roil ceaselessly in

cobweb greys and turn

to black

for comfort.

Only lovers

see the fall

a signal end to endings

a gruffish gesture alerting

those who will not be alarmed

that we begin to stop

in order simply

to begin

again.

So many great mythologies have stories about the need to let something end before a new beginning can come.

The Christian story is the one told at Easter time. There is a death and then a resurrection. The resurrection could not happen without the death. New life cannot come unless or until something dies.

Trees and shrubs make an annual habit of willingly letting their leaves die and letting them go. Or they simply die to the ground or beg to be pruned back. They seem to trust a promise that new, vibrant life will come in time.

Plant life does its “Spring Cleaning” in the fall.

I did some this summer.

I didn’t set out to do it. I was planning a landscape design for our backyard and wanted some inspiration for the design’s structure. I recalled some things that I’d heard about feng shui and the art of placing things such that they feel good and have meaning. I thought that sounded nice, so I picked up a book in hopes of sparking some creative ideas. I ended up getting all kinds of ideas – only a few related to the landscape design which, months later, is still in process.

Something that stood out to me was the suggestion to take a good look at your stuff and clear out the clutter.

There are a number of things that qualify as clutter:

Stuff that is unused, unloved, unnecessary or just plain messy; like stacks of junk mail or old magazines.

Stuff that just gets you down, consciously or unconsciously; like disheartening books or unfinished projects that you know you’ll never get to so they make you feel a guilty sense of obligation every time you see them.

Then there is the stuff that depletes you; like photos of people who disapprove of you, objects from past relationships, gifts you’ve kept only out of a sense of obligation.

And, of course, there’s the stuff that was relevant at one time in your life, but just isn’t any more so it takes up space and keeps you rooted in the past.

My husband and I thought, “You know, it’s really time to do this.” We decided to take on the whole house – every cabinet, every closet, every drawer, every shelf, every room.

Now, this is really not as straight-forward a task as one might think. There is a reason why every object stuffed in its place is stuffed there. And in order to decide whether to keep something or clear it out, you have to look at why you’ve got it in the first place! The answer is almost always an emotional one. Fortunately, the book warned us about this?

There’s the stuff we keep because we love it, we use it, it makes us feel good, or it has an enriching memory attached to it.

Then there’s the all the other stuff.

The stuff we keep out of fear that we, or someone else, will need it someday; or aunt so-and-so would just die if we didn’t keep it; or it’s associated with a past memory or identity that doesn’t serve us anymore but we just can’t let go.

So, with all this in mind, we rolled up our sleeves and began one room or cabinet at a time.

Over the course of two months we took carloads of stuff to Goodwill or Half Price Books, sold stuff on Craig’s List, or simply threw it away. Finally what was left was stuff that we love and use and know why we’ve kept it. The house seems to be breathing a sigh, “Thank you.”

It seems a simple task, but what happened was absolutely profound and could not be predicted. Each bit-of-stuff asked me to examine what I hold onto inside my heart or mind that enhances life and what I hold onto that really drags life down; what associations, what thought patterns, what values, what identities serve me well, and which ones keep healthy growth at bay. It was a gift; one that I’ll be mulling over for a long time.

Now for the rest of this sermon, I need to own up to the fact that I’m going to try to persuade you of something. I’m going to try to persuade you that it’s good, even essential, for human beings to regularly let go of things in order to let new life in. And I’m going to try to persuade you that we know that already. See what you think. It’s up to you.

The plant world lets go so gracefully with an innate trust that after a time of rest, vital life will come.

Humans, though, we have trouble with that. We tend to hang on to so much stuff both literally and figuratively. It eventually weighs us down or stagnates; and still we hang onto it out of fear or habit or pride or unconsciousness. It makes it darn near impossible for fresh life to find a place to root inside of us and grow.

What would happen if we followed the plant-world’s lead and regularly took inventory to let go of the things that, if we’re honest with ourselves, we know we need to let go of? What would life be like if we trusted it to know what we need and return to us fresh new vitality? I’m really not talking about physical objects here – that’s just a means of finding out what’s deeper. I’m talking about our minds and our hearts and our souls.

I think that human nature and the culture we live in make that hard to do.

Our culture values productivity – or at least busyness. We call it the “American Work Ethic,” and there’s a lot of pressure to live up to it. But it takes a seriously intentional slowing down to be able to take an internal inventory.

Notice the messages we get just from television commercials. I remember a commercial from a couple of years ago with a business woman on a subway. She looks tired but satisfied. The time is printed on the screen – 10:30 pm. The voice-over says something like, “Always make sure that your investment banker is familiar with the last train out.” Then the name of the company appears on the screen and the narrator boasts about how much their employees work for you.

Any time that I saw that commercial, I found myself thinking: If their investment bankers are regularly working from dawn to beyond dusk, what’s happening to the rest of their life?

It’s easy to think that we need to keep moving so fast that we don’t have time to pause to figure out what to let go of. So we keep accumulating. We accumulate stress, fears, guilt, resentments, stubborn pride, grief, judgments.

Of course, we accumulate joy and laughter and enrichment and delight as well.

But think about a body of water that has no outlet. Fresh water may have entered the pool, but with no outlet, even that water stagnates and becomes toxic. In the Ancient Near East, people called flowing water, “living water.” I suppose that would make non-flowing water, “lifeless.” I like that image. When we allow our spirits to flow, we are full of life. When we don’t everything deadens a bit.

So we accumulate objects, people, achievements, identities, habits, thought patterns, emotions, and if we don’t consciously sort these things out sometimes and let some go, they take over our lives and we become frustrated without knowing why.

