Rev. Jane's Election Reflection: The Price of Politics

The subtitle of this election reflection is “The Price of Politics.”  Now some of you may be thinking that I’m going to be talking about how much money is spent on these elections.  And indeed, that figure is staggering.  The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates the total cost of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections will "come close" this year to reaching $6 billion.  Much of that came from “outside funding sources” – rich donors to the superpacs, most of that supporting Republicans.  They bet on buying the election, but it didn’t work.  Karl Rove told the supporters it was money well-spent though, because it kept them close by bombarding Obama and other democrats with negative ads.  And of course the campaigns spent gracious plenty themselves – and many of you probably gave what you could.

S0, six billion dollars – and what do you get --- the same president, a senate with a democratic majority, but not the magic # of 60, and a house with a Republican majority.
Sound familiar – yep, that’s what we’ve got now!

Now that’s not saying that I’m not pleased with the outcome of the election.  I’m just sayin’ – Six Billion Dollars???!!!  But that dollar figure is not what this sermon is about. I took that subtitle, “The Price of Politics” from the title of Bob Woodward’s book that I completed reading recently.  And if you take the time to read even some of this book, you understand that the price of politics is more than money.  Indeed, it could be the very heart and soul of this nation – my words not his.

Woodward’s exhaustive book “focuses on ‘the struggle between President Obama and the United States Congress to manage federal spending and tax policy. And the bulk of its narrative is devoted to behind-the-scenes negotiations that took place in the summer of 2011, as the country teetered on the brink of a potentially catastrophic default over the federal debt ceiling.”   It’s ugly folks.   But then, we don’t just come to church to hear pretty stories, do we?

When I was a little girl attending First Baptist Church here in Statesboro, I heard lots of Bible stories.  Some of them delighted me.  Others disturbed me.  There was one especially disturbing story in 1st Kings 3.  It was shared to show how wise Solomon was.  In case you did not grow up hearing these stories or have successfully forgotten them, I’ll refresh your memory.  It goes something like this.

Two women – (some translations call them prostitutes) were brought before the king so that he could be the judge in their dispute.  The guard also held a baby.  The first woman said, “Oh my King, I had a baby boy born last month. And two days after this other woman also had a son.  We were kept in the same quarters with our babies.  One night I woke up to feed my son – but the baby was dead.  When I looked at him in the light, I saw it was not my son.  My son was with the other woman – she had taken it and put her own dead baby in my bed.”

The second woman said, “No this live baby is mine.  She rolled over on her baby and smothered it and now she wants to take mine away.”

And they argued back and forth in this manner.

King Solomon said to the guard.  “Bring the baby to me and fetch me my sword.  We will cut the baby in half and give each of them half of the child.”

The second woman said, “Yes, we shall divide the child.”

But the first woman said, “Oh, no my lord, do not kill the child.  Let the other woman keep him and let him live.”

Of course King Solomon said, “Give the child to the first woman – she is the mother.”  And all marveled at his wisdom.

Now, why have I told you this “lovely” Bible story?  Because that is the analogy that our President used when describing to his inner circle his need to give more than democrats wanted to give on these negotiations as they neared the deadline for our nation defaulting – and perhaps driving us into complete chaos and depression.

As retold in Woodward’s book, President Obama explains: “We have to acknowledge we’re governing.   It’s like King Solomon. We just have to accept we’re the mom who’s not willing to split the baby in half. And we’re not going to have as much leverage.”

Using a scene like that – and a gut-wrenching analogy like that – is indicative of the price of politics.

Here’s how a New York Times article published in September describes the public’s reaction to that infighting and gridlock.

“As a plethora of election-year polls and surveys indicate, Americans are fed up with a deeply dysfunctional Washington paralyzed by partisan gridlock and increasingly incapable of dealing with the daunting problems facing the nation: a White House plagued by infighting, disorganization and inconsistent leadership; a Republican Party bent on obstruction and increasingly beholden to its insurgent right wing; and a Congress driven by party rivalries, intraparty power struggles, petty turf wars and an inability to focus on long-term solutions instead of temporary Band-Aids.”

Indeed, the words of that New York Times article are reflective of the feelings that many of you shared with me.

And leading up to the election, the ads, the debates, the talking heads on both sides were damaging to everyone.  It became a pissing contest, and we all were drenched.

My *second* favorite economist in the world – Robert Reich – had this description in a recent blog:

“The vitriol is worse than I ever recall. Worse than the Palin-induced smarmy 2008. Worse than the swift-boat lies of 2004. Worse, even, than the anything-goes craziness of 2000 and its ensuing bitterness. It’s almost a civil war. I know families in which close relatives are no longer speaking. A dating service says Democrats won’t even consider going out with Republicans, and vice-versa. My email and twitter feeds contain messages from strangers I wouldn’t share with my granddaughter.

