We Covenant Together: Sermon for January 24, 2010

January 26th, 2010

I started with a story shared by my colleague, the Rev. Thom Belote, about the meaning of a covenantal faith:

Last Thursday, [Thom writes,] I was participating in a protest down by the Nichols Fountain on the Plaza. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt recently signed legislation that called for abstinence-only sex education in all Missouri schools and also restricted outside instructors in health classes to those with no connection at all to any health care system that offers abortion as option. Meaning, of course, that someone who is trained and has expertise in teen health counseling but who works for, say, Planned Parenthood would be barred from speaking to a health class at a public high school.

So, I went down to the Plaza to hold signs and talk with passersby and advocate for an approach to health education for young people that says that information and education is better health policy than ignorance.

But that is not really the point. You see, down at the protest these two young women were hanging around. They approached the protesters, and lied that they were writing for a student newspaper. In reality, they were…reporters for a fundamentalist Christian magazine. Soon, word got out that a minister was at the protest – and that minister happened to be me – and so these two…fundamentalist infiltrators made a bee-line to me to interview this minister (can it be believed?) who actually supports sex education. I introduced myself as a Unitarian Universalist minister and they asked me to explain what UU’s believe. I explained that we are a covenantal faith, not a creedal faith. We share a covenant of how we try to be together, not a creed of what we all must believe together.

Then the questions began: “Well, does your church believe in the Bible?”

I responded: That is a creedal question. We are a covenantal church. We share a covenant of how we try to be together, not a creed that says what we are expected to believe together.

“Does you church believe in God?” they ask.

“That is a creedal question,” I respond. “We are a covenantal church. We share a covenant of how we try to be together, not a creed telling us what we are expected to believe together.”

This went on for a while. It took them a while to get this. They were being challenged to think in a new way.

Thom is not the only minister (or the only Unitarian Universalist) confronted with this question of what Unitarian Universalists believe. I love his answer: we do not believe things together, we covenant to do certain things and be certain ways together.

This doesn’t quite mean we can believe whatever we want. Any given congregation has made agreements within itself about what kind of things it will do together, and what kind of place it will be. Those commitments require certain beliefs.

For instance, Starr King Fellowship has always been committed to the spiritual lives of its children, and to working together to make the world a better place. Those ideals require actions, and actions require belief. Ideals without actions are hollow; actions without belief, even it is just a glimmer of hope for our children or our world, are a lie. So, to be a member here, certain actions, supported by certain beliefs, are necessary.

We welcome all people into our fellowship, we come together for personal growth and mutual support, and we have beliefs that support those commitments. What we don’t insist upon is that we share beliefs about the nature or existence of the divine, about what happens to our unique selves after we die, or about what is required to remain in God’s good graces (if there’s even a God at all). We don’t have creeds, we don’t insist on a single form of worship, prayer or meditation. Once you come here to be part of this community, your personal journey, of spiritual or intellectual growth, is your own.

One way of articulating who we are together as a community is a covenant. A covenant, which some of you may be familiar with from small groups, or even covenant groups, is a statement of how we will be together as a group. They can be a list of commitments, or they can be a shorter, more poetic statement that congregations say together in worship.

There are some examples of this more worshipful form of covenant. One is found in our hymnal, and used in many of our congregations. You can see it at number 471. It has been arranged by L. Griswold Williams.

Love is the doctrine of this church,
The quest for truth is its sacrament,
And service is its prayer.

To dwell together in peace,
To seek knowledge in freedom,
To serve human need,
To the end that all souls shall
grow into harmony with the Divine–

Thus do we covenant with each
other and with God.

A shorter version, without any language about the divine or God, is at number 473, by James Vila Blake.

Love is the spirit of this church, and service its law.
This is our great covenant:
To dwell together in peace,
To seek the truth in love,
And to help one another.

Another favorite of mine is proposed by the Rev. Alice Blair Wesley.
(from lecture Four):

Though our knowledge is incomplete,
our truth partial and our love uneven,
From our own experience and from
the witness of our faith tradition
We believe
that new light is ever waiting to break
through individual hearts and minds
to illumine the ways of humankind,
that there is mutual strength
in willing cooperation,
and that the bonds of love keep open
the gates of freedom.
Therefore we pledge
to walk together in the ways
of truth and affection

as best we know them now
or may learn them in days to come
That we and our children may be fulfilled
And that we may speak to the world
with words and actions
of peace and goodwill.

These statements declare the shared values of a congregation, what it holds holy, and what it will do together. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the covenant between the divine and the people is always initiated and extended by the divine. Even if we are doing the work to articulate our relationship with each other and with what we hold holy, we should remember that we are doing that work in a spiritual context, held by, bound by, and responsible to our highest ideals. Our understanding of the best and the highest comes first; out of that first commitment comes our commitment to one another in community.

As much as we may like the sample covenants I read, and as much as we may still affirm the mission statement we wrote as a congregation in 1995, the real value of this kind of work comes from working on articulating our shared values together. To that end, the Committee on Ministry and I are inviting you into a process of sharing your best experiences, memories and hopes of our fellowship. Out of this process, which will continue this winter and spring, we hope to develop a covenant and a mission statement: in other words, who we are, and where we are going.

I invite you to join me in prayer.

We lift our hearts and minds to that which is best in humans and in human community, to that force of life which animates us and connects us to all living things. We feel this force within us making us who we are and connecting us to one another. When we are sad or struggling, we turn to this community of fellow human spirits to carry us for a time. When we are joyful, we come here to share our overflowing delight.

Turn to your neighbor. Look in the face of the unique soul sitting near you, the person who has come here ready to know you for who you are, and to be so known. Feel your own best self, your own commitment to love and accept this person whoever they may be, well up inside you. Know that you yourself are so loved, so accepted, all of you, the successes and the failures, through the gains and the losses, wherever life may take you. Know that you are welcomed here.

Spirit of life, we ask your blessings on our work and on our journey. Be in us, grow in us, and help us be together more than we can be alone.

Amen.

Help for Haiti

January 19th, 2010

On Sunday January 17, we raised $1,050 for the UUSC/UUA Haiti Relief Fund. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your generosity and caring for the people of Haiti. This is truly an outpouring of the spirit. The UUSC writes about their efforts in Haiti on their website.

