Daily Practice Makes Perfect

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Jonobie Ford

27 June 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

PRAYER

Heaven is not reached in a single bound,

But we build the ladder by which we rise

From the lowly earth to the vaulted skies,

And we mount to its summit round by round.

I count this thing to be grandly true:

That a noble deed is a step toward God –

Lifting the soul from the common clod

To a purer air and a broader view.

SERMON: Daily Practice Makes Perfect

Jack Kornfield’s book, After the Ecstasy, the Laundry, tells of a young man returning to the West. For the past twelve years, the man has been living a devoted religious life in India and Tibet. He’s in for a bit of culture shock in this re-integration; instead of strict schedules of meditation, intense daily focus on religion, and a community of similar believers, he finds himself lost and adrift in his old, chaotic world. Old patterns of living come back suprisingly quickly. He becomes irritable, confused, and angry. He starts worrying about money. And he begins to wonder whether he’s lost all that he’s learned in these past twelve years. And suddenly, in a flash of inspiration, he realizes:

“I can’t live in some enlightened memory. Spiritual practice is only what I’m doing, right now. Anything else is a fantasy.”

“Anything else is fantasy” — what a strong statement! But I think he’s got it right: Our religion is what we do, each and every day. And one way to focus on what we want to do, to make our daily decisions while keeping in mind these ultimate concerns in life, is to spend time with our religion each day.

I say “daily”, although perhaps “frequent” is a better term. Not all of us can or want to make time for daily practice. But daily practice need not be something that’s eternal. Like many things, some seasons of our lives may call for more focus on religion than others. Daily practice has many benefits, and trying it for a couple of weeks, or months, or even years, can produce some suprising results.

I had a somewhat impromptu daily practice a couple of months ago while writing my affirmations of faith. Each evening for several weeks prior to the service, I sat down at my computer, lit a small candle that I frequently use for rituals, and tried to compose understandable descriptions of what I believed.

The act of dedicating time to religion each evening made me go through the next day thinking about ways I could implement my religious beliefs. It sounds so simple, but I really think that doing a daily practice helps me be a nicer person. I start thinking about how others fit into the breath of life, and how we’re all in this together, and I’m more likely to see people as, well, people, and not just roles.

While I was writing my first affirmation of faith, I was also at a very busy point in my project at work. There was a coworker who had been frustrating me for the past couple of months. One day, after he had just complained to my boss’ boss about a decision I’d made, I was venting about this to my office mate. I actually stopped mid-word in my rant as my brain bubbled “Wow, you’re a hypocrite!” to the surface of my thoughts. Here I was, each evening, writing up lofty ideas about people being part of the breath of life, and how we’re all in this together, and yet, during the day, I hadn’t noticed that this guy was just like me. I’d just been seeing him as this thing that was in my way — not as a person who was just trying to do his job the best he could, just as I was. I might have thought of that without my daily practice, but I’m not so sure. I certainly hadn’t thought of it up until that point — this was not my first rant. And after this mid-rant revelation, I began to interact with him differently, and to actually listen to him, rather than to have my first reaction be annoyance. We ended up being allies, if not exactly friends, by the end of the project.

Daily practice looks different for different people. One couple I know prays a rosary together daily. Another person, a chronic insomniac, meditates each night when she wakes up and can no longer sleep. Yet another person speaks of studying Hebrew and religious scripture each day. My husband and I take turns saying grace at dinner. We all do our practice differently, but the sentiment is the same: Alone, or with others, we spend some time each day reminding ourselves about the ideas we hold most dear.

Regardless of exactly what the practice looks like, it’s clear a lot of people use a daily religious practice, or at least think it’s a good idea. I did a Google search on the phrase “daily spiritual practice” and came up with over 800,000 hits. That’s a lot of talk about daily practice!

Here, in a UU organization, we don’t seem to talk about daily religious practice much. I’m not sure why that is; it may be because we shy away from the notion of doing things that are overtly religious, or it may be because many of us don’t see any value in it. After all, much of the world talks about daily religious practice in terms that don’t work for some of us, by talking of making offerings to Gods, praying, and so forth. It may also just be because we’re busy people and don’t feel we have the time.

But daily religious practice holds a lot of value, even for followers of a liberal religion. There are a whole host of benefits that come from spending part of each day focusing on whatever it is that brings you here, to this church. Is there something you used to do that you don’t anymore, such as journaling, writing, poetry, praying, or taking a morning walk? Maybe it’s time to think about picking it back up again. Summer, with its more relaxed pace, is a great time to return to a daily practice.

While I was preparing for this service, Davidson shared with me an old preacher’s story. In it, two people are talking after church.

One says: “That sermon didn’t have much in it. In fact, most sermons don’t have much in them. I don’t know why I keep coming.”

And the other person replies, “Yes, I’ve found that meals are that way, too. Each one, taken by itself, doesn’t have too much. But if I skipped them all, I don’t think I’d do well. So I’ve decided that the effect of worship services, like the effect of meals, isn’t to seek feasts, but to get in the habit of nourishing myself regularly.”

There’s actually some good, solid evidence that frequent spiritual nourishment is good for us. Although the highly hyped studies describing the value of remote prayer (where other people pray for you) are scientifically suspect, there is evidence that frequent personal practice is healthy. For instance, one study of 1,000 seriously ill men in Veterans Administration hospitals found that “religious coping” — a method that includes frequent personal prayer — decreased depression. In another study, overseen by Duke University researchers, subjects who both attended worship services and prayed had lower blood pressure than a control group. Participants who prayed or studied the Bible daily were 40% less likely to have high blood pressure. Some people might claim that this study somehow proves Christianity’s correctness; given that I found similar studies for meditation and chanting, I’m inclined to say it’s the practice of focusing on religion each day, regardless of exactly what that practice is. Well, almost. An interesting tidbit from that same study: “Those who frequently watched religious TV or [listened] to religious radio actually had higher blood pressures.” I’m not surprised; Jerry Falwell makes my blood pressure rise, too.

