First Parish of Watertown

“Purchasing Power” Mark W. Harris

First Parish of Watertown - January 29, 2006


Opening Words - from “Compensation” by Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is no tax on the good of virtue, for that is the incoming of God, or absolute existence, without any comparative. Material good has its tax, and if it came without desert or sweat, has no root in me, and the next wind will blow it away. But all the good of nature is the soul’s, and may be had if paid for in nature’s lawful coin, that is, by labor which the head and the heart allow. I no longer wish to meet a good I do not earn, for example to find a pot of buried gold, knowing that it brings with it new burdens. I do not wish more external goods - neither possessions, nor honors, nor powers, nor persons. The gain is apparent; the tax is certain. But there is no tax on the knowledge that the compensation exists and that it is not desirable to dig up treasure. Herein I rejoice with a serene eternal peace. I contract the boundaries of possible mischief. I learn the wisdom of St. Bernard -- “Nothing can work me damage except myself; the harm that I sustain I carry about with me, and never am a real sufferer but by my own fault.”

Sermon -
Friday morning I was driving home after dropping my son Dana off at school. Every day I come down Trapelo Road, and turn past a Mobil gas station heading towards Watertown. There is a large sign out front of the station imploring “What Cars Crave?” The expected answer is printed below: “Quality Fuels.” While this answer seems innocuous enough, what struck me about the sign was the personification of the automobile to imply that my car could actually crave something as an object of desire. While not one to question the limits of computer technology the personification of material objects seems typical in a culture where everything is commodified, so it follows that commodities would take on human characteristics to blur the distinctions between what is for sale and what is not. Maybe the car wants to be painted a different color or be kept warm in the winter. My friends in high school always tried to name the cars I drove - Green monster, the Limited, which must have hurt its feelings about its potential, and then the slight twist on Grand Prix, to become . . . well, you get it.
Automobiles have tremendous symbolic value in our culture. Watching television its seems like 95% of the advertising is for cars or drugs. Cars are often sold by framing the commercial with some hit rock n roll song from our youth, echoing bands like The Who, “I’m Free,” and “Freedom tastes of reality.” That’s a powerful message because much of the advertising is about how to attain personal freedom from all the strains of work and family. Get away from it all and escape in the latest model. The big car will give you power, and the fast car will lead to this freedom, and then of course there is always a scantily attired young woman draped over the vehicle as well. Even if the vehicle is not alive, the message is that it can make you more alive than you have ever been; strong, attractive and virile if you buy this item. Cars have always carried this symbolic weight. My oldest brother wanted to have the fastest, coolest car in town. He spent hours and hours shining up his four on the floor, white, Ford Starliner convertible. He took it to the drag races, and tried to make it the fastest. He buffed it to make it the prettiest. It was something he could brag about and flaunt as an object of ultimate desire at least in the mind of a sixteen year. It was fast, sleek and attracted the girls. What more could you want?
Cars are perhaps the ultimate example of the consumerism and freedom that characterize our culture. They possess all the qualities that seem to guarantee personal fulfillment - they show we are rich, fashionable and desirable. Perhaps it is appropriate that this sermon is an auction sermon. I have been bought so that I can advise you spiritually how not to become bought. Kyle Hart is responsible for today’s topic. Kyle is concerned about how our culture markets items to convince us that our inner needs will be met if we purchase certain things, like these slick cars. The key problem with this consumerism is that we only seem to listen when someone appeals to our own needs, and further that the idea is for us to feel good about our self-indulgence. Marketing, consumerism and commodification is something that has become endemic to every aspect of our culture. Advertisers today know what we like, what we have bought before, and what might appeal to us in the future. They are able to appeal to individual emotional needs through something called narrow casting. We are also being bombarded everywhere we go, as exemplified by our own Paul Day’s attempt to protest the use of television sets at every grocery store. You cannot go through the line and buy a gallon of milk without getting the latest advice on what to buy in order to create the perfect home.
We all know that advertisers are trying to convince us to buy more and more. The upside of that is that we are becoming more discerning shoppers. We try to avoid the bombardment by using video recorders, but the advertisers have responded to this by making the ads part of the program. All of our sports stadiums have corporate sponsors, so it will probably soon be the Coca-Cola Fenway Park, but even the shows themselves become commercials, so that characters work for particular companies, as a way of promoting that product. You simply cannot escape. While the information they possess about every one of us helps them target each of us as consumers, from New Age crystals to handguns, the real goal is to make us feel an emotional attachment. They want to know that I love Heinz ketchup so much, I will never give it up, no matter what. This kind of passion for consumer items is shown in the wonderful passage from The Great Gatsby, where Daisy weeps over his shirts because they are so beautiful. Her complete emotional connection to the consumer item reflects how the consumerism has become a religion. Jay McDaniel, who has written, The Ten Temptations of Consumerism says the dominant religion of our planet is consumerism. God is our economic growth, and CEO’s are our priests. The evangelists are these very advertisers who convince us that we cannot be happy or fulfilled unless we have their product. The church is the mall, now open on Sunday for our emotional satisfaction. But what price do we pay by having it all? This religion tells us that everything is a commodity. It is all about personal consumption. What will that kind of religion ultimately do to our souls?
