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 

 

Four Agreements and More

Sing—

Oh, you better watch out, you better not cry, you better not shout I’m telling you why…

Santa Claus is coming to town.

Yes, I know its February and I’m singing a Christmas song – but I haven’t fully lost my marbles.  Hang with me a bit.

When we sing that song at Christmas – many of us are just singing a happy sounding Christmas song.  But for many young children, it perhaps has a different meaning – especially if they BELIEVE.  Now this sermon is not one that explores what we should do about Santa – I have another sermon you can read online about that.  I’m just using Santa as an example to demonstrate some of the concepts from Toltec Wisdom books written by Don Miguel Ruiz.

According to what was reported to be handed down from the Ancient Toltec civilization thousands of years ago in southern Mexico, we were born very innocent and wild – undomesticated, initially.  But we were born with the capacity to learn how to dream – both night dreams and day dreams – because we dream all the time. It’s just more structured when we are awake.  Some of us call it thinking. And initially we were just taking in light and reflections (and, of course, everything we SEE is a reflection of light) – and hearing sounds, that we eventually recognized as symbols for things.  The adults around us hooked our attention and put information into our minds through repetition.  And by using our attention we learned a whole reality – a whole dream that includes lots of things.  We learned how to behave in society:  what is good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable, beautiful and ugly, right and wrong – and what to believe in—including for many of us, Santa Claus.  The symbols – all the letters and words – were agreed to by others – and that’s what makes them seem true.  They are actually just agreements.  This book (holding book) is a “book” because many of us have agreed to call it a book.  In another place – it may be called something different because others have agreed.  And we agreed to read it left to right and from what we consider the front to the back, while others in other societies made different agreements. 

And in our society – some folks – at some point and time – agreed that the myth of Santa Claus would be good to share with young children and celebrate.  And because the agreement is so widespread, most of us did feel the need to participate.  Now, again – this is NOT an anti-Santa message – and in fact, I DID do the Santa thing with both my children and grandchildren. 

In any case – folks have agreed on things and adults tell them to children.  Adults say: “This is a chair and this is a light and this is the truth.”  And children have no reason not to take in everything adults say and believe it.   

When we are very young, we are building our structure of knowledge in our heads. We are creating our virtual reality by everything we are taking in; and we are using our FAITH – as the mortar to hold it all together.   That is the FAITH that this knowledge is true.  We invest our faith in these knowledge structures we build in our minds.  Then everything we hear or see is filtered through these structures.  In fact, the structures we’ve built then distort what we are really seeing so that it can make sense in the structure that we’ve built and invested our faith in.

SO, what happens when we hear that perhaps the Santa story isn’t true?  At first we may defend what we KNOW is true.  “Yes, Santa does exist – and not just as a metaphor – but as a fat man that comes down my chimney – magically perhaps because the hole is too small – but he comes down that chimney for SURE every Christmas Eve and brings me presents – even though I’m not quite sure why my cousin Tommy – who is really bad – gets more than me.” 

After a while, the evidence becomes too great for us to ignore – and in fact our peers are making fun of us because we still believe – and we start to doubt a little more, and more – and stay up late so we can catch Santa hopefully coming in – but we fall asleep. 

And eventually we have to come to grips that it was all a lie.

Now perhaps our parents try to explain myth and metaphor to us.  But they knew when they told us as little children that were not taking this as a metaphor.  We were taking it literally as the truth.

At first it hurts, then we take back the faith that we put into that structure and the wall comes tumbling down.  And perhaps we realize that we can CHOOSE to believe some things and not believe some things that we hear from adults.  And that is powerful. 

Now I’ve used this Santa Claus analogy – because almost all of us have had that experience – and have somehow been able to give up that view of reality that we had as young children.  Even Rick Santorum probably has worked through that and no longer believes (in Santa Claus).  But for some reason – it seems to be harder for most folks to take that lesson and use it with other symbols and knowledge in their lives; and take back all the faith holding up those inaccurate structures – so that they can freely CHOOSE what they do with that faith.  And that is where Don Miguel Ruiz’ books may be helpful. 

