Sermons

Bending Gender
2-3-08
Rev. Douglas Taylor

I remember my psych 101 course that I took in college, the professor said a third of the students are there just to find out what’s wrong with themselves.  Obligingly, our professor occasionally offered various personality tests and such during the last ten minutes of class.  One such test that has always stood out in my memory was the Bem Sex Role Inventory which measured masculinity and femininity.  There were questions to find out if I were assertive or timid, if I liked sports or preferred taking care of others, if I were analytical or understanding.  So I filled it all out and he showed us how to score it there in our seats – one number for masculinity and a second score for femininity.  He talked about how we would probably each come up with a strong score for one characteristic and a weak score in the other, or – there was more of this happening since the sexual revolution and feminism – you could come up with a strong score in both masculine and feminine.  ‘Androgynous’ he said, making it sound like something to aspire toward, something we would all achieve in the brave new world of culture-wide psychological wholeness.

Many people stayed after class to have a word with the professor about their inventory scores.  So I hung back, waiting for a chance to ask my question.  When he finally turned his attention my way his response was, “To have a weak score in both masculinity and femininity doesn’t count as androgynous.  It probably means you’re repressing something.”

Prior to the 1970’s it was widely believed that to be psychologically healthy, a man must be masculine and a woman must be feminine.  There were only two types of normal healthy adults: men and women.  It was easy to tell them apart and what to expect from each type.  The man was the ‘father,’ the ‘breadwinner,’ the ‘protector.’  To be a woman was to be the ‘mother,’ the ‘homemaker,’ the ‘care-giver.’  A person’s gender, by which we mean their appearance, certain behaviors, and patterns of work, was predetermined by their sex, by which we mean their reproductive equipment.  Of course the feminist movement and the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s blew that all out of the water and struggled to equalize the conditions.  The old argument that said: “your societal role is set by your biology,” was attacked from any angle with significant success.  Few today would argue compellingly that a man can not take care of children lovingly or that a woman is biologically incapable of running a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Certainly there are those who went too far in the argument suggesting that biology makes no difference whatsoever and that the differences between males and females are purely cultural and educational.  Such an argument taken to this extreme led to the tragic story of the infant boy who lost his penis through a surgical accident, underwent gender reassignment therapy before the age of two, and was subsequently raised as a girl.  The theory was that learning and environment would trump biology in terms of sexual differentiation.  In other words, having been physically made to look like a baby girl, the child would grow up identifying as a girl – provided the parents went along with the ruse (which they did.)  The book, As Nature Made Him, the boy who was raised as a girl, by John Colapinto¸ (2000) reveals the patient’s perspective on the events which were markedly different from the surgeon’s perspective.  The surgeon, Dr. John Money, was of the opinion that “in the formation of gender identity, pre-birth biological influences are secondary to the power of post-birth environmental factors, which override them.” (p66)  The surgeon was convinced that biology was next to meaningless.  The case of this boy who was “successfully” raised as a girl was cited copiously as the basis for arguments against the old model the Nature determined everything by declaring boldly that it was in fact Nurture that trumped all.

However, the book, As Nature Made Him, shows that the case was not a success.  Indeed the boy raised as a girl rebelled against the label and the constraints placed on ‘her’ regularly.  While there were certainly photos of this child in dresses and accounts of ‘her’ working in the kitchen with her mother, there are also many more accounts of this child being a rowdy, assertive kid who would rather play in the dirt than sit and read a book.  This was a child who tried to organize the other girls into a game of Cowboys and Indians, who beat up the boy across the street, who regularly peed standing up!  I hardly think that qualifies as a successful gender-switch.  Clearly the raw data had been manipulated to reach the conclusion that this child was the epitome of femininity.

By the time the time the child turned 14 in 1979, ‘he’ has reverted to his biological gender; at least that is how it is worded in the book. This did not stop Dr. John Money from continuing to promote his theory which sat, in a small but critical way, at the base of the feminist movement.  Biological plumbing was not a reason to subjugate a person.  Womanhood was not a genetically inferior condition; rather it was a social construct that could be challenged. The case of the boy raised as a girl served its small part in the revolution; and when the specifics of the case turned out to not support the conclusions of the case then a new round of researchers and theorists set about establishing new conclusions.

Today’s psychology book begins a discussion about Gender Roles by admitting that “all cultures establish expectations about the general patterns of work, appearance, and behavior associated with being a man or a woman.” (Essentials of Psychology, 4th ed. Bernstein, D & Nash, P.; 2008. p369)  But it quickly moves on to say that such Gender Roles “are deeply rooted in both nature and nurture.” (Ibid)  Evolutionary psychology tells us about how “males’ greater ability to visualize the rotation of objects in space and females’ greater ability to read facial expressions… are deeply rooted reflections of gender-related hunting versus child-rearing duties that were adaptive eons ago for survival of both sexes. (Buss, 2004)” (Ibid, p371).  There are real cultural influences that shape a person’s sense of gender identity, no one refutes this today.  Also there are real biological, chemical, hormonal, and neurological differences between males and females, no one refutes this today.

This brings us back to my college Psychology class test and the new online version I took this weekend.  “Your Gender Identity” Are You More Masculine or Feminine?”  I don’t recommend free online personality quizzes for anything except entertainment.  So I haven’t taken my scores to heart.  But I was surprised to see at the end of the nearly 50 questions quiz, references to the Bem Sex Role Inventory I had taken in college.

One question, for example, is: You and a couple of friends get lost on a hike. What do you do?  a) Become upset and frustrated b) Stay calm and stay put. Someone will find us c) Discuss our options and work out a plan together d) Take charge and use the map to get us back

Another question is: After a big holiday meal with friends and family, would you rather: a) Take a nap b) Hang out c) Go for a walk or d) Play basketball or touch football?

From questions like these, the test compiles a profile of you based on 12 traits, half of which are considered masculine and half of which are considered feminine.  The outcome is not limited to only two choices.  The analyses states that “it is not uncommon” for a person to come out as a very masculine man, or a very feminine female.  In some cases a person will come out as a very feminine man or a very masculine female.  Regularly people will come out as androgynous, being strongly masculine and feminine as either males or females.  (That is six options so far.)  And finally a person could come out as “sex-role transcendent” which means they are weak on both masculine and feminine qualities.  The report casts this final option as a positive one saying these are people for whom their sense of self is not tied to gender traits.

If you remember at the beginning, for my college test I came out in this last category and my professor stated it meant I was repressing something rather than my sense of self not being tied to gender traits.  I have to say I think my professor was on to something because when I took the test this weekend, I scored rather differently.  I came out as highly feminine.  Like, very highly feminine!  So when I took the test again, the second score was a little more reasonable feminine, only 60%.  I looked over the 12 gender traits they used to create the profile and saw that indeed I score very low on “Sports Fan” and “Aggression.”  It turns out I am moderate or both “Leadership” and “Decisive,” but score quite will for “Analytical” and “Principled Individualist.”  Two masculine traits fairly low, two moderate, and two nice and high.  That seems well-rounded enough for me.  When you look at the feminine traits thought, it turns out I am very “Cheerful”, very “Compassionate”, very “Gentle”, very “Understanding”, moderately “Trusting”, and scored quite low on “Timid”.  So, four outstanding, one moderate and one low score for femininity.  I can live with that.