What God Has Joined Together: Sermon for Sunday, January 3, 2010

January 6th, 2010

In two weeks, I will have the great honor of standing before two women in Bethlehem, New Hampshire and proclaiming them, by the power vested in me by the State of New Hampshire, married. I will conclude by saying, “What God has joined together, let no one put asunder. You may kiss to seal your bond of marriage.” The women’s small gathering of close friends will beam happily on them and hug them. They will be legally married, no different than the millions of different-gender couples who are currently married in New Hampshire. Couples who are currently joined in civil union may convert their unions into marriages this year. Next year, any remaining civil unions still in effect will automatically become marriages.

New Hampshire is one of five states in the union where same-sex marriage is legal. The others are Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa. The District of Columbia has also voted to allow same-sex marriage, and marriages are expected to begin in February. Those are the success stories. Same-sex couples used to be able to marry in California, but voters repealed the law allowing equal marriage in the 2008 election. Maine’s legislature passed a same-sex marriage act, but voters there overturned the law this past November, before it was ever enacted. California and Maine still allow civil unions for same-sex couples, as do Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin (“Same-sex marriage”).

Here in New Hampshire, the process came about through the legislature. Our legislature passed a civil unions law in 2007, and civil unions have been legal since January 1, 2008. Last spring, both the House of Representatives and the Senate in New Hampshire passed same-sex marriage legislation. There were moments when it looked like the bill would not make it through either chamber (“Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire”). Our own senator, Deborah Reynolds, initially voted against the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which she chairs. On reflection, she changed her vote in the full senate and the measure passed. I was one of many constituents who wrote to Senator Reynolds to ask for her support of the legislation. Part of what I wrote to her was that people of faith, such as herself, can and do support same-sex marriage. With Senator Reynolds’s support, along with the support of a majority of her fellow senators, New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law went to Governor Lynch’s desk. After asking for a change in the bill’s language to ensure religious freedom for faith organizations that may oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage, our governor signed the bill. As of today, gay and lesbian couples have been able to marry in the state of New Hampshire for three days.

Same-sex marriage is important for all the same reasons different-sex marriage is important. Marriage supports stable, loving relationships and provides a family for any children the couple may have. It represents a couple’s lifelong commitment to each other, publicly before their friends and family and before all that they hold holy. There are so many arguments against same-sex marriage in our society, and so many reasons I disagree with them, that I can’t go through them all this morning. I point you to two excellent books: What Is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution by E. J. Graff, and Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, by Jonathan Rauch. These are books which offer both politically liberal and conservative arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.

So I’ll just touch on two of the most charged: children and the Bible. Children are often used rhetorically as one of the arguments against same-sex marriage. Some opponents say that children need one parent of each gender. This is usually another way of saying that children need fathers, since lesbian couples are much more likely to have or adopt children than gay male couples. Another argument against same-sex marriage is more biological: it states that people should get married in order to have children. Because same-sex couples can’t conceive children together, the argument goes, there is no need for them to get married. I’ve been to about four hearings on civil rights legislation for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in New Hampshire. Regarding same-sex marriage, I have heard both of these arguments again and again.

Research has shown that the first argument is not strictly true, and common sense shows the second is limited at best. Children need parents: this is true. Babies and toddlers with both an involved, caring mother and father showed less separation anxiety than their peers with less involved parenting, and it manifested later and was a shorter stage of development. But babies and toddlers with even more caring adults in their lives, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles or nannies, did even better. Children benefit from living with and being cared for by caring adults, regardless of gender (Graff 120). The more caring, the better.

The second argument, that marriage is for the purpose of creating children, is obviously false. Conservative religious and political organizations do not oppose marriage between heterosexual couples who will not have children, such as older couples, infertile couples, or people who do not wish to have children. Sex makes children, not marriage. And children have been born within and without formal ties between their parents for all of human history. In fact, modern marriage exists to support the family, not the other way around. Marriage is a good idea because people do tend to have children, and those children do better if they have more adults committed to taking care of them. Marriages strengthen communities by encouraging people to remain financially stable and committed to one another. The argument for same-sex marriage is essentially conservative: that marriage is a good thing for committed couples to do. The more loving, committed couples who get married, the better. If they conceive or adopt children, better that those children’s loving parents are married than not.

People arguing against same-sex marriage are often grounded in a conservative Christian tradition. What the Bible says about marriage and sexuality is often misused, in my opinion. In the Hebrew Bible, injunctions against homosexual sex are more about the rules surrounding hospitality and property than they are about sexuality. In any case, conservative arguments against gay marriage are not made on the grounds that being gay is wrong, at least here in libertarian New Hampshire. They are made on the grounds that marriage is Biblically ordained as a commitment between one man and one woman. What these conservatives overlook are all the other kinds of marriage and sexuality sanctioned by the Bible: polygamy, concubinage, seduction, even (in the case of Lot and his daughters) incest and (in the case of Judah and Tamar) prostitution. Marriage as we know it draws much more on the precedents set in Roman and European practice than it does on biblical ordination. If we married each other like they did in the Bible, our families would look very different than they do today.

Here in New Hampshire, it seems unlikely that our new same-sex marriage law will be overturned by voter referendum, as has happened in Maine and California. New Hampshire does not have a voter initiative process like either of those states. Same-sex marriage is moving ahead in some states and stalling in others. I hope that in a generation we may look forward to action from the courts that assures the equal treatment of all people under the law when it comes to marriage. The majority should not be allowed to vote to overturn the civil rights of the minority.

Despite these successes in the area of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, we cannot lose sight of the work still to be done. The success of same-sex marriage here reminds me of another triumph in New Hampshire: the confirmation of Gene Robinson as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. The Right Reverend Robinson was the Episcopal church’s first openly gay bishop. Although this was a great step forward, it has led to the opening of a fissure in the Episcopal church. A few Episcopal churches have seceded from their dioceses and are either associating themselves with more conservative African dioceses, or are trying to create a new diocese of North America, which so far the Archbishop of Canterbury does not recognize. The Roman Catholic church has opened a pathway for dissenting Anglican priests to move into the Roman communion.

Meanwhile, the African churches, which are more conservative than their American sisters on issues of both sexuality and gender, are threatening that the confirmation of gay bishops could split the church. The African churches complain that the American churches, which are mostly white and mostly wealthy, are insisting on their way. I disagree with the African churches and the American churches that support them. But I do hear their plea that the ethical concerns of the American churches not trump the ethical concerns of the African churches, such as poverty and war. I hope that the American Episcopal dioceses will continue to move forward with the spirit, nominating and confirming gay and lesbian bishops when those people are the best candidates for the job. And I hope that Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, will have the courage to include those gay and lesbian bishops in the church as the Anglican communion moves forward. But I do hear the African church’s plea that white Americans not tell them what to do. Even as we move toward greater civil rights worldwide for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, we must confront the problems of racism, poverty and war. Success in one area of oppression should only energize us for work against all oppression.