This little book called, “The Four Agreements” was published in 1997.  And some of you may have read that book back when.  I want to share a little about Ruiz and how he got into this business – if you can call it that.  I’m quoting from the short biography found on the book flap in the back of The Four Agreements.

Don Miguel Ruiz was born into a family of healers, and raised in rural Mexico by a curandera (healer) mother and a nagual (shaman) grandfather.  The family anticipated that Miguel would embrace their centuries-old legacy of healing and teaching, and carry forward the esoteric Toltec knowledge.  Instead, distracted by modern life, Miguel chose to attend medical school and become a surgeon. 

A near-death experience changed his life…. Stunned by this experience, he began an intensive practice of self-inquiry.  He devoted himself to the mastery of the ancient ancestral wisdom, studying earnestly with his mother, and completing and apprenticeship with a powerful shaman in the Mexican desert….  Don Miguel Ruiz, a nagual from the Eagle knight lineage, has dedicated his life to sharing the wisdom of the Toltec.

Now Ruiz has several publications – but the most famous – by far – especially since Oprah Winfrey recommended it – is The Four Agreements.

For a summary of these agreements, I’m going to share this little video that I found on the internet with you. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRkq5gX_hgE

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, I don’t know that I’d recommend that you read both of the books now, because he shares again about all four of these agreements in his new book, The Fifth Agreement.  There is a chapter on each of them:

Be impeccable with your word.

Don’t take anything personally.

Don’t make assumptions.

Always do your best. 

The title should be The Four Agreements and the Fifth Agreement.   Now some of you may ask, as I did, “Well if the Toltec wisdom teachers passed on these FIVE agreements – why didn’t he give us all five in the first book.  And some skeptical folks – like me – may wonder if he needed or wanted to make some more money – and *made up* a fifth agreement.  But Ruiz (in his introduction) explains that he did not include the fifth agreement initially because it was not anything he could easily explain or put into words.  His son, however, who has become a spiritual teacher in the Toltec tradition himself – was much better at sharing about it.  So they decided to write this book together and share it with the rest of us. 

Well, of course – I was STILL very skeptical – then I found out what the fifth agreement is:

“BE SKEPTICAL!”

Ruiz says that we should question everything – including him – and especially ourselves.

Yes, now – I like this agreement most of all!  That’s one reason I’m a Unitarian Universalist.  Like many of you, I’ve got a questioning mind.  And that doesn’t sit well with some folks.  However Unitarian Universalists lift up doubt as a sacred ideal. 

But – Ruiz – has a qualifier to this 5^th Agreement.  The entire agreement reads:

“Be Skeptical, but learn to listen!”  He encourages us to listen and to try to understand the intent behind the words – so that we can understand the real message.

Like when folks tell me they are praying for me because they think I’m LOST and need to be saved.  I don’t say, “Don’t bother, I don’t need your prayers.”  Instead I try to listen and understand their intent.  There are some folks who may just want to be mean or something.  But many of those who share concerns do so because they love us.  And what I try to do is to translate their offers to pray or their comments of concern to an acknowledgement that they love me and care for me.  And I can honestly say to them, “I appreciate your love and concern.  I love you too.”  And depending on whether or not they can take a joke – I tell them that I will light a candle for them at the UU church.

But the main point is to really learn to listen to folks’ stories – and try to understand their points of view – and have respect for them if possible.  SO – I “listened” to Ruiz explain some of the Toltec ideas in this new book.   I’m going to share some ideas related to communication with you – but you don’t have to believe it.  It’s just a framework that he is sharing.  And even Ruiz says – he’s sharing it because it makes sense to him and it made sense to his ancestors.  And he says – if it makes sense to you, then feel free to take it and make it part of your own story.  If it doesn’t make sense, ignore it. 

From the Toltec point of view, there are only three ways to deliver a message, or we can say that there are only three languages in the world of the humans.

