Archive for November, 2009

Thanksgiving Table Prayer

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

Abundant God, Spirit of Life,
We thank you for the food we’re about to enjoy,
for the fruits of the good earth,
and the labor of human hands which brought them to our table.

We give thanks for the friends gathered in this home,
for the warmth of fellowship
and the chance to break bread together.

Spirit of Life, be with all those who go wanting this Thanksgiving:
with those who do not have a warm home or enough food,
and with those whose hearts are lonely or cold.
Help us be emissaries of the Spirit
and show compassion to all those in need.

For all the blessings of our life,

[People may name their thanksgivings aloud]

We give thanks.

Amen.

Forgiveness

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Wednesday is Veteran’s Day, the day we honor all those who have fought for our country. Veteran’s Day was established on Armistice Day, the day the Great War ended, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Now we are engaged in two dreary and unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars in which American deaths have been relatively low. Still, we feel those deaths keenly because they have been so unnecessary. Regardless of the conflict, we honor our veterans, no matter what war they served in, or whether they served with enthusiasm or out of necessity. We honor the commitment our soldiers, marines, sailors and airborne make to their country. Many of you have family members in the armed services, some of whom are overseas, or have been, or will be. I offer them my thanks for their service. Their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way to serve their country protects me and makes possible the arts of peace. Whether their wars are just or not, their service is noble.

Whatever reason women and men have for signing on to defend their country, however, they never expect to be attacked by one of their own. On Thursday afternoon, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time, an army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on his Army base in Fort Hood, Texas. He killed twelve soldiers and one civilian, and thirty other people were wounded in the ensuing fight. The soldiers were being prepared to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan when they were shot; the psychiatrist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had recently learned that he, too, was to deploy to Afghanistan. The shootings represent the worst incident of soldier-on-soldier violence in United States history. Major Hasan was wounded himself in the incident, and is recovering in an army hospital under guard. Now, the country is mourning with the families of those killed and praying for the fast and full recovery of those injured. In time, however, when Major Hasan recovers and must answer for his crime, the much harder work of understanding and reconciliation must begin.

Not that the victims, their families, or we as a country should excuse what Hasan did. His actions were horrific. His cousin Nader, speaking for the family, expressed sorrow and shock at his kinsman’s actions. The men and women killed and hurt in Hasan’s attack were serving their country faithfully for all the usual reasons: because they are patriots, because they are working for a better life for themselves and their families, because they believe that America can make a difference in the world. Hasan himself was the son of immigrants and a twelve-year veteran of the army. The men and women Hasan killed knew that they might be asked to give their lives in battle, in service to the needs of their country. They never expected to lose their lives on the seeming safety of their base in Texas.

In his role as a psychiatrist, Hasan heard soldier after soldier describe the horrors of war as he treated them for post traumatic stress disorder. He treated soldiers maimed by war. He was taunted for his Islamic faith. He begged to get out of his deployment. He asked a lawyer whether, if he paid back the army for the cost of his medical training, he could quit. The answer was no. Someone with his name, in the days before the shootings at Fort Hood, had posted opinions on the writing website Scribd which were sympathetic to suicide bombers overseas. There is no way of knowing, at this early stage, whether that writer Nidal Hasan was also Major Nidal Hasan. None of these traits explain or excuse what Major Hasan did. He is not the only soldier to want to avoid deployment, to want to escape the army before his time is up, or to be ridiculed by his fellow soldiers. That servicemen and -women serve their country faithfully and well despite these obstacles is why we honor them and their service. What Hasan did is horrific and inexcusable.

It is inexcusable, but is it unforgivable? What does it mean to forgive someone of their wrongs? I think there are three kinds of forgiveness, each harder than the one that comes before. Forgiveness is a spiritual posture in the world, a commitment we make to ourselves and to that which we hold most sacred. It is never a single act but a way of being and responding to those around us. The first kind of forgiveness is to forgive slights and insults as they happen, barely even hearing the wrong before we have forgiven it. This is the kind of forgiveness John Ames espouses in Marilynne Robinson’s novel Gilead. His wife is decades younger than he is and he met her when she was a new member of the church where he served as minister (although perhaps that was less scandalous in 1950s Iowa than it would be today). “If a few people did make remarks [about my marriage],” Ames thinks, “I just forgave them so fast it was as if I never heard them, because it was wrong of them to judge and I knew it and they should have known it (230).” Ames–who struggles with forgiveness for the entire novel, which is itself, along with its sequel Home, is an extended meditation on forgiveness–tries to encounter the world with the posture of forgiveness. His goal is to pardon before he even hears. He tries to assume the best of other people. You can imagine his thoughts when people said something slightly insulting of his wife. “They don’t really mean that,” he might think, or, “They’ve already realized that wasn’t a kind thing to say.” Of course, there are drawbacks to this kind of forgiveness. It imposes a barrier between the two people, a barrier that almost seems like superiority. Ames does not tell these unnamed “people” that their words have hurt him; he just shrugs off their petty insults and goes on his way. A moment for authentic human sharing was lost in the name of cordial relations. Good for society, but not the basis of a close relationship.