"What’s going on? Yes, we’re divided over issues like the size of government and whether women should have control over their bodies. But these aren’t exactly new debates…. And we’ve had bigger disagreements in the past – over the Vietnam War, civil rights, communist witch hunts – that didn’t rip us apart like this.”


Yep -- If you use social media like facebook or twitter, you know what Reich is talking about.  Most of my facebook friends, thankfully, have views that are similar to mind – or at least they don’t attack my views with the kind of ugliness that Reich describes.  Yet there are some who do – and they come from folks who had been very close friends with me at one time and I’ve been hurt with their comments.

One of you expressed your frustration before the election with these words:
“I just want it over & I just want Obama to win; & I want everybody to be kind to one another! I keep going back to when my son was 5 &, with others that age at the end of Vacation Bible School, and they were was asked to give a favorite Bible verse.'God is love,' 'Bless the little children who come unto me,' and others were given.  Then my son stepped forward, and with his ever-present smile said, "BE YE FRIENDLY!"Of course everybody laughed, but they were also nodding their heads as though to say,
"Well, it isn't in the Bible, but it should be."

Yes, the interactions on television, on social media, and even around our own family tables have been difficult and depressing.

And yet….
       Yet........
On election night, as I sat watching the results come in….  I don’t know about you, but something happened inside of me.  Something good was rekindled.  It started slowly as I watched images of folks still standing in long lines in many cities, waiting, waiting, waiting, in bitter Philadelphia cold or in strong Miami heat - for a chance to cast their ballots.  And yes, Mr. President – we do need to fix that.
But as the night moved on and I watched results come in, my enthusiasm began to spark up and rekindle that flame.  And it wasn’t just a ballgame kind of “we’re winning” enthusiasm.  What was being rekindled within me was HOPE…Yes HOPE - that all was not lost, that folks could still remain committed to making this nation and world a better place.  And here’s what some of you shared with me when I asked for your feelings and ideas.

One of you said:
“I'm glad to know that the presidency stayed with Obama. I am hopeful that the take away message for the Republican party will be that they need to take their party away from the Tea Party control and move back toward the "center" which hopefully will move them a LONG WAY toward the LEFT.  Who knows, maybe with a little luck, they will push the Democrats a little further to the left too.  A girl can dream!”

Another wrote about a real dream she had:
“Mitt Romney was in the middle of a crowd and his opponent, who looked like Peter Falk's Columbo, was dancing around the edge of the crowd, chanting dancing gathering the attention and support of the crowd.  At the end, Romney was disappointed, frustrated, nearly weeping  and the crowd had chosen the dancer who called to everyone.”

Others expressed their happiness and joy that America had done the right thing, with virtual chants of “Four more years, four more years!”

Others expressed more cautious hope --- realizing the challenges ahead with a divided electorate and a divided congress.

Now in my little survey over the internet, I got no responses with disappointment in the outcome of the election.  Though we are diverse in theology and along many other variables, many of us do lean politically in the same direction.  But I will not make the assumption that everyone in this congregation voted for the same people.  And we welcome all in love, of course.

Many of us, though, did join more than half of America in voting for Barack Obama.  And even right here in our own little neck of the woods, John Barrow was re-elected.  Of course that’s probably more attributable to his endorsement by the NRA (“ain’t gonna take away my guns”) than from his identification as a democrat.   

Nevertheless, the people have spoken!  And that is important.  Because, you see, if you go back to the president’s Bible Story analogy, you have to ask – WHO is King Solomon in this story?  Who is the judge?  And the answer is WE ARE!  Over half of the American people --- and states representing 332 electoral votes basically said,  “We have looked at the evidence and the credibility of the two before us and have decided that Barack Obama is the real mother of this child; and therefore we are returning that child – our nation – to him; while at the same time hoping that the other mother, the one who sleeps in that same room, will help to raise that child.”

Is it possible for democrats and republicans to raise that child together?  Let’s hope so – because the fiscal cliff is straight ahead.  One of my and Greg’s favorite journalists is Fareed Zakaria.  In a Time magazine article that came out last Monday, he provides some evidence that demonstrates that this really IS doable!

You know -We chanted YES WE CAN in 2008 --- but then stopped when we became discouraged.  We need to once again revive the spirit of YES WE CAN!

It IS a new day!  Although the congress and presidency looks similar in numbers, we saw things happening on Tuesday – even with all the money used to defeat them – that gives progressives and those standing on the side of LOVE great hope.