I’m reminded of a story about two Buddhist monks who were on a journey. They came to a river which they had to cross. A woman was there who also needed to cross the river. The elder of the monks picked her up with her consent, carried her across, set her down on the other side and they went their own ways. At the end of the day’s journey, the younger monk was seething. “Why did you carry that woman across the river?!” he demanded. “You know we’re not supposed to touch a woman!” The other monk just smiled, “I left her back at the river. Why are you still carrying her?”

Perhaps the most dangerous things we accumulate are voices. Yes, voices; the ones that tell us:

You’re not good enough to _____(You fill in the blank)

If you were really a good person you would…

– Behave a certain way

– Be involved in certain activities

– Achieve certain accomplishments

– Make a certain amount of money

– Be interested in certain things

The list goes on

You are only acceptable if _____?

Your life is only worthwhile if_____?

You can only be loved if_____?

When we’re not conscious of those voices, we’re driven each day to satiate them. And they’re insatiable. We’re driven to constantly attempt to live someone else’s idea for our life instead of living our own.

I think these voices are the most dangerous things we accumulate because they keep us from the absolutely holy task of living our lives, our lives, authentically.

I think the most important kind of clutter clearing we can do is to quiet enough to become conscious of these voices, figure out who they really belong to (a parent, a teacher, our culture?) and then learn how to release them.

These are not the voices of our higher selves. New life cannot come without letting them go. They kill us one cell at a time.

You’ll notice that the title of this sermon is, “Listening to the whispers.” It’s part of a quote that says, “We need to listen to the whispers of our higher selves so that we don’t have to hear the screams.” We can each imagine what forms the screams can take.

I think that our higher selves know that it is essential to follow the lead of the autumn trees. They whisper,

Let go.

Let go of the voices, the fears.

Let go so you can rest from what incessantly drives you to live a life

that is not your own.

Let go to make way for fresh life to fill you.

I love this time of year.

The air seems to be energized with promise.

Soon the leaves will flutter down and blow around our feet. Tree limbs will be bare and the soft sunlight of winter will stream through them. It’s a time energized with promise because it’s when nature intentionally lets go of things it needs to let go of. It seems to snuggle into the earth to rest. And then when the time is right, it will wake up, stretch its limbs, and flood with new life.

Happy autumn.

The Religious Instinct and Modern Civilization- Gary Bennett

© Gary Bennett

October 22, 2006

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

SERMON

Imagine this: you are surrounded by loved ones, without inflated egos or scrambling for rank, wealth and power. Private property is limited to the decorative or personal. There is no “marrying or being given into marriage,” at least not as an economic unit. There is plenty to do, but it is meaningful. You labor until the task is done; then everybody rests or celebrates. You feel pleasantly tired, doing work your body was designed to do, without grinding you down. Fruits and nuts are there to be picked from the trees and bushes; game is plentiful. The land flows with milk and honey in Earth’s Great Garden. Best of all is the sharing with close friends of poems, stories, gossip, jokes; discreet flirtations and wild romances; mountaintop experiences of shared religious ecstasy or the serenity that comes from deep understanding.

This may not be your vision of Paradise, but it has commonly been so for peoples throughout the ages. Some, like the Jews and Greeks, had it as the Golden Age at the beginning of the world; others, like Christians, Moslems and Marxists, made it the outcome at the end of History.

The Greeks might insist Eternity is only for souls stripped of all human traits; Christians might fill up Heaven with activities that bore us silly on Earth. But there is a part of us that deeply craves a proper existence, one we never seem to get in this life, of intimacy, acceptance and meaning. This Heaven also resembles the reality of hunter/gatherer life for millions of years of our ancestors, at least “on a good day;” there were ups and downs, times when the game was scarce, the berries poisoned, the milk soured and the honey got you stung.

The Serpent in the Garden brought agriculture, starting about 10,000 years ago. It did not win because it was attractive to the tribes: the originally nomadic Hebrews called it the “curse of Adam;” and farming cultures have often lived in fear of having their own children “go native.” Agriculture won out nonetheless because it could support far larger populations.

Human nature was shaped in a fiery caldron. Without a strongly cohesive band of adults watching over the young and passing on skills and lore, humans were the most helpless of animal species; with such bonds in place, humans were so successful that they could think about other matters beyond survival. Our normal behavior does not make sense in a usual Darwinian model – why do we spend time gossiping with neighbors instead of foraging for dinner? – unless we understand that it is the result of ages of strong selective pressure for socialization. There were several different genetic adaptations toward this end, including a retooling of sexual behavior and a hard-wiring of language abilities. Religion was also part of this species makeover.

Part of our religious instinct reinforces group bonding. Religious cravings can only be satisfied by group participation. Have you ever wondered why you wonder?

All of us desire to understand our place in the scheme of things. Why am I here? What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? How was the world created? How will it end? Why do evils like drought, scarce food, disease and dangerous animals exist? What are thunder and lightning? Tell me about death and what comes after.

The fact that we consider these questions important is rather odd. No other animals ponder such questions: they do not enhance survival. Yes, all animals attempt to avoid danger and death, but mostly by instinct. Thinking about death, fearing it, obsessing over it, does not make humans more likely to survive; brooding about death may even decrease survival chances.

But our questions cry for answers, and to get them we need other people, if only to reassure us – thus we bond to get something we need. The road to serenity is found in The Mysteries, rituals that promote secret and sure understanding. Today we claim to value scientific knowledge, but science is always tentative, and it does not satisfy the soul. You can’t make a religion out of science, as the content keeps changing, new explanations replace the old, and lack of absolute certainty leads to anxiety.