Although we in New Hampshire are celebrating same-sex marriage today, we still have work to do in achieving civil rights for all. There is the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages, and which is in effect at the federal level and in about thirty states. Our military personnel also still suffer under the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In February, just after joyfully celebrating the marriage of two civilian women, I will witness the vows of two women currently serving our country in our armed forces. One of them is now serving in Iraq. They will speak their loving vows, they will declare their intentions of lifelong commitment, they will stand together as a couple bound in love and faith–but not as a couple bound in law. If they were to get married here in New Hampshire, where it is legal, they risk discharge from the military. They plan to marry legally once they retire from the armed services. They are serving our country in a dangerous place, but their country does not support them in their lives and love for one another.

As we ring in this new year of 2010, we celebrate together–gay, straight, male, female, transgendered, parents, child-free, the elderly and the young. We celebrate a step forward in freedoms and civil rights for all. And we recommit ourselves to the greater work of liberation still to be done by all peoples and for all peoples.

Please join me in prayer.

Each of us comes into this room from a particular personal history, family history, ethnic background and web of personal experiences. We come here to find and know that greater spirit within us and among us that inspires us to do better work than we have done, to cast our web of community ever wider.

We all retain rights and privileges in our society because of characteristics and identities beyond our control. We strive to keep in mind the privileges we enjoy which we have not earned. We are all too aware of the rights and privileges that our society keeps from us and our fellow Americans, because of our gender, sexual orientation, economic status, race, or country of origin.

We feel ourselves reach out in solidarity to those who do not have those same rights and privileges, because of who they are or where they were born. Imagine being denied those rights and privileges with them. Imagine helping them take up their struggle. We ask that spirit that we find here to help us use the privileges granted to us in society to help those on the margins. We dream of how we can build a more just world for all. Let us take a moment in silence to restore the sources of our inspiration for this important work. Amen.

    Sources

Graff, E. J. What Is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

Same-sex marriage.” Wikipedia. 2 Jan. 2010. 1-11. Accessed 2 Jan. 2010.

Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.” Wikipedia. 2 Jan. 2010. 1-5. Accessed 2 Jan. 2010.

Giving Gifts: Sermon for December 20, 2009

December 22nd, 2009

Economics is called the “dismal science,” and while I like economics news, every once in a while it deserves its reputation. I heard on the radio a week or two ago a report on the economy of gift-giving. The economist, Joel Waldfogel, has written a book titled Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays. In his book (and in the interview) he argued that people never value gifts as much as the giver does in paying for them. In fact, there’s a loss of value of about twenty percent in the process of giving a gift. In other words, if I give my husband a twenty dollar book for Christmas (and politely cover up the price on the dust jacket), and then you asked him how much he would pay for that same book, he would, on average, say sixteen dollars. This seems to be true across the board, regardless of the price of the gift. So don’t give gifts, Waldfogel advises. Give cash instead (Waldfogel).

Dismal. It’s the delight of gift-giving reduced to barest economic utility and efficiency. But Waldfogel does have a point. Last year, during the depths of the worst recession in America since the Great Depression, the average American spent $616 on gifts. This was a disaster for the retail sector, because $616 spent per person represented a 3.4 percent decline over 2007. Forecasts are mixed for this year. A Gallup poll found that people plan to spend slightly more this year, $638, on holiday gifts. However, the Conference Board, a non-profit marketplace think-tank, estimates that American households will spend an average of $390 on gifts this year, down from last year’s average of $418 per household (Adams). Any dip in American spending–really, any delay in returning to pre-recession levels of spending–is disastrous for our economy, which is driven by consumerism. The spiritual gifts of this season, like spending time with family, enjoying good food and good songs, and maintaining our families’ financial security, do nothing to keep the engine of the economy moving along. For the marketplace, it’s all about the dollars.

Now, the author Waldfogel probably does not hate the holidays. His economic wake-up is trying to get us Americans to examine the value of all that gift-giving. It runs the economy! It’s part of the season! But it doesn’t make your loved ones as happy as you think it will. If you have turned on your television during the past month, or gone out in public at all, you have been bombarded with marketers trying to get you to buy, buy, buy for the holidays. Some things are not as expensive as you think, according to advertisements for discount retailer Target. Other retailers try to convince us that some things are worth the splurge, like a new car or diamonds. If you believed your television, overspending on gifts is what the holidays are made out of.

Wise families know this is not true. Marketplace, the same radio show where I heard Waldfogel interviewed, has also featured a family who have paid off $100,000 in debt over the past five years. The Hildebrandts have won the Professional Achievement and Counseling Excellence 2009 Graduate of the Year Award for their work in finding financial stability for their family. They had $89,000 in credit card debt and another $17,000 in a car loan. Their debt came from a combination of unnecessary spending and medical bills. To pay it off, Russell Hildebrandt, an industrial chemist, took a second job as a janitor. His wife, Kandy, took on all the management of their home, on a tight budget and with one car for the family of five (Kroll). They continued to give Christmas gifts to their children, although not to each other or other family members. They continued to tithe to their church. Now, the family is debt-free except for a mortgage on their three-bedroom home. They say that they continue to spend less, buy fewer things and buy things used, even at Christmastime. The quick high that spending brings cannot compete with the good feeling of being debt-free. This Christmas, even though they could afford more gifts, Russell says that the thing he looks forward to the most is spending time with his family without being exhausted, a luxury he did not have when he worked two jobs (Hildebrandt). The Hildebrandts have learned that the riches of the season are not found in any store or bought at any price, but are at home, with family and friends.

Still, I can’t help but think with dismay on some of Waldfogel’s holiday economics. He places a value on gifts according to what the giver spent on them, and on what the receiver would spend on the same item with his or her own money. He says studies show that twenty percent of the item’s value is lost between those two figures. He admitted freely on the radio that economics cannot place a value on the simple act of giving and receiving a gift. While I usually have a budget in mind when shopping for holiday presents, money is not primarily what I look for. For me, both as a giver and a receiver, the value of holiday giving is not in the money. How can I find out what a family member would like without asking them directly, to delight them with just the present they want? How can I show my attention and give time to those I love? This year, I’ll give my aunt for Christmas a counted cross-stitch piece I have been working on for her for years. I probably spent sixty dollars on materials five years ago, and will spend perhaps that much again to have it framed. But it is by far the most valuable gift I will give this year, because I have put about a thousand hours of my time into it, and because it is unique and irreplaceable. And I have no worries that my aunt will not like it or will value it less than she should (she chose the pattern, after all, and the gift is not a surprise). The gift is full of my love for her, like all the best gifts. Love has no value in the marketplace, yet has infinite value in our hearts and our homes.

