Sermons

“War, Fear, and Forgiveness”
9-19-04
Rev. Douglas Taylor

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the Jewish year.  This year Yom Kippur begins at sundown on Friday September 24th.  It comes as the tenth day of the Days of Awe, the first day of which is Rosh Hashanah, the new year.  The Jewish new year is similar to the secular January 1st new year in that we spend time reviewing the past year’s faults and problems, make promises to be better, and then have a big party.  One difference is that the Jewish new year puts the party first, on Rosh Hashanah. Then the real work comes on the tenth day afterward.  Yom Kippur, is THE big day on the Jewish calendar.  Christians talk about church members who are “C & E Christians” meaning they only come on Christmas and Easter.  Judaism has the same phenomenon with “YK Jews,” members who only come on Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is a day of fasting and self-reflection and the seeking and offering of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the predominant theme throughout the prayers and readings during the services on this day.  I had a UU colleague who used to say every UU church should do a sermon about Yom Kippur every year because forgiveness is such a deeply religious topic with which most people typically have very little familiarity.  Forgiveness really involves three steps: confession, atonement, and repentance.

First you must admit to the errors you have made.  There is a cliché that “confession is good for the soul,” and generally this is very true.  It is good to articulate your faults and failings from time to time, self-reflection toward the end of self-improvement.  This is a very powerful step in and of itself.  And perhaps it is this point that is so difficult for most people.  How easy it is to see and lament the faults of others, yet to look and see clearly your own faults is an arduous task indeed.  Jesus said (Matt 7:3-5 &Luke 6:41-42) it is so easy to see the speck in your neighbor’s eye and yet completely miss the log in your own!  So, make a list of all you own specks and logs.  Make a list of situations you wish you had handled better, people you wish you had treated better, bad habits you wish you had corrected by now.

The next part of forgiveness is Atonement: You need to follow through on your list.  Call up those people you have injured or hurt and say, “I am sorry.”  Call up people who have hurt you and say, “I forgive you.”  Now is the time of turning.  Now is the time of reconciliation.  The word “Atonement” does not have a fancy Greek or Latin origin.  It is simply the mushing together of the phrase in English “At One.” To atone is to be at one again with God, the universe, your neighbor, or yourself.  Atonement is about being in right relationship with the world.  To do that we may sometimes need to do more than just say “sorry.”  Sometimes we need to make amends.  Often during the Yom Kippur season people will perform service to atone with God and the world; service such as donating money to charity, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked.

Finally, the third step to forgiveness is Repentance.  We confess our faults and failings, we atone for them with apologies and amends.  And then we repent.  We promise ourselves we will return to the path of goodness.  We promise ourselves to not repeat the wrongs that were on our list this year.  We promise to return to our best selves.

This work of repentance and atonement leading toward forgiveness is not meant only to repair our personal relationships but also to renew and rebuild the world.  Judaism teaches that our personal actions contribute either to the good that upholds the world with peace and justice or to that which destroys us.  “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.  Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”  Lucinda Duncan, a UU colleague, recently wrote that, “The tradition invites self-reflection [and] offers a release from self-centeredness that allows people to turn toward a fresh consciousness of universal redemption.”  Yom Kippur is not only a time for repairing our personal relationships but also a time to renew and rebuild the world through our acts of forgiveness and atonement.  And let me tell you, the world could certainly use some help.

My children are learning geography this year with a curriculum called “Mapping the World by Heart” which is very interactive and creative.  For example, yesterday they drew map lines on a grapefruit before peeling it and trying to lay the skin flat so as to experience the problems inherent in two-dimensional world maps.  Earlier this month the whole family sat down to do the very first lesson of the curriculum, which was to draw a map of the world from memory.  Artistic ability aside, I drew a pretty comprehensive map.  But I noticed that most of what I know about geography comes from the news and from history lessons about wars.  Afghanistan, for example, would not have even made it on my map three years ago, now I have a pretty good idea of where it fits, thanks in no small part to the news coverage of that war.

While searching through the internet this week, I discovered a website with several “Top-Ten” style lists on the topic of wars around the world today: “The top ten most violent wars today,” “The top ten civil wars today” “The top ten wars you should worry about today.”  It felt like all the world was at war in one way or another.  The litany of locations was a little overwhelming to me: Kashmir, Israel, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chechnya, Haiti, Congo, Albania, and Iraq.  Iraq usually appeared low on these top ten lists if at all.  But from what I hear on the radio and read in the paper lately, there seem to be only two wars that matter: the war in Iraq, the war in Vietnam.

Why is the war in Vietnam featured so prominently in our election banter?  Certainly there are a few similarities between it and our current Iraq conflict such as the division of public opinion, the demonizing of opposing opinions, the public awareness of military and civilian casualties, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security (although the bulk of the blame for that last one really lies with the War on Terror and the Patriot Act rather than the war in Iraq.).  I remember a political cartoon that hit the Washington Post about three weeks into the Iraqi war that showed a weary looking man behind the wheel with the kids in the backseat shouting, “Is it Vietnam yet? Is it Vietnam yet?”  Vietnam was Vietnam and Iraq is Iraq.  Yes there are obvious similarities, but there are also obvious differences

I don’t want to digress to far into Vietnam but one interesting possibility as to why it has become a hot issue in the elections, could be that we have not done the hard work of forgiveness over this issue.  Remembering that there are three steps to forgiveness, I don’t see that much of a problem today with step one, admission and confession of the errors.  There has been lots of information out there about what happened and what went wrong back then and what it was like.  A generation has come and gone since Vietnam and the general attitude toward that war seems to be fairly negative.  Our communal consciousness leans toward remembering the errors and failures of that war.  How about step two, atonement?  Have there been apologies and amends made?  What about step three?  Have we put any work into repentance, into stopping that situation from ever happening again?

To demonstrate a striking contrast, some of you may recall that as we reached the end of the Second World War, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars – yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.” He was saying, we must promise to not repeat the wrongs of our recent past; we must promise to return to our best selves again.  He was saying we must repent.