The language of gossip is the language of the victim; it’s the language of injustice and punishment.  It’s the language of hell, because all that gossip is made purely by lies

The second language is that of the warrior (because we use it when we become more aware and our authentic selves are warring with the old structures in our minds). When we speak this language sometimes we speak the truth, and sometimes we speak lies, depending on our awareness.  As you can imagine, the language of the warrior is a thousand times better than the language of gossip, but again, humans are programmed to shift the language we speak, and to speak one more language.

The third language is the language of truth, and when we speak this language, we hardly speak.  At this point, we know without a doubt that the symbols we use are our creation.  We know that we give the meaning to all those symbols to communicate with our own kind, and we use symbols with impeccability, the best we can, to deliver our message, to deliver ourselves, because we are the message.   The language of truth is very exclusive because it’s the language …of the artist who has mastered the dream.  The master artists are always happy.  They are at peace, and they enjoy their lives. 

Ruiz follows this explanation of languages with these simple questions for the reader.

What kind of message do you choose to deliver?  Is it truth or is it lies?  It is love or is it fear?  My choice is to deliver a message of truth and love.  What is yours?

In his epilogue, Ruiz challenges us to change the world.  How – you ask?  Ruiz explains that we start with ourselves and show others how to have a love affair with life. 

I’m listening, Don Miguel Ruiz--- and that love affair sounds good to me! 

But you don’t need a recommendation from me –

Because – of course, you have -- Oprah Winfrey!

Amen and Blessed Be!

Why Marriage Matters

On August 18, 2007,  Greg and I were married here in this church.  Many of you were here and joined with us in that wonderful celebration of love.  Now after my first marriage of almost 30 years, I had said that I would never marry again.  Actually – I wasn’t very high on that institution.  And back in 2002 after Greg moved in with me, I shared a sermon with this congregation entitled, “Marry, marry,….quite contrary,” with lots of reasons for not getting married, including the fact that many of my gay and lesbian friends did not have that opportunity.  And in fact, I had told many of them that I would not consider marriage until they could marry also.

But, Greg Brock is a very persuasive man.  And after five years of non-marital bliss, I finally did say YES and borrowed the dress.  We got married – because we loved each other and wanted to commit ourselves in this way; and we got married – because we could.

It’s a privilege that we, as a mixed gender couple had in Georgia.  My friend Joan Schneider had helped me rationalize this by saying that I had lots of privileges that other folks didn’t have that I took advantage of every day.  I was not giving all of them up – and instead was using those privileges in ways that hopefully were helpful to others.  So, with that nice rationalization and also the encouragement of my minister friend Nan White (who did not HAVE that same privilege with her partner) – we moved forward with our plans.  And I’m glad we did.  As our invitation stated, we had the desire to give our love its fullest expression – and for us, that was marriage.  And then, as a married woman and a Unitarian Universalist minister, I made an equally strong commitment to continue the work to make this privilege – this choice – one that all couples can make.  

(Here I am marching for Equality in Washington, DC with the LOVE sign as my hat. And Greg marched with me.)

 Now, of course, marriage is not the only thing we advocate for as LGBTQ people and allies.  But it’s part of “the Agenda!”   You know about “the agenda” of course.  If not, I’ll let Congressman Barney Frank give you a quick lesson. 

YouTube with Barney Frank outlining the “radical homosexualagenda.”

By the way, Barney Frank is retiring after this term in office and will be getting married soon in his home state of Massachusetts.

Now some may ask – Why would anyone want to get married in the first place?  What is marriage for?  Well, although some on the conservative right would have us to believe that the institution has remained unchanged through the ages, it just isn’t so.  The purpose of marriage and its structures have changed with changes in society. 

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species and a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights. The institution of marriage handled both of these needs.  But most would agree that ancient marriages were not for love.  Historian John Boswell makes this interesting comparison of pre-modern Europe love and marriage with today’s culture.