Clergy have often been considered feminine.  Jesus is usually portrayed as very womanly, much to the consternation of the Religious Right.  Gentle, understanding, compassionate: Jesus is not a sports fan, or analytical or aggressive.  We can give him ‘principled individualist’ and ‘leadership’, and we certainly wouldn’t call him timid.  But over all I think I scored way less feminine that Jesus would!  Seriously though, ministers and priests have, for hundreds of years, been allowed to be in both the men’s sphere and women’s sphere.  They have been allowed to talk about love and relationships and still have leadership.

In several Native American tribe rituals there is a role for a person that is now being called a two-spirit.  There used to be other words for this, but were too often corrupted European words that meant derogatory things rather than honorable things so a new term was agreed on recently.  A two-spirit person would be like the androgynous label from the gender inventories.  But it is more than that, it also carries some of the connotation that goes with clergy, but not all two-spirit people are holy people.  So it is a little confusing still.

But then, any of this can get really confusing if you stop looking at inventories and theories and quizzes and start looking at real people and real lives and real salutations.  I imagine most people don’t separate their biological sex from their gender.  I don’t.  Even though the online quiz says I’m more feminine than masculine I have no desire to declare my gender to be anything other than “male.”  Most people don’t spend much time thinking about it, which is understandable: why spend time thinking about something that just is.  Water is wet, leaves look green, 1 + 1 = 2, as a man I feel ‘male.’  There really isn’t a whole lot more to say about it.  Except when you are talking to someone, or when you are someone for whom it that is not just the way it is.

In the book I read from for this morning’s reading, She’s Not There, a life in two genders, by Jenny Finney Boylan, she cites a statistic at one point: “Professor Lynn Conway at University of Michigan estimates there are forty thousand transgendered male-to-females in this country, and that only counts the ones who have already had the surgery.” (p249)  That’s forty thousand people who have undergone surgery to change their gender from male to female.  In the book, Boylan did this because it became increasingly unbearable to identify as a female inwardly and as a male outwardly.  There can be other reasons, I suppose; medical reasons I imagine.  But I suspect the majority of people who undergo a sex change operation do so to align their body with their felt gender.  I can only imagine the pain a person would feel – No I don’t think I can in fairness say that I can imagine the pain a person would feel to have your outer body not match your inner gender.

This is where it gets really complicated and confusing: separating the idea of sex from gender, the inner from the outer as it has been described.  Which one is more real, the inner or the outer?  To the rest of the world it is the out!  Right?  No one looks at Dolly Parton or Janet Reno (as Boylan mentioned in the reading) and concludes they are not really women.  Yet some one like Jenny Boylan gets reaction from time to time: “but you are not really a woman, though.”

Quite frankly, there are times when I think about transsexuality and I just have to shrug.  I’m sorry I can’t make it make for sense to you, I told [my friend.]  But it is what it is.  Whether I “really” am a woman, or whether I “had a choice” or not, or whether anything, no longer matters.  Having an opinion about transsexuality is about as useful as having an opinion on blindness.  You can think whatever you like about it, but in the end, your friend is still blind and surely deserves to see.  Whether one thinks transsexuals are heroes or lunatics will not help to bring these people solace.  All we can do in the face of this enormous, infinite anguish is to have compassion. (She’s Not There, Boylan, Jennifer; p248)

Are there more than two genders?  Well, remembering that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity, putting those together brings out lots of possibilities: are masculine men and feminine men the same gender or are feminine women and feminine men the same gender?  The textbooks say gender is both biological and societal, not simply a subjective internal thing like your choice of favorite color.  If I were to take a more comprehensive and reliable gender test, and my gender score again came up as feminine, would my gender be “F” rather than “M” or some other letter?  I don’t know how to talk in words beyond “him” and “her”.  New pronouns have been invented, but their application is still unclear.  Or is it subjective?  Where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it?  I imagine there are a number of you here this morning who could take this conversation much further, but we’ve reached the limit of what I can offer.  When we step away from inventories and theories that neatly wrap it all up, the real people and real situations can be so confusing and complex.  I recommend compassion.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

Wizards, Dust, and Faith
1-27-08
Rev. Douglas Taylor

Back in the fall of ’02, Rev. Douglas Taylor made the news when he publicly shredded a copy of “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.”  He wanted to burn the book, but sadly the city would not issue him a permit.   So, with scissors in hand, surrounded by faithful members of his church, Rev Douglas Taylor told the newspapers, “I feel like I’m in a cutting mood tonight.”  I hope it is no surprise to you that I am speaking about another Rev. Douglas Taylor, one from a conservative Christian church that condemned the Harry Potter books for their glorification of “witchcraft and pagan religion.”  “If you get involved in this,” our other Rev. Douglas Taylor told the people, gesturing to toward the Harry Potter book, “It’s gonna make you dirty.”

Me, I’m not interested in cutting up or burning books.  I don’t doubt that I could be involved with a blatant publicity stunt.  While I would hope to be involved with more tasteful displays, I can’t make any promises.  But you could tell I was referring to a different Rev. Douglas Taylor, right?  I only wish the people who sent me hate letters by e-mail could tell the difference.  It was somewhat heartening to have the people chastising me for cutting up Potter outweighed my supporters 2 to 1, even if I wasn’t the one involved.

There is a long and proud history among conservative and evangelical Christians of railing against culture and ‘un-Christian’ influences surrounding their children.  Of course liberal and mainline people of faith do it too. We tend to complain about different influences, but we all complain about the negative influence of culture.  I remember, for example, a TV show from the late 80’s and early 90’s called Murphy Brown.  One season, the main character decides to have a baby but not to get married or have a man involved directly in the project.  During the 1992 presidential campaign, then Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the Murphy Brown character for ignoring the importance of fathers and bearing a child alone.  One response was, “Oh, come on Dan; it’s just a TV show.”  But that is not a fair response.  Whether we agree or disagree with Dan Quayle’s target, his concern about the power and influence of Television was fair.

And while conservative Christians get worked up about everything from Barney and Tinkie Winkie to Murphy Brown and Dan Brown’s De Vinci Code, they hold a special place for fantasy books and movies especially when they portray magic.  Of late there are several movies that fit this category: fantasy films that feature witchcraft and magic; the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Chronicles of Narnia, and most recently, The Golden Compass.  I have found these films to be entertaining and each in their own ways to offer a positive message to encourage people in their faith.

All of these films began as successful books.  While all four movies have come out recently, two of them are from an earlier generation and seem to have worked under a different set of rules if you will in terms of their acceptability among Christians.  One theory I bumped into on the internet (and sadly could not find again to give proper credit) suggested that there were rules for how magic could be portrayed that Narnia and Lord of the Rings followed, but the other two have not, which is why you hear a lot of fuss about Harry Potter and The Golden Compass.  Or, another way to put it, Christians came to terms with the ways magic was used in the previous generation’s great fantasy series but those terms were not met in the new batch of make-believe.  The main problem for the Christians seems to be around magic use.