War is an atrocity that a government should inflict upon the world only as a last resort if ever.  The cost is far greater than simply the number of people killed and the gain is far less tangible or lasting than freedom and liberty.  My biggest fear, however, is the irresponsible way in which we now wage war.  I call it irresponsible because as we stand knee-deep in the quagmire that Iraq has become I look back and find the reasons for entering this war were fear and suspicion rather than real imminent danger.  I call it irresponsible because there seems to have been little preparation for the entrenched fight against insurgent forces we are now seeing, as if it were an unforeseen possibility.  I call it irresponsible because there has been no recognition of even the first step of forgiveness, which is confession where in we admit to the errors we have made.  By “we” I mean “We The People …” not we in In this room today.  I bet we in this room today could confess the errors of this war with ease.  But We The People continue to be speechless on that count. How can we repent and change our ways when We The People will not even admit there is anything wrong.  And of course something went wrong; if nothing were wrong we would not be at war.  War only happens when something has gone wrong.

In the reading this morning there was a line that read, “When we invite the power of forgiveness, we release ourselves from the destructive hold the past has on us.  Our hatred, our anger, our need to feel wronged – those will destroy us.”  If we cannot actively work to rebuild our relationship with those we have injured, we will be destroying ourselves, our hatred and our anger will destroy us.  The risk of continuing along our current path in this war includes the possibility of our destruction, not by those we call our enemies, but by our own eating away ourselves.  It is high time for the United States to remove itself from this situation and allow a truly international peace-keeping body go in and help Iraq rebuild.

I read in the paper recently that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has described the war in Iraq as illegal by the U.N.’s charter standards.  I say the war in Iraq is immoral and unjust by the standards of religious conscience.

Unitarian Universalism is well positioned to cry out at the injustice of this war.  If we were in Old Testament times we could all be prophets, tearing our clothes, sitting in ashes, and lamenting loudly to repent for the sins of the people.  Today we will have to settle for writing letters to our elected officials and the local newspapers and marching in peace demonstrations.  Of course before all of that we will need to talk through this a lot.  To help with that discussion, however, allow me to point you toward our principles and purposes.

If you survey our Unitarian Universalist principles you will find it hard to see anything in there that could support this war.  There are a few mentions of justice that could be used, but in the principles they are balanced with peace, equity and compassion.  I saw little peace, equity, or compassion leading us into this war and see less as a result.  For that matter, I don’t see much justice either.  What I see a lot of is fear.  Last time I looked, fear was not in out list of guiding principles.

Fear is another errant visitor traipsing though our election landscape.  Fear is one of those characteristics that accompanies war so well and yet stands in such stark opposition to forgiveness and reconciliation.  Fear will freeze us hopelessly in our anger and complacency.  Forgiveness will free us to move forward to heal the world.  “Physical strength can never permanently withstand the impact of spiritual force,” another quote from FDR.  Physical strength can never permanently withstand the impact of spiritual force.  Or as Martin Luther King said, “No lie can live forever.”  And “the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice.”  There is no room for fear in that.

And of course you will remember the ever-powerful FDR quote, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Despite what the current climate would have us believe, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.  We must move forward by setting aside fear and opening ourselves up to the possibilities of forgiveness.  We are now in the Days of Awe.  Rosh Hashanah has past; the party is over.  The work of Yom Kippur approaches.  The time to seek and offer forgiveness as individuals and as a nation is upon us.  For us to move forward we must confess to the errors and failings that brought us to this situation, we must atone for those failings, and then we can repent.  Then we can promise to not repeat the wrongs of our past.  Then we can promise to return to our best selves as individuals and as a nation.  Until then we are called to speak out against the injustice of this war.  Until then we are called to meet the rampant fear around us and within us with spiritual force.  Until then we are called to do what we can to repair and rebuild the world through our acts of peace and forgiveness.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

More Than One Answer
Rev. Douglas Taylor
August 28, 2004

I’m taking an informal poll.  By a show of hands I want to know which is your favorite Source.  For this survey you will need to either flip to the principles and sources in the hymnal, (we were there last week, you may recall.  The page is near the front, just ahead of the first hymn.) Or just glance at the back of the order of service where I’ve printed them out.  The list of sources is about halfway down the page, they start with the line, “The Living Tradition We Share Draws From Many Sources:”

Most of this list of Sources were created in the early 80’s along with what is called “the Seven Principles” or “The Principles and Purposes.”  This list of sources was intended to be viewed as a part of the seven principles describing of our faith tradition.  As such, they are a part of our UUA bylaws.  These Sources expand on what is stated by the Seven Principles by making explicit the plurality among us. I also like the way that section begins by speaking of Unitarian Universalism as a Living Tradition.  That phrase implies that we do have a tradition, a history, but that we are open to change, growth, and movement.

                        The Living Tradition We Share Draws From Many Sources:

*Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

*Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

            *Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical

            and spiritual life;

*Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

*Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;

*Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions, which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

If you were reading along in the hymnal, that last one may have surprised you.  For about ten years (including the year these hymnals were published,) there were five Sources on the list.  That last source was added by process of amendment in 1995.  The delegates of the general assembly that year voted to accept this source into our bylaws.  I mention this not only to clear on any confusion, but also to impress upon you that these words, these Principles and Purposes, did not just drop out of the sky.  They were thoughtfully created and amended through the democratic process.  (Because that’s the kind of people we Unitarian Universalists are.  We’ll use dialogue and democracy to discern the sources of our living tradition, and if a couple of years later we find another one, … well, by gum, we’ll use Robert’s Rules of Order to the fullest to get it on our list!)

So, I’m taking a poll.  By show of hands, which is your favorite Source?  This is very informal, it doesn’t commit you to anything.  I’m just curious.  How many of you would say the first source, “Direct Experience” is the one you like best?  How about the second source? …

(After this informal show of hands I noticed many hands for the first source, “direct experience” and the fifth, “humanist teaching.”  Few hands were up for the second “Prophetic words and deeds” and the third “world religions.”  Also, a number of people voted for more than one, indeed one person mentioned that he voted for all six because he felt all of them were valuable to him.)