The Mysteries are sometimes physically addictive. We lose ourselves in them; the sights, the sounds, even the smells stimulate the senses. Sex and mind-altering drugs could enhance the mood of religious ecstasy. In America we have had Jim Jones, David Koresh, Philadelphia’s MOVE and the Comet Cult; each exercised psychic power over adherents to the point of mass suicide.

But for many, serenity itself is the sweetest gift, the “peace that passeth understanding.” And none of this makes any sense whatsoever in conventional Darwinian terms; objective knowledge of the real world should always beat fantasy and thus lead to higher survival rates, while the delusional self-destruct and do not leave progeny behind.

Let’s look at the underlying problem. Selfish behavior will always produce more progeny than unselfish behavior; so it should always be selected for, even in social species. Cheaters should out-breed cooperators; those who live to fight another day should inherit the earth, tearing it from the cold dead hands of the brave and self-sacrificing.

Sociability should be steadily undermined, until it pushes a social species to extinction. Bees and ants found one workaround: cooperation, hard work, altruism and self-sacrifice on the part of workers do not result in fewer progeny, because workers are always infertile; those traits are of value to the queen; so the queen which passes on the most altruistic genes to her workers will have an edge.

Our human ancestors took another path. Perhaps the original method of selection was simple: if your tribe got too anti-social, it would drop out of the gene pool, and leave a niche for tribes that hadn’t. But religion is a more elegant response.

We are wired to carry within ourselves an image of what society and pro-social behavior should be, idealized images from our childhood – unselfish cooperation and affection among members of the group. Some of us may be more tolerant and flexible than others, but all are wired to defer to “elders” who feel and express the “conservative images” most strongly. Reactions are triggered by extremely selfish or antisocial behavior; the group takes action against the deviant, through ostracism, exile or even death, but in any case exclusion from the gene pool. Extraordinary courage and sacrifice are also socially reinforced : “none but the brave deserve the fair,” we say. In hunter/gatherer society, these mechanisms kept human sociability, cooperation and altruism stable over vast ages.

In the change to herding and farming, there were many dramatic changes, but the fundamentals of relationships changed little: it took a village instead of a tribe to raise a child; there was still a rough equality of wealth and status; religion continued to be a shared monitoring for selfish behavior.

But by 3300 BC, cities had begun to appear in Mesopotamia, piling village on village, plus those bereft of any community; in this chaos, tribal mechanisms no longer worked. The first rulers were priest-kings, originally bureaucrats handling religious rites. Religious control became political control. Non-orthodoxy was treason; religion kept citizens obedient. Reciprocity of rights and responsibilities, an integral part of human society from its origins, was gone. Some people became tools to be used by others; and the earliest human governments were among the most despotic that have ever existed.

Thus began “status quo religion,” the use of human religious instincts for the benefit of an elite. Thousands of years later Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, hoping the piety of the Christians would shore up a decaying civil society. Before the American Civil War, Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches split nationally, with their Southern branches remaining loyal to slavery and the planter class. And then came the modern Religious Right.

Fundamentalism among evangelical Protestants dates to the early part of the 20th century as a reaction against Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. William Jennings Bryan might be a political liberal; but as the most respected Biblical literalist of his day, he was dragooned into being spokesman for that cause and became branded forever, not as one of our heroes, but as the foolish villain of Inherit the Wind. For all that, fundamentalism was still a fringe movement in my youth. In the “60s Nixon initiated the first “wedge issue” campaign, his “Silent Majority.”

His successors in the “70s brought modern business techniques to creation of a religious right machine: mailing lists were assembled; evangelical ministers and conservative Catholic clergy were courted and tempted with power; conservative denominations like Southern Baptists were hijacked by coups, engineered by new corporate style megachurches. Conservative Protestants and Catholics, whose predecessors had spent the last 400 years trying to exterminate each other, were forged into uneasy political alliance by Radical Right apparachiks. So began the modern campaign to use status quo religion to help forge an American Fascist Movement.

Where the religious instinct originally was used to monitor the behavior of people close to you, wedge issue politics today use modern advertising methods, mass media and coordinated attacks to arouse anxieties and feed off them by generating an endless succession of issues, each painted as a spontaneous reaction to some incredible attack on values. News and entertainment media have long been used to this end; they make grisly crime stories their meat, as the public can be entertained indefinitely in anticipating an equally grisly vengeance, while coming to fear their own communities.

But modern propaganda techniques have also managed to elevate to the highest levels of public importance such things as never ending wars on drugs, wardrobe malfunctions, celebrity peccadilloes, steroids in sports, taking the X out of Xmas, teaching science in science class or sex in health class, and in fact almost anything which might suggest that sex continues to exist and motivate human beings, yea even unto the current generation.

The Terry Schiavo case is wedge issue politics at its most obscene. Her higher brain cells were long dead, and she had been in the limbo of a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. An army of doctors supported this diagnosis; an endless array of judges supported her husband’s right to terminate medical intervention.

But what was the message delivered by television news coverage? Doctored video footage was played over and over, an endless stream of libelous attacks on her husband’s character were shown, all trying to persuade us that this was a vibrant young woman on the verge of waking up, yet subjected to a slow tortured death by inhuman secular liberals. Attacks on the Constitution, death threats against judges, laws riding roughshod over separation of powers and Federal/state divisions, laws aimed at specific individuals; most frightening of all, the total disappearance of any principled opposition in Congress, leaving judicial integrity as the only barrier against government gangsterism.

The roles played by news media and government officials would until recent times have been unthinkable; now they are routine, expected. Some believe the Right overplayed its hand because polls say three-quarters of the American public disapproved; but the experience of recent politics says that the frenzied faithful have long memories and turn out in elections, whereas most of the three-quarters would forget the whole business in a month.