In his introduction to his essay “Compensation,” Emerson writes a poem which states, “In changing moon, in tidal wave, Glows the feud of want and have.” He remarked on hearing a preacher speak about compensation coming in the after life in heaven for those who live a virtuous life now. This is for those poor and despised saints who resist worldly temptations. The preacher said that the good seem miserable in the present because they eschew such sinful luxuries as accumulation of goods, property, wine, fancy dress and houses. Emerson notices something is wrong with this picture. These sinners are having a darn good time, and the preacher is merely saying that the good people will be rewarded later on, with a ticket to heaven. The implication is the bad people can sin now, but will pay for it later, and the good people can sin later. We would sin now, if we could, but we are saving ourselves for heaven. Emerson contradicts the preacher by asking what really constitutes success? Why should we concede that the bad ones are the successful ones, and what is the personal price of this definition of success? With compensation, Emerson would argue that there is a balance in life, and that we must find a balance in our lives in order to access this spiritual wholeness now. He realizes that what we gain in power is lost in time, and the converse. For everything you gain, you also lose. The farmer for instance may imagine that power and place are fine things to desire, but he also knows that the President has paid dear for his White House.
Emerson realizes there is a terrible price to be paid for those who separate the good from the tax. This separation destroys the soul, for the person can have the brag on his or her lips without regard for the condition of the soul. In essence the person becomes infected because they cease to see God whole in each object, so we can see the sensual allure of an object, but not see the sensual hurt that might result from its use or abuse. He writes, “he sees the mermaid’s head, but not the dragon’s tail.” He comes to believe that what he has will not effect the rest of him. In Emerson’s days the full appreciation of the wholeness of compensation might be the wooden chair that was hand made by the Shakers, where this religious sect believed that a piece of God inhabited each article. Theologically, this also informed Emerson’s understanding that the divine was indwelling in everything, and when we begin to separate the sacred from the profane, then we are able to believe that the chair is good in and of itself, and it is good to accumulate as many as we want, without understanding that soul is lost in more accumulation. With acquisition there is no law of compensation. There is only more acquiring, and balance is lost. The other aspect of this is that the loss of balance in sensual allurement is the potential harm to others that we fail to see by separating ourselves from the law of compensation. Do others have a chair, or how is that chair being produced and by whom? Who is being hurt in our country by being unemployed, and who is being exploited elsewhere with poor working conditions? We often ask that question today when so many of our goods are being produced in China.
Should we boycott Wal-Mart?
The fundamental question is how can we maintain and develop any kind of spiritual wholeness when this consumer culture is all pervading. We even fall into this verbiage when we talk about the extension of our own faith, which historically has a strong strain of individualism freedom and self-fulfillment. Religious leaders often believe that finding ways to market the faith to consumers is an effective way to attract new members. Even in terms of our own growth we talk about what programs will appeal to the individual tastes and needs of certain groups, and thereby lose any sense of vision for the whole church and its mission in the world because we are only focused what will attract people in response to their personal needs. Perhaps some of this cannot be avoided, but there are some ways we can achieve the balance of compensation that Emerson speaks of.
Emerson says the preacher implied that the one who follows his/her desires is successful and enjoys life now, but will suffer later on. Emerson believes this is erroneous because he knows from his own experience that one who enjoys too much will pay for it, but conversely we also know it is true that completely sublimating our desires destroys natural human wants and needs. The ascetic who decides that spiritual fulfillment is found by never enjoying life perverts what is good and fruitful about life. We are created as sexual beings, as beings of desire, as being of laughter and joy, as social beings who are made to find engagement and meaning through conversation and emotional attachments to others. George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.” It is natural for us to want food, love, community, affirmation and compassion from others. Denying ourselves the fulfillment of all desires would mean that we also would become beings who lack any joie de vivre. Of course advertisers in our culture know this about us, and play to our weaknesses. We do desire things.
While we have said it is natural to have desires, and it is good to act on some of them so that we might enjoy life and its bounty, we also know that these desires can destroy us in many different ways. Our desire for food , if not moderated, can result in obesity and ultimately we lose our good health. Like any desire it must be brought under control, and so we place limits on our desire for unbounded freedom. There must be compensation, Emerson might say, for the natural desire to eat food. You must balance this desire with other desires - a long life, exercise, feeling good, or even the desire to look attractive to others. Perhaps your long term desire is fame or to be a famous sports star or singer. Then you have other desires to help you achieve that ultimate desire. Your smaller desires like singing lessons or a quality baseball glove are the tools to help you achieve your lifelong desire. Again Emerson reminds us that any desire has its price in the soul. Where is the balance found, and do you destroy yourself or others in the pursuit of this desire? What we come to realize is that any desire must be managed. I have a friend whose son’s desire to be an Olympic skater became the chosen obsession of the entire family. Unfortunately the focus on that one desire made the family lose track of what was best for everyone, and that the sacrifices of the other children and the parents were too much for the balance of the family and its emotional health. They are no longer together. It is difficult because the power of our emotions to have what we want or seem capable of achieving are powerful. But what is the price? Here reason and balance must be implemented. What serves everyone’s desires? This is why the Buddha advised a middle path in life. You cannot just go wild in response to your desires, but neither can you take the life out of yourself and be an ascetic. We are advised to seek moderation in all things, the law of compensation.