In premodern Europe marriage usually began as a property arrangement, was in the middle mostly about raising children, and ended about love.   Few couples in fact married "for love," but many grew to love each other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their offspring, and shared life's experiences. Nearly all surviving epitaphs to spouses evince profound affection. By contrast, in most of the modern West, marriage begins about love, in its middle is still mostly about raising children (if there are children), and ends - often - about property, by which point love is absent or a distant memory.

Now at the same time that all of these religious and civil marriage ceremonies were taking place, we also have evidence of services designed to unite same-sex couples.  Here is Boswell’s book about that.

Through the ages, there have been lots of different forms and varieties of marriage – including polygamy– also now known as “big love.”

And there have been lots of laws and social mores about who could and could not marry.  Here are some maps that make interesting comparisons.  First – here’s the one showing in blue the states where same sex couples can marry. We can add Washington State thanks to events this week.  And if not for Governor Chris Christie’s veto, we could add New Jersey.   Maryland seems to be on the way as well.  But as you can see, we’ve got a long way to go.   

Now here’s a map showing where you can marry your first cousin. 

There also used to be state laws against marrying someone outside your own race.  Here’s a map showing when these laws were repealed.  Only the brown states NEVER had them.  There were 30 states that kept them on the books till the Civil Rights movement.  And these yellow states – didn’t take them off till the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that they were unconstitutional in the case Loving vs. Virginia. That case is important to our discussion here because the same 14^th Amendment rights being violated by these laws can now be called into question as Proposition 8 makes its way to the Supreme Court. 

On June 12, 2007, the late Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.  The concluding paragraphs of her statement included the following.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was "the wrong kind of person" for me to marry.  

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, old or young, gay or straight seek in life.  I support the freedom to marry for all.  That's what Loving, and loving are all about.

Now because of the concepts and demeaning legalities that existed in the “traditional” institution of marriage, many feminists have shied away from what they considered a trap.  Even nineteenth century feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton had simply argued for women to consider opting out of marriage – acknowledging that marriage equality would not be possible in their lifetimes.  And Stanton placed part of the blame on the shoulders of women who were unwilling to acknowledge change was possible.  Here’s a quote from Stanton in 1894: 

Women are too proud to admit that they want what they think they cannot get.  They fear the ridicule of the men of their households, of the press, the disapproval of their clergymen who quote the Bible against larger liberties for their sex….   

The women’s movement continued, though, to move….slowly it seemed….but move it did.  And the institution of marriage itself changed.  So much so, that it became acceptable to even feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who married in 2000, and to Jane Page too. 

Now marriage is not viewed as a trap or cage – but rather as a safety net providing rights and protections for both parties.  Is what Greg and I have just a piece of paper certifying our marriage commitment?  No, it is more than that.  Ask any unmarried couple who has paid heaps of money to lawyers to write documents for just some of the same rights and protections. 

I had said I would never marry for benefits – and I did not.  But there are many benefits -- some estimate as many as 1400 specific legal benefits that Greg and I  have access to that couples who cannot marry do not have.  In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships for example) only to married couples.

Evan Wolfson is the founder of Freedom to Marry and perhaps the nation’s leading advocate for marriage equality and the author of Why Marriage Matters.  Wolfson provides a long summary of benefits in his book – too long for this little homily.  But I will share the broad categories he uses.  The big one has to do with death and taxes. Others benefits are related to debts, divorce, family leave, health, housing, immigration, inheritance, insurance, parenting, portability of marriage to other states,   privilege (meaning legal privilege), property, and retirement.  And though they CAN address some of these with legal documents; most of these critical, concrete legal incidents of marriage cannot be arranged by shelling out money for an attorney or writing up private agreements – even with lots of forethought. 

Of course some argue that you could get those same things with something less than marriage -- Perhaps legalizing civil unions or domestic partnerships like some states have.  And that’s a step.  But it’s the back of the bus, and we should not settle for that. 

Just ask Janice Langbehn, who had a wonderful domestic partnership in Washington State with her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond.  In addition to caring for 22 foster children, they had adopted three children and Lisa was a stay at home mom. 

