Sermons

How to Disagree with a Friend

Rev. Douglas Taylor

September 15, 2024

Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/E7u-Nl8y-vc

I wonder how many of you did not watch the recent presidential debate (Sept 10, 2024) back on Tuesday night. If you didn’t watch it, I’m guessing you’ve heard about it, picked up some news or conversations about the debate.

Do you know who won? I’m pretty sure I know who won. But I’ve learned the answer depends on who you ask. Generally, the winner was whoever you were hoping would win. This is one of the deeply frustrating features of modern politics. Not only are we divided in our politics, we seem to be divided in our recognition of reality.

As a side note I will notice that what we witnessed last Tuesday, while billed as a debate, was not in fact a debate. It was entertainment. A real debate has rules and judges, and the candidates would actually debate their policy differences with facts, reason, and evidence. But that is not what happens in what we call presidential debates now. All of which is simply more fuel for the division among us politically.

I keep hearing the presidential race is tight, it could go either way, the point spread is easily within the margin of error for a standard poll, it’s too close to call. In other words, the division is not overstated by a vocal minority who happens to have seized a modicum of airtime. The division runs deep through the country. 

It can be hard to engage with people who have an opposing view. And I am not talking about internet trolls and random people you may bump into in the real world. I’m talking about friends and family members with whom you disagree. It has grown harder in the current divisive climate to have an open conversation or reasoned disagreement with a friend. We’ve grown hostile and are pushing the extremes.

And I want to pause for a moment and clarify the scope of my invitation today with a James Baldwin quote. James Baldwin, writer and civil rights activist who died over 35 years ago. This past summer would have been James Baldwin’s 100’s birthday, (2024) on August 2. And I’ve made a commitment to myself that I will bring a Baldwin quote in my sermons at least once a month for the course of this church year to honor his legacy and his message to American religion and life.

Baldwin said, We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.

I am not advocating that we push ourselves into harmful engagement with friends or family on political and social issues. And I will concede that there are multiple ways that our political discourse as our country has grown harmful. There is violence and the threat of violence happening against women, against the LGBTQ+ community – particularly our *trans siblings, against school children through gun violence, against Haitian immigrants in Springfield OH – indeed against all the citizens in Springfield OH at this point … all due to “disagreement” rooted in someone’s oppression and denial of their humanity and right to exist. So, when I encourage you all to engage with your friends and family across the political divide, I need you to hear the caveat that if there is harm against you in so doing – then don’t.

And, our political divisiveness is a problem. Interestingly, it is also a path toward the solution. Historian Kathryn Schulz suggests our division is not the root of the problem, merely the context. She writes, “The United States only stabilized as a nation when it gave up the dream of being a one-party utopia and accepted the existence of political opposition as crucial to maintaining a democracy.” [from Being Wrong, Kathryn Schulz, 2011; p314] 

Her point being that different political perspectives are crucial for our country’s stability. This is why Freedom of Speech is such a key feature to democracy. We need to engage our differences in our common spaces, particularly in the political arena, so that the best ideas have a chance to rise and we can continue to move forward together.

But that version of political engagement is not what we are doing anymore. We’ve stopped meeting each other, stopped listening to different viewpoints. We’ve grown stuck in our conceptions and misconceptions with no way of uncovering the difference between them. It is a problem.

But it’s not a new problem!

A Bill Bishop book from 15 years back talked about this. His book “The Big Sort” is focused on a longitudinal study of census data and election results data at the county levels spanning five decades. (The Big Sort, the clustering of like-minded America, Bill Bishop, 2008.) 

The major finding of the study was that for the past half-century, Americans have been sorting themselves into homogenous geographies. In the 1950s, the book states, people with college degrees, for example, were rather evenly distributed across the United States. Nowadays, college-educated people are disproportionately concentrated in major cities like Berkeley, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts, and similar places along the east and west coast. In these communities, people tend to be more interested in politics and less likely to attend church. They tend to listen to National Public Radio, vote Democrat, and own cats. 

People without college degrees tend to be found in places like Lubbock, Texas; Gilbert, Arizona; Lafayette, Louisiana; or Allentown, Pennsylvania. These communities tend to be less densely populated and have bigger lawns. People in these communities watch Fox for their news, they own guns, volunteer and participate in clubs and churches, vote Republican, visit relatives a lot, and own dogs. 

These demographical descriptions are 15 years old now and I imagine they have shifted a bit – the I suspect the trajectory still holds. We have been, over the past few decades, sorting ourselves into geographic clusters of like-mindedness. The internet over the past 15 years has not helped. Despite early predictions that the internet would globalize our neighborliness and democratize our access to information, it has done nearly the opposite – because we are more easily monetized when we are more carefully compartmentalized.

One pertinent observation from this longitudinal research is that like-minded groups tend to enforce conformity and grow more extreme through a self-reinforcing loop. Mixed company tends to moderate while like-minded company tends to polarize. 

As political liberals and conservatives keep themselves in enclaves, they grow more zealous and become more distrustful of each other. Churches, even our diversity-loving liberal Unitarian Universalist churches, do not escape this clustering of like-mindedness. Many is the time I have heard a person comment about how great it is to have found a church home and to be around like-minded people. And yet, mixed company tends to moderate while like-minded company tends to polarize.

And, this is old news. We knew this was happening for at least a generation. This leads us to the title of my sermon this morning: “How to disagree with a friend.” We need to break out of our like-minded enclaves and hear each other.

