Inside the Words on the Wall

Nell Newton

August 12, 2012

We have a lovely mission for our church and it is the result of a tremendous amount of work! Now that we’ve had it on our walls for a couple of years, let’s take a deeper look at what these words say about who we are and what we believe.

“We gather in community to nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice.” The mission of First UU Church of Austin, TX

Such fine words! When our leadership set out to create this mission two years ago we listened to the whole congregation. We gathered hundreds of ideas and thousands of words that people gave as their dreams for the work of our church. And then we sifted, sorted, and winnowed out the most salient ones and worked them into our mission. They are a powerful vision of what we believe, and who we hope to become. And, if we look carefully they reveal some important ideas that we might not otherwise articulate.

And articulating is the whole point of a mission. Here’s a little bit of the back-story. A few years back it was determined that no one was clear about the mission of our church – the reason we all keep showing up here. And, without a shared mission some folks were unclear of what was helpful and was distracting us from our larger purpose.

Larger purpose – a reason bigger than, but inclusive of, each one of us.

Yes, there was a wonderful mission statement that had been drafted almost a decade earlier, but after the initial work it was lovingly placed in a secure location and never looked at again. That is how mission statements don’t work. Some wondered if we could just take the old one and dust it off, but wiser folks explained that it’s not like sourdough and it’s better to start from scratch each time. So, that is how we wound up conducting a series of workshops and exercises that resulted in page after page of beautiful words to work with.

Then one fine spring day the church board, our interim minister, and a wonderful consultant all holed up in a room with these pages and began the process of finding out what was important. What were we doing that was bigger than, but inclusive of, each one of us? We looked at examples from other churches. Some were really, really detailed, but we decided to keep ours short enough to fit into one sentence. Something you could carry around easily. There were many, many drafts, but it wasn’t a sausage-making process of argument and compromise. It was something far sweeter and exciting. And, once these words coalesced we collectively stopped and I think a few of us gasped. I know I got tears in my eyes because when I saw them all together, I saw us, this congregation. It was cool.

These words are powerful. And this time we were not going to let them out of our sight! We made sure that they would be in common usage, and someone saw fit to put them up on the walls. Now, let’s see what they say.

First off — we are agreeing to be in community. Even if we believe that each person is tasked with creating a personal theology we are still coming together in community. In Community is where the richness our many voices form a chorus of experience. In Community is how a potluck feeds a multitude. In Community, we can hold one another in times of joy and sorrow and hold one another accountable to our highest aspirations. There are some things that you just can’t do by yourself, no matter how beautiful your theology. Despite assorted statistics that suggest church membership is a quaint old habit on the decline in the US, we are bucking the trend and coming together as a church community!

Now, let me jump ahead and look at the middle part. We have charged ourselves with the work of “transforming lives”. This indicates that we feel that change is possible within a human life. We are not predestined, fixed, beyond help, or already perfect. Lives can be transformed. Maybe even our lives. Granted, we didn’t specify if we will transform lives for the better or worse! But I suspect that we aim to improve.

This speaks of an optimism that presumes progress is possible and that things can get better with intentional work. And we are indicating that this is work that WE will do — instead of waiting for a force outside us or above us to sprinkle transformation powder down upon us. And notice that we’re not doing this work in the aim of redemption or connecting ourselves to something from which we were disconnected by sin or failure or simply birth.

However, note that we stop with just the lives — we are not offering to help with any afterlife activity one might engage in. This is straight up, classically optimistic Humanism with no need for anything supernatural. We have the power and, some would say, the duty to transform lives

Now, let me go back to where we announce that we intend to nourish souls. Two words. Big Ideas. We are being bold here in stating that there are such things as souls and they require nourishment — AND that we will attempt to provide this nourishment! Now, let’s skirt around a few fiddly details about souls and any afterlife (again, we’ll stick to this life) — and acknowledge that if we use the word “soul” it is setting us apart from strict Humanists, who would place the use of reason and development of the human personality above all else. We are saying that we will feed something more than just our minds. And we believe that our community can be a source for this nourishment. It won’t just fall out of the sky upon a deserving few. From what I’ve seen around here, nourishing souls seems to be an active process using poetry, music, and ritual to feed and comfort in times of celebration and crisis.

Nourishing souls! This kind of talk can still get you tossed out of plenty of UU pulpits! In making this statement, we place ourselves among the contemporary UU’s who are reclaiming spiritual language and creating a place for such discussions in our church. We are still a little new at this and I suspect that we don’t have a good working definition of “soul” that everyone agrees on. But the fact that we are ready to use this word and do this work is a big step into a broader theology. Really. It’s big. Y’all are brave and bold.

We will “Do Justice”. This is biblical talk here! Straight from Micah 6:8. But I suspect we were just channeling that unconsciously —

He has told you, O man, what is good;

And what does the Lord require of you

but to do justice, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God?.”

Yeah… we’re probably not ready to go that far… And, yet, there is electricity in these words! “Do Justice!” They indicate that we are aware of injustice, and intend to do something about it. We won’t wait for an afterlife for fairness to be meted out, or wait for Karma to tidy up this mess. Instead, we will strive to discern just from unjust — it’s not always as easy as it sounds — and then attempt to be part of the weight that bends the arc of time towards justice.

Nourish souls, transform lives, do justice. Great words. There were some good words that wound up on the cutting room floor — sacred, beauty, love, nature. They were sprinkled in among all the words we received from folks, but they didn’t show up with the frequency of the others.

Here’s a word that didn’t make it up there: TRUTH. I think it did show up a couple of times – generally in the familiar phrase “free and responsible search for truth and meaning” that is one of our UU principles. But for the most part “truth” did not feature heavily. Why is that? I don’t know for sure, but I have my personal favorite theory. It goes like this – and, I’m sorry, but I have to bring up Postmodernism to get there – but here goes.

I suspect that many of us have let go of the notion that there is such a thing as a pure, unchanging, universal Truth. Even the idea that one-plus-one-equals-two really only works if you are measuring discrete objects. You already know that one drop of water plus another drop of water makes one fatter drop of water! So, I suspect that we are no longer in pursuit of a solid, lovely, singular and fixed, capital “T”, Truth.

But, we’re also probably not falling into the nihilism or relativism that is the dark side of Post-modern thought. That would be the idea that since there is no single Truth, that there is no truth at all. That doesn’t feel quite right either. Instead, I suspect that we are wandering into the Alter-modernist (oh yeah… I’m in grad school) the Alter-modernist understanding of Truth as a multi-faceted, shimmering thing that can only be appreciated from many angles and through many voices. And this gets us back to why we are gathering in community!

And there were some words that never showed up in the first place because they simply are not part of our collective theologies. Those were words like suffering, mercy, repentance, or judgment. We don’t find redemption in suffering or feel the need to repent in order to live our lives fully.

Oh, and there was one other word that made a couple of appearances, but not enough to register. It’s BODY. We didn’t think to include our bodies up there. That’s probably okay for now. I suspect they are implied. But I can’t be sure… Just in case, I’m bringing mine along…

Nourish souls, transform lives, do justice. This is our current mission. It reflects the theologies we bring with us and hope to create together. In a few more years, we’ll start from scratch and do the whole exercise over again. And then, because we are comfortable with change — new words will appear on the walls! And it will be cool. ©

Blessed Be!

Podcasts of sermons can also be found for free on iTunes. They can be found here.

The magic of I am

Dwayne Windham

August 5, 2012

The Magic of I Am (you fill in the blank). Inspired by the Harry Potter book series, this sermon delves into the pensieve of words we use to describe ourselves.

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

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes. You can find them here.

Bringing Justice Home from General Assembly

First UU Church of Austin General Assembly Attendees

Gillian Redfearn, Mike LeBurkien, Judy Sadegh, Carolyn Gremminger & Peggy Morton

July 29, 2012

Bringing Justice Home from General Assembly. FUUCA members Gillian Redfearn, Mike LeBurkien, Judy Sadegh, Carolyn Gremminger & Peggy Morton share their General Assembly experiences and human interest stories from immigrants, undocumented workers, undocumented children, and UUs around the nation who are working for Social Justice.

Gillian Redfearn

I don’t want to assume that you all know what General Assembly is and so I won’t. General Assembly, also known as GA, is the Unitarian Universalists’ annual meeting. It is attended by thousands of UUs and is held in cities all across the United States. This year’s GA held in Phoenix, a decision which had been made some years ago, left many of us wondering how could we possibly go to Phoenix in light of its anti-immigrant laws, best known as the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, put into place in 2010. BUT IN TRUTH, HOW COULD WE NOT GO TO ARIZONA?! It was our opportunity to live our UU faith, live our UU principles, make a difference and most importantly, understand what doing justice really means. This GA, in fact, quickly became identified as the Justice Assembly. It was an opportunity to learn from, partner with and support the many groups and individuals whose daily work, seven days a week, is for the greater good of all people.

There are so many organizations hard at work in Arizona and some of those organizations include the ACLU, ALEC, Grassroots Leadership, National Day Laborers Union, Amnesty International, Puente Arizona, American Progress, and No Mas Muertes.

In coordination with these many groups and during GA, the UUs decided to hold vigil at the local Phoenix prison and it was this vigil that most made me want to attend this year’s GA. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the Phoenix prison, but it is rather infamous and is best known as America’s toughest jail or Sherriff’s Appaio’s tent jails, where 1,000 plus undocumented people are being held for no REAL crime. This place resembles a concentration camp, even Sherriff Appaio describes it as such. There is no a/c in a place where temperatures can be as high as 118 degrees, meals are only served twice a day, and medical attention is often denied. The tent jails were established in 1993 when Sherriff Appaio decided to use tents acquired at a surplus sale after the Gulf War, rather than add on to the existing building, seemingly a cheap solution. Since then approximately 138,000 people have passed through these tents and approximately 150 people have died there.

Every night in Phoenix at the prison, a small group of people hold a vigil for those held in those tents, probably in many cases, their own family and friends. On the evening of Saturday night, June 23rd, we were able to add to their support in a BIG way. Approximately 2,000 of us, many of us wearing our “Standing on the Side of Love” t-shirts, boarded school buses and were driven to the prison to stand with these people. For the “regulars” at the prison, it must have been quite a sight to see as bus after bus arrived and dropped off 100s of people, then leaving again only to return with even more people.

For two hours, we stood together, peacefully, singing songs and chanting words of support that we hoped and believed could be heard by those locked up inside. The experience of standing with so many people who share your core beliefs is a rare one and it touched me greatly, but what I most remember about the vigil is the gratitude of the “regulars.” As we reloaded onto the buses, they thanked us at large and in many cases, thanked us individually. One woman, in particular, and I made eye contact and I noted that there were tears running down her face as she said, “Gracias. Thank you.” I was so sad in that moment, but I have to believe that our presence brought a renewed energy and hope, but at the very least, that they, the inmates, the families, the Phoenix Latino community, know that they have support outside their own communities and that we, who do not suffer the same injustices, are aware of theirs. I hope and pray that we can live up to the call to “do justice. “

Judy Sadegh

I am Judy Sadegh and I have attended GA several times in the past, but this Justice GA was a very special experience for me.

Describing GA is almost as challenging as trying to decide one’s schedule from all the programs offered from 7am to 11pm during the four and a half days of the conference. It is really unique for each individual as I think you will hear today. If you would like to get a better picture of the entire experience, you can see and hear many of the sessions on the UUA website.

Daily worship services were inspiring and the music was wonderful. There were a lot of new songs introduced, but it is also amazing how great our familiar hymns sound with 3000+ UUs singing together.

Every day we heard stories from members of the partner organizations in Phoenix about the hardships people suffer there. We heard of children afraid parents would not be able to pick them up from school, of parents afraid to go out or send their children to school after hearing about issues going on in the community.

One family’s story especially affected me. Maria’s mother came to the US with her young son before Maria was born. Last year the mother was stopped because of a burned out taillight, detained and deported as a result. Maria remained in Arizona with an aunt and finished high school. She spoke to us of her sadness that her mother could not attend her graduation. Maria is very close to her brother and his family, but she fears that he will be deported, as well. Maria’s sister-in-law spoke while holding her young toddler of the fear that her husband would be deported. He had an opportunity to go back to Mexico to try to get a Visa. However, he was told that it might take a year before he got an answer and there was no guarantee that he would be able to return. He decided to stay in Phoenix so that he could participate in his daughter’s early years. Although the stated policies of ICE and the administration focus on deporting criminals and dangerous individuals, the reality is that families are being torn apart and individuals who have lived peacefully in our communities for many years are being swept up and sent back to countries where they are no longer familiar.

In my recent reading I came across a quote from Max Frisch, a Swiss playwright which struck a note with me. In 1965 when guest worker programs were starting in Europe, he wrote, “We called for workers, and there came human beings.” May we never lose sight of the fact that we are all human beings, documented or undocumented.

Carolyn Gremminger – Exposing For Profit Incarceration

One of the talks that hit close to home was on For Profit Incarceration and Detention Centers.

I am reminded by our Principle that all people have inherent worth and dignity, not just some, not just the documented..

The talk focused on Corporations that profit from the detention of undocumented people. They treat this population as profitable new market. The Industry lobbies for and drafts harsh anti-immigration legislation. The owners profit from the suffering of others. They exploit inmate labor by contracting with outside corporations, paying the inmates roughly 40 cents an hour.