We also need to know when we seek moderation for ourselves, where the balance is for ourselves and our needs. One things advertisers are attempting to do with emotional attachments is to foster our self- identity as tied to the product. I remember feeling some of this when I was determined to buy only small foreign cars. My identity was tied to an kind of anti-Americanism that rejected the culture of gas guzzling, poorly built cars. My goal was to save America from itself through the purchase of Subarus and Hondas. The danger is believing that this is the product that makes me whole or what gives me meaning in life. In the reading from The End of Suffering, Pankaj Mishra talks about the personal transformation that is required of us. Of course those former foreign cars have become our American cars, and now big and fast is our standard once more. I own a Ford. We cannot transform our economic or political system by what we own. We must maintain our freedom of conscience under this system, and live a moral and political life. The task “is not so much of achieving regime change as of resisting ‘the irrational momentum of anonymous, impersonal, and inhuman power. This power takes the form of advertising, consumption and technology. We must free ourselves from it as much as we can. We cannot smash the mirror, but we can live more simply and less competitively. This comes back to making personal, moral choices to find a balance in our lives. We balance all the stuff with open spaces, the desires with the sublimation.
Everyone in this room knows that our culture tries to convince us that there is always something more to want, and that these desires need to be fed by purchasing what we want, and this in turn will make us fulfilled people. We know immediately that one thing wrong with this picture is that it is an endless treadmill of desire. We can never be fulfilled because there is always more to want. Emerson has already reminded us that too much buying of objects put us out of balance emotionally and spiritually. While the advertising tells us we have to have one of everything, we know that we do not need all this stuff. And then the advertiser simply invent new needs that are purported to simplify our lives, but actually make them more complicated because they give us endless choices, and still invent more needs for more choices and so on. Fulfilling all these desires may drive us beyond distraction to a realization that we must find Emerson’s balance again. Each of us might ask ourselves, what do we need? When is too much accumulation too much? Do I need this much? Could I give some away? Why is no one ever taught to sacrifice anything? For many of us giving up something to get some other desire fulfilled was an important lesson in life. Sacrifice by those who have too much can also mean some for those who have none. What is it doing to my soul to have all these things? We want to enjoy life and fulfill certain desires, but when do lose sight of how much more stuff makes us more isolated from ourselves and others? When is it becoming a protective cover for an emotional gap we feel? When does it become our meaning in life?
We can say that the consumer religion becomes a substitute religion for many. While it is true that these objects may become the objects of our time and devotion, and we may lose sight of time spent with others or time alone, the greatest danger is that we would see this religion as an object to fulfill our personal desires. When we talk about Unitarian Universalism trying to fulfill the personal needs of people with programs that fit their profile, then it becomes a matter of how we can sell this religion to you. This is especially dangerous with our liberal faith because it tends to be based on you picking out the elements of faith that fit you. You can tailor make this religion to just give you what you want, and you can take away a little freedom and rebelliousness, and not give anything back. Then we have succeeded in give you a selfish faith that does not do anything for anybody except you.
Part of the problem with the marketing consumer culture today is that its appeals come to you in isolation. Even though we are here in church, a religion that simply says, “hey, you be you,” sounds like do what you want and find your bliss, and live in complete and utter isolation. We all want inner peace, but we can only achieve it through being connected to something greater than ourselves If this religion is about your needs getting filled, then it is going to fall short of meaning, and you will be alone. The problem with the consumer faith is that it asks what am I going to get out of this. If that is our approach, then we are probably better off worshipping at the mall. If we want a serious religious faith that is going to transform us, and possibly transform the world, then we need to ask, what am I going to give to this? The culture tells us to shop because we are empty, and need to be filled up. It says you need this; the economy needs this. Women especially deny themselves or empty themselves to reach the ideal form. Then their food or their manna to fill themselves is shopping. Their therapy is shopping. But this therapy has no meaning outside of the self. There is no larger meaning, no relationship.
When we give to something larger it gives meaning because then we are saying there is something greater than me. Peace, contentment, forgiveness, change all come through relationship with the universe and others. Religion says give back what you have been given, love one another, help those in need. Last weekend I met someone who said he knew Jesus said love as you would want to be loved, but what about this love your enemies stuff? And I said he believed that religion was about making peace in all your relationships, extending the hand of love and friendship to everyone, not just those who make you feel good. Religion. It’s not about you. It’s about us. All of us who need your love, your care, your understanding. Emily Dickinson once said that the only commandment she ever obeyed was to consider the lilies. She recalls that our deepest commitment in life is not to fulfill our needs by having a successful career, or making money or being famous, but rather it is to be open to what some call God, or the spirit of life, so that we are fully present to one another in love and understanding, in this moment, right now. So it is never about what you can get for yourself, but asks what you can give to others.