At-home religious practice is also helpful for those of us still deciding what religious ideas to make our own. It gives us a safe place to try out and test different ideas. For me, my daily practice has helped refine my theology. For example, I’d always been dubious about praying for other people. After all, I believe that my Gods rarely, if ever, interact with the world in material ways.

When I first began following a daily practice, I found it easiest to use a book of daily devotions.[1] All the devotions in the book include a section for prayers for other people — for example, one directs the reader to pray for people who pollute the earth, while another one suggests praying for those who are refugees or without a home. When I began, I almost skipped doing them. I decided to temporarily leave the prayers in, figuring I shouldn’t remove them on the basis of previous prejudices.

I later realized I didn’t want to remove them. I still didn’t really think praying caused any sort of supernatural action in the lives of the people I was praying for, but prayer had become a way of focusing my attention. In fact, after praying for people, I felt more compassion for those I had prayed for. I wanted to interact with, support, honor, or help them in real ways, not just by thinking about them in the solace of my home. I tried to reduce my pollution by cultivating a worm bin in my apartment, and it now turns most of my previously-discarded kitchen scraps into compost. I also became more involved here at the church, both personally and financially. And I realized that any practice that takes my faith from inside my head into action in the world is a practice that’s powerful and worth retaining, regardless of my discomfort with the word “prayer”.

Daily practice is also just practice at being religious. Just as practicing a piano piece can ingrain the memory of it into your fingers, practicing being religious helps set it into you more firmly. When I first began a daily practice, I was at a really tumultuous time in my life. I was beginning my first job, and I had no idea if I was doing what I wanted to do. I don’t know if it’s this way for everyone, but my first job was when it really hit me — I suddenly knew what “the daily grind” meant. Dilbert, once somewhat incomprehensible, suddenly became hilarious. It sounds hopelessly naive now, but I really think I had the idea that a person went comfortably from out of school into a dream job, and would automatically become a highly respected member of the workforce. Instead, I was hurtling into a whole new world, I was off the tidy little life-plan I had devised for myself, and I was terrified.

Looking back, I can see that if religion is “what I’m doing now”, in the words of the Buddhist Lama, I didn’t have much of a religion at all those days. And even then, I realized that I needed a way to center myself, and to focus on who I was and what was important to me, every day. It felt like I was in danger of losing that, otherwise. My daily practice became part of the “ladder that took me to a broader view”, that reminded me that there was more to life than driving to work, working a long day, and driving back home, exhausted.

In the beginning, daily practice was relatively easy, particularly because it started shortly after I began seriously exploring religion. There was so much new information to read, absorb, and try, that my practice naturally was frequent and enthusiastic. But once my religion and my job become more comfortable, it was harder. While there was still much to learn and absorb, the freshness and enthusiasm began to fade. But I also realized that, in the words of the Lama returning to the west, religion isn’t some memory of past enlightenment — or memory of freshness and enthusiasm, it’s what I’m doing now, each and every day.

I’m told that our hunter-gatherer ancestors would often go without food for days, and then gorge themselves when they had a successful hunt. Like the people in Davidson’s story, it’s easy to slip into thinking about religion in this way, as though we’re waiting for one really good sermon to feed us for a month. But our ancestors realized that it was better to get in the habit of eating small daily meals, just as we still do, and it keeps us nourished all the time. Maybe part of being always nourished is to bring our religion out of the realm of what Kornfield’s Lama calls “fantasy” and down to the earth in our daily lives.

I haven’t tried to feed you a huge feast today, and I’m not sure I’d know how. Nor have I wanted to offer you “fast food”. I wanted to bring you some spiritual appetizers — a little nourishment for your souls on this hot summer day. Maybe it’s a little like Chinese food, and you’ll be hungry again in a few hours. I hope so. Because if we all keep coming back for Sunday snacks, we might grow into the habit of eating spiritual food between meals. And in the long run, you know, that’s a lot like living at a feast.

 [1] Celtic Devotional: Daily Prayers & Blessings, by Caitlin Matthews

Tolerance – Annual Youth Service

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Davidson Loehr

Ian Reed

Will Boney

13 June 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

CENTERING

Ian Reed

In the presence of the power of this congregation,

 In the presence of the warming chalice,

 We gather here to search and to reflect,

 On the beauty and power in this room.

HOMILY: Tolerance

Ian Reed

We gather here today, in this room, in front of this chalice, as a congregation of Religious liberals looking for a greater truth. And right here in front of us is one of the most powerful symbolic lesson to be found on that search, our chalice. While it’s origins as pertaining to our faith are rather spiritually empty, being more or less the winner of a glorified design contest, it still remains that the chalice is one of the most potent religious symbols for any faith. As the oldest recorded symbol for the feminine, the chalice is here to remind us of one of the most important lessons our faith yearns to teach us. That of respecting all of humanity as you respect yourself. One of our strongest principals is to respect the inerrant worth and dignity of every person. Regardless of race, sexual orientation, economic status, or religious affiliation, we have a sacred duty to respect all life, regardless of our disagreements.

The power of this symbol, the power of creation, acceptance, and nurturing, serves as a reminder to us all. This symbol is here to remind us that when we grasp those ideals of tolerance, we have the age old power of the chalice within us.. We must not think of someone’s origins, someone’s family past or religious orientation, we must only think of them as people, for they were all created just like that flame. Gently cradled, and given the spark of life to dance with. This symbol of creation is a reminder to us all that true life comes from this cradling, from this nurturing of the flame. Whether in turn the flame is oil or candle, the person Christian or Jewish, the chalice, the mother gives life to all unconditionally. This is our gift, this is our calling.

My favorite example of that is the biblical story of the good Samaritan. The story goes that there was a man on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho and on his way he unfortunately encountered a band of robbers. These robbers stole all the man’s possessions and beat him to within an inch of his life. So there the poor man lay on the road, while a day’s worth of commuters pass by his way. Much time had passed after the beating when all of a sudden, a kind stranger, identified by Jesus as a friendly Samaritan took it upon himself to help the near dying man. The Samaritan took up the man, bandaged him, bathed him, took him on his back, brought him to the nearest inn, and looked after him for the rest of the day. When the kind Samaritan had to leave the next day, he left two silver pieces with the inn master for the care of the injured man, promising also to repay the innkeeper if the man’s care cost any more. The moral of this story seems to be a simple one of helping your fellow man, but it goes much deeper than that. You see, that Samaritan was not just anybody, for at the time, the Samaritan’s were waging a violent war against the Jews. Thus the lesson herein is much more profound.