The first rule seems to be something like: the magic needs to take place in an obviously non-real world.  When the children go through the wardrobe and past the lamppost, they have left the real world behind and entered a completely new place.  It is so different that time does not even pass in the real world while hours and days and even years go by in Narnia.  C. S. Lewis’ world of Narnia could in no way be mistaken for earth.  Tolkien’s Middle-Earth is also not earth.  So full with its own history and culture it could not possibly be mistaken for our earth with our history and culture.  Again and again, critics say that one of the hallmarks of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books is that the author created a whole and internally-consistent world.  That is the old-school.  Harry Potter takes place in the midst of our real world.  The young people can attend a school for Witchcraft and Wizardry that is undetectable by the regular people (which they call muggles.)  The author, J. K. Rowling, intends for you to feel like this is all happening in our world, not in some make believe place.  The Harry Potter series crossed the line that Narnia and Lord of the Rings abided by, and this is a key reason why people hated Harry Potter so much.  It suggested that magic was a part of our real world!  It went so far in its fantasy structure to suggest that lucky people could go to school and learn to use magic.

The Golden Compass is a variation on the theme.  The world of young Lyra is built on the post-modern thought-experiment that if I flip a coin it will come down either heads or tails.  While the coin is in the air the result could be either.  In a way, both futures wait to unfold.  As the coin lands and we find it to be, for example, ‘heads’- what would it be like if there were a parallel universe where the coin landed as ‘tails’ and life goes on from there?  The world Philip Pullman creates in The Golden Compass is very similar to the one we live in except there are rebel witches, talking polar bears, magic compasses, and every person’s soul is externalized as a creature.  I would be willing to argue that the parallel universe concept is almost an out for Pullman in terms of that first rule: the magic has to occur in a completely different world.  It’s a different world, but I suppose not completely different enough – and then only in the first book.  And, as a meaningless critique I will add that Philip does not have cool first initials like J. K. and C. S. and J. R. R. which is really too bad.

The second rule that the earlier generation of books centered on who gets to use the magic in the other world.  When religious people saw that humans didn’t use the magic, that the main characters did not use the magic, then it became easier for them to come to a truce with those books.  In the Narnia tales, the humans are set apart from the mythical and magic using inhabitants of the land in part because they don’t use magic; (unless we start talking about the “deep magic” and the “deeper magic” which is allegorical ways of talking about the power of Christian love.)  The most obvious person to use magic in the movie is the witch, who is evil.

In Lord of the Ring again it is the evil characters that use magic, but there are also good characters that use a good version of magic as well.  The elves have certain abilities, particularly the royalty.  And of course the wizards use magic.  But it is noted that the wizards are not ‘men.’ They are immortals like the elves.  I would also add that while the movie showed a good deal of waving magic staffs around and talking to wild animals, Gandalf’s primary magic was found in knowledge and a certain power with light.  Yet he was neither a main character nor a human character.  This kept him safely within the bounds that Christianity had come to accept from its fantasy stories.

The other two movies clearly break this little rule.  All of the significant characters use magic in Harry Potter, and the main character stands out for being particularly adept with certain kinds of magic such as flying on a broomstick.  In The Golden Compass, Lyra uses a device, the alethiometer or ‘golden compass’ to tell the truth.  Alethi is Greek for ‘truth’.  The device works for normal people but only with years of study and a stack of reference books, reminiscent of the resource books needed to read a sextant at sea.  The main character, however, does not need the years of training or the pile of books to read the device, she just understands it somehow.

So, Narnia and Lord of the Rings are OK, Harry Potter and The Colden Compass are bad because the former show magic occurring in wholly unique worlds that don’t connect to our worlds and the human characters and main characters don’t use magic, while the later do – on both counts.  This seems to me to be a flawed set of criteria to judge the fitness of a film for our children’s consumption.

Another criterion might be: do these books turned movies have Christian themes, or at least positive themes that are broadly religious if not specifically Christian.  Certainly Narnia would come out well with this way of judging them.  Narnia is an allegory of the Christian message: Aslan the great lion is Christ who sacrificed himself for another’s transgressions – yet rose up from death, breaking the table and so freeing anyone from future punishment for misdeeds.  When that level of the story is pointed out most people find it to be quite obvious.  Yet over and over children are delighted and entertained by the story without clueing in to the deeper theology that isn’t exactly hidden all that deep.  I think that is a mark of a fine story.  By this way of judging, Harry Potter carries many of the same symbolic meanings, especially in the last book.  I won’t spoil it in case you haven’t read it yet.  However, the Christians who rail against the Potter books will often cite not only the awful witchcraft problem but also the way Harry and his friends don’t follow the rules and ignore authority figures right and left.  I would cautiously point out that Jesus did that too.  Self-sacrifice and the ultimate power of love are regular themes in the Harry Potter books.  Again, this is a great story and it is not necessary to even notice all the Christian imagery to enjoy the books and be moved by them.  Although, one wonders at the way Rowling draws herself closer to hardcore Christians by using bible quotes on tombstones as major plot clues in her last book, and then she distances herself from then by announcing that the Professor Dumbledore, much-beloved Headmaster of the wizard school, is gay.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is full of Christ-like figures: Frodo, The innocent who willingly takes up the burden of the Ring, carrying it through pain and suffering to save the world.  Gandalf also fits the bill for many things, but especially for dying and being reborn in a garment of white.  And we could also look to Aragorn who is the King, (as all kings in such stories seem to be Christ-like figures) but he is the King with healing in his hands.  We could also look to the over all message of the struggle between good and evil – that is a common theme in this sort of fantasy story.  Indeed all four of these movies I’m considering here have this over-arching theme of good triumphing over evil.  Yet with Lord of the Rings is worth noting that victory is won not through magic or military might or dramatic heroism.  It is won by two small hobbits, two insignificant beings, the meek of the earth.

Earlier I stated that each of these movies, in their own ways, offers a positive message to encourage people in their faith.  This idea that some of the basic messages of the Christian story are at the underneath many themes in the three movies so far makes my point.  The last movie is a little harder.  The Golden Compass also carries the broad them of good struggling to win over evil.  In this case, however, the church is the bad guy under the title of the Magisterium and the Authority.  The main character is regularly lying.  The movie pulled back from some of the overt material in the book, but the really complaint-worthy material all comes in the third book anyway.  The much hyped moments are in the death scene of God, the Authority, and in the scene where Lyra and Will (a boy introduced in the second book) reenact the Garden of Eden Scene with the opposite effect: instead of causing Original Sin, they rediscover their Original Blessing.  At least that is what Pullman is aiming for.  And if that is not enough to make the Evangelical and Conservative Christians jumpy, Pullman has said in interviews, “My books are about killing God.” He is also on record for saying “I am trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

If you only watched the movie and not read the books, you would probably wonder what the fuss was all about.  In the movie the evil Magisterium has a ‘church-y’ name and is seen trying to take control of everything.  A few characters make reference to Original Sin that is somehow connected to Dust.  Other than that, there isn’t much in the movie itself for Christians to get upset about.  I think, however, the Christians are right to protest.  Pullman seems to have started with a premise that he will write a children’s story that will attack Christianity – or at least certain aspects, certain theologies of Christian faith.