I am also put off by Waldfogel’s suggestion of cash as the ultimate holiday gift. There are times when giving money is the right thing to do–when financial support is the way we want to show our love and attention to members of our families who could use it. The holidays even make that kind of giving easier, since gifts are expected and the recipient has a way of understanding the money as a gift and not as charity. During graduate school, my parents usually gave me a plane ticket to Michigan for Christmas, so that I could spend the holidays with my family. When I received these tickets as a gift, I knew I was also receiving the gift of time to spend with my family and friends.

But however useful money can be as a gift, because of its fixed value between the giver, receiver, and the marketplace, it is not the only thing that shows our love and appreciation and understanding of another person. The delight of gift-giving is to discern what the other person would like, and what we would like to give. Treating the exchange as purely utilitarian misses the spiritual value of giving gifts entirely. Gift-giving at the winter holidays is largely a tradition found in celebrations of the Winter Solstice. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia from December 17 through 24, a festival including the giving of gifts. In Judaism, even before the minor holiday of Chanukah had become, by necessity, a rival to Christmas, parents gave children gelt, or chocolate candy, to use in playing dreidl. According to the Christian myth, the wise men brought gifts to the infant Jesus, although this story almost certainly already reflects borrowing from pagan traditions. We have been giving and receiving gifts at the winter solstice for millennia.

We are accustomed to think of generosity as a virtue. I think of the children’s song, “Love is something if you give it away, give it away, give it away, then you’ll end up having more.” Giving moves money and resources from people who have more than they need to people who do not have enough. Nothing makes us feel good like giving does. The Hildebrandts continued to tithe, or give ten percent of their income, to their church while they paid off their debt. To some, that may look foolish, but there must have been a reason for that generosity. I imagine their church supported them and their family during the hard times. Their church may have been a place where they were accepted for who they were, regardless of their financial means. I also imagine that giving helped the Hildebrandts feel good about themselves while they endured the shame of past mistakes and the burden of doing without. I think that the joy we get from giving to others is what keeps the cycle of holiday gift-giving going. It’s that joy the retailers are trying to latch on to when they encourage us to spend more and buy more gifts. Too bad the joy comes from the act of giving, whether it is a child’s handmade card or a pair of knitted mittens. It does not come from spending more.

Yet there is a companion to the virtue of generosity, and it is the virtue of gracious acceptance. It’s telling that we use the word “graciously” to describe the ideal way to receive a present, when “grace” means “gift.” By accepting gifts with grace, we are indeed giving a gift back to the giver. A society can’t have gift-giving without gift-acceptance, as well. This is part of what we teach our children about good manners. The right response to receiving a gift isn’t, “Oh, you shouldn’t have,” but, “Thank you.” Instead of saying, “Please don’t get me anything. There’s nothing I need,” receiving gifts reminds us that there is always something we need, even if it’s not a thing. Receiving gifts reminds us that we are all, at different times, in need of something that someone we love could give us. None of us is so self-sufficient as not to need any gifts at all. By receiving gifts with grace, we affirm those good feelings the other person has for doing something for us. We show our basic humanity and neediness. We become vulnerable–and human–and connect with the person giving us the gift in the best way.

Giving and receiving gifts at its best is not about status, or wealth, or bargains. It is about showing our love for each other and reaffirming our basic, shared humanity. I am all for reducing the presence of the marketplace in holidays that are fundamentally about family and faith. But I don’t think it’s helpful, either, to try to take the exchange of gifts out of the holidays. Gifts do not need to be expensive, or even purchased, to be meaningful. The best thing about giving a present is thinking of the other person, and the best thing about receiving one is knowing the other person thought about you. A year ago, it looked like we were in danger of the collapse of our system of credit and banking. Even if our economy had come to a halt, families and friends would still have shared the joy of gifts at the holidays.

Please join me in prayer.

Spirit of the waiting dark–the dark that cradles the unborn child, the spark of winter’s chill, the dark against which our candles burn–hold us in your comforting embrace. Remind us of the joys of your season: the giving of gifts to show our love, the lighting of candles in our windows and on our tables, the meal, however modest, which can always be shared with one more. Give us your blessings for the new year which is to come. At this moment of solstice, let us pause before we turn back towards the light, and revel in the mysteries of winter. Amen.

    Sources

Adams, Katie. “Christmas 2009 Vs. 2008: What Can We Expect?” Financial Edge. 1 Dec. 2009. Investopedia.com. Accessed 19 Dec. 2009.

Hildebrandt, Kandy and Russell Hildebrandt. “Celebrating Christmas Debt Free.” Interview. By Tess Vigeland. Marketplace. APM. W217BH, Plymouth, New Hamp. 18 Dec. 2009.

Kroll, Karen. “The Biggest Losers (of Debt): How a Family Shed $106,000 in Debt.” Financially Fit: A Guide to Saving Smart and Living Well. 18 Sep. 2009. Yahoo! Finance. Accessed 19 Dec. 2009.

Waldfogel, Joel. “Rethinking the Idea of Gift-Giving.” Interview. By Kai Ryssdal. Marketplace. APM. W217BH, Plymouth, New Hamp. 24 Nov. 2009.

The Sound of Silence: Sermon for December 13, 2009

December 22nd, 2009

We ate in silence. At seven-thirty sharp we had filed down the stairs for breakfast. There were about sixty of us, sitting in a cramped refectory at pressboard tables in plastic chairs. The sisters had prepared nutritious food, which was primarily intended for the elderly nuns who lived in the Notre Dame Mission Center’s nursing home, where we were having our retreat. You could hear the sounds of serving spoons against chafing dishes, and coffee slurping into ceramic mugs. No one spoke. It was the second day of our retreat, and the first in full silence.

I signed up for this retreat in February, when I was casting about for things to do on my sabbatical. It was hosted by an organization called the Shalem Institute, which provides spiritual deepening and formation for laypeople and clergy in Christian, Jewish and Unitarian Universalist congregations. They run a fifteen-month spiritual deepening program for ministers and rabbis beginning every July. A friend of mine did this program and got a lot out of it. However, it requires several weeks of residency at Shalem’s Baltimore campus, spread out over the fifteen months. Since my baby was due in August, this didn’t seem like the summer to apply to the long program. A short retreat on the North Shore seemed like a perfect way to dip my toes in to the work of Shalem for the time being.