In what was once the world’s premier democracy, these become the stuff of the news and of public discussion, replacing health care, job creation and disappearance, deficits in government budgets and in the balance of trade, Social Security prospects, war, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, population growth and the depletion of the world’s resources.

The point of wedge issue politics is not to solve problems, for a problem solved is an issue lost; it is to keep the passions constantly at a fever pitch and so overwhelm the democratic process. Rational discussion, even on areas of profound disagreement, is the lifeblood of democracy, but it is poison to status quo religion. Your opponents must be painted as deviants and perverts, not even fully human; their very existence fuels your outrage.

If status quo religion were all that remained of our instinct, we might conclude that religion had become a dangerous atavism, that we would be better off in a totally secular world. Many liberals seem to have reached such a position: for them, secular vs. religious means enlightened vs. troglodyte or even good vs. evil.

That’s pretty much what the fashionable blue state/red state thing is all about – people on both sides of the political fence who believe that wedge issue exploitation is the only way that religion can be part of politics. But status quo religion is a perversion, not the impulse itself. The standard by which hunter/gatherer humans judged each other was not just an idealized world of their own childhoods; it was an unchanging image of cooperation, unselfishness and intimacy. History is filled with prophets who judged their societies not by the desires of rulers, but against the ideal vision of life we carry within us.

When the power of a prophet’s voice matches the strength of his convictions, the world trembles, and sometimes it changes. The prophets of ancient Israel attacked their societies in times of social and economic injustice. “Woe unto those who are at ease in Zion,” said one; of others, it was said that they comforted the afflicted and afflicted the comfortable.

Judaism gained a commitment to social action it has never lost. Jesus argued for a life built on love and compassion, sought out the company of losers, pariahs, lepers and prostitutes, and announced that it were easier “for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Early Christians often lived in other-worldly hippie-type communes. Much the same happened with early Islam; and social justice has been a central part of that religion ever since, even more so than in Christianity.

In America, the power of prophetic religion has produced major positive changes at least three times. In the years before the Civil War, most Bible-thumpers who tackled the issue at all were against slavery: some courageously faced death in delivering their message.

Two generations later, in a time disturbingly like our own, with both political parties owned by corporate money, with corruption, cynicism and despair everywhere, a young William Jennings Bryan – yes, he of the Scopes Trial – electrified the Democratic Convention of 1896 with a politically grounded, religiously impassioned keynote speech in which he pleaded that his countrymen not let Mankind be “crucified on a Cross of Gold.” He and his followers made common cause with more secular reformers and recreated the Democrats into a party of reform, arcing from New Freedom through New Deal to Great Society before finally losing their way in the last generation, when they stopped speaking to the needs of the whole nation and started seeing only voting blocs, electoral coalitions, corporate financing and a comfortable status quo.

The third example was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and “60s, when Rev. Martin Luther King and others were able to share with America the vision of a great crusade for justice and equality that went beyond group interest politics. The Segregationist Deep South never got that support from its own ministers, and its cause was lost; even white Southerners understood at the deepest levels that their cause was wrong, and so the battle was already half over.

Would we then be better off without the religious impulse at all? It can be positive as well as negative in political impact. When it is a negative force, as in recent American politics, some other group is usually manipulating religious feelings for its own purposes.

But an equally important question: is there an alternative? We throw around the word “secular”: what does it mean? Is it a good or bad force in the world? The secular has probably been around from the beginning, making up our underlying personality traits, over which selected religious behaviors are superimposed. All of us, even the various kinds of saints, live in the mundane world most of the time, even if for saints, the context of that daily life is shaped by great religious life choices. And religion has in any case been more for ordinary folks than for elites, leading Karl Marx to his cynical comment about religion being the “opiate of the masses.”

But there are now whole cities, states, civilizations where public piety is exceptional and religious arguments unimportant in civil discourse. Some of America’s great cities may have reached such a condition. We can certainly see a sharp dividing line between blue tending Austin and surrounding small towns and rural areas of Texas; and similarly sharp lines could be drawn all over the country, as between Philadelphia and small town Pennsylvania.

Nobody questions that Europe has become quite secular. Europeans and Americans seemed to be on a similar path toward secularism after 1870, but have diverged rather sharply since World War II, perhaps because of our higher birth rates; having children around seems to correlate to stronger religious feelings. Are there consequences?

As a whole, European nations have made better political choices than the United States since 1945; most Quality of Life indices rank many of these countries above us and the gap widens each decade. These choices appear to be from secular moral systems. Yet an increasingly secularized Europe after 1871 was a seed bed for materialism, racism, Social Darwinism, militarism, fascism and communism, ending in slaughters running to the tens of millions in World War I, World War II, Nazi Holocaust and Stalinist purges. Like religious societies, secular ones can make good or bad moral choices.

While I am a “blue? in the present culture wars, I am uncomfortable that racist and Social Darwinist ideas from a dreadful past have slipped back into vogue among liberals. Many believe that the greater Kerry vote in blue states occurred because people in those states are intellectually superior. But demographic analysis shows that the most Republican tending groups were the richest and, in general, more educated groups, just as in every other election.

Neither religion nor a secular outlook automatically leads to doing the right thing. If you are concerned about wedge issue politics, as I am, then work to control big money spending, money that buys politicians in both parties, uses lying and manipulative advertising, undermines independent journalism with phony news channels and phony reporters – these corrupt political practices have much more to do with the decline of American politics than the passions of evangelicals do; and those who spend the money are consummate hypocrites. And if money is so out of control that the integrity of American politics cannot be restored in any conventional way – then perhaps we should all pray for a return of prophetic religion inspired politics – the only vision which cannot be bought or corrupted, cannot be lied to or manipulated, and which cuts through all pretenses, all humbug.