I’m going to give a shout out to a new board member, Bob Neigh. Bob sent me a note about a group called Braver Angels and he encouraged me to look into them because he knew I would be preaching on this topic.

Braver Angels formed shortly after the 2016 election with the goal of political depolarization and civic renewal. On their website, https://braverangels.org/ they say: “Braver Angels is leading the nation’s largest cross-partisan, volunteer-led movement to bridge the partisan divide for the good of our democratic republic.”

They have a podcast and information available, they host events and workshops, they supply members with talking points for engaging across political differences. Their leadership is explicitly comprised of a balanced number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

They describe their approach https://braverangels.org/our-mission/ this way:

We state our views freely and fully, without fear.

We treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity and respect.

We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree.

We believe all of us have blind spots and none of us are not worth talking to.

We seek to disagree accurately, avoiding exaggeration and stereotypes.

We look for common ground where it exists and, if possible, find ways to work together.

We believe that, in disagreements, both sides share and learn.

In Braver Angels, neither side is teaching the other or giving feedback on how to think or say things differently.

The one that really struck me is “We seek to disagree accurately.” I love that. Just as some basic advice you can work with for a one-on-one conversation with a friend or family member, can you offer that ground rule? I want to talk with you about this, not to change your mind or have you change mine. I just want us to disagree accurately. Can we do that?

Another one that seems easy but in practice is proving quite difficult – Can we treat people who disagree with us with honesty, dignity, and respect? I can see how it is helpful to have a non-partisan organization hosting the conversation. These ground rules are theirs; we don’t have to start with an argument about making these ground rules. The Braver Angels organization can host the event and participants just need to agree to participate. Wouldn’t it be helpful for us to bring that here to Binghamton?

My mother Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Strong had participated in something like this, many years back. She was an outspoken Pro-Choice advocate in Syracuse while serving at May Memorial UU Society in the 90’s. She was invited to participate in a conference hosted by a Common Cause group focused on the abortion issue. She wrote in one of her sermons about the experience; how they spent the first part of the workshop just meeting each other without knowing which side they were on. Then they split off into sides and engaged each other from their perspectives of pro-life and pro-choice. But by then they knew each other as human beings, which greatly aided the conversations.

She wrote:

It was an amazing experience.  From it I developed a very powerful relationship with a young woman who was Pro-Life.  We went on a radio talk show to share our beliefs.  I remember one caller was angry that we could even talk with one another much less understand and respect the other’s beliefs. 

… I know that in Syracuse, at least for a time, the volatile environment eased and the work that came out of the Conference and the dialogues between those of us who were Pro-choice and Pro-Life helped many who were open to listening with respect came to a deeper understanding of all the dimensions of this issue.

A better way is possible. A braver way. The vitriolic divisiveness does not have to be the only story in this election season. We don’t have to burn all the bridges with ‘the other half’ of our country’s population. (Actually, the other third. In the 2020 election 1/3 voted blue, almost 1/3 voted red, and 1/3 didn’t vote. – so you can hear that as a call to encourage more voter participation – which is a different sermon.)

And hear me when I say – this is not a call to quietly take some abuse from someone who does not care one whit for decency or your humanity. It is a call to engage in good faith toward understanding and mutual progress. And, remember, convincing us to get angry and push each other away is one of the tactics being used against us. Resist. Move a little closer and hold each other with a little more grace.

A better way is possible. But it is not found in huddling among the like-minded and bemoaning the situation. That can be personally healing and at times necessary. But to truly move forward, we need to lean in a little closer to these brave conversations.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

The Answer Is Love

Rev. Douglas Taylor

August 25, 2024

Sermon Video https://youtu.be/lWxpvceWSEU

Love: such a soft and silly thing in the face of the hard, cruel reality of life. It can be rough, this life we are living. There is trouble, and we Unitarian Universalists hitch our wagon to Love, but is that really enough? Compared with things like apathy and violence and abuse and the corrupt use of power; love seems little and inconsequential. But listen to this poem by Daniel Ladinsky, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/6/14/fake-hafez-how-a-supreme-persian-poet-of-love-was-erased writing in the spirit of Persian poet Hafez. He writes:

I see violence; Hafez says ‘love.’

I see racism; Hafez says ‘hold hands.’

I see war and oppression; Hafez says ‘climb.’

I see cruelty and abuse and corruption of power; Hafez says ‘listen.’

I see apathy and greed and climate devastation; I see people taking sides against each other and anger circling; Hafez says ‘the terrain around here is far too dangerous for that.’

I see great need; Hafez says ‘don’t let go.’

Out

of a great need

we are all holding hands

and climbing. 

Not loving is a letting go. 

Listen,

the terrain around here

is

far too

dangerous

for

that.

“Not loving is a letting go.” Let’s talk a little more about we mean when we use the word Love like this. We Unitarian Universalists just offered a new articulation of ourselves in which we place the value of love at our center. We say “Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values.”

I need to spend just a minute here on this point before moving along with my larger message. We Unitarian Universalists can be a tricky lot to pin down. Unitarian Universalism grew out of the progressive wing of liberal protestant Christianity in America. But we are not exactly a Christian church any more. We expanded beyond those origins into a religion that has a lot of Christian protestant echoes, but very little of that original content.

We are a merged tradition. The Unitarian side of our lineage proclaimed ‘God is One’ in argument against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Universalist side of our lineage declared ‘God is Love’ as grounds for a dispute against Hell and eternal damnation. But really, in both cases, the core theological message that has run as a fine thread through our now merged histories is less about the nature of God and Heaven, and more about what it means to be human.