First of all – Tuesday night was Ladies night!  There will now be 20 women in the U.S. Senate; 16 democrats and 4 republicans.  Some of these women won in races where they were heavily outspent.  But their opponents dug their own graves with their weird rhetoric about rape.  And I was thrilled that one of the new senators is Elizabeth Warren.  She’s fantastic!  Hawaii elected its first female senator and she’s also the first Buddhist in the senate.  Meanwhile, fellow Hawaiian and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard was elected to the House of Representatives, the first time a Hindu has served in the Congress.  (YES WE CAN)

Gay rights activists and allies can also celebrate victories:  Voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington affirmed marriage equality at the ballot box – the first states to gain marriage equality through direct votes.  (YES WE CAN!)  Minnesota became the first state in the country to reject writing discrimination into its state constitution.  Wisconsin voters elected Tammy Baldwin--the first openly-LGBTQ American, and a woman of profound integrity.  And folks winning seats in many state races assured that marriage equality would be on their agendas.  And of course the first president to advocate for marriage equality was re-elected.  (YES WE CAN!)

And there is more for progressives to celebrate: 

Standing on the Side of Love Activist Dan Furmansky gleefully announced in an email to supporters these results:

Voters in Maryland became the first in the nation to ever vote on a DREAM Act measure at the ballot, signaling resounding approval for providing in-state tuition to undocumented residents. (YES WE CAN!)
Minnesota voters rejected a regressive voter ID amendment. (YES WE CAN!)
And voters in two states--Colorado and Washington--said yes to the legalization of marijuana. And hopefully, this could indicate a shift in our national conversation about a failed drug war that disproportionately affects poor communities of color.” (YES WE CAN!)
Plus - My friend Willie Nelson probably is happier today.

In any case it seems that we have seen a progressive turn.  One of our members gleefully expressed it this way:  “Welcome to Liberal America. We have our Reagan. The hippies have won. Ponytails for all.”
Well, we’ll see!

A couple of weeks ago when I was thinking about this upcoming sermon --- I was actually going to name it “The Demons in Democracy.”  But I threw that title away.  I have a new faith in our democracy.  I believe we can make it work.  Harry Reid said they are going to change those Senate rules – (YES THEY CAN) -- -and he’s invited Mitch McConnell to dance with him.  Let it be a dance – Harry and Mitch!  John Boehner has said he’s ready to work with the President and to even consider raising tax revenues – so long as they are not targeted to just the wealthy (poor things).  Okay John – you can raise mine some too if it helps.   (YES WE CAN).

So the politicians are hoping to work together.  But what are we going to do about those divisive situations in our own communities, in our own families, at our places of work and play.  I say – perhaps we liberals need to be the mother; the one to give a little.  Our conservative friends and neighbors are hurting right now.

Thursday morning I went on to my ultra conservative friend’s facebook page and wrote her a thank-you note for her continued friendship and love.  And she loved me back.  Another well-educated conservative friend made some comments on one of my postings Thursday.  The first two were kind of negative.  In fact she responded to some of my liberal friends by saying, “Bless your hearts” – which is southern lady speak for ….  (I can’t say that in the pulpit.)  But then she came back after one had posted something about “liberty and justice for all” with this remark. Listen... 

“Yes, liberty and justice even for us conservatives. Cannot have it both ways...the liberal is correct and the conservative is just so slightly inferior in all things that require cogitation and critical thinking. That's where I get very weary of being marginalized.”

I think she may be right.  We liberals probably are somewhat hypocritical.  We talk of openness and diversity – yet she feels marginalized by us.  We all need to take that little boy’s “Bible verse” to heart – and “Be Ye Friendly.”  Do you think we can?

Yes --- we can!

President Obama thinks so.  In his closing remarks of his acceptance speech, he said:
“I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and forever will be, the United States of America.”

May it be so.

Farewell for Now!

Farewell for Now!

 (My final message before taking sabbatical July through October 2012.)

We’ve been talking about it for quite some time now, and it is here.  I’m actually taking a sabbatical.  What does that mean – for me and for you?

One place we look for meaning – is the dictionary.

So here’s one entry from dictionary.com:  [suh-bat-i-kuhl] 

Origin: from Latin sabbaticus; from Greek sabbatikos; meaning “of the sabbath” – the seventh day of the week.

In ancient Israel, the law required that a sabbatical year be observed every seventh year, in which the land was to be left uncultivated and debts annulled. It was a very holy observance based on the creation story in which God rested on the seventh day.

Now most of us are accustomed to hear of University Professors taking sabbaticals and perhaps traveling abroad to study --- but is this something ministers do?

Yes, in the world of Unitarian Universalism they do.  Our denomination seems to think that we will be better ministers if we occasionally take a break from our congregations.  Here is how it is stated in UUA guidelines:

The Minister shall use sabbatical leave for study, education, writing, meditation, and other forms of professional and religious growth. Sabbatical leave accrues at the rate of one month per year of service, with leave to be taken after four but before seven years of service.