Not that this kind of preemptive forgiveness is not a part of our closest relationships. Healthy marriages, after all, are built on the ability to let your spouse’s many deficiencies go unremarked. But close relationships sometimes require a more searching kind of forgiveness. In our ongoing relationships with family and friends, we use a second kind of forgiveness: really getting over the hurt involved. Time sometimes does this for us. I had a good friend in college, my roommate for one year, who stayed in New York to live with her fiance after graduation. Of all my friends in college, she was one with whom I seemed to have least in common. She was African American and from a poor family in Texas; I was white and middle-class. Her room was always tidy; mine has ever been cluttered. She wrote and rewrote her stories and essays for class, crafting them to perfection. I wrote often at the last minute, hoping my thoughts would coalesce coherently on the page. We hardly knew each other before being thrown together as roommates in our second year, but we became fast friends. We discovered passions we held in common, especially for philosophy. We would go into each other’s bedrooms to discuss Plato and Locke at all hours of the day and night. We both loved reading good books. I visited her and her fiance in New York after graduation. Then, a few times after that, I came down to New York but stayed with a different friend. I tried to make plans with my roommate, but on two different occasions she wasn’t there at the agreed time and place. After the second time, as I made my way back to Boston, I decided I’d had enough. Let her get in touch with me for once, I thought.

She never did. We haven’t seen each other in about ten years, but I still remember our friendship with love and regret. Now, all these years out, I wonder if the fault lay completely with her. Was I was attentive a friend as I could have been? Didn’t I tease her fiance a little too pointedly on some occasions? All friendships are a two-way street, after all; what could I have done differently? And were two misunderstandings about getting together worth the loss of a cherished friendship? I have forgiven my friend and wish we could know each other again. We are now somewhat past the Jewish high holy day of Yom Kippur, when observant Jews think of all those whom they have wronged over the past year and seek their forgiveness. But thinking on this topic has led me back to that Yom Kippur practice, and I have written to my friend to see if we can reconnect. I would like to put aside the awkwardness of our lapsed friendship and try again. This kind of forgiveness involves forgiving myself as well as the other person. Part of it is realizing that I, too, bear responsibility for my hurt feelings–that, in fact, there may be hurt feelings on both sides. In my experience, awkwardness and wondering if I’m doing the right thing is part of what forgiveness of ourselves and others takes. The relationship requires that we reach out to one another despite all the reasons we can think of not to.

One writer has said that in forgiveness we must give up our right to righteous anger. Sometimes we are truly righteous in our anger. The families of those soldiers killed last week must feel anger burning through them, fighting for room inside them with their grief and disbelief. As a country, we feel this anger, that one man could wreak so much destruction on his fellow soldiers. Liberalism can sometimes get itself tied in moral knots trying to find reasons in the personal histories of those who commit atrocities to explain, if not excuse, their actions. If we were to discover that Major Hasan endured years of belittlement for his faith, or suffered a pathological fear of warfare, or even suffered from mental illness, those things might explain the murder he committed, but they would not excuse it. Unlike so many alleged mass murderers, Hasan survived his rampage. He is in the hospital and will likely recover. If indicted, he will face trial and our society will punish him for his crimes. As a society, we must condemn these actions, even as we seek the reasons behind them and seek to make them ever rarer.