In my mind, this is exploitation. I hope it is in your mind, too. I learned that the facilities are often sub par for both the incarcerated and the staff, while the owners profit enormously. Security is lax and there is very limited governmental oversite of their operations.

Corporations should not be allowed to profit from the incarceration of Human Beings.

What can we do?

Visit the website: Grassrootsleadership.org. Attend Teach in at First UU on Saturday, August 4, at 6pm.

Contribute to organizations working to stop incarceration and detention for profit.

Get educated.

Join other faith based organizations in the opposition.

Make Family members and friends aware of this issue

Talk with elected officials.

Strive for a more accountable and humane Criminal Justice System.

Peggy Morton

Hello, I’m Peggy Morton and I’m you’re new Social Action Chair, and I bet you can guess why I was attracted to attending my first GA, it’s Justice Theme.

Now, I’d like for you to imaging these snippets of stories you’ve just heard, multiply that times 25 and that’s how my head was spinning the the third night when we heard Keynote speaker Maria Hinojosa, who you may know from her NPR Radio program Latino USA.

After having been an undocumented student and worker, she eventually became an American citizen and one day when she was talking about illegals, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Ellie Wiesel said “Don’t say that.” and asked “Why do you call them illegals?”

When we get a speeding ticket, you don’t hear anyone call us illegal drivers. Lou Dobbs first call them illegals like the Nazis had called Jews illegals. I left GA with the new language of calling them undocumented workers, undocumented students or undocumented children.

Another lesson I learned at GA was that I had to travel to Arizona to connect with fellow Austin UUs, not only from our church but also our other Austin UU churches Live Oak in Cedar Park & Wildflower in South Austin.

We returned and joined forces to work with Austin immigrant rights and labor worker rights groups to protest in front of Sheriff Greg Hamilton’s office July11 because he gives Immigration Customs Enforcement officers 24-7 access to our Travis County jails, which is why we have one of the highest deportation rates of non-criminal undocumented workers in our nation.

At the rally, we heard a local undocumented female student tell about being picked up for J-walking and held at Travis County taxpayer expense in jail for 4 days. Yes, for a misdemeanor J-walking offense she served time. She’s not being deported, she’s a law abiding student.

I appreciate all of you here today listening to our stories because just hearing what’s happening in our own city can be heart-wrenching and for many of you that in it’s self is major, but for those of you wondering what you can do, I hope you’ll join me as our Social Action committee adds immigrant rights to our mission to do Justice.

Next weekend we will host 30 members of the National Day Labor Organizing Network, who are traveling across the country to tell their stories. They’re traveling on the UndocuBus and they say “No papers, no fear” to put a spotlight on the dehumanization that’s taking place in our country. They will roll out sleeping bags in Howson Hall Friday night through Monday morning and you’re welcome to sign up to help us feed and host them.

We also want to invite you to join us and our guests as we head over to Sheriff Hamilton’s office again next Friday at noon to stand behind our Standing on the Side of Love banner and work to convince the sheriff that he doesn’t have to keep giving ICE 24-7 access to our jails. We want to build trust between our law enforcement officers and our community.

On Saturday, I hope you’ll attend the TeachIn that Carolyn told you about and then next Sunday before the Worship service, please come to a casual meet and greet breakfast in Howson Hall eat tacos and visit with our guests personally to get to know them as fellow humans.

We will also have future opportunities to learn what we can do to stop the dehumanization because we must return to civility as we recognize the worth and dignity of all people.

After the service today, our group will line up as usual outside the sanctuary, except for me because I’ll head to the Social Action table in the gallery to visit with you, give you flyers about our planned activities and tell about how you can help us host the UndocuBus travelers.

If you want to join our grassroots effort, please visit with me at our Social Action table to see how you can join the good fight with the Power of Love.

Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker’s lecture “Standing on Holy Ground” can be found on our iTunes podcast. Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes. Click here.

It looks like the world is going to hell. So let’s change it and ourselves religiously

Amanda Yaira Robinson

July 22, 2012

The news is grim: war, hunger, poverty, global warming. Sometimes the scope of these challenges is overwhelming, and we wonder whether our efforts even matter. Jewish teachings remind us to focus on the distance between our experience of the world as it is and visions of what it could or should be. What do we do with these tensions? How can we bridge the distances? Today, we’ll talk about possibility, transformation and what Karl Barth called an “uprising against the disorder of the world.”

Amanda Yaira Robinson coordinates Texas Interfaith Power and Light (TXIPL), the environmental program of The Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy. TXIPL is one of 39 state Interfaith Power and Light programs, each voicing a religious response to global warming. Amanda served for five years as director of religious education in Unitarian Universalist churches before joining TICPP staff in 2008, and she’s working on a Master’s in Theological Studies at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Granddaughter of a Christian minister and daughter of Sufi teachers, she is joyfully Jewish.

Story

Today I have a story for you. It is based on the teachings of the 16th century Jewish mystic, Isaac Luria. Every people, every culture, every religion all around the world has at least one story about the creation of the world-this is one of those stories.

In the beginning, all that was, was the Divine Mystery that some people call God. We can imagine this God Mystery as being like a giant sphere that extends in all directions as far as we can imagine.

When God starts to create the earth and the stars, the galaxy and the universe and everything that is, God constricts a little bit to make room for the Universe. God squeezes in and a hole opens up right in the middle of God-and that’s where we are now, on planet Earth, in the Milky Way galaxy, part of the Universe, part of Creation, and all of it right in the middle of, surrounded by Divine Mystery that stretches out in all directions.

Now that there’s room for creation, God fills some vessels, some containers, with Divine Light. This Divine Light is Divine Essence, it’s God Stuff. And God sends the vessels to creation, and everything is going to be perfect-but then something goes wrong. The vessels cannot contain the Divine Light. They shatter, sending sparks of Divine Essence everywhere, all around the world-they are in rocks and streams; in plants and trees; in every kind of animal, from bees to elephants-little, lost shards of Divine Light. This is not at all what God had wanted.

So God creates people to help lift up the Divine sparks that are still scattered everywhere, to piece the broken shards back together, to be partners with God in a continuing process of creation.

Sermon

Good morning! Thank you for having me here today; I am happy to be with you. Some of you might know that I have a background in Unitarian Universalism, having served for five years as a Director of Religious Education at two different congregations-for the last two years of that time, at your neighbor church to the north, Live Oak UU. Sometimes, spiritual paths can take unexpected turns… and so it was that a few years ago, I found myself studying to become a UU minister at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and having a profound religious experience in the Jewish tradition. Now I’m joyfully Jewish, and finishing up a Master’s in Theological Studies at the seminary. My religious journey is really not our focus this morning, but I wanted to let you know a little bit about where I’m coming from.

It is my privilege to be the Coordinator of Texas Interfaith Power & Light, the environmental program of The Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy. The Texas Interfaith Center is a 39-year old, statewide, interfaith organization that offers people of faith the information, tools, and resources they need to effectively engage on public policy issues. In my work, I focus on environmental issues, and in that capacity, it has been my great pleasure to work with several of you!

The Bullas and the Halpins have been especially involved in recent efforts through our local affiliate, the Interfaith Environmental Network of Austin, and your own Rev. Barnhouse helped lead our interfaith worship service last fall just outside the LBJ Library, on the morning of the State Department’s public hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline. That was some mighty faithful witness. I know that this church community strives to put its values into action-for that, I am thankful. Please, keep it up!

As part of my work, I visit with folks in congregations around the state about caring for the environment. In my conversations about these issues, I am almost always asked some variation of this question: “Where do we find hope?” This question emerges in a context of looking honestly at some of the environmental-and related human-challenges facing us today. It comes from religious people of different faith traditions who care deeply about the world we share and the life in it, and who know enough of the facts to feel some amount of despair.

The way I see it, anyone working on environmental issues today-or any other social justice issues, as far as I can tell-must wrestle with this question of hope and purpose. And if people are unable to find a meaningful answer, they won’t be able to stay engaged for very long. People burn out, give up, shut off some piece of their hearts… It is so much easier to go shopping, turn on the TV, drink a beer-that’s what all the ads tell us to do, anyway. There are those, too, who carry around a dark cynicism and a story about how, once upon a time, they cared and tried to make a difference-and then they figured out the hard way that none of it really matters, and so now they don’t even try anymore. I’ve met some of these people. Maybe you have, too. Without some kind of deep wellspring, the struggle of facing the world’s troubles is too frequently, too much.

I want you to know that the sermon I had planned to give this morning is not quite the sermon you’re getting. Within the last few days, I’ve read two recent essays about global warming that directly get at this question of hope-and I feel like we need to address them today, so that’s what we’re going to do. Before we go any further, let me issue a couple of disclaimers: first, these thoughts are my own, and may not reflect the opinions of The Texas Interfaith Center; second, because I know that language can be a barrier to understanding, I’m going to use the word, “God” to mean that Source of Life in the universe that is called by many names-and I’ll trust you to translate the word, “God” and maybe even “Christ” into language that makes understanding and connection possible for you. Thank you.

The first article that’s on my mind is Bill McKibben’s latest in Rolling Stone magazine, on the subject of global warming. In his piece, he talks frankly about the numbers of global warming-about “acceptable” temperature increases, and the fact that the world’s economic and business systems are moving forward with operations that will put us way over and above those so-called, “acceptable” limits. He also notes that, so far, governmental systems have been unable or unwilling to make agreements or change policies in order to seriously address the very real threat of an ever-more-quickly, warming world. The article paints a pretty bleak picture-and whether you agree with McKibben or not, it’s worth reading.

The second article I’m thinking about also paints a pretty bleak picture of the road ahead, based on the science of global warming. And this is the article I’m going to most directly work with today. It’s actually a sermon that UT professor, Robert Jensen, delivered a couple of Sundays ago at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church-another neighbor of yours to the north-and that was published later on AlterNet. The title of the sermon is, “Hope Is for the Lazy: The Challenge of a Dead World.” Even if you haven’t read it, I think you get some idea of the content just from the title.

In the piece, Jensen argues that the systems of our world-“patriarchy, capitalism, nationalism, white supremacy, and the industrial model”-are dead, and cannot be reformed or revived. He says, “The death-worship at the heart of those ideologies is exhausting us and the world, and the systems are running down.” Noting that the task of creating new systems to replace the old is a monumental one in which “the odds are against us,” he writes, “What we need is not naive hope but whatever it is that lies beyond naivete, beyond hope.” What this “hope beyond hope” is, he doesn’t exactly say. He does say that we won’t win by “praying for deliverance by the hand of God,” or by putting all our hope in science and technology. And he’s right about that-we can’t just sit around waiting for God to intervene and stop global warming, and we can’t rest easy thinking that technological advances will make it possible for us to maintain our environmentally-unsustainable lifestyles. No. It’s not that easy. The way we’re living right now is not sustainable-we will have to make very real changes in order to address the environmental problems we’ve created. Jensen says that the world defined by those capitalist, industrial, consumer systems cannot be saved.

What we need is something different. He says, “There is always hope, but it is hope that lies beyond these systems, beyond the world as it is structured today. To be truly hopeful is to speak about a different world structured by different systems.”

Okay, Dr. Jensen. Let’s talk about that.

The story that we heard this morning about broken vessels and scattered shards is one way that the Jewish tradition approaches the contrast that we humans feel between things as they are and things as we think they should be. We’ll come back to this story again in a bit. Another way that the Jewish tradition approaches this contrast is by talking about the olam ha’ze and the olam ha’ba-this world and the world to come. There is some question as to whether these worlds should be understood literally or figuratively, tangibly or mystically-and probably there is no one “right” answer. Some people hold onto the promise of a real, idealized, transformed physical world to come-while others say that the world to come is really just every next moment-a moment of infinite possibility.

In considering these contrasts in our world-the contrast between where we’re at right now and where we’d like to be-the question becomes: How can we bridge the gap? How can we move the world closer to these visions of how we’d like it to be? And: is that even possible, or is working for peace, justice, and an environmentally-sustainable world really just a big, Pollyanna fantasy of “lazy hope” and a waste of everyone’s time?

Dr. Jensen, in his sermon, said, “We shouldn’t distract ourselves by looking to someplace up there, somewhere above or beyond, something that we pray is just around the corner.” In one sense, I get what he’s saying-again, that we can’t expect some kind of Divine Intervention to save us from our troubles. But I don’t think we should too casually dismiss the power of prayer and prophetic religious vision-because actually, I think we need those things to help transform this world.

Let’s talk about prayer for a bit. Prayer can take many forms, but the basic idea is that through prayer a channel is opened between you and God. One time a reporter asked Mother Theresa about prayer. “What do you say when you pray?” he asked. “I listen,” she said. The reporter paused a moment, then asked, “Then what does God say?” and she replied, “He listens.”

In addition to regular prayer, Jewish tradition has a rich practice of saying blessings. Ideally, we say 100 blessings each day. The basic idea is that for most of our regular, daily actions-including eating and drinking-and also, seeing beautiful trees or animals, smelling fragrant herbs, or studying Torah-we should give thanks to God. These prayers and blessings are a frequent acknowledgement and reminder that life is a gift for which we are grateful. But they do something else, too-often, our prayers and sometimes, our blessings, make radical claims about God’s action in the world.

Let’s consider maybe the most common blessing-the blessing over food. It says, “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” But the bread that graces our tables doesn’t come that easily, just springing forth, fully-formed, from the ground. We’re not eating manna that just falls from the sky, after all. So what’s going on here?

Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman explains that this blessing is “a statement of faith in a time to come when all will have enough to eat,” free of hard labor. In this way, the blessing connects our present reality to one that is promised and hoped for. The blessings bring a heightened awareness and gratitude for the present moment into our everyday lives, which I love… At the same time, they keep that visioned world fresh before us as an imagined possibility.

Let’s think for a moment about what effect this continual invoking of God’s majesty and of the world to come might have. I wonder if, by praying and saying blessings, we are participating in calling that reality-the reality of the world to come, the world as God wants things to be-into this one.

“Inbreaking” is a word used by some theologians to describe the effect that this focusing on, calling forth, and visioning the world to come has on our world, and it’s a good word, inbreaking-I like this word. Our prayers and blessings are a way that we can invite God and the world to come to break in to our lives and our world, to break in and begin to transform us here and now, in the world as it is. Jurgen Moltmann is a Christian theologian who writes about this transformative potential; he says, “Those who hope in Christ [and again, we can substitute other words-God, the Divine, etc.]…

“Those who hope in Christ can no longer put up with reality as it is, but begin to suffer under it, to contradict it. Peace with God,” he says, “means conflict with the world, for the… promised future stabs… into the flesh of every unfulfilled present.” That last bit about the future stabbing into the present is inbreaking. And what Moltmann suggests here is that when we hold fast to God and to visions of the world as it could or should be, then we more keenly see that our experienced reality is out of alignment with God’s intent and hope-and we become change agents. As Rabbi Arthur Green says, “There is nothing mere about poetic vision.”

In the story that we heard this morning, God had one idea of how the world would be-but something went wrong. The vessels broke, and divine essency-stuff scattered everywhere. We could consider that and say, “Oh well, this is a broken world-and nothing I could do is going to fix it.” But according to the story, God created humans to participate in the work of mending. That mending, I’d like to suggest, is not about repairing the world and its systems as it is now-rather, this is a deep, transformative, creative-in the sense of creating things-kind of mending. We are to bring into the world a little holiness, to lift up divine sparks, to bring our lives and the world closer to God’s vision of how things are supposed to be.

Whether we achieve all the things we’re working for in the world is not the point. I can tell you from personal experience that freeing yourself from a goal-orientation can be very helpful in sustaining environmental and justice work. What matters isn’t whether we “win.” What matters is whether we are faithful in thought, word, and deed to our highest visions-or, if you’re comfortable with such language, whether we are faithful to God. I completely agree with Dr. Jensen when he said, “We don’t become fully human through winning. We embrace our humanity by acting out of our deepest moral principles to care for each other and care for the larger living world, even if failure is likely, even if failure is inevitable.” See, what really matters is that we’re faithful. And being faithful, in this time-as we face very real climate crisis-means taking action, and not giving into immobilizing despair.

And here, I think, Jensen has another interesting point. In his sermon, he said, “The balancing of [grief and joy] is the beginning of a hope beyond hope, the willingness not only to embrace that danger but to find joy in it.” Those of us who deeply care about the world experience grief, yes, in seeing things as they really are.

But where do we find the joy? The joy that, Jensen says, in balance with grief, can move us toward a “hope beyond hope”? Let’s hold that question for a minute. We’re almost there.

Karl Barth, a Presbyterian theologian of the 20th century, wrote, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.” Let me say that again: “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.”

When we pray and say blessings; when we invoke God’s presence into our daily, imperfect lives and this broken, hurting world; when we hold before us a vision of how things could and should be-this is the first step in making real change possible. Even though the climate science is grim, and the way forward unclear and perhaps bleak… Even though it looks like the world might just be going to hell-we must hold onto the real and transformative power of prayer and story, and the deep-I don’t want to say “hope”… the deep faith that comes with aligning ourselves with another vision of how the world should be. If all we do is focus on the trauma and despair of this world, then we will be consumed by it, I promise you.

Let us, instead, call future, imagined, visioned possibilities of another world-a world to come, or maybe, a “world structured by different systems,” as Jensen put it-let us call that world into this one-and let us do so as we act to care for people and the planet. When we bring our actions into alignment with God’s intent and hope for us and for the world, then-pow!-that is transformation; that is revolution; that is an uprising against the disorder of the world. Also, that is faithfulness, that is wholeness, that is joy. Living and acting in accord with our highest visions is the joy that leads to a hope beyond hope-a joy that will sustain us as we continue the work of mending, even in the midst of brokenness. As poet Wendell Berry said, “Be joyful, though you have considered all the facts.”

May it be so for us and for this world, amen.


 

Podcasts of sermons can also be found for free on iTunes. You can find them here.

 

The Elderly, the Beautiful, and Children of God

Rev. Kathleen Ellis

July, 15, 2012

Rev. Ellis is a Unitarian Universalist minister, ordained in 1993, who has served several congregations in the Southwest and Southeast Districts. She served as treasurer of the UU Ministers Association, ministerial settlement representative for the Southwest, and most recently minister of Congregational Life at Live Oak UU Church in northwest Austin for eight years. She is now Good Offices person for the Southwest. (Good Officers advise and advocate for colleagues who experience difficulties in their ministries.)

As Bollywood brings glimpses of India into our consciousness, the overall impression is that India is complex on multiple levels. Beauty competes with squalor; spirituality competes with greed; generosity competes with corruption; elders, children and homeless people compete for scraps of welfare. Compare it all with the United States: We’re not all that different, but issues become invisible for the most part unless we have some philosophical discussion about it. Nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice?

On sabbatical last year she traveled to India on a three-week spiritual pilgrimage. Kathleen’s husband Jon Montgomery is a member of First UU.


Sermon:

When I picked up Anne Lamott’s book Some Assembly Required, I thought, “How nice, a memoir about a mother who reflects on motherhood through the eyes of her son and infant grandson. My sister had sent it to me for my birthday although I am not (yet) a grandmother. The story was engaging. It brought back a lot of wonderful memories of raising two baby boys.

What I didn’t expect was for the author to take me with her on a two-week trip to India that brought back additional wonderful memories of my own trip to India almost 18 months ago. The journey for both of us was a cultural immersion into the complexity of India; it was a spiritual experience beyond easy description or understanding.

Take a dive with me into that spirituality. [Symbols on trucks and tuk tuks; puja; experience at Chidambaram; symbology of the Ganges, at least equivalent to the sacred Mt. Fujisan and more than our own Statue of Liberty]

The depth of spirituality in India coexists with an earthiness that middle class Westerners seldom witness. In India, spirituality competes with greed; beauty competes with squalor; generosity competes with corruption; elders, children, and homeless people of all ages compete for scraps of welfare. In the U.S. those of us in the middle class or above seldom have to see this level of complexity, but it’s here. Mostly it’s hidden on the other side of the tracks or the other side of Interstate 35; sometimes it creeps onto our street corners in the form of panhandlers-our kind of beggars. In India there’s just a lot more of it in plain sight-not just one panhandler, but a crowd of them at every turn.

My colleague the Rev. Leonora Montgomery once said that everyone ought to travel to India at least once. I now pass that advice on to you IF you are comfortable with the unexpected. How many of you have been there?

Even without a trip to India you may have seen India in the movies in recent years, including the widely known Slumdog Millionaire in 2008 and Best Exotic Marigold Hotel this year. Actor Dev Patel stars in both of them. He welcomes a group of British retirees to his dilapidated potential of a hotel. In trying to make a go of the family business he thought he could attract elders to India. He tells his mother, “other countries don’t like old people either.” He figures he can “outsource old age” by bringing old people, unwanted in their own country, to live in India. He’ll start with the English and expand from there.

His promotion worked, though perhaps a “little bit” before the hotel was quite ready. When someone complained he told her, “We have a saying in India: “Everything will be all right in the end. So if it is not all right, it is not yet the end.” There’s nothing like a sense of optimism when things go wrong.

Each of the tourists had a different set of expectations and as a result, very different experiences. One man who was enthralled with India tried to explain his attraction to his complaining wife. He loved “the light, the color, the smiles.” A trip to India is about what you bring to it and yet, it is best if you leave all expectations behind. In the movie, of course, Sonny the hotel manager was right: Everything was all right in the end.

Four years ago, actor Dev Patel had already played the lead in Slumdog Millionaire. Time and again he explains an unexpected outcome with another saying: “It is written.” We can’t be sure that everything will be all right in the end, and we can’t stop trying, but “It is written” conveys to me a sense of fatalism rather than optimism.

We learned over and over that it was inevitable that his character Jamal would eventually rescue and marry the character Latika, played by Freida Pinto. Each of them was also portrayed by a child actor, because it begins in the slum in which they live. Jamal was winning a televised competition in an Indian equivalent of “Who wants to be a millionaire?” He was suspected of cheating, and between games he was tortured to make him talk. However, Jamal’s life experiences had given him most of the answers. Everyone except the show’s sponsors were thrilled with his winnings of $100 million rupees. It was written. By God, by Allah, by Fate? Take your pick!

But why stop with a predictable trinity? Was it written by Moira, Yaweh, Wotan? Phan Ku, Ra, or Zeus? The list surely goes on and on.

Jamal’s back story touches on many of the rougher aspects of India, starting with homeless orphans who live in the landfills. Unscrupulous scavengers of children entice or kidnap dozens of these street kids to give them a place to stay then turn them into beggars or slaves, prostitutes or classical dancers. One source estimated the number at 300,000 child beggars in a population of 1.2 billion people overall. In the begging industry, the children do not get the money, but have to turn it over to the gangsters or maybe their own parents if they have them.

I wanted to know more than Bollywood could tell me, so I turned to Shashi Tharoor, an Indian-American who writes with wit and depth with a critical eye through a prism of love for India and pride in his heritage.

Tharoor observes that India is not a welfare state. The government does not provide much help to the teeming multitudes who live in poverty. But India is a welfare society based primarily on family units. People help each other out-a place to live until they find a job-based on family ties, affiliation to informal castes, or connection to the village or neighborhood. Outside those circles little attention is paid.

Therefore, you will see nice apartments inside buildings that are dirty and unkempt. Tharoor remembers that his mother asked her servant-sweeper to sweep the apartment stairs for extra pay and the woman was incredulous. “Why, Madam, when they are not your stairs?” she replied. The attitude helps explain why you will see beautifully kept homes that are accessible only through filthy public spaces. Personal hygiene exists alongside indifference for public sanitation; sewage systems reek and overflow; and pollution generates staggering levels of respiratory illness.

Even in isolated areas that are environmentally conscious, regulations are routinely ignored. After all, unemployment is a greater political liability than lung cancer. Do you see some irony here? That basic argument-job creation vs. health care–will constitute our own political discourse even beyond the next election. The rationale is different but the effect is similar. In Austin, we have social services, but the recipients are mostly out of sight.

Let me hasten to say that the Indian government is trying to meet the needs; activists and charities are trying to fill the gaps; but sheer numbers overwhelm every system. India has the world’s second largest population, after China. Population growth over the past 25 years has increased more than the entire U.S. population today. Deforestation has degraded land and reduced its agricultural capacity. How, then, might anyone provide enough food, clean water and air, health care, and education, not to mention housing?

No wonder beggars swarm the streets. One billion dollars is spent every year on population control. The most popular form is sterilization. But by the time this option is chosen, people are in their 30s and have already produced more children than is good for them or the country. Kids who survive to grow up are not only a source of labor for the family, but also provide social security for their elders.

Hundreds of charities and activist organizations, both Indian and foreign, labor to save the children and the sick. One local example is The Miracle Foundation that was founded on Mother’s Day just 12 years ago by Austinite Caroline Boudreaux. She couldn’t stand the poverty she had witnessed among Indian orphans and came home to launch The Miracle Foundation, which is headquartered down on 6th Street near West Lynn.

The website says, “The Miracle Foundation is a vibrant and trusted non-profit organization that empowers orphans to reach their full potential-one child at a time.” They support five orphanages in rural areas across India and have transformed the lives of hundreds of children. Safety, nutritious food, and education work the miracles.

Of course they also take donations. “$75 is the cost to cover one child’s medical needs for a year, including all necessary vaccinations, annual medical check-ups, de-worming, and pharmaceutical sundries.” [I was a little put off by the reference to “de-worming,” but I do seem to remember that time one of my sons got pinworms and one brought home head lice. Not so foreign, after all.] Some Miracle volunteers go as Ambassadors to work in India for a week and their hearts melt.

In addition to social services, the Indian government is also trying to address population growth and health concerns through literacy and further education. As some of you might remember from my previous sermon here, millions of children have no school. A high school graduate began a school that we visited in the waste dump. She teaches Hindi, English, the local language, math, and writing to about 70 children 12 and under while her husband advocates for worker rights. The children are beautiful and smart. When the teacher calls on them they will stand up to sing or recite the response. Children did not wear shoes, but outside their huts, adult shoes were lined up beside the door or up on the low roofs. Take off your shoes before you go into your dirt hut.

If you go, be prepared for transformation. Not that you can just order up transformation on some menu, but everything under the sun is right there and in your space. “The light, the colors, the smiles . . .” The spirit of a fiercely spiritual people who live close to the earth. . . .

Yesterday I went to the Miracle Foundation to meet its founder Caroline Boudreaux. Over a cup of coffee I asked about her personal journey. A dozen years ago she and a friend took a trip around the world. One of their stops was in India to meet the friend’s sponsored child for whom she sent monthly support. Despite Caroline’s skepticism, the boy was not just a photograph sent to dozens of people in exchange for money. He was real and he lived in an orphanage.

