Sermons

Peace vs. Justice

Peace vs. Justice
November 9, 2003
Rev. Douglas Taylor

Eight years ago I co-lead a course on ethics at a little UU fellowship in Ohio. Ethics: An Exploration in Personal Morality, was the title of the course, and of the workbook we used. The workbook is a part of the Building Your Own Theology series by the Rev. Richard Gilbert, who was here participating in the installation service we had last week. As with the other Building Your Own Theology courses, we don’t “build” a personal ethic from scratch, rather the course is designed to help participants explore and articulate the ethics that guide their lives. The course covered various elements which would go into the refining of a personal moral compass such as: motivation, intention, values and character. I was in charge of the session on values. “Values Ranking” was our first exercise. We were given a list of 30 values such as Freedom, Honesty, Justice, Peace, Equality, Love, Prosperity, Happiness, Quality of Life, Law, Honor, Individuality and Community. We had to select our top ten from these 30 and them rank them in order of personal importance. Choosing only ten was hard enough for most of us, ranking them was excruciating. Some rebelled and had two or more values “tied” for first. I remember I was the only person who put Law on my list of ten. This caused some earnest discussion in the group. Not only did I have Law in my top ten, I had ranked it just above Freedom! Everyone had Freedom on their list, a few had ranked it number one, or tied for first. I had ranked Law as more important than Freedom and argued that without laws there could be no freedoms. And had therefore decided that Law was more important than Freedom.

This was a wonderful exercise worth repeating occasionally. I think today I would choose to rank Law below Freedom rather than as I had ranked them before. I have come to the conclusion that Law is in the service of Freedom, not the other way around. I agree with Martin Luther King that a law that does not serve freedom holds the danger of becoming an unjust law. Generally, there should be no conflict between Law and Freedom, but when there is, my gut reaction is to side with freedom. I still believe that without Law there can be no Freedom, yet Freedom is the higher good, and Law is established to provide Freedom.

Values Conflict was the second exercise in that evening’s class. After we had ranked our values, discussed them and had an opportunity to adjust them, we addressed the possibility of a conflict of values. Hypothetical situations were presented from the workbook in which we wrestled with choosing between honesty and freedom or honesty and prosperity. The situations in the workbook were intentionally hypothetical. They were realistic, but not real.
In the second reading this morning, Chief Joseph was forced into just such a real life values conflict. What is in the best interest of the tribe? What they and likely every native tribe wanted was to live in peace and maintain the prosperous lives they had had before the Europeans came among them in great number and in great force. Seeing that the Europeans were not leaving, and seeing as they still wanted to live in peace, some tribes chose to fight, and others, such as the Nez Perces, tried to leave. Seeing that the Europeans were not going to let them leave without a fight, they decided to fight as they left to Canada that they might find peace. And seeing the toll it was taking on the tribe to fight, Chief Joseph found himself faced with this choice: To fight because it is was a just fight and the right thing to do, or to give up all hope of freedom and peace, because the fight for that freedom is one they might not survive. That is a severe conflict of values.

Few if any of us will find ourselves faced with this extreme and severe a situation. We need not look only at extremes for examples that are just as painful. In an essay from the Ethics workbook, Richard Gilbert writes this:
An example that effects everyone is the issue of allocating scarce health-care resources. On the one hand we value the inherent worth and dignity of every human life, without regard to age. On the other hand, we value the concept of fairness and defend the proposition that all people ought to be given a more or less equal chance in life. The freedom of a person to get affordable health care bumps up against one’s concept of common good.

Most people would say, (Gilbert continues,) that someone with a damaged kidney should be helped by an artificial kidney machine or a kidney transplant, but either procedure is terribly expensive. With the same investment of health dollars, we could provide a simple sugar solution to the world’s children that would save tens of thousands of them from death by dehydration. Both are worthy goals, expressive of the value of reverence for human life. How do we choose between them? Must we choose between them?

All right, that sugar solution example is a bit extreme because it is computed in health dollars only rather than accounting for infrastructure and administrative costs. All the same, our health care system does seem to attract a disproportionate amount of the value conflicts bounding around in our culture. Recently in Florida Governor Jeb Bush used legislation with questionable constitutionality to restore a feeding tube in a young woman who has been in a vegetative state for over 13 years. It would be quite simple for us to all to look at the situation and for us to each decide to write up or review what we already have written up for an advanced directive before the end of this year. What is really needed is not legislation but for each individual to articulate their choice. Perhaps Governor Bush’s politicizing of the situation will help to further the public dialogue, which would be good.

What all this brings out: Chief Joseph’s surrender, Reverend Gilbert’s kidney question, and Jeb Bush’s high-handed fussing over feeding tubes, is that our values conflict regularly. As members of a liberal religious community we are in a particularly good position to recognize how this happens and how to respond. We find ourselves conflicting over important stuff like beliefs and the priorities of values a lot because we encourage it here. We don’t hand people a top ten list of values when they come through our doors. We are well practiced in the art of navigating shared values even when we all don’t agree.

Peace and Justice are two values that usually make it in the personal top ten list of most Unitarian Universalists, indeed, most Americans I would wager. Peace and Justice are two values that religion has often coalesced around. Peace and Justice are two values that are imminently pertinent in today’s global political milieu. In some ways, our political climate is demanding of us to choose between Peace and Justice.

With the same “either you’re for us or you’re against us” attitude cast out to our friends and allies around the globe, here at home we have been asked time and again to side with Justice and support the war or side with Peace and stay out of the way. As one who tried to reconcile our nation’s chosen course and hold both Peace and Justice dear, I have found it troubling to say the least. Peace and Justice usually go hand in hand.

In the history of this congregation there lies the echo of this conflict. Reverend Harry Thor spoke a powerful message of anti-war during the Vietnam Conflict. It was a hard and divisive time in many Unitarian Universalist congregations, and Binghamton did not prove the exception. That division has since healed and we as a congregation are well equipped now to hold a diversity of opinion as a group. But, neither is it any accident or random chance that members of this congregation are predominantly pacifists. I expect we will not again experience a similar division as we explore issues of war, power, peace and justice again. We do well, all the same, to remember that Peace and Justice issues have been and can become again “live-wire” issues among us.

