a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 29th, 2004
Opening Words:
“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan, 'Press on,' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” --Calvin Coolidge
*****
Five Sundays in a February is a rarity: it only happens once every twenty-eight years, which means that this is the first time it has ever taken place in the time I’ve been a minister. The last time it happened was in 1976 -- I was a nineteen-year-old sophomore at the University of Washington, living in the closest thing to a garrett I could afford -- an ancient dorm room in Hansee Hall that was, literally, smaller than a lot of walk-in closets I’ve seen -- and working day and night on a manuscript that I was certain would win me fame, fortune, and literary immortality: a one-act play with the working title “Faust: the Musical.” And it won’t happen again until 2032, at which point I will be 75 and hopefully retired...although perhaps still available to fill a pulpit now and then for a colleague confronting an extra Sunday, and thus supplement whatever meager Social Security benefits may still be available to those of us who have the good fortune to live so long.
I’ve actually been thinking quite a bit about Time this past week. Like many of you, I imagine, I grew up thinking of time as something that could be neatly divided into three discrete components: Past, Present, and Future -- What Was, What Is, What Yet Shall Be. But as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to see that Time is not nearly so tidy as once I thought. Take the Past, for instance. As a historian I quickly learned that because human memory is imperfect, and even the most meticulous records likewise contain selective inclusions and omissions, our recollection of “What Was” never truly represents “What REALLY Was” -- it’s always some combination of “if memory serves” and “what might have been,” as hindsight and human imagination combine to filter out regrets and uncomfortable details, minimize embarrassment, emphasize the pleasant and admirable, or sometimes cling to feelings of anger and resentment, even exaggerating their importance as they fester, over time, within a bitter heart. We know that the Past has happened, and that it has made us what we are today...that it can’t be changed, that it is gone forever, that it is useless (even dangerous!) to dwell there for too long...and yet, what passes for history is often simply an imaginary re-creation of a time that never was, on which (often times) not even those who were there can agree on all the details.
Likewise, those who complain about “revisionist history” are often really saying “that’s not how I remember it” or “that’s not what I was told.” But the truth of the matter is that all GOOD history is to some degree revisionist, as time and distance give us a better perspective on the past, allowing us to “look again” at the evidence -- to gather together and RE-vision divergent experiences and recollections, and reconcile them based on our superior hindsight and knowledge of “what happened next.” Just as the news is the first draft of history, history is in turn the final draft of the news. And as any writer knows, the difference between a terrible first draft and a superb final draft is revision.
Of course, predicting the Future is even worse. What Yet Shall Be sounds so determined, so fatalistic. The Future embodies our Destiny, which cannot be predicted or controlled. And yet the Future inevitably contains within it both a wide range of possibilities and an element of choice: we can always imagine an entire panoply of possible alternatives (some of which are always more realistic than others, of course), but at most we can only choose to pursue a relative handful, and the choices that we make shape and limit the range of future, Future Possibilities, while at the same time revealing unforeseen new ones. As with the Past, we experience the Future as an amalgam of imagination and decision -- a dynamic combination of dreams and plans by which we hope to make our aspirations real.
Which brings us at last to the Present. Is “here and now” merely something which lingers for a moment and then passes in an instant, or is there more to it than that? And why do we have such a hard time living in the present moment; why do we spend so much of our lives, our mental and emotional energy, reminiscing about what has gone before, or trying to anticipate what will happen next? And this is not to discount either the pleasure or the importance of nostalgic daydreaming about “better days” both behind and before us. But do we even have a word to describe someone who lives their entire life completely focused on the here and now, on “What Is” in the present moment? I sure can’t think of one. If anything, what images I do have are pejorative: a person who never thinks about the past or the future, but who only “lives for the moment,” is generally considered stupid and short-sighted, or at best somehow lacking in vision and perspective. And yet, you would think that “living in the moment” would be a positive thing, since this moment is all we can really count on in life, it’s right here in front of us, and once it is gone it is gone forever, and will never come again.