Regardless of opinion, regardless of past experience, we must treat all who we encounter with the same tender care. Blood, birth, belief, neither of these truly define a person, or give any justification for harm. The beauty of this story is that it admits this folly, admits the folly of war, the stereotype that all enemies are enemies, that all soldiers are soldiers, even off the battlefield. Respecting the inerrant worth and dignity of every person is just that. We must truly be unconditional with our kindness, for not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every Baptist preaches hellfire and brimstone, not every Catholic is anachronistic, not every Christian wishes to convert us, and not every American is a violent sadist. We must see beyond the labels we create, and respect the person behind them.

The Samaritan was at war with the Jews, and yet he was able to put aside any anger, any prejudice, and simply helped a man in need. The Samaritan did not see the man as a so, as an enemy, as a threat, he just saw a man in need. This is our power as religious liberals. We have the power to see the wonderful myriad of spiritual pathways out there with an unfettered spirit, an unbound mind, and an unobstructed vision. We have no creedal right and wrong, we draw members from all spiritual pathways, from all callings, and we have a gift to see the entire world in that light. We are the Samaritan, we are not bound by thoughts of religious predestiny, of a hell or heaven, we can just see all the world, and all its myriad paths as just that. We can rightly give life to anyone, for that is our strongest calling.

Watching the world like this, without pre-existing fear, hatred, misunderstanding, is our highest good. This is the Samaritan’s true lesson. That when it comes down to every day, to our daily lives, the only thing that matters is seeing past what we are trained to see, and see the man behind the prejudice. We cannot label people by our preconceived notions. Then we become every other passerby we become the ones who let the beaten man lie in the road and die. Our thoughts do have that power. Every time you avoid a Christian because of fear of conversion, you are abandoning them, and denying them crucial companionship. Every time a stranded truck intimidates you a little too much just because of a visible confederate flag, you are denying a man the help he needs. Every time you don’t attend a dinner party with a Hasidic friend for fear of ‘unhealthy’ dinner conversation, you are leaving a good friend based on mere thoughts. We have the power to do many great things with our love, if we can only lean to give it without fear, prejudice, without hesitation. Our greatest gift as a congregation is our love, is our commitment to respecting and understanding the views of all people. If we are willing to accept the lesson of this age old story, and embrace the power of tolerance, of acceptance and understanding, we have the power to be a congregation of good Samaritans, the warmth of the life giving chalice, and when we live up to that potential, let the light of our acceptance shine, we relive that greatness, that warmth, that life saved.

HOMILY: Tolerance

Will Boney

A recent search for tolerance found an organization called Fight Hate and Promote Tolerance. This project has countless resources for someone trying to find out about tolerance. It contains countless examples of tolerance in the news: gay marriage in Massachusetts, the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, etc. And our society has taken large steps towards being a tolerant society in recent years. I recall watching Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago with my parents. For those of you who don’t know it is the story of a young lawyer, Andrew Beckett, who is fired when it becomes apparent that he has become infected with HIV and is therefore, according to the stereotypes of the time, gay. The amazing thing about the movie was the huge amount of change that has occurred with the way normal people in society view HIV and homosexuals. Instead of, as in the movie, it being difficult to find a lawyer willing to represent Beckett due to his homosexuality, the opposite would now be true. My parents and I were amazed when we realized that this movie was made in 1993, a scant 11 years ago. This increase in tolerance has shown up in a myriad of areas, too numerous mention here, from the societal classics of race, religion, etc… to the more mundane aspect of tolerating people who are different from us in our individual, everyday lives. This increase in tolerance has definitely been a good thing. Tolerance is important on two levels: first, the tolerated gain by being tolerated. By being tolerated, they can be accepted into a community and society. As social beings, this acceptance is key to many people’s happiness and self-actualization. The second benefit of tolerance is to the tolerating society on a whole. The tolerance increases the diversity of the society, which countless studies and authorities claim increases some overall quality.

But does this tolerance truly extend to everyone? The previously mentioned organization to Fight Hate and Promote Tolerance reported on many other news stories, including one regarding an ad campaign that was attacking a proposed reality show called “Amish in the City.” The news story sided with the ad campaign, but, to me, this seems the opposite of their declared position for tolerance. The attacking of the proposed show is very intolerant, and yet an organization to promote tolerance supports it. The explanation is easily understandable the show is accused of mocking the Amish, an intolerant act but this position exposes a contradiction, or at least an ambiguity in any doctrine of tolerance. There are likely to be people who do not accept tolerance in all things. How does a tolerant person deal with this? One cannot attempt to force tolerance on them because this goes against the very core idea of tolerance. There seems to be no action or inaction that can be taken by a tolerant person to end this intolerance. They must simply tolerate it. But a tolerant person cannot easily in good conscience ignore them because the intolerance is so offensive. That is one of the great challenges of tolerance: how to tolerate the intolerant.

Another huge challenge of the tolerant is to tolerate everyone. This, I believe, is the biggest obstacle to complete tolerance. Everyone has their morals and ethics; these are the rules people live by that give them guidelines for what they can do and what they can’t do. Tolerance is easy when it is an act that ones morals agree with, still easy when one finds it not too offensive. But how many of us can tolerate the things that we find the most offensive in the world? How many of us are tolerant towards murderers? Rapists? Child molesters? The list goes on. For that is the true test of tolerance: think of the most disgusting, offensive act you can and see if you can tolerate a person that commits that act with no remorse.

