What Can I Tell You?
Rev. Mark Stringer
First Unitarian Church of Des Moines
6/13/04

 

Sermon

In what will I intend to be a tradition as long as I am your minister, I have crafted my final sermon of the church year by attempting to answer your questions.  Over the past two weeks I received more than a dozen questions and I have attempted to answer them all.  Without further adieu, lets get to it… 

 

What do you think is the greatest challenge facing our society today?  How would you address that issue?

While there are certainly a great number of challenges I could name in response to this question, I think the “greatest” challenge is probably the feeling of political homelessness that so many of us have and the resignation to the status quo that results…the feeling that not only do we do not have a voice in making the decisions that most affect our lives, we have no way to develop that voice, so why bother.  This feeling of political homelessness is what leads many, if not most of us, to disengage from public life, to assume that someone is looking out for our interests, even when evidence clearly indicates that, unless we can count ourselves among the most wealthy, few people are.   Just one of many glaring examples of this political homelessness and resignation is the current health-care crisis in this country.  To imagine that in one of the richest countries in the world there are at least 43 million people without health insurance and four out of five of these people are from working families is beyond comprehension.  Why don’t these 43 million people have enough of a presence and a collective voice to change the status quo?  Why don’t more of us who do have health insurance, see our fellow citizens’ lack of health care as a critical concern?  I think the answer is simple.  Not enough of us see the lack of health care for ourselves or our fellow citizens as part of a bigger picture…we have forgotten the greater social fabric woven by our collective interests and maintained by our collective well-being. This lack of initiative to make things change is often described as apathy.  But apathy is probably not the correct term.  Apathy comes from a Greek word apatheia, which means “without feeling.”  The issue is not that we don’t feel…the issue is that we don’t believe we can translate our feelings into meaningful action, so we resign ourselves to giving up…to letting others do (or not do) for us what we should and could be doing for ourselves.  The way out of this malaise of political homelessness and resignation is through voluntary associations, organizations of people who are working to embrace their status as citizens and participants in our public life. AMOS, the non-partisan broad-based organization of which this church is a member, is one of the ways we can work together to reweave our frayed social fabric.  Through the building of relationships, relationships between institutions and individuals alike, particularly across lines that typically divide us…lines of race, politics, religion and class… AMOS and organizations like it offer us a means by which we can recover our voice and engage in public life in meaningful and transforming ways.  Participating in groups like AMOS will not solve all our problems.  But it will provide a means by which we can nurture and develop our power as citizens of a democracy that, by design, requires our participation.

 

Where do I find the energy to get out of bed and come to church each Sunday? 

Well, I cannot know for sure how any of us makes it to church on a regular basis.  We all have our reasons.  I have sometimes joked that the only way I could get to church on a regular basis was to become a minister.  So perhaps I am the wrong person to ask.

 

But truthfully, even if I weren’t a minister, I know that I would search for a church home…a place where I could connect with others and experience the adventure that is this life we share…a place of robust and life-enhancing community…a place where I would not simply expend energy, but where I would be energized…energized by the reminder that how I choose to live makes a difference…in my own life and in the lives of others.  I like how renowned 20^th century Unitarian minister A. Powell Davies put it.  He wrote:

 

 “I come to church…because I fall below my own standards and need to be constantly brought back to them.  I am afraid of becoming selfish and indulgent, and my church—my church of the free spirit—brings me back to what I want to be.  I could easily despair; doubt and dismay could overwhelm me. My church renews my courage and my hope.  It is not enough that I should think about the world and its problems at the level of a newspaper report of a magazine discussion….I must have my conscience sharpened—sharpened until it goads me to the most thorough and responsible thinking of which I am capable.  I must feel again the love I owe to others.  I must not only hear about it but feel it.  In church, I do.  I am brought toward my best, in every way toward my best.  I need to be reminded that there are things I must do in the world—unselfish things, things undertaken at the level of idealism.  Workaday enthusiasms are not enough.  They wear out too soon.  I want to experience human nature at its best, and be reminded of its highest possibilities—and this happens to me in church.”  From this perspective, then, perhaps the better question is “What might happen to us if we don’t find the energy to get out of bed and come to church on Sunday?”[1]

 

What Unitarian Minister (past or present) do you admire most, and why?