I am completing my sixth year of service this month – so I’m overdue.  And yes, I’ve “earned” six months – but I think four will do just fine. 

I wanted to share with you today some of my GOALS for this sabbatical – and that famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet came to mind: 

“To be or not to be:  That is the Question.”

During my sabbatical I plan –

TO BE….

           

With family and friends …really BE with them.

With the Spirit in places the Spirit speaks to me and in ways that I connect with all things spiritual.

Physically Healthy – by continuing some exercise and dietary practices I have begun recently and maybe strengthening them – and by learning new practices.

Growing in knowledge and understanding, through books, classes, and reflection (writing).

Having Fun

Here – now – (wherever here might be at the time).

During my sabbatical I plan –

NOT TO BE…

With this congregation.  I’m over-connected.  I will unplug for four months for my own growth and development and that of this congregation. 

I’ll miss you of course.  But here’s why you won’t miss me – well, not much….

•      Much planning by sabbatical committee, committee on ministry, pastoral care associate, and board! 

•      Wonderful speakers (thanks to program committee).

•      Once a month minister – Gaye Ortiz (who will also lead the ingathering and canvass service)

•      Folks on call to meet your needs:

–     Shari Barr for Pastoral Care Needs

–     Teresa Winn for other ministerial concerns

AND – you are going to have some exciting possibilities to consider during my absence!

What’s up?

•      Board has leased a lot on the corner of Cypress Lake Rd and the bypass to explore possibilities of renovating the existing building (inside and out) for a future meeting space for our congregation.

•      Lease is for 6 months.  This 1.43 acre lot, the adjacent lot, plus 4 lots nearby will be available as a gift from property owner in early 2013 if plans are feasible for locating our fellowship there.

And here’s more good news!

At their June meeting, UUFS board members named Matt Dowling as our Project Director for Exploration of Building Renovation.  Matt is the husband of our Children's Religious Education Committee Chair, Jenni Dowling, and father of Patrick and Will.  He is also a general contractor for Hardin Construction, a large commercial contracting firm with offices in Atlanta and several other cities in the South.  Matt oversees very large projects, like Georgia Southern's new Centennial Plaza!  However he has offered to use his skills and expertise as we explore possibilities for renovating the building at the corner of Cypress Lake Road and Veterans Memorial Highway.  Matt also has a drafting business and is now drawing up possible plans for us to use in estimating costs. 

 

He's open to our ideas and hopes to hear that many of us have ways we can help save money by doing some of this work ourselves!  You'll be hearing more from Matt as we progress.  Please thank him for his generous service to our congregation!  

Now – what can YOU do?

•      Share ideas and possibilities with board for:

–     Financing this possibility

–     Raising Funds that will be needed

–     THEN – help organize a fund raiser for our building fund (perhaps silent auction in the fall?)

•      Give special gifts to building fund.

•      Share ways with Matt that you can help.

•      Provide “in-kind” gifts of cleaning, clearing, mowing, landscaping, etc. 

•      Share excitement with others and bring in folks who can help make this happen!

We’re asking you to use your imaginations and creativity as we move forward.

THEN VOTE –

After careful consideration of possibilities, be ready to VOTE at our Annual Meeting in the fall on whether or not the congregation will accept this gift with the intent of using it as our future location!

So I leave you with good plans and good opportunities.  And I look forward to seeing what’s happened when I return.  Meanwhile, I’m going to end this sermon time the way I used to watch Roy and Dale end their television program when I was a kid.

Happy Trails to You!

Flowers or Crosses? (Easter Sermon 2012)

A funny thing happened on the way to this service.  Well, not on the way in the car…, but on MY way in preparing for today’s service.  I had remembered several years ago – 2005 to be exact – I shared this Easter sermon that folks really liked.  It was part of my “Can You Say” series I did for quite a while.  It was called, “Can You Say Resurrection?”  And I thought – “You know, I could take that sermon, and modify and update it some, and that will be just perfect.  After all, it’s been seven years!”  So I turned in my topic to the program committee and we put it in the newsletter as “That Resurrection Spirit.”  And because things are a little harder with me since I broke my wrist, I was especially glad that this one wasn’t going to take a lot of work.  All was fine till this past Monday.  I was finalizing that Easter card that I hope most of you got in the mail this week – and I asked Greg to proof it for me.  It’s always good to have another set of eyes.  He said, “Well – I don’t see any errors, but didn’t you do a sermon on Resurrection last Easter?"

I replied sharply, “No, that was several years ago.”