And is tolerance really enough? Because tolerance only means that, well, you tolerate it, that you allow it to happen around you and in your community without taking action against it. Tolerance in no way means that you like it, that you encourage it, or that you support those who you tolerate. Instead, you need only ‘grin and bear it’ for tolerance. But is this really what we want in society? A bunch of people who go around merely tolerating each other? Does that really constitute a community, or merely an assortment of people? Acceptance seems more desirable, but much more difficult to achieve. Acceptance would give us a real society, but less diversity. Although the amounts of both can increase some over time, there does seem to be a definite tradeoff between the amount of community and the amount of diversity. Which one is more important is a choice that people will have to make for themselves, but it seems as though we cannot have both.

Watertight Integrity

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

© Matt Tittle

22 February 2004

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button.

READING

As we embark on the subject of integrity this morning, I’d like to start with a reading from early 19th century Universalist minister Hosea Ballou, which I believe, illustrates a liberal religious understanding of integrity:

“I know it is frequently contended that we ought to love God for what God is, and not for what we receive from God; that we ought to love holiness for holiness’s sake, and not for any advantage such a principle is to us. This is what I have often been told, but what I never could see any reason for, or propriety in. I am asked if I love an orange; I answer I never tasted of one; but then I am told I must love the orange for what it is! Now I ask, is it possible for me either to like or dislike the orange, in reality, until I taste it? Well, I taste of it and I like it. Do you like it? says my friend. Yes I reply, its flavor is exquisitely agreeable. But that will not do, says my friend; you must not like it because its taste is agreeable, but you must like it because it is an orange. If there be any propriety in what my friend says, it is out of my sight.”

SERMON

This subject of integrity is a complex one, but at the same time, quite simple. Everyone is FOR integrity, everyone wants to HAVE integrity, everyone demands integrity from others.

When something big is at stake or of ultimate importance, then we insist on integrity. We want our leaders to have impeccable character, we want corporations, and government, and schools, and the church to be institutions that are beyond reproach. But when it comes to the small things, well, then it might be ok to stretch the rules. We learn to fib rather than hold fast to our principles if we believe their might be some benefit, or we don’t think anyone else will suffer. The old adage of “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” is a familiar one. So what if I stretch the truth a little on my income taxes. So what if I was undercharged. So what if they gave me back too much change. So what if I speed a little. Nobody is getting hurt, are they?? Integrity is easy to think about, but I believe it is more difficult in practice. Maybe we don’t spend enough time figuring out HOW to have integrity.

So, today I will talk about several aspects of living a life of integrity. These are maintaining wholeness, freedom as a fundamental value, acting on the courage of our convictions, and the willingness to take risks. Wholeness, freedom, courage, and risk. These are all central to integrity in our spiritual and personal lives.

First, we will deal with wholeness. By definition, integrity is the act of maintaining wholeness. Integrity shares the same Latin root as the word integer, or whole number. A person of integrity is a whole person. There’s an interesting 19th century form of the word that illustrates this point. It is “Integralism,” which means “the belief that one’s religious convictions ought to dictate their social and political actions.” – Integrating the religious, social and political aspects of our lives. This is maintaining wholeness.

While we are thinking about definitions . . . I’ve often used the word integrous as an adjective to describe the quality of having integrity. But I’ve noticed that no one else ever uses this form.

Being the educational product of the South Carolina public school system, I often question my own grasp of the English language. You won’t find “integrous” in any American dictionary. But, it is in the Oxford English Dictionary – as an obsolete and rare form. How ironic, or how unfortunate, that we don’t have a commonly used adjectival form of integrity in English. So I will continue to use integrous, in my own hope that it comes back into to our common vocabulary.

So, we have the first concept of wholeness. The second aspect of integrity, especially in liberal religion, is the concept of freedom. Freedom is at the core of Unitarian Universalism. We have emerged from the free church tradition — rejecting prescribed doctrines and creeds, while simultaneously affirming freedom of belief and freedom of association. In 1960, on the eve of the consolidation of Unitarianism and Universalism in the U.S., Rev. David Parke, Unitarian historian and then minister of the Unitarian Church of Peterborough, New Hampshire, addressed the issue of integrity in Unitarian Universalism in a series of sermons. He noted that some of us find fulfillment in the fact that we are free. Others of us find fulfillment not in freedom, but in faith. For the first group, faith is the means to a life of integrity, freedom is the end. For the second group, freedom is the means, faith is the end. Parke said in 1960 that humanists fell into the first category, while Unitarian Christians fell in the second category. He said that Unitarian Universalists – then a new breed – fell somewhere in between. Faith, freedom, and fulfillment — three aspects of integrity for a liberal religious faith; not unlike “Integralism” and integrating the religious, social, and political aspects of our lives. The elegance of Unitarian Universalism is that we are not boxed into absolute categories when it comes to freedom, faith, and fulfillment.

This brings me to the third primary element of integrity – the courage of our convictions. We have addressed the essence of integrity -which is wholeness. We have addressed core of integrity in liberal religion, which is freedom. The courage of our convictions addresses the question of HOW we live integrous lives.

In his book, titled Integrity, Stephen Carter explains that living an integrous life requires discerning what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong. At the foundation of integrity is our values system. Values systems are represented by our emphasis on freedom, by our seven Unitarian Universalist principles, by the Torah and the Talmud of Judaism, by the gospel teachings of Jesus for the Christian and so on, as each religious tradition has tried to discern that which is of utmost importance.

Beyond knowing what we believe, integrity includes acting on our convictions, even at personal risk. Our own UU principles are a covenant to affirm and promote – these are actions which we agree in principle to take on.

The courage of our convictions also includes articulating our faith — openly saying that we are acting on our understanding of right and wrong. Even if our saying so is unpopular. We must be willing to tie our actions to our principles and say “I’m doing X because I believe Z.” This is what Hosea Ballou was trying to illustrate in his example of loving an orange. We don’t do things because we are told to, or for the sake of doing them. Living with integrity means that we understand what we believe, have the courage to act on our beliefs, and are able to articulate our convictions even in the face of criticism and disagreement with others.