Much of religious evolution in the past 5000 years can be seen as an attempt to regain the certainty we enjoyed in tribal life. In the West, the first attempt was polytheism: every village religion was considered true; but where one story of deceit, seduction or cruelty by the god was a sacred mystery, a pantheon of such stories invited contempt and disbelief. So philosophers offered a God from reason; though their logic went unchallenged for millennia, common people never found it religiously consoling. Christianity brought the Infallible Church, which proved to be run by quite fallible human beings; then the Inerrant Bible, passages of which contradict not only science, morality and common sense, but each other.

If there is a religious instinct, is our knowledge of God also hard-wired? No such luck: look at the diversity of religions. On ultimate matters, we are always left with a leap of faith. Here is my own:I don’t know if there is a God, but I have staked my life on three bedrock beliefs: first, God cannot be a deceiver – if we have been given the ability to unravel the universe, it cannot be merely to trick us; secondly, God cannot be a cosmic sadist, condemning us to damnation; thirdly, God does not depend on our adulation. Deceit, vanity, torture: the worst of traits in human beings; they are unimaginable in what God must be. The patient and humble methods of science are a surer guide to truth than are sacred texts of primitive peoples or arrogant men who claim they are chummy with the Almighty. The universe is billions of years old, developing according to comprehensible laws; humans got the way they are over long ages of evolution by natural selection. Intelligent Design may lie behind it all; but this is not science.

If God doesn’t need our worship nor punish unbelievers, then our creeds may not be life’s most important religious task. If finding the right answer were crucial, we should have been born with the tools to find it, not left with as many dogmas as there are people to dream them up. What we must know is hard-wired: we are here to need, accept and embrace one another; there is no better way to love and honor God, Whom we have not seen, than to love and honor our neighbor, whom we have.

The prophets, including Jesus, have said this: “inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.” I personally do not wish to go back to the Garden of our hunter/gatherer origins. Western Civilization in the last 500 years has enriched human experience immeasurably by its emphasis on the Individual – and we would be diminished to be forced back into the simple life of the tribe. And competitive capitalist economies have unleashed great wealth and innovation, to which we have become rather addicted.

But if the end result of the path our economy, politics and society are on is to turn the whole world into nothing but a vast competitive arena, a war of all against all, with only buying and selling left as a bond between one person and another, then we are on a path to catastrophe, because we are warring against all that made us human in the first place. We shall see an endless succession of rebellions, fundamentalisms, random violence by the alienated, senseless rage everywhere. What our religious sense never stops telling us, the poet W.H. Auden said best: “we must learn to love one another or die.”

Gary Bennett 2006

Demons of the Heart, part 2- Eric Hepburn

And as we realize this about ourselves, let us learn to see it behind the faces of everyone we meet:

– that behind their mask of flesh and blood, is an I that is so much like our own

– that they are also luminous beings, wondrous to behold

– that they too are endowed with a will that struggles to free itself

And may these realizations help us find a way:

– to live together as brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself

– to grow together as kindred spirits on a shared quest for truth

– to decide together to make this world the utopia that it can be

SERMON: Demons of the Heart, Part 2

The sermon that I’ve come to share with you today is based heavily upon the works of three people who I consider modern-day prophets: Martin Luther King Jr., Tenzin Gyatso the 14th Dalai Lama, and Mohandas K. Gandhi. When we think about religion there is a tendency to focus our attention upon the great religious prophets of the distant past, prophets whose context was so radically different from our own that it seems difficult, sometimes even ludicrous, to apply their teachings to our modern lives. So I want to focus on these modern day prophets, who applied the highest teachings to the problems and the situations that they faced right here in the modern world. Hopefully, their example will serve to remind us that the highest ideals of life are not made for pedestals but to govern the hearts and deeds of each one of us?

First I would like to share with you some passages from a Martin Luther King Jr. sermon entitled “loving your enemies”.

The agape form of love is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. It is a love that seeks nothing in return. It is an overflowing love; it’s what theologians would call the love of God working in the lives of men. And when you rise to love on this level, you begin to love men, not because they are likeable, but because God loves them..

When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

And this is what Jesus means? when he says, “Love your enemy.” And it’s significant that he does not say, “Like your enemy.” Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don’t like what they do to me. I don’t like what they say about me and other people. I don’t like their attitudes. I don’t like some of the things they’re doing. I don’t like them. But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody, because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, “Love your enemy.” This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.

I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this was at the very center of Jesus? thinking, is this: that hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil… Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.

There’s another reason why you should love your enemies, and that is because hate distorts the personality of the hater. We usually think of what hate does for the individual hated or the individuals hated or the groups hated. But it is even more tragic, it is even more ruinous and injurious to the individual who hates. You just begin hating somebody, and you will begin to do irrational things. You can’t see straight when you hate. You can’t walk straight when you hate. You can’t stand upright. Your vision is distorted? For the person who hates, the beautiful becomes ugly and the ugly becomes beautiful. For the person who hates, the good becomes bad and the bad becomes good. For the person who hates, the true becomes false and the false becomes true. That’s what hate does.

Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you.

Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them.

And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.”

I’d like to translate some of this traditional Christian language into some terms and ideas that are a little more accessible to those of us who, while having a great respect for the religion of Jesus, do not subscribe to the religion about Jesus.