Closing Words - from Matthew 6:28-29
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

“Not Alone” - Mark W. Harris

The First Parish of Watertown - January 15, 2006


Opening Words - from A. Powell Davies (adapted)

May this time of worship bring us closer to the meaning of life, and especially to the meaning of our own. May we be true, not to the conformities but to our inner selves; to say to our hearts, each of us for him or her self : I will speak the truth without fear because I am a free soul, breathing the breath of the divine; I will stand for justice, no matter how my actions are construed, because justice is the flame that burns within the light of conscience and must be my guide; I will love the cause of human welfare, the better life for all humankind, the sacred hope of one united community of peace and justice, because this is life’s meaning whispered in the spirit’s loneliness, the meaning that redeems our emptiness, the love of one another that lifts us to the true meaning of the love of God.

Sermon

A few years ago our former minister David Rankin published a UUA meditation manual which contained a short reading called “Incarnation.” He wrote: “I met him in 1962 - in Mount Vernon, Iowa. He was not a good planner: two hours late for the appointment and unaware of the location. He was not a commanding presence: short in stature and ungainly in movement. He was not a handsome figure: slightly overweight and clothes too small for the body. He was not a congenial person: impatient in conversation and never fully present. He was not a great speaker: words lost in the nose and ill-timed gestures. He was not a creative individual: ideas borrowed from others and frequent repetition. He was not a happy character: wide mournful eyes and lips not made for smiling. But if God appeared anywhere in the 20th century - it was in the form of Martin Luther King, Jr. ” Rankin’s reading is not intended to show us that King was not a very impressive individual, but that if the divine power of love can move through someone who appears and acts just as average as everybody else, then that same power of justice and peace can work through me as well. This is true of the Christmas message. The divine visits the earth in the most humble of forms - a newborn baby. This runs counter to everything we normally learn or even think about heroes, especially those who have such a great impact on the world.
We live in a culture which is obsessed with movie stars and athletes. This was certainly true throughout the 20th century, but even before that, heroes were made through the cultivation of mythic stories about them that supporters created, or they invented themselves. One of America’s most popular was Buffalo Bill, who became the toughest Indian fighter, the best shot, and the bravest man who ever lived. In real life, Buffalo Bill did not exactly meet these standards, but the culture seemed to want to create heroes that it could worship so they would have images of heroic acts of courage resulting in victory over perceived enemies. We continue to do this with our high salaried icons in society today. The media has everyone worshipping the handsome, humble, seemingly invincible Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. We are led to believe that women swoon at his handsome visage, and men wish they had his cool confidence under pressure. Of course most of this is hype, but we are trained to place the most handsome or beautiful people, the most brave, even the richest lifestyles on a pedestal for emulation or at least pipe dreams that we could emulate them in some way.
I have not known very many famous people in my life. I have usually been surprised by famous academics I have known through my experience in college and graduate school. There are usually those professors who are known as the stars of the department. This is because they have published the most books, or have won the most fame through research in their field. One thing that is true is that, like movies stars or athletes, they seem to have this little band of groupies that follow them around and worship at their feet. Graduate students seem to feel they will win some special favor by working with the famous Dr. So and So. What happens though is that the famous professor spends an inordinate amount of time on his/her pet projects, and therefore this leaves little opportunity to prepare to teach effectively or time to give to the actual students themselves. Now I am sure there are exceptions, but my experience was the biggest academic stars were usually quite full of themselves and not very friendly or supportive individuals. If you like being part of the aura it was great, but if you wanted someone to make helpful suggestions, it was better to work with another professor who could give you a little time. The truth I learned was that as people, these stars did not live up to their hype. Even if they were the smartest, this did not make them the best teacher or the most supportive person.
There is another side to this hero stuff. Some years ago I was the UUA headquarters staff liaison for the Melcher Book Award, the annual prize that is given to the book that best exemplifies the values of religious liberalism. It was my job to organize the dinner and prize presentation. This always took place at First Parish in Cambridge. One year the winner was Toni Morrison, who would shortly thereafter win a Pulitzer Prize for the same book we had designated as our winner, her novel Beloved. I made some presumptions. First I felt like a writer of this stature was never going to show up to accept our puny little award. I would never hear from her. Then when I did hear from her agent that she would be attending I wondered what kind of fancy arrangements I would need to make. First I learned she would be arriving by train, and a limo at the airport would not be necessary. Then when I greeted her, she was not taken aback by riding in my little Honda Civic. I soon realized that any notion of grandiose expectations was absurd. This simply but beautifully dressed, soft spoken, humble woman was very easy to be with and talk with. She was clearly not caught up in the hype of her fame or reputation. Of course I still regret not asking her to autograph a first edition of Beloved. Taken together it was clear to me from my experience with professors and now this one fleeting moment of being in the presence of fame was that people are just people - Being with the famous can remind us that our heroes are not larger than life, but people like us with flaws and talents, skills and failings.
This hero worship is worth remembering in the context of Martin Luther King day. We often like our heroes larger than life, and King has certainly achieved that status with a special holiday marking the significance of his life. We all know what he contributed to our American vision of a world where racism is confronted and peace and justice, fairness and equality are achieved in life for people of all racial, cultural and ethnic groups. What may be obvious about all he achieved with his life is that he helped us dream of a world more fair with the help of others. One of these others was Rosa Parks. Parks was the woman who is often credited with single-handedly bringing about the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In his book Stride Toward Freedom, King describes how she was ordered to move to the back of the bus to accommodate white passengers. She refused to do so. This was December 1, 1955. There was some question at the time whether the NAACP had started the boycott, but King said this is not so. He said it was her own affirmation that she had had enough, and would not be humiliated any longer. Then King says, “It was an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom. All the indignities of generations of historical people, and all the yearning of those yet to be born all came together in this one act. This gives enormous significance to this act, and its place in the civil rights movement. I would not want to minimize the importance of this act, but if the story centers upon one individual’s actions it may make it easier for us to call her worthy, but also neglect our own worthiness. It may also be inaccurate.