Characters in Pullman’s book each had a creature that moves with them that is an outward manifestation of their soul. It might be a bird or a big cat, a monkey or an armadillo.  These are called Daemons, (spelled D A E M O N – which is an old variation on ‘Demon’.)  Children’s daemons can change form as they wish.  When they reach puberty the daemon settles into one shape which it keeps for life.  Dust, which is the central concept of the quest: discover where Dust is coming from, the main character (and the reader) is always trying to sort out just what Dust is.  The Magisterium, the evil institution who wants to control everything, claims that Dust is the physical evidence for Original Sin.  In the same way the soul is externally visible, Original Sin is also somehow visible.  Dust doesn’t really stick to children so long as their daemons have not settled – which happens at puberty.  And puberty is the onset of sexuality.  In the later books this becomes the central theological issue.

The good guys, and for that matter – the author, suggest that Dust is not what the Magisterium claim.  Instead they say Dust is the elemental force of consciousness.  Thinking back to the passage I read for the reading, Pullman uses the Garden of Eden myth as a backdrop for his argument.  He would be claiming that what the church calls “the fall” was really a step toward consciousness and full personhood.  Taking the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not disobedience, (the classic understanding of original sin.)  Instead it was liberation into self-control, into being able to know and choose for yourself what is ultimately good and evil.  I think Pullman’s story is a fine example of what we Unitarians and Universalists did over a hundred years ago.  An example of what Liberal Christians and Liberation Christians have been doing for generations.  If Pullman’s goal was to undermine Christian beliefs I think we must admit he fails – but if it is to boldly critique certain literalist beliefs and authority-based traditions, then perhaps we can say this author has done quite well.

Will any of this deeper level of theology with its message against religious authorities and in favor of free will reach the young reader or movie goer?  Will the positive messages from any of these movies reach the audience?  Perhaps.  Most people will go to the movies to be entertained.  Occasionally a character or a scene will stick in your memory as a fine example of faithful living.  That critical piece is in self-reflection.  I encourage you to be aware of the influences that are offered to you through your entertainment!  Perhaps with critical self-reflection these fantasy films can enhance your faith.  And perhaps the literalists and Magisterium-like structures of religion in our world today will one day be broken of their destructive habits, thus freeing them to honor and serve life rather than yesterday’s set of rules.

In a world without end

May it be so

Sing a New Song
1-20-08
Rev. Douglas Taylor

While I’ve always enjoyed the TV shows and made a point to never miss an episode, I don’t think it would be fair to claim I was a Trekkie.  I don’t own a Star Trek library, I’ve never been to a Star Trek Convention, I don’t speak Klingon or own a Star Fleet Uniform costume, although I know people who do.  But I have always enjoyed the show, especially the second series that came out in the early 90’s.  Science fiction has always appealed to me when the writers present ethical questions through their work.  They present an opportunity to ask, “What if …?” I have played with the idea of using Star Trek episodes for an Adult Religious education ethics discussion – indeed, it has been done before.

For example, there is one episode that has always been considered on of the best there the crew meet a race of people that communicate only through metaphor and image.  The “Universal Translator” that allows the crew to speak with any sentient species they come across fails them because what comes out is phrases in English referring to the local stories of this races; and as the crew discovers, without knowing the stories, the language is unintelligible.  The episode is called “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra,” and that is one of the phrases this race said when they were talking with the Star Trek crew.  But “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” was meaningless to them.  The names refer to people and places that the crew had never heard of.  It would be like someone saying “Romeo and Juliet at the balcony.”  If you know the Shakespeare play, you understand the romance and tragedy evoked by that phrase.  But without the context, the phrase is meaningless.

What would it be like to meet a race of people who spoke in a metaphorical language?  What would it be like to be such a race?  What stories would we use?  If I said, ‘Murray stuck on the sandbar’ or ‘Thoreau on Walden,’ or ‘Servetus at the stake,’ would you have a sense of the metaphor or image I was trying to evoke?    If I called on images beyond our Unitarian Universalist story and said, ‘Patriots at the Boston Tea Party,’ or ‘Battle of Wounded Knee,’ or ‘King at Lincoln Memorial’ would you understand?

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King spoke with rich imagery and power.  I won’t go so far as to say he spoke in an entirely metaphorical language, that would be not be possible for anyone to do so in our culture.  But this idea of using phrases that evoke deep stories and images as a sort of shorthand – this is what Dr. King did a lot.  Many people reflect on how Dr. King’s message was not only in the information and content of what he offered, it was also in the way he said it.  The way he spoke was as important to the message as what he said.  And so he and the people of his communities were like the race of people who spoke in deep metaphor.

Now, as a quick tangent I want to notice that when we say “a race of people” in connection to Martin Luther King it is generally understood that we are referring to African Americans (or Negroes as was the nomenclature of that decade.)  When we say “a race of people” in connection with science fiction and Star Trek it is generally understood that we are referring to a people who are not Earthlings.  Humans are the only race on Earth.  Science fiction is closer to the reality on this point than contemporary language that speaks of racism and race-relations.  Genetically speaking, we are more alike than we are different, we are one race and skin pigmentation makes no difference.  Now, culture makes a difference; geography and nationality seem to make a big difference.  But genetically we are all one race.  But, the word ‘race’ is not going to go away from our vocabulary because until we actually meet another human-like race from some other planet we will continue to use the word to separate ‘us’ from ‘them.’ That is what words like ‘race’ are for.

Returning to my point about the language of metaphor, Dr. King was an eloquent speaker who drew on phrases and images from the Bible, American history, hymns and poetry.  His work was so suffused with such phrases that he has been accused of being unoriginal.  A fringe of angry people have suggested King stole all his words from other people, that there was nothing all that special about King because he was just saying other people’s words.  People who level this critique against King not only laughably overstate their case; they also fail to see that he was evoking other people’s words on purpose.  So he didn’t footnote his speeches, he didn’t make little ‘air quotes’ whenever he was uttering another poet’s words.  King was a preacher!  Saying other people’s words is what we do.  To preach is to lift up powerful words in juxtaposition to life as we are experiencing it.  That’s what we do – and we do it with all the wisdom of the ages.

There is a story of a student who complains to the master composer saying, “The lesser musicians are stealing your work and calling it their own.  Everyone is copying you.  Should you not reveal them for the frauds they are?”  The master drew himself up proudly and said, “Any fool can steal from another person, the true genius steals from everyone.”  King quoted from the Bible, American history, hymns and poetry.  If we do not recognize the image being evoked, if we miss the context of the phrase then we fail to grasp the full implications of the metaphor.