As a faith community, we UUs do not focus ourselves on a creed or shared dogma, we have a breadth of beliefs gathered together here on Sunday morning. While we still have that protestant formula of meeting on Sunday morning for a sermon and hymns with a prayer and a passing of the collection plate – the content has shifted. The reading, for example, is not always – to be honest, not often – from scripture. Last week I preached about the moon and I didn’t double check but I don’t think I mentioned God or any passage from the bible during that sermon. But show up here on another Sunday and you’ll hear me say Jesus’ name more in twenty minutes than you’ll hear from this pulpit the rest of the year.

I remember reading Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Church.” He talked about needing to focus a new church around a common purpose. He likened it to a radio station that had to select a genre of music. Would it be a country station or a hip-hop station? They couldn’t just play a random variety; people would stop listening. If you jumped from something new from Dua Lipa, and then played track 5 from Metallica’s Master of Puppets followed by a Bach concerto and then hit them with the latest Beyoncé – you would not have an audience. People would not come back to your radio station. Rick Warren argued, people would not come back to your church if you didn’t have a focusing genre of religion.

But that is almost exactly what we do here. We have a Neo-Pagen focused service on the goddess one Sunday and a celebration of Veganism the next. My plan for September, after the Drum circle Sunday, is to focus on water and brokenness on the 8^th, how to have a good argument with a friend on the 15^th, where are we with the war in Gaze on the 22^nd, and a Climate Revival on the 29^th. Each of which present an opportunity for me to quote from the bible or James Baldwin or maybe Metallica. (Probably not Metallica – I’m not actually versed in their lyrics.)

This is because we do not gather around a specific book or creed or person or experience of the holy. But what holds it all together? What is the thread of faith or belief that binds us as one community if it is not the bible or Buddha or a particular belief? We gather around a promise and a shared set of values. The quickest shorthand of those values and that promise is: Love.

We have pagans and humanists, Christians and atheists, Buddhists and Jews and agnostics, and many others – as well as a bunch of folks just uninterested in all the labels – and here we all are shoulder to shoulder on a Sunday morning listening to a message together. How do we do it? How do we come together as one faith? The answer is Love. A fresh articulation of our values says Love is the answer.

So, how does that work?

To use the framework from Rick Warren – our purpose as a Unitarian Universalist congregation is love; to embody an all-embracing love to the world. It always has been. While we have a new articulation of this – our new Values and Covenants statement (https://www.uua.org/beliefs) with Love at the center – this has been our center all along. Take a look at the graphic on the order of service. (Word Clouds from Hymnals by Rev. Dan Schatz)

Do you know about word clouds? It is an art graphics concept that takes words and puts them into a visual artistic form. The more often a word appears, the larger it is in the picture. A colleague took the digital online version of our grey hymnal and put it into a word cloud with this result. Our hymnal is arguably a fair representation and articulation of our Unitarian Universalist values. The grey hymnal was published in 1992, over 30 years ago. And love was at the center then.

I lift that up to show that while it is new to say “love is at the center;” it is not actually all that new to have love at the center for us. Or, as James Baldwin once said: “…love brought you here. If you trusted love this far, don’t panic now.”

Let me say a little about what I mean by the word ‘love’ in this context. Love can certainly be about romance and intimacy. That kind of love is better understood as an emotional experience, even chemical and hormonal. That’s not the kind of love we mean when we say love is at our center.

We are more accurately talking about love as Agape love according to the Greeks or Loving-kindness when you hear Buddhists reflect upon it. This is a kind of love that is less about emotions or ‘falling in love’ and more about a choice to see people in a certain light, to treat all people in a certain way not because they’ve earned it or because they are attractive to you – but simply because that’s the kind of person you are.

I want to drop another James Baldwin quote on you. Baldwin was a writer and civil rights activist who died in 1987. This past summer would have been James Baldwin’s 100’s birthday, (2024) on August 2. While I was tempted to do a sermon focused on Baldwin’s life and message, I decided instead that I will bring a Baldwin quote in my sermons at least once a month for the course of this coming year to honor his legacy and his message to American religion and life.

In his book, The Fire Next Time, James Baldwin writes, “I use the word ‘;pve’ here not in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace – not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universalist sense of quest and daring and growth.”

I, too, am using the word ‘love’ not in that personal sense. I want us to heard the word as a call into relationship and connection beyond just the romantic or intimate connotations. I want us to hear love as liberation. Or as Baldwin says “the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” Our promise as a faith tradition is grounded in this idea of love – of an all-embracing love. It is a love that opens us up, in which we become vulnerable. There is an element of risk, something that calls for trust.

It is easier to not be open. We risk when we love and we can be hurt. It takes a certain level of trust to be open, a trust that we can grow from the hard experiences, at trust that we can fail and still learn and grow together from the hard experiences. It is easier to not be open. It is easier to not put love at the center to not be so vulnerable.

What does it mean to say Love is the answer when we ask the questions amidst the war in Israel and Gaza, amidst climate devastation, amidst the dehumanizing rhetoric and legislation we hurl at each other. To say love is the answer, to put love at the center, means we keep pushing back and reconnecting with each other across the wounds and the heartbreak to really see each other.

