Wisdom of the Wizards: Lessons from the Harry Potter Series and what J.K. Rowling should have Learned!

 

Rev. Jane Page

When Greg and I were in London earlier this year, we toured lots of places in and around the city.  For most of these, we went on our own – but for others we took professionally guided tours.   We skipped what seemed to be a very popular tour – “The Harry Potter Tour.”  Neither of us are huge Harry Potter fans, though I was required to read all the books while in Keith Kron’s seminary class on Children’s Literature.  If I had known that I would be doing this sermon, I would have signed up for the tour.  I regret that.  Maybe next time.

I have wondered why I did not gravitate towards these books when they first came out.  Well, the first one was published in the US in 1998.  That was the year of my divorce, and I was dealing with lots of transitions in my life.  In addition to this huge transition of being single for the first time in my life – (I married at 17), I was also in the midst of major decisions about my future - including my choice of a faith home, possible job transitions, and more.  The latest trend in reading literature for adolescents was not on my mind.  I didn’t think much about these books at all till Greg Brock started bringing his children over to my house.  Greg’s son Jimmy – and later his daughter Sarah – always seemed to be accompanied by a Harry Potter book.  This was in 2001 when the first Harry Potter movie was also released.  Now perhaps because I had these stepchildren and my grandson JD by that time – all enamored by fantasy and magical thinking – the light came on for me!  I went to see the movie and loved it.  And since the boy starring in the movie was a doppelganger for Jimmy Brock, I felt like Harry was in the house. 

But I still wasn’t a fan girl – and to be honest – I’m still not.  Must be something wrong with me.  But one doesn’t have to be a big fan to appreciate that the Harry Potter books changed the world and how young adult books are written, marketed, and more.  Before Harry Potter, many folks thought the YA market was diminishing.  In case you are not familiar with the category of YA – that stands for “Young Adult” – but it really means books written for people we would normally categorize as preteens and teenagers.  Before Harry Potter, publishers believed that children and adolescents would not read longer books – unless they were graphic comic book style novels.  Since the success of Harry Potter, the market for YA books has increased – perhaps because more adults have realized how good they are.  And the millennials who grew up with the Harry Potter series as well as Twilight and The Hunger Games and Divergent and all the rest that followed - are currently our biggest readers. Plus, these folks in their late 20’s to early 40’s are still big fans of young adult fiction, proudly participating in Cosplays and Cos-cons and more based on their favorite characters.

Since I’m not a huge fan, you may wonder why I’m preaching a sermon based on lessons from this series of books.  And the reason, of course, is because my sermon series is about lessons from banned books and Harry Potter shows up again and again on all those lists. These books have been challenged from the beginning, even with their extreme popularity. 

So first, I’ll address the primary reasons for the books being challenged or banned and then I’ll follow with some of the moral lessons we can learn from the series, followed by what I think J.K. Rowling should still learn from them. 

Constance Grady and Aja Romano, two members of the culture team for Vox Media, wrote an article about the series which included a good summarization of these challenges and bans.  They stated:

Part of what made Harry Potter such a literary phenomenon is that so many kids were reading the books despite an unprecedented number of attempts to get them to stop reading the books.

The Harry Potter series, like many works of fantasy, involves wizardry and witchcraft. The feeling that the books thus promoted the occult proved to be the basis for constant challenges to the series’ presence in school libraries and bookstores by concerned conservative parents. The books first topped the American Library Association’s list of the most banned books of the year in 1999, and remained in the top spot for most of the next decade.

In some regions, pressure to censor the series was so high it led to lawsuits: In 2003, a judge ordered an Arkansas school district that had removed the books from schools due to promotion of “the religion of witchcraft” to return them. Similar formal attempts at removal persisted into the latter half of the decade, and the books continue to rile up conservative religious leaders who warn of its “demonic” influence.  (I should add that in this recent rising tide of the religious right’s banning of books, Harry Potter books are always on the lists and the usual reasons given are related to witchcraft or the occult.)

But witchcraft wasn’t the only evil the books were accused of peddling. In 2007, after the series’ end, J.K. Rowling retroactively outed the powerful wizard Dumbledore as gay. The news prompted Christian scholars to declare the move “nonsense,” while queer fans were in turn angry that Rowling had done so little to make the queer subtext of Dumbledore’s character overt during the time he was actually being written (and alive). In recent years, Rowling has provoked controversy for her series’ lack of diversity, for denying queer sexuality of characters, and many, many more kerfuffles (including her more recent remarks which seem to be downright transphobic – and I’ll discuss these later.)