In the monumental speech, “I Have a Dream,” King evoked the concept of the American dream, lined out the American hymn “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,” and recited from the declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.”)  He also brought out phrases from the biblical prophets such as Amos 5:24 “Let Justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream,” and Isaiah 40: 4-5 “Every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low; the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight.”  And King also gave a nod to Shakespeare when he said this was the “sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent.”  The play Richard III has the line “Now is the winter of our discontent.”

This was common in his rhetorical style.  He spoke this way each time he stepped up before the public.  There is another speech that captures this point remarkably.  King spoke at the conclusion of the march from Selma to Montgomery Alabama in 1965.  600 people had tried to march earlier and had been beaten with bullwhips and nightsticks by the Alabama State Troopers.  That first attempt to march came to be known as “Bloody Sunday.”  The next day King issued a nationwide call for clergy from the north to come march with them.  Two weeks later, ten thousand marched.  At the conclusion King spoke and during the speech quoted James Weldon Johnson’s hymn which we sang this morning:

         We have come over a way

         That with tears hath been watered.

         We have come treading our paths

         Through the blood of the slaughtered.

         Out of the gloomy past

         Till now we stand at last

         Where the white gleam

         Of our bright star is cast.

Johnson wrote those lyrics in celebration of Lincoln’s birthday 65 years earlier.  It had been dubbed the Negro National Anthem by the NAACP more than a generation before King and other civil Rights leaders called the hymn into deeper service.  Can you not the power of these words?

Later, working toward the climax of that speech, King builds the question, “How long will it take?”

Somebody’s asking, “How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?”  Somebody’s asking, “When will wounded injustice, lying prostrate on the streets of Selma and Birmingham and communities all over the South, be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?”

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because truth crushed to the earth will rise again.

How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.

How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow.

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

How long? Not long, because: Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord

And he goes on to recite two full stanzas of the Battle Hymn of the Republic ending with, “Glory, Hallelujah!  His truth is marching on.”  Powerful way to end a march: our feet are tired from this march, but His truth is marching on.

But this piece of the speech is so full of imagery leading up to that powerful conclusion.  The rhythm of the question and answer, “How long, not long” is a poetic technique King known as Anaphora in which you repeat the beginning phrase over and over.  How long?  Not long.  And, that exact question is in the Bible no less than fifty times mostly on the lips of the psalmists and the prophets.

         How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? (Psalm 13:1)
How long shall mine enemy be exalted over me? (Psalm 13:2)

         How long will ye judge unjustly, & accept the persons of the wicked?                                     (Psalm 82:2)

         How long, LORD? Wilt thou hide thyself for ever? (Psalm 89:46)

         LORD, how long shall the wicked triumph? (Psalm 94:3)
How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither,

                  for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? (Jeremiah 12:4)

         How long wilt thou not have mercy (Zechariah 1:12)

         O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! (Habakkuk 1:2)

How long?  Not long, because the truth crushed to the earth will rise again.  That line is from poet William Cullen Bryant who is more famous for his poem “Thanatopis.”  Bryant, I might add, became a Unitarian in later life, writing many Unitarian hymns.

How long?  Not long, because no lie can live forever.  That is from Thomas Carlyle, English poet and atheist.

How long?  Not long, because you shall reap what you sow.  St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians which is an echo of similar sentiment found in the Psalms.

How long?  Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.  Unitarian minister Theodore Parker wrote that in response to the issue of slavery and the hope of abolition.

How long? Not long, because Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.  Julia Ward Howe wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic in response to the Civil War.  And yes, Julia Ward Howe also was a Unitarian.  But you see the point is not that King spoke lines that were written by atheists, or Unitarians, or even God herself!  The point is what King did with the lines, bringing them together and presenting them as he did at that moment in the lives of the people.  In so doing he sang a new song, a song of justice and peace for the whole nation to hear because the words were our words as Americans, as people of faith, as people of every color.

We Unitarian Universalists have had our part to play by both sending forth individuals in the service of bringing about the beloved community and as a movement sending forth our voice and our empowering theology of the human capacity for good.  There is yet more work to be done.  Never let us dwell only in the realm of words and ideas, but let us also not belittle the power available to us with the careful use of language and images.

King made powerful use of language and images to convey a message of justice and a call to conscience.  He used the language of image and metaphor to evoke a connection with people that could bridge the gap between our ideals and our practice, between our statements of who we say we are and what we say we stand for as a people and the reality of our practice and what we allow to be done in the our name.  King communicated through common phrases and images, transforming them into deep metaphors that tell us who we are.  In this way he sang a new song using our words – the words of democracy and freedom, truth and dignity.  He sang a new song with old words leading us toward a more just community.  We are the ones to take up that song now, if for no other reason than our recognition that the work is there to be done.  We are the ones to take up the song, because we are a people with resources and passion and the ability to effect positive change.  We are the ones to take up the song, because our theology and our fellowship are rooted in human dignity and justice.  We are the ones who have ears to hear; we and so many others with us see the need to call our nation to live out its promise of freedom, equality and justice.  With care and compassion we shall sing our world toward wholeness.

In a world without end

May it be so.

January’s Intolerance
1-6-08
Rev. Douglas Taylor

When I was young I remember learning the etymology of the days of the week and the months of the year.  Days of the week are mostly named after Norse Gods while the Months follow the Roman Gods.  January is named for Janus, the roman God of gates and doors, and of beginnings and endings.  The Latin word for an arched passageway is ‘janus.’  The Romans did not have January as their first month; they held March, named for Mars, the Roman God of war, to be the New Year.  January, however, with the symbolism of the God Janus, makes a perfect month for ringing out the old and ringing in the new.  The God of doors and gates stands sentinel and is depicted with two heads, one facing back and the other forward.  This is not, however, where we derive the term “two-faced,” which means, “To be hypocritical, to say one thing and do another.”  There is no story of Janus’ two faces contradicting each other, no story of this God standing in a doorway, for example, telling everyone inside the house one thing and everyone outside the house something else.  Which is really too bad!  Finding such a story was the basis for my title, January’s Intolerance.

James Wiggins, author of In Praise of Religious Diversity, claims that virtually every armed conflict occurring on the planet today is explicitly driven by religious motives or by the memory of a preexisting religious conflict.  That is a very strong claim.  Bill Moyers mentions this in the article I used for our reading this morning and goes on to list many examples such as suicide bombers, ethnic cleansing, attempts to build theocracies, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Muslims and Jews fighting in one land, Catholics and Protestants attacking each other in another, Hindus and Muslims slaughtering each other over in another land, and the list goes on.

It is as if there is an intolerant two-faced God standing in the door way of “true” religion chanting to those inside, “How lovely and righteous are we the chosen ones.”  And at the same time the other face is looking outward shouting “death to the infidels, down with the unbeliever.”  This caricature is sadly fitting to far too many faiths in the world – not just the ones the media keeps reminding us about!  Is the doorway to your religion built on intolerance?  Is the gate of your faith guarded by narrow-mindedness?  Or is your entrance expansive?