First, Dr. King relies heavily upon the idea that we love our enemies because God or Jesus loves them. At the core of these assertions, I believe, is not any sort of construct about God being a personality or a father figure or Jesus his sole manifestation in the flesh, but the more fundamental truth of human unity. The more fundamental idea that we members of this human species are brothers and sisters, children of the same universe. The more fundamental idea that our similarities are greater than our differences and that we ultimately struggle for the same things: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Second, I think the idea of agape needs clarification, because every time that the word love is used in this sermon, he means agape. He’s not talking about eros, about erotic love, about the love of beauty, or about the love of attraction. He’s also not talking about philia, about the love of companionship, the love of friendship, or the love of kinship. He is talking about agape, about understanding, redemptive goodwill. He is talking about having a basic feeling, a basic attitude toward all people that acknowledges their basic worth as human beings, that understands that they struggle to be good, just as we do, and that hopes, one day, that they will overcome their inner demons and come to live out the better angels of their nature, just as we have those hopes for ourselves.

Next, I’d like to talk about the attitudes that we take when we are in opposition to others, because what we believe, what we intend in the world has a great impact on how we act, how we are perceived by others, and ultimately, in a karmic sense, on the real outcomes of our action. When we act in opposition to another person or group of people, we have the power to choose this attitude. We could choose to treat them as an enemy, to dehumanize them, to devalue them, to disrespect and marginalize them, then we are trying to defeat them, to destroy or maim or cripple them. This is what Dr. King is arguing against. On the other hand, if our opposition is accompanied by agape, then the intent, the attitude toward the opponent, does not seek defeat, it does not seek destruction, but it seeks redemption. Within the acts of this opposition are nested opportunities for the opponent’s redemption. Within the acts of this opposition are found indications of goodwill, of understanding, and of hope. Underlying these acts of opposition is an obvious foundation of clear morality which calls out to the opponent as a brother or sister. Seeking to defeat an opponent backs them into a corner, opposing them with agape leaves open a door for cooperation where we can join with them to defeat the common problem.

I’d like to turn now to another prophet, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama. Driven from his homeland and his people during the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese, the Dalai Lama has become an international spokesperson for compassion, peace, love, and nonviolence. Despite the tremendous oppression and violence done to the people of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has earnestly and consistently treated the members of the Chinese government with kindness and respect, while publicly condemning the actions of the government. I would like to share with you some of his thoughts on love and enemies.

Love is the desire to see happiness in those who have been deprived of it. We feel compassion toward those who suffer; this is the desire to see them released from their suffering. We habitually feel affection and love for those closest to us and for our friends, but we feel nothing for strangers and even less for those who seek to harm us. This shows that the love for those closest to us is heavily tinged with attachment and desire and that it is partial. Genuine love is not limited to those close to us but extends to all beings, for it is founded on the knowledge that everyone, like us, wishes to find happiness and avoid suffering. Moreover, this extends to all people the right to find happiness and be free of pain. As such, genuine love is impartial and includes everyone without distinction, including our enemies.

As for compassion, we must not confuse it with commiserating pity, for that is tainted with a certain scorn and gives the impression that we consider ourselves superior to those who suffer. True compassion implies the wish to put an end to others’ suffering and a sense of responsibility for those who suffer. This sense of responsibility means that we are committed to finding ways to comfort them in their trouble. True love for our neighbor will be translated into courage and strength. As courage grows, fear abates; this is why kindness and brotherly love are a source of inner strength. The more we develop love for others, the more confidence we will have in ourselves; the more courage we have, the more relaxed and serene we will be.

The opposite of love is malice, the root of all faults. On this basis, how can we define an enemy? Generally, we say an enemy is someone who seeks to harm our person or those who are dear to us, or our possessions; someone, therefore, who opposes or threatens the causes of our contentment and our happiness. When an enemy strikes against our belongings, our friends, or our loved ones, he is striking against our most likely sources of happiness. It would be difficult, however, to affirm that our friends and possessions are the true sources of happiness, because in the end the governing factor is inner peace; it is peace of mind that makes us relaxed and happy, and we become unhappy if we lose it.”

Too often we confuse love with affection and compassion with pity. For what is love, when we have removed all attachment, but the wish for the other’s happiness. And what is compassion, when we have removed all traces of condescension and judgment, but the wish for the other’s healthiness. Love and compassion in the language of the Dalai Lama are tantamount to the agape that MLK spoke of, a genuine expression of goodwill towards all, a hope for their freedom from suffering and for their experience of happiness.

The other aspect of the Dalai Lama’s thought that I think warrants emphasis, is the personal responsibility and ownership that we must take for our own happiness, our own healthiness, our own spiritual development. Because, the key to enlightenment, to love, to compassion is not out there? it is in here. Similarly, the stumbling blocks, the walls, the barriers to enlightenment, the true enemies, are also, in here. And the one power that you have as an individual, the one thing in the whole universe that can never be taken from you, is the power to choose; the power to choose how you view your life, what your priorities are, what you believe in, and how you will live your life within the context that is given to you.

Finally, I would like to share with you some of the words of Mohandas K. Gandhi. For although his prose is not as elegant nor his theology as well articulated as that of Dr. King or the Dalai Lama, Gandhi was a prophet who through his own life made the real possibilities of nonviolent action manifest. His biography stands as a testament to the potential power of each one of us to produce change in the world by living up to the ideals that we hold highest.

Having flung aside the sword, there is nothing except the cup of love which I can offer to those who oppose me. It is by offering that cup that I expect to draw them close to me. I cannot think of permanent enmity between man and man, and believing as I do in the theory of rebirth, I live in the hope that, if not in this birth, in some other birth, I shall be able to hug all humanity in friendly embrace.”

Whenever I see an erring man, I say to myself I have also erred; when I see a lustful man, I say to myself so was I once; and in this way, I feel kinship with every one in the world and feel that I cannot be happy without the humblest of us being happy.