It means we have made a choice to treat each other well even when we are hurting. It doesn’t mean we will abide injustice or stand by as we keep getting hurt or more vulnerable people keep getting hurt. Love does sometimes say ‘no.’ But in so doing, we continue to reflect our light to each other. We do it toward the liberation for all.

James Baldwin, again, has said, “The longer I live, the more deeply I learn that love – whether we call it friendship or family or romance – is the work of mirroring and magnifying each other’s light.”

Our world, our lives are too precious for anything less. That is what love calls us toward. I’m not saying we do it perfectly around here all the time – or even well enough most of the time. I’m saying that’s how we are called, that is the promise we hold when we put love at our center. 

Out

of a great need

we are all holding hands

and climbing. 

Not loving is a letting go. 

Listen,

the terrain around here

is

far too

dangerous

for

that.

In a world without end

May it be so.

Moon Song

Rev. Douglas Taylor

August 18, 2024

Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/BWU0-RgOWwI

There will be a full moon tomorrow night (8-19-24).

It is known as the Sturgeon Moon. Nomenclature for the full moons follows local culture. Indigenous people around the great lakes call it the sturgeon moon, as that fish is in abundance in August. But if you are in the Southeast US, the Cherokee call it the fruit moon. In northern Europe, the August full moon is known as the corn moon, the grain moon, or even the lightning moon. In China, August’s full moon is the Harvest Moon – but around here we save that name for September. In the southern hemisphere the August moon is the snow moon, the storm moon, or sometimes the hunger moon. Naming the moon is done regionally, and is often about ourselves rather than about the moon.

Someone once said “Tell me how you feel when the full moon is in your window and your lantern is burning low, and I’ll tell you your age and if you are happy.”

I had a friend who used to howl at the moon. When we were teenagers and able to be out at night on our own, he could get us all howling with him with little provocation. It was a bit of childhood fun. In the way of teenagers, it was equal parts silliness and a serious claiming of our space together.

As adults, many of us do not spend much time thinking about or noticing the moon. Our society has put the moon in a box for witches and werewolves. It is spooky and hidden, mysterious and maybe a bit romantic when we want it to be. But mostly it is just a representation of the nighttime and rest. Which is to say – we do not give it much value in our society.

Or perhaps, more accurately, we hold it with a hidden value. But I tell you, we should love the moon. We do well to celebrate it and admire it and spend time learning from it and sing praise for its presence in our lives.

Storytellers and poets tell us the moon is mysterious and beautiful, changing and strange, compelling, and romantic. Why do we love the moon so? And yet our society dismisses it as lesser? What is the draw we feel toward it?”

Poet William Cullen Bryant: “The moon is at her full, and riding hight, Floods the calm fields with light. The airs that hover in the summer sky Are all asleep tonight.”

The moon is roughly 239,000 miles from the earth and about one quarter the size of our planet. The gravity of our celestial partner pulls our tides in and out around our globe, and is thus significantly responsible for keeping our waters in dynamic balance. By an interesting twist of physics, its orbital period and its rotation period are the same causing the same side of the moon to always face the earth. This means there is a ‘dark’ side of the moon, a fact which had left us a lot of opportunity for speculative imaginings – at least until the late ‘60’s when we sent rockets and satellites around to that side to take pictures. Did you know it wasn’t until five years ago (2019) that we landed an unmanned craft there to actually poke around.

There was a time when the moon was for more than witches and werewolves – it was also for astronauts.  For two and a half years, back fifty years ago, we sent people in rockets to the moon. As President Kennedy proclaimed, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” (1962 that US President John F Kennedy) That was a heady time.

24 people visited to the moon in that two-and-a-half-year timespan, half of them got out of the crafts to walk around a bit on the moon. “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” (July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong) It was a time of demythologizing. It was a time of moon rocks and rocket fuel. 

Since that time, it has been deemed more efficient and effective to send robots to learn more about the moon and other places beyond our planet. While sending robots has been more efficient, having a human on the moon captures our imagination as few things can. And that, my friends, is the really exciting part of all this.

Around the time of the moon landings, philosophy professor Emmanuel G. Mesthene quipped, “Ten years ago, the Moon was an inspiration to poets and an opportunity for lovers. Ten years from now, it will be just another airport.” How wrong he was. Not only did the focus of our progress and greed shift away from the moon, but our romance with the moon never did and never will wane.

Modern poet Chrissie Pinney says, “She held the moon the way she held her own heart, as if it was the only light that could guide her through the darkest nights.”

Even as we restart manned moon missions, we will not surrender our fondness and fascination for the moon. And, if you did not already know, NASA’s Artimis Program is slated to send humans to the moon again this decade. So, keep an ear out for news of another round of moon landings soon.

Interestingly, one of the four astronauts slated for the Artimis Program is a woman. I think that is very fitting because throughout history, culture, and myth, there has been a strong feminine association with the moon.

Did you know, for example, about tally sticks? They are some of the earliest artifacts we have of prehistoric people measuring time. Tally sticks were often animal bone and a common form was to have 28 tally marks to count the days of a moon cycle. It is not that hard to connect the dots to know that marking a moon cycle is something women were doing to be able to track menstrual cycles.

We track the cycle of the moon and call it a month. The English word ‘month’ has an etymological connection back to the word ‘moon.’ And while today we use a calendar with a solar month, it was surely the original form to use a lunar month. There are cultures still that mark time with lunar months such as the religious calendars of Islam and Judaism.  