All this controversy speaks not only to concerns that Rowling’s work would negatively influence children, but to the reality that many of those children grew up to be arguably even more progressive than the books they grew up reading — which is, in a way, a confirmation of conservatives’ worst fears about the series. 

I think the real fear of conservatives is not witchcraft – but that children will grow up to be more inclusive, more progressive, more open to ideas that are different than what their parents may have believed to be true. 

What lessons ARE taught in these books?  First, let me share that I do not think J.K. Rowling wrote the books to be a sacred text of morals.  She wrote books that are entertaining AND that do present characters in all kinds of moral dilemmas, that are wrapped up with bows of fantasies, with good doses of magical thinking and thrills and chills -- but are similar in many ways to dilemmas that we all face in our lives. And Harry, Ron, Hermione and all the rest must figure out what is the right thing to do. 

Of course, I’m not the first person to look at the moral and ethical lessons of Harry Potter.  Some UU congregations (and maybe others) have used the books for Religious Education.  Indeed, instead of Vacation Bible School, some UU congregations invite the children and youth to Hogwarts for some summer instruction. 

For a more scholarly exploration of the topic, I read a book by Edmund M. Kern, who is an associate professor of history at Lawrence, University in Appleton, Wisconsin.  I wondered why a history professor was writing about morality in Harry Potter books, so I looked him up.  Since joining the history department at Lawrence in 1992, a staple of Kern’s teaching has been the popular course, Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. In the late 1990s, when students in that class began questioning him about a certain literary boy-wizard, Kern applied his scholarship in witchcraft and witch hunts in bringing a historic sensibility to the cultural phenomenon that is Harry Potter.  The book especially points out that Rowling’s uses medieval history at Hogwarts combined with a setting that could be placed as London in the 1990’s. 

I assumed his background was in philosophy, though, not history, because of all the connections he makes with the morals he sees in the Harry Potter books with the philosophical writings of those we identify as Stoics and Neo-Stoics.  Stoics emphasize that it is important to accept what is necessary (No use crying over spilt milk) without denying what is possible (wipe it up).  Harry Potter strikes the Stoic balance.  Kern notes that striking the balance is difficult because life is so full of uncertainties.  Kern’s book is full of examples from the Potter series and provides some heavier lifting than I have time to do in this sermon.  But he does try to show that Rowling develops an updated Stoic moral system in her books, a “contemporary neo-Stoic view,” if you will.  As in real life, context does matter in how Harry and his friends address their problems.  For example, they can realize the importance of rules generally, but sometimes see the need to break them.   (I will put this book with others in our Free Little Library of Banned Books.) 

I found one other UU sermon on the lessons we learn from Harry Potter books.  It’s called, “It’s our Choices, Harry…” by Chrissy Bushyager.  The title is taken, of course, from the words of wisdom provided by Dumbledore when he says, “It’s our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, more than our abilities.”  Bushyager points to three nuggets of truth that UU’s can learn from: Listen to the outcasts, Love is Everything, and Community is Key.

And there are lots of blog posts and other articles with folks sharing lessons they have learned – but I don’t have time to share all of those. 

For my own analysis, I tried to see how our proposed shared values as identified by the Article two Study Commission are exemplified or not in the Harry Potter books.  And after doing all this other reading I thought – “I don’t have time to go through those books and find examples and such related to that.”  SO – folks, I used artificial intelligence.  And I figured it’s not cheating if you share that’s how you got it.  So here are how our seven shared values are exemplified in the Harry Potter series.

Equity

One of the main themes in the Harry Potter series is the treatment of different blood statuses in the wizarding world.  The concept of blood purity is a central conflict, as some wizards, such as the Malfoy family, believe that only those with pure wizarding blood are worthy of respect and power.  Other characters, including Hermione Granger and Lily Potter, challenge this belief and advocate for equity and acceptance of all individuals, regardless of their blood status.  The series also shows Dumbledore’s Army organizing a campaign to fight against the enslavement of house-elves and push for their emancipation.  Another theme that promotes equity in the Harry Potter series is the power of friendship and teamwork, especially when individuals have differing talents, skills, knowledge and more. 

Transformation

The series traces the personal growth of many characters, particularly Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they face various challenges and obstacles throughout the books.  These characters undergo transformation and evolve from being naïve children to mature young adults, gaining new insights along the way.  For example, Ron learns to overcome his insecurities and face his fears, Hermione learns to balance her intelligence with her emotions, and Harry learns to cope with loss and take responsibility for his actions. 