I have great respect for many Unitarian ministers, so it was difficult for me to stick to just one.  Two that quickly come to mind are A. Powell Davies, who served at All Souls Church in Washington, D.C. during the McCarthy era, because of his way with words and his example of engaging in national political affairs, and Victoria Safford, my colleague in the Twin Cities, another wonderful writer who inspires me with her talent and the depth of her reflection.  But rather than focus on these two, I thought it would be good to mention that there are at least three former ministers of this church who I admire as well.  I admire Mary Safford, minister here from 1889-1910, for her devotion to the cause of liberal religion and encouragement of women as ministers.  I admire Curtis Reese, minister here from 1915-1919, for his action-oriented view of Humanism, which focused not on the denial of God, but on the need for participation in this life we share.  And, though I only know him through some of his writings and the stories many of you have shared with me, I also have come to admire John Isom, who had the longest tenure of any minister of this church. 13 years from 1961 to 1974.  I have come to know him as a humble and articulate spokesperson for the best in humanity, evidenced by this short passage I found on his website.  He wrote:

"We must look within ourselves for our own salvation.  If the human race can be saved from war and the fear of war, from hate and malice, from poverty and the fear of want, it will be through our obedience to the invisible reality of our nature that demands us to treat others, all others, as we want others to treat us.  That is the straight and narrow gate, the only one, through which we may enter into the heaven of our hopes and dreams."[2]   

It was with great sorrow that I learned of John’s death this spring, recognizing that I would not have the opportunity to meet him in person.  I, along with Thea Netfield another former minister of this church, will officiate his memorial service here at the church on September 11^th.

 

Is it better to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous

fortune...or to take up arms against a sea of troubles...

and by opposing, end them?

Generally I prefer the second choice…experience has taught me that meeting my troubles head on is the best way to effect change.  However, because I read this question through the lens of our nation’s recent actions in Iraq I must add that I consider taking up arms against a sea of troubles preferable only if one's unabashed arrogance and blind faith does not lead one to recklessly assume that the sea can be tamed by arms alone.

 

Should the UUA (as a denomination) support and promote the

concept of the separation of Church and State in all cultures of the world with particular emphasis in the Islamic Cultures?

The author of this question described in some detail the long history of Unitarian and Universalist support for separation of church and state and wondered why the UUA (our Boston-based national resource body and public relations wing of our independent UU congregations) has not been more supportive of the efforts to bring about a secular, democratic government in Iraq.  In this questioner’s words, “the UUA silence on this issue has been deafening.” While I would not presume to speak on behalf of the UUA, or any of its affiliated congregations and their members, I can speak for myself and say the issue as I see it, in Iraq at least, is not whether UUs or anyone else in the US support the idea of democracy without interference from or control by religious ideology or dogma. I think it would be difficult to find a Unitarian Universalist who believes government should be tied up in dogmatic religion.  However, I would guess that the UUA has been slow to cheer on our nation’s efforts in Iraq because the “bringing about democracy” part of the mission has been overshadowed by the clumsy, dare I say dishonest way, in which the mission has been carried out.  Certainly there are many in our country who feel they have been lied to, evidenced by two additional questions I received for this sermon: Why do intelligent, educated humanists accept a dangerous lie?"  and

"What if the truth really mattered?"  As I recall, the mission of bringing democracy to Iraq was not the way in which the invasion was sold to the American people…or the rest of the world…at least not at first.  Our invasion was presented as a defensive move, necessary because Iraq was busy stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.  Remember Colin Powell’s little vial of anthrax and the pictures of mobile labs he dramatically showed at the UN just before the war?  The administration has been defending itself by claiming they had bad intelligence.  This was clearly the case.  The problem is anytime we are going to put our young men and women in harm’s way, we need to be more certain of why we are doing it…or at least honest about our true intentions, which when viewed through the lens of the well-publicized ideology of those in the upper levels of the Bush administration, has been more about establishing a US outpost in the middle east than a reaction to anything Saddam Hussein ever did.  The administration also claimed that the invasion was a necessary step in the war on terror, though there was little evidence that Iraq had been or would be involved in any terror strikes against the US, particularly with the world community watching closely and UN inspectors on the ground.  When it became apparent that these weapons would not be found as easily as assumed, the mission became bringing democracy to Iraq…a noble idea in theory… but which in reality may be a little too much like putting the cart before the horse.  Is democracy something that is bestowed upon a people or is it something that must come from the people themselves?  At the heart of my concern about the approach we have taken in Iraq is my own question, “Do we have the right to enforce our way of thinking and call it democracy?” Perhaps the most telling aspect of the comments that the questioner included in his e-mail was the following sentence: “…the US (us) should be careful and sensitive about dictating how things should go in Iraq.”  Does our country have the right to dictate all that we might wish to dictate?  This, it seems to me, is the most important question of all.  To get back to the original question, though, Should the UUA (as a denomination) support and promote the  concept of the separation of Church and State in all cultures of the world with particular emphasis in the Islamic Cultures? I must follow our form of polity and leave it up to the member churches of the UUA.  General Assembly this year is in Long Beach, California and the issue could be raised there.  Next year it will be held in Fort Worth, Texas.  I encourage any of you who have concerns about UUA policies and positions to attend a general assembly and get involved.  That’s what a democracy is really all about.