I spent many years being openly critical of Christianity because I felt that its foundation was weak. But when I truly came to understand what I believed as a Unitarian Universalist, I realized that I could not, with integrity, dismiss Christianity or any other belief system that has as its basic assumption the goodwill of everyone. I recognized that Christianity was central to the lives of my mother and father in law, and that they are the most integrous and most service oriented people I know. I know what I believe and why. I act on my convictions. I let others know why I am doing so, but I must also hear and accept the differences and whys of others’ beliefs.

So, now we have expanded our definition of integrity beyond the idea of wholeness, beyond seeing integrity in our value of freedom, to conviction in understanding right and wrong, acting on those convictions, and being able to articulate our faith.

But we are not finished yet. I’d like to add the idea of risk-taking to our understanding of integrity, especially as it relates to liberal religion. My experience with risk-taking comes from an unlikely source, but I find a certain synchronicity it all of it.

I’ve been keeping you in suspense with the title of this sermon – Watertight Integrity. I learned about risk taking as a component of integrity in the Navy. I spent 11 years as an active duty Naval Officer, and recently retired from the Naval Reserve. Four and a half of my 20 years of service were aboard ships. In ships and submarines, WATERTIGHT integrity is essential. Without it, the ship risks sinking. Each door and hatch is lined with a rubber seal, treated with petroleum jelly and tested periodically for its integrity. This ensures that there won’t be any leaks into the next compartment in the event that one side is flooded. Some compartments are called voids and they stay constantly sealed, so that the ship can float. In a submarine it is a little trickier, because they purposely fill these voids with water, and then expel it so that the sub can surface or dive.

We constantly trained in the Navy to ensure that our watertight integrity remained intact. During General Quarters, the level of alert that we go to when danger is imminent, all doors and hatches are closed and sealed. No one is allowed to move around the ship and open any of these doors. We would time how long it took to report “Condition Zebra,” Meaning that everyone had reached their station and all watertight hatches and doors had been secured! There is a Navy ship somewhere right now who is going through this drill, I am certain. They are testing their integrity.

But, Condition Zebra is an extreme condition in which we take no risks. Everything is locked tight. We don’t go to that condition of watertight integrity very often and don’t stay in it for very long. So, we also had condition Yoke, Xray, and modified Zebra – all different degrees of watertight integrity. Each hatch was marked with an X, Y or Z and allowed to be open at certain times and not at others. Just like in life. Sometimes we open doors and take a calculated risk, sometimes we don’t.

Fundamentalist or conservative faiths might be considered to be more often in condition Zebra, relying more on certainty and allowing for very little risk. But they deny their wholeness in the very act of trying to maintain it – People don’t function as well if they are constantly locked down. As believers in a liberal tradition we allow for less rigidity in our knowledge and beliefs, and are more affirming of others’ beliefs. We take calculated risks, but need to have a keen understanding of why we are doing so, and a plan for when we might tighten up a little.

We often TALK about integrity in terms of honesty, of right and wrong. We THINK of it in terms of shoulds and should nots, cans and cannots – but we PRACTICE integrity in degrees. It isn’t PRACTICAL to stay in Condition Zebra all of the time.

Part of integrity is attending to life and to being whole, knowing what is going on around us and what watertight condition we are in at any given time!

Integrity isn’t a question of either/or, it isn’t a question of should or shouldn’t, can or cannot. Integrity is more complex than that. Critics might say this is a slippery slope – .that it is moral relativism to explain away integrity as other than pure and certain. To them I say, we can lock down every door. Or we can live our lives paying attention to our wholeness, maintaining our commitment to freedom, having courage in our convictions, and knowing when to take risks.

Know what you believe. Act courageously on your beliefs. Say publicly and without shame why you are doing so. Have the sense of awareness to know when to take calculated risks, all the while maintaining your wholeness. If we do these things perhaps we will be more integrous people.

May it be so.

———————

Copyright © 2003 – Dr. Matthew D. Tittle, Ph.D.

Except where otherwise cited, the material presented here is the intellectual property of the author. Use and reproduction of this material for non-profit personal, academic, or religious purposes is encouraged with appropriate citation. Any other use requires the expressed consent of the author.

On the Outside Looking In

by Posted in Guest Speakers, Sermons

© Becky Harding

17 August 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

SERMON

“Atticus stood up and walked to the end of the porch. When he completed his examination of the wisteria vine, he strolled back to me.

First of all, he said, if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Harper Lee – To Kill a Mockingbird

It’s 1:28 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23rd and I am sitting in chamber room 105 at the state capitol building and I am thinking about this passage from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. I am waiting to testify against a house bill that, if passed, would remove all foster children from the homes of any person deemed homosexual. Earlier in the evening, state representative Robert Talton introduced this legislation and actually said that the children of gays and lesbians would be better off in orphanages than in their homes. I am sincerely trying to understand things from his point of view but failing miserably.

Weeks later, I am reading Reason for Hope, by Jane Goodall and I stumble on a possible explanation for Mr. Talton’s attitudes. Goodall suggests that “cultural speciation in humans means that the members of one group, the in-group, see themselves as different from members of another group, the out-group. In its extreme form, cultural speciation leads to the dehumanizing of out-group members, so that they may come to be regarded almost as members of a different species. This frees group members from the inhibitions and social sanctions that operate within the group and enables them to direct acts toward those others which would not be tolerated within the group. Slavery and torture at one end of the scale, ridicule and ostracism at the other.”

This certainly helps me understand why Mr. Talton, as chimpanzees for thousands of years before him, feels the need to figuratively twist my arms. His legislation failed, by the way. When asked what do gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people have in common, transgender professor Jenny Finney responded, “We all can get beat up by the same people.” Dehumanizing indeed.

I am flooded with thoughts. How did I get here? Here, in a chamber room at the Texas State Capitol. Here, in the pulpit of the First Unitarian Universalist Church. Where have we come from? We all carry legacy of some sort. What’s our role in the apparently second civil rights movement? And where are we going? Was that the Newsweek cover asking, “Is gay marriage next?”