It happened to be Mother’s Day in the U.S. and Caroline had called her mother to acknowledge their loving connection. At the orphanage she picked up a baby girl, who clung to her like Velcro and buried herself in her chest like babies will do. Caroline sang her a lullaby. She sang her to sleep on Mother’s Day, then went to the dorm to lay her in bed. The beds were all made of wood-no mattresses, no stuffed animals, just wood and easy to clean. Caroline could feel the bones of this baby meet the bones of the wood and was transformed. She knew her calling was to make a difference in these young lives. That’s the birth story of The Miracle Foundation.

Caroline reflected on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. You know the pyramid, built on a broad base of safety, water, food, clothing, and shelter-the things everyone needs. At the top of the pyramid are justice and ethics and self-actualization. But she said the top of the pyramid has to bend down to touch the bottom. Not just touch, but reach down and lift. . . .

Are we not all children of God? The ones who can make a difference to one another? Here in this space, week after week, you remind yourselves to “nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice.” I invite you to consider the broadest interpretation: nourish souls, but also bodies and minds; transform lives-your own AND someone else’s; do justice-at home AND somewhere that tugs at your heart. Then your life will overflow.

Namaste

Amen


 

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes. They can be found here.

 

The Courage to Trust

Jim Checkley

July 8, 2012

According to polls, “trust” is at an all time low within our country. Government, lawyers, the media, politicians, and others are setting all time low marks for trust. They say that when trust is broken in a relationship, it is very difficult to repair and it is usually time to move on. But how do you move on from yourself? Moreover, trust is not just an external phenomenon; it is in fact important to our own inner well being, and somewhat like forgiveness, often says more about us than about them. Checkley first attended the Church in 1977 and has been conducting services since 1987. He looks forward to taking the pulpit for the 28th time.

 


Sermon: The Courage to Trust

Author’s note: I have revised this from the talk given at the Church. The big change is to the discussion of meetings by avatar, which were prompted by a post-service discussion with an IBM employee. The vast majority of the rest are the usual changes to go from an oral presentation to a written document, including details and back-up not included in the sermon as delivered.

There is an old joke that goes: What’s the opposite of progress? The answer? Congress.

Congress has been the butt of jokes for years, but last October, trust in Congress to do the right thing fell to an all-time low. Only 9 percent of respondents to a New York Times poll said they “approved” of how Congress was conducting its business. And, American’s trust in their government overall reached a new low – even below Watergate levels – with just 10 percent of those polled believing government will do what is right “all” or “most of the time.”

This isn’t much of a surprise is it? What may be somewhat more surprising is the fact that Congress and the government have plenty of company. According to the polls, the trust Americans have in just about everything is at an all-time low.

In late June of this year, a Gallup poll showed that trust in the public education system had fallen again, with only 29 percent of respondents having “a great deal of confidence” in education. This is down from 58 percent in 1958, when Gallup first began conducting the poll. Banks have been hit hard, down 24 percentage points since 2002 to where only 22 percent of respondents in a 2011 Gallup poll said they had confidence in the banking system. And of some interest to us today, trust in organized religious institutions, despite the United States being one of the most religious countries on the planet, is also at an all-time low. Even trust in the future is at an all-time low, with a majority of Americans believing for the first time in recorded history that the next generation will not be as well off as they are.

To give you some more flavor of how pervasive lack of trust is in America, let me provide you just a few more numbers. These percentages represent the people who in a 2010 Harris Poll said they had a high level of confidence in the institution in question: TV news at 17 percent, major corporations at 15 percent, the press at 13 percent, law firms at 13 percent, and Wall Street dead last at 8 percent.

And by all-time low, I really mean it. Here’s some interesting context for these numbers: according to the Associated Press, 34 percent of Americans believe in ghosts, which is higher than any of the numbers I quoted above. This means that more Americans think that their homes could be haunted than believe that they will get a fair shake at their banks, that major corporations will do the right thing, or that the press tells the truth.

So are there any institutions that are doing well? A couple. In the referenced 2010 Harris Poll, people gave only two institutions ratings at or over 50 percent in terms of having great confidence that they would do the right thing. What were they? The military at 59 percent and small business at exactly 50 percent. The next highest was colleges and universities at only 35 percent. And among the professions, we still trust health workers like doctors and nurses, although the numbers have fallen, while firefighters, teachers, and pharmacists round out the top four.

There’s one point of special interest to me given my background in science. And that is the fact that trust in science is also at an all-time low. That is, the number of conservatives who say they have a “great deal” of trust in science has fallen to 35 percent, down 28 points from the mid-1970s, according to a recent academic paper by Gordon Gauchet published in the American Sociological Review. According to the paper, the trust that “moderates” and “liberals” have in science has remained steady since the 70s, while that of conservatives has plummeted.

Bear with me, because I want to talk about this just a little bit. What’s disturbing about this is that we are not talking about uneducated conservatives. Nope. We are talking about educated conservatives, those with college degrees and graduate degrees. According to Gauchet, conservatives with college degrees decreased in trust faster over the time period studied than those with only a high school diploma. He finds this result profound because, “it implies that conservative discontent with science was not attributed to the uneducated, but to rising distrust among educated conservatives.”

But this fact is itself quite disturbing to me because it implies that this lack of trust is political and ideological and has little to do with science itself having been shown to be untrustworthy, even considering the politicization of global climate change. Gauchet says: “It kind of began with the loss of Barry Goldwater and the construction of Fox News and all these [conservative] think tanks. The perception among conservatives is that they’re at a disadvantage, a minority. It’s not surprising that the conservative subculture would challenge what’s viewed as the dominant knowledge production groups in society-science and the media.”

I would suggest to you that this polarization between the right and the left has in fact impacted every single aspect of America and the people’s trust in government, institutions, communities, and even themselves. Take, for example, the recent Supreme Court decision on health care. You would think that of all the institutions of government, the Supreme Court would be viewed as providing an objective decision based on law. But as the prognostication over health care and other important cases has shown, that is not the case. We see the Court as ideologically split and when Chief Justice Roberts upheld the health care law under the tax and spend authority, conservatives felt betrayed and liberals were stunned. The way Fox News reported it, you’d think that Roberts had just sold the country down the river-and I suppose that’s how conservatives felt. But that’s not how it’s supposed to be. We are so used to an ideological, if not cynical, view of the Court that we can’t remember well the days when there was at least an outwardly expressed belief that the Court would do what was right under the Constitution.

Now, I’m sure that a lot of this isn’t news to you. You live it every day just as I do. So you may be thinking, “Yes, Jim, things are bad. We know that. People can’t be trusted, institutions can’t be trusted, government can’t be trusted, seems like nothing can be trusted. What’s a person supposed to do?” My answer to you today is as simple as it is difficult: Trust anyway. That’s the lesson I want to bring to you today. Yes, it’s bad out there and we have been betrayed at every level, but it is important, imperative even, that we regain our sense of trust.

I know. Sometimes it is silly to trust. That’s one of the lessons of the Scorpion and the Frog. Sometimes it is silly, dangerous, and foolish to trust. And I get that and I’m not suggesting that we act foolishly. There is, however, a big difference in having an attitude of trust and being a dimwit and trusting when trust is a silly thing to do.

You know, the thing about the Scorpion and the Frog is that the lesson is that scorpions, and by extension, people, cannot help themselves, even if it means their death. Scorpions sting. And people, well, people betray our trust. We have plenty of examples of that right? Think of all the politicians who ruined their careers having affairs. I’m not going to name them, you know who they are. In fact, history is riddled with men and women who just couldn’t help themselves and in the process hurt others and ultimately ruined themselves and their careers.

But from a religious point of view, the story of the Scorpion and the Frog goes even further. Catholics and Fundamentalists believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin says that all humans are born sinners, corrupted, as it were, by the sin of Adam and Eve, and from the moment of birth until death are nothing but sin machines. I found a wonderful expression of this belief online, where a fundamentalist minister claimed: “Have you ever heard about busy people who ‘hit the ground running’? In the delivery room we hit the obstetrician’s catcher’s mitt sinning. We’re born as sinners.”

But we don’t believe this, do we, we Unitarian Universalists? Do we believe that people are born sinners, corrupted by Original Sin? I don’t think so. We may be a creedless church, but we do have the Seven Principles, and I don’t think that believing that all people hit the obstetrician’s catcher’s mitt sinning is consistent with them. In fact, such a belief is wholly inconsistent with the very first principle: that we avow the inherent worth and dignity of every person. This seems to put us on the opposite end from the Catholics and the Fundamentalists, who believe that all babies are born corrupted. Not much inherent worth and dignity there.

Even so, we UUs are not naive and recognize that people will betray trust, behave badly, and even commit atrocious acts. But our first principle, our opening position, is to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Said another way, we begin with an attitude of trust, and go from there. This reminds me that I want to say a few words about the saying that I put on the cover of the order of service: “In God we trust, all others pay cash.” You’ve heard it before, right? In Islam there is a similar saying: “Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel.” I kind of like that one. Even had it made into a t-shirt back in the 70s. And the sentiment expressed by these sayings reminds me of Ronald Regan famously saying about a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.”

These sayings all make sense to us on a gut level. But, are they really talking about trusting? Where is the trust if you are going to verify anyway? Might as well just say: “We’ll agree, but only if we can verify because we don’t trust you.” And I don’t know about you, but I don’t think God is going to be ordering coffee and donuts any time soon, so the expression really reduces to: “Pay up now, because we actually don’t trust you to pay later.” And finally, I can’t claim to know much about camels, but I suspect that they, like horses, don’t stay put unless they are hitched to a rail. So the expression should be, “Tie up your camel, because if it runs away, it’s your fault, not Allah’s, who doesn’t seem to care what happens to anybody’s camel.”

Now, I’m making light of this, but there is a very profound question here. That question is: can we trust, I mean truly trust, in a world where we know the only things we can trust 100 percent of the time are death, taxes, and, at least since 1908, the Chicago Cubs not winning the World Series? I’ve made a little joke here, but this is actually a very profound question because in an uncertain world, it turns out that trust is essential for all human relationships to work well and for us to be happy. And I’d say that makes trust pretty important. I want to be very clear what I am talking about. There are two kinds of trust that I am talking about. First, there is the common, ordinary trust, which I will call transactional or relational trust. This is where you say, “I’ll be back at seven tonight to pick you up” and lo and behold, there you are at seven that evening. This kind of trust is founded on reciprocity, fairness, and mutual respect and affection. John Gottman, perhaps the most famous marriage counselor in this country, says that we trust in this sense when we believe that the person we trust has our best interest at heart, or, said another way, has our backs and will act accordingly. This then, is the ordinary trust in human relations, and it extends to trusting that institutions, from this church to the government to the banks to the media, all have our backs and will do right by us.

This kind of transactional or relational trust is precious and hard to come by. It’s what we Americans lack in relation to our institutions and leaders, but it also seems to be increasingly lacking in personal relationships. I may be out there on this, but here’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: people don’t seem to be getting together to do things like they used to. Everybody wants to do his or her own thing and has a personal music player, personal smart phone, and even when they hang out together, they are alone with their music and their social media. Am I the only one bothered by the proliferation of screens and people’s obsession with them? Is it really the case that having 500 friends on Facebook means you have 500 friends? I believe you can’t know if somebody is truly your friend until he or she has inconvenienced himself or herself for you. Are all those Facebook friends ready to inconvenience themselves for you? And how would you know?

And here’s something for you in the hanging out and getting to know people department. Did you know that IBM at one time conducted meetings by avatar and that in 2009 that company rolled out a service called Virtual Collaboration for Lotus Sametime, where users set up and use virtual meeting spaces? It’s true. People who attend the meeting manipulate a two dimensional version of themselves on the screen and shake hands, sit around a table, and talk to each other through the cartoon image. I saw a report on PBS that said that IBM found that when people meet this way, their affinity for each other goes up and they are more cooperative and get more done. In fact, in commenting on the release of Virtual Collaboration, the Information Officer at Northcentral Technical College in Wisconsin was quoted as saying: “College students love to learn and meet in virtual worlds.” So I guess in the not too distant future many of us will be saying, “I may not trust John, since I never met him, but I really like his avatar.” Welcome to the brave new (virtual) world.

And transactional or relational trust, of course, is a two way street. This kind of trust is a reciprocal phenomenon that requires that we ourselves be trustworthy. And how do we become trustworthy? For starters, be honest. Keep your word. Researchers say that by doing the little things right and well, we create an aura of trust.

Keep confidences. Share personal information. If we divulge something of ourselves, we appear to be more trustworthy than when we hold things close to the vest. Of course, discretion is important here-don’t want to scare anybody off.

Do things that are in the best interest of the other person. That is the very definition of trust. Spend time together. In this era of texting and Facebook, nothing beats actually being together, except at IBM, I suppose. Finally, be real. Apologize when you make a mistake. We are all human and will all make mistakes. How we handle our mistakes is important. For example, studies show that doctors who apologize to their patients when they goof up are far less likely to be sued. And remember, most people want to trust. We just have to give them good reasons.