Unitarian Universalism is a religion that features tolerance in the way we come together.  We strive to honor and accept the difference of each individual, drawing on the beauty of our differences to enhance our understanding of life, God, meaning, and truth.  Tolerance of other people’s beliefs is a central aspect of our faith.

We are not alone in having an emphasis on tolerance of other people’s beliefs; most liberal religious traditions hold this emphasis.  I remember attending an Ash Wednesday service in a Lutheran church and was surprised to hear the pastor use a contemporary Taoist author during the homily to expand on the themes of Lent and Ash Wednesday.  We are not alone in recognizing the wisdom in other people’s scriptures.

But we do stand out.  In our UUA statement of Principles and Purposes when we claim that the Living Tradition we share draws from many sources.  We’ve codified it in our central statement of identity.  That part is unusual.  I have often stood up here with a message that tolerance is not at our center; that tolerance is a valuable tool to help us reach our core identity, but should never be construed to be the center of our faith.  We are not a tradition based around the idea that everyone’s beliefs are A-OK and we can believe anything we want.  Tolerance has limits: this I have said and said again.  Now, I begin to worry that I’ve been knocking tolerance too much.  Several times I have told you tolerance is not enough.  I have repeatedly warned against the danger in leaving everything up to tolerance.  Yet for all I fuss at tolerance, it surely beats being intolerant!

I am proud to see our recognition of the importance of being open to new religious ideas and expressions, of having fresh understanding and perspectives.  Tolerance keeps us from stagnation.  Tolerance is what keeps us open to see new light.  Tolerance holds our door open.

One UU colleague wrote a statement of our core beliefs several years back that includes the following stanza:

            We believe in the freedom of religious expression.

            We believe in the toleration of religious ideas.

            We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.

            We believe in the never ending search for truth.

This was not meant as a creed or as dogma, simply as a statement describing some of the ideas that hold us together.  We are open, tolerant, highly individualistic, and still trying to figure it all out.  These are some of the key features that identify us as Unitarian Universalists.

In contrast, most religions are manifestly intolerant.  They unabashedly declare themselves to be so. It is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact based on their own scripture and practice: A fact which these faithful and observant people would not refute.  Indeed many religions would say they are very tolerant toward other people and all, but not at all tolerant of other people’s religious beliefs.  One colleague draws the comparison quite closely.  He writes:

            “Why sold they believe in the freedom of religious expression,

                        when the answers are already provided?

            Why should they believe in the toleration of religious ideas,

                        when the faith has been clearly stated?

            Why should they believe in the authority of reason and conscience,

                        when the institution is all powerful?

            Why should they believe in the never ending search for truth,

                        when it is obviously established forever?

It is naïve for anyone to expect otherwise!  The stance of orthodox religions is perfectly understandable.  They have closed the doors of toleration because they possess the Holy Grail.  Others are wrong or ignorant.  It is a valid and logical position if you accept their basic premise.” (Rev. John Papandrew)

It is all wrapped up in group dynamics; we need our groups.  We define ourselves by whether we are in or out of the group.  From earliest times, religion has served the function of binding people together in groups, giving people a common bond of care and concern.  The legendary sociologist, Emile Durkheim, wrote that religion’s original purpose was to “strengthen the bonds attaching the individual to the society of which he [or she] is a member.”  We need our groups.   Any group, any group, for it even be a group must establish a base of trust, the quickest and most powerful way to establish that trust is to gather the group around a shared identity.  When you can define what it means to be a part of the group you are establishing a definition of the individuals in the group.  For example, if we say we are God’s chosen people, and I am a part of the group, then I can define myself – I’m one of God’s chosen people.  And I get to define myself this way because of the group I am in.

Now, it will often happen that the definition of who is in the group will include something about how you are better than those who are not in your group – otherwise, why bother being in that group?  It is almost a required level of exclusivist thought for the group to hold together.  We even have a touch of this.  I think at times we’ve shied away from it and tried to be a group that refuted this edge of exclusivity. “We’re no better than any other group.  All religions are the same,” we would say.  And then we would wonder why so few of our youth stay with the faith.

We need a certain amount of exclusive thought in the mix if we’re going to survive as a group.  Why bother being a part of our group unless our group is better in some important way?  We get around this by saying this is the best group for me.  I don’t know if this is the best group for you, I hope it is and from what I may know about you I can suggest you look into it.  But only you can know whether or not Unitarian Universalism is the best religious group for you.  You see, we never claim to be the best group.  We only claim to be the best group for some.

We say that every person experiences and interacts with that which is holy, with the sacred, with God, in the way that fits for that person.  Each person is different, like a fingerprint.  What fits you will not fit me.  That is how we are designed and we honor that and find it so easy to tolerate others when we are not threatened by the differences!  This allows us to have that slight exclusive factor at our entrance without it dishonoring the reality of what is inside.  We strive to have the two-faced God in our doorway offering the same message to those on the outside that is offered to those of us on inside.

There is a Taoist meditation book with a story about using donkey’s to reach high places in the world.  Donkeys, so sure footed and sturdy, are excellent beasts for carrying you up the mountain.  When we reach the top, everyone stands in the same place, sees the same view, and the donkeys are not used anymore.  The meditation is called “Dismount your Donkey at the Summit.”  Of course it is a metaphor.  The donkey’s are the various religions and doctrines and beliefs we embrace as we journey up the mountain.  “What does it matter,” the meditation asks, “which donkey we embrace as long as it leads us to the summit?  Your donkey might be the Zen donkey, mine the Tao donkey.  There are Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and even Agnostic donkeys.”  I love that, the meditation singles out agnostic donkeys.  It goes on to say, “All lead to the same place. Why poke fun at others over the name of their donkey?  Aren’t you riding one yourself?”  (From Tao- daily Meditations by Deng Ming-Dao)  And then the point of the meditation is that once you reach the top, you no longer need your donkey, we will one day come to a place where we no longer need names to describe what we experience.  “All religions have different names for the ways of getting to the holy summit.”  Yet we must get off our donkeys when we finally get there.

And there are many religious groups that work hard to combat the intolerant and exclusive element of group dynamics.  I’ll same again; we are not alone in recognizing the value of the soft sell!  Take a peak back at the antiphonal reading on the back of the order of service.  Many religions have scriptures that rail against negative and dehumanizing perceptions of people who are different or people who are not members of the group.  They say, in essence: they are not us, but they are like us.

Tolerance allows us to remain open to new light.  Tolerance allows us to hear another person’s perspective without being threatened by it.  When we don’t claim to have the absolute truth we can hear another person’s deep conviction without it needing to be an either/or struggle to be right. Tolerance allows conversation.  In the article I used for the reading this morning, Bill Moyers ends up with this same line of thought.  Listening and being in conversation with others is powerful action that can change people.  Moyers says, “Talking with people who agree with you is like jogging in a cul-de-sac.”