The word “tenacious” means, literally, to hold tightly, but in common usage it is often simply a euphemistic synonym for “stubborn.” During the waning years of my marriage, this was a frequent topic of discussion in our household: whether it was the tenacity of our mutual love that was holding us together, or our respective individual stubbornness that was driving us apart. I’m not sure whether we ever really arrived at a satisfactory answer to that question, but in the process we did discover that there are at least two different styles of stubborn, which I came to think of as “bull-headed” and “pig-headed.” Bull-headed is relatively straight-forward. When a bull sees red, he puts his head down and charges, and whenever this happens it’s a pretty good idea not to be standing in his way. Pig-headed is a lot more subtle. When a pig smells a truffle, she will go to great effort to root that truffle out, but if for some reason her initial efforts are frustrated, she’ll try another way, and then another, and another, until she finally wins her prize. Both critters are persistent, but pigs are also patient, and this provides a special resilience to their stubbornness. And just so no one is left confused by the pronouns, I was the pig-headed one in my household (which, I’m sorry to say, often make my partner see red).
And then, just to round out the barnyard, there is always your good old-fashioned Missouri Mule, who simply digs in his feet and refuses to budge whenever he encounters something that doesn’t suit him. The mule, of course, is the poster-animal of stubbornness, but tenacity (it seems to me) entails quite a bit more than simply digging in one’s heels. Patience, Persistence, Resilience -- not just a refusal to give in or let go, but also a refusal to give up...a sense of direction and purpose which one retains even in the face of obstacles and adversity. It’s the attitude of a survivor, who stubbornly clings to both life and hope even as those around them lose first one and then the other. It’s the attitude of success, which is persistent enough to build upon its failures...not by stubbornly attempting the same thing again and again, in the vain hope of a different result, but rather by patiently learning from mistakes and moving forward along a new path, never losing sight of the ultimate goal, never losing confidence that it will someday be achieved.
Tenacity is also differentiated from mere stubbornness by its Vision. The stubborn personality often refuses to give in simply for the sake of not giving in, but the tenacious personality always has a goal in mind. It knows when to let go in order to get something back, and it recognizes when its own inflexibility is getting in the way. Stubbornness is about pride; Tenacity is about Purpose. Stubbornness is a contest of wills; but a tenacious competitor can appreciate a tenacious opponent, and both potentially grow stronger through their struggle together. Stubbornness is a character flaw, blind to its own shortcomings, and thus ultimately self-destructive. But Tenacity is a virtue, which builds character by empowering an individual to overcome both personal frustration and personal discouragement, in addition to whatever external obstacles they may face, in order to achieve a worthy goal.
“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan, 'Press on,' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” For someone with a reputation of being a man of few words, Silent Cal sure said a mouthful when he said all that. And the great irony, of course, is that the Coolidge administration is probably best remembered by historians for doing nothing, for having NOT been the terribly corrupt Harding administration which preceded it (quite likely the worst administration in U.S. history, with the possible exception of Ulysses S. Grant’s) or the Hoover administration which followed, and ushered in the Great Depression. While occupying the White House, Coolidge averaged about 11 hours of sleep a day: rising late, retiring early, and napping for up to four hours every afternoon, a habit which inspired H.L. Mencken to write “Nero fiddled while Rome burned, but Coolidge only snores.” Much of the rest of his day he spent sitting in a rocking chair on the White House porch, smoking cigars and trying not to encourage those who came to speak with him to overstay their welcome by showing any sign of interest in what they had to say. When Groucho Marx spotted Coolidge one evening in the audience at a performance of the Marx Brother’s vaudeville show “Animal Crackers,” he reportedly cried out “Isn’t it past your bedtime, Calvin?” And when Dorothy Parker heard the news of his death, in 1933, she is said to have remarked “How can they tell?” For his own part, Coolidge is known to have quipped that all this shut-eye was in the national interest, since while he was sleeping it was impossible for him to initiate anything new. In Coolidge’s view, “the chief business of the American people IS business,” and the business of government was to stay out of their way.