But there is a second kind of trust I want to talk about that is not reciprocal or transactional. This kind of trust is more of a spiritual or innate attitude about life and the world. It’s the trust that comes from an inner strength that provides us with confidence that however the world turns out this day, we will deal with it and be OK. You could call it faith, but I like to think of it more as a trust-a trust that the world is a knowable, understandable place, that I am an integral part of it, just like our UU principles declare, and that each one of us has the ability to create a quality environment for ourselves and others. It’s the ability to approach life with a trusting attitude, one that, like our first principle, allows us to view the world, our institutions, and each other with an opening position of trust that we can change the things we can control and have the wherewithal and ability to deal with those we cannot. I’m not saying it’s easy. But I am saying it is important.

But before I talk about that, I want to suggest that things are not as bad as we may imagine. With our 24/7 cable news outlets trying their best to outdo each other, every single bad thing that happens is burned into our consciousness with laser-like power. You’ve heard the expression, “no news is good news?” Well, I think the media act on the presumption that “good news is no news.” And why not? We seem to be drawn to tragedy, heartache, and loss like the proverbial moth to the flame. So in thinking about having and maintaining an attitude of trust, it is important to consider the media blitz of negative news and take it with a grain of salt.

Having an attitude of trust is important because trust is an essential element of life. Study after study tells us that without trust things break down, whether it’s at a cosmic level, a government level, an institutional level, or a personal level. Here’s your bumper sticker moment: Trust is the lubricant of human interactions. Trust helps us navigate the world in a way that minimizes stress, fear, and worry. When trust is absent, we are under stress, we become first vigilant and then hypervigilant about betrayal, real and imagined, we build walls both figurative and actual, we require confirmation of everything, verification of everything. It gets difficult to do business. It gets difficult to coordinate activities that require cooperation and planning and execution over an extended period of time. Sometimes it gets to be impossible to get anything done. Sounds like Congress, right?

And when we get to that point, when trust is truly ruined, psychologists will tell us that some relationships just can’t be saved. It’s sort of like trying to unburn a burnt pie. It can’t be done. Just have to throw it away and start over. I confess I feel like this with respect to our politics: that it’s broken beyond repair. And there are some studies that would support this conclusion. But then again, what choice do we have but to go forward and try to reconcile enough to at least get along?

Trust is also important because there is powerful evidence that having a trusting attitude leads to happiness. I quoted at the beginning of the service from the book The Geography of Bliss, in which the author explains the connection he found between trust and happiness. That connection is, in a nutshell, that the people who had the most trusting attitude about the world, institutions, and each other, were the happiest people. This makes sense to me given how negative life can be if we have little or no trust in it or ourselves. This also is consistent with studies about happiness in Europe. We Americans might think that the people who live along the Mediterranean would have the greatest overall level of happiness. But this isn’t the case. It turns out that the Danes, the Norwegians, the Swiss, and the Swedes, were the happiest, despite living mostly in the cold and the dark. And not coincidentally, these people also had the strongest attitude of trust.

One more example: a Canadian researcher who looked at the connection between trust at the office and happiness found that just moving up one point on a 10-point scale of trust in the management of the business has the life satisfaction equivalence of something like a one-third increase in income. A little bit of trust equaled a lot of money. Trust and happiness. They go together.

Finally, having a trusting attitude is good for our souls. By this I mean that having a trusting attitude inures to our spiritual benefit much more than it matters to those who we trust. In this respect, I see bringing a trusting attitude to life and its components, be they institutions or people, a little like I see forgiveness. When we forgive, we really need to do it for ourselves, not the other person. Forgiveness takes a load off of our hearts and souls, and lets us be free of the negativity and stress and anger and pain that go with carrying a grudge and being hateful and unforgiving. The act of trusting works in much the same manner. Trusting, even if the face of betrayal, allows us to heal, gets rid of the stress and negativity, and provides a positive psychological environment. Trusting allows us to view the world through lightly tinted rose colored glasses, as it were, and provides a faith in the unfolding of events and our lives that lets us approach life with a better attitude and a better opportunity for happiness.

Again I will emphasize that I am not saying we should act foolishly or naively-far from it. We need to be sensible and take precautions and enter into our transactional and relational trusts deliberately and with eyes wide open. But the courage to trust from a spiritual or innate point of view is more of a perspective, a way we choose to look at the world as we live our lives. For you see, courage is not about ignoring reality or denying anxiety. It is instead the will to act in spite of reality and anxiety.

The courage to trust is choosing to empower yourself and your choices rather than sinking into cynicism and negativity. And here is my last tidbit of the day for you: psychologists tell us that the marriages and friendships and relationships that last the longest and are the happiest are those where the participants view each other through lightly tinted rose colored glasses. As it is with love and friendship, so I suggest it is with life in all its myriad aspects.

Let me conclude by saying this: There are reasons why trust is at an all-time low in virtually every aspect of life we can think of. It would be easy to decide not to trust and instead protect oneself with emotional, psychological, and real walls. But if we want to make things better, both for ourselves and others, then don’t we have to take the first step and even in the face of betrayal, cultivate an attitude of trust? Somebody has to make the first move, and if we want others to trust us, shouldn’t we develop and project an attitude of trust ourselves? That will take courage and will mean being strong inside. It will also mean having the faith and confidence that come what may, be it betrayal or hardship or natural disaster, we can deal with it. And amazingly enough, all evidence says that if we can do this, the payoff for each of us will be a happier more satisfying life.

And trust me, I can live with that.

Presented July 8, 2012 First UU Church Austin, Texas Revised for Print

Copyright 2012 by Jim Checkley


 

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes. Our podcast can be found here.

What is Patriotism?

Rev. Mark Skrabacz

July, 1, 2012

On the Sunday before the Independence Day holiday, let’s examine the idea of patriotism and its varying degrees, interpretations and practices. We like to think we are patriotic. How do we define patriotism? What does it mean?

One of your members recently sent these words that describe something of patriotism. I believe they are what many of us feel and think. Let me share them. “As July 4th approaches, I imagine most of you, like myself, will at some point pause to again honor and revere the courage and wisdom of our founding fathers. As I grew up, I developed a basic faith in the goodness of my country. And a deep, reverent loyalty to our country’s symbols, celebrations and institutions. And a trusting faith that our government would honor and enshrine in its actions the greatness of the universal principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. This I essentially once took for granted. Over the years I’ve come to finally fully appreciate that our Constitutional Republic does indeed need a fully informed public to survive.” I’d like to add “and fully involved.” While the writer continues with concerns about the transparency of our government and our own willingness as a self-governing people to question our administration, let’s continue our inquiry into patriotismwith the symbol of our flag.

Have you noticed how much the Stars and Stripes are ever-present in political campaigns? Apparently to remind us of the candidates’ patriotism. The more flags showing the better: whole rows of flags, everyone in the camera’s view waving a hand-held flag. And heaven help the candidate who fails to wear the American Flag Pin on his or her lapel. Never mind that that pin was in all likelihood fabricated in an overseas sweatshop, along with the various decal ribbons proclaiming support for our troops. I guess the theory is that without the symbol, one can’t be sure the candidate, or anyone for that matter, is truly a patriot. This conjures personal memories for me of the Vietnam era “America…Love it or leave it” bumper stickers. Seems like some of those are still on cars in Texas towns.

The notion that patriotism consists of paying homage to symbols isn’t new. Governments have made this type of appeal throughout history. The Nazi movement in 1930’s Germany was fueled by symbolism. Stirring music, massive displays of uniformed men and military hardware…impressive and a trigger for mob mentality.

I think a person’s interpretation of the word “patriotism” tells much about that person’s views and era. Note that: Pro slavery was once patriotic; pro labor union was un-American. The latter sentiment is arising again along with a number of issues many of us thought long gone. Some in the media, public office, and other sources, tell us that one’s degree of patriotism is governed by the degree to which they believe our country is the only repository of good in this world. Many of these people harken to the good old days when America was the world’s beacon for liberty and success, and it just isn’t any more. How do we feel about that? If your religion is Nationalism, you’ll probably be very upset.

“Patriotism” wears many disguises in America. Some equate patriotism with religion. They have a goal of shaping every aspect of our culture in accordance with Biblical laws, especially politics. We have seen plenty of pressure from the religious right. Who would’ve thought that contraception would become an issue in 2012? Today, being for marriage equality is looked upon by some as, “godless, barbaric and unpatriotic.” Marginalizing people who hold minority or no religious views, is “patriotic.” The list continues.

So, how do we UUs define patriotism? The simple “my country right or wrong” brand is easy as are all simplistic answers. We UUs have a long history of Civil Disobedience as a more complex form of patriotism. How many laws did Thoreau or Dr. King break to further the cause of justice? Who made the full text of the Pentagon Papers available for scholars and libraries by publishing them in book form? When excerpts from the papers were leaked to newspapers, President Nixon used every tactic, legal and illegal, to suppress publication, forming the infamous team of “plumbers” to track down the leak. Such tactics eventually triggered the Watergate scandal that drove Nixon out of office. Patriotic UUs had a major role in that.

UUs find respecting unpopular points of view is patriotic, and threatening those views is not. Would wearing a flag pin make me a patriot?…or is patriotism believing in what that flag was meant to represent? So many who use that flag pin as a litmus test seem to feel that when I voice opposition to policies I believe are wrong I am unpatriotic. What would Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine do? Well. We KNOW what they did when they tired of paying homage to an unresponsive government.

I think most would agree that Jefferson was an American Patriot. Yet Jefferson opined that it was the right…no….the RESPONSIBILITY, of the citizenry to monitor the actions of our government, and when necessary, remove that government. I think we know that today there are whole media outlets with the mission of criticizing and removing our present government. Does that make them patriotic?

It might be nice to be considered “patriotic.” If only I could believe that my country ALWAYS did the right thing. If only I trusted our leaders or our Supreme Court to uphold constitutional rights. If I could believe that the lack of concern shown while New Orleans was drowning had nothing to do with a disregard for poor and powerless people. And if I could believe our leaders only went to war as a last resort, I might be considered patriotic. But I can’t do those things; if I did, it wouldn’t be patriotic. It would be an insult to the founding principles of America, and paying homage to the SYMBOLS of America, while trashing the idealism upon which it was founded. And that would be dishonest.

There are those who seem to assert a strong influence in politics now who now call themselves “social conservatives.” People like the American Family Association spokesperson Brian Fischer who has a favorite theme that homosexual behavior has always been a matter of choice. He quotes a scientific study that shows concordance of homosexuality between identical twins to be only 6%. He says: “If one of them is gay and it’s genetically caused, the other one ought to be gay 100% of the time.” Fischer is not only an extremist. He also ignores contrary statistics. For instance in 2003, psychologists at the University of London performed a meta-analysis of 6 studies involving concordance of identical twins and reported a range of 30-65%, far greater than the average occurrence of homosexuality in the population at large. They concluded their evidence strongly suggests a heritable component. Many UUs would resonate with this information. That’s why we are “standing on the side of love,” as a political action.

That’s a part of how we are patriotic. I don’t know too many UUs who take the position that blind obedience and displaying of symbols represent patriotism. Waving the flag doesn’t take much thought…just some muscle. Maybe that’s the difference between those who long for a country steeped in economic and military power as patriotic, as opposed to those who feel that it is the patriotic DUTY of each of us to examine and evaluate…and to oppose power when appropriate. We wonder about the difficulty of UU’s to proselytize. I think our lack of absolutes hinders us in that, as well as an inability to fit today’s definition of patriotism. Free thought and no dogma. That’s our mission. So be it.

Listen to those who promote “my country right or wrong”, and they’ll accuse anyone who questions our country’s stance on human rights as being un-American. And part of their view is the effort to merge religion with the government. They ask, why can’t we just have a national religion? To many it’s an integral component of patriotism. If you aren’t a Christian, can you be patriotic? Can an atheist be patriotic? Not according to Fox News. Simply inferring that a candidate is Muslim is enough of a smear. Remember John Kennedy’s Catholic faith 50 years ago. I wonder how much the presumptive Republican candidate’s Mormon faith will affect his campaign? Could our founders, who specifically stated that this country was NEVER to have a religious test for public office abide this? But then, the talk of repealing portions of the Constitution seems very patriotic. Could a UU pass the Presidential candidacy test today? I don’t think so. And while this country was clearly built on a secular foundation, reactionary voices now spout out the term “secular humanist” or “non-believer” as a curse. Most religions are based on some really wonderful suppositions. (Often called ‘facts’ or ‘truth.’) Each attempts to tell what is good and what is evil. How I should live and what I must reject. So many memorize these rules, while forgetting the central tenet shared by every religion. It starts like this ‘Do unto others….’

But as some polititions have perverted democracy, so have some clergy perverted religion. Rather than exercise the Golden Rule, they spend time judging others, and segregating them by whatever is at the time convenient: sexual orientation, political philosophy, and whatever self-serving interpretation of scripture is. Gays sex is an abomination…Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will all burn in hell. It is my sacred duty to compel you to believe as I do. And if I fail to convince you, then I have to kill you. (of course, I do so for your own good.) In the name of God, they pervert religion. I think that philosophy makes religion a sham. Hindus and Buddhists preach universal love without judgment of others…which is more humane. But most of us haven’t evolved to the point where we can practice that.

Patriotism is probably a good thing. But maybe a sharper definition would help. Here are a few thoughts in closing. I’m certain you can add your own.