Moyers talks in that article about the PBS series they did on Genesis.  It was a simple format, get a bunch of different people in the circle of conversation and record it.  The topic was dangerous my many standards.

“For the series we sought out people from varied backgrounds, faiths, professional fields, ages and genders.  We wanted to see if they could be candid about their different beliefs without politicizing religion or polarizing the community.  We hoped to show that you can disagree passionately about things that matter without surrendering your own principled beliefs or without going for your neighbor’s throat; that Americans can engage with others in serious conversations about the most deeply felt subjects – our religious beliefs, the nature of faith, our relationship with each other – and truly challenge each other, teach each other, and learn from each other.  It worked; all over the country people organized into groups so they could watch the programs together and then talk about them afterward.”

How many of you remember that Genesis series with Bill Moyers?  That kind of tolerance and subsequent conversation is what we strive to have here on a regular basis.  It is begins when you let go of being the sole proprietor of Truth and take a step toward really listening to another person.  It involves the kind interaction of ideas and basic beliefs that may change you – probably not to change your beliefs but to deepen them, broaden them, keep them more firmly rooted in the reality of life as we live it.  Unitarian Universalism is an open and accepting faith, recognizing the power available to us when we set Tolerance as the guard of our gate and invite each other on a shared journey of discovery.

In a world without end

May it be so.

Screwtape’s Apocryphal Letters

12-30-07
Rev.Douglas Taylor

Copyright note

This concept and plot, the style of writing, several of the names and occasionally even certain phrases are due to the genius of C. S. Lewis, the author of the original 1942 text: The Screwtape Letters.   Everything else is from me.

Preface

I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to you fell into my hands.  Nor shall I explain why these five letters are considered apocryphal and thus were not included in the original publicized collection of letters; except to speculate that it is due to the letters being addressed to a different junior tempter, namely Grubclaw, and that they seem to be specifically written not with the broader Christian faith in mind but with the relatively insignificant movement known as Unitarian Universalism.

No attempt has been made to identify any of the people mentioned in the letters, though it is unlikely that the portraits of these people are just or accurate.  As the previous publication has already mentioned in this respect, “There is wishful thinking in Hell as well as on Earth.”

Letter I

My dear Grubclaw,

I read in your recent note that you are concerned that your patient speaks of searching for Truth.  I am a trifle surprised by your concern.  Have you forgotten the lessons you received in Tempters’ Training College about what humans call ‘the contemporary perspective’?  I understand Dr. Slubgob wrote that lesson himself.   Need I remind you that the humans are in what they call the “post-modern era”?  They no longer believe in Truth; instead they make noises about many truths and personal realities.  The “modern” quest for The Truth is considered passé and old-fashioned.  This can play very well into your hand if you proceed carefully, but you must lay your groundwork now before the Enemy can break in.  Have you considered encouraging this search in your patient?  But be sure to suggest that she has already discovered for herself the truth – or at least her own version of it.  Indeed, with a little push on your part your patient can come to compare any snippet of real truth against her own prefabricated conception.  It matters not one bit what small sophomoric tidbit she may latch onto, “Everyone is beautiful inside” or “If I think only lovely thoughts then only lovely things will come to me” or some other mushy twaddle of this sort will do.  But I caution you, nephew, do not press to hard.  What she must always hold to is that hers is the original version of her truth and that all other claims, however similar, are not her truth and are therefore secondary.  In this way you may very well find that she has a perfect barrier to Truth by claiming she already has it!  This can be both effective for our purpose and entertaining for you.

Humans are very interested these days in their own journey.  Their religious sentiment has been absorbed by the general individualistic, consumer culture.  They begin to think that religion is something they can fit around their needs rather than fitting themselves around the precepts of religion.  Our Father has been seeding this sentiment for generations.  By all means encourage your patient to be ‘spiritual but not religious’, and never let it enter into her head that the two are inseparable.  This is actually a rather simple accomplishment!  Keep her mind fixed on the abstract image of someone who is ‘spiritual’: a person who perhaps reads certain books, says certain phrases, and is aloof from the stress of the world.  With this utterly unreal image as an ideal she will be kept from actually doing even a simple spiritual deed like giving money to a charity or attending a church worship service.

You begin to see the point?  Thanks to the progress we’ve made over these past decades, they have come to worship themselves and their perceived needs above all else.  So long as we feed a steady stream of novel packaging for the idea that they are indeed the center of their universes then these humans stay neatly on the path to our Father’s house.  Ah, advertising, consumption mentality, self-value linked to stuff, leisure!  To hear to you young fiends talk you would think you’ve invented all manner of trap and ensnarement, but it is we who came before you who laid the careful ground work in their culture.

            Your affectionate uncle,

Screwtape.

Letter II

My dear Grubclaw,

I am severely aggrieved to learn that your patient is attending a church.  Did you learn nothing from your cousin Wormwood’s example?  And don’t think you have it easy because your patient is visiting a Unitarian Universalist congregation; “half way to Our father’s house,” you say.  Have you forgotten that our Enemy is not contained by the walls of one religion?  Still, there is hope for your case if you proceed carefully.  Likely this is not a conversion, merely an exploration.  You must keep it at the level of exploration and assure that what she discovers is unsatisfying.  Yes, there are many humans who have a brush with Unitarian Universalism but never make the fuller commitment of joining.  Ha, if these “UU’s,” as they call themselves, were a little more intentional and organized in terms of saving souls they would be truly dangerous to us.  Rest assured, my young fiend, the statistics are in your favor and your patient will be well away from this group in short order.

Likely she is assuming there are low expectations of her; that she can just attend and be entertained without it actually having an impact on her life or her own personal truth.  Tell me more about your patient’s entrance into this community.  Does she find ‘like-minded people’ around her?  Work with that.  Don’t let her see that everyone there has a different take on truth and meaning just yet.  Save that realization for a few weeks and then open her eyes to a very stark vision of it.  Gorebase has made extensive study of these Unitarian Universalists and tells me they are all over the board, Humanists, Pagans, Deists and Agnostics all mixed in with Theists, Buddhists, Mystics, Liberal Christians and all manner of others.  Don’t let her see just yet how big a variety there is, let her assume everyone is just like her and that she won’t have to be open and accepting of them.  Focus her thoughts on how they are open and accepting of her without the necessary reciprocal.  You may ask how it is possible to keep such an obvious idea from occurring to an inquisitive human mind.  But it is, Grubclaw.  Indeed it is a simply feat.  These fools are so hopeful to find communities where their differences don’t matter that they are more than ready to delude themselves into seeing it.

You see we once had only a handful of ways to divide these humans into factions: nationality, ethnicity, race, class, and other such ridiculous notions.  It was surprisingly easy to keep them from seeing other human beings as creatures like themselves.  A few centuries ago we discovered ways to even use religion itself as a way to restrain them from interacting with each other.  This is all to our benefit.  Now, however, thanks to what these humans call marketing, we can also use clothing styles, musical preferences, technological advances, and even politics, age and morality to herd these humans into smaller clusters so that they never truly experience a different perspective that might break into the carefully constructed paths we have created for them.  We have many of them so well in hand that they can’t even see their literal next door neighbors as “neighbors” the way the Enemy uses that term.