Pluralism

The wizarding world depicted in the Harry Potter books is diverse and multicultural with characters from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.  For example, the Patil twins are of Indian descent, while Cho Chang is Chinese descent.  This diversity is not only represented in the characters themselves, but also in their customs and traditions, such as the Yule Ball, which incorporates elements from different cultures.  The series also teaches the value of different talents and skills.  Hermione is praised for her intelligence and academic abilities, while others, like Harry and Ron, are recognized for their bravery and loyalty.  The series promotes tolerance and acceptance of differences, particularly through the character of Dumbledore, who advocates for respecting and protecting minority groups such as werewolves and giants.  The series also highlights the dangers of prejudice and intolerance, as seen in the conflict between the Death Eaters’ belief in pure-blood supremacy and the pluralistic values of Hogwarts.

Generosity

Many characters in the series demonstrate generosity by helping others without expecting anything in return.  They often put themselves at risk to help others, such as when Harry saves Ginny from the Chamber of Secrets or when he sacrifices himself to destroy the Horcrux inside him.  The series also stresses the need for giving back to others and supporting those in need.  Characters like Dumbledore and Molly Weasley demonstrate this by providing a home and support to those who are orphaned or have been abandoned, such as Harry and Hermione.  Whether it is through helping others, fostering friendships, or giving back to the community, the series encourages readers to be generous and selfless in their actions. 

Justice 

The main characters in the series demonstrate a strong commitment to justice by fighting against the forces of evil and standing up for what is right, even when it is difficult.  For example, Harry and his friends stand up against Lord Voldemort and his followers who promote pure-blood supremacy and seek to oppress those who are different from them.  Also, many magical creatures, such as house-elves and centaurs, are treated as inferior and discriminated against by certain characters.  However, the main characters challenge these prejudices and attempt to create a more just society.  The series also teaches that justice requires accountability for one’s actions.  Characters who act unjustly, such as Lucius Malfoy. face consequences in the form of imprisonment or loss of their position of power. 

Interdependence

The series emphasizes the importance of friendship and teamwork in overcoming obstacles.  Harry, Hermione, and Ron work together to solve problems and rely on each other’s strengths to accomplish their goals.  The series promotes the idea that no one can succeed on their own and that we all need support from others.  Characters in the series frequently rely on each other for emotional support, counsel, and encouragement.  

Love

Overall, the Harry Potter series emphasizes the importance of love and its many different forms, including sacrificial love, familial love, and romantic love.  By promoting the idea that love involves sacrifice, selflessness, and mutual respect, the series encourage readers to reflect on their own relationships and interactions with others, and to work towards building strong, supportive relationships based on love and respect. 

Now, I stated that I would also address what J.K. Rowling should learn from her own series.  I don’t want to be too hard on this author.  Most of the authors of books I love have said things that I found objectionable or even deplorable.  And I don’t have as much concern about her being more progressive and diverse in terms of issues related to sexuality and gender in her books – for they perhaps were written before she became more enlightened – and decided to release Dumbledore from the closet.  My concern is related to her more recent remarks and tweets made in 2020, seen as transphobic by many, for which she has not apologized and even doubled down on. I’ll leave it to you to read and determine your own thoughts on her opinion.  But I would ask her to look at the opposition to those at Hogwarts who were not accepted by some because they were muggle-born.  (For those who are not familiar with the series, all of us who are not in the wizarding world are muggles.)  Hermione may have been born as a muggle – but there was something that told her that she was not a muggle – that she was destined to be a witch.  And she was accepted into Hogwarts and excelled – often pulling others through with her excellent magical knowledge and skills.  She did not let the identification of her birth origin determine who she felt that she was.  Hermione may be muggle-born.  But she’s a witch.  And a transwoman may have been assigned as male at birth, but she’s a woman.   And she is welcome to be in the bathroom stall next to me. 

Amen and Blessed Be

 

 

Read Banned Books

Editor:

In support of the right to choose books freely for ourselves, the American Library Association and libraries across this nation are celebrating Banned Books Week, October 1-7, an annual recognition of our right to access books without censorship. Since its inception in 1982, Banned Books Week has reminded us that while not every book is intended for every reader, each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what to read.  Thanks to the wonderful libraries in my schools and in this community, I have been doing that my whole life.