English is not the only language with this etymology between month and moon. Greek and Latin have this connection, as does Chinese. But it goes further: in English our words ‘measure’ and ‘menstrual’ share a common root – a root which unsurprisingly also ties back to the word for moon. Because the tally sticks of 28 marks were an early way to measure a lunar month and the reason to measure that was for our menstrual cycles.

I make a point to say ‘our’ menstrual cycles because women are too often listed as secondary humans in culture and science. But it seems clear that women were leading the way by following the moon. Perhaps we can break away from our binary thinking of either the sun or the moon – in which one is better and the other lesser. Men and women, light and dark. When we recognize the dynamic balance in all things and honor the darkness as much as the light – particularly in the interplay of dark and light – then perhaps we will not be so shy about the moon or misogynistic about women.

Tomorrow night is a full moon. It is also a blue moon and a super moon – quite special.

Blue moon is a concept to reconcile the solar calendar and the lunar cycle. A blue moon happens either when we have two full moons in one calendar month or four full moons in one season. If the lunar and solar calendars lined up perfectly, there would be one full moon a month and three each season for a total of twelve in a year. But 12 times 28 equals 336 days, which is 29 days shy of our solar calendar … which leads me to expect we would always have 13 full moons a year … but the lunar rotation is not actually 28 days as I had been once taught, it is 29.5 days – because the universe doesn’t really care about our even numbers. So, we really have a difference of roughly 11 days, meaning there is not a blue moon every year. But there is one this year. And it’s tomorrow night. But I don’t think blue moons are all that interesting because they are really just a math problem rather than circumstance of physics.

A super moon, on the other hand, is a circumstance of physics and worth noticing. And tomorrow night’s moon is also a super moon. A super moon is when the full moon occurs when the moon is closest to the earth. Remember, orbits are elliptical instead of circular, so a super moon is when the moon is physically closest to the earth – only 226,000 miles which is 13,000 miles closer than the average distance. In short – it’s closer and will appear bigger. We will experience a super moon for the next four consecutive months.

I add all this scientific information about the moon so as to encourage you to spend a little extra time with the moon over the next few months. Notice it, admire it, howl – if you are drawn to do so.

What can we learn about ourselves from the moon? Poet Anand Thakur writes, “Let the moon teach you the art of being beautiful and lonely at the same time.”

Perhaps you can consider the way the moon offers guidance for us during the darkness. Or the ways you also might have a hidden side, and how you might begin to explore it more. Or perhaps your lesson is in the changing faces of the moon, the waxing and waning through its cycles and yet it remains the same throughout. Or even the ways the moon effects its partner the earth with the ebb and flow of tides – how do you affect others around you?

Daniel Ladinsky, writing in the spirit of Persian poet Hafez of Shiraz, has said:

Admit something: Everyone you see, you say to them, “love me.” Of course you do not do this out loud otherwise someone would call the cops.

Still though, think about this, this great pull in us to connect. Why not become the one who lives with a full moon in each eye that is always saying, with that sweet moon language, what every other eye in this world is dying to hear?

We can learn about relationships and connections from the moon, from all the universe really – but why not the moon? We can learn about our connections with each other and how we tug on each other’s tides. We are meant to be connected.

Go commune with the super moon tomorrow night. It is the sturgeon moon, a blue moon, your moon and mine. Look at that moon, maybe howl a little. Let its reflected light reflect in you.

In a world without end

May it be so.

Poohsticks Is the Way

Rev. Douglas Taylor

June 16, 2024

Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/UL5J6M6QBFw

Back when I was in seminary, I took a survey course on Eastern religions traditions, learning about Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto primarily – a hint of Hinduism was included at the beginning. But the tradition that most captivated me was Taoism. And I remember my final paper was about the difference between the grand traditional gardens of Europe and the traditional gardens of China and Japan. The difference in the gardens illustrates a key difference in the worldview between the east and the west. 

Traditional European gardens are all straight lines and rows, manicured box-shaped bushes, and flowers in matching colors. Traditional Japanese gardens on the other hand are echoes of the natural world brought into cities and homes – they are asymmetrical and feature rocks and water along with various plants.

When a gardening style rises to the level of being considered ‘traditional,’ it is in part because the garden represents something about the culture and how people see themselves. Where traditional European gardens are meant as an improvement on nature, the traditional Japanese gardens are in interpretation of nature. In our western philosophy, the natural world is seen as something that must be stewarded, improved upon, and controlled. It is a resource or an obstacle. But in eastern philosophy, Taoist philosophy in particular, the natural world is in balance and our goal is to emulate it, to learn to be in balance as well. It is perhaps fair to say they are both seeking a balance; but the balance of the European garden is static with sharp lines while the Japanese garden’s balance is dynamic and reflective of the natural world.

This more dynamic form of balance is a key theme in Taoism. And, in a playful way, is exemplified by the story of Poohsticks (which we heard at the Time for All Ages).

Lao Tzu is the first teacher of Taoism and the author of the book the Tao Te Ching. The first chapter of the Tao Te Ching states: “The Tao that can be expressed is not the true Tao.  The name that can be named is not the true name.” This first stanza of ineffability has confounded and enlightened countless people through the centuries. It is a central theme throughout the text.