And Greg, who has an excellent memory, said, “No, I think you preached on resurrection last year.”

So I looked in the EASTER folder and pulled up my sermon from 2011.  The title was “Celebrating Resurrection,” – and indeed, it WAS an update (with some new examples and new ending) of the old 2005 sermon. (Here’s the link.)  Then I remembered it.  Because I remembered that some of you who were HERE in 2005 came up to me last year after the sermon and said, “That sermon was wonderful.  I think it’s the best you’ve ever preached here.”

And I thought --- “Oh, that worked, they don’t even remember it.”

Now, I may get BY with a “redo update” of an Easter sermon done several years ago --- but I don’t think I can do basically the same sermon two years in a row.  Of course, the ministers of Christian churches preach on the resurrection EVERY year, but I figured I better come up  with PLAN B – in a hurry.  Oh, what a dilemma! 

You see – planning an Easter service is one of the most difficult things that UU ministers face.  

Rev. Jane Rzepka

The name of this sermon NOW (to reflect this difficulty) is “Flowers or Crosses?”

Another Rev. Jane had some interesting words to say about this dilemma.  Retired Church of the Larger Fellowship minister, Rev. Jane Rzepka wrote a newsletter column that I found quoted on a blog by another fellow minister, Rev. Thom Belote (thank goodness for the internet).  She wrote this column when she was the parish minister at the UU Church in Reading, Massachusetts.  And she does a great job of explaining our dilemma so I'm just going to use her words here.

She said:
“Every year, I fight the feeling that our UU churches just can’t win on Easter. Our familiar congregation will come through our doors, alongside a number of Easter visitors we’ve never seen before. Why do they come?
1. To hear familiar, traditional, Easter music.
2. To not hear familiar, traditional, Easter music.
3. To be reminded of the newness of the spring, the pagan symbols of the season, and the lengthening days, without a lot of talk about Jesus and resurrection.
4. To be reminded of Jesus and His resurrection, without a lot of talk about the newness of spring, the pagan symbols of the season, and the lengthening of days.
5. To participate in a family service, where children delight in discovering the many roots of our religious tradition.
6. To participate in a dignified service, where adults celebrate the undeniably Christian holiday, Easter…”
 Dot – dot - dot
(And by the dots on Rev. Thom’s blog – I think there was more, but I could not find the original.)

He does share that she closes her column with this hope:
“We each have religious stories, spring dreams, [and] seasonal celebrations… May we bring ourselves and our stories to church this morning and consider the blend a blessing.”

Ah, those are nice ministerial words, aren’t they?  Sounds like something I might say. But sometimes it’s hard to blend that blessing so that it can be digested by everyone.  Now you notice I didn’t say so that it tasted good to everyone.  I know that sometimes we ministers NEED to deliver sermons that might be somewhat distasteful.  But we at least try to make them so you won’t feel like throwing up.

Shortly after I was ordained and installed as your minister, I shared in the Story for All Ages, the story of the old man, his son, and their donkey.  As you may remember – they could not please folks who criticized them for foolishly leading the donkey and not riding.  Then the son riding, the father riding, then both riding all were criticized by different groups.  They finally both picked up the donkey and carried it on their shoulders.  Using that story as my example, I shared with the congregation later in the sermon that if you saw me trying to please EVERYONE, to tell me to get the ass off my shoulders.  So I have preached what I’ve felt led to share and tried to do it in a way that folks could appreciate and learn from – even if everyone wasn’t all that pleased.  But Easter is especially difficult.

Because of our diversity – many of our Unitarian Universalist congregations just choose to ignore Easter all together.  And many of them use this occasion, instead, to have a Flower Communion as the main part of the service.  There is an old UU joke that tells about church signs on Easter.  Most of the signs on Christian churches say something like – “Hallelujah, Christ is Risen,” and the UU sign says “Hooray, the Flowers are Pretty.”

And in fact, until I started preaching here while preparing for ministry, our Easter services – or at least the ones I remember – were basically our Flower Communion services.

The music presents another dilemma.  Do you sing songs about Jesus’ death and resurrection (whether considered in a metaphysical or metaphorical sense) – or songs about the seasons changing, flowers and renewal? Our UU hymnal has both.  In fact, the song that we sang before the reading is an old tune with two sets of words in the UU hymnal.  We sang words written by 19th century Unitarian poet, Samuel Longfellow.

"Lo the Earth Awakes Again, Al-le-lu-a!"

But if you look in the Easter section on page on 268, you’ll see the same old tune – with words by Charles Wesley:

"Jesus Christ is Risen Today, Al-le-lu-a!"