 

The final question on this subject:

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

I’m not sure, though I do know there are some in Colorado.  And I have also come to believe there are some at the headquarters of the Fox News Channel.

 

Here are some questions about life at the church.

 

What is the role of affinity groups in our church?

Do they promote exclusivity or

Do they promote community?

Affinity groups are groups that organize themselves around a shared interest or demographic.  Some examples of affinity groups in our church right now include the choir, the philosophy group, the group for parents of toddler and early elementary age children and their parents (known as Next Generation UUs), and our men’s group (better known as the windbreakers).  The role of these groups is to give members and friends of our church another outlet to get to know one another and to build community around common interests.  Do they promote exclusivity by having a common interest around which they gather?  I, for one, don’t think so.  After all, if you don’t like to play bridge, you probably wouldn’t want to participate in the bridge group and if you aren’t interested in eating vegetarian, you might not want to be a part of the vegetarian potluck group.  Affinity groups are a means by which a healthy church helps retain members and welcomes new ones. If you are feeling left out of the current groups, I encourage you to consider forming an affinity group of your own.  Knowing the wide range of interests in our community, chances are good you might find others willing to join you.  In the meantime, for the sake of the larger community, affinity groups might want to consider occasionally hosting church-wide events…such as anything goes-potlucks or the recent trip to an Iowa Cubs game, which, by the way, was sponsored by the Windbreakers.

 

2. How do we value &/or balance the importance of our building and the money potentially needed to make improvements to it, versus other potential uses for the money in our community (both local and global)?

 

The questioner added thatshe was troubled by her childhoodchurch's pride and investment in their building when caring for members' emotional needs, and investing in programs for underpriveleged

were at least equally if not more important. 

 

This is a good question…an important question…one that each of the members of this church will need to grapple with before we embark on a capital campaign in the coming months.  Each of you will have to determine what is appropriate, and each of you will get a vote…actually two votes.  You get to vote on a proposal…then you will get to cast a vote by how much you pledge to the campaign.  I will say that the amount of money that the initial proposals indicate we will need (somewhere between 1-2 million dollars, depending on the plan we choose) is not outrageous, for a church our size and with our facility.  In fact, when you consider that the condition of the building we now have is the result of 50 years of deferred maintenance, the idea that it will cost 800,000 just to update the existing facility…including handicap accessibility…begins to make sense.  Now, when you consider the things we say we want to do:  welcome new people…open our doors to the community…host educational and social action events…and maintain an inviting building and property where we honor this life we share…what amount is too much?  When we think about all the people in the Des Moines metro who might find a home with us…people who may be in need of this community or who will be served by the expanded programs we will be able to offer as we grow…what amount is too much?  When we think about the increased resources that will be available to us as we grow…resources of talent and money…what amount is too much?  It’s up to each of us to decide.

 

How can we as a community be more welcoming to people of other cultures &/or foster relationships with people of other

cultures in our extended local community? (or globally)

The questioner here mentioned other area churches that seem to do more for immigrants that we have been able to do.  Then the questioner continued:

Is there anything we could do more easily?  If not increasing our membership of other cultures, could we consider ways to reach out and foster relationships with other local groups? Could we have a Sunday where we offer a congregational exchange?  Maybe some of us go there, and some of them come to our church, and we all get a chance to meet each other...?  And we could do this sort of exchange with several other groups throughout the year...?  Or what about adopting a non-Unitarian "sister church" within Des Moines (ie: with a Mosque

or some other group we would like to foster relationships with.) Or maybe we could adopt an international aid group to sponsor through fundraisers...?