When I was a preteen, I was old enough to walk from my home in Statesboro on Woodrow Avenue to the Statesboro Regional Library on South Main, a much smaller building than it is now, but in the same location.  I would check out all the books my arms would allow me to carry from the Young Adult section of the library.  I could usually carry seven or eight, unless one of them was a book like Gone with the Wind.  I’m not sure why I didn’t have a backpack or bookbag in the 50’s and early 60’s.  Most of us just carried our books in our arms.  Then every night and on the weekends, I would lose myself in these precious works with settings very unlike mid-century Statesboro.  Books from other time periods like To Kill a Mockingbird and Grapes of Wrath, and those from other cultures like The Good Earth helped me to connect and empathize with people in a different place and time.  And fantasy novels like A Wrinkle in Time encouraged my own imagination.  All of them helped nurture my growth and development.

I was also introduced to a lot of good literature in school.  I can remember Mrs. Marsh reading Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream every Friday afternoon in the 8th grade and being introduced by Mrs. Roach to Norse Mythology in the 9th Grade.  Of course, the schools had libraries as well and we were encouraged to check out the books or read them when we visited. 

I fear that our young folks today will not have these same opportunities. Reading is a foundational skill, critical to future learning and to exercising our democratic freedoms. Books are tools for understanding complex issues, and limiting young people's access to books does not protect them from these complex and challenging issues. Additionally, young people deserve to see themselves reflected in a library's books. 

Of course, the banning of books is as old as printed material itself, but there has been a huge increase in the last few years.  From July 2021 to June 2022, PEN America found 2,532 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,648 unique book titles. The bans occurred in 32 states, with Texas and Florida leading the nation, according to PEN America’s landmark 2022 Banned in the USA report.  Sadly, many of the books listed are books that target children, teens, and young adults.  Often the books that are banned are the very kind of books that helped us all see something bigger than our own families and hometowns when we were growing up.  The bans target books that highlight varying cultures, family structures, as well as different races and ethnic groups. Especially targeted in recent years are any books that help children and young adults understand more about LGBTQ+ folks. 

In addition to book banning, laws are being passed to narrow the curriculum and prohibit teachers from reading many books.  One teacher in Cobb County, Georgia was fired in 2023 for reading the book My Shadow is Purple last year to her 5th Grade class.  My Shadow is Purple by Scott Stuart is a lovely book for young children about being true to themselves.  So, this is a great book for letting non-binary children know that they aren't alone and for helping others to be more accepting.  The teacher contended that the new Georgia law is not specific enough for her to know what is not appropriate for her to read.  But she’s fired.  The message to other teachers is BEWARE!

Parents do have a right to guide their own children’s reading.  But they do not have the right to guide everyone else’s children’s reading.  A more appropriate thing for a parent to do would be to read the book themselves and discuss the reasons with their child why they did not agree with the book’s premise. 

Books that I read as a young person have also shown up on these banned books lists, many that we would consider classics.  But according to Georgia Law, if a single parent complains, it must be investigated.  And the decision about whether it remains on the shelves and/or part of the curriculum has been removed from professional media specialists and teachers and put into the hands of building administrators, who are more likely to bend to parental complaints.

It is the contention of the American Library Association and many other groups that removing and banning books from our libraries is a slippery slope to government censorship and the erosion of our country's commitment to freedom of expression. I implore your readers to reject any efforts to ban books and also to commit to reading some of these books themselves.  Hopefully, you can still check them out at our library!

Jane Altman Page

Statesboro

Big Questions: What is the right thing to do?

Everyone on the chartered jet was jubilant.  The plane was filled with Georgia Southern football players, coaches, mangers, trainers, and a bunch of fans (including my family) who were fortunate enough to accompany them to Tacoma, Washington for their first Division I-AA National Championship game in 1985. And, we were so joyful with our win our rival Furman University ended with a last-minute pass from Tracy Ham to Frankie Johnson. 

The flight attendants busily served those who were of age (and perhaps some who were not) with the drinks they ordered.   Unfortunately, the food was served much later, and some of the team members were celebrating a bit too much.  They seemed to find it amusing to harass the female flight attendants.  Coach Erk Russell heard some of the remarks from his front row seat.  I watched as he stood up with a stern look on his face.  He walked back to where the players were – stared at them and said, “Do Right!”  That was all that was needed.  They settled down immediately. 