With apologies to Sappho and Greek art, I’ll start with June 27, 1969. Legend has it that the Greenwich Village tavern, the Stonewall Inn, was frequently raided by lackadaisical police officers who would gently nudge the queer crowd to move on to another locale. But that night, June 27th, stricken with grief over the death of the beloved Judy Garland, the folks, not only refused to move on, but became increasingly agitated at the thought of not being permitted to gather and mourn their diva. The riot lasted three days, and the modern g,l,b,t revolution began. Before the Stonewall riots, about a dozen gay publications existed and in just a few years, over 400 organizations and publications were out and about.

You can easily identify the club members by the rainbow stickers and flags plastered everywhere – a tribute to Judy Garland who helped start it all. Remember her theme song was “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”?

And if you don’t see any rainbow strips on cars, you might find a pink triangle. If a prisoner was deemed homosexual, Nazi concentration camp officials would have a pink triangle sewn on his shirt. A black triangle identified lesbians. These symbols have, obviously, been reclaimed to honor the legacy of those before us.

And, if you are wandering through Home Depot with your good friend, Juanita, and her “gaydar” spots two women talking, she might nudge you and say, “family.” This code word comes from the concept that so many members of the g,l,b,t community have been rejected by their biological families, so they claim friends as family. Yes, the dance floor is always overrun when “We Are Family” comes on the sound system.

In the early years of this movement, so many members felt isolated. So a joyous, once-a-year, tradition of PRIDE festivals began. Simply, this is a gathering where folks can be themselves and celebrate. Music, dancing, and food abound as do paraders. The idea, naturally, is that there is nothing to be ashamed of and why not be proud of yourself. Stop the dehumanizing, as it were.

So in the early days, role models were sorely lacking. Liberace used a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Elton John even proclaimed bisexuality for years in fear of hostile reactions. And, if you were a g,l,b,t teen during this time, it would be difficult to find any role models in a mainstream movie.

Certainly, films were made. As early as 1963, Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour featured a young Shirley McClain wrestling with her feelings for another woman. Her character, of course, upon deciding she is a lesbian, shoots herself. But lesbians didn’t fret because they got a gift in the legendary film, Personal Best. Exotic Mariel Hemingway experiments with a relationship with another female track teammate and her character doesn’t die, there is that career ending knee surgery.

The gentlemen didn’t fare much better. The compassionate yet somber Long Time Companion chronicles the deaths of a group of friends from AIDS. Huge strides were made in understanding the gay community when Philadelphia, a beautiful and loving film, premiered, yet Tom Hanks does, indeed, die a difficult death in that film as well.

The transgendered world was opened up to us all so much more with the poignant, Boys Don’t Cry. As you can tell, the not so subtle message is that g,l.b.t people do exist in the world, but it isn’t an easy life. Until lately.

Slowly and surely, winds of change have blown in and we can see The Bird Cage on television or the wildly popular Will and Grace. And no one dies in the awesome Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, a delightful and kind makeover show featuring five fabulous divas.

G,l,b,t supporting characters abound on Friends, ER, Spin City, Dawson’s Creek etc. And let us not ever forget the first million dollar Survivor winner was out and proud, Richard Hatch.

So what caused the change? Lots of complex elements. Acceptance came in small doses over time.

On October 12, 1998, a young gay man was hung up on a fence post and bludgeoned to death with a pistol. Matthew Shepard’s death shocked and saddened almost everyone – gay and straight. Maybe people across America put themselves in his shoes – or his parent’s shoes and a new commitment to tolerance and compassion seemed to be born on that cold plain in Wyoming.

So where are we now? This summer we have seen the Episcopalian church elect the first openly gay bishop. The Rev, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, took the office with his partner standing next to him. The parishioners said they chose Robinson simply because he was the best candidate.

This summer, the United States Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws in the Lawrence versus Texas case. According to the Lesbian, Gay Rights Lobby, “the sodomy law is used as a front for all brands of discrimination” When the Court overturned the law, it also took the opportunity to overturn all of the sodomy laws in the United States, further protecting the right to privacy between two consenting adults.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, reading from the bench, said, gays “?are entitled to respect for their private lives.” Some of the gay activists and lawyers wept as they listened. This ruling gives us constitutional protection – and can be sited in other g,l,b,t court battles.

According to the July 7th edition of Newsweek, “the battle over gay marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military and gays in the workplace – will be fought out court to court, state to state for years to come. Nonetheless, there is no question that the Lawrence case represents a sea of change, not just in the Supreme Court, a normally cautious institution, but also in society as a whole.” David Garrow, a legal scholar at Emory University said, “The case is maybe one of the two most important opinions of the last 100 years.”

For the first time in my lifetime, the talk of gay marriage seems very attainable. Gay marriage that would give my partner and I our civil right – a marriage license that gives individuals access to the responsibilities, protections and support government provides to families.

We are fortunate that her company offers health benefits to same sex couples, but what about most of our friends whose companies don’t? There are many advantages to gay marriage but healthcare tops my list

All of this is wonderful and I don’t want to spoil the celebration, but you and I both know that backlash is a powerful wave. The conservative forces are going to, in all probability, push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Jerry Falwell has said, “the only way to put the traditional biblical family form of one man married to one woman safely out of reach of future courts and legislatures, is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Dehumanizing indeed.

My friends, I think we are preparing for a war. So what can you and I do? Clearly, we all can reduce the climate of fear and create an environment of acceptance. Those of us in the g,l,b,t community need to be “out,” showing the world, our next door neighbors, the letter carrier, that there is nothing to fear from our community. Our similarities are probably more abundant than our differences.

The straight community can speak up when “dehumanizing” behaviors prevail. Even the smallest acts send a message. So I was glad to se that when Jeremy Shockley called Dallas Cowboys coach Bill Parcells, “a homo,” most people were disgusted. But not enough. Cathy Renna of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said, “It’s a reflection that it’s still ok to use that language.” Esera Tuaolo, who came out after he played nine seasons in the NFL added, “To the players and coaches, it’s no big deal, but for someone like me, it is a big deal. That’s one of the things we need to change. It’s a spoken language we need to change.”