A second theme, the theme that is my focus this morning, is balance. In the second chapter we hear about a series of polarities: when we know about beauty, we become aware of the ugly. When we understand one thing to be good, that naturally means another thing is wicked. Long and short, high and low, before and after. The first two stanzas of the chapter carefully delineates the relationships that make our living. And then it says this:

“That’s why the wise soul does without doing, teaches without talking. The things of this world exist, they are; you can’t refuse them. To bear and not to own; to act and not lay claim; to do the work and let it go; for just letting it go is what makes it stay.” (Le Guin translation)

In Taoist philosophy the goal of life, the grand purpose, is balance. So much of our living is out of balance. The wise soul seeks to maintain and even restore balance. And there is a nuanced way to understand what is meant by this Taoist idea of balance. Toward that end, the wise soul – as it says in chapter 2 of the Tao Te Ching – ‘does without doing.’

How does one ‘do without doing’? The Chinese phrase being translated is “Wu-wei” and the literal translation is “Not doing” but the tone of the phrase is still about doing something. It is not inaction. It is not ‘doing nothing.’ Many translators have used the English translation ‘effortless action.’ This phrase highlights how the action not being forced or pushed. Another way to think of it is to see the difference between the European garden and the Japanese garden. Both involve quite a bit of work; but one style forces nature into an unnatural form while the other is an interpretation of nature along natural lines.

Philosopher and author, Benjamin Hoff writes: “Literally, Wu Wei means ‘without doing, causing, or making.’ But practically speaking, it means without meddlesome, combative, or egotistical effort.” (The Tao of Pooh, p 68)

In his popular book The Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff argues that A. A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh character is an example of Taoist practice – Pooh accomplishes a lot throughout the stories but he mostly stumbles into the solutions. He is just being Pooh. Milne makes Rabbit clever and Piglet anxious and Tigger incorrigible. Pooh just sails through the stories not really doing anything and yet that is his charm.

In our reading this morning, (https://www.mrdbourke.com/wu-wei/) Daniel Bourke titles his piece “The Art of Not Forcing.” He uses the distinction between rowing and sailing to make the point. “While the rower uses effort, the sailor uses magic.” When he says magic, he means the way the sailor does not push or force the boat to move; instead, the sailor arranges for the wind to move the boat. Wu-wei is still an action, but it is an action that does not force or push or run counter to the natural world. It seeks to move along natural lines.

What does this look like in our lives? In the Tao Te Ching, the concept is applied most directly to leadership and being the ruler of a country. The text often refers to ‘kings and princes’ and ‘the people.’ The best rulers do not impose or force the people to be in a certain way. Instead they assure that the people are not hungry.  

Or think of this in terms of other leadership roles such as being a parent or a supervisor or a teacher. Maybe you are president of a board or chair of a department. Perhaps you are the point person or lead for a project or campaign. Whatever it is where you get to make the decisions that can impact not just yourself but other people as well; a role in which you wield some power.

How can you apply these ideas of the Tao and Wu-wei to your leadership role? Is there a natural wholeness and balance you can promote? Are there choices you can make that enhance the lives of the people?

Remember the goal is not to do nothing. It is to offer ‘effortless action.’ In a Japanese garden, the goal is not to let the space go wild. It is to craft an interpretation of nature; to shape a space along natural lines that reflects the dynamic balance of the natural world.

And here I will circle back to a small moment in from the reading by Daniel Bourke and the analogy of rowing and sailing. Perhaps you heard the acknowledgement that one could still row when needed.

To approach everything with Wu-wei. To not force. To let let let it happen. (Bourke wrote,) To put up a sail and ride the winds. But to row if you need to. Because even effort can be applied effortlessly. When you know the grand source.

Another author, Stephan Joppich, https://stephanjoppich.com/wu-wei/ also lifts up the warning against seeing Wu-wei as non-action or surrender. Joppich says that what Wu-wei advises is we give up on forcing things, not that we give up altogether.

For instance, when you’re experiencing injustices, Wu-wei doesn’t suggest resignation. It’s quite the opposite. We-wei suggests a persistent amount of pressure. This pressure isn’t a metaphorical jackhammer or wrecking ball. It’s a soft strike in the right spot. It’s like water quietly working through the toughest cliffs and rocks.

Taoism does return to the metaphor of water quite a bit. Chapter 66 and 78 talk about water as a model for how to be in the world. Bruce Lee has a great quote about being like water.

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it.”

But perhaps the best example is from Chaung-Tsu, a Chinese philosopher and Taoist whose importance to the founding of Taoism is considered second only to Lao Tzu. Chaung-Tsu offers this story. (paraphrased from the Tao of Pooh, p68-9).

There was a great waterfall in a turbulent river. A wise teacher was watching the waters one day and saw an old man being tossed about by the water. The teacher called to his disciples and together they rushed down to the river to help the man, though they feared there was little they could do. By the time they reached the waters’ edge, “the old man had climbed out onto the bank and was walking along, singing to himself.”

Shocked and a little awed, the teacher inquired of the old man, “What secret power do you have?” But the old man laughed it off and said, “I go down with the water and come up with the water. I follow it and forget myself. I survive because I don’t struggle against the water’s superior power. That is all.”

In another chapter of Winnie the Pooh, in which Christopher Robin Leads an Expotition to the North Pole, one character has a very similar experience. Christopher Robin takes everybody on an expedition to discover the North Pole. They pack provisions and head out together in a line. Eventually, they stop for lunch in a nice grassy spot by a stream. After everyone is finished eating, a scene unfolds that is strikingly similar to that of Chaung-Tsu’s old man in the river.