Yet though they can’t excuse his actions, Hasan’s victims and their families may someday forgive him. Three years ago, on October 2 2006, a man shot and killed five girls in an Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. The sadness of that community is unimaginable. The girls ranged in age from seven to thirteen. Just two days after the shootings, the girls’ families and community said they were, with God’s help, forgiving the gunman and praying for his wife. Enos Miller, the grandfather of two of the girls who were killed, said that “in his heart” and “with God’s help” he was forgiving the gunman. Forgiveness like this, the third kind of forgiveness, has nothing to do with not feeling hurt anymore or “getting over” a wrong committed. It is all about refusing to let another person’s wrong actions eat away at your soul. It is doing your own work, through prayer, meditation, or counseling, to keep your sacred self whole regardless of what has been done to you. This forgiveness understands the Tao Te Ching, that if we treat another person as our enemy and actively fight against him, we damage something in ourselves. If we refuse to see the holy nature in another person, then it is obscured in us. If we, personally and as a country, are to find peace, it will be through the spiritual practice of forgiveness.

Please pray with me.

Holiness which is within us and around us, which some name mystery and others call God, hear our prayers this morning. Be with all those who suffer, and especially with those who are recovering from wounds in Fort Hood, Texas. Be with the families of those who died. Be their comfort and their strength in the hard weeks and months to come.

Be with all those who have lost loved ones to the violence of war, in this country and everywhere in the world. May they remember their children, their brothers and sisters, their husbands and wives, with love. May we honor the memories of those who have served their countries.

Help us find strength in our hearts to forgive one another when we are wronged, and to seek reconciliation with those whom we may have hurt. Help us not be too hasty to blame, and not be too proud to acknowledge when we have done wrong. Do not let our own worries stand between us and a friend. Be an encouragement to us as we seek to live in harmony with our neighbors and our enemies. Amen.

    Sources

Collins, Dan. “Amish Forgive, Pray, and Mourn.” CBS News.com. 4 Oct. 2006. Accessed 6 Nov. 2009.

Dao, James. “Suspect Was ‘Mortified’ About Deployment.” nytimes.com. 5 Nov. 2009. The New York Times A1. 6 Nov. 2009. Accessed 6 Nov. 2009.

Gjelten, Tom. “Hasan’s Story Won’t Be Easy to Sort Out.” NPR. All Things Considered. 6 Nov. 2009.

Robinson, Marilynne. Gilead. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2004.

Tao Te Ching. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. New York: HarperPerennial, 1988.

The Liberal Bible

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

My grandmother read the Bible every year. Starting in Genesis and making her way all the way through to Revelation, she sat up in bed in the evening reading three chapters a day and five on Sunday. She read different translations. Sometimes she read a little extra so she could get through an edition with the Old Testament apocrypha. She and my grandfather were charter members of their Presbyterian church in Coral Gables, Florida, a church that now has hundreds of members and a bilingual ministry. Until she became too frail to do so, she volunteered in her church’s charitable endeavors and supported its larger ministries. She was always seeking further truth and a deeper faith in the pages of scripture. She held up the compassionate and humane in religious stories. She pointed out that Joseph was a good man, because instead of divorcing Mary as soon as he knew she was pregnant by someone else, he decided to sleep on it. That night, an angel visited him in his dreams and told him to wed Mary, and trust in God’s plan. Her favorite Christmas hymn was “Good King Wenceslas” because it emphasized the compassionate mandate of Christmas, and indeed of Christianity. She could never be an elder of her congregation because the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. does not ordain women to such high positions of leadership. My grandfather served as an elder for years, and they discussed church issues over the dinner table. As my godmother, she conveyed to me a Christianity fundamentally based in the scripture, and in kindness to others. She knew no other doctrine.

I first read the Bible through, following Grandma’s example, my first year of college. I misremembered her instructions and read one chapter a day and five on Sunday, so it took me well into my sophomore year to finish. I was already an active Unitarian Universalist by that point, and was in the midst of deciding to pursue a calling to the ministry. Reading the Bible gave me a basis from which to move forward in my studies. At the time, I wasn’t conscious that it deepened my faith–I wasn’t entirely sure how to define my faith then. But I realized that it was not necessary to be a conservative Christian–even an open-minded, if traditional, sort of Christian like my grandmother–to get something out of the Biblical texts. The Bible offers us a rich heritage of writings from the Jewish and very early Christian tradition, and it is open to all.