Many of us make the ready connection of these six Sources and the various theological labels we sometimes affix to ourselves.  Theist and Pagan, Mystic, Christian, Humanist and Jew all find themselves represented within this list of sources.  This is, however, much more than just a list of possible labels you may latch on to, it is a statement affirming the variety of religious experiences accepted among us.  It is a statement declaring the expanse of authority we can appeal to in our search for truth.  It is a statement in favor of the plurality of beliefs, a statement declaring that, as one UU theologian put it, “Revelation is not sealed,” that more light and more understanding is about to break out in unexpected ways

It is a statement that recognizes there is more than one answer to the deep religious questions in life.  Why are we here?  Is there a purpose to life and if so, what is it?  Is there a God and if so, what are the characteristics by which God is known?  Why is there suffering?  Can there be justice?  How shall I treat other people?  How shall I know what is good and right?  What is evil and how can I stop myself from getting caught up with it?  There is more than one answer to these deep religious questions in life.  To pretend otherwise is to oversimplify life in dangerous and harmful ways.

With such a commitment to being open and allowing more than one answer, we do have difficulty defining ourselves to the rest of the world.  Our reading this morning came from a book entitled A Chosen Faith.  The forward of that book was written by author and Unitarian Universalist minister Robert Fulghum.  The whole forward is presented as part of a conversation in a bookstore in which Fulghum tries to answer someone’s questions in good UU style:“Mr. Fulghum, I’ve read all your books. Is what you write a sample of what Unitarian Universalists believe?”

“Yes and no. I would expect, and hope, that most Unitarian Universalists would not agree with everything I think and write.”

“You mean there’s no party line – no dogma?”

“Yes and no. We agree that individuals must work out their own religious conclusions. We agree that we will disagree on those conclusions. We agree to respect those differences. We agree to learn from one another through dialogue about our beliefs. We agree on a process and the tools to be used in the process.”

“Give me some examples of the tools.”

“The principles of democracy, integrity, continuing education, and individual responsibility, to name a few,”

“It sounds more like NPR or PBS to me than a church.”

“Actually, the analogy is not far off. Public radio and public television are good examples of things that Unitarian Universalists support. We want to be exposed to a wide range of information and a broad range of viewpoints. We want each individual to have an influence on programming, and we want each individual to take responsibility for keeping the programs on the air. It’s not the easiest way to go about radio or religious community, but it’s the way we choose.”

“So if I’m open-minded and listen to NPR and watch PBS, I qualify as a Unitarian Universalist?”

“Let’s say you have Unitarian Universalist tendencies. There are, however, Unitarian Universalists who listen only to jazz or country-western music or opera, or those who watch only baseball on TV. I say again, we respect diversity in all things.”

“What about politics?”

“No exception. Full spectrum. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, and a few who are either Anarchists or just confused – it’s hard to tell. We share only the conviction that one ought to be active in the affairs of the world. We don’t dictate which particular party one ought to join.”

“Are Unitarian Universalists Christians?”

“Again, yes and no. Some are and some aren’t, and some haven’t decided. Same answer if you ask whether Unitarian Universalists are Buddhists. In fact, most of the specific questions you might ask have this kind of answer. Yes and no. Some are and some aren’t. Some do and some don’t. We’re known for respecting diversity of opinion and belief.”

“I’d like to come take a look at a church like that…”(by Robert Fulghum, from the Forward to A Chosen Faith by J. Buehrens & F. Church; 1998)

Yes and no.  Yes, no, maybe and even sometimes!  We uncover more than one answer if we ask any specific questions.  Everyone is different.  There is no one-size-fits-all answer to life.  Yes we can make some generalizations about life and its troubles as well as about faith and how faith helps, but it is very rare for those generalizations to be directly applicable to your life.  Everyone is different.  Your answer is not my answer.  But that is OK because we know there is more than one answer.  We uncover more than one answer if we begin with the raw experiences of life.  Some wise theologian once said “All theology is biography.”  Which is to say that all theology begins with life experiences.

I love it when someone wants me to read a particular book or listen to a particular piece of music or visit a particular workshop or conference center.  Usually the person is saying something like, “I just had this amazing experience and I think you should experience it too because it was so wonderful.”  For that person, the book, the place, the piece of music, the idea, or the event is suddenly sacred because it was transformative.  It lifted her or him into a new or renewed position in life.  That is one of the central purposes of religion: to give focus and understanding to those experiences in life.

Look, I remember reading the opening chapter of Annie Dillard’s book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek at least five times.  I could not get past that story about the frog being eaten by the water bug.  I was amazed.  Other people might read that chapter and think, “Ewww!  That’s gross.”  Or, “Ho-hum. So, Annie saw a frog die.  Big deal!”

But I was transformed.  I was caught by a new or renewed understanding of life and of myself and of how this crazy amazing world is stuck together!  I had to read it over and over again before I could turn to the next chapter and continue the book. You guys need to read this book!  But I can’t make you experience the same thing I experienced when I read it.  And that’s OK because my answer is not your answer.  And that is OK because here we allow more than one answer.

Sometimes when someone asks me to read a book I am tempted to say, “Thank you, but first tell me, what happened to you when you read the book.  Tell me what experiences it touched in you and how you have been changed by this.”  Reflecting on the raw stuff of life is the root of religion.  The raw stuff of your life is not the raw stuff of my life or anyone else’s life.  Where that leads you is your own, and it

may be my job to support your search for that and to help you along that journey, but it is no one’s job but your own to tell you where you are going!

Imagine if our health care system worked on the premise that one answer and one answer only fits every situation.  It certainly feels like the health insurance companies would like it to work that way: If you’ve got symptoms x, y, and z than we’ll only pay for the preset treatments that match up.  But good doctors and nurses know that each body is different and will respond differently to situations and symptoms.  If you’ve ever visited a sick friend or family member you probably heard something about how this person recovered so quickly or that person’s body reacted negatively to some medicine.  Different bodies heal at different rates.

A stroke can effected you in one of so many possible ways and the medical responses vary and your bodies reaction to that medical response, be it chemical or surgical or something else, differently from the reaction of another person’s body because we are all different.  The more we understand about science and biology and medicine the less we are able to easily predict because we are seeing that there are as many variables as there are people.

There are as many variables as there are people.  You know what they say, if you have two Unitarian Universalist in a room together you are guaranteed at least three opinions.  That is where the medical analogy connects to our way of doing religion!  (I’m not saying religion is like a medication, or, at least you shouldn’t think of it that way.  If anything religion is more like vitamins you take before you get sick.  But that is another analogy for another day.  Today I am just saying every body is different and thus responds differently to life.)  It shouldn’t be that radical to insist that beliefs be built from the variety of our experiences rather than the other way around.

Allow me to add one final thought to this mix.  The fourth Principle of Unitarian Universalism (which leads us into the six Sources) calls for the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.  Lest I over emphasis the “free” side of that, I will say this:  Our acceptance of differences and our openness to a plurality of beliefs is by no means a statement that what we believe is unimportant or that we can choose to believe in practically nothing.  G. K. Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut is down again on something solid.”

In one of the pamphlets we give to newcomers, the red one titled “We Are,” there is a paragraph that reads, “We uphold the free search for truth.  We will not be bound by a statement of belief.  We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed.  We say ours is a noncreedal religion.  Ours is a free faith.”  I would add that we also uphold the responsible search for truth.  No one here is free to not care, or to give no thought for the complex questions of faith.  We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed, but we do ask that everyone believe something.  Here we are each asked to make an effort to search for the answers to life’s religious questions.  By reason, conscience, and experience, we search out, test, and affirm each for ourselves what is true.

In a world without end,

may it be so

Seven Guiding Tenets
Rev. Douglas Taylor
UUCB
August 22, 2004

If you are new, or if you’ve been around for a while and just haven’t noticed yet, I must tell you – Unitarian Universalism is different from a lot of the religious options out there.  For one thing, we don’t have a creed or central doctrine that everyone must agree to before they can be a part of the congregation.  You are not required to believe in a particular thing to be among us.  What we do have is a set of seven principles that serve as a statement of what brings us together.

And I need your help this morning.  I would like you to turn in your hymnals to the page right before the first hymn.  (If you’re flipping from the front you’ll need to go past the two title pages, the table of contents, the preface and than one more title page.)  I want you to find that page which lists our Seven Principles.  It begins with the line, “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:”  Then you will see what we call our seven principles followed by our six sources.  It is really the top half of that page I’m interested in today: Our principles.

Scott Alexander, a colleague I met down in the Washington D.C. area, once wrote out a list I will share with you entitled “Seven Reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist.”  This is not an attempt to drive anyone away.  It was, of course, just a fun little rhetorical gimmick Scott used to talk about the seven principles.  Sometimes, however, it is enlightening to glance over to the negative version of positive statements to regain a perspective.  So, you may want to follow along with the real seven Principles as I share with you these seven reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist.

You should not be a Unitarian Universalist if you have AN ESSENTIALLY NEGATIVE AND PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF PERSONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR DIGNITY, DECENCY AND WORTH.

Secondly, you should not be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU THINK THE INJUSTICES AND INDIGNITIES OF OUR SOCIETY AND WORLD ARE EITHER INTRACTABLE…OR SOMEONE ELSE’S RESPONSIBILITY.

Thirdly, you should not be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU IMAGINE YOURSELF CAPABLE OF HAVING A FULL AND SATISFYING RELIGIOUS LIFE ALL BY YOURSELF (IN SOME SORT OF SPLENDID SPIRITUAL ISOLATION).

Fourth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU WANT SOMEONE (FROM SOME DOGMATIC, HIERARCHICAL PLACE) TO LAY OUT A COMPLETE, CUT-AND-DRIED, TRUE FOR ALL TIMES AND AGES FAITH SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES YOU TO BLINDLY FOLLOW AND OBEY.

Fifth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU FIND DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO BE A TEDIOUS AND FRUSTRATING WASTE OF TIME.

Sixth, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist IF YOU’RE ONE OF THOSE AMERICANS WHO FEELS THAT WE CAN (AS A PEOPLE AND A NATION) LIVE RESPONSIBLY AND SUCCESSFULLY UPON THIS PLANET BY ISOLATING OURSELVES FROM THE PROBLEMS AND PAINS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE.

Seventh, and lastly, don’t be a Unitarian Universalist if YOU THINK HUMANITY CAN BASICALLY CONTINUE TO LIVE (SANELY AND SUCCESSFULLY) ON THIS FRAGILE PLANET OF OURS, SELFISHLY DISREGARDING THE TENDER BALANCE AND VERY REAL RESOURCE LIMITS OF MOTHER EARTH.

(“7 Reasons NOT to be a Unitarian Universalist” by Scott Alexander, River Road Unitarian Church, Bethesda, MD. Oct. 2000)

Sometimes when we look at the principles of our religion we can think, “Those are so obvious, anyone can agree to those.”  I’ve heard people say our principles sound more like the guidelines for public radio than a religious community.  When we think like that we are forgetting that there really are various other religious perspectives out there that do present a negative, pessimistic view of human nature, or that do suggest you can have a full and satisfying religious life all by yourself, or that do declare the earth to be the dominion of humanity.  There really are other religious perspectives out there that dogmatically and hierarchically lay out a complete, cut-and-dry, true-for-all-time faith system that requires you to blindly follow and obey.  Our principles are not just pretty words, they mark a distinctly different way of doing religion, and they describe what we as Unitarian Universalists cherish.

In our reading this morning, Ed Frost said “a religion needs to be able to say to the world what it is that its adherents believe.”  Unitarian Universalism is not an easy religion to explain to your neighbor, co-worker, or brother-in-law.  It is difficult to encapsulate our complex faith tradition in a few sentences.  And our non-creedalism, our commitment to the individual freedom of religious conscience, is in no small way responsible for a great deal of that difficulty.  How do you say what we all believe when everyone believes different things?  How do you describe the central beliefs of a faith tradition that has no creed or dogma?

Thankfully, about twenty years ago, the Unitarian Universalist Association voted during it’s General Assembly to adopt a very well put together set of principles.  The seven principles do not line out what all Unitarian Universalists believe.  If they did, it would be a creed and we do not have a creed.  Instead, these seven principles serve as guiding statements to help us in our attempts to articulate and understand what our religion is all about.

“We the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association covenant to affirm and promote The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; and Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”

I wonder how many people in the congregation could recite these by heart?  I bet some of the kids would try.  Maybe I should give out prizes to anyone who can recite the seven principles by heart!  The thing is, I’m not sure how long they will last.  This current set were drawn up about 20 years ago because people felt the previous ones were out of step with the times.  In large part it was a group of women in the late 1970’s who started pushing for gender-inclusive language and non-hierarchical concepts.  The previous statement had been a contentious and strenuous exercise to bring the two separate traditions of Unitarianism and Universalism together in 1961.   Apparently it took them twenty years to lay down some of those old issues and notice that the resulting statement was a bit stilted and clunky.

The Seven Principles you have in your hymnal were crafted over the course of a couple of years with the input of whole lot of people.  I think at least one member of this congregation, Ed Ware, was at those General Assemblies when people were debating and amending and voting on these words.

One of the most wonderful aspects of these principles is the way they come together as a whole.  These are more than simply a list of seven things we managed to agree upon.  These seven principles don’t read like something created out of a committee.  This list has both a logical and poetic structure.  The first of the seven, “the inherent worth and dignity of every person,” this radical statement declaring that every individual has an innate worthiness, is in several respects mirrored or balanced by the seventh principle, this remarkable call to honor this deep and varied connectedness we have with all life, “respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”  These two, the resounding cheer for individualism and the deeply compelling assertion of our interconnected dependancy, balance each other elegantly.  Historically Unitarianism and, to a slightly lesser degree, Universalism have been very individualistic traditions.  Freedom of the individual conscience in matters of religious belief has long been a guiding tenet of both of the now merged traditions.  And this emphasis is echoed in the first principle.

Interestingly the seven principles seem to move as if along a continuum from the integrity of the individual to interconnectedness of all existence.  The second and third principles speak of values to be used in one-to-one human relations and within our congregations.  The fifth and sixth principles speak of processes and goals for society at large and indeed the world community.  Both sides of this balance reach toward the middle where we find our fourth principle: the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

One colleague, Barbara Wells, suggested in her workbook Articulating Your UU Faith that the seven principles could be visualized as an arch supported by two pillars.  The first and seventh principles serve as the supporting pillars for the other five principles, with the center principle about the search serving as the keystone to the arch.

These principles embody the central guiding tenets that bring us together as a religious community.  Take a look at them again and think about your life.

Looking at these principles, do you hear the message that you are accepted and welcomed?  Do you see the basic worth and dignity within yourself?  Can you see it in others, even when it is deeply hidden or denied?

In thinking about the relationships you are in, is there compassion and equity?  If not, can there be some justice?  What would need to change for to have justice equity and compassion in all your relationships?  What can you change?

How are you doing at accepting other people and encouraging them?  Are there roadblocks that keep you from helping others become the best they can be, and is one of those roadblocks an inability to be truly accepting?  What does it look like to be truly compassionate and accepting?  How does that fit with having justice and equity in your relationships?

Do you exercise your freedom to uncover meaning in your life?  Have you been held back from seeking out truths and meaning that make sense?  Have you held yourself back?  Do you ever find yourself squandering that responsibility to figure some of these important things out?

Have you ever found yourself frustrated with the messy process of democracy?  Do you speak out?  Do you add your voice to the rich patterns of conversation and debate, or do you hold back?

What can you do to promote peace and justice in the world?  Does it help to know that there are a couple of hundred people just in this congregation alone that are doing this work with you?  Has your life and action brought us closer to that goal?

Do you feel the tug on the web when you act for peace and justice?  Can you sense that there is a grand system around you and that your life and love impacts that grand whole in countless ways.  Can you feel your impact along the lines of connectedness?

Do you hear the message that you are accepted and welcomed?  Do you hear the message that your voice and your deeds matter?  Do you hear the message that the gifts you have to offer the world are desperately needed?  Do you hear the message ringing out from these lofty and beautiful principles that were written a generation ago for you?

In a world without end

may it be so.

The Tao of Doubt

by Rev. Douglas Taylor

6-20-04

Unitarian Universalism has got to be about the only religious option that encourages doubt.  Skepticism and Agnosticism are prevalent in our congregations, and are certainly here at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Binghamton.  I see this as a good thing.  Doubt helps us to steer clear of many idolatries.  We do well to have a touch of agnosticism, a dash of doubt, if you will, in all of our religious statements.  After all, “The surest way to lose truth is to pretend you already possesses it.” [Gordon Allport Becoming, p. 17]  I have also heard it said that doubt is the handmaiden of truth.  On the whole, I find many Unitarian Universalists to be “happy agnostics” willing to consider differing perspectives, though a little hesitant to commit entirely to only one perspective, always leaving ample room for doubt.

Unfortunately, our high comfort level with doubt comes off in the eyes of others as a cheap abdication.  It looks like we lack enough conviction to take a stand.  While I strongly argue against this perspective as uninformed at best, I continually bump into it.  I wonder if any of you have experienced this?  “Unitarian Universalism?  That’s not really a religion, right?”

As a religious movement, Unitarian Universalism is constantly pushing itself beyond narrow definitions of religion.  We are perpetually searching for a better way to see and a better to describe what we experience as religious people.  We recognize that revelation is not sealed. We know that insight and growth can and often do come from unexpected quarters.  We are a community of people in the search.  We do not claim to have all the answers and do not demand of anyone to adhere to even a specific set of questions.

Because we are willing to doubt, willing to admit we do not own the corner on religious truth, we find that we are therefore willing to look to other world religions as often (if not more often) as we do to our own Judeo-Christian religious roots or our Unitarian and Universalist forebears.  Of the Eastern religions, certainly Buddhism has made the most inroads into our churches.  Buddhist meditation groups are common and I think there is a national Buddhist-UU group to help any who self-identify that way.  I would like to suggest some interesting connections I have found with another one of the traditional Eastern religions.  I want to consider Taoism, particularly as it relates to the ideas of certainty and doubt.

Lao Tzu is the first teacher of Taoism and the author of the book the Tao Te Ching.  Lao Tzu was supposed to have been born around the 6th century B.C.E.  With the decline of the reigning dynasty, Lao Tzu decided to leave to the uncivilized West.  However, at the frontier the guard demanded that he leave behind all the treasures of China that he may have with him, including his teachings.  So Lao Tzu sat down and scripted over five thousand Chinese characters and left into the wilderness, never to be heard from again.  This teaching he left with the guard has been passed down through the centuries as the Tao Te Ching, the Taoist holy text.

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 statement seems to say to me that if I think I know the power that creates, sustains, and transforms my life, I’m probably wrong.  If I think I’ve grasped a corner of what we call the Ground of Being, I am most assuredly mistaken.  This is where that agnostic dash of doubt comes in.  The Tao Te Ching begins with a statement that it is impossible to name or express the Ultimate Reality, the fundamental core experience of life, and yet, this is precisely the effort we undertake in our congregations.

Tao is typically translated as “the way.”  This is not altogether inaccurate, but neither is it a complete rendering of the concept.  A closer interpretation of the word Tao is “a person running along a path.” (Everyday Tao, Deng Ming-Dao. P 2) This translation makes Tao more like a verb than a noun.  This idea echos the way we speak of being on a spiritual journey.  We talk in Unitarian Universalism about being on a faith journey or a spiritual journey.  We sometimes even talk about God as a process, an event that happens, rather than a pseudo-being or thing.

A decidedly more complex interpretation of the Tao  (from Dao De Jing by R. Ames and D. Hall, 2003) says that it is best translated as at least three nuances.  It is “the way” and it is “movement along the way” but it is also “way-making.”  It is a complex concept that almost necessitates a course in Chinese culture before a fair understanding can be formed.

Witness the meeting of two great figures, Confucius and Lao Tzu, in this legendary account:

When Confucius went to Chou, he asked Lao Tzu to instruct him in the rites.  Lao Tzu relied, “… When a gentleman lives in favorable times, he hastens to court in a carriage; but when he lives in unfavorable times, he drifts with the wind.  I have heard it said that a good merchant hides his wealth and gives the appearance of want; if endowed with a rich supply of inward virtue, the superior man has the outward appearance of a fool.  Get rid of that arrogance of yours, all those desires, that self-sufficient air, that overweening zeal; all that is of no use to your true person.  That is all I have to say to you.”  Confucius withdrew and told his disciples, “I know a bird can fly; I know a fish can swim; I know animals can run.  Creatures that run can be caught in nets; those that swim can be caught in wicker traps; those that fly can be hit by arrows.  But the dragon is beyond my knowledge; it ascends into heaven on the clouds and the wind.  Today I have seen Lao Tzu and he is like the dragon!” (Lao Tzu and Taoism, by M. Kaltenmark; p 8)

So even the great Confucius had a difficult time understanding Lao Tzu and the Tao.  I have turned to another great philosopher to aid me in my understanding, one who is a little more current.  I look to Winnie-the-pooh, in the book The Tao of Pooh.  (“The Tao of who, the Tao of Pooh”)  It’s a fun book, and a helpful one, too.

It talks about the way Pooh is in comparison with the other characters in the Winnie-the-pooh stories.  “While Eeyore frets and Piglet hesitates and Rabbit calculates and Owl pontificates, Pooh just is.”  Pooh is effortless and simple.  He just does stuff and it seems to work.  As Piglet once said, “Pooh hasn’t much Brain, but he never comes to any harm.  He does silly things and they turn out right.”

Pooh spends much of his time just being Pooh and not doing anything in particular.  Christopher Robin once asked him “What do you like doing best in the world, Pooh?”

“Well,” said Pooh, “What I like best —” and then he had to stop and think.  Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better that when you were, but he didn’t know what it was called.

The truth is, sometimes there just are no words to describe what is going on.  And yet there are so many books on the topic.  Wittgenstein observed that the limits of our language are the limits of our world.  And yet, as it was written in the passage I offered during the reading: “The most profound levels of life are so enormous, so deep, and so mystical that they are unnamable. When we are dealing with this most difficult and yet most meaningful part of the Tao, we have to accept that there are no words in our dictionary to define our experiences.”  “The Tao that can be put into words is not the true Tao.  The name that can assign fixed reference to things is not the true name.”

Another popular book on the subject of Taoism which recently came out in a 25th anniversary edition, is The Tao of Physics.  Taoism is a philosophy about being in the rhythm of the universe, like Pooh.  To say that Physics is the study of the rhythm of the universe may be a touch more poetic than most textbooks would allow, it is still a fairly close explanation.  The best example of the connection between physics and Taoism is found in the work of Werner Heisenberg.  Heisenberg was the first to formulate that when dealing with a subatomic particle, there will always be a level of uncertainty built into the very nature of the process.  This concept is known as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  Most scientific process prior to this concept was structured under the presupposition that if you were uncertain about some aspect of your new formula, later scientists would eventually refine the formula into perfection.  Heisenberg said that old notion was all wrong.  There will always be that dash of doubt.  When you study these particles, there is no way to not be involved with them.  If you try to study what is happening, if you try to name what is going on, you participate in what is going on and therefore create uncertainty in the situation.  This is not a flaw in Heisenberg’s formulations, it is the nature of subatomic particles.  It is the nature of life.  It is Tao.  (Capra pp. 140, 158)

Ultimate Reality is a mystery to which we have clues, but will never fully understand. Words are helpful, but they also get in the way.  Heisenberg once said “that every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.”  The natural world and our experiences of it are complex and varied.  We live and move in a complex, multi dimensional world.  Words are like maps that represent our experiences.  And it was Alfred Korzybski who coined the phrase, “the map is not the territory.”  We are like cartographers faced with the task of creating a flat map of a curved earth.  Words can be close approximations at best, never exact representations.

One of the most captivating lines from the Tao of Physics book states, “because our representation of reality is so much easier to grasp than reality itself, we tend to confuse the two and to take our concepts and symbols for reality.” (P 28)  One of the first tenets of Taoism is rid us of that mentality.  Taoist sage, Chang Tzu wrote:

Fishing baskets are employed to catch fish; but when the fish are got, the men forget the baskets; snares are employed to catch hares, but when the hares are got, men forget the snares.  Words are employed to convey ideas; but when the ideas are grasped, men forget the words.”

Words get us there, and words get in the way; but they are all we have.  I firmly assert that anything we can say about the deepest, most profound levels of life must necessarily be filtered through our human language.  As a means of discussing all that is Holy, human words and concepts are hopelessly inadequate.  However, we must try because spiritual growth is important, and it can only be accomplished through dialogue with yourself, with your neighbor, and with your God.  We need words  for this.  After all, “the turtle only gets where it is going by sticking out its neck.” [James B. Conant]

My dilemma is this: if I were to try to articulate what I experience of God, it could only be like trying to catch running water in my bare hands, and then bring it in to the sanctuary to show you what running water is.  I simply do not have a firm enough grasp of how to communicate mystery.  It is not for lack of something to say, it for lack of words to properly articulate the experiences.

The ineffability of the Tao is the first principle of Taoism.  It demands that before we begin talking about this, we admit that there is nothing we can say.  But we are Unitarian Universalists, we like to talk.  We are a verbal and verbose religion.  Witness the fact that I have been standing here talking on and on about how mere words can’t get us there.  Mystery is a cornerstone of my theology, likely that of many UU’s.  Unitarian Universalists are sometimes seen as people without beliefs.  I think it is closer to the truth to say we have beliefs but they are coupled with the realization that mere words too often fail to express the experiences we know.  It seems to me that we are at our best when we recognize that dash of doubt, and admit that there is nothing we can say which can finally nail down any knowledge of Ultimate Reality.  And yet we shall share together what we can of what we know thus far, and trust that we shall continue to understand more tomorrow.

In a world without end,

May it be so.

Arrogance at the Needle’s Eye
5-2-04
Rev. Douglas Taylor

Let me begin with the Needle’s Eye.  The passage in the gospel of Matthew where Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” has been such a captivating image and a rallying point for the concept of God’s Preferential Option for the Poor.  There is an absolutely wonderful interpretation of this line about the camel and the needle’s eye.  The “eye of the needle” is really the name of the back gate in Jerusalem. This gate was quite small, as the name implies; and it was the one gate open after dark.  A merchant, arriving late to town, would need to go around to the back gate, the needle’s eye.  But he would need to unload all the camels.  The gate was too small for camels to get through loaded up with goods.  The message is palpable: you cannot get into the kingdom of God unless you unload your possessions.

This interpretation, this suggestion that the Eye of the Needle is actually a gate in Jerusalem, is apocryphal and unsupportable.  Someone made it up.  I own several annotated bibles and not one of them mentions this back gate.  I did bump into a website that debunks this story at length, (and of course you should always be suspicious of any fact you read on the internet, but seeing no support for the needles eye/back gate connection in the any of my books, I decided to believe the website.)

From the 15th century, … this story has been put forth, however, there is no evidence for such a gate, nor record of reprimand of architect who may have forgotten to make a gate big enough for the camel and rider to pass through unhindered. … Great sermon material, … lovely story… but unfortunately unfounded.  

The website goes on to consider several other possible interpretations such as, maybe the word for “camel” is a Greek misprint.  Instead of kamilos, ‘camel,’ they meant to write kamelos meaning ‘cable or rope.’  “It is easier for a cable or rope to go through the eye of a needle”?  This and other clever twists of the English, Greek and Aramaic words are decidedly set aside.  Instead the website lands on a tame interpretation which claims that Jesus was basically saying it is all but impossible for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.  But, of course, the website ends with the comforting scriptural quote, “With God, all things are possible.”

But what I am interested in from all of this is that image of a merchant standing outside this apocryphal gate, arrogantly demanding entry despite the barriers.  This image comes to mind when I think about economic inequity here in the United States and how some people call welfare a drain on our society.  This image comes to mind when I read about big corporations crying out for free trade and an open market.  This image of arrogance at the needle’s eye comes to mind when I hear in the news that Wal-Mart was denied access to some communities in California and a Wal-Mart spokesperson said, “It’s really too bad that this little local bureaucracy is denying people options of where to shop.”  I find that statement so ironic because I always thought that denying people options of where to shop was what Wal-mart did when it undersold it’s products and drove small local merchants out of business.

Yesterday, a couple of dozen people from our congregation and the broader community attended a workshop on Free Trade and Fair Trade hosted by our Social Responsibility Committee.  We had two speakers from Rochester talk us through some of the history and consequences of economic globalization.  They began with a statement that Globalization is not a bad thing.  Globalization is the process by which the people of the world are becoming more interconnected and interdependent.  Certainly we as Unitarian Universalists are in favor of recognizing our interconnectedness!  Globalization is about the increase in communication, the exchange of cultures, it is about being able to go to the supermarket in the middle of February and buy a mango.  What the presenters at yesterday’s workshop were critiquing was the way trade agreements enrich those who are already rich and pit the poor against each other in a battle over who can provide the cheapest labor.  What they critiqued was who really makes money on the mangos in our supermarkets in February, (and I’ll give you a hint, it is not the people on the other side of the world who grow and harvest mangos.)  What the presenters of this workshop critiqued was the Free Trade agreements such as NAFTA that are eroding not only the economies of various nations but also the democratic process and national sovereignty as well.

That last idea is one that really startled me.  I don’t want to turn this into a Free Trade lecture, you could have gone to the workshop if you wanted that.  But let me briefly spell out that last idea because it is really frightening.  If a country that is a part of one of these trade agreements like NAFTA makes a law protecting the environment and NAFTA determines that this new law impedes their right to make a profit, then NAFTA has the right to sue.  They have their own courts to do it, too.  They enforce their judgments through fines and other economic sanctions.  This rampant, unchecked capitalism is running roughshod over democracy in the name of the almighty dollar.  And the merchant stands arrogantly at the needle’s eye.

In a capitalist society, religion must serve as a balance against individualistic greed that so easily creeps into the system.  The role of religion is to speak out when the culture is out of balance and call for a reprioritizing of our interests.  We must remember our basic values as a people.  The individualism and the interconnectedness that are displayed in these global trade systems are not our kind of individualism and interconnectedness.  They are using interconnectedness to enrich themselves as individuals.

There was a time when the CEO of a major company, like General Motors, could say, “What is good for GM is good for America.”  It worked back then because if GM did well, that meant the people who worked for GM did well.  Now if GM does well that means the Stockholders and the management will do well.  Companies like that no longer have the worker, or even the customer, in mind when they measure their success.  And the merchant stands arrogantly at the needle’s eye.

And more frequently, thanks to trade agreements, these companies don’t even benefit our nation because they are becoming transnational.  They employ people from other countries and build factories in other countries and they don’t even pay much in taxes here because they are not really here anymore.  A quick example of this in the history of telephone company, AT&T:

Until the late 1970’s, AT&T had depended on routine producers in Shreveport, Louisiana, to assemble standard telephones.  It then discovered that routine producers in Singapore would perform the same tasks at a far lower cost.  Facing intense competition from other global webs, AT&T’s strategic brokers felt compelled to switch.  So in the early 1980’s they stopped hiring routine producers in Shreveport and began hiring routine producers in Singapore.  But under this kind of pressure for ever lower high-volume production costs, today’s Singaporean can easily end up as yesterday’s Louisianans.  By the late 1980’s, AT&T’s strategic brokers found that routine producers in Thailand were eager to assemble telephones for a small fraction of the wages of routine producers in Singapore.  Thus, in 1989, AT&T stopped hiring Singaporeans to make telephones and began hiring cheaper routine producers in Thailand.

(The Work of Nations by Robert Reich, p210)

The other countries are beginning to catch on that the boom of jobs and profits that appear with unrestricted trade agreements can evaporate in the blink of an eye as corporations look for “ever lower high-volume production costs.”  And the merchant stands arrogantly at the needle’s eye.

The result of these and other economic transgressions is the amazing disparity in wealth distribution.  And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  That is really happening in startling ways.  And we get wonderful little phrases like “jobless recovery” to explain why there is a lot of money floating around the system, but none of it seems to be coming around here.  It’s great that apple juice can be imported real cheap from China, but if you’ve lost your job as an American apple farmer, how are you supposed to pay for this new cheaper apple juice?

But it’s not like I can spend all my energy being angry at our current Republican administration and their attempts to make our present economic situation look good; because the first major free trade agreement, NAFTA, came into existence under the early days of the previous Democratic administration.  The main reason I am angry at the government is because of their lack of regulation over these corporations.

How do you and I fit into all this?  Where do you fit on the wealth distribution?  Moderation is a nice goal.  Great wealth is not very conducive to a positive spiritual life, but then neither is poverty.  I am not sure where you are in the class system, but I’ve finally made it into the middle class!  Unfortunately, the middle class is not necessarily a place of economic moderation.  Now a day the middle class is made up of a lot of people who are pretending to be well off by living in massive debt.  I have a thirty-year loan to pay off before I own the house we live in and a five-year loan out on the car we drive, I have most of my credit card debt in one account and I’m working hard to pay that off, and I am still making payments on the loan I took out to get my seminary education.  I sometimes feel like I’m standing at the needle’s eye with a handful of IOUs, and I’m saying, “You gotta let me in, because I owe those folks ahead of me a thousand camels!”

What are we going to do about all this economic inequity?  Well, if you are feeling the negative side of the inequity, (and I know we have people here in this category) reach out for help.  If you’re at the other end and are the steward of some wealth, (again, I know we have people here in this category) use it.  Don’t let greed corrupt an otherwise fine capitalist result!

Stay informed, educate yourself about what is happening.  Of course, you should always vote and sign any petitions that you agree with.  There are more trade agreements like NAFTA coming down the pike right now: CAFTA and the FTAA.  Stay informed about what is going on there and get involved!  Write a letter to the editor.  One of our teens, Caitlin Smigelski, had a letter to the editor last month about this sort of thing.

Send a letter to you elected representative telling them your opinions about free trade and fair trade.  Even if your opinions are not the same as my opinions, I urge you to get your opinions out in the public dialogue!  And here is a suggestion that will really do some good:  Support your local farmers and local industry.  Buck the economic system by paying extra for something that you know is locally produced.

This problem is big and it is growing, but it is not inescapable.  If something is not done to reign in the corporations who no longer care about their workers, their customers, or even their nations of origin, then we may easily end up with global corporations making all the rules.  The role of religion in a capitalist democracy is to serve as a balance to greed and injustice.  It is our role to stand at the needle’s eye and cry out for the needs of the disenfranchised and forgotten.  It is our role to demand that the common good be cherished, to watch that back gate and make sure the arrogant merchants don’t destroy us in their rush to exploit just a few million more.  Religion must hold the needle’s eye.

In a world without end,

May it be so.