Lisa died after a stroke while they were on a family vacation in Florida – and she died alone in that hospital while Janice and her children grieved in an small waiting room – not allowed in, because they were not really considered family.  Janice and Lisa had all the paperwork --- But it comes down to more than legalities. 

When LGBTQ people are not allowed to claim MARRIAGE – and all that folks know go with that, then this can happen.  Separate but equal – is never equal!

Now while I and others here will fight for the right for marriage equality – at the same time, we need to be supportive of all kinds of families.  Single folks as well as married folks -- regardless of sexual or affectional orientation, gender identity, or whether or not they have children.  We all just want equal choices – including the ability for two folks who love each other to get married.

Why is this such a difficult battle?  Are people just that prejudiced?  Well, we are products of our society and sometimes it’s hard to get over some of the things we were taught.  Sadly, much of the negative teachings we’ve had came from religious teachings. The Bible has been used through the ages to deny people rights.  Many of us have felt that lash of the Bible Belt – for lots of different reasons -- and sadly it continues to be used. 

I am very proud of the stands that Unitarian Universalists have taken and that we have a long history -- since 1970 -- of calling for the full inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning people in church and society.  Our Standing on the Side of Love Video that we played before the sermon shared some of this – so I won’t recount all that we’ve done.  But we have much work still to do.

Now it is going to TAKE a Supreme Court ruling for us to have marriage equality in Georgia.  But there are things we can do in the meantime – even here in Georgia.

•      Continue support of extending privileges to domestic partners.

•      Come out – in our relationships, with our identity, as an ally and advocate!

•      Work for and vote for progressive candidates supportive of marriage equality

•      Give money and time to those working for this goal.

•      Express views via blogs, social media, editorials, letters, wearing ribbons, etc.  

When I was a little girl of about 8 or 9 in the late 50's, I used to have some unusual dreams. In one of my dreams, I saw people driving their house trailers instead of pulling them behind their cars. When I awoke, I thought, “That’s really strange.” But it's not strange to me today. We see motor homes all the time now. I also had a dream that I went to someone's home and lots of people were there. Perhaps it was a party. There were lots of grown-ups and children at this party. Some of the women had their husbands with them. But some of the women were married to other women. And some of the men were married to other men. When I awoke, I thought, “That’s really strange.” But it's not strange to me today. 

I have a vision. I envision a world where there will be no need for words like homophobia or even labels categorizing one's sexual orientation. People will love who they love because they love them. And they'll love each other for as long as they possibly can. And since my higher power is the Power of Love; for me - God is Love; God will look at that world and say,

"It is really good!"

A Letter to the Editor

The letter below was recently submitted to my hometown newspaper.

February 6, 2012

Dear Editor:

After I nailed a rainbow flag to the little column on our building’s front entrance, a friend in town asked me, “Aren’t you afraid that people will think that your congregation is a GAY church?”  My response was, “No, I want them to KNOW we are a gay church – and a church for lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, and questioning people – as well as a church for lots of great straight folks who are advocates and allies!”  Indeed, the rainbow flag is a symbol of our new “Welcoming Congregation” status.  Our denomination encourages congregations to go through a long series of workshops and demonstrate competencies in welcoming and affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) people before providing the congregation with this status.  Although we feel that we’ve been welcoming from the beginning of our existence in the mid-80’s, we are now proud to have this official designation. 

Our Unitarian Universalist denomination has been on record since 1970 in its support of rights of LGBTQ individuals, and voted to support full marriage equality in 1996.  However, many congregations realized the need to prepare themselves further in their efforts to be welcoming and to serve as advocates for the rights of all people, regardless of sexual or affectional orientation.  I am proud that our congregation has now taken those steps.  We will be celebrating our new Welcoming Congregation status in our service at 10:30 on Sunday, February 19 at our building at 609 East Grady Street.

I invite your readers who may identify as LGBTQ or as allies to visit us.  Yes, there is a fully welcoming church community here in Statesboro!  And as a Statesboro native, I am very proud to call this community my home.  Thanks for helping us to spread this good news!