I am too conscious of the imperfections of the species to which I belong to be irritated against any single member thereof. My remedy is to deal with the wrong wherever I see it, not to hurt the wrong-doer, even as I would not like to be hurt for the wrongs I continually do.”

Doesn’t the New Testament say, “If your enemy strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the left?” I have thought about it a great deal. I suspect he meant you must show courage – be willing to take a blow – several blows – to show you will not strike back – nor will you be turned aside . . . And when you do that it calls upon something in human nature – something that makes his hate for you diminish and his respect increase. I think Christ grasped that and I have seen it work.”

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.”

Each of these prophets, each of these men, comes from a different religious tradition. Each of them has been tested severely by the tides of history, by the oppression of their people, by violence in their homeland, and by the constant threat of death against their own lives. And each of them, through their own search for truth, has come up with essentially the same answer:

Begin by looking inside, by taking responsibility for yourself, for your own feelings, your own actions.

Let go of anger and fear before they fester into hatred.

Act against injustice wherever you find it.

Tolerate other people, remember that they are just as flawed as we are.

Treat those who oppose you with the respect and human dignity with which you expect to be treated.

This is their advice, and it’s a tall order. Some might even argue that it is naive, that it isn’t the way the world works. My answer is this: the philosopher applies the power of intellect to describe how the world works, the prophet applies the power of love to describe how the world could work. That is why I call these three men prophets, and that is why I believe that their wisdom is not for pedestals but was meant to govern the hearts and deeds of each one of us?

BENEDICTION

I would like to close today with the quote from Gandhi that called me to do this sermon. I offer it to you as a blessing and as a meditation, in hopes that it may bring you closer to God, however you define it.

“the only devils in the world are those running “round in our own hearts, and that is where all our battles ought to be fought.”


Sermon delivered at the First Unitartian Universalist Church of Austin on July 16, 2006 by Eric Hepburn.

Eric Hepburn 2006

The Miracle of Jefferson's Bible

© Scottie McIntyre Johnson

July 9, 2006

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

INTRODUCTION

Back in the days not long ago when the craze was for young born-again Christians to wear those “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelets, some Unitarian Universalist teens started wearing them, too, saying that the initials on their bracelets stood for “What would Jefferson do?”

I submit for your consideration the idea that Jefferson himself would have hoped that response to “What would Jefferson do?” would be very nearly identical to response to “What would Jesus do?”

We Unitarian Universalists sometimes like to claim Thomas Jefferson as one of us. And, I think we can say he was a Unitarian. He was never an official member of a Unitarian church in Charlottesville, his home, because it was a very small town, and there weren’t enough people there who shared his liberal religious views to organize a church. (That sounds familiar to me?) But we do know that while he was vice-president of the United States, he attended Unitarian and Universalist church services in Philadelphia, and he called himself a Unitarian in letters he wrote to various friends, including John Adams (another of our Unitarian U.S. presidents.)

So -I proudly call Thomas Jefferson a Unitarian, too, but just as Jefferson called himself a Unitarian, he also called himself a Christian. He wrote to the famous Universalist minister, Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was also signer of the Declaration of Independence, saying: “I am a Christian, in the only sense [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others?.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in an angry letter to another of his friends: “I am a real Christian.” [Some] “call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said or saw.”

I think Thomas Jefferson’s religious views might be quite consistent with those of many members of the UU Christian Fellowship, which you probably know is a modern-day organization affiliated with the UUA, the Unitarian Universalist Association.

We know that Jefferson wasn’t perfect. His inconsistencies pertaining to matters of race and, in particular the issue of slavery, have somewhat tarnished his image, of late. Perhaps Jesus was perfect. Thomas Jefferson thought he was, that Jesus was. Unfortunately for Jefferson, the historical record and DNA evidence on him is available, and so we know he was just an imperfect human being.

But, perhaps we could all do worse than to ask ourselves – as we make our decisions at the supermarket, at the mall, at the auto dealership, in the voting booth – we could all do a lot worse than to ask ourselves “What would Jefferson do?”

SERMON

A few months ago, there was a short article in the “Religion” section of The Dallas Morning News, “one in an occasional series on the spiritual lives of historical figures?, the column said. This one was about Thomas Jefferson and specifically, the little book he complied that has come to be called The Jefferson Bible.

I was delighted to see the article because a copy of The Jefferson Bible was the first purchases I ever made from Beacon Press, the publishing house of our Unitarian Universalist Association. I’ve always liked American history, especially the early periods up through the Civil War, and I now love the fact that both the Unitarian and the Universalist streams of our modern UU faith flowed so abundantly throughout the early American landscape, helping to water the fields from which sprang the fragrant blossoms of liberty and justice.

And I happen to pretty much agree with Thomas Jefferson’s take on Jesus of Nazareth, so, of course, I’m going to like Jefferson’s Bible – and many UUs seem to like it.

As I said in my Offertory words, Jefferson was raised an Anglican, but as a student at William and Mary College, he was introduced to philosophy and church history, and was influenced by the English deists who put forth the notion of a Creator God who set the world in motion, and then stepped back, to interfere no more in its workings. But Jefferson did not remain a deist throughout his life.

During his tenure as John Adams’ vice-president, (1797-1801) he became quite friendly with Dr. Benjamin Rush, a medical doctor and out-spoken Universalist. He and Jefferson had what Jefferson described as many “delightful conversations?, about the Christian religion.

Around this same time, (1796) Joseph Priestly, the English clergyman and scientist who you may remember as having discovered oxygen, came to Philadelphia and established the first church in America to be founded as a Unitarian church from its beginning.

Priestly had been a Unitarian clergyman back in England, and when his home and laboratory were burned to the ground, at least partly because of his unorthodox religious views, Priestly was invited by Benjamin Franklin to come find safe haven in the United States, in Philadelphia, and he did.