When I signed up for the retreat, it was advertised as a retreat for spiritual deepening, with times for silence and conversation. When I got further details after I registered, about a month before the retreat began, I discovered that most of the three day retreat would be spent in silence, with some guidance from a contemplative leader at the beginning and end.

Now, self-awareness is an ongoing spiritual discipline for all of us, and I, like anyone, often fall short. But I am fairly confident that I am not, by nature or by practice, a silent person.

There are different ways to accomplish ministry. For me, the talking, preaching, conversational part of ministry has always come more easily, and the part of ministry and spiritual life that takes stillness and listening has always been harder. When I learned that my retreat would be largely silent, I seriously considered whether or not I should still go. Finally I decided that I had often benefitted from taking risks, and this would probably be no different. And, after all, it was only three days.

I often feel that I am in a minority of spiritual seekers when it comes to appreciating silence. Some of our greatest spiritual leaders, in both the western and eastern traditions, have been grounded in the intentional practice of silence. My retreat, as an example, was over-registered almost instantly–I registered months before the retreat and still had to find lodging in Ipswich, because the rooms at the retreat center were filled.

One contemplative leader from the western monastic tradition whose spirit thrived in silence was Thomas Merton, a writer and Trappist monk. As a young man, Merton was a libertine, drinking heavily and spending freely during his first year of college at Cambridge University. Most scholars now think that Merton fathered a child while at Cambridge, although the Trappists have been oblique on this issue. Merton had first encountered silence in faith when he worshipped with a Quaker congregation in Flushing, New York as a teenager (“Thomas” 1.5). But it was not until he was a grown man that he was able to leave the world behind him and enter into the silence as a way of life.

At the outbreak of World War II, Merton, a pacifist, found himself at a crossroads in his life. He knew that the United States army would shortly summon him as a draftee to fight in a way he could not support. He had tried to join the Franciscans some years before, but had been asked to withdraw his application because he was seen as unsuitable, possibly because of his out-of-wedlock child (Merton 455, n. 11). He was then, in the fall and winter of 1941, living in Olean, New York, and teaching English at St. Bonaventure University. He felt he could not continue in that secular work, but was unsure about which of two paths to follow: to move to Friendship House in Harlem, New York to work with the poor; or to apply as a novitiate at the Trappist monastery Gethsemani in Kentucky (“Thomas” 3.2). Finally he was convinced of his vocation as a monk, and had to wait for the Trappists to accept him; and in the meantime, the threat of the draft loomed over him. He wrote, “I can’t think of desiring anything else but the cloister, or of doing anything else but praying and striving to get there, and suffering in patience every trial, everything there is to be suffered, everything that makes the vocation seem hopeless (Merton 466)!” Gethsemani accepted him in December 1941, seven days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

The Trappists are a cloistered order, which means they live apart from the world. They are also a silent order, not speaking aloud to each other at all, but rather communicating through sign language. When Merton entered the monastery, he entered a world of silence. To him, this was part of his calling, and part of his desire as a young man to live completely apart from the raucous world he had known as a youth. Silencing speech does not mean living without sound or meaning. The monks sang their prayers and masses at the appointed hours of the day, and heard scripture read and sung in chapel. Merton himself was a prolific writer, committing to paper the many words he did not say aloud. Although he at first felt unsure about continuing his work as a writer once he had become a monk, his superior in the monastery encouraged him. The silence of the monastery became the fertile earth for the poetry, autobiography and journals of Thomas Merton.

When we exercise our spirituality in a realm of silence, other dimensions emerge. I did not realize how intrusive speech could be until I went a few days without it. At my spiritual retreat, there were no expectations of how we would spend our time in the silence. I had brought some reading and my journal, as well as my knitting, which had reached a difficult spot. I found in the silence freedom to do whatever I wanted: to knit without interruption or questions about what I was making; to write in my journal whenever I felt moved or to go be by myself without being rude to anyone else. I did not expect anything social of my fellow retreaters and could feel confident they had no expectations of me. In the late afternoon I began to feel that the large room we were all sharing was getting too dark, and I realized that I would have to decide to turn on the lights without asking anyone else. There was no way to ask anyone else to share responsibility with me for my actions.

In the writing I did over that retreat, I found new images and depths occurring to my mind. I imagined the world of faith as a deep sea on which I had only been floating, and felt invited to go deeper. I felt that the comforting presence I have called God was with me on my journey. I felt free from the need to plan my day in advance. I walked up a hill to the garden and cemetery, and down behind the retreat center, along a disused path to the marshes which lead out to the sea. A woman led a group of us in body prayer, instructing us to chant and move our bodies in certain ways to allow the spirit to flow through us. She spoke to instruct us, but all of us participants–moving and chanting together–did not speak. I attended mass with the sisters on the morning of the third day and delighted in the singing and sounds of mass. There were riches in the silence which I could never have imagined.

The silence was also exhausting. Not having a room at the retreat center, I could not find anywhere to be truly alone during the days. I felt handicapped, as though tool as indispensable as a thumb or an elbow had been taken from me. I did not get to know anyone I met at the retreat. I even reconnected with a man I had gone to divinity school with, but now can’t remember anything about him (not his name, not his denomination) except that he is married and has children. When I returned to my bed and breakfast in the evenings, it was a relief to sit and have a cup of tea with the innkeepers, and to walk down to the corner store to get a newspaper to read. I had on purpose found a room without a television, and I had not brought my computer, so that I wouldn’t be tempted by the lure of electronics. As it turned out, I was so tired every night that I just wanted to go back to my room–which, of course, was silent and solitary–and go to sleep.

Silence is a part of certain Christian communities, like the Trappists and the Cistercians, but it is a large part of Buddhist practice. Some Buddhists, whether exploring being monks or nuns or studying in a cloistered community, live for days in silence. The Dalai Lama told the story in the reading we heard this morning of a monk who remained silent six days of every week, and spoke only on Saturdays. But even Buddhists who do not commit their lives to silence practice silence as a spiritual discipline. Meditation, the central Buddhist act of piety, is done in silence, or with chanting (but without conversation). I once spent a year attending a weekly Buddhist meditation at the First Parish in Cambridge (Unitarian Universalist), led by a Buddhist man who had spent several years living in a monastery. Just as I did with my more recent silent retreat, I signed up without really knowing what I was getting myself in to. We started by beginning and ending each session by sitting in meditation for ten minutes. Our teacher told us we would, by the end of the class, be sitting for twenty minutes or more. I was very skeptical. How could I sit still and count my breaths for ten minutes, let alone twenty? Yet I was surprised, even on that first day, that I could not feel the time going by as I quieted my mind and counted my inhalations and exhalations.

In Buddhist practice, I learned, not only should I remain physically silent during meditation, I should also allow my mind to become quiet. This doesn’t mean forcing down all the things your mind flings up at you when you give it a chance. It means allowing thoughts and distractions to arise, and then to let them go, and return to the focus of the breath. Enlightenment comes, when it does, out of this profound spiritual silence.

Our world is full of noise. The noise of electronics, the noise of the television and the radio, the noise of automobiles and airplanes, the noise of the marketplace and the noise of endless complaint. We can even use these noises to keep us from the work of faith which we know waits for us in quietude. Complete silence is almost impossible to come by. Seeking out silence as a spiritual practice reconnects us to a deeper and greater source of our own spirits. The Spirit is in the silence, waiting for our attention.

I’d like to end this sermon with a longer period of silence than usual. We’ll take about five minutes to sit in quiet together. If you wish, you may follow the Buddhist practice of following your breath, counting each inhalation and exhalation. If you become distracted or lose count, begin again at one. I will ring the bell to bring us out of our silence together.

    Sources

Dalai Lama. Spiritual Advice for Buddhists and Christians. Ed. Donald W. Mitchell. New York: Continuum, 1998.

Merton, Thomas. Run to the Mountain: The Story of a Vocation. The Journals of Thomas Merton. New York: Harper, 1996.

“Thomas Merton.” Wikipedia. 11 Dec. 2009. 1-11. Accessed 11 Dec. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton.

Taking Root

December 10th, 2009

Sermon: Taking Root
December 6, 2009
Starr King UU Fellowship
The Rev. Sarah C. Stewart

1. Remembering your entire experience at [your congregation], when were you most alive, most motivated and excited about your involvement? What made it exciting? Who else was involved? What happened? What was your part? Describe how you felt. 2. What do you value most about the [congregation]? What activities or ingredients or ways of life are most important? What are the best features of this [congregation]? 3. Make three wishes for the future of this [congregation] (Branson 7).

The Mission Assessment Committee at First Presbyterian Church in Altadena (California) had not expected to consider these questions at their committee meeting. Their job, as part of their church’s search for a new minister, was to describe and evaluate the major programs and ministries of their congregation. They had looked at denominational guidelines. They expected simply to follow the path and give the presbytery the information it needed.

First Presbyterian Church had been in decline for years. The committee felt that the same small group of dedicated, older volunteers were doing most of the work. Younger families came–younger families who were not part of the dominant Japanese-American culture of the church, but came out of the more diverse neighborhood Altadena had become–but they were not moving into the heart of the congregation. At first, this exercise of defining First Presbyterian’s ministries and programs seemed like just another diagnosis for an ailing church.

Mark Lau Branson had been attending First Presbyterian with his family. He was invited to help with this assessment process, but he also stood outside the community in some important ways. First, his ethnic heritage is European American, unlike the Japanese American heritage of most of the members of First Presbyterian. Secondly, he is an Associate Professor of Ministry of the Laity at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. He brought this expertise with him to the Missions Assessment Committee. He also brought with him a process called Appreciative Inquiry, which helps an organization focus on its strengths and discover its mission through the telling of stories.

He started with the questions I posed at the beginning of this sermon, asking the members of his committee to tell their stories to each other. Then the Session (parallel to our Governing Board) and finally members of the congregation had the opportunity to tell their stories and their hopes for the future. In the end, the congregation called a new minister. But they also learned to identify themselves as a multicultural congregation led by, but not defined by, their Japanese-American heritage. Different groups in the congregation drafted different “provacative proposals” for how they would be in the church and work in the world. One example is from a group of Nisei, or second-generation Japanese immigrants, in the church: “First Presbyterian Church, Altadena, is rooted in networks of holistic care, and the Nisei lead our intergenerational congregation in these joyful and innovative ways of meeting day-to-day needs such as health care, house maintenance, transportation, money management, shopping, and nutrition (124).” The Nisei had taken a dry denominational exercise and turned it into a joyful proclamation of the work of the spirit in their lives–in this case, social justice outreach to the aging Japanese-American community surrounding the church.

Let me share with you what I’ve seen and felt since returning to my active ministry with you this fall. Here at Starr King Fellowship, we are concluding a three-year long building process. When I spoke to some long-time members recently about our building process, they could not remember a time when this congregation has not been thinking about its space or planning for future growth and building needs. For the past three years, we have focused intensely on funding and constructing our new wing. It’s not completely finished–the Building Committee is still doing good and important work on our behalf–but we are winding down from a period of intense building activity. Between the strategic planning process, the capital campaign, and the construction itself, some of you have been here volunteering at times almost every day. It has been a heady and joyful process, a process which accomplished much and through which we learned how to be in fuller fellowship together. But it’s coming to an end. So now what?

There’s one way we could go. We could let this building process end and settle back into congregational life as we have known it in the past. We could not bother paying attention to how to get new people involved. We could keep program areas the same as they have always been. We could rely on the same people to volunteer who have always volunteered–not because new people aren’t willing, but because we don’t want to think of new ways to ask new people to get involved with new gifts to offer. Ultimately, we could become a congregation trying to fix the “problems” of low energy, low attendance, and low membership–problems we would have if we went down this road too far.

I’d like to propose another way. I’d like to take hold of the energy I feel in this congregation right now, the vibrant and joyful movement of the spirit in this place, and work together to define our work in the world. I’d like to return to our covenant and mission as a congregation. Who are we? What kind of place is this? What do we do best? What kind of place do we want to be in the future? What is most important about our place in the world? How do we want to change the world to be a better place?

With the Governing Board’s support, I plan to help us engage these questions over the coming year. This is a time to draft a new covenant and mission for our congregation. We have a mission statement now, one which we drafted in 1995 and which we affirmed in 2004. It reads,

As members and friends of Starr King Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, we covenant with one another
–to provide a liberal religious home for all persons who will share in creating a community that fosters spiritual growth
–to educate, encourage, and empower ourselves and our children to become committed to local, national and global issues as they relate to the principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
In consonance with our covenant we intend to pursue specific goals as mutually agreed upon from year to year.

Now, if you asked me to name the three most important things to this congregation, I would tell you, right off the bat: children, spiritual growth and social justice. And this mission statement captures those three things. There’s nothing wrong with it, as far as it goes. But there are many people here, myself included, who weren’t part of the fellowship when that mission statement was written. We need to come together again to recommit to our best, shared future. Part of the value of articulating our mission is the process of bringing people together to talk about where their passion for our congregation lies.

When we have a clear mission, it’s easy to talk to newcomers about why they might join this fellowship. Someone in the congregation says, “We do this. Do you want to do it with us?” There’s no hard sell, no convincing. The congregation is clear on who it is and where it is going, and a newcomer can make a clear decision about whether or not that community is right for her.

A friend of mine in Massachusetts, a lay leader who has been a Unitarian Universalist at least since she was a teenager, said, “People who commit to membership should be taking on their congregation’s mission.” Right now, our mission statement is written in lovely calligraphy, nicely framed, and gathering dust in the Office Assistant’s office. For the past three years, that hasn’t mattered, because we’ve been living the mission of welcoming new families and expanding our space. Now the space is nearly complete, and it is time to think about our mission once again. If a newcomer wants to join Starr King Fellowship in the future, he’ll know what the mission is that he might adopt as his own. Those of you who have been here for a while can share some of our foundational stories, knowing that some things about this community may change. Those of you who are new, I invite you to be part of the process of discerning our future.

Spirituality unfolds in the telling of our stories. When we tell our stories, we share who we are and what we hope to become. This coming Friday will be the first night of the Jewish festival of Chanukah, the Festival of Lights. The Jewish tradition is full of the telling of stories, often with stories embedded within stories. Isaac Bashevis Singer tells a story about a Chanukah night in his own house when he was a child. In this story, his father, a rabbi, relents his usual strictness to allow the children to play dreidl and enjoy the celebration of the lights. He tells his children another story about another Chanukah, a story his grandmother had told him. In this story, during Chanukah, a boy hears of a tailor in his village who is so sick and so poor that he cannot get any wood to heat his hut. The boy, Zaddock, immediately sets out to the woods around the village, where he knows he can pick up fallen branches and take them to the tailor. When Zaddock sets out, the day is already growing dark. Soon it is too dark to see and Zaddock loses his way in the forest. Suddenly, in the darkness, he saw three Chanukah lights glowing. They moved, and he followed them. The lights led him back to his village, to the tailor’s house, and to his parents’ waiting arms.

This is a story in a story in a story. As Singer and his brothers and sisters hear the story, they understand their father’s religious commitment to charity. When Singer tells the story, he places it in another story about Chanukah when he was a boy. By telling these stories, the tradition is kept alive. The Chanukahs we may celebrate now are richer because they have both these stories in them. Our traditions contain the stories of the past even as we create the stories of the future.

I’d like to invite you to take on the mission of sharing your story and listening to the stories of the people around you. I invite you to the holy work of discerning and learning what kind of force for good we can be. I invite you to the spiritual discipline of storytelling. Following the example of First Presbyterian Church in Altadena, we will tell the story of this congregation and the stories of our own spiritual awakenings. This congregation has quite a moving story, a story of starting in living rooms and moving into our lovely new fellowship hall, a story of lay and ordained ministry, a story of surviving fires and breaches of trust, a story of celebrations and good food, a story of thriving through challenge. It’s a story about showing up to services and hymn sings, to coffee houses and Nicaraguan service trips and after-school programs. It’s a story about making a home in other people’s spaces and creating a home to share with our community. It’s the story of us, here, with our own hopes and dreams for the future. I hope you’ll join me in continuing to write the story of this congregation.

Please join me in prayer.

Spirit of Life, we know you are with us this morning and every moment of our lives. Animate us, grow in us, help us feel your presence. Illuminate our eyes and warm our hearts. Help our hands and feet to dance in joy. Be in our arms when they comfort someone who is suffering. Be in our minds and bodies as they are moved to justice.

We ask for forgiveness for those things we have done which have hurt people, whether intentionally or unintentionally. We ask forgiveness for the important work we have left undone. We know we are not perfect. Help us to forgive one another our shortcomings. Help us to be faithful to the hope for a better world and our daily efforts to bring it about.

Give us the enjoyment of simple beauties. Help us to know the warmth of fellowship. Allow us to know community with one another, even with those people whose beliefs differ from ours. Help us greet each day with hope and each evening with peace. Amen.

    Sources

Thanks to Meg Muckenhoupt for her advice and conversations on the meaning of membership.

Branson, Mark Lau. Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change. Herndon: The Alban Institute, 2004.

Singer, Isaac Bashevis. The Power of Light: Eight Stories for Hannukah. New York: Farrar, 1980.

New Life: Sermon from Sunday, November 29, 2009

December 1st, 2009

We are born in water, we are made of water, we will be washed with water when we die. Humans need water to drink and to keep clean. We come into the world in a rush of water, and we wash our dead in clear water. Water constitutes most of our bodies and our planet. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, water symbolizes death (in the danger of drowning) and rebirth. The oceans are a mystery whose depths we cannot fully explore or fathom, even with all our modern technology. In some creation myths, the gods formed the rivers and seas of the world with the sacred waters of their bodies. In others, gods created dry land in the midst of the waters, or did battle with the ocean and sea monsters to bring dry land to the surface. Water is necessary to our survival and one of the most destructive forces on earth. Like birth itself, and death, like the sustenance of life and the warmth of families, water is present in almost all human religions.

I was baptized soon after I was born. My parents attended a small Episcopal church where a man they liked and admired served as rector. My father’s parents were my godparents. I can imagine them standing in the sanctuary that smelled of oiled wood, repeating the Elizabethan language of the vows: “Dost thou, therefore, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow, nor be led by them?” I wore the woolen gown my mother’s father had been christened in, and in which my son was baptized this morning.

Those words, said on my behalf when I was only a few months old, changed my relationship to the Christian church forever. Because of those words, I may come to communion in Christian churches. Children cannot make religious commitments for themselves, and even the religious understandings they come to as young people cannot carry them through their adulthood. Many religious traditions ask parents to make one set of vows for their children soon after birth, and then ask those children to make their own commitments when they are adolescents. These then open the pathways teens follow into the religious development of their adulthoods.

By the time I was twelve and should have begun confirmation class, my family had moved away from that small church in Ohio and to a much bigger, more impersonal church in the suburbs of Detroit. When my parents said they wanted to try out a Unitarian Universalist church, I was at first dead set against it. Although I did not like the girls in my Sunday school class, I loved the music and liturgy of the worship service. Also, since we had just moved from Ohio, I was probably resistant to further change. When our Episcopal church sent a letter saying I would have to begin confirmation classes, and thereby spend more time with classmates whom I did not like, I thought maybe I would try Unitarian Universalism with my parents after all. We visited one or two churches, and finally made our way to Northwest Unitarian Universalist Church in Southfield, Michigan, which, as it turned out, was home to much nicer Sunday school kids. That church became our home. I went through that church’s coming of age program, parallel to the Episcopal church’s confirmation class. In high school, I joined the Religious Education committee, became an official member of the church, voted to call our new minister, and first felt the call to ministry myself.

During that same time, in the safe environs of my Unitarian Universalist church, I pushed and pulled, tangled and untangled the Christianity of my birth. I discovered the worship of the divine feminine. I discovered atheism. I struggled to define my beliefs. I continued to cherish the practices of our broadly tolerant Christian home. When I went off to college, I decided not to decide, to let my mind relax from this struggle to know and just see what came. When I was in divinity school I began the process again of naming what I believed, and I am still engaged in that process. I have discovered that belief requires practice as a prerequisite, and for me, that practice has been to engage with the Hebrew and Christian scriptures in study and prayer.

So what has my baptism done for me? I do take communion from time to time, when I am in a congregation where I feel that my beliefs are included there, and where I feel that taking communion would not violate my beliefs or the covenant of the congregation. I believe that Jesus was a prophet and a teacher of God’s word, but not that he was divine or unique. I believe that he had the presence of God within him, and I believe he taught people to recognize that same presence with themselves, that divinity in all of us. To me, since I still orient my faith toward Jesus and his teachings, my journey is still within the Christian tradition, if a very liberal part of it. Many more orthodox Christians, who confess belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and who believe that Jesus is the Christ and the sole, or the most important, pathway to God, would disagree with me. I might be a heretic at best, or a heathen at worst. But as a Unitarian Universalist, affirming the necessity of spiritual growth and the responsible search for truth and meaning, I claim my right to stand within the tradition of Jesus and argue against aspects of it at the same time.

When John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the River Jordan on the border of Judea and Galilee, in or around the year 33 C.E., he was challenging the Judaism of his birth in a similar way. The Torah establishes several circumstances under which people must wash to cleanse themselves. Some of these ablutions require “living water”–that is, water from a river or spring–such as recovering from skin diseases, touching a dead body, or involvement with the genitals (Koester 168). Faithful Jews in the first century would have used water daily to remain physically and ritually clean. What John, and Jesus after him, offered was a single baptism that brought the faithful into a new relationship with the God of Abraham. Both John and Jesus stood firmly within their Jewish tradition and did not necessarily think they were creating a new religion. They lived and led in a time of upheaval in the Jewish tradition, when many different communities were exploring their Judaism against the backdrop and under the control of the Roman empire. They were exploring the possibilities present in using Jewish cleansing rituals in a new way.

People in the Christian tradition are not the only people who practice baptism today. There is still extant today an ancient sect called Mandaeism, whose adherents follow the teachings of John the Baptist. This group, which was once primarily located in Baghdad, but has now fled to Jordan and Syria because of the war, can trace its history back to the first century, and remained unconverted by the sweep of Christianity and Islam. It is a tiny community, thought to number no more than 60,000 worldwide. Mandaeists are Gnostics for whom baptism of adults is the central practice of their religion. They baptize in the name of God, and not (since they do not revere Jesus) in the name of the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Every time I, as a baptized Christian, take communion, I must evaluate what that ritual means to me. I am sometimes with friends or family in their churches when communion is served. I have been to communion ceremonies where the priest said that taking communion meant standing up on the side of the poor. I have been invited by ministers who called all people who wished to share that sacred meal together. In those times and places, I have taken communion. On the other hand, I have worshiped in congregations where the minister invited forward all who accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, and in those times and places, I have respectfully remained seated. The invitation was heart-felt, and it did not offend me, but I could not include myself within it.

In all our religious rituals, we face the question of how well we fit within the traditions the rituals come from. Almost all Christians would agree that baptism and communion are the two fundamental sacraments initiated by Jesus’ ministry, but they vary widely in how they practice them. Here, in this congregation, where we are part of a movement which has its roots in liberal Christianity but has spread its branches into the liberal practice of many religious traditions, and of none, I am open to calling the blessing of a new baby in God’s name “baptism.” If this word reflects the tradition of the family, as is the case for my family, then it can be a legitimate part of our Unitarian Universalist tradition. If it is not part of a family’s practice, I use the words “blessing and dedication.” The ritual of welcoming a new child with water is universal enough, and durable enough, to allow our struggles with what it means.

In some traditions, baptism is a ritual undertaken by an adult or an older child to symbolize their mature acceptance of the Christian faith. This is the case with Baptist churches, which trace their heritage to the Protestant reformation and disagreement with the Catholic church over the validity of infant baptism. Jesus, after all, was baptized as an adult and shared baptism with other adults. This is one more example of people of faith struggling and wrestling with their inherited traditions, seeing if they can remain within them while trying to move beyond some aspects of them.

The religious traditions we grew up in and participate in now are the same way. They have been with humanity for hundreds of years. Think of those Mandaeists, clinging to their faith even as they have been exiled from Iraq by violence and war. Their faith will change and withstand change, live with them and through them, as they learn to worship in a new place. Our traditions are strong enough for us to wrestle with them, and love them, and continue them and change them over time. This is, after all, what John the Baptist and Jesus were doing when they instituted baptism, and it is what Baptists were doing when they insisted on full immersion baptism fifteen hundred years later. It is what all of us do, as we grow up, and grow in our faith as adults. We may leave behind the faith of our childhood, or we may embrace it even more fully, yet we continue the journey of faith always. We trust the larger embrace of the Spirit as we grow and live together in fellowship.

Please join me in prayer.

Spirit of Life, which moves within us as water flows through the earth in streams, bring us energy and vision this morning. Keep us on the path of our spiritual journeys. Help us find the meaning and depth in each moment of that journey, being fully present in it.

Give us the comfort of our childhood faiths. Remind us of the smells of our sanctuaries, the melodies of our hymns, the ringing silences, the repeated prayer. Give us permission to love what we have loved, even if that tradition is no longer ours.

Give us the courage of our convictions. Help us claim what we believe even in the face of disagreement or censure. Help us stand up not only for our beliefs, but for the right of everyone the world over to worship in her own way. Help us build up an ethic of tolerance and right relations among people of different beliefs.

Give us the restlessness to look forward on our journeys, to hear the call of your Spirit out of our comforting homes and into new vistas of being and faith. Help us know that our own Spirits will not fail us as we journey together by faith. Bind us together in this congregation in love and fellowship, even as our journeys blaze many different paths up the holy mountain.

Amen.

Sources

Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Thanksgiving Table Prayer

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

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

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.