So, keep this in mind as your patient enters into this community.  Make her mind focus on how she finds certain things interesting, perhaps the minister will say a clever turn of a phrase or the choir will make that loathsome noise they seem to enjoy.  Let her think that all the people are just like her, how they must all share her politics and taste in music.  Then after a visit or two, open her attention to the shocking variety – be sure to flood her awareness with it and overwhelm her sensibilities.  See my notes to your cousin Wormwood in this regard, hypocrisies and annoying habits are found in religious communities of every stripe.  Give her a little lead (not too long mind you), and then flood her with the differentness.  Once a chink is made in that rosy initial impression then all the years of careful work we’ve done to create divisions will take over – driving a wedge between her fantasy of church and the flawed reality of it.

            Your affectionate uncle

                                    Screwtape

Letter III

My dear Grubclaw,

            While you have failed to break your patient away from this new community, I am most alarmed by your implication that my advice to you was in some way faulty.  That is no way for a junior tempter to speak to the undersecretary of a department, or, for that matter, a nephew to his uncle.  You must learn to take responsibility for your own inept attempts to follow sound and solid counsel.   Do not imagine you will escape the normal consequences for your blunders.  In the meantime, we must make the best of the situation.  A great many of these so called ‘converts’ have been reclaimed after a brief stint in the Enemy’ camp and are now secure in Our Father’s house.

            I am delighted to hear that your patient has acquainted herself with certain new friends at the church.  These are just the type we can work with.  You seem to have made good advantage of the situation.  Your report is sparse, however, as to the details of this small group.  Are they a ‘spiritual discussion group’?  If so, it sounds like just the thing for your patient.  These places are full of such groups, always talking about their spiritual happiness and satisfaction without ever actually doing anything.  While they keep their attention on this abstract sense of the ‘spiritual’ they neglect to connect their armchair ruminations with anything that resembles the lives they are living.  It is all well and good for them to speak of peace, sustainability and civil liberties so long as they continue to be voracious consumers, rude drivers, and secretly committed to their own comfort above all else – then our work remains relatively straight-forward.

            Conversely, if the group is a Social Responsibility group instead – although that sounds unlikely if I am to believe the character you have painted of your patient in previous reports – then the details of your tactics will be somewhat different but generally it will be the same; namely: to keep any connection between behavior and belief from happening.  Let them complain about national and global politics but avoid making a trip to the local soup kitchen.  Keep a distance between the new ideas your patient is exploring and her actions.  Do contact Bogrot and the Infernal Regulation Synod for a report on the others in this young woman’s group.  And tell me more about her impressions of them.  Are they richer than her, more educated?  Do they seem take their connection to the larger church seriously?  This may be a wedge you can nurture.

            Your affectionate uncle

                                    Screwtape

Letter IV

My dear Grubclaw,

            You are obviously making excellent progress with your patient.  My only fear is that you will attempt to hurry things such that you will awaken in her an awareness of her position.  She must continue to imagine that all her choices are trivial and of no account in the grand scheme of her life’s direction.  Maintain that feeling of entitlement and keep her focus on how everything is provided to support her own understanding of truth.  Yet ever nurture that faint doubt in the background, such uneasiness and dissatisfaction will undermine any of the Enemy’s progress.

            I understand from your report that she has taken to praising the minister’s sermons.  I cannot stress how useful this can be both to you and to Fluglob who I see by his dossier is assigned to this particular clergyman.  Fluglob has been puffing up this man, feeding him visions of importance and prominence.  Most of these Unitarian Universalists are easily susceptible to pride and arrogance, though none quite as easily as the clergy.  They really fuss at each other about anti-authoritarianism and their lay-led polity that they fail to see how central they really are to the spiritual lives of the human beings who sit in the pews each week.  Consequently these UU ministers each harbor a secret longing to be seen as very important and especially unique.  You see the point perhaps.  Your patient’s praise contributes to the undermining of this fool’s humility edging him that much further along the path which Fluglob has laid out for him.

            As for you, by all means put her attention on this young minister.  Let her think that he is the very reason, the only good reason, she attends.  He is sure to disappoint her sooner or later, likely sooner if I read the implications in Fluglob’s reports correctly.  Then you can work that wedge in to drive her away from the community.  There are always those in a congregation who are dissatisfied with the minister about one thing or another, his manner of dress or his selection of readings, the way he manages the funds or the tone of his voice.  This is assuming there isn’t a rational ground for disappointment, should there be such – if it is known that he reads trashy novels or is overly flirtatious with the young women, or the young men for that matter – well then our job is that much easier.  All you have to do is introduce the thought that since this one whom was thought to be so wonderful has this or that flaw, then how can any of what he says really be worth hearing.  Dissatisfaction is the key.  She has come because she is searching for truth and meaning, and she thinks she has found it now.  Only show her the natural flaws and failings of those around her (especially that minister), and she will become disillusioned soon enough.

            Now, tell me more about her financial situation.  You mention nothing in your reports about the church asking for money, am I to assume from this that Unitarian Universalists don’t ask their members to support the church financially?  Is money a taboo topic?  You perhaps did not know to look for it, but there may be ambivalence about money in the congregation.  We can use that to our advantage!

            Your affectionate uncle

                                    Screwtape

Letter V

My dear Grubclaw,

            I would not be surprised to find you’ve been removed from this case after this last blunder.  She signed the book.  Would that you had paid more attention to my cautionary notes!  She has joined the church, made a financial commitment matching her spiritual one.  I am confident that if you could be demoted you would be, but junior tempter is already the tip of the lowerarchy.  And cap it all, you let her attend a social function at the church just for fun.  You did not steer her to question whether she would be welcome at the event or to wonder what her mother would think of her attending such an affair.  You didn’t even lead her to be anxious about bumping into an attractive young man.  You simply let her attend and have fun.  And now she’s gone and signed the book and joined the church.  You shall pay for your blunders.  I am enclosing a recently reissued booklet for your edification on the improved House of Corrections of Incompetent Tempters.  The profuse and graphic illustrations assure that there is nary a dull page in the whole volume.

            Meanwhile, it is time for you to overhaul your entire strategy.  And it is long past time you buckled down to study the reports from Gorebase on these Unitarian Universalists, they are odd birds indeed and allow far too much freedom in their people.  Perhaps you can get her involved in the petty politics of church business or corrupt her family relations in terms of this new religious connection.  The game has grown quite serious for you.  Let us be glad there are so few of these Unitarian Universalists to cause us such grief.

            Your affectionate uncle

                                    Screwtape

Postscript

That is all we have of the apocryphal letters of Screwtape, I encourage you to review the originals as they are truly illuminating.  There is much we can learn about ourselves by exploring the darker sides of our psyche and our world.  May such exploration lead us into a greater understanding of our situation, our hope, and our power to make a difference.

            In a world without end,

                        May it be so.