I had heard Coach Russell share before that he had only one rule for behavior of the team – and that was to “Do Right!”  He shared that most of the players knew by the time they came to college what the right thing was to do – so they did not need to have to have more specific rules.  I was not sure that I entirely agreed with him.  But it surely did work on the plane that evening.  Even the fans behaved a bit better.

But it’s not always so simple to know the right thing to do, is it?  Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, biologists, and others have studied this, of course - specifically studying how and why we may make the decisions that we do make when we have a moral dilemma.

What is a moral dilemma.  The most famous example is probably the Heinz dilemma.  Here is one version used by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg:

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? 

Now forgive me for getting into my teacher mode – but this is the kind of information I taught in my Human Growth and Development class at Georgia Southern back in the day.  Kohlberg did a long-range study following his participants through different ages to see how they answered this and other questions.  (Some of his methods were later criticized – and I’ll share about that later.)  In any case, his findings are probably still the best known and used to show how people tend to move through stages in developing their morality.  And it’s not the ANSWER they give to the question – is the reason they shared for why they gave the answer they did. 

Kohlberg concluded that there are three levels – each containing two stages of moral development.  Here is a chart with how the responses to the Heinz dilemma would be categorized by Kohlberg.

 

#	Level	Stage	Heinz should steal the drug, because	Heinz should not steal the drug, because
1	Pre-Conventional	Obedience	It is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.	He will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person.
		Self-interest	He will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he has to serve a prison sentence.	Prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife's death.
2	Conventional	Conformity	His wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.	Stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
		Law-and-order	His wife will benefit, but he should also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.	The law prohibits stealing.
3	Post-Conventional	Social contract orientation	Everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.	The scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
		Universal human ethics	Saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.	Others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

 

Later psychologists replicated his study using other stories and a wider age-span.  They concluded that we must pass through each of these levels and stages though few of us get to the last one – at least in what we actually do – not what we say we will do. 

Piaget, Kohlberg and others will tell us that a young child is just not developmentally able to base their decision making on the kind of moral reasoning that would put them at the post-conventional level.  And – many adults are not either. 

Now what their choice WOULD be – is often determined by the environment – and what they were taught as they were raised – and the laws on their culture and their religion, too. 

We all face these dilemmas.  Maybe not one like Heinz did – but we all get “in a pickle.”  When I taught elementary school, I would play a pickle jar game with my students – and put in dilemmas that they might actually encounter, then ask them what they would do and why – and we’d talk about it.  I changed some of the situations, but did the same game with my college students at Georgia Southern.  I won’t bring out the pickle jar for you – but you know you’ve been “in a pickle” many times. 

Now I told you that I was going to let you know that some believe Kohlberg may have missed the mark a bit – as we all do.  For one thing, he used only boys in his longitudinal study – no girls. 

Along comes Carol Gilligan  She did her own studies and wrote a book in 1982 called – “In a Different Voice.” 

Gilligan proposed that women come to prioritize an "ethics of care" as their sense of morality evolves along with their sense of self while men prioritize an "ethics of justice."

She also indicated that women go through levels and have transitions between each level. 

Now she got some criticism as well – because, of course, it will be different with different cultures and more.

But the thing is that we do develop our moral decision-making ability – and of course, this is greatly affected by our experiences in life.

One of the most famous moral dilemma’s in American Literature is shared in Mark Twain’s novel, Huckleberry Finn. 

You may remember that Huck had befriended Jim, an enslaved man who had escaped from Miss Watson.  And Huck and Jim were on the river to freedom for Jim.  Now Huck’s morality and his conscious of what was right and wrong were based on what he had learned as a white boy living in a rural Missouri where folks considered enslaved people to be property.  He also learned that it was wrong to steal someone else’s property.  So, as they made their way, and were getting closer to the border where Jim would be free, his conscience started to really bother him. 

Here's a quote from Huck, himself about this:

Jim said it made him all trembly and feverish to be so close to freedom.  Well, I can tell you it made me all over trembly and feverish, to, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he was most free – and who was to blame for it?  Why, me.  I couldn’t get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way….  It hadn’t ever come home to me, before, what this thing was that I was doing.  But now it did, and it stayed with me, and scorched me more and more.  I tried to make out to myself that I wasn’t to blame, because I didn’t run Jim off from his rightful owner; but it wasn’t no use conscience up and say, every time.  “But you knowed he was running for his freedom, and you could a paddled ashore and told somebody.” That was so—I couldn’t get around that, no way.  That was where it pinched.  Conscience says to me:  “What had poor Miss Watson done to you, …that you could treat her so mean?” …. I got to feeling so mean and so miserable I most wished I was dead. 