Rosa Parks died last fall. After she died Paul Loeb wrote an interesting article called “The Real Rosa Parks.” The obituaries had given her the usual accolades of her individual importance as the mother of the civil rights movement. Loeb says we lose the significance of what we accomplish together when we focus on individual heroes. We create myths that hide the truth of collaboration and mentoring. Parks, he says had been a member of the local NAACP chapter for 12 years including being its secretary. The previous summer she had gone for a training session in civil rights organizing, and been inspired by the leader Septima Clark. But who has ever heard of Septima Clark? The previous spring another woman had refused to move to the back of the bus, but the NAACP did not want to use her for a legal challenge because she was single and pregnant. Then there is E.D. Nixon who wanted to pursue a test case, and the Women’s Political Council. Loeb says it is important to remember that this was not some spur of the moment decision where a divine spirit entered history, and said now is the time. This act was years in the making, and there were many people who contributed to its development along the way. Loeb says the myth of individual action makes us less likely to participate in social change if it requires some larger than life figure to come out of nowhere, and act in an extraordinary fashion. We see ourselves has not having the time, energy, courage or vision to do anything like this. Historical change occurs because groups of people act in concert. Many people spoke out against the Vietnam War, not a few antiwar activists. It was you and I on our campuses, and in the streets of Washington that said this war must end. Social change takes many years and many people living lives that say things must change. Loeb quotes a young woman named Sonya Tinsley. “I think it does us all a disservice when people who work for social change are presented as saints . . . I’m much more inspired learning how people succeeded despite their failings and uncertainties. It makes me feel like I have a shot at changing things, too.” When she heard that King received a letter grade of C in his first philosophy course, she found that inspiring given what he had done with his life. “It made me feel,” she said, “that just about anything was possible.”
This article helps to affirm that social change is achieved by many people working together. It is achieved in small increments. It is achieved by people just like you and me living lives of integrity and purpose year in and year out. My sermon title today derives from the well known UU hymn Forward Through the Ages, which has the line, “Not alone we conquer, not alone we fall. In each loss or triumph, lose or triumph all.” There is this sense of drawing upon the committee work, the discussions, the trainings, the years of frustrations and humiliations, the history of those who had struggled before, the people who we work with who see a brighter tomorrow coming if we persevere. John Hope Franklin was an African American scholar and historian who used the past to help us see the long struggle toward freedom, and the continuities it has with the present. Franklin helped change the image of Reconstruction I learned about in school, which was that it was a period when a bunch of ignorant ex-slaves were controlled by corrupt northerners. Franklin found the freedmen were desperate for an education and wanted to help develop their communities. This was largely impossible though, as Franklin’s father learned when he moved to Tulsa in 1921, and a few months after that most of the black section of town was destroyed in one of the bloodiest race riots in American history. Of this time, Franklin wrote, “There was never a moment in any contact I had with white people that I was not reminded that society as a whole had sentenced me to abject humiliation for the sole reason I was not white.
The word humiliation strikes a chord when we recall the life of Rosa Parks. Think of the white privilege we enjoy simply by the ability to go anywhere we choose - to shop for shoes, look at books, check out cars, or drive a car unimpeded, and not be followed around or harassed simply because we are the wrong color. I noticed one of our covenant groups had an email with an attachment about white privilege, so I know it will be a discussion topic for some of you. The privilege we have inhibits us from acting or even pondering the injustices in our society. We have such privilege that it is difficult to ponder giving some of that up to produce a more equitable way of life. The kinds of economic, school and housing segregation we have makes it difficult to see what we can do.
Our speaker for this year’s Martin Luther King Unity Breakfast tomorrow is Kirk Jones, a professor at Andover Newton Theological School. After Rosa Parks died he wrote a short essay called, “We are Rosa Parks.” That title evokes some of the image of how simple folk like us working together can bring about social change. Perhaps as relevant to seeing that social change requires not a few large heroes doing our work, but many small heroes working together, Jones wants us to recognize the importance of individual integrity in not contributing to our own diminishment as whole people. First Jones says, we must remember her very act: sitting. Most of us don’t sit and contemplate who we are, and if we are true to our convictions. Here we don’t have to worry if we are participating in some earth changing bus boycott, but whether we can even take the time to sit for five minutes without running off to the next task or event. Can we contemplate what is the right way to live or what is the right thing to do in our lives?. There is a power in sitting and contemplating the rightness of our lives. Everything about our lives is getting over or getting through with it. We eat the dinner to be done. We drive here to run there. We don’t have time to sit. One thing that rings true in Parks life is that the very act of sitting is not anything extraordinary. She was tired and needed to rest. She has the same right to be there as anyone else. No one is going to lessen her in any way. She is not going to lower her eyes, or step out of the way, or defer to someone else. She is not going to be humiliated by some white person, some male, some rich person, some . . . . She does not have to do anything extraordinary like part a Red Sea, but what she does do is not let herself be lessened. No one is going to tell her what she needs, or what will make her life better. She needs to do what she needs to do to gain a firm sense of her own power and control over her own self. This is a way that we as a congregation can all act in concert. We can think of ways that we can be more active in becoming a peace church, or making our building or our lives more environmentally friendly, but we can first sit and reflect. We can sit and take the time and decide that our lives are going to be lived with integrity and simplicity with kindness toward each other and the earth. Jones quotes Parker Palmer, “Where do people find the courage to live divided no more when they know they will be punished for it? They have come to understand that no punishment anyone might inflict on them could possibly be worse than the punishment they inflict on themselves by conspiring in their own diminishment.”
This brings us full circle because we might sit and contemplate what brings about our own diminishment. Do we see dishonesty or cheating somewhere in our lives? Diminishment occurs when we believe that we cannot do anything about changing the world because it can only be done by larger than life heroes. Over the years I don’t think there is any story that evokes more everyday courage than that of the the story of the village of Le Chambon as told in the book Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed. Le Chambon was, like so many villages in France, overrun by the Nazis in 1940. As soon as the Germans controlled these villages they began rounding up all the Jews to be taken and deported to various concentration camps. The unique thing about Le Chambon is that their village pastor Father Trocme, and most of the villagers refused to go along with the Nazi requests. Perhaps most of those villagers asked themselves the question. Could I live with myself if I turned my neighbor over to the Nazis to be removed to certain death? Could I live with myself ... Can I live with myself using these goods or wasting this? Where is the line of integrity for each of us when we sit and contemplate a world made more whole. Rosa Parks would not be humiliated any longer. She had to live with integrity. And so we ask, what things in my life bring about my own diminishment? What lessens me as a human being? Is there something I want to ask for or demand of another? Is there something that remains unspoken that I must expose to the light of day?
Tomorrow is Martin Luther King day. For the past six years we have remembered this special day with a breakfast here in Watertown. Gatherings such as this remind us that we need to sit and remember all the work for justice and equality that has preceded us in our journey. It is a time to remember not just the heroes, but all those who have said no to inequality and humiliation. Gatherings such as this remind us that we have to renew our vision of what the world might become or we lose track or become distracted and forget how fair the world might be if resources were shared more equitably. It is a time to renew our commitment to equality and justice for all. Gatherings such as this remind us that we only achieve greatness when everyone works on a great vision from all the people. Seeing only heroes as great allows us to neglect to nurture our own greatness. The gift of this day in the context of the life of Rosa Parks is that one life of integrity and courage leads to another and another. We live not as individual icons of virtue, but as communities of common people trying to be good together. May these great figures help us to remember our own lives and our own community. We remember these people for saving the souls of America and helping to set us on the right course toward justice. This worship service every week is an opportunity for you and I to sit, like Rosa, and contemplate how we might save our souls. We remember those who defied the humiliation of self and others and lived in the light of their own integrity and purposeful vision. May we do the same.