Standing on the Side of Love!

Rev. Jane Altman Page

Minister

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Statesboro

Moving to the Beloved Community

Rev. Jane Page
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Statesboro
January 22, 2012

When I was growing up in Statesboro in the 1950’s, we used to visit my granddaddy’s farm.  We would go out there to ride the ponies or pick vegetables from one of the gardens, or pull-up peanuts, or fish in the pond.  Now I don’t want to pretend that I was ever really a farm worker.  My daddy once told someone that the only cotton I had ever picked was out of an aspirin bottle.  And that’s the truth.  But my daddy loved that farm.  And when my granddaddy died in 1962, daddy sold the extra property he owned – like our cabin at Cypress Lake and the little house that he and mom first lived in – and borrowed money – so he could pay his other family members for their shares of that farm and own it for himself.  And he farmed it for a good long while – when it was still possible for one to be successful as a businessman and part-time farmer.  Although he visited the farm often, his goal was to move to the farm and live there.  So he and mama worked really hard and saved their money till they could build their dream house on the farm.  In the last days of his life, his dementia was pretty bad and sometimes he would forget where he was.  Once, he asked my Mama – “I didn’t sell the farm, did I?”  And she said, “Oh No!  You didn’t sell it.  We live here.  We built our house right on the old Turner place.  That’s where we are right now.  We are at home - on the farm?”  And he said, “We are?”  And he just smiled a big smile.   

You know – just like my childhood visits to the farm, we tend to visit “the beloved community” sometimes.  I was so proud last weekend when Rev. Francys Johnson preached at our annual MLK service, that he noticed and commended our congregation as one that dreams King’s dream and Stands on the Side of Love.  And there have been many times recently when I’ve thought to myself – yes, we are in the midst of the “beloved community.”  It’s a wonderful place where our 2nd principle of affirming justice, equity, and compassion in all our human relations seems to shine.  What a wonderful gathering of the beloved community we had here in this place last Sunday morning in the MLK service and afternoon at Marvin’s Memorial Service.  The love in these rooms just lifted us all up.  And as our choir sang “I’ll Fly Away” Sunday afternoon, we did feel like we were flying in the beloved community.

Then during the week, we’ve had opportunities to share and work with folks of different faiths  -- most more conservative than ours – as we celebrated Martin Luther King’s birthday and worked with others to provide a nutritious meal to about a hundred folks in need. 

But like my granddaddy’s (and later my daddy’s) farm, the beloved community tends to be somewhere we visit – but not where we live.  We go there at special times – in a crisis situation – or when a special celebration occurs – but then we go back to our regular homes and draw the curtains.  Our goal should be to make the beloved community our home.  Not that we won’t leave it sometimes – because we are human – but it should be home, the place we come back to and where we work and live and have our being.  Now it may not be that easy.  We may not be able to do it all at once.  But like my hard working mom and dad, we should be working on getting there.

 “‘The Beloved Community’ is a term that was first coined in the early days of the 20th century by the philosopher-theologian Josiah Royce, who founded the Fellowship of Reconciliation. However, it was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who popularized the term and invested it with a deeper meaning which has captured the imagination of people of good will all over the world." http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub4

 According to the King Center Web page:

“For Dr. King, the Beloved Community was not a lofty utopian goal to be confused with the rapturous image of the Peaceable Kingdom, in which lions and lambs coexist in idyllic harmony….

“In the Beloved Community, poverty, hunger and homelessness will not be tolerated because international standards of human decency will not allow it. Racism and all forms of discrimination, bigotry and prejudice will be replaced by an all-inclusive spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood. In the Beloved Community, …love and trust will triumph over fear and hatred. Peace with justice will prevail over war and military conflict.