Since there are words in that song are more about graves and crosses, I thought singing it might be pushing it a little, even for those who identify as Christian here.  You know – don’t tell my friends at Trinity Episcopal – but I have a hard time enjoying some of those wonderful concerts they have there – because dead Jesus is hanging on that cross right in front.  I just try to acknowledge that he’s there (and tell myself its okay) then not look up.  That site just isn’t one that turns me on. (Update NOTE:  My friend Pat, upon reading this blog, has informed me that this is "the resurrected Jesus in front of the cross, not dead Jesus ON the cross." -- Ha! -- my bad.)   I was even frustrated when I realized that the scar on my arm from my surgery looked like a cross.  Shari Barr looked at it for me and shared how I could re-imagine it as a sword and myself as a woman warrior.  Sorry Shari, that one doesn’t appeal to me either.  Maybe I will just get a tattoo to camouflage it.  (Nah)

I had to rethink my problem with crosses though when I received an email this week from one of our former members.  She discovered Unitarian Universalism while living in Statesboro and rejoiced at our openness and inclusivity.  She wanted her family to be in a congregation where they could be exposed to and appreciate differing beliefs and ideas.  She was active here for a few years then moved to another community in a different state.  And one of the first things she did when she got there was find the UU church.  This community also had a small fellowship like ours.  And though she always wrote that she missed us, she did feel this would be a supportive community as well – and she did join.  Her email to me this week was one of sorrow though.  The congregation is going through great turmoil regarding the lack of tolerance of some folks.  It seems that this was brought to head by a situation in one of the RE classes.  A little girl whose parents identify as UU Christian was in the class.  And at some point – perhaps before they ate or after some kind of blessing – the little girl crossed herself.  And the RE teacher reprimanded her with, “We don’t do that here at UU.”  Whoa.  Now if her parents had taught her do little bow and say “Namaste” – the teacher may have thought that was adorable, whether or not it was part of her own practice.  SO – this congregation is now in crisis, because this incident has opened up much painful discussion, and some are considering leaving.

Now, I’d like to say – well that would never happen in OUR congregation!  But then I have to admit, that I would – myself – at least be surprised at UU members teaching their children to cross themselves, which primarily symbolizes recognition of the Trinity.  (You are supposed to be saying or thinking – “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while you do it.)  After all – we evolved from Unitarians – not Trinitarians.  But we are NOT really Unitarians anymore.  The former Unitarian congregations kept the name – but discarded any creed when they combined with the Universalist congregations in 1961.  And although we may have members who do have a Unitarian or Universalist theology, we are now a different people.  We’d like to think we have continued to evolve to accept different religious beliefs and practices.

Perhaps Easter – the central holiday of the Christian church – is the time to reflect on our difficulty in sometimes doing this.  I do like Rev. Jane Rzepka’s idea of a blended blessing, but we also do need to ADMIT that we do STRUGGLE sometimes with this --- and there is often a tension.  I hope, though, that we can lift this up as a holy struggle, a holy tension, one that makes us stronger and better people.  And if we cannot do that in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, then how can we expect to help heal a divided and hurting world?

I’m very proud that this congregation is known for its inclusiveness and acceptance of others.  In fact, some of our members are forming a group to explore what it means to be a Christian in a Unitarian Universalist context.  Even so, if you really think about, I believe that I, and perhaps you too, have much work to do.  May we lift up this holy struggle and holy tension, and address these with amazing grace, and with deep and abiding love.
(pause)

(on a lighter note)
I ask and hope for all of these things in the name of that Trinity that I think we can ALL agree upon,
Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.

Happy Easter!!

Faith Wars 2012

The name of this sermon is Faith Wars 2012:  Religion and Politics in the USA.   I decided on that topic about a month ago because it seemed that every time I read or saw the news – that’s what I saw.  Faith Wars. 

Now I was expecting to hear and read about politics of course.  This IS an election year.  But there seemed to be a whole lot about religion and faith all mixed in with it.   

And I have two confessions to make here.

First, I had thought, “There’s so much going on with religion and politics and being written about it now.  So this should be an EASY one!”

And the second confession is:  I’m a FOOL.

Speaking of fools….

Here’s a short clip you may have seen with Alexandria Pelosi interviewing folks in rural Mississippi.  Now I’m not trying to make fun of these folks.   Hey, they could be my relatives.   But I want you to see how much their FAITH seems to be connected to their political views. 

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/312991

Now to be fair – Pelosi interviewed inner city folks the following week who made statements that fit the stereotype of freeloaders.  But I’m not going to show that because, unlike their rural southern white counterparts, they did NOT use their faith in the rationalization of choices.  Indeed, conservatives have been much more effective in using faith as motivation. 

I’ve decided that this “Faith Wars 2012” topic would be a great one for one of our 3^rd Sunday night Philosophy Group sessions.  But it was not the best pick for a 15 to 20 minute Sunday Sermon. 