The largest part of what we think of as “the Bible” includes the Jewish sacred scriptures–Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy–which are the Torah. They are complemented by other Jewish holy works: the prophets and the writings. Jews call these books collectively the Tanakh and Christians call them the Old Testament. Only a small portion of the Bible–the four gospels, the acts of the apostles, and the letters of early church leaders–are exclusively Christian works. And even the gospels and the letters of Paul are firmly rooted in the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a devout Jew whose life bears testament to his love of his tradition. His followers, who were also Jews, called Jesus “rabbi.” Paul was a Jewish zealot before his conversion to what we might call “Jesusism.” The church was in its infancy during his lifetime and was deeply divided about whether or not to admit Gentiles. It was in many ways one type of Jewish piety in the first century CE. The thick book Christians call “the Bible” is really a collection of dozens of books, written over the course of several hundred years and describing events that span two millennia. They were written by many authors and for many purposes, not all of them religious. What’s to stop liberal religionists like Unitarian Universalists from reading the Bible as well?

This morning’s reading was from the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the four gospels to be written. In this story from Jesus’ ministry, a rich but faithful man asks how he can be good like Jesus. The first thing the rabbi tells him is that he, Jesus, is not good; only God is good. Here, at the very beginning of the passage, is support for the Unitarian point of view. Jesus clearly differentiates between himself and the God he serves. God is good, Jesus says; he himself is only a man. And when Jesus’ questioner asks him what he needs to do to be a better person, Jesus quotes the commandments to him: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and your mother (10:19).” Elsewhere in the gospels, most notably in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the whole of the law can be summed up in the commandments to love God and love your neighbor. Here he elaborates on what it means to love your neighbors: treat them as God has commanded the people Israel since Moses’ time.

In his conversation with this man, Jesus goes on to add on one of his central messages about human behavior. He lovingly tells the man that he must sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. He says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God (10:25).” Jesus taught more about money and wealth than any other single topic in his recorded ministry. He was a prophet and a reformer, standing firmly within the Jewish tradition as he called that tradition back to itself. This has been the role of prophets in Judaism since the people of Israel made their home in Canaan.

Now, we could read this passage from Mark literally, and wonder why Jesus claims to be less good than God in this passage, when elsewhere he tells his disciples to “baptize [people] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19).” Or we could read the passage historically, and try to figure out whether Jesus ever really had an interaction like this with a rich man and his disciples. The historical approach is valuable here: since Jesus denies that he himself is good, this is likely an authentic saying (Tuckett 907). Personally, I find the historical approach much more fruitful than the literal. Yet I follow even a third way, in addition to the historical: listen for the truth behind the teaching. In this passage, a great spiritual leader instructs his followers that an authentic relationship to God is based on right relationships with others and common cause with the poor. He was not the first mystic leader to recognize this truth and he will not be the last. Jesus’ teachings can have power for religious liberals because they have a humanist and loving message within them. This thread of religious teaching is ours to claim wherever we find it.

Religious liberals have been mining their traditional scriptures for these messages for centuries. Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers and the third president of the United States, was one such reader. Jefferson was a Unitarian and a deist. Deism is the belief that God created the universe and set it in motion in the impossibly distant past. According to deism, God does not have any interaction with the ongoing life of the universe. God makes no intervention in human affairs; no special revelations to the faithful; no divine mark on history. Jefferson’s God was distant and actions in the moral universe were committed by human beings. These days, there is a lot of grandstanding about the faith of the founding fathers: pundits claim that the United States is a Christian nation, and that whatever nice language those fathers enshrined in the Constitution about freedom of religion, they really intended us to be a God-fearing, Jesus-loving country. Even in Jefferson’s own time, he was subject to this sort of prejudice. In his political life, he defended himself vigorously from those who wanted to tie his lack of traditional Christian faith to his civil leadership. When he was running for the presidency, certain factions in American society claimed loudly that Jefferson was “an infidel too impious to be president (Church 6).” Jefferson wrote to his friend the Universalist Benjamin Rush: “The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to [the] hopes [of these factions]. They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man (6-7).” Jefferson believed in a faraway God, and he revered Jesus of Nazareth as a teacher of morals to the minds of women and men. Far from being on the side of the fundamentalists, he believed in freedom of thought and reason above all else.