Peace and Justice usually go hand in hand. I see the same relationship between Peace and Justice as I described earlier between Law and Freedom. In the same way that there can be no Freedom without Law, I believe there can be no Peace without Justice. In the same way that Freedom is a higher good than Law and Law is established to provide Freedom, I believe Peace is a higher good than Justice and Justice is established to provide Peace. There should not be a conflict between Peace and Justice.

Of course, my opinion is not the only sensible one out there. While I contend that Justice is an important step on the path to Peace, I have heard others say, “there is no path to peace, peace is the path.” And I have also heard others put forward the alternative perspective that Justice is an end unto itself rather than a means to Peace as have described it. It is these perspectives that polarize Peace and Justice.

Talk of Justice often carries the implication and imagery of violence. Back around 1970, Jane Fonda said, “Revolution is an act of love; we are the children of revolution, born to be rebels. It runs in our blood.” She had a strong point there. The United States was born of a revolution. We have glorified the violent element of our path to independence in our national anthem that speaks of “rockets red glare and bombs bursting in air.” We are children of revolution. This perspective of liberation from oppression takes a religious tone from within Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology does not shy away from the use of violence as a means toward justice. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” While the author of this quote, Martin Luther King, did not mean that this demand would be accompanied by violence on the part of the oppressed, many other people do.

In the 1980s, Vusi Mahlasela was a voice of the revolution in South Africa. His music gave expression to the political ideals of the anti-apartheid movement. Now he’s beginning to tell South Africa’s story on a global stage. The song playing the background as I learned about this man on NPR was a song he wrote which says, “Need I remind anyone that armed struggle is an act of love.”

This is a perspective that rejects the idea that Peace and Justice go hand in hand. This perspective ranks Justice as more important than Peace. I do not subscribe to this perspective. But neither do I subscribe to its popular alternative, because the popular alternative also rejects the idea that Peace and Justice belong to each other. This alternative is exemplified when someone cries out “Can’t we all just get along?” My complaint here is not against that statement in its original use. That quote came originally a little over ten years ago when Rodney King went on TV right after the L.A. race riots and said, “Can’t we all just get along?” Do you remember it? There was a videotape of four white police officers beating a young black motorist they had pulled over. The case was all over the news and when the fur cops were acquitted it touched off a nasty race riot. That young motorist, Rodney King, in an appeal against the mob violence, was calling for peace. Then it made sense. The situation and Mr. King’s appeal are not the basis of my complaint. My complaint is when today people pick up the quote and use it to say, “Can’t we all forget the bad stuff that happened yesterday and play nice?” My complaint is when people want to brush away injustices and just talk of peace.

In our first reading, King makes a distinction between a positive peace and a negative peace. A peace without tension he calls a negative peace. A peace without justice is still peace, but it is a negative peace. If peace simply means no tension, no struggle, than I’ll have none of it. If peace means no disagreements, no turmoil, than that is not a peace I wish to have.

Justice need not be seen as a simple excuse for violence. Likewise, Peace need not be a coating of silence over a troubling situation. Peace and Justice need not be at odds. When I sit down with all my values before me and begin to select my ten; I find room for both Justice and Peace on my list, as I am confident most of you would as well. I believe Peace is a higher good than Justice and Justice is established to provide Peace. However, I am not sure that I would put Peace above Justice when it comes time to rank them. Perhaps I will say Justice is more important, not sufficient, just more important. Perhaps I will rebel and place them as “tied” thereby avoiding the choice, but I doubt it.

How about yourself? Where are they on you list?
In a world without end,
May it be so.

Emerson’s Reformation

Emerson’s Reformation
10-26-03
Douglas Taylor

All around the world, Lutheran and other Protestant ministers are celebrating “Reformation Sunday” this morning. History has decided that the Protestant Reformation officially began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Catholic church in Wittenberg on the Eve of All Saints Day in the year 1517. And so, now, in the protestant liturgical calendar, the last Sunday in October is set aside as an anniversary. The 95 Theses where a scathing rebuke against some of the practices of the Catholic Church at that time, most prominent among which was the practice of selling indulgences. The time was ripe for change and a series of reformers gained footholds in the public religious landscape. Interpretation of the sacraments was questioned. The language of liturgy, the process of justification and sanctification, the role of the priest; all this and more were up for debate when these weighty reformers got rolling.

We were even a part of all that with Michael Servetus writing his treatise on “The Errors of the Trinity” in 1533. Unitarianism grew out of the most liberal wing of that reformation. It has been nearly five hundred years since the initial Protestant split and we have seen a great number of subsequent splits and divisions. Protestants were not the first or only group of religious people to come up with the idea of reform, but they sure made an art of it. It used to be enough to ask a person “Are you religious?” “Yes.” “Oh, good. Are you Christian or Jewish?” But then it became, “Oh, you’re Christian, are you Protestant or Catholic?” And then, “What kind of Protestant: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian?” And then, “Oh, Baptist, are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?” And then, “Uh, are you Original Baptist Church of God, or Reformed Baptist Church of God?” “Oh, great, Reformed Baptist Church of God. Now is that Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?” And it seems to go on like this, people trying to figure out, “Are you on my team?”

We Unitarians Universalists have had our reformations too, but we’ve managed to have them and the reforms they bring without a lot of splitting and dividing. We still have that questioning about ‘which team are you on.’ You know, “Are you Humanist, Neo-Pagan, or Theist?” “Oh, Theist, are you a Christian Theist or a Natural Theist?” “So is that a Process Natural Theism or a Transcendental Natural Theism?” “Uh-huh, now how does that work for you, are you an Emersonian Transcendental Natural Theist or Neo-Transcendental Natural Theist?” But the best part is that we’re all still under the same roof. We’re still all on the same team! We’re not kicking each other out for heresy. Most of the time when we move in the direction of reform, rather than break away from traditional understandings, we broaden our tent to include new ideas and new people. Now, we’re not always perfect in that respect, but who is? Historically, the embracing of innovation is our pattern.
I spent the better half of the past few weeks trying to find out who wrote this great quote I remember from my early seminary reading. “The heresies of yesterday are the accepted beliefs of today, and become the orthodoxies of tomorrow.” For a long time I would think of William Ellery Channing whenever I thought of that quote, but I’ve not been able to find out whether he said it or not. William Ellery Channing is considered the founder of American Unitarianism for his landmark sermon, “Unitarian Christianity” in 1819. He broke new ground. He brought forth a new identity. He was a reformer. The reason I think of him when I recall that quote about yesterday’s heresy and tomorrow’s orthodoxies, is that he did not want the beliefs as he articulated them to become Unitarian orthodoxy. I imagine many (but by no means all) of you have a sense of this story from our history. Channing’s Baltimore Sermon, as it is sometimes called because that is where he was when he delivered it, outlined the radical beliefs that were coalescing within a number of religious communities developing out of what was New England Congregationalism. He delineated the theological rejections and affirmations that characterized the group of people who soon after became known as Unitarians.