Nevertheless, I have been trying to gain some understanding.  Actually – I’ve been trying to ameliorate this concern for a long time.  For many years, it really bothered me so much that the extreme right seemed to have taken ownership of faith – and used faith, religion, or God to support their agenda.  And I – being a good religious liberal – felt that was wrong.  Indeed, its one reason I answered the call to become a Unitarian Universalist minister.  I wanted to be able to stand up as a recognized person of faith on some of these issues.  And I felt that it was important in the Bible Belt for folks to HEAR a liberal voice from a religious leader, especially a liberal religious voice spoken with an authentic southern accent! And I, along with many of you, have been trying.

After I announced this topic, I saw that a new book was coming out on March 13 that might help.  I pre-ordered it and the book arrived on March 15. 

This thick book by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is called:  The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.  And due to my inability to do some other preferred activities because of my recent injury, I WAS able to read this entire book.  It’s heavy laden with reviews of social and moral psychology and philosophy – throwing in some biology as well – with carefully analyzed research by the author and others.

It’s a good book.  But I do NOT recommend it as good healing therapy.  I would have been better off watching old chick flicks, I think.  But I did accumulate some knowledge that may – at least – help us understand our more conservative neighbors, and perhaps ourselves.

Haidt divides the book into three major sections with three or four chapters in each.  And each section presents one major principle of moral psychology.  I’m going to attempt to give you a glimpse of these today – and perhaps we can explore more later.

Part I is about the first moral principle –

“Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.”

Haidt says:

“Moral intuitions arise automatically and almost instantaneously, long before moral reasoning has a chance to get started, and those first intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning.  If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.  But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas – to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to – then things will make a lot more sense.  Keep you eye on the intuitions, and don’t take people’s moral arguments at face value.  They are mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly, crafted to advance on or more strategic objectives.”

“The central metaphor (of this section of the book) is that the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant.  The rider is our conscious reasoning – the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware.  The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes – the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior.”

Haidt likens the rider to the press secretary or the politician’s spokesperson – who provides all the rationale for the words of decisions that have been made by the politician.  Of course, sometimes the spokesperson can make things worse – like in the “Etch a Sketch” analogy made by one of Romney’s folks.  In any case, the conscious mind is not really doing the steering!  Haidt provides numerous research studies that he and others have done to back this up.  We think we are objectively using conscious reasoning to make our decisions, but usually – for most of us (even we UU’s who tend to worship reason) – we use our conscious reasoning to convince ourselves that the decision we want to make based on other more intuitive factors – IS logical. 

The second part of the book emphasizes this principle of moral psychology.

“There’s more to morality than harm and fairness.”

Haidt says that the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors.  Secular Western moralities are like cuisines that try to activate just one or two of these receptors – either concerns about harm and suffering, or concerns about fairness and injustice.  But people have so many other powerful moral intuitions, such as those related to liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

 

Haidt explains how politicians on the right have a built in advantage when it comes to cooking meals that many voters like – because they prepare meals that activate all of these receptors, while liberal politicians focus on one or two. 

Part III of the book is about this third principle:  Morality binds and blinds.

Haidt’s central metaphor for this principle is that human beings are 90% chimp and 10% bee.  He states that “human nature was produced by natural selection working at two levels simultaneously.  Individuals compete with individuals within every group, and we are the descendents of primates who excelled at that competition.  This gives us the ugly side of our nature, the one that is usually featured in books about our evolutionary origins.  We are indeed selfish hypocrites so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves.”

“But human nature was also shaped as groups competed with other groups.  As Darwin said long ago, the most cohesive and cooperative groups generally beat the groups of selfish individualists….   We’re not always selfish hypocrites.  We also have the ability, under special circumstances, to shut down our petty selves and become like cells in a larger body, or like bees in a hive, working for the good of the group.  These experiences are often among the most cherished of our lives, although our hivishness can blind us to other moral concerns.”  

 Haidt notes that while our bee-like nature facilitates altruism and heroism, it also facilitates war and genocide.  (And you can’t help but wonder about the actions of the man in Florida who has probably sacrificed his own life now in his foolish and horrendous need to protect his “Hive” – his neighborhood.  And now a young man walking home from the store is dead as a result.) 

In any case, here’s where both religion and political parties also come into play.  Haidt concludes from his studies and others that “religion is probably an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality.  It is not a virus or a parasite as some scientists (the “New Atheists”) have argued in recent years.” 

Additionally, “people bind themselves into political teams that share their moral narrative.  Once they accept a particular narrative (though), they become blind to alternative moral worlds.”