—

Piglet was lying on his back, sleeping peacefully. Roo was washing his face and paws in the stream, while Kanga explained to everybody proudly that this was the first time he had ever washed his face himself, and Owl was telling Kanga an Interesting Anecdote full of long words like Encyclopaedia and Rhododendron to which Kanga wasn’t listening.

“I don’t hold with all this washing,” grumbled Eeyore. “This modern Behind-the-ears nonsense. What do you think, Pooh?”

“Well,” said Pooh, “I think⁠—”

But we shall never know what Pooh thought, for there came a sudden squeak from Roo, a splash, and a loud cry of alarm from Kanga.

“So much for washing,” said Eeyore.

“Roo’s fallen in!” cried Rabbit, and he and Christopher Robin came rushing down to the rescue.

“Look at me swimming!” squeaked Roo from the middle of his pool, and was hurried down a waterfall into the next pool.

“Are you all right, Roo dear?” called Kanga anxiously.

“Yes!” said Roo. “Look at me sw⁠—” and down he went over the next waterfall into another pool.

Everybody was doing something to help. Piglet, wide awake suddenly, was jumping up and down and making “Oo, I say” noises; Owl was explaining that in a case of Sudden and Temporary Immersion the Important Thing was to keep the Head Above Water; Kanga was jumping along the bank, saying “Are you sure you’re all right, Roo dear?” to which Roo, from whatever pool he was in at the moment, was answering “Look at me swimming!” Eeyore had turned round and hung his tail over the first pool into which Roo fell, and with his back to the accident was grumbling quietly to himself, and saying, “All this washing; but catch on to my tail, little Roo, and you’ll be all right”; and, Christopher Robin and Rabbit came hurrying past Eeyore, and were calling out to the others in front of them.

“All right, Roo, I’m coming,” called Christopher Robin.

“Get something across the stream lower down, some of you fellows,” called Rabbit.

But Pooh was getting something. Two pools below Roo he was standing with a long pole in his paws, and Kanga came up and took one end of it, and between them they held it across the lower part of the pool; and Roo, still bubbling proudly, “Look at me swimming,” drifted up against it, and climbed out.

“Did you see me swimming?” squeaked Roo excitedly, while Kanga scolded him and rubbed him down. “Pooh, did you see me swimming? That’s called swimming, what I was doing. Rabbit, did you see what I was doing? Swimming. Hallo, Piglet! I say, Piglet! What do you think I was doing! Swimming! Christopher Robin, did you see me⁠—”

But Christopher Robin wasn’t listening. He was looking at Pooh.

“Pooh,” he said, “where did you find that pole?”

Pooh looked at the pole in his hands.

“I just found it,” he said. “I thought it ought to be useful. I just picked it up.”

“Pooh,” said Christopher Robin solemnly, “the Expedition is over. You have found the North Pole!”

“Oh!” said Pooh.

—

Effortless action. Pooh was not trying to find the North Pole. He was trying to help Roo. If you have some power, some role in which you have an impact on the lives of others – use it with, I would say, compassion. Use it in a way that will enhance the natural way of things. Or, as the Tao Te Ching keeps saying, use it to be sure the people are not hungry.

May we learn the difficult art of acting in ways that are true to our nature and in balance with the natural world. May we always work for the true natures of others to blossom and grow. When we see injustice or cruelty, may we recognize it as imbalance and seek to offer guidance and correction to restore balance rather than to add more harm. May we learn to do without doing. To teach without talking. To act and not lay claim. May we do the work and let it go. Then do the work again tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow – each day doing our part to restore balance to our too-often broken and unbalanced living.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

Whom Would Jesus Cancel?

Rev. Douglas Taylor

May 19, 2024

Sermon Video: https://youtu.be/syGdJrre53Q

So, the obvious, and easiest, answer to this question is: Jesus would cancel anyone with whom I disagree. This is how a lot of people use God for their ethics and moralizing. It is Anne Lamott who said “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

Let me unpack this idea of ‘cancelling’ here at the beginning, because it is a relatively new way of describing a human social behavior that’s been around for a long time. You know I don’t do this a lot but I went to the dictionary for help. Merriam Webster says to cancel is: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel#h1; particularly entry 1, sense e).

To withdraw one’s support for (someone, such as a celebrity, or something, such as a company) publicly and especially on social media … as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.

To me, that sounds quite similar to boycotting or protesting, with a heavy dose of shaming thrown in. It is an effort to exert control by having someone or something removed, silenced, or shut down. I think that is the newer element in ‘canceling’ – the work is not just to refute or oppose a person, company, or an idea. The work is to shut them down, to silence them. This morning, my question is this: what is the spiritual value of canceling? Whom would Jesus cancel?

Here is my first answer: No one. As Peter Mayer says in the song we had just now – Jesus said let everybody in.

Jesus is a kind and forgiving person. All that stuff Paul says about Love in 1^st Corinthians, most people think that all applies to Jesus’ character too – and serves as a list of the virtues we want to embody in ourselves.

“Love is patient; love is kind.”  Well, say the same for Jesus. Jesus is patient; Jesus is kind. We want to also be patient and kind. Right? I’m not just making this up from nowhere, right? This is what Paul was aiming at when he wrote this. Paul was saying we should be like Jesus, we should be loving. And what that looks like is for us to not be “envious or boastful or arrogant or rude.”

Whom would Jesus cancel? No one. Whom should we cancel? No one. Because love “does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable; it keeps no record of wrongs; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth.”