Believing my country can lead the world towards PEACE is more patriotic than knowing we can vanquish anyone in war: I think the many thousands of citizens who took to the streets prior to the invasion of Iraq were patriots in the true spirit of our founders. It is patriotic to recognize and HONOR the separation of religious belief from the governing of our country. Keeping in mind how many came to America to escape regimes where the line between government and religion was blurred, or simply ignored. The rights of the minority must never be compromised by the will of the majority…to do otherwise is un-patriotic and anathema to the constitution. I believe torture is un-American, as is the de facto repeal of the right of Habeas Corpus, and that this Nation was founded on the premise that it be ruled by laws and not by men. George Washington was offered the position of king. His wise refusal was a lesson: we do not benefit by mimicking that which we despise. And yet we hear constantly that “Well, they do it, so why shouldn’t we?” A true patriot would say that by mimicking that with which we disagree is surrendering. We do not spread democracy by ignoring democratic ideals. When we become what we purport to fight against, we are committing treason. And that treason is no less so when our leaders do it. And when we send our children off to fight and die in wars of choice, it may be hubris, or empire building, or result in material gain… but it is NOT patriotism.

Will history judge those who speak out against war as traitors or patriots? What of those in support the right of every loving couple to be married. Barbaric? And, is there any doubt upon which side of those issues many UUs stand? Is it patriotic, as many have in the past few years, to continually call for the failure of a President during his office? Blocking his appointments and stifling his ideas? That is antithetical to both democracy AND religion. I cannot believe in that.

So I’m acknowledging this symbol (pointing to the flag). I’m unwilling to cede this flag to those who subvert its ideals. It’s my flag, and I’ll honor it because of the principles it was meant to represent. When we decide that this nation must be a force for good, we deserve the title patriot. In the family of nations we will act as any good family member. Treating others with understanding when we have differences is patriotic. And I hope that those who would call themselves patriots will recognize that the kind of patriotism this flag was meant to represent is: respect and love, not swagger and torture. Airplanes dropping food and water and medicine, not bombs. A government that is committed to resolving differences thru diplomacy and discussion, not threats. I would hope that our efforts might be a beginning to show the rest of the world the America we were always meant to be. Patriotism will have prevailed. If we do this, all the world and all the world’s gods will join us in blessing America.

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes.

The Narrow Gate

Tom Spencer

CEO of Interfaith Action of Central Texas

June 24, 2012

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

The Narrow Gate: Passageways to the Ordinarily Sacred

A reflection on the transformative power of paying attention to the everyday occurrences of our lives.

Text of this sermon is not yet available. Click the play button to listen. Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes.

Flower Communion Service

Rev. George “Kim” Beach

May 27, 2012

Rev. Meg Barnhouse and Barbara Stoddard lead the Flower Communion litany. By bringing and exchanging flowers in this service, participants are part of a particularly Unitarian service created by Rev. Norbert Capek, who believed that each of us is like a flower which is beautiful in its own way. When we gather as a church, we are a festive bouquet of people.

The communion we celebrate has taken place all over the world in Unitarian and UU churches since 1923. Norbert Capek started this ritual to celebrate the worth, value and beauty of all people and celebrate the community of faith. In celebrating the worth of all shapes, sizes, families and colors, Capek saw hope for humanity. He would later die at the hands of the Nazis because this belief was so different from theirs. We remember him and his principles and dreams.

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

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes.

Individualism vs the social contract

The Youth of FUUCA

Audrey Lewis, Max Wethington, Kate Windsor, Jara Stiller, Andrew Young

May 20, 2012

This year’s theme for the Annual Youth Service theme is “Individualism vs the social contract”. The service includes a bridging ceremony for youth who have just completed the 5th, 8th and 12th grades.

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

Podcasts of Sermons are also available for free on iTunes.

Humility: Struggle with the Two Selves

Eric Hepburn

April 29, 2012

Cutting-edge researchers in psychology and cognitive science increasingly refer to the “two selves” of our in-the-moment self and our reflecting or remembering self. We will explore this abstract dichotomy through the lens of my very personal struggle to find a meaningful relationship with humility.

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

Podcasts of sermons are also available for free on iTunes.

Unitarian Universalist Utopias

Luther Elmore

March 25, 2012

How Shall We Live? In the first half of the nineteenth century approximately one hundred utopian societies were established across the United States, several by Unitarians and Universalists. We will look at those UU utopian societies and see what lessons they offer us today.

Times of dramatic and rapid change often lead people to question all aspects of their lives. Such a time in the United States was in the early 19th century. As America entered the early 1800s the country began to take its first major steps toward an industrial society. People no longer stayed on the family farm. The first textile mills were established in New England. Improvements in transportation and printing came at a time when hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from Germany and Ireland flooded the country. The old, traditional patterns of life were altered and individuals looked for new ways to live. Some sought community in utopian societies. Over 100 such communities were established in the United States in the years prior to the Civil War. Some were religious, some were secular, some were entirely economic – all sought a better way of life. A few were established by our Unitarian and Universalist forefathers. Their search for a new life in the 1830s and 1840s still speaks to the way we choose to live our life today.

The most well known of these societies related to our UU ancestors was Brook Farm, established by Unitarian minister George Ripley. Ripley was a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and for 15 years the settled minister at Purchase Street Church in Boston. Increasingly attracted to Transcendentalism, in 1840 he attended a Christian Union Convention where participants were encouraged to follow the words of 2 Corinthians 6:17. “Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” Ripley envisioned a Transcendentalist “City of God” and plans for the community were made in the home of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The preamble to his “Articles of Agreement” state the lofty goals of Brook Farm:

To establish the external relations of life on a basis of wisdom and purity; to apply the principles of justice and love to our social organization In accordance with the laws of Divine Providence; to substitute a system of brotherly cooperation for one of selfish competition; to institute an attractive, efficient, and productive system of industry; to diminish the desire of excessive accumulation; to guarantee to each other forever the means of physical support and of spiritual progress; and thus to impart a greater freedom, simplicity, truthfulness, refinement and moral dignity to our mode of life…”

He organized a joint stock company, raised $11,000 in donations and pledges, bought a 200 acre farm eight miles from Boston in West Roxbury and called it “The Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education.” In March of 1841 he gave his final sermon at the Purchase Street Church and he and his wife moved to Brook Farm. They were soon joined by 13 other adults and within a year the community had 70 residents.

Work was chosen and assigned based on personal affinity and skills. Since all were expected to work and all work was equally honored, all were paid the same. Farmers, carpenters, and laborers were paid the same as teachers, poets, and philosophers. Education, social class, age, and gender made no difference. This plot of land had previously been a dairy farm and the soil was rather poor. Nevertheless, they planted a garden. Nathaniel Hawthorne, one of the early residents, seems not to have enjoyed the blend of intellect and labor. He later wrote, “Mr. Ripley put a four-pronged instrument into my hands, which he gave me to understand was called a pitchfork; and he and Mr. Farley being armed with similar weapons we all three commenced a gallant attack upon a heap of manure.” They opened a school where students were taught history, philosophy, literature, music, Greek, Latin, and German. To achieve their goal of balancing manual labor and the intellect, students were required to work two hours a day. Some of Boston’s finest families sent their children there. The school would prove to be Brook Farm’s most successful undertaking.

The intellectual and social life at Brook Farm were stimulating. They had Elizabethan pageants, Shakesperian plays, concerts, operas, costume parties and dances. Works of Beethoven were played on the pianoforte; the choir sang the works of Mozart. The works of Dante were read in Italian. Literary societies and reading groups were popular. One resident later recalled that “the weeds were scratched out of the earth to the music of Tennyson and Browning.” At night Ripley led philosophical discussions, others led star gazing activities. Charles Dana led a group in translating difficult German texts. Many would close their day by joining hands in a circle and repeating “Truth to the cause of God and humanity.” Bronson Alcott and Charles Lane visited Brook Farm in the summer of 1843 and Lane critically wrote that he found “80 or 90 persons playing away their youth and day-time in a miserably joyous frivolous manner.”

From the beginning there had been a shortage of housing, so additional buildings were constructed, increasing their debt. Work also began on a 3 story high main building that would provide more living quarters, reading rooms, assembly hall, and central dining room.

Many of those who had given pledges of support were unable to fulfill their commitment. Struggling financially, in early 1844 the community was reorganized based on the communitarian socialist proposals of French utopian philosopher Charles Fourier. New workers joined Brook Farm, but many of the original Transcendentalist poets and writers left. Various industries were attempted. A sewing department made capes, caps, and collars for sale in Boston stores. Shoe making along with the manufacture of sashes, blinds, pewter lamps and pewter pots generated a little additional revenue. But not enough.

Criticism of Brook Farm began to circulate. Charles Fourier – the utopian writer – had believed that sex should follow the same patterns of work. That is, it should be based on attraction, alternation, and variety. Unfounded rumors of varied and alternating sexual partners began to be spread. Some parents withdrew their children from the school. Some parents opposed the equality or “leveling up” practiced at Brook Farm. One financial backer wrote to Ripley complaining about the presence of what he called “impure children” and called the social mixing of the children an “enormous evil.” In 1845 a student visited relatives in Boston where he was exposed to smallpox. Smallpox soon spread through the community and, although no one died, almost 1/3 of the population was quarantined. More students withdrew from school.

By 1846 about 65 residents and 12 students remained. In March the incomplete and uninsured main building caught fire and burned to the ground in two hours. Within a few months, 30 residents remained and virtually all of the students were gone. The following year bankruptcy proceedings were completed. Brook Farm was no more.

Ripley went to work for Horace Greeley and the New York Tribune. He later published a tremendously successful New American Cyclopedia and paid off all of the debts. Brook Farm lasted from 1841 until 1847, but Ripley’s dream of a Unitarian Transcendentalist utopia had failed.

Shortly after Brook Farm was founded, Adin Ballou established another utopian community, Hopedale. Ballou envisioned a pacifist cooperative community that would incorporate productive farming and industrial activities among a group of committed Christians. Ballou was almost 40 old when he began this enterprise, having served seven years as a Universalist minister and another eleven years in a Unitarian church. He had became a radical reformer, supporting the abolition of slavery, the temperance crusade against alcohol, equal rights for women, and pacifism. He believed in what was labeled “Practical Christianity,” a movement that supported Christian doctrine as closely related to the early, “primitive” church as possible.

In 1841 he organized and became president of “Fraternal Communion Number One,” a society dedicated to Christian living in a community setting. A joint stock company was organized at $50.00 per share, with the promise of a 4% annual return on the investment. The largest investors were Anna and Ebenezer Draper. With the money they raised, they purchased a 600 acre farm just west of Milford, Massachusetts and christened it Hopedale. Members of the Hopedale community agreed to a constitution that stated the following, “I believe in the religion of Jesus Christ as he taught and exemplified it according to the scripture of the New Testament.” They furthermore pledged that they would never assault, injure, slander, envy or hate any human or serve in the armed forces, use liquor, file a suit in court, or vote. Personally, they were committed to never indulge in covetousness, deceit, idleness, or have an unruly tongue. Thirty-two men and women signed this rather strict Christian pledge as they began their life at Hopedale.

In March 1842 twenty-eight individuals – about one-third of whom were children – occupied the Hopedale farm. All 28 moved into the old farm house. They were expected to work 60 hours a week during the summer months, 48 during the winter. And work they did. That first summer they planted 10 acres in potatoes and beans, 4 acres in corn, and 3 acres in other vegetables. They repaired the old buildings, erected a new one, and opened a school for the children. Every two weeks they printed a paper, “The Practical Christian.” They began manufacturing shoes and boots.

On Sundays they had morning and afternoon church services. On Tuesdays they had singing; on Thursdays they had religious discussions and on Saturdays they met to read and discuss public papers and periodicals. Thus, they practiced their Primitive Practical Christianity. Ballou would later write, “I…longed most ardently to see New Testament Christianity actualized.”

Within a few years Hopedale had grown to 170 people and annual business meetings reflected assets of over $50,000. But conflict had crept in. Many of the newer members did not have as firm a commitment to Practical Christianity as the original members. Divergent beliefs such as spiritualism, vegetarianism, and phrenology were practiced by some. Housing had always been inadequate and as new facilities were built, people argued about who would live where. The industries did not produce the revenue expected. As members withdrew, they were paid for their investment and labor, draining Hopedale of valuable financial resources. The end of Ballou’s Christian experiment came in 1856 when the Drapers, the largest investors, withdrew their financial support. The community could no longer be sustained and the Hopedale industries became private companies.

Ballou would write of his experiment. “It will go out to the world and down to coming generations…a laudable but ill-fated experiment entered upon and prosecuted, not to advance any selfish or unworthy interest or course, but rather to show the way of a better, truer life…”

In 1843 Bronson Alcott, the father of writer Louisa May Alcott, established a short-lived vegetarian community called Fruitlands. Prior to this community, Alcott had led a curious life, primarily fashioning himself as a philosopher, educator, and reformer. One historian claims that he was probably the closest personal friend to both Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Born in Connecticut in a large farming family, he had little formal education, but he loved learning.

After traveling to Virginia and failing to secure a job as a teacher, he returned to Connecticut and served as an innovation school master in two townships. He emphasized openness, respect, and self-expression, employing the Socratic method. Educational reformers helped him establish schools in Pennsylvania. Noted Unitarian minister Samuel Joseph May heard of Alcott and secured him a position in Boston. There, Alcott met May’s sister, Abigail, and in 1830 they married. He was attracted to the Unitarian faith of the Mays and for years attended William Ellery Channing’s Federal Street Church. But later, he drifted away from the church.

In 1836 he helped organized the Transcendentalist Club; the first meeting was held in his home. He even provided the name for the Transcendentalist paper, The Dial.