Equally ironic is the fact that it was Coolidge’s energetic successor, an orphaned, self-made millionaire technocrat whom Coolidge sometimes refered to as “the Wundah Boy,” who ended up lending his name to the shantytowns that sprang up in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash, and the 25% unemployment which followed that, and whose reputation has been tenaciously linked with the Great Depression ever since. Herbert Hoover tried everything he could think of to turn the economy around; unfortunately, his mind ran more to optimistic platitudes and a stubborn ideological preference for encouraging private, local inititives than it did effective federal intervention and direct public relief. Herbert Hoover believed that the Great Depression was the result of global economic forces beyond his effective control, and that like a hurricane or some other Act of God, individuals needed to rely upon their own resourcefulness to weather the storm until it passed. “Every time we find solutions outside of government,” he told an audience of struggling farmers, “we have not only strengthened character, but we have preserved our sense of real self-government.” But when voters went to the polls in 1932, they turned him out in a landslide, and supported instead a candidate who insisted that “the country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Patience. Persistence. Resilience. Vision. More than talent, more than genius, more even than education, these are the qualities which empower individuals to “press on” in a determined way, and thus eventually overcome whatever obstacles stand between them and their desired goal. And these same qualities can also be found in tenacious institutions, or a tenatious society, where individuals come together to work towards shared and common goals. In his “Maritime History of Massachusetts,” Samuel Eliot Morison described New Englanders as “a tough but nervous, tenacious but restless race...materially ambitious, yet prone to introspection, and subject to waves of religious emotion...a race whose typical member is eternally torn between a passion for righteousness and a desire to get on in the world.” And this same “restless tenacity” is what animates our aspirations as well as our ambitions -- that introspective, at times passionately emotional, religious desire for righteousness which we “hold tightly” in our hands and in our hearts, and which ultimately gives our lives a larger meaning....
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
ABUNDANCE!
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 22th, 2004
OPENING WORDS: “Real happiness is cheap enough, yet how dearly we pay for its counterfeit.” -- Hosea Ballou
I’ve decided that I could get used to this concept of the one-word sermon title. It’s so succinct, so efficient -- and yet so richly evocative as well. Joy! Love! And now Abundance! -- a word which means, literally, “overflowing,” thus making it a perfect compliment to these other topics of recent weeks. Abundant Love. Abundant Joy. Abundant blessings of all sorts: the word simply overflows with connotations of wealth and prosperity, freedom, success and happiness. It’s a word which positively inspires generosity and creativity; and then there’s always that lovely scriptural reference to John 10:10 -- “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I come that they may have life, and have life more abundantly.” Not “Eternal Life” in the sense of a life-span which lasts forever. But “Abundant Life” -- a life-force which overflows with the Spirit of the Divine, a life-style which is emersed in a consciousness of ultimate meaning and value.
The opposite of abundance might be thought of as scarcity, or deficiency, in which the blessings of life are reduced to a trickle. Poverty and Privation. Hunger, Uncertainty, Fear. I suppose it’s possible to have all these things in abundance as well -- our lives can overflow with the bad as well as with the good, although there is certainly abundant irony in that. And yet, often abundance is in the eye of the beholder...what appears abundant to one may seem barely sufficient, or even inadequate, to another, and how do we determine whose perceptions are correct? In his second Inaugural address in 1937, as America struggled to escape the privations of the Great Depression through a series of controversial federal policies known as the “New Deal,” FDR remarked that “the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Sixty-seven years (and eleven Presidential administrations) later, we seem to have forgotten this fundamental criterion of the worthiness of a society. Has our nation changed so much in just two generations, that we have metaphorically gained the whole world, and lost our own souls? Have we somehow allowed our relative material abundance to distract us from more essential spiritual values of generosity and compassion?
You know, I’ve often had to wonder how it is that such an unrepentant, dyed-in-the-wool Socialist like myself has found himself serving, and serving quite happily and successfully, in such affluent communities as Midland Texas, and Nantucket Island, and now here in Carlisle. I think part of it has to do with the fact that, although I’ve never really had much money myself, I grew up in a fairly affluent household, in a fairly affluent neighborhood, and thus saw close up (and at a very impressionable age) what that was like, along with the abundant psychological pressures that often emerge from wrestling with the temptation of confusing one’s self-worth with one’s net worth. And I think part of it has to do with the fact that I try never to take myself too seriously, which gives others permission not to take me too seriously either, but rather just seriously enough that perhaps they receive some fresh insight into their own lives from looking at life itself from a slightly different perspective.
We Americans like to think that we live in a class-less society. We don’t, really, but since our forebearers once fought a revolution based on the self-evident truths that all white, male property-owners of a certain age were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, it still gives us comfort to pretend that we do. And one of the consequences of this is that no matter how much (or really, how little) money we may have, we still typically feel like we’re “Middle-Class.” Even Bill Gates (who is certainly smart enough to know better), still basically feels like a very, very, very, very well-to-do Middle Class American. But for the rest of us, this same cultural phenomenon often means that we tend to assume that how we live is “normal,” -- while at the same time privately feeling that anyone who has considerably more than we do is somehow “extravagant,” and wondering how anyone else can get by on anything less. These assumptions don’t generally rise to the level of conscious thought; if we stopped to think about it we would know, intellectually at least, that they weren’t exactly true. But typically we don’t think about it, unless something dramatically changes -- unless we lose our job, or are in danger of losing our job; or (which is sometimes even worse) we receive a sudden financial windfall, like winning the lottery. Our comfortable notions of “appropriate abundance” become disrupted, and we are compelled to recalculate our entire relationship to the material world.