This sermon, which started American Unitarianism, was a two-part sermon of which most people recall only the second part. Primarily, the first part of the sermon emphasizes reason as the best tool for the study of scripture. Channing then lists out several doctrines found in scripture when reason is so applied. The first two sound like this: “In the first place, we believe in the doctrine of God’s UNITY, or that there is one God, and only one. … We object to the doctrine of the trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. … We believe that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly we are, and equally distinct form the one God. We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character.”

This was reformation work that Channing was doing. “What everyone else is doing is wrong. We see the true and original Christianity that all the rest of the Christians have missed. We’re going to go now and start our own team.” This was reformation in the standard sense in that it followed the model of Luther and Calvin and the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915. Channing’s reformation caused a break from the traditional understandings and began a new group. That was the last major break-away style reform in our history. All our subsequent reforms moved forward while still holding earlier understandings. We grew beyond liberal Protestant Christianity as it was articulated by Channing, but we have kept some of the liberal Protestant Christians. We grew beyond Theism, but have kept many Theists. We grew beyond Atheistic Humanism, but we have kept a bunch of Atheistic Humanists.

One facet of this I want to lift up, if only because it is often neglected when we talk about Channing and his sermon, is that this was sound Biblical preaching. Channing reached the conclusions he reached not because they made sense to him in some abstract way, but because these are the conclusions he found upon careful study of scripture. And further, scriptures authority, for Channing, was supported by the miracles.

Perhaps you are wondering why this sermon is called “Emerson’s Reformation” when I spend all my time discussing Channing’s reformation. I’m getting to that. To fully appreciate the amazing reform that Emerson inaugurated, we must grasp the environment in which that reform arose. Channing preached his Baltimore Sermon in 1819. Six years later, in 1825, the Unitarians organized themselves into the American Unitarian Association. A mere 13 years after that, in1838, not even a full twenty years after Channing started the new team, Emerson offers a radical reform.

Conrad Wright, editor of the book, Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism: Channing Emerson, Parker characterized it this way: “Channing took the liberal wing of New England congregationalism, fastened a name to it, and forced it to overcome its reluctance to recognize that it had become, willy-nilly, a separate and distinct Christian body. Emerson cut deeply at the traditional philosophical presuppositions of the Unitarianism of his day, so that it was never thereafter possible for Unitarians to return to the position that Christianity is based on the authority of Christ as the unique channel of God’s revelation to humanity.” (p3-4) Emerson, and to a great extent Parker right after him, universalized us. He took Unitarianism beyond liberal Christianity by emphasizing the primacy and universality of the religious impulse.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was born two hundred years ago in the spring of 1803. He studied to become a Unitarian minister and saw Channing as all the young ministers of the time saw him: a grand and wise model to follow. Emerson, however, did not remain in the ministry, and though he did remain a Unitarian, his greatest contributions to our movement came after he had severed significant ties to Unitarianism. Technically he left the church over Communion. At the time, communion was a regular part of the worship life of Unitarians. Biographer Robert D. Richardson, Jr. in his book, Emerson, The Mind on Fire, puts it this way; “He found the Communion ceremony meaningless because it reduces Communion to eating and drinking.” (p125)
Emerson left the ministry, traveled and began his career as an essayist and lecturer. During that time his personal philosophy underwent a radical expansion. This was partly shaped by the reading he was doing, partly from key intellectually supportive relationships, and partly from key losses he experienced. It all lead him to see that a religious life is not one filled with correct and reasoned interpretations of scripture or occupied by any number of external authorities and evidences. Richardson wrote that Emerson “had a powerful craving for direct, personal, unmediated experience. That is what he meant when he insisted that one should strive for an original relation to the universe. Not a novel relation, just one’s own.” (p3) Emerson’s first book, Nature, was about the relationship between humanity and nature with this deeply religious thread running through it which takes shape in that question: “Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?” “Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?”

This very simple idea undercut so very much of the traditional religious philosophy of the time, indeed of our time as well. Why should we read in scripture about the experiences of others, should not we also have experiences worthy of being written down in holy books? Why should we go through sacramental rituals commemorating the experiences of others, should not we also experience the sacrament of communion in the regular course of our lives?

Now, his ideas would not have a big an impact on us until another major event brought it to us. Emerson was invited by the graduating students of the Harvard Divinity School to deliver the graduation address in 1838. One must wonder why the Harvard Divinity School invited him to speak when he was known to have taken such radical steps away from commonly held beliefs and understandings. I can only guess that it was because the choice was made by the students, not by the teachers. It was on this occasion, with a sentiment similar to that of his first book, that he initiated a transcendentalist reformation within not only the stayed rationalism of Boston Unitarianism but also the broader culture. He advised them to let their lives show through in their preaching. Many a preacher now loves this line: “The true preacher can be known by this; that [you] deal out to the people [your] life – life passed through the fire of thought.” And near the end of his address he offered this: “Let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse all good models, even those which are sacred in the imagination of [humanity], and dare to love God without mediator or veil.” This was a remarkably scandalous suggestion!

Emerson was a remarkably well read and intelligent man. The biography by Richardson that I’ve been reading is filled with accounts of what Emerson was reading when this or that event was going on in his life. Richardson says, “Over the years, Emerson’s openness to science kept his thoughts ballasted with fact and observation and his writing anchored solidly in the real world.” (p142) Emerson’s call to refuse all good models is not a call to ignore the thoughts and writings of other people’s experiences. Instead it is a call to also have your own experiences and to value your own above all others.