Now speaking of blindness – Haidt believes liberals (and he identifies as one himself) have a particular blind spot that has harmed our efforts.  He believes that we have failed to recognize and use moral capital.  Moral capital refers to “the degree to which a community possesses interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and technologies that mesh well with evolved psychological mechanisms and thereby enable the community to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible.”  And this is one way conservatives have an edge.

Haidt demonstrates in one chapter about communes that failed or survived.  Belief in gods and engaging in religious rituals turned out to be crucial ingredients of success.  But even without religion – those groups with a clear list of values and virtues printed and displayed throughout the commune did better than those who did not have these.  Communes who had some system whereby they could use these to suppress or regulate selfishness were more likely to endure.    

Now Haidt goes on to say that moral capital is not always an alloyed good. It does lead to the suppression of "free riders," but it does not necessarily lead to other forms of fairness, such as equality of opportunity.  "And while high moral capital helps a community to function efficiently, the community can use that efficiency to inflict harm on other communities.  High moral capital can be obtained within a cult or a fascist nation, as long as most people truly accept the prevailing moral matrix.  Nonetheless, if you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you’re asking for trouble."

Haidt believes that this is the fundamental blind spot of the left…  It is the reason he believes that "liberalism – which has done so much to bring about freedom and equal opportunity – is not sufficient as a governing philosophy.  It tends to overreach, change too many things too quickly, and reduce the stock of moral capital inadvertently.  Conversely, while conservatives do a better job of preserving moral capital, they often fail to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests (like corporations), and fail to see the need to change or update institutions as times change.”

Yes, morality binds and blinds.

Well, what’s the SO WHAT of these principles?

Haidt gives us this advice in his last chapter.

“If you want to understand another group, follow the sacredness.  As a first step, think about the six moral foundations, and try to figure out which one or two are carrying the most weight in a particular controversy.  And if you really want to open your mind, open your heart first. (emphasis mine) If you can have a least one friendly interaction with a member of the ‘other’ group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.”

I’m very fortunate in that some of the people I love most in the world have very differing world views.  But I know they are good people.  And sometimes – knowing that – I can see where they are coming from.  And… the opposite occurs as well.

Why, just the other day my Mama, who identifies as social and fiscal conservative, was defending President Barack Obama in my kitchen.  I was sharing with her a little about Haidt’s views of our groupishness, and I said: “You know – I just get so frustrated that Barack Obama seems to end every speech he makes with ‘God Bless America.’  If he’s going to bring God into it – why not ask God to bless the whole world?”

And my Mama says --- “Well, I actually kind o like it when they say, ‘God bless us all.’  But Jane – let me ask you – who is Obama talking to in those speeches?  Is he overseas in some foreign country or at the United Nations?”

And I said, “No Mama – he’s talking to Americans.” 

So she says, “Well then that’s okay; because he’s just asking God to bless them.”

And I said, “Mama – I see your point.”

And can’t we all do a little more of that – not that we have to agree – but perhaps just try to see their point.

That’s all.

Amen, Blessed Be – and

God Bless the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Statesboro

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP!

MINISTERIAL MUUSINGS

Look  Before You Leap!

Rev. Jane Page   

"How did it happen?" the nurse asked.   

"I fell down," I said.

"Well, how did you fall?" she asked again.

My sheepish reply was, "I was walking and I just fell."

That didn't sound like a good response, but it was the truth. I was just doing my morning walk and was on the last round of my walking path in the neighborhood on the other side of the pond when I fell; and I caught the fall on my left hand and broke my dang wrist - bad!

I saw the disappointment in her eyes.  This would not be an interesting story for her to share with family and friends.  Why couldn't it have been more exotic!

Then she could report something like, "This grandmother came into the Emergency Room after falling on her skateboard at the Statesboro Extreme Sports Expo.

But no, I suppose I've reached the stage in life of that little old lady on the life alert advertisement. I probably did sound like her when I called Greg and said, "Help... I've fallen and I can't get up."

I jokingly posted on Facebook that on "leap day," February 29, I leaped the wrong way. Since that time, I've tried to analyze why I fell and I think I've figured it out. I was beginning my last lap and I said to myself, "I think I will pick up the pace a bit." That's when I tripped and attempted to break the fall with my left hand. OUCH. I believe that my BODY by then was in a routine, in rhythm, in that natural dance, yes, in the flow or "the groove." My mind was switching gears but the message was not clearly getting to all the right body parts.

Yes, there is a life lesson in this for me - and maybe for others as well. Certainly there are times in our lives when we need to "shift gears" or "change the pace." But we need to do this with full attention and caution. When we are transitioning, we need more focus. Yes, we need to "look before we leap," even on leap day! Here's to lessons learned. Amen