“Dr. King’s Beloved Community was not devoid of interpersonal, group or international conflict. Instead he recognized that conflict was an inevitable part of human experience. But he believed that conflicts could be resolved peacefully and adversaries could be reconciled through a mutual, determined commitment to nonviolence. No conflict, he believed, need erupt in violence. And all conflicts in The Beloved Community should end with reconciliation of adversaries cooperating together in a spirit of friendship and goodwill.” http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub4

If you look at or read the news, we seem to be so far from this goal in the world today, that you wonder if we should just throw our hands up in despair.  It seems impossible.  When things in my life seem impossible, I try to remember the serenity prayer.  That is – to be granted the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.  And there ARE things we can do that will help us toward that bigger goal of living in the beloved community.  Our “story for all ages” provides us with a good example.  We can begin with our neighbors.

Jesus said – “love your neighbor as yourself.”  And when asked, “Who is my neighbor?” – told the story that we’ve come to know as “The Good Samaritan.”  Now, I’ve heard this story all my life.  And for much of it, I thought – YES, we need to be good neighbors to the Samaritans – to those who are oppressed and looked down upon.  And, in fact, one reason I was drawn to Unitarian Universalism was because of our work for social justice and civil rights.  But I was missing a major teaching of this story.  The SAMARITAN was the good neighbor because HE reached out to one who was a member of a group that was narrower in their focus.  He reached out and cared for those whose teachings were
oppressive.  And that’s where we Unitarian Universalists seem to have a hard time.

Who is our neighbor?  As the Reverend Rosemary Bray McNatt reminds us:  "Not just the hungry, not just the homeless, not just the prisoner, not just the lonely heart.  (She goes on to say) Our neighbor is the brother – like my own brother – who is a born again Christian.  Our neighbor is the mother, like my own mother – who is a member of an evangelical church.  Who is our neighbor?  Our neighbor is the co-worker who leaves tracts on your desk; our neighbor is the family who won’t let your children play with their children because they are not saved.  Who is our neighbor?  Our neighbor is the protestor who claims that God hates faggots; our neighbor is the evangelist who declares women should be silent in the churches; our neighbor is the neighbor who invites you to prayer meeting and encourages you to leave that place you say is a church but she knows is really a cult.  All these people are our neighbors:  not just the ones we like, or feel good about talking to, or have hopes will one day see the light of liberal faith.  We cannot create the radical change in the world that liberal religion is meant to create if we are only hanging out with one another; we cannot offer a healing alternative to the religiously injured, lying half dead on the road of life, by keeping our faith a private pleasure.  We can create radical change only with radical engagement, only with the radical faith modeled in the ministries of so many faithful prophets and sages and wise people."  (Rosemary Bray McNatt, address to CMwD, 2005)

Now let me quickly add that it’s understandable why many of us have a hard time reaching out to some groups, especially more conservative Christians.  Many of us have been in situations where we personally have been hurt by some of the teachings of these churches.  And the sting of rejection of who we are or what we believe lasts a long time.  I know that. 

However, if we are going to swim with Christian churches in our efforts to make the world a better place, we don’t need to dive in that shallow end of the water and hit our head on the rocks causing us more pain.  We can dive in at a deeper point – or wade in shallow water – and let our love stir it up - and we’ll be okay – especially if we have other UU swimming buddies with us. 

Actually, our congregation HAS been wading and swimming in these waters for some time.  We’ve made some connections with African American ministers and churches through the years in our civil rights efforts.  And in 2007, we joined forces with the First Presbyterian Church of Statesboro to build a Habitat House.  In more recent years, we’ve joined an interfaith / community coalition as a partner in Feeding Statesboro.  Other partners include Trinity Episcopal, First Presbyterian, the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the Christian Believers Outreach Mission.  And there are community volunteers who represent a variety of faith traditions. We are so pleased that these folks are willing to work openly with us.  Not everyone will do this.  We’ve reached out to some who have basically let us know that they were not comfortable working with us.  And we have thanked them and shared our hopes that our separate efforts will lead to a better world for all. 

Now please know that my encouragement of our efforts to work in these interfaith and community efforts does NOT mean that we refrain from Standing on the Side of Love for our principles, some which may offend others.  We are not trying to offend, though.  We are trying to promote those principles which we believe are important if we are to live together in a beloved community. 