The impact of this call to reform was profound and the impact was momentous. The response within Unitarianism was strong, both to the positive and to the negative. Yet we managed at that time to stay one group despite the tremendous gap between the two opposing predominant views. But here is the best part: because this reform did not cause a permanent split or a break for the old when the new ideas arose, we ended up holding both stories positively. At our beginning there were rational liberal Christian Unitarians and experiential transcendental Unitarians on the same team.

And perhaps that sounds a little familiar? Today many people are joining our churches with a great desire to experience spirituality in their worship and daily life. Today we also have rational skeptics with a strong desire for intelligent conversation about principles and values and what we are going to do. There is some healthy tension around this. I feel that tension within myself regularly. We owe a debt of gratitude, not only to Channing and Emerson, the first reformers from the Unitarian branch of our family, but more so to the people at that time and their ability to some how navigate that tension, that we now have the gift to experience our version of it as well.

Emerson’s reform did not exclude reason, it simply claimed reason alone without experience insufficient. I encourage you to use reason in the interpretation of scripture of all kinds. And yet, when you read of the ideas and experiences of others, don’t forget to have your own as well! “Refuse all good models, dare to love God without mediator or veil.”

In a world without end,
May it be so.

The Exploitation Of Progress

The Exploitation Of Progress

Rev. Douglas A Taylor

10-12-03

As much as I don’t like to admit it, I have more in common with the generalizations about my generation than otherwise.  Whenever possible I like to think that because I married and had children at a young age I have somehow jumped off the main track, and am therefore outside the standard by which my generation is labeled.  Add to that our decision to home school and my vocation in Unitarian Universalist ministry, I like to think I’ve neatly side-stepped every possible stereotype or generalization about any group with which I am associated.  But it’s just not true.  I am a member of the Generation X according to most definitions.  I missed the tail end of being a Baby Boomer by just a few years.  Generation X, according to most definitions, starts a year or two before 1970 and goes through 1980 or maybe 1985.  There is some contention about the dates and who really fits where, but generally, we come in right after the Baby Boomers wrap up.  When you hear people talking about “Young Adults” age 18 – 35 or age 24 – 35, that’s where the Generation X is right now.

The main point of drawing generational boundaries is to be able to catagorize the different groups and make generalizations about them, whether accurate or not, so marketers will know who their target audience is.  “GenXers” are characterized as politically disengaged and socially apathetic.  Not that they are overly materialistic and money-hungry though, they seem to be ambivalent in that race as well.  Analysis of what is behind this characteristic of disengagement tends to turn up essays about cynicism and distrust of the social and political systems.

So this is where I find myself connecting with the other people in my generation.  I identify with the motivation for the disengagement even though I am not disengaged.  I recognize within myself the frustration slouching toward apathy in regard to the dysfunctional government which is “serving” the American people today.  And though it be tempered by my faith in humanity, I know the impulse to write off the majority of society as a assemblage of self-absorbed materialistic people who are overly-focused on whatever their televisions tell them is important.  The stereotypical perspective of a GenXer is quite jaded and not altogether hopeful.

And yet there is something to that point of view.  It does seem like at some point the lofty ideals of independence, self-rule and the American Dream became a base desire on the part of each individual just to “get my share and then some.”  The high ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness became truncated into just the unfettered pursuit of happiness, (except what constitutes “happiness” is more and more regularly defined for us by interest groups and product marketers.)   I have days when I really do think like this.  The cynicism has a certain attractiveness.  Thankfully days like these are rare, but they do occur.  Usually, I waver around a more nuanced and realistic (though admittedly hopeful) impression of our current situation.

And then we bump into a holiday for flag-waving and store-wide sales of specially marked items.  We bump into Columbus day.  I bump into Columbus day with that Generation X-style jaded view.  It seems to me there are certain holidays on the calender that serve only two functions, they create an extra long weekend and an opportunity for stores to have a sale.  The distinctive purposes of these “lesser” holidays seems to have faded in the mind of the average consumer.  But these holidays did each have, at one point, a reason.  Columbus Day is intended to be a celebration remembering the great accomplishments of Christopher Columbus who discovered the New World.  I bump into Columbus Day and recall its distinctive purpose with a good bit of ambivalence.

Columbus, or at least the history book version of Columbus, embodies many of the reasons for my generations critical dissatisfaction with politics and society.  Columbus sailed across the Atlantic in search of the eastern shores of Asia.  He arrived among what we now know as the Caribbean Islands, though to his death he contended that he had landed on the islands just east of Asia.  He established the first lasting European presence in the Americas and started the flow of materials across the ocean between the New and Old Worlds.  He also brought Spanish colonialism and war to the native peoples as well as European strains of disease.  And within a few short years, there was also a standard form of European feudalism in which the native population were the peasantry.  Within a generation whole tribes were wiped out, untold numbers of people dead or subjected to Spain’s imperialistic desires.

The legacy of Christopher Columbus demonstrates how the noble goal of discovery can result in an egregious transgression against humanity.  He was a child of his times and he carried the conqueror’s ideology in his heart.  He saw his actions as progress.  He not only opened up the lands for new settlement and new resources for the old country, he did so for God and King.  Today, with an appreciation of the consequences of his actions, it is difficult to still honor the good and heroic elements of his story.  But I shall not attempt to redeem him this morning.  That is neither my task nor my wish.  Instead, Columbus Day Weekend is the starting point for my jaded, though hopeful, reflections on progress and discovery and the ways in which good ideas can sometimes become tools of destruction.

I was reminded of a bit of wisdom when I read the Letters to the Editor in yesterday’s paper. These are the “things that destroy us: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity and worship without sacrifice.  At least it is something to think about.”  I would add ‘progress and discovery without regard for consequences’ to that list this morning.  The way we go about discovering and progressing is in a significant way, more important than the discovery or the progress.