That same year he also published a very controversial book, Conversations on the Gospels. Included in these “Conversations” were discussions of human conception and birth. The book created a storm of protest and many parents withdrew their students from his school. Three years later, when he admitted a young black girl into the school, the remaining students withdrew and the school closed. To make ends meet, he became a day laborer and his wife and young daughters took in sewing. In the meantime, the Alcotts had become vegetarians.

Emerson paid for Alcott to take a trip to England where he met other innovative educators, including Charles Lane. Lane returned with Alcott to Boston and, along with Abigail’s brother Samuel, put up the money to buy a 90 acre farm 30 miles from Boston. During the early summer of 1843, the Alcotts – with their four daughters, age 2 to 12 – along with Lane and his son and five other adults moved to the farm, Fruitlands.

In spite of only having about ten apple trees, they expected to establish an orchard and grow their own food and live according to their radical vegetarian principles. This site had poor soil and was not suitable for a thriving farm. Nevertheless, they spent most of the summer plowing and planting. They planted corn, beans, potatoes, and carrots. They consumed no meat, eggs, milk, butter, coffee, tea, or molasses. The preferred diet was raw fruit and vegetables and water. Later, Alcott would ban the growing of food that grew downward. They felt animals should be as free as humans and so used no wool, honey, manure, or animal labor. In order to not be attracted by money, they tried to grow only as much as they could consume. They had little to worry about, because over production would not be a problem at Fruitlands. Neglecting their farm duties, Alcott and Lane traveled widely to Boston, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut unsuccessfully recruiting additional members. As a result, when the grain needed to be harvested in the fall, Lane and Alcott were away and so Abigail and the girls led the harvest.

The few adults at Fruitlands were a motley crew. One resident insisted on wearing a long beard in an era when all men shaved. Another was a nudist, believing that clothing was spiritually restrictive. He agreed to practice his nudity only at night. One male believed that cursing and profane language elevated the spirit and regularly greeted people with “Good morning, damn you.” One resident – an elderly female – was caught by Lane eating a piece of fish. Defending herself she said, “I only took a little bit of the tail” to which Lane replied, “Yes, but the whole fish had to be tortured and killed.” She packed her bags and left.

By the fall, only the Alcotts and Lanes remained. When Samuel May refused to make an installment payment on the farm in January of 1844, everyone was forced to leave Fruitlands. Alcott’s dream of a radical vegetarian community was over. It had survived less than a year.

Pre-dating these three communities by a few years was the utopian settlemen Of Abner Kneeland, Salubria, Iowa. Kneeland was ordained as a Universalist minister in 1804 and for 25 years served churches in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York. Throughout his ministry, he continued to shift his theological and societal beliefs and came to support the radical beliefs of socialist reformers Robert Owen and Francis Wright. He supported women’s rights, racial equality, divorce, birth control, and interracial marriage. Theologicallly, he drifted away from Christian doctrine and came to define himself as a pantheist. In 1830 he was declared out of fellowship with the Universalists and no longer recognized as a Universalist minister. He established the First Society of Free Enquirers, and preached to crowds of about 2,000 on Sundays. After 3 years, he was challenged by Universalist minister and editor Thomas Whittemore. In response, Kneeland wrote an article which was published in the “Boston Intelligencer.” Kneeland wrote: “Universalists believe in a god which I do not…Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not…Universalists believe in miracles, which I do not…Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead… and eternal life, which I do not.” For those statements over a period of five years he underwent five trials for blasphemy. Ultimately, he was convicted and in June of 1838, at the age of 64, served 60 days in jail. Famously, he was the last man in this country jailed for blasphemy. While in jail, Kneeland made plans to move west and establish a new community of free thinkers. He sought a community where no one would be persecuted for their religious or social beliefs. He chose the newly opened territory of Iowa for his project of free thinkers. By the spring of 1839, less than a year after his release from jail, he was in Iowa. He purchased 230 acres, setting aside 80 acres for himself and offering the rest for sale. Friends and supporters bought 200 more acres. Ten other families soon joined him, “united in desire to free inquiry.” He advertised his new community of Salubria in the Boston Intelligencer, describing the new land in glowing terms. He built a large two-story house, the finest in the county. Now in his mid-60s, he had two more children by his fourth wife – the first three having died.

Although Kneeland was busy in his new, small community, new settlers did not arrive and the land did not sell. He had not taken into consideration the Panic of 1837 – a 7 year long depression – the worse that the United States had faced up to that time. If others had planned to move to Salubria, there was now no money. To make ends meet, Kneeland taught school, sold his livestock and his 200 books.

Local citizens had been tolerant of Kneeland and his free thinkers and a group of nearby Mormons. One local resident regarded the settlers at Salubria as a group of people who just read a lot of books. However, young men from the American Home Missionary Society invaded the area and reported there were a “considerable body of men here…who are in various degrees infected with infidelity.” Of course, they were referring to Kneeland and his free thinkers. As a reflection of their mindset, one Kneeland supported named his son Voltaire Paine Twombley.

Kneeland became active in local politics, was elected county chairman of the local Democratic party, but lost in a bid for the territorial legislature. In 1842, although Kneeland was not on the ticket for any office, the Democrats were attacked by their Whig opponents as the “”infidelity ticket.” The entire slate was defeated.

Two years later at the age of 70, Kneeland suffered a stroke and died. Some of his followers stayed and became absorbed in the area. But the free inquiry community of Salubria was over.

Utopia – “a place of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions.” Ultimately, these four communities tied to our UU forefathers failed. What had they sought? They sought communities of free thinkers, Transcendentalists, vegetarians, and practical Christians. They sought economic stability, religious freedom, and intentional communities of like minded individuals. They sought a better, more meaningful way of life. They sought to set an example for others to follow. Although their experiments in living failed, their quest still resounds with us today. The question remains, how shall we live?

On the one hand, I believe that Brook Farm reminds us to be open to our life- long search for truth and meaning – to associate with those who can give us inspiration, guidance, and encouragement. If we accept the principles of George Ripley’s “Articles of Agreement,” then we would strive to “diminish the desire of excessive accumulations.” Yes, we would learn the boundaries of “enoughness,” focus on what is truly important, and in the words of Ripley achieve “a greater freedom, simplicity, truthfulness, refinement, and moral dignity.” Adin Ballou teaches us to be true to our beliefs and to live life accordingly, wherever it may lead. Bronson Alcott should encourage us to live a life of simplicity, not only in our choices of what we eat, but in how we treat others, animals, and the environment. Abner Kneeland teaches us the value of freedom of speech and thought. For me he also gives encouragement to persevere, no matter what your age, circumstances, or obstacles. Shall we establish our own utopia? The First UU Utopia of Austin, Texas? After all, we have 132 acres of Hill Country land at U Bar U. Perhaps we can raise our own chickens and have farm fresh eggs. Perhaps we can have bee hives and have buckets of honey. We do have church members who can help us in those areas, you know. Perhaps we can raise goats and sell goat cheese to the finest restaurants in Austin. Or perhaps we have already addressed this issue. Our church mission statement states that “We gather in community to nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice.” We will most likely never establish a UU utopia, but perhaps, we can live out our mission, discover meaningful lives, do good works, and have a positive impact on those about us. That in itself would almost be a utopian community.

May it be so.

Firsts First

Dick Pierce

March 11, 2012

Dick Pierce is a founding member of the Austin Permaculture Guild, a cofounder, with Brandi Clark of the very successful Austin Citizen Gardener program, and a passionate spokesman for the Environment, for “relocalizing” our food, business, jobs/careers, lives and priorities.

Each of us is doing what we can so that all human creatures – big and small, young and old, here and elsewhere – have enough nutritious food, shelter, clothing, and meaningful work to meet the minimum requirements for survival. Then, and only then, should we in the US and the developed world work toward “seconds” or “thirds” for ourselves.

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

Podcasts of sermons may also be found for free on iTunes.

 

A Prophetic Liberal Religion

Chris Jimmerson

February 26, 2011

Both the Unitarians and the Universalists have a long history of prophetic ministry – speaking truth in the public square and, perhaps more importantly, taking action on social issues. From Michael Servetus espousing an early Unitarianism in the 16th century through the Prophetic Sisterhood of the late 19th and early 20th century, to the Unitarian Universalists (UUs) publishing the Pentagon Papers in the mid-20th century, UUs, though not always unified, have a long tradition of being at the forefront of social change and carrying our values into the world. Will we continue that tradition into the 21st Century and beyond?

 

How many Unitarian Universalists does it take to change a light bulb?

We’re not sure. The Lighting Technologies Study Team of the Clean Energy Options Working Group of the Green Our World Starting Here and Now Task Force of the Facilities and Grounds Committee hasn’t issued its report and recommendations yet.

You may have heard other variations on this or similar jokes, all on the theme that we UUs can sometimes seem to talk, study, argue, debate, disagree, discuss and “400 plus pages written report” things to death.

It’s not that doing our due diligence, making sure we understand the issues or working through our differing viewpoints isn’t a necessary part of it; it’s just that we (and pretty much all liberal religious groups) have been accused of getting so caught up in our mental gymnastics that we never actually end up doing much about whatever the issues might be. Those 400 plus pages can end up in a file somewhere.

But that’s certainly not always true and it never has been. Even before the merger of the Universalists and the Unitarians, the Us and the Us had often acted as prophetic liberal religions. As our Unitarian Universalist training curricula A People so Bold says it, prophetic religion is “religion that is on the cutting edge, reading the signs of its times, creating a just and loving community in its midst, and advocating passionately for a better world”.

In 16th century Europe, even the very idea of believing in a Unitary God was prophetic and could get you branded a heretic and burned at the stake. And don’t even try for universal salvation! They’d have just added more dry wood to the fire.

In America, early Unitarians and Universalists were among the first to work for improved education, provide charity for the poor, ordain female clergy, call for emancipation and work for women’s suffrage.

Later, after the merger in 1961, this prophetic spirit would continue, with UU participation in environmental issues and in the fight for racial justice, sexuality and gender equality, political and religious freedom.

To be sure, our efforts historically have never been perfect or unified – at no point have either of our Us ever managed to be in complete agreement about anything. However, there is little doubt that overall we have a history of being at the forefront of social issues.

Any yet, as I mentioned earlier, liberal religion can run the risk, sometimes, of intellectualizing more than engaging the core issues. Due at least in part to our roots in the Enlightenment, we tend to focus on the individual as rational and self-determining rather than place our “being” within our connections to others and the web of existence. We see the INDIVIDUAL bigots, the individual abusers, the individual classists and so on, but we don’t as often see the underlying societal structures that perpetuate the oppressive behavior. We focus on the individual victims and not entire cultures, races, classes and other groups that are being systematically subjected to injustice.

For example, let me share some questions I have been asking myself. In the past few years, how often have I given canned goods or the like to the food pantry or the homeless shelter but done little to speak out against the social conditions that force people to live on the streets and go hungry in the first place? I wonder — how many of us recycle, conserve and work to reduce our own environmental impact, yet remain largely silent as our government subsidizes businesses that do far more damage?

How often have we written checks or volunteered for the non-profit clinic, the shelter for battered women, the halfway house for recovering addicts or any other of a number of non-profit groups and then returned to the security of our own homes and lives without having to really consider –what is creating the need for these service agencies to begin with?

Now, I am going to pause for a moment of liberal religious guilt. OK, that’s long enough — because these acts of care and service really are vital and needed and wonderful and necessary and a part of creating the world we seek as UUs. But I believe there is another arena of action required if we hope to really make change. And that’s where living our prophetic religious tradition comes back in.

Will we really be “a people so bold”?

Will we volunteer at the immigrant assistance non-profit AND rally against the economic imperialism that is so often at the root of migration in the first place? Will we join forces with oppressed groups and their organizations to demand and work for change? Will we proclaim our liberal religious principles in the public square? We will do so even if it raises questions about our own middleclass privilege?

The President of our religious movement got himself arrested protesting an unjust immigration law in Arizona. Personally, I say, “more of that!” I believe there has never been a time that so cried out for us to assume the mantle of prophetic religion with renewed vigor and purpose.

Because we are losing our democracy.

Because we are killing our planet.

Before you diagnose me with “hyperbolic propensity syndrome”, allow me just a few minutes to explain why I do not think these are overly dramatic statements. Since the economic crash of 2008, economics professor Edward N. Wolf’s ongoing research revealed that wealth inequality in the United has actually increased even more sharply. The top 1% of wealth owners in the U.S. hold about 40% of all of our wealth; the top quintile hold almost 90%

Other research has found that wealth inequality is highly correlated with power inequality and political corruption. Further, such wealth inequality and corruption form an escalating cycle that threatens the viability of democratic government – wealth inequality begets corruption begets greater inequality begets greater corruption and on and on and on, until only the illusion of democracy remains.

In the U.S., fewer and fewer people own greater and greater percentages of corporate stocks, and corporations are amassing greater and greater power. After the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited spending by corporations and other groups outside the political parties, spending by these groups totaled 135.3 million dollars in the 2010 elections – outside conservative groups spent 119.6 million, while outside liberal groups and unions spent 15.7 million.

Conservative politicians did somewhat better than did liberals, you might recall.

In reaction, democratic groups plan to try to match outside spending by conservatives in 2012. To do so, they too will rely on corporate wealth. By mid-February of this year, the presidential candidates and their Superpacs had already spent in excess of 69.6 million dollars. A recent study found that 30 of our largest companies now spend more on lobbying than they pay in federal taxes.