Thomas Jefferson visited Joseph Priestley’s Unitarian church and heard him preach. It’s possible that Jefferson may have had a similar reaction to what I’ve heard described many times by many of us when we talk about our first visit to a UU church. That he couldn’t quite believe someone was actually up in a pulpit preaching the unconventional notions, considered blasphemous by most, that he had come to believe on his own! Jefferson developed quite a friendship with Joseph Priestly, and their conversations and correspondence solidified Jefferson’s Unitarian views, and in fact, caused him to re-examine the value of Christianity, from which he had by then become alienated and removed.

Always a free-thinker and one who came to his conclusions based on evidence and the careful reasoning of his own mind, under the influence of Priestly and Rush, the Unitarian and the Universalist, Jefferson turned his attentions again to the New Testament Gospels he had, of course, studied as a youth. “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; (Jefferson wrote to Rush), but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.”

Jefferson had come to believe that Jesus exhibited (quote) “the most benevolent, and the most eloquent and sublime character that has ever been exhibited to man” whose “system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has ever been taught”, (unquote) but Jefferson rejected as contrary to evidence and reason, and to the very intentions of Jesus himself, any belief in Jesus’ divinity.

Like Priestly and other Unitarians before him, Jefferson thought that the Gospel texts had been corrupted in transmission, both naturally by time and human error and intentionally by those in the early Christian church who had sought to increase their power and status by making the new religion more popular to non-Jewish converts by grafting onto it elements of Greek sophistry and Roman mysticism. Jefferson proposed to purify the Gospels of Jesus by ridding them of those things he saw as corruptions, although he did not actually complete this task until well into his life in the year 1820, at the age of 77, some 6 years before his death.

And, how did he finally do that? There is a Garrison Keillor joke you may have heard about the notice posted for am adult r.e. class in a Unitarian Church that said, “Bible Study Begins Next Week. Bring your Bibles – and your scissors.” Well, that’s literally what Thomas Jefferson did!

Using two copies each of Greek, Latin, French and English translations of the four Gospels, Jefferson took a razor and physically cut from the pages any references to supernatural occurrences – no virgin birth, no angels in the sky, at the beginning. No walking on water or feeding the multitudes in the middle. And, certainly most disturbing of all for orthodox Christians, no resurrection at the end.

And then, Jefferson pasted into a blank book those parts of the story he thought could be true. He left in what seemed to him to be the plausible facts about Jesus’ life. He also combined the 4 narratives into a single chronological story. He, of course, left in all the sayings and moral teachings he believed Jesus had said. Jefferson described this work (and these are his words, not mine) as separating “diamonds from the dunghill?.

And what did Jefferson leave himself and us with after all his snipping and pasting? I return to the Dallas Morning News article I mentioned at the beginning which quotes Catholic author and historian Garry Wills (with whom I frequently agree) as saying that although Jefferson’s Gospel tells the tale of “a good man, a very good man, perhaps the best of good men,” this Jesus is “boring, utterly without mystery”, “shorn of his paradoxes and left with platitudes.”

I beg to differ with Garry Wills and to agree with Thomas Jefferson. If, in his religious searching, Gary Wills has come to believe in Jesus the Christ, born of the virgin Mary, risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, neither Jefferson nor I would try to change his mind – or yours, should those be your beliefs. Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

I believe that this pulpit is different from others in that my job up here is not to try to convince you of anything. You are the authority when it comes to your own religious beliefs. Religion is different from science in that we cannot know, we will not know, in this life at least, what is “true” and what is not. “For now we see through a glass darkly?.

So I am here only to share with you my perspective, and you may use it to inform your own, in some way, if you wish, so, this is what I think: I do not find Jefferson’s human Jesus “boring, without mystery?, “shorn of his paradoxes and left with platitudes.”

I personally have no need of supernatural beings when miracles are all around me. To me, nothing could be more miraculous than the natural world. No revelation from God could be more astonishing than the reasonable and demonstrative fact that an ordinary human mind, or minds, somehow devised the radical and elegant prescriptions for living that have been passed down to us as the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Seek always justice. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. The truly valuable things in life are not material things. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Treat the least among you as if he or she were the messiah. Look around you, for the Kingdom of God is at hand if only you have eyes to see it. Platitudes? No, I don’t think so.

Thomas Jefferson also knew how much easier it is to espouse a religion about Jesus than it is to live out the religion of Jesus. And the miracle, my friends, what I see as the miracle, anyway, is the religion of Jesus. A description of a way of living that puts others ahead of self, peacemaking ahead of violence, compassion and forgiveness ahead of self-righteousness and revenge.

Now, I don’t always live my life that way. Neither did Thomas Jefferson. But, I find that by looking at Jesus as Thomas Jefferson did in his Bible, as a human being, but an extraordinary human being with a visionary message delivered with powerful eloquence, I, just like Jefferson before me, can now reclaim a part of my religious past – no longer to be throwing out a beautiful baby with the implausible bathwater I still can’t swallow – to mix a metaphor or two.

And, just like Jefferson, late in my life, I am coming to appreciate anew those figurative diamonds he literally cut and pasted into this little document to serve as a description of the beautiful way of living in harmony with all of creation that Jesus spoke about.

And, so this morning I am moved to say: Thank you, Jesus! And thank you, Thomas Jefferson. And Benjamin Rush and Joseph Priestly and all the rest of you brave and noble and reasonable Unitarians and Universalists down through the centuries. Your clear and compassionate thinking is the miracle. You are the miracles. We are all the miracles.

Amen.

Scottie McIntyre Johnson 2006