Jefferson had long had in mind a project of producing his own edition of the gospels, if only to satisfy his own intellectual curiosity and for his own use. He corresponded with Rush and fellow Unitarians Joseph Priestly and John Adams, men who were much more traditionally Christian than he was, about his project. The result, completed in 1820, was The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Jefferson took the gospels, in the original Greek, as well as in Latin, French and English, and cut out the sections that rang true to him. He pasted them together to form a gospel that was meaningful to him: the life and teachings of a great and holy man. He was not on a quest for the historical Jesus. Jefferson did not use the tools of historical researchers of his time or of our current moment; he did not ponder whether Jesus was certain or unlikely to have said a particular thing in a particular way. Jefferson didn’t include the passage we heard this morning, for instance, even though it has historical weight. He looked for passages that conveyed to him the great teachings of a great leader. Jefferson’s Jesus performs no miracles and heals only wounds of the spirit. His birth is unremarkable and he does not rise from the dead. Yet his lessons spoke their compelling truth even to a humanist like Jefferson.

Jefferson’s reading of the Bible was no less legitimate than that of his detractors, and no less legitimate than my grandmother’s. You may have heard the maxim that anything can be proof-texted in the Bible; that is, any point of view can be supported with a narrow reading of one verse or another. Proving something using the Bible is a fruitless task. But reading the Bible for personal enlightenment is available to anyone: to Christians, whether conservative or liberal, to deepen their faith; to Jews in the same way, whose sacred scripture is the Torah; to people outside of these traditions who wish to learn about the spiritual history of the people Israel, the moral teachings of the man Jesus, or the letters written by the leaders of the nascent Christian church. In this task we are only doing what Jesus himself did. We are trying to get directly at a source of our spiritual heritage, without the opinions of the centuries getting in the way. We are apprehending the spiritual understanding we have within ourselves. We are looking for teachings that lead us to be more humane and more just, wherever we may find them. Jefferson wrote to his friend Adams, “I am a Christian, in the only sense [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines…; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other (Church 30).” With Jefferson, we do not need to believe Jesus was divine or even unique to find wisdom and resonance in his teachings, any more than we need to believe those things of the Buddha or Muhammad or Isaiah. The Bible’s riches are open to us if only we have ears to hear its message of justice and faithfulness among people.

Please join me in prayer.

Spirit of truth that lives within us, give us your blessings and your wisdom. Help us to discern liberating and humane teachings from those that oppress and divide. Be within us that faculty which judges the good from the harmful, the helpful from the wicked, kindnesses from insult. Be a light in our minds and warmth in our hearts. Help us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Help us to love our enemies as our friends. Be our guide when the way is rocky and uncertain.

Spirit of all that is best in humanity, help us as a people to rise above our petty self-interests and unite together in seeking justice for all people and compassion for all living things. Bind us together across the divisions of race, creed and nationality. Help us see that our well-being is dependent upon the well-being of our brothers and sisters, whatever their circumstances. Lift our hearts up to compassion and bring us back to our best selves again.

Amen.

    Sources

All Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Introduction by Forrest Church. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Tuckett, C. M. “Mark.” The Oxford Bible Commentary. 2001 ed.

Blog relaunched

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Welcome back to the minister’s blog at starrkingfellowship.org! Or, should I say, the blog is happy to be back. This will be a place to find out what I’m thinking about and discuss spiritual issues. It will be a place to read my sermons and comment on them. It will be a place where I share the things I’m thinking about and invite you to think about them, too. You can find the blog at www.starrkingfellowship.org/ministerblog.

I will update the blog about three times per week, and I will post my sermons there. But the true function of the internet is not just to provide content for you to read, but also to invite your discussion of that content. After each post on the blog, there will be a space where you can leave your comments. I look forward to making this blog truly interactive.

Comments on a blog are a discussion of a kind, and any civil discussion needs some ground rules. I will not be formally moderating the comments; in other words, you will not need to submit comments to me before posting them. However, I will be reading comments daily, and I look forward to being part of the larger conversation. I also reserve the right to delete comments that don’t meet the civility standards of the blog. Here are some guidelines:

–Be considerate. Be just as considerate as if you were having a face-to-face conversation with the other commenters.

–No profanity.

–No ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with someone, be polite and address the substance of their remark.

–Keep content family-friendly. This is, in fact, required by Starr King’s web policy.

This blog will be a forum for fostering conversation within the fellowship. Although I will read comments regularly, it is not a good platform for getting a message to me or being sure to get a response. If you decide I need to know something, or if you need to reach me, the best ways are through my e-mail at sstewart at starrkingfellowship dot org or on the phone at 536-8908.

I think this will be fun. Enjoy the blog, and please let me know what you think!