Now, as his conscience bothered him more and more, Jim made a plan to say he was going to paddle up the river pretending he was going on a reconnaissance mission, but really planning to turn Jim in.  And as he paddled off on the raft, Jim was shouting to him.  “Pooty soon Ill be a shount’n for joy, en I’ll say, it’s all on accounts o’ Huck I’s a free man..Jim won’t ever forgit you Huck:  you’s de bes’ fren’ Jim’s ever had; en you’s de only fren’ old Jim got now.”

Well, to make a longer story short – Jim just couldn’t turn him in, though knew it was the right thing to do – to turn him in. It wasn’t that he thought at some higher level of moral reasoning.  He still would say that to turn him in was the right thing.  And he commiserated, again, over a later opportunity to do so.  But he loved Jim, so he did what all of US would think was the right thing – and did not turn him in.  His Sunday School lessons led him to know that his actions would lead him to go to hell.  But with all the gumption a 13-year-old boy can muster, he declares, “All right then, I’ll go to hell.” I’m not sure what Kohlberg would say about Jim’s reasoning – but I’d say that LOVE won. 

Thankfully, unlike Huck Finn, I don’t believe in Hell.  But I have had other folks who say they love me worry that that is where I’m headed.  If that was the case, I think their ideas of who’s to hell might make me a winner – in good company!!

Now I have something to tell you that may sound a little self-serving since I’m a Unitarian Universalists minister, but I’ve decided to share it anyway. 

I think that being involved in Unitarian Universalism, exploring ideas and situations with all of you, other UU ministers, and reading books and articles recommended by other Unitarian Universalists has shifted my thinking over time to something that, frankly, is better.  I don’t know if I’d still make it to the top of Kohlberg’s chart – or Gilligan’s --- but that’s not what is important to me anyway.  I just want to try to do the right thing.  And being with you folks helps me to be  more accountable to that effort and to – I hope – make better choices.

I’ll close with the slide of the proposed values  that we agree to especially lift up as Unitarian Universalists.  Now of course there are other values that are important to many of us – but the article 2 study commission felt that these were values that we especially need to lift up as UUs – perhaps because they may not be lifted up in Huck Finn’s Sunday School class or – seemingly – by many state legislatures and more.  And these are all values that are important to me – with of course, that central value guiding all of us – which is LOVE. 

How do we know what is the right thing to do?  It’s hard sometimes.  No doubt about it.  But we can all make that attempt to let Love guide us.

(Sing)

Love will guide us, peace has tried us,

Hope inside us, will lead the way

On the road from greed to giving.

Love will guide us through the hard night.

If you cannot speak like angels,

If you cannot speak before thousands,

You can give from deep within you.

You can change the world with your love.

 

May it be so!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Questions: Are We Free to Choose?

 

Are we really the Masters of our Fates – the Captains of our Souls?

 

Whether or not we have this Free Will (as it’s often referred to) has been the subject of debates among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and more – at least since words have been written down – and most likely for before then.  And folks, like many of the Big Questions we’ve explored, there doesn’t seem to be agreement on the answer – even in the 21^st century.  The possibilities seem to fall on a continuum – or perhaps it’s more complicated than something linear – but for this sermon, we’ll proceed as if that’s the case.  Most of our proceedings on any subject matter are done “as if” some assumptions are so, aren’t they?

I looked to several resources to examine this topic including the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that Twenty Questions book that has been at my bedside for months, and internet sources – including Wikipedia and more.  I’m not going to interrupt this sermon to share which source my information came from.  So, here’s a little of what folks, including me, have been thinking about this subject.

According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is - may be difficult. But, basically, to say that humans have free will is to say that they have the capacity to choose their actions. 

Now, let me attempt to take you down this continuum road to Free Will.

On the side furthest away from Free Will is what many might refer to as hard determinism or scientific determinism. the view that all events (including mental events) have a cause. In other words, all states of affairs, both physical and mental, are conditioned by their causes and are describable by scientific law. In a deterministic universe, there is no free will, no miracles, and no chance events.