Cancelling someone is about keeping that record and maybe a little rejoicing when it works, when someone who deserves to be canceled gets canceled.

But that’s not the way Jesus would do it. Jesus is all about forgiving those who persecute us. He calls us to love our neighbors, to love even our enemies. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers.” He didn’t say blessed are they who can prove they are right on the internet.

Blessed are the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted … He said

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:11-12)

He called on us to turn the other cheek. There is not a lot of room for rejoicing in people getting canceled, let alone for us to be doing the cancelling. So that is my first answer: No one.

On the other hand … Here is my second answer. A careful reading of scripture reveals that Jesus did get into it with some folks. He rebuked people, he called them hypocrites, he argued with them. He flipped tables and chased people out of the temple.

In a 2022 article in the Atlantic on this very question, ethicist and editor James T. Keane writes: “Even a cursory look at Scripture shows that Jesus was not at all afraid to repudiate those who deserved it.” https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/03/18/jesus-cancel-culture-242588 So this idea that Jesus is just a really nice guy who loves everyone and is sweetness and light to everyone is just not true.

He rebukes his disciples (Matthew 8:23-27, Luke 9:37-56,) and Peter specifically (Mark 8:27-38), and at one point he rebukes the wind and the sea (Mark 4:39). But those examples are usually about Jesus getting frustrated with his disciples and wanting them to be better people, more faithful and good. He wasn’t trying to ‘cancel’ them

But there’s more. Jesus is often portrayed as criticizing and condemning the Scribes and Pharisees of the church (Luke 11:37–54; Matthew 23:1–39; Mark 12:35–40; and Luke 20:45–47). He says ‘woe unto you …’ and he calls them hypocrites. Jesus did that because he said they were preaching the law but not practicing it, because they were enriching themselves off the people, because they gave the appearance of being godly, clean, righteous, loving, and yet they did not behave as such. Then there is all the name calling Jesus does. He calls the Scribes and Pharisees names like vipers, serpents, fools, blind guides, “whited graves…full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness”

In all four gospels, Jesus is seen getting very upset at the merchants and money changers in the temple (Mark 11:15–19, Matthew 21:12–17, Luke 19:45–48, John 2:13–16) and in John it describes him not only flipping the tables but also using a whip to chase people out.

It feels like Jesus, when pressed, singled some people out based on their hypocrisy; he expressed his disapproval and he exerted pressure to get them to change. So, perhaps there are some people Jesus would cancel. That’s my second answer: maybe there are some people – hypocrites perhaps – who Jesus would cancel.

And here is my third answer: No. Canceling is not what Jesus was doing in the gospels. He was challenging them, arguing with them instead of silencing them. Jesus was not shutting them down or silencing them. He argued with them, debated them, tricked them when they tried to trick him.

Jesus argued with people, prophesied against them, called them names; yes. But he never demanded their silence. Keane, again, in that article from the Atlantic:

The only times Jesus tells someone to shut up, to get lost, it’s Satan or it’s his pal Peter—’get thee away from me.’ Everyone else is free to argue with Jesus.

Jesus would not advocate ‘canceling.’ He would certainly advocate for argument, for consequences. But he didn’t silence people. He engaged with them.

Look, this level of biblical interpretation is always fraught with personal bias. Our modern interpretations are always loaded with our modern expectations and assumption. In truth, what Jesus was saying and doing 2000 years ago has very little that is directly applicable to most of what we’re dealing with today. Not directly. It always takes a few steps, a few leaps, of interpretation.

So here is the hermeneutic behind my statement that Jesus would not cancel anyone. I’m doing that thing where I have a guiding value – to be clear it is the idea that God is Love – and this guiding value is the lens I use in every interpretation. Period. I don’t look at scripture to figure out how to be loving. I look at love to figure out how to interpret scripture. If you have a different way of interpreting, that’s great. Own it. Be up front about it. Mine is love.

If there is something going on in the world or in your neighborhood that bothers you, the lesson from Jesus is not to shut it down or try to silence your adversary. The lesson is to engage and come up with a better argument.

Now, here’s a grain of salt – most of the time, on the internet, such arguments are not real and designed to waste your time and energy. Just like most complaints about ‘being canceled’ are fake – like complaints about the ‘war on Christmas,’ such complaints of being canceled are exaggerated and contrived so conservatives can appear like victims. In such cases, it is wise to not engage and not waste your time and energy.

But if the situation is real, then I encourage you to move closer to the situation and engage! That’s what Jesus would do. I’m not going to recommend you call people names or flip tables – but to be fair, that is what Jesus would do in certain situations. So there is that.

Truly, my advice is this: when you see trouble, move closer and engage. Life is messy. My life is messy, my heart is messy – yours is too! I still encourage us to emulate the side of Jesus that is the embodiment of kindness, patience, and love. As Adrienne Maree Brown said in our reading: “If the goal was to increase the love, rather than winning or dominating a constant opponent, I think we could actually imagine liberation from constant oppression.”

We are not going to build the Beloved Community by kicking some people out or shutting them down. We can change the world, but we’ll do it through relationships. That includes some arguments and conflict, some consequences and calling for people to be better. But the good parts of all of that happens only if we move closer to each other when we have trouble.

Let us start here, among ourselves. Let us engage across our differences, through the conflicts that arise, moving closer when we begin to see trouble. Our experience can then be a model for each other out in the world as we work to become more of a Beloved Community together. Let us start here. Let us begin again today.

In a world without end, may it be so.