I think these are all good questions.  I think the goals they propose are all possible to accomplish, but as I responded to a similar question last year: The way we will become more welcoming to those of different cultures and backgrounds is to invite them to create something with us.  Just opening the doors and doing things as we always have will not be enough.  We have to decide that we want to learn from others, that we want to include other voices in our planning and be more intentional about offering programs that appeal to those outside our walls.  All of the UU churches that have a real diversity in their membership had leaders who intentionally sought to create that diversity, who saw that the church would benefit from stretching to include others.  When this church is ready, we will do the same.  By the sound of these questions, maybe we are getting there.

 

The questioner then foreshadowed the answer she knew I would give by writing:

I know you'll probably tell me that I should just start committees to address these needs, right?  :-)

Yes.  Or at least a working group.  One of the great things about our congregational polity is that the members are the ones who determine the church’s future.

 

Now on to something completely different:

How can one find balance between "doing" and "being", between "control" and "letting go."  To clarify a bit, how does one counterbalance a goal-oriented society and value system ("seek and ye shall find", "He helps those who help themselves") with a more Eastern philosophy of being in the present moment and letting what happens happen?

The “eastern” idea of “letting go” as I understand it, is more about letting go of attachments to outcomes than about not acting at all.  Doing and being, from Taoist or Buddhist thought, are inherently intertwined.  The key is to do one’s best to understand one’s motives for action and to let go of those things that are not connected to one’s inner voice. Parker Palmer wrote a book on this subject a few years back called The Active Life, in which he contends that the choice between doing and being is not an either-or choice; rather they are two poles of a paradox…a paradox at the heart of what it means to be human.  He says he has learned to pursue what he calls wu-wei, a Taoist term for “right action”.  In response to this question, then, he would suggest that we try to be thoughtful about the things we do… resist doing and accomplishing things with a pre-planned outcome in mind…whether that be success or acclaim or amassing wealth…and instead, with a spirit of humility and openness to growth and learning, we let go of preconceived outcomes and look for joy in the adventure of being alive.  The question that remains, then, for any of us is “are our goals more about society’s goals or our own?”  It is up to us to answer that question for ourselves.

 

I’ll close with one of the first questions I received.

If you were going to start a Unitarian-Universalist Madrassa, what one text would you choose as the basis for all the education? 

A madrassa is a college where Islam is the basis of teachings, and training in ethics, so the Qur’an is the primary text.  Since Unitarian Universalism has no primary text, choosing one is a difficult endeavor.

As I had a long time to think about this question, I went through several ideas.  My first thought was probably my silliest: an unabridged collection of Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.  That comic strip had it all: existential pondering, honoring of the seasons and nature, and examinations of friendship, family, imagination, and fun.  But I figured a cartoon would not be an adequate choice.  Then I thought a collection of Mary Oliver poetry might be good, but I knew that her work would not fully speak to Unitarian Universalism.  While she has a keen understanding of the depth of human existence and experience, she does not really delve too much into what it means to be in community with others.  For a while, I thought the Bible might be a good choice.  Certainly, we would all benefit by having an objective understanding of its contents, particularly because so many people use it to push their own religious and political agendas.  Then I considered the UU hymnal, thinking that its readings and hymns really do speak to our liberal religious principles and ideals.  But, in the end, you may not be surprised to know that I ended up choosing a book by liberal theologian Henry Nelson Wieman, a book written in 1958, with the outdated title Man’s Ultimate Commitment. In this book, perhaps more than any other he wrote, Wieman lays out his theory of creative interchange…his term for when people communicate with each other with the expectation that they will be changed by the interaction…not that they will always agree, but that they will grow their perspectives and understanding.  I believe to use Wieman’s theory of creative interchange as the basis of education would be appropriate for our liberal religious faith because it would encourage students to be humble, open to possibility and committed to the best that humanity has to offer.  It would require that people be receptive to the perspectives of others and not overly reliant on any one point of view.  And it would keep us asking questions and searching for the always elusive answers.