You know, last year we finally completed all of our Welcoming Congregation workshops and had our vote – which was unanimous – to apply to the Unitarian Universalist Association for official welcoming congregation status.  And they have granted us that status which we will be celebrating in a service on February 19.  After we had our vote, I ordered some rainbow flags for us to use in various programs.  One of the AA groups that meets in our building – the one that is intentionally inclusive – was hoping for some kind of symbol, like the rainbow flag, to let others know they had found the right place.  So initially, I thought of putting one of our little flags out on the lawn or somewhere on the day that they met. And what initially went through my mind was that I would take it down on the days the other AA group meets, because the flag and what it symbolizes may offensive to some of them.  But then I thought – “NO Jane, this is one symbol of who we are as a welcoming UU congregation.  And if an AA group meets in a synagogue, they don’t expect them to take down the Star of David.”  So I nailed that flag up to the post on the front door, and there it has remained. 

Now, some may ask – “but aren’t you afraid that people will think that our congregation is a GAY church?”  And my response to that would be…  Hey – we WANT them to know we are a GAY church, and a Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Church – and one with lots of good straight folks who serve as advocates and allies.  And yes, we are a Pagan church – and a Buddhist, Christian, Mystic, Humanist Church.  We’re even the Agnostic church and the Atheist Church.  And hopefully we can become the Church for that growing group of NONES – spelled, N-O-N-E-S, who need a spiritual home.  We lift up that quote from Unitarian martyr Francys David who said, “We need not think alike to love alike.” 

Here’s a joke I found that is funny because it’s so true. 

A visitor to a Unitarian Universalist church sat through the sermon with growing incredulity at the heretical ideas being spouted.  After the sermon a UU asked the visitor, “So how did you like it?” 
I can’t believe half the things that minister said!” sputtered the visitor in outrage.
“Oh good – then you’ll fit right in,”  the UU replied.

Now that doesn’t mean we can believe and do whatever we like as Unitarian Universalists.  We do have principles that include the respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all as well as justice and equity for all, and support for one another in our own spiritual paths.  In short, we support Dr. King’s dream of a beloved community – which in reality was the hope of Ghandi, Jesus, the Buddha, and many other religious leaders.  We support the idea that we must love our neighbors as ourselves – and in this global community, our neighborhood reaches far and wide. 

Who is our neighbor?  It’s the man who needs a pair of shoes as he walks around Statesboro looking for work, as well as the young girl in the Central Asia hoping for an education and a chance for a better life.  It’s the believer and the unbeliever, the conservative and the liberal, the 99% and the 1%.  It’s the Democrat and the Republican; and yes, it’s me and it’s you.”   If we want to not just visit the beloved community, but live there, we need to learn to love all of our neighbors. 

So – right now I’d like for you to think of just one thing, one thing you can do this week to bring you closer to living in the beloved community; one way that you can love your neighbor, and pick something that may be a little challenging for you.  I’m not going to ask you to tell someone else or report back on it. Okay – do you have one in mind?  Now this may sound a little silly for some of you – but just go with me on it.  Now whisper that in the cup of your hands, share “I’m going to…” and whisper it in your hands.  (READERS -- you do this too!)  You have it in your hands?  Now place your hands over your beating heart as a symbol of your commitment.

 
Our children’s affirmation says: "We are Unitarian Universalists:  People of Open Minds, Loving Hearts, and Helping Hands."  We think, we feel, we do.  Now you may say – “But Jane, you had us go from head to hands – then to heart?”   Yes, I did – because sometimes that’s the way it is.  We may not FEEL motivated to do that which we know we should.  But if we know that right thing – and we do it – then sometimes the feeling, the peace, and the joy that comes with loving acts will grow.  But, you don’t have to wait for the feeling.  As Dr. King says, “It’s always the right time to do the right thing.”

You have connected your plan in your mind for loving your neighbor metaphorically now with your hands and your heart.  May that symbolic act and connection go with you from this place as a reminder to do the real thing. 

Oh, may it be so!