The reason some refer to this as scientific determinism is that it seemed for a long time that science backed up this view.  There was a cause for everything – even if we didn’t understand it yet.  And for things we still don’t understand – well, maybe science hasn’t figured it out yet.  At one time there were magical explanations for rainbows.  But now we understand what causes them. Similarly, we know a lot more about evolution and DNA, etc.  Some of you are old enough to remember the twin studies done back in the 60’s.  They found these identical twins that had been separated at birth for adoption (from back when they used to do that) and studied them as we as fraternal twins separated at birth and found that the identical twins were significantly more likely to have made the same or similar life choices.  Some of these twins got together and went on talk shows.  I can remember that some had married spouses with the same names and smoked the same brand of cigarettes and more.  Of course, they emphasized how they were alike – not how they were different.  But it did lead to some credence that perhaps we are hard wired to lean toward certain choices.  Of course, evolution has hard wired us to eat lots of sugar because our hunter gatherer ancestors had to get as many of those good calories as they could to survive.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t CHOOSE to do differently.  It is hard to turn down that chocolate though.  These deterministic views were adopted by psychologists like BF Skinner who saw all our behaviors as the results of rewards and punishments.  He could predict what those mice were going to do very well.  But now there is NEW science – Quantum Physics – which seems to weigh in against determinism.  And who knows what may be next. So, let’s continue on our this road I have us on.

Also, at that end of the road is something called Predeterminism.  It’s more of a theological viewpoint.  On this doctrine events throughout eternity have been foreordained by God or some other supernatural power in a causal sequence. The metaphor of God constructing and winding up a clock (the universe) and letting it run until the end of time is often used.

Moving on down the road we come to: Soft Determinism.

This is the philosophical view that all physical events are caused but mental processes are uncaused. Choices have only to do with mental processes and have no actual effect in the external world. On this view, what we can control is not what happens in the external would but how we think about what happens in the external world. Our choices are often restricted to "willing the next moment in spite of its inevitability" or simply to be willing to "let it be."  I have some folks share with me that things that have happened were “meant to be,” and I just have to think more positively about it.

A little further down the road is Fatalism.  The big things – like birth and death – are determined.  There is a TIME you are going to DIE.  But some choice still exists. Here’s a quote from one of the internet encyclopedias that provides a good example:

Suppose, for example, by means of some kind of revelation I learn that I will die from burns at 10:02 AM in the local Mercy Hospital on Saturday morning. On the one hand, suppose as soon as I learn this, I get in my car to get to the airport to get as far away as possible, but on the way to the airport, my car is hit by a tanker and I suffer intense heat. After being transported to the hospital, I linger on and then die at the appointed time. On the other hand, suppose I did not take the risk of traveling to the airport and go home and intend to stay under the bed until Sunday. Unknown to me, however, there was a wiring fault in the house, and the house catches fire and so on. I would have choices in such a situation, but the fated event would occur anyway.

Another kind of determination along this road that includes free will is predestination. Many persons who hold this doctrine is compatible with free will in the sense that God knows in advance what will happen, but we freely choose and, by coincidence, choose according to God's plan.

Then we come to Indeterminism: The philosophical doctrine that denies determinism is true. More specifically, not all events (either mental or physical) are determined by past events. There is a certain amount of free play between events, possibly due to chance, free choice, or chaos. Some events are caused, and some events are not caused.

We have not made it all the way to Free Will yet folks.  Next on this imaginary roadway is CHANCE – like tossing a coin – which some say can be predicted to some degree of accuracy by calculation – but for the most part – it’s that part of life where most of us say, “Shhh – It Happens.”

Then, at last, we make it to the philosophical (and sometimes theological) view of Free Will:  the doctrine that some of our choices are uncaused.  Free will results from the absence of causes, conditions, or other necessary determinations of choice or behavior.  Now most of us who proclaim free will – do acknowledge limitations.  I cannot flap my arms like a bird flaps its wings and fly.  I am bound by the laws of nature.  However, some folks did figure out how to work within the laws of nature so that Greg and I will be able to fly to London. We are also sometimes constrained by others who have imprisoned us or oppressed us and we are constrained by resources and more.  But within some limitations that we accept, we choose to believe that we can make choices.

Now that continuum is one way to explain the spectrum of possibilities.  There are other words that are also used – but this is sermon, not a textbook.