Wealth inequality begets corruption begets greater inequality. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Listen to what a Republican congressional staffer, who recently retired in disgust after almost 30 years has to say. Republican operative, Mike Lofgren states, quote — “Both parties are rotten – how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money?… Both parties are captives to corporate loot.” End quote.

We are losing our democracy. Democracy is a core element of our religious principles — all that we as UUs value.

More and more, we face an Orwellian political system that promotes and affirms the inherent worth and dignity of the few over the many. We cannot hope for justice, equity and compassion if we allow our democratic process to be subverted in this way. There can be no peace, no liberty, no justice when such vast inequality is allowed to exist and increase.

But this unrestrained economic disparity of power is potentially even more destructive, even more threatening.

In their fascinating and sobering book, Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril, editors Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael P. Nelson bring together essays written by people from throughout the world. With wisdom and expertise that varies from the scientific to the spiritual, they make a compelling case that any sense of ethics requires our immediate action on global climate change. They also paint a terrifying picture regarding the consequences of failing to act, such as:

Already, 40,000 people per week die of hunger-related illness worldwide. As global temperatures continue to rise, this is likely to get worse. 33 million acres of Canadian forest have died because it no longer gets cold enough in winter to kill the beetle that is killing the trees.

High-altitude glaciers that provide much of the drinking water in Asia, Latin America and the American West are disappearing. The U.S. Park Service estimates that by the year 2020, there will no longer be any glaciers in Glacier National Park.

The Great Barrier Reef may well be lifeless within two decades. Fifty percent of the world’s animals are in decline. One quarter of mammals face potential extinction, including elephants, humpback whales, gorillas, tigers and polar bears.

We have effectively ended the Holocene era of our planet, into which human civilization arose and during which countless life forms evolved and flourished. We have replaced it with an era of human-caused extinctions.

There is already no chance that we will leave to future generations, our children and grandchildren, a world as rich with life and possibility as the one we inherited.

We are quickly finding out that our 7th principle, that we affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part, goes much deeper and is much more sacred than we may have known – that our free and responsible search for truth and meaning can only exist within and through that web, not separately — not purely as individuals, but instead in communion with one another and with all that exists on this beautiful blue planet and beyond.

So, what more can we do? How do we sustain ourselves and have hope when the scientific predictions seem so huge, so overwhelming.

We can begin by realizing that the things I’ve mentioned that we are already doing are vital and must continue. The services and social action programs Unitarian Universalists are providing, both here in the U.S. and internationally are needed and wonderful. The actions of our congregations, as well as individual people within those congregations, to do what we can to conserve and protect our ecosystem are admirable. They are making a great difference in our world.

Today though, our world asks even more of us. Embracing again our movement as prophetic religion asks that we go even deeper — that we recognize that the corporatist undermining of western democracies and the escalating destruction of our planet’s sustainability are interrelated – that we name this malfeasance publicly and join with others to fight it. We must reaffirm the wisdom our UU sage, James Luther Adams, taught us about the “power of organization and the organization of power”.

Today, commercial, industrial and agricultural giants are producing more greenhouse emissions than all of the ecological conservation efforts of individual citizens combined can offset.

Today, industries so large that they are beyond our dissent, more powerful than most governments, are making decisions that will have tremendous effects on whether and what life survives on our planet in the future.

To have any meaningful influence will require that we engage with other religious groups and with secular and public policy organizations in ways that may have been uncomfortable to us in recent times. It will require that we engage with our more conservative friends in difficult but imaginative and necessary conversations. It will require that we find ways of harnessing the creativity and power of collective voices, making those voices heard, amplifying their strength.

I believe that we must walk a careful line, upholding the separation of church and state, yet realizing that our religious principles will be lived or not in the political arena.

As Sulak Sivaraska, cofounder of the International Association of Engaged Buddhists writes, “Politics without spirituality or ethics is blind. Spirituality without politics is simply inconsequential.”

Our Unitarian Universalist principles are calling us to the consequential. Our community’s values and mission compel us to act together out of compassion, out of love for one another and that sacred web of existence, with the courage to risk potential failure, despite the loss and the irreparable damage we witness. Climate change provides our greatest test so far of that compassion — of that love. It requires a people so bold.

Against all odds, we must still act. We must act to place love and community above market values and profit. We must proclaim our Unitarian Universalist beliefs beyond our church walls. We must act as if those values and principles — indeed the future of humanity and the beautiful world we inherited — depend upon it.

Because they do.

How many Unitarian Universalists does it take to change the world?

Every single last one of us, along with the many others who might join an invitation to reclaim paradise before it is lost, if only we were to engage with them. If only we were to be so bold.

May we be so. May we be that prophetic religion for our time.

Amen.

 

 

Mary, Mary, Quite Revolutionary

Marisol Caballero

January 22, 2012

Marisol Caballero reflects on the symbolism of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a feminine image of the Divine. How may this “goddess”, native to the Americas, speak to us, as Unitarian Universalists, as well as unite diverse populations in compassion, perseverance, and justice?

When I was a very young infant, before I would fully focus on faces or follow sounds much, I am told that I would stare in the direction of a statue that my mother had on her dresser of the Virgin of Guadalupe. No matter where I was in the room, I would try to turn toward that statue. My mom tells me it was the weirdest thing and that visitors to our house would often comment on it, saying that it looked as if I was communicating with her in some way. This may be hyperbole, but it makes for a nice story. And, part of me likes to believe a little that I was born with a special affinity for the Lady, that she drew my eyes to her as she continues to draw my heart, and that a child development specialist can’t easily explain this story away. No, I don’t truly believe that a statue has super powers, nor am I a closet Catholic- in fact I was have been attending UU churches since age two, but there exists a subversive yet compassionate power in the story and symbolism of the Virgin of Guadalupe that transcends religion and that strengthens my faith.

It isn’t often that we hear about traditionally Catholic imagery from our Unitarian Universalist pulpits but as a Chicana from Texas, my cultural connection to her runs deep. Just like each of us, my personal and cultural history influences my worldview and my theology, but I choose to speak from this perspective not because I wish to exoticize my story and my ministry or to become a novelty act. I choose to share such cultural expressions because it is my authentic starting point. One of my professors at seminary, Dr. James Cone, used to remind us in class that, “to do theology, you have to start where you’re at. You must speak from your unique vantage point.”

The image and symbolism of the Virgin of Guadalupe has much to offer UU’s personally, of all backgrounds and genders, as we struggle to equalize the playing fields, seeking justice for the oppressed, and as we strive toward greater compassion in our daily lives, not to mention as we also endeavor to create a more multicultural Unitarian Univeraslism. But, before she can be understood as a universal emblem, the Virgin of Guadalupe must be understood, as her Mexican people know her.

As we learned in the story of her apparition to Juan Diego, the Virgin appeared in solidarity with the marginalized indigenous population. She chose Juan Diego, a poor Aztec, to carry her message. She spoke to him in his language, not the language of the oppressors, from which Christianity had been taught to the Indians. She had brown skin. She wore Aztec astrological imagery on her robe. She was one who they could identify with because she looked like them. She was one of them and still remains so. Most importantly, she does not allow the marginalized to feel inferior. She raises the self-worth of the Mexican people with a mother’s compassion and offers her protection in their struggle.

The Mexican people, and those of Mexican descent, are a mix of various indigenous, Spanish (and other European), and African people. They speak many native languages in addition to Spanish, and many Mexican-Americans (Chicanos) speak no Spanish at all. Before the legendary apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe, most Christian conversions had been made at the end of a Spanish steel sword. Mary had the effect of uniting the old and the new. She was a fusion of the indigenous and of the oppressor, much like the blood running through the veins of those she calls her children. She offered a means by which her people could retain their cultural identity with pride- with respect to the need for self-preservation amidst a violent theocracy.

This Mary continues to be such a means of synthesis for Mexicans and those of Mexican descent today. She unifies us as a cultural icon, no matter our language, religion, dialect or gender. She is our common mother, our loving ancestor. She is called by many names, among them are: Mother of Mexico, Mother of the Americas, (Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe) Our Lady of Guadalupe, and my great-grandmother- the matriarch of our family- called her affectionately, mi morenita (my little dark-skinned lady). She remains a symbol of strength for her marginalized people for after all, even if her story is only a myth, it reminds us that we are worthy of unconditional love.

In our science-minded culture, we say things like “only a myth”, as if myths were powerless things, when we have learned that myths are, in fact, values and ideals in the embryonic stage. Religions and nations alike were built on myths. (Remember George Washington and the cherry tree?) But, the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe is a revolutionary myth in that it offers us a woman (and a woman of color, no less!) as our champion! Maria de Guadalupe offers us all another way to imagine God. She is a feminine alternative.

Many White feminists have historically rejected her image, misunderstanding her due to centuries of misogynistic false interpretations. She has been said to be the reason that so many women dislike themselves, since she has been lifted up as the ideal of womanhood while women are simultaneously told that her perfection is unattainable. She has been accused of keeping women meek and silently obedient, since her eyes are cast downward. She has also been misinterpreted as a proponent of joyfully bearing one’s suffering, regardless of the hardship it may cause us and those we love. Some school districts have even banned her image on t-shirts, claiming ties to gang violence.

Latinas, however, have long known that although for centuries many have tried to pervert the image of Guadalupe in an effort to keep us in a subjugated place, most of us never truly bought it. She is quite the opposite. She is our Rosie the Riveter. Instead of being an ideal of womanhood that is unachievable, we can emulate her willingness to stand up to power and demand that the oppressed be recognized. We view her downcast eyes as a representation of her gentle, loving spirit and she is not silenced easily- she persistently appeared to Juan Diego three times before the Bishop recognized him. She did not accept him backing down and inspired in him the courage to persevere. To Christian Latinas, she is more accessible than a Father God or His divine Son, Jesus.

Dolores Huerta, co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers union, heroine of the Chicano Civil Rights Movement, and single mother of eleven, says, “I don’t think I could have survived without her. She is a symbol of faith, hope and leadership. She has been incorporated into everything we do,” she said, “If she’s not there, you notice her absence right away.” Mexicans and Chicanos have carried her image in just about every rally, march, picket, protest, and even battle for centuries. Anywhere there are people of Mexican decent advocating for social justice for their communities, chances are, the Virgin of Guadalupe’s image will be there as well. In fact, I was not at all shocked when, in some of the media coverage of the many nationwide protests of the hateful new Arizona immigration law, marchers have been carrying images and statues of her. No doubt the thought of a compassionate and persevering feminine representation of the divine is bringing strength to those in fear of what this law’s implementation may bring (or, has already brought) to their lives and to their families and communities.

In her essay, “Latinas and Religion: Subordination or State of Grace?”, Laura M. Padilla tells us that,

“The Virgin’s model allows us to discard the notion that we must accept our suffering with dignity, thus freeing us to turn our attention to how to alleviate that suffering, regardless of whether it consists of physical, emotional, economic, or spiritual abuseÉ [she] also turns from a top-down hierarchy where God speaks and we listen, to a model where we mutually communicate with compassionÉ [and] shows Latinas how to incorporate [our spirituality] into our lives in a holistic way that is not based on hierarchy, opposition, intolerance or superiority. Rather, she points us to a framework that incorporates the feminine, not to the exclusion of the masculine, but in balance with it.”

In the story, she chose to appear before a man, Juan Diego, demonstrating that although she is “divinely” feminine, she exists for men, as well. Men can also both be mothered by and guided by her, while also learning to emulate her maternal attributes of tender nurturance yet strong advocacy for one’s family. For Guadalupe, this family does not begin and end with bloodlines. Our family is made of up humanity, itself, for we are interconnected. The marginalized and the oppressor are both of her concern, as she reaches for the heart of the wealthy Bishop through the experience of the impoverished Juan Diego. Men may follow the example of her symbolism not only as the sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers of woman, but also as members of the human family who recognize that ignoring the suffering of others prohibits the privileged from realizing their full humanity.

In this way, the Virgin of Guadalupe has relevance and meaning not only for all genders, but I would argue, all people. In the way that the image and symbolism of the Virgin of Guadalupe transcends religion, language, gender, and national borders, she also transcends race. Just as she unites the diverse people of Mexican descent in a common cultural identity, so may she unite the world to a common cause of justice, of working to end all forms of oppression. Although she will always be the treasured product of the Mexican people, the strength of her symbolism has the potential to reach anyone looking for a loving yet righteously angry, gentle yet fierce, and patient yet persistent ally in the struggle.

As UU’s, so often we begin our prayers to “God of many names”. In the Virgin of Guadalupe, we recognize that one name for God is “Mother”. The feminine divine does exist in many traditions: Hindus have Kali, Lakshmi and others, Buddhists have Tara and Kwan Yin, and pagans may call her Gaea or Great Mother, to name just a few. The Virgin of Guadalupe is the manifestation of the feminine divine for this continent. She is our native goddess, Mother of the Americas, and offers the world her love, encouragement, and protection both to those who view her as a powerful symbol as well as to those who view her as a supernatural being with intercessory abilities.

Next time you see a candle, a keychain, a mural, or anything else that her ever-so-pervasive image adorns, see her for who she is to her people and who she can be for all- a powerful symbol of compassion, fortitude, and justice. Not a cultural cliche or tacky kitsch, but a reminder that we shall overcome, that Si Se Puede (Yes, it can be done), for she is Mary, Mary, Quite Revolutionary!