Tied in with all of this is something we sometimes like to call the “Protestant Work Ethic.” This term is derived from the writings of a German Sociologist of Religion named Max Weber, who lived and worked about a hundred years ago. Weber was trying to understand why Western Civilization was the way it was, and he basically ended up blaming it all on Puritan angst. Medieval economists (who were basically monks) understood that Personal Industry combined with Frugality (two good “religious” virtues) would eventually create wealth. But they also understood that Wealth often led to laziness and self-indulgence, which in turn often led to dissolute Poverty...and so they encouraged those who would listen to avoid this problem by continuing to work hard and spend little, and contributing their excess wealth to the less fortunate in the form Christian Charity, which would help you get to heaven. But John Calvin believed that the ultimate fate of any particular individual’s immortal soul had all been determined by God before the beginning of time; it was all predestined, and so (according to Weber) this resulted in a situation where Protestant Christians transformed the spiritual “other-worldly asceticism” of the monastery into the “Worldly Asceticism” embodied in the Spirit of Capitalism, in which industry and frugality continued to remain virtues, but accumulated wealth was reinvested in expanding the enterprise, since Charity was now irrelevant to one’s salvation, while success was considered a tangible sign of God’s pre-determined favor. The wealthier you became, the more it meant God loved you. Or at least that’s how Max Weber saw it.
There are plenty of problems with Weber’s sociology, but the great irony is that because his ideas were so innovative and popular at the time they were first published, in many ways they have become self-fulfilling. In large part this was due to the fact that they provided a theological justification for yet another philosophy, known as Social Darwinism, which was already popular at the time Weber was writing. As you might guess, the Social Darwinists believed that human civilization was essentially a struggle for “survival of the fittest” -- society is divided into “winners” and “losers,” both the rich and the poor get what they deserve, and any attempt to ameliorate the suffering of the latter only makes civilization itself less strong. Social Darwinism is a self-serving philosophy which worships both power and privilege, while essentially renouncing the fundamental principles of compassionate ethical conduct commonly shared among all of the world’s great religions. Yet because it sounds “scientific,” and because of Weber’s observation that within some sects of Protestant Christianity wealth was historically considered a sign of God’s favor, it has proved surprisingly resilient, especially among those who have accumulated some degree of wealth, and who want to believe that they are among God’s favorites.
And even those of use who explicitly reject these values and assumptions sometimes still have to deal with their implicit consequences. In my experience, this problem shows up most directly when we enter into the process of trying to figure out for ourselves the precise relationship between work and lifestyle that we believe will produce for us the greatest level of personal fulfillment. It’s a task we typically first confront when we are young and making decisions about our careers, but in many ways it remains a challenge all our lives, as we continue to grow and learn about what truly makes us feel happy and fulfilled. I personally believe, for example, that frugality is still a very satisfying lifestyle choice. I understand that contemporary American society is mostly based on “consumption,” and the notion that somehow acquiring more stuff will provide us with happiness...and at times I still even buy into that...although I try not to take it too seriously. But you can all probably tell just by the way I dress all week long: “Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.” -- I have a whole closet full of stuff like that.
My main problem comes on the other end: trying to figure out where the line is between frugality and parsimony. I don’t mind living cheaply, and I certainly want to feel like I’m getting my money’s worth, but I sure don’t want to be thought of as a cheapskate, either in the way that I treat myself or in my interactions with others. And this brings me to the second part of the equation, which is the realization that generosity is not only an act of charity, of “Love” -- it is also an act of Creativity...a way in which we put our life-energy to work in the world in order to change it for the better. When we allow our Creativity to overflow...when we live life abundantly, sharing our industry with others, good things happen. And this, more than any other thing that we can do, is what gives live meaning.
I want to leave you with just three more brief observations which you can take home with you and ponder over the next few days or weeks, and then maybe when you get a chance you can tell me what you think. And the first of these is the insight that you can almost always get by on a lot less than you think, and that it’s a lot better to figure this out BEFORE you actually have to do it. I have a colleague out on the West Coast who is encouraging folks, as a Lenten discipline, to try to live for six weeks on the minimum wage for their area. I mean, think about that for a moment. Even if we took the mortgage off the table