As a school teacher, I suspect I heard the word “gay” or “lesbian” or some other slang form used in a derogatory way nearly every day I taught. Each time, I would stop and take the time to, in a nurturing way, teach the child a little bit of tolerance. The sad piece is that most of the time, these children really didn’t think they were saying something wrong.

We must all speak up! A good friend of mine was telling another mother about her two and a half year old daughter’s kissing episode with another little girl and the mother smiled and said, “Oh, don’t worry – that’s age appropriate.” My friend smiled back and said, “Yes. At any age.” That’s speaking up.

Of course, when the amendment process heats up, we must all join together and be activists. Write letters, make phone calls, send emails, join the Lesbian and Gay Rights Lobby. Get involved and get other people you love involved as well because GAY RIGHTS ARE CIVIL RIGHTS! In the days of Apartheid, Nelson Mandela argued, “No one is really free until all those in South Africa are free.” I believe that applies here! No one can enjoy the freedom of governmental rights until all of us can. Maybe this is the second wave of the civil rights movement. I remember white people died beside black people. Hopefully no one will die this time.

“An eye for an eye only leads to more blindness,” Margaret Atwood suggests. We must use tolerance and compassion to overcome ignorance and hatred. The Taoist believe “these three qualities are invaluable – a sense of equality, material simplicity, and compassion for all creatures.” The Delany Sisters, two African-American women who lived well into their 100’s wrote, “The most important thing is to teach your child compassion. A complete human being is one who can put himself in another’s shoes.”

It is important to remember that Matthew Shepard’s parents forgave their son’s killers. In that spirit, I have invited Rep. Talton to my home for dinner. Twice. So he can see us, know us, and not fear us. So far, I haven’t heard back but I’m going to keep trying.

As I drove home from the evening at the capitol, I asked myself why was I there? What did I really accomplish? The answer is simple.

I was there because of Claire. Claire is my two and a half year old daughter who I love very very much. I want the world to be a better place for her. I dream a world for Claire where she can marry anyone of any gender, not just someone approved by a small group of small minded people. I dream a world for Claire filled with tolerance and compassion for EVERYONE. Dream with me. Dream with me.

All Things Buffy

by Posted in Guest Speakers, Jim Checkley, Sermons

© Jim Checkley

August 3, 2003

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

SERMON

When Buffy the Vampire Slayer ended its seven-year run this past May, I knew I would make it the subject of a service. My first thought was to call it “Requiem for a Slayer.” But I quickly realized that Buffy did not need a mass for the dead, but rather a proclamation for the living. Because while Buffy the Vampire Slayer is ostensibly a show about the supernatural battle between good and evil, at its heart, it is really an exploration of all things human, a celebration of the best that we can be.

I’ve seen all the episodes of the series – some more than once. I saw most of them on Tuesday nights with my daughter Kathleen, who earlier sang for you the love ballad from the musical episode “Once More With Feeling.” She and I had a standing date for a number of years and watched the show together as she passed through her teen years. The show acted as a wonderful catalyst for our relationship during those years. Subjects like high school, dating, peer pressure, drugs, sex, friends, or lack thereof, rejection, personal responsibility, moral choices, loyalty, love, all these and more were explored on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Now I know it’s just a TV show, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer was special. And you don’t have to take my word for it. BTVS, as it’s known on the Internet, has generated over 2000 Internet sites, many of them devoted to the deeper aspects of the show. There are two scholarly books I am aware of: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy and Fighting the Forces: What’s at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both are collections of essays by noted academics on subjects like philosophy, ethics, sociology and religion. I had a nice e-mail correspondence with one of the authors, a professor of philosophy, regarding issues of love and friendship on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and William James’ philosophy, in particular his “will to believe.” There’s even an Internet site called slayage.com where papers that didn’t make the books are posted for reading and comment – and more are posted all the time.

During the months leading to the series finale, people were coming out of the woodwork to praise BTVS. The Sunday Times had a spread written by a woman who did the TV beat for a Boston paper similar in spirit to our Austin Chronicle. I had to laugh – there probably wasn’t anybody at the blue-blood NY Times who knew enough about Buffy to write the piece. The Austin American Statesman also did a wrap-up piece, one that featured where the best parties were in town. That is where I copied the handout you received today. Buffy is the best show that wasn’t accepted by the mainstream – at least not until its demise.

Let’s face it, the name of the show does not inspire confidence and series creator Joss Whedon admits that the studio begged him to change the name, but he refused. Plus, Buffy the TV series was spawned from a rather mediocre 1992 movie of the same name. Joss Whedon wrote that movie too, but did not care for how it turned out. So when 20th Century Fox gave Whedon the opportunity to do Buffy on TV, he jumped at the chance.

And the difference was remarkable: the dialogue was hip, crisp, and articulate. Hillary, who has now seen two episodes and is a convert, asked me to emphasize the humor. There is humor, lots of humor, but the show took itself seriously enough that all the supernatural aspects were played straight up. That is, BTVS is not a spoof. This combination of wildly creative, supernatural material explored in an honest, straight forward way produced a marvelous canvas upon which to explore what it means to be human, and how to best live one’s life in the company of others. Amidst the demons and the vampires, the deep humanity of the show shined like a beacon. I have always said that science fiction and fantasy provide the best opportunity to explore our humanity. Buffy the Vampire Slayer proved the point with style and aplomb.

BTVS is a show primarily about teenagers as they moved through high school and college, but it was not just a teen show. The teen years are an intense time in our lives and during those years we make choices and experience events that set our path for much of the rest of our lives. And I frankly don’t get it when people reject out of hand shows or movies that focus on teens or the teen years. While it is obviously possible to portray the vapid, hormone driven side of teen life, and a lot of Hollywood producers do just that, it is also possible to use the teen years and the choices they present as a rich canvas to explore life and the struggle we all face to become the persons we want to be. In this sense Buffy is very real and taps into the deep emotions of growing into adulthood.