Regardless of the terminology used, usually when Free Will is discussed, you will also find a discussion of responsibility.  My 20 Questions book provided this example:

Take the case of a criminal who was raised in a slum, surrounded by poverty, crime, and drugs. He went to school in which the most academic activity was writing graffiti on walls.  He was abused as a child, beaten up as a teenager, and harassed as a young adult.  His acts of violence, his defense attorney argues, was nothing but the product of his environment and his upbringing.  It is society’s fault; he is not to blame.  The prosecutor is incensed. Thousands of children grow up in similar circumstances, she argues, and they do not turn to crime.  A person is free and responsible for what he or she does, she concludes, and crime must by paid for.  There are many other similar court cases.

Which lawyer is right? Certainly, we are heavily influenced by our culture and environment, especially in our developing years.  And a world that allows children to grow up in these circumstances may bear some responsibility, too.  But most of us sitting on a jury would probably not let this man go free if the prosecution provided strong evidence that he committed the crime.  We may ask the judge for leniency in the kind of sentence that he was given and attempt to encourage programming in criminal justice institutions which might lead to rehabilitation. 

We also see children that are given too much in their early years. No one ever says “no” to them. They have all the choices they can possibly make granted. The outcomes for these children in the real world are not good either.  They have learned no responsibility.

If we choose to adopt a free will philosophy, then for a healthy life for ourselves and others, we have to adopt a philosophy of responsibility as well. 

Now, here is another caveat to that statement, though.  What if a person has some neurosis or mental illness  -- and though the conscious part of the individual wants to always make the right choice, the unconscious neurosis seems to make that a negative choice.  Is this person responsible? Our legal system does have the possibility of “non-guilty by reason of insanity.”  But aren’t most murderers mentally ill? Or are they just evil?

You know – I didn’t watch all the trial of Alec Murdaugh.  I did see highlights. And I know the jury came back with a guilty verdict – although I’m not sure the evidence was all there to prove guilt.  But even thinking that – I was glad to see him go to prison.  Because he seemed to be an evil man – whether or not he killed his wife and son. 

In reality, this whole discussion, though – of “Free Will” is one for people of privilege.  For those who live under suppression or who live in extreme poverty and are trying to figure out where they will sleep on a cold night or whether they will say the wrong thing and be beaten up by those who have power over them and more – those folks aren’t thinking about philosophical questions like this.  They don’t have the time or energy.  They must think about survival.  I just want to lift that up as we sit here and contemplate all of this – because I realize how privileged I am to be able to write a sermon on something like this. 

I became much more interested in choice back in the 80’s when I was attending an educational conference in New Orleans with my then husband Fred Page, where we were presenting some of our research.  The main speaker for this event was Dr. William Glasser, who was famous for writing a book on Reality Therapy.  His newer research had broad implications for education and that’s why they had him at this conference.  He explained it so well – that I knew I had to buy the book to learn more.  At the time his book was called “Control Theory.”  He later changed it to “Choice Theory”.  Our library did not have it and the little bookstore in the Mall that Teresa Winn’s parents owned did not have it either – but they ordered it for me. 

As I read through this big book, it was like being in therapy – which I desperately needed because of the difficulties in my marriage at the time.  Although I did not plan to ever leave my marriage, it did help me understand that I had choices – especially in how I thought about some things.  There were things going on in my husband’s life that I desperately wanted to change.  I wanted him to love ME – not be enamored with his young graduate assistant.  This book helped me to choose to let go of that desire and focus on other things that would help me have a good life – like my other family members, my research, my teaching, my department chair responsibilities, my social justice work and more.  I do not remember the specifics of the book – but I remember one passage well.  Dr. Glasser was sharing about what he told a patient – let’s call her Sue.  I don’t remember her name.  He said that she needed to tell herself often this message.  “Sue can only control her own life. Her happiness depends not on what others do, but on what she does.  And the sooner she learns this, the happier she will be.”  Well – I changed Sue to Jane and wrote those words on lots of slips of paper and taped them on my mirror, the refrigerator, the steering wheel of my car, and on my office wall.

I sometimes still recite them.  Jane can only control her own life.  Her happiness depends not on what others do, but on what she does.  And the sooner she learns this, the happier she will be.

I learned them and I lived them. And I got so much better. Sadly, as I took more control of my happiness in these ways, my husband just got more and more depressed that he was in a marriage with someone like me – but didn’t believe he should end it.  So finally, I was so worried about him and his well-being, that I ended it and told him he should be with her.  She was married – so it took a bit for him to get there, but he did, and we were both better off. 

Are we the masters of our fates? Are we the captains of our soul?

Not completely. – But we can all get up every day and ask for the Serenity – to what? – to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things that I can

And the wisdom to know the difference!

May it be so!