Closing Words from Christine Robinson (adapted)

We build on foundations we did not lay.
We warm ourselves at fires we did not light.
We sit in the shade of trees we did not plant.
We drink from wells we did not dig.
We profit from persons we did not know.
We are not alone in the work that lies before us
We are ever bound in community.
We build the land of peace and justice together.

Mark W. Harris - “All the Same”

January 8, 2006 - First Parish of Watertown

Opening Words - from the Koran, Sura 5

To each of you God has prescribed a law and a way. If God would have willed, God would have made you a single people. But God’s purpose is to test you in what God has given
each of you, so strive in the pursuit of virtue, and know that you will all return to God, and God will resolve all the matters in which you disagree.

Sermon - “All the Same” - Mark W. Harris

One of my favorite children’s books is called You Look Ridiculous, Said the Rhinoceros to the Hippopotamus. It is the story of a typically fat, self-effacing, smooth skinned, small eared, water loving hippo, who encounters an overly confident rhinoceros one day. The rhinoceros tells the poor hippopotamus that she looks ridiculous because
she does not have a horny protuberance on her nose like the one that adorns his head. It was plain to the rhino that anyone with a nose without a horn looks absolutely ridiculous. She would have a much more attractive appearance, he told the hippo, if she only had a horn like his. Having a crisis of self-confidence, the hippo concludes that this must be true. Then she moves on through the jungle inquiring of every animal she meets if she does look ridiculous. She begins to encounter other animals as she walks along. Each in turn is asked whether the hippo is a funny looking animal, and each confirms that indeed she looks ridiculous, but could cure this malady if she only had the proper appendage or physical characteristic that adorns each animal who has been asked this very question of whether the hippo looks ridiculous or not. The hippo meets a lion, a leopard, an elephant, a monkey, a giraffe, a turtle and a nightingale. Soon she has conjured up this image of what would make for the most perfectly constructed species. All she seems to need is the monkey’s long tail, the elephant’s large, floppy ears, the giraffe’s craning neck, the rhino’s sharp horn, the lion’s mane, the leopard spots, the turtle’s shell, and the bird’s lovely voice all grafted on to her at once. That night this imaginary gorgeous new creature appears to her in a dream, and she confronts all the animals who had laughed at her, and she now implores them to tell her how beautiful she has become with all these perfect features of theirs. Of course they all double over with laughter when they see this bizarre creature with all the multiple wrong features, and say in unison, “you look ridiculous.” The hippo runs to a pool of water , and upon seeing the reflection concludes, “I do look ridiculous.” In fact this hideous sight wakes her from the dream. Somewhat belatedly the hippo finally concludes that she looks best when she is being herself; one fat, content, water loving, mud dozing creature.
Although this story is the perfect prelude to a sermon on loving yourself without trying to be everything the culture encourages or others want you to be, it also reminded me of a religion that seemingly purports to be all things to all people. Many of you know that our Unitarian Universalist faith has a long tradition of advocating tolerance for other religious faiths. Our ancestors in Transylvania formulated the first edict of toleration in history at the Diet of Torda in 1568. Four traditions, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Unitarian, were considered received religions or acceptable as containing truth. This also meant that Judaism and Islam were considered blasphemous, and were not to be tolerated. While it was progress to see four faiths agreeing to allow each other to coexist without the threat of punishment, exile or death for disagreeing, it was still only what we would call a partial understanding of religious tolerance. Acceptable truth only extended as far as variations in the expression of Christianity. Most of you know that Unitarian Universalism over the centuries progressed to the point where Christianity came to be understood as one of many world wide expressions of religious truths, but was no longer thought of as the pinnacle of religious revelation to humankind. Our Transylvanian ancestor Francis David set the stage for this when he declared “semper reformanda,” which means the reformation continues. We must continue to search for truth or revelation is never sealed. While openness to new truths whencesoever they come means we must be open or tolerant of new viewpoints, it can also leave us vulnerable to the concern that nothing is ever accepted as permanently received truth. It is only truth for now, or truth in this context.
Openness to new truths to be revealed in the future is different from how we respond to those truths that religious people throughout the world have already embraced as truth. Last week, some of you were here for my question box sermon. Among the questions was one about tolerance. Unitarian Universalism commonly implores us to be tolerant or understanding of all religious faiths. But what exactly does this mean? It would be naive of us to say all religions teach peace, or all religions teach some variation of the Golden Rule. It is almost like saying all religions simply want us to be nice to each other. The readings depict tolerant sources of faith, but following those, or interpreting those in an understanding fashion is more difficult, especially if you have strong convictions. It is one thing to say that different religious have developed in different cultures, and those faiths have meaning in the context of their time and place, but many of those historical religions have continued to exist throughout the centuries and have spread their message throughout the world. Proponents of particular religions have developed intense convictions about those religions, and the truths they teach. Those convictions have come into conflict with secular states. While our UU faith seems to embrace a religious pluralism that affirms that there are many paths to the sacred, and all are equally valid, it is also true that most Unitarian Universalists have a difficult time understanding exactly what our convictions are beyond a kind of vague, “it’s all good” kind of understanding of faith.