And here’s a surprise. We may fool ourselves into thinking that we only get or need to make fundamental choices once. But I don’t think that’s true. Chronologically at least, I am a middle-aged man, and yet I found myself time and again identifying with those teenagers and the choices that confronted them about how to live their lives. It turns out that I looked around to discover that my children are grown and my needs, goals, and hopes for the future were very, very different from when I was a teenager, or even in my thirties. I realized while watching Buffy that I too have fundamental choices to make about how I live the second half of life. This resonance with the teens on the show was often quite powerful and helped me to “think outside the box” about the rest of my life.

I have brought a prop with me today. Some assembly is required so give me a moment. Here, larger than life, is Buffy the Vampire Slayer – or at least her cardboard cutout. I don’t know if I should tell you this, but she was given to me by my son for Father’s Day. Now, of course, this a picture of Sara Michelle Gellar, the young woman who played Buffy. Pretty cute, huh? It’s easy to see why some people might assume that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is just another show about a scantily clad young thing and thus dismiss it. It also explains why I got so much grief from my colleagues and friends, and why my son, TJ, told me I was taking a risk doing this service.

But anybody who gets stuck on Buffy’s appearance is missing the entire point of the show. For underneath her Vogue and Maybelline exterior lies the heart and soul of a super hero. The whole point is that Buffy is not what she appears to be. The whole point is to get beyond stereotypes and superficial appearances and discovery what lies beneath. As I will discuss throughout the rest of this talk, what matters is who we are inside – our strength as a person – and the choices we make when confronted with the challenges of the world.

British psychologist Cynthia McVey says Buffy’s appeal as a character is that, while looking frail and girlish, she is deeply powerful. In this respect, Buffy has a lot in common with that celebrated British teenager, Harry Potter. Nobody would suspect that beneath those round glasses and slight build is a great wizard. Therein lies, I think, much of the appeal of Buffy and Harry with young people: those young people are hoping against hope that inside of them there is something or someone special, just like Buffy and Harry.

As a female super hero, Buffy belongs to the recent pop cultural movement that is entwined with the empowerment of women. We can start with Diana Rigg, who, as Mrs. Peel, was partners in the spy game with John Steed in the 1960s British TV series The Avengers (recently reprised by Uma Thurman), and more recently recall the likes of Wonder Woman, Ripley, Xena: Warrior Princess, La Femme Nikita, Charmed, Witchblade, Electra, Lara Croft, Dark Angel, Birds of Prey, the PowerPuff Girls, Charlie’s Angels, and Sidney Bristow of Alias. Our culture is currently flooded with images of outwardly powerful women.

And yes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer blows the lid off female stereotypes and the message is clear: women are as powerful and independent as men and deserve to be treated with just as much respect. But Buffy is not just an adolescent boy’s dream on steroids, someone who can fly through the air on wires and never get her make-up mussed, like some of the images out in our culture today, those that I call the “adolescent empowerment of women.” Buffy represents an “adult empowerment of women,” one that empowers on the inside as well as the outside and comes complete with responsibility, moral dilemmas, and a real person.

In adult empowerment, the power I am talking about goes beyond physical strength and magical abilities, although these are fun and admirable. Buffy – and several of her friends – are powerful in this way, of course, but the power I am talking about is the power inside, the power of the heart and the will. Buffy, many times with the help of her friends, overcomes obstacles that would crush most of us. And often it is not Buffy’s supernatural powers that save the day. They are a mere instrumentality. What saves the day is Buffy’s dedication and indomitable will.

For example, at the end of the first season, Buffy discovers that an infallible prophecy says that the Master Vampire will kill her on Prom Night. Her initial reaction is to want to run away, of course, and she asks her mother if they can go away for the weekend. But after her fiend Willow discovers some boys at the high school who have been horribly killed by the gathering vampires, Buffy changes her mind. Willow, shaken, and lying in bed, tells Buffy:

I’m not OK. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be okay. I knew those guys. I go to that room every day. And when I walked in there, it was… it wasn’t our world anymore. They made it theirs. And they had fun. What are we going to do?

Buffy answers simply: “What we have to.” In that moment, Buffy decides to confront the Master even knowing that it will mean she is going to die. Those moments of courage and responsibility go beyond any external strength or beauty. She then confronts the Master and is killed. Only this is TV, and so she drowns, and, as luck would have it, is revived by one of her friends who knows CPR, and comes back stronger than ever to ultimately defeat the Master.

You see, while the Buffyverse is supernatural, the lessons are not. The lessons touch us in the most real ways possible. This is one of the great truths about how we interact with our stories, whether they are from the Bible, other scriptures, mythology, or, yes, even television. We will translate the lessons to our lives and to our hearts, if those lessons – even if they are in a supernatural setting, an unreal setting, an impossible setting – if those lessons touch our souls.

Moreover, the lessons from Buffy are positive lessons, including self-reliance, self-knowledge, and self-exploration. Let me give you one example, my favorite example, among many. At the end of Season Two, in the two part season finale I think is Buffy’s best, Buffy loses everything she cares about in her life as a consequence of her battle against evil. She is kicked out of school, kicked out of her home by her mother who cannot accept her calling as the Slayer, she loses her friends, is accused of murder, and must, in the final analysis, literally send the man she loves to hell in order to save the world.

At the absolute nadir of the episode, when all seems lost, the evil vampire Angelus approaches a fallen and apparently beaten Buffy and says: “So that’s everything, huh? No weapons, no friends, no hope. Take all that away and what’s left?” “Me,” says Buffy as she catches his sword just before it would have killed her. What’s left is me. Self-reliance. Self-confidence. Self-esteem. No Ophelia Complex here. From that point, Buffy battles back, and at great cost to herself, does what is right, what needs to be done. For seven years Buffy always battled back, always had the will and resolve to do what was right, always did what needed to be done. I can’t think of a more positive lesson whether you are a man or a woman. I can’t think of a more positive empowerment for a human being.

I only have a few minutes left and there are any number of things I could talk about, but let me talk about an overarching theme: the power of choice. Because in a world where beings are defined by what they are – demon, human, slayer, vampire – it turns out that the most important aspect of life is the power to choose.