Personal progress is easy to get a handle on.  It typically involves making more money, or getting a better education or a job promotion (which usually means making more money.)  A broader sense of progress, progress as a society, is a little harder to define and measure; but it can be done.  Societal progress has been defined differently by different societies and at different times.  In the Middle-Ages, societal progress was defined as moral progress and the church was afforded enormous powers.  In Columbus’s time it was defined as the spread of Christianity and Kingdoms.  When the United States was formed people saw our salvation in a pure democratic government.  We considered ourselves on the cutting edge of progress because we had the best form of government.  At other times in our history military might, or education, or financial prosperity were the measure of progress.  Lately it seems technology has been where much of our energy has gone.  If only we could break through the next level of technological advance, (this line of thinking tells us,) we, as a people, will experience such progress.  As computers get smaller, buildings get bigger, and cell phones expand options and extras, the potential for progress is blooming!

At least, that is what we tell ourselves.  But I wonder, have we hit upon another moment where we are neglecting consequences, blinded by the dazzling possibilities of technological progress?  Now, I’m not a Ludite, I do believe technology has given and continues to give us great things and much progress.  Advances in medical technology and in the information sciences are amazing.  It is hard to argue against these advances.  This is progress.

The positive and negative consequences of some areas of advancement are not so clear.  There are some things which I hesitate to complain against, but still wonder about.  The ‘spell check’ on my word processor is a really wonderful technology, but I wonder if I might have become a better speller as an adult if I didn’t have ‘spell check.’  Did this progress of technology somehow stifle my growth?  This is but a minor curiosity rather than a concern of any significance.  There are more interesting and significant issues available.

Cloning and genetic modification are areas of progress which are still getting debate.  The realistic consequences of cloning are likely much tamer than the predictions made by Science Fiction novelists and conspiracy theory afficionados.  And yet I wonder if we could tinker with our genetic make-up to the point that we create something other than human.  Because I trust that if we could, some attempt would be made at it.  I’m not sure what it would take for genetic tinkering to cross that line, this may be the next great battleground between science and religion (or among religions.)  For now the possibilities offer much good as we progress along in this field of science.  However, the consequences of this are not fully realized, we would do well to proceed with care.

Other examples of technological progress with mixed blessings, both inane like spell check and profound like cloning, abound.  Certainly technology is not the only area of progress to be concerned over.  We’ve been eroding our environmental treasures in the name of progress for many decades.  The old Joni Mitchell tune “big Yellow Taxi” which starts out “Paved paradise, put up a parking lot,” was a big hit again recently.  The message still resonates.  Many families have both parents working, not for equality or independence on the part of one spouse or the other, but simply to make ends meet.  Then day care centers do a significant amount of the raising of our children and we call it progress.  But all this is not quite what I am after this morning.  I don’t worry about major ethical questions created from social or scientific progress because I know they will be debated and explored.  What has me upset is the lack of conversation around what all this progress has done to the general attitude of our society.

The idea of progress is so alluring.  We love to have progress.  One could almost say our most remarkable progress is in the area of progress itself.  We have so much of it now.  And here is where I think we bump into trouble: We have so much progress so quickly.  We have become impatient for progress.  We don’t like to wait.  The book, Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything by James Gleick talks about this sort of thing.  He makes the point that people who design new technologies know that the public is impatient for the next new thing.

New roads aren’t being built fast enough to meet the volume of traffic or anticipated traffic, and we are impatient about the roads rather than wondering why we all need so many cars.  Fast food restaurants, (and I’m using the term ‘restaurant’ loosely here,) have sometimes set up express lanes, and people grow impatient at how long it takes to get through the drive-thru; but only recently have we begun to wonder about the American trend toward obesity and unhealthy diets. Cell phones and computers are outdated within a year or less after they hit the market.  And people are used to this now and accept it.  Indeed some are impatient at how slow new stuff comes available.  We think we have progress; but as Gleick tries to tease out in his book, in the name of progress, our shared cultural values have become efficiency and convenience.  (So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)  We talk about how the latest new batch of technological gizmos are great because they either are smaller or work faster.  They are efficient.  They make us efficient.  They are convenient.  In some senses they make us convenient.

When societal progress was measured by our moral progress, the dominant social values were piety and charity.  When it was measured by our governmental progress, the dominant social values were a strong work ethic and staunch independence.  Now we find ourselves measuring our progress as a society by how portable our computers are and how many different ringer songs we can program into our cell phones.  Our dominant social values seem to be efficiency and progress.  We find ourselves caught in a cycle of wanting faster connections and more information more quickly, so we enlist the aid of a number of time-saving devices and convenient technologies.  But instead of getting relief, these only heighten our need for more.  Insatiable impatience is one of the major consequences of this progress.

Now really!  What is the rush?  Surely there are more important things in our lives besides efficiency.  I sometimes wish I could issue a nationwide mandatory deep breath.  I recently taught Piran, our toddler, to take a deep breath.  He’ll be running around the room and getting wound up right before bed time, and I’ll get his attention and then do this (deep breath.)  Then he’ll look at me with a big grin like this is a new game and he’ll go (deep breath.)  It works.  He actually calms down.  Unfortunately, a communal deep breath would only help for a short time if at all.  But that may just be the jaded and cynical interpretation common to my generation coming out.  There has been, after all, a documented increase in religion and spirituality.  Maybe our society is trying to find a way to take a communal deep breath.  Maybe we are trying to figure out how to slow down.

Perhaps the best help for this situation, this seemingly unnoticed increase in impatience and its connection to our progress, would be to look to some of the other values in our society and try to encourage those.  Maybe the best any of us can do is recognize when we feel trapped in the impatience born of progress and take that deep breath or help someone else to.  It’s worth a try.

In a World without end,

May it be so

Have an Easy Fast

Have an Easy Fast

A Yom Kippur sermon

Rev. Douglas Taylor

10/5/03

“Now is the time for turning.  The leaves are beginning to turn from green to red and orange.  The birds are beginning to turn and are heading once more toward the South.  The animals are beginning to turn to storing their food for the winter.  For leaves, birds, and animals turning comes instinctively.”  Thus begins a reading full of imagery about autumn, but this is just the lead in.  The reading is about Yom Kippur, but it begins by showing how the natural world just turns because that is part of what it means to be the natural world.  The reading goes on, “But for us turning does not come easily.  It takes an act of will for us to make a turn.  It means breaking with old habits.  It means admitting that we have been wrong; and that is never easy.  It means losing face; it means starting over all over again; and this is always painful.  It means saying: I am sorry.  It means recognizing that we have the ability to change.  These things are hard to do.  But unless we do turn, we will be trapped forever in yesterday’s ways.”  (from hymnal, #634, Jack Riemer)

A predominant theme in the Yom Kippur season is that of turning.  Turning from callousness and indifference, turning from pettiness and hostility.  Turning and returning to that which is holy, that which is good.  Turning back to our best selves.  “Now is the time for turning.”

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the Jewish year.  It comes as the tenth day of the Days of Awe, the first day of which is Rosh Hashanah, the new year.  The ten days of the new year are called the Days of Awe because people feel fear as well as reverence during this special time of judgment and forgiveness.  Yom Kippur, in particular is a day of fasting, of self-reflection, and of seeking and offering forgiveness.

One of the techniques of spiritual cleansing is fasting.  Many people celebrate Yom Kippur by take no food or water from sunset to sunset.  This year, Yom Kippur begins at sunset tonight and lasts through to sunset tomorrow.  A common greeting on at this time is “Have an easy fast.”  Fasting is a spiritual practice common to many religious groups.  I used to wonder why people still put themselves through this physically denying spiritual practice, until I found the following quote in (of all places,) a Christian Spirituality book by Marjorie Thompson.  “In ancient Jewish tradition,” she writes, “fasting had two primary purposes.  The first was to express personal or national repentance for sin. …  The second purpose of a fast was to prepare oneself inwardly for receiving the necessary strength and grace to complete a mission of faithful service in God’s name.”  Nowadays people generally see fasting as somewhat senseless, even repugnant.  Images of ascetic abuse through this life-denying, restrictive spirituality linger in the public mind.  But many who fast do so with moderation and find it to be a time of reflection on life and on that which sustains us spiritually in the way that food sustains us physically.  In previous years I have fasted (of food only, I’ll still took water) from sunset on Yom Kippur through until the next evening.  I already know that my schedule this evening and tomorrow is not going to allow me to fast, but as a semi-observant non-Jew, I will find a sunset to sunset this coming week during which I will fast this year.  I encourage any of you who are in decent health to fast for Yom Kippur.  Perhaps you will find you need to take part in this in some modified way, as I am.  If at all possible, try it and see what it is like.  The topic for our reflection is forgiveness.

Forgiveness is one of the major themes of Yom Kippur. There is a prevalent story about forgiveness that has a way of turning up in UU minister’s columns about this time of year.  In the story a humble shopkeeper sits down to make a list of all his misdeeds and sins over the course of the year, a common activity during the ten Days of Awe for observant Jews.  At the same time, however, the shopkeeper made a second list as well, detailing the woes in the world attributable to God.  When he finished he looked at the two lists and said out loud.  “All right.  I was not honest about the freshness of that fruit I sold last month, but you let that little girl down the street die from disease.  I let my temper get the best of me when I was talking with my brother, but you created mosquitoes.  I took your name in vain when I hit my thumb with the hammer, but that storm a few weeks back ruined a lot of the crops of the farmers in this area. …”  And on it went until at last the shop keeper said, “So I’ll tell you what; If you’ll forgive me, I’ll forgive you.  We’ll call it even and start fresh with the new year.”

This wonderful little story got me thinking.  First, about the tenacity often found in Jewish stories.  I love that.  The other thing that struck me was that this is the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people, and they spend it going through the remarkably difficult task of moral inventory and the seeking and offering of forgiveness.  Every year!  In a sense, Yom Kippur is Judgment day, and it comes every year.

I met a Unitarian professor once who shared the following outline of his own spiritual discipline.  He said that before he went to bed, he would pour himself a cognac, sit in his big easy chair with the lights low sipping his drink, and he would think back on the day and try to see the ways in which the things he had said and done that day had hurt someone, or caused another pain. And he would also think on the things others had said or done which he had found hurtful.  And then he would say a little prayer of forgiveness and go to bed, knowing that tomorrow would be a new day.  I have found that one can even do this daily ritual without the alcoholic drink.

As Unitarian Universalists we often say that every day is a new day, and that the beloved community is something we live for in the present.  If this is truly our belief, we must accept, therefore, that every day is also judgment day.  We ought not put off to another day the important matters of the soul.  Most of us, however, do not have the time and the where with all to do a daily personal moral inventory.  So when an opportunity such as Yom Kippur presents itself, we would do well to take heed.

With this in mind, I have begun to make my list for this year.  Before I started doing this for Yom Kippur, the closest I ever got to this kind of personal moral inventory was when I would list my strengths and weaknesses during some of those soul-searching times of seminary.  But weaknesses are not necessarily sins or moral misdeeds.  My weaknesses are things like, “I need to improve my self-care skills.  I have poor organizational skills.  I have trouble asking for help when I’m in over my head.”  These are not moral issues.  Nowhere does it say “Thou shalt not write thy phone messages on little scraps of paper and then lose them.  To lose your little scraps of paper is an abomination before me.”  It doesn’t say that.

This moral self-inventory people go through during the Days of Awe are about specific actions, not general character flaws.  We need to push ourselves with questions like, “was I honest in my dealings with other people, was I greedy, did I think of the needs of others, was I kind?”  How about the commandments.  Have I broken any of the commandments?  If my wife says I have a few gray hairs and I say, “No I just have some hair going blond.”  Is that a sin?  Is it lying, as in “thou shalt not bear false witness”É”Even unto thy whiskers”?

Part of making this list is figuring out just what goes on the list.  Lingering animosity toward a family member; a grudge against a coworker or a neighbor; displays of disrespect to your parents, your boss, your children; and any special promises made and not kept:  All this and the like would go on a person’s list.

Let me tell you another story told during this season.  This is about what is happening in heaven during the Days of Awe.  One of the ways people used to speak of God was to say God is like a king or a judge.  This was a helpful way for the people to understand God.  A story grew from this concept of God as a judge.  In the story there is a heavenly court where two angels act as lawyers for the people.  Senegor, the good angel defends the people.  Kategor, who was the HaSatan, accuses the people.

HaSatan, incidentally, it the title of a member of the Persian court.  The role of the HaSatan was to present opposition to all of the king’s proposals.  This was to help the king see where he might be going wrong.  Something he might otherwise not see with everyone else in the court trying to please the king and make the king feel smart and special and all that.  So, surrounded by “yes men,” the King had the HaSatan to test the proposals.  The HaSatan was, in our modern vernacular, the devil’s advocate.  This court figure became a part of the heavenly court and we see him in Hebrew scripture (which some of you will know as the Old Testament.)  He is in the Book of Job, only he is missing the first syllable of his title and is know from then on a Satan.

Back to the story.  Each year there are three books open before God.  The Book of Life, the Book of Death, and the Book of Judgment.  The names of good and saintly people are already inscribed for the year in the Book of Life.  The names of the wicked are already inscribed for the year in the book of death.  All the rest of us have our names listed in the third book, the Book of Judgment.  Throughout the ten-day period known as the Days of Awe, each person’s name comes up for review.  Senegor argues that the name should go into the Book of Life.  Kategor wants it to be entered into the Book of Death.  The books remain open for the whole ten days, and people spend this time confessing, atoning, and repenting to help assure that their name will be found in the Book of Life for another year.  Nothing is final until the books are sealed shut at the end of Yom Kippur.  So you have until Monday evening.  Now, I don’t want you to get too worried about this because the story holds that Kategor has never won a case.  But then, Kategor is clever and catches good people in their daily life.  Many a person, it is said, has lost their life to evil ‘though their names had been in the Book of Life.  One accounting Rabbis have offered to try to explain evil is to say that God created a wonderful world and it is up to us to find a way to end evil.

Stories like this one spur people to act on the lists they have made.  Making a list is not enough.  To get to forgiveness, there are a few more steps involved.  Forgiveness is not an easy thing to grasp intellectually; nor is it easy to follow through with in daily life.  In previous years, it has been one of the most trying lessons for my children.  Forgiveness really involves three steps: confession, atonement, and repentance.

Confession:  First you must admit to what errors you have made over the course of the year.  Maybe it is just a list of names, maybe it is a more detailed list.  Making this list, either mentally or in a journal or in a letter, is a powerful cleansing activity.

Second, 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.  It doesn’t do you any good to hold onto your anger and animosities against others for long times.  Let it go.  I’m not saying, “let people be mean to you” or “let others walk all over you;” but there comes a time when your anger towards others is hurtful to your own soul.  Let it go.  Maybe you will burn you list in a small fire and say a little prayer to God, to the universe, to yourself, saying, “I am sorry, forgive me.  I forgive you.”  And further, to atone, to be ‘at one,’ we may need to do more than just say “sorry.”  Sometimes we need to make amends.  Often, people will perform service to atone with God and themselves; service such as donating money to charity, visit the sick and imprisoned, feeding the hungry.

Often making amends leads into the third step to forgiveness, which is Repentance.  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.  As the leaves are beginning to turn colors and the birds are starting to turn to warmer climates, so too, we turn inward to consider the process of forgiveness:  Confession, Atonement, and Repentance. We promise to return to our best selves.

In world without end

May it may so

Designing Your Own Religion

Designing Your Own Religion

Rev. Douglas Taylor

9-28-03

A few years ago I was sitting in a Portland, Oregon coffee shop with an old friend catching up.  This was a friend who had grown up with me in the church, was my best friend, had been the best man at my wedding, and is the godfather of my two older kids.  We hadn’t seen each other in a while, and it was great that I was in town for some conference or another and we had this chance.  We talked about what has been going on for each of us over the past few years.  We talked about mutual friends and memories of younger days.  We had not really had a chance to talk like this since I began ministry.  He asked me how that was going and he said, “Yeah, I don’t know.  I’ve been thinking I might need to go back to church.”  He smiled, like he was suddenly embarrassed and this was confession time. “Why?” I asked, resisting the scripted part I was supposed to play where I encourage my friend strongly to return to church, he makes promises, we part company, and nothing changes.

So instead, I ask, “Why?  Why do you think you might need to go back to church?”  My friend hemmed and hawed a bit before saying something about how church would help him figure out how all the different stuff in his life fit together.  My friend grew up as a Unitarian Universalist, but he is still one of those vast number of souls out there who are hungering for something spiritual, but are uncertain how to get it or whether it is a hunger that can be served within organized religion, even within an organized religion as disorganized as ours tends to be.  But here we are and lots of people come searching.

There is a noticed increase nationwide in church attendance across denominations over the past ten years.  The Pew Research Council put out a survey on this recently and when compared with earlier data, we Americans show a marked increase in membership to religious institutions.  People like my old friend are longing for richer connections and yearning for deeper meaning.

Well, journalists and editors over at the local newspaper, Press & Sun Bulletin, picked up on this trend and ran a series of articles focusing on “how people approach religion, what they get from it, and how it affects their daily lives.”  Over the course of last year starting in September of 2002 there have been ten major articles touching on differing aspects of Southern Tier religious life.  We Unitarian Universalists were noted and quoted a few times.  There was an article on “Church Shopping around the Holiday times” and one on “Politics in the Pulpit,” both of which referred to our congregation and contained a quote or two from the Rev. David Leonard.  And then finally, in the last article of the series, we became the feature rather than just an additional perspective.  The headline was, as you can see in the order of service where I used this as the reading, “Designing Your Own Religion.”  The second page headline of the article goes a step further, it says, “Designing your own religion isn’t easy –“

It was a great article, I mean, from a public relations perspective, it doesn’t get better than having the new minister quoted in the paper on his first official day in the pulpit!  There was a big attractive picture of the church on the front of the Lifestyle section, the smiling face of one of our members featured prominently in that same picture as well as in the banner on the front page of the A section.  It was good publicity.  Now, that said, I will start to complain a little bit.  The point of an article such as this is to highlight something most people would find interesting, but have not likely ever heard of; something unusual.  I think we do seem pretty unusual to mainstream religious folks.  Most church-going people would find it remarkably unusual to read about a congregation where each person is not only allowed, but also expected, to have very different beliefs, which don’t conform to any of the regular creedal statements.  Most, non-church-going folks have some idea from television and movies what church is supposed to look like, and this ain’t it.

Now, we are different in some fairly significant ways from the mainstream religious culture.  A recent billboard and bumper sticker advertising campaign in the mid-west has characterized Unitarian Universalism as the “Uncommon Denomination.”  But I wonder sometimes if the ways in which we are different translates well or if we just end up looking like an oddity; a rare blip of weird on the radar screen of religions.

I imagine there were quite a few questions bouncing around in people’s heads after that article.  Questions like, “If you don’t have any sacred text or shared beliefs, do you each just make it up for yourself?”  Or, to word it as it has been phrased before, “Can you believe anything you want?”  Another question might be, “If you each believe your own thing, why do you bother being a group together?”  Another version of that might be, “If it isn’t beliefs or scripture, then what is at the center of your worship service?”  And I imagine many people wondered,  “Just what is a Mobius Strip?”

As best as I can explain it, it all rests on the freedom of conscience.  One religious leader once wrote that conscience is a gift from God and cannot be coerced.  When I talk of “Conscience” in this way, I am not talking about the “Jiminy Cricket” kind of Moral Conscience by which one is able to tell right from wrong morally.  Most people talk about conscience along those lines when they say some criminal has no conscience or when a child has a guilty conscience about having stolen a piece of candy.  That’s not quite what is meant by this phrase Freedom of Conscience.  I don’t mean freedom of Moral Conscience.

Religious Conscience is similar to that inner moral judgment, only broader.  It is an inner light, an inner knowledge of sorts, similar to intuition or reason.  It rarely has anything to do with guilt.  It has more to do with belief.  And so, with questions like “If you don’t have any sacred text or shared beliefs, do you each just make it up for yourself?”  And “Can you believe anything you want?”  We respond: no, we do not believe as we want, we believe as we must.  We believe as our conscience demands.  It is not that we totally ignore all the conclusions and answers ever arrived at and written down, it is simply that answers from the past are not the final arbiter of truth among us.

You tell me which makes more sense: believing only what an organization tells you is true, or believing what your conscience within you tells you is true.  If your deep personal beliefs are about the same as the statements of faith read out at the place where you worship, then all is well.  But if your conscience and the creeds of your congregation are in conflict then you’ve got an issue.  In too many religious groups if there is a conflict between traditional sacred beliefs and an individual’s conscience, the individual must either alter his or her conscience somehow or leave the group.  In too many religious groups if there is a conflict between beliefs and reality, all attempts are made to adjust reality to fit the beliefs.  Here, we fit our beliefs to reality.

This is what we mean by Freedom of Conscience.  Each person’s way of accessing that which is holy is as unique as a fingerprint.  There is not a “right way” to do it.  Instead, each person has her or his way to do it.  If your conscience leads you to believe in God in a way that is inconsistent with mainstream doctrines and traditional beliefs, you are welcome here.  If your conscience leads you to remain uncertain about God, you are welcome here.  If your conscience leads you to reject the concept of God in favor of other life-giving interpretations, you are welcome here.  If you are a seeker of a new faith, if you are coming home again, if you are a weary spirit in need of rest, you are welcome here.  As it was written in the opening words Debby and I read at the beginning of our time together, “Whoever you are, whatever you are, wherever you are on your journey, we bid you welcome.” (SLT, #422)  We pitch a large tent here, metaphorically.  (The tent outside this morning for the book sale is a pretty big tent, but our metaphorical tent is bigger.)  It is hard to be an extremist here because we contain such a breadth of theological diversity.

This leads into the next question I imagined might come from this article three weeks ago.  “If you each believe your own thing, why do you bother being a group together?”  Another version of that might be, “If it isn’t beliefs or scripture, then what is at the center of your worship service?”  Indeed this is a significant question.  Unlike the first question I imagined, which uncovered a basic misunderstanding about external vs. internal sources of truth, this question points to a very real struggle for us.

I’m reading a book now for an interfaith religious study group here in town.  The book is Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels.  The chapter I’m in now is about the Gospel of Thomas, which is sometimes known as the Gnostic Gospel.  Specifically, this chapter addresses the differences between the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John, both of which were written around the same time.  I stumbled upon a few sentences that I thought were very helpful for this very question.  “Thomas’s gospel encourages the hearer not so much to believe in Jesus, as John requires, as to seek to know God through one’s own, divinely given capacity, since all are created in the image of God.” (p34)  This is where we’ve been already.  This is the spark of divine within each soul that the Quakers talk about.  This is the Kingdom of God within that theologians wrote about in the Middle Ages.  This is the new covenant written on the heart of which the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah spoke.  This is the freedom to hear God speak to you through your conscience.  This idea is far from new and it shouldn’t be all that radical, but it is.  Why?  Well, the next sentence in that book goes on with this:  “For Christians in later generations, the Gospel of John helped provide a foundation for a unified church, which Thomas, with its emphasis on each person’s search for God, did not.”(Ibid)  So, you can see a hint here as to why one version made it into the Bible and the other did not.

It is admittedly difficult to provide a foundation for a unified religious organization when we have this emphasis on each person’s individual search of the truth and meaning.  And yet, here we are!  Most religious groups, particularly most Christian groups, gather around particular beliefs.  Unitarian Universalists gather around a shared process of uncovering religious truth.  One way I have characterized us is to say we are covenanting seekers.  A covenant is a religious way of talking about the promises we make to one another, and usually to God as well, about how we will treat one another.  The seven principles from the Principles and Purposes statement are a covenant.  This is not a creed or a faith statement which all assent to.  It is a set of promises we strive toward.  We are covenanting seekers, spiritual pilgrims on the road together helping each other along the way with encouragement and occasional constructive criticism.

Our goal as a religious community is not to teach people the right answers or the correct interpretations.  Our goal is to provide opportunities for engagement with the issues of ultimate and intimate importance in our lives.  So we have a course every now and then, such as “Building Your Own Theology” where people can do the integrative work of drawing deep meaning out of the life experiences they have had.  The image of designing your own religion is not quite accurate because the religion is ours, not yours or mine alone.  Certainly we each have the freedom and responsibility to work out our own beliefs.  The “designing your own” part of that is right.

I have bandied about several metaphors this morning.  We talk about being religion designers and belief builders.  We talk about being seekers and pilgrims.  I even made references to fingerprints and big tents.  The image I like best is that of being on a journey.  I think my headline for us would read: Pilgrims on the Path of Faith.  We may not all be walking down the same path, but we are walking together, and that is what matters.

In a world without end,

May it be so.