The question from last week went to the heart of the matter because it pointed out the problem of discovering that some of the tenets of these faiths we blithely claim as all good are morally horrifying to us. We live in a pluralistic age where all the religions and cultures of the world are mixing more and more, but can we be tolerant of those who have beliefs that are misogynist or homophobic or violent? What we have witnessed over the last few decades has been a polarization of fundamentalists from secularists with virtually no one occupying a middle ground. We would typically be grouped with these secularists who want a complete separation of church and state, often to the point where it would be difficult in the public sphere to allow anyone to express their convictions. This perspective often became the butt of criticism and jokes during the holiday season. Everyone from Jay Leno to Mayor Menino had something to say about the lighting or buying the holiday tree, formerly known as the Christmas tree. Some news columnists and others celebrated the fact that we no longer have cultural imperialism where everyone must celebrate Christmas regardless of your religious orientation, but instead have a pluralistic response to the holidays where all perspectives must be represented, from Hanukkah to Kwanzaa. Others decried the fact that they could no longer say Christmas tree, but instead must make it a generic winter festival that celebrates the birth of the holiday child. None of this baby boy Jesus stuff for pluralists!
Some of this confusion reigns in Unitarian Universalists congregations. What are we celebrating at Christmas time was another question asked last week? We have pageants that seemingly say that all faiths have something to contribute to the season, but then we sing Christ the savior is born, and light candles on Christmas Eve. Which is it? Sure some of Christmas is cultural, and this has helped make Hanukkah a bigger festival than it actually is in Jewish tradition, but most of these other religious holy days are not celebrated by many of us with any kind of conviction. Mostly our true celebrations and rituals are for Christmas, and perhaps solstice. So who are we being pluralistic for? In this increasingly pluralistic world it is good for us to learn about other faiths, so that we can help broaden our understanding that we are engaged in a larger collective enterprise. This is partly why we have emphasized the holiness in the births of all children rather than simply turning to the birth of a savior. We recognize that saving the world is a human enterprise, and not a divine one, and that it must be all people and faiths working together rather than one message or one culture predominating.
Some of this holiday hubbub has local implications with the controversy over the former Christmas Bazaar turned holiday faire, at the Lowell School, where two of my sons attend. Just this week the World in Watertown, the human rights group that meets at the church was discussing how the schools here will be working on a formal policy of how they are going to deal with religious holidays in the schools. This is a complicated issue. One of the problems with the initial decision to change the holiday bazaar to an optional, evening event rather than a required daytime event was that there was no dialogue around the issue. There was fear that it was somehow a violation of the separation of church and state without any discussion of how important it was to those who had worked hard on it. Those who had deep seated attachments to the event simply felt as though it were ripped away from them. One part of the experience for these people was that they felt their convictions and traditions were not respected. It is similar to those who feel they have to call their Christmas tree a holiday tree. In our fervor to see that all viewpoints are represented, we forget that those who hold particular convictions are not heard at all. It sometimes happens in Unitarian Universalist congregations where we try to include all viewpoints, but wonder if we have convictions about any.
So what will our community do? Not too many weeks ago you heard me say in a sermon that I advocated the teaching of religion in the public schools. Here I don’t mean confessional faith proclamations of particular faiths, but rather an information based understanding of all the world’s faith, so we can dialogue with one another better in this increasingly pluralistic world. A few months back there were some serious riots in France of Muslim youth. We have learned in America that it is difficult to balance the freedom to practice one’s own faith with the separation of church and state, but the French government has made some serious mistakes in their efforts. First , they forbid Muslim girls from wearing head scarves, and tried to control all French Muslims through officially recognized Islamic organizations. What is clear is that it is important to allow differing religious groups to express their convictions and not be impeded in the freedom to do so. This kind of pluralism is also going to be increasingly home grown. Those Islamic radicals who bombed the trains in Britain were native Brits, born and raised there. There is clearly no room for the fear of the outsider to exist as even a possibility, as more of the outsiders become insiders in terms of education and cultural background. Yet the tensions which exist in the world are evident in the recent rioting in France and Australia.
The problem with the French approach is you cannot pretend or try to make the people’s moral, religious or cultural convictions are all the same. The girls wanted to be allowed the opportunity to express their convictions by wearing headscarves. Last fall, a new United States undersecretary was visiting Saudi Arabia, where women are forbidden from driving. This diplomat gave a speech before a group of Saudi women where she conveyed the joys of driving as part of her freedom to work, shop and go to the doctor. The Saudi women said they were fine with the ban and seemed offended that someone would suggest otherwise. You and I may not fully understand or agree with those convictions, and it is also possible that we may inadvertently affirm them as being positive by saying, “it’’s all good.” This same U.S. government official told a group of women in Turkey, how she loved children, and they asked in response, if she was really a lover of children, how could she support the war in Iraq since the war was killing so many of them? At the heart of both the French approach and this diplomats style is a kind of cultural or political imperialism that reflects the belief that everyone within a particular context should hold the same beliefs, or if not, then they should all adopt the beliefs of the superior culture. However, where is the tolerance line with the Saudi women? For instance, when are we being politically insensitive, and when should we voice our own convictions to say, I believe that women should be given equal opportunity to drive. If the French girls can wear their scarves, then should the Saudi women be able to affirm their acceptance of not driving? Of course we need more people who are sensitive to this kind of cultural and religious diversity, and will allow it to be expressed without fear for their own convictions. At the same time we should not be so tolerant that we are unwilling to say, I disagree with your convictions. Here are the limits of our tolerance. While we may be willing to sit down and listen to the beliefs of a Christian who says same sex marriage is morally reprehensible, our conviction of being tolerant of other faiths stops when someone expresses a belief we find repugnant. Our conviction is that all human beings should have the opportunity to express their love for another through a permanent, state sanctioned institution. While we would affirm the right of that individual to express a conviction against same sex marriage, our tolerance of their right to express themselves should not lead us to say, it’s all good”. We should say that it is morally wrong to deny someone this opportunity to a life long affirmation of their love.
I have just finished teaching Unitarian Universalist history at Andover Newton Theological School. Each week there is a discussion question. Beginning with European Unitarianism in Transylvania, the discussion question for that week was, How do we understand tolerance in light of our heritage, and an increasing fundamentalism in the world? My class struggled with question because they mostly did not care for the word tolerance. To them it seemed that tolerance meant tolerating something or putting up with it, rather than understanding it. Perhaps it is true that in our local communities we tend to tolerate those of different perspectives, and get resentful when we feel they are taking away things we have held dear, like holiday bazaars. More celebrations of all religious festivals, including Christian ones, would help with our ability to understand one another. We do need to hear what others believe rather than trying to whitewash the world.
One of the problems with the current religious environment in the world is that the two sides do not hear each other. We liberals hear the word religion, and we think, politically conservative religion. Liberals need a good dose of fervor in support of their own beliefs rather than simply attacking the right as superstitious idiots. We could have more understanding conversations about faith with the liberals acknowledging that our world does not lend itself to simple, rational explanations, and we could hold a little ore reverence for the mystery of all creation. As G. K Chesterton once said, “Reason itself is a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.” I think liberals are challenged to do two things. A few weeks ago there was an article in the Globe about a lawsuit challenging a revision in the curriculum which deletes any recognition that there is a controversy over whether Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915. This is the same issue that surfaces with teaching intelligent design along with evolution. Do we take any theory that someone wants to put forth and teach it, believing that the truth will win out. I think some things are incontrovertible. It is like allowing Holocaust deniers to hold forth with their insane theory, while believer that high school students can weigh all the evidence. It allows propaganda and lies to exist in the curriculum. Here is an instance of the limits of tolerance. We will always have disagreements , but I believe when you have overwhelming scholarly evidence, then you draw the line, and teach the truth, or as near as we can find to the truth. So the first thing we stop saying, is “it’s all good.” Once we have done that, then we need to reclaim our truths. Historically there has sometimes been a liberal smugness, sort of like Margaret Fuller proclaiming, I have met all the great minds of Europe, and find none equal to my own. We need to get over our liberal, we know what ‘s best for the masses point of view. But we also must remember that religious liberalism has an incredible history of faith in the human spirit, and its ability to imagine a world where there is a possibility for peace and justice. Long ago when I was a teenager, a Protestant interfaith youth group in Orange, Massachusetts organized an exchange with a youth group from Springfield. For this first time in my life I learned about racism and injustice, as kids my own age living 45 minutes from my door, talked to me, and opened my eyes to the world. And I learned about Jesus, and a continuing gospel vision of a world transformed, and that same religious tradition kept echoing in my eyes as I felt the successive waves of feminism, and gay rights. We all felt that with same sex marriage issue. It was a religious thing. It was about love and understanding. It was about truth. We learned and continue to learn that some expressions of religion preach hate and prejudice. It’s not all good. This is a very difficult balance between understanding others and still expressing our own convictions. Unitarian Universalism is a faith that wants people of different beliefs to worship as one faith. We want to be understanding of those differences under our umbrella. But the umbrella of truth has limits, for it must be a covering of love. Part of that love is listening and understanding others, but part is saying, no, this is what I believe is true. For we believe the role of the church, is what Dr. Martin Luther King said it is, “the role of the church is to free people, people who are slaves to prejudices, slaves to fear. The church is called to set free those that are captive.” There is still time to claim our moral vision for liberal religion.


Closing Words - John Brigham

Go forth in your ways,
Knowing not the answers to all things,
Yet seeking always to find the right way
Be searchers with your fellow humans
Be adventurers in ways untried.
Hold the hope of discovery high within you
Sharing your doubts,
But keeping your confidence.
Building on what has been but making a new beginning
And mingle with the kindred of the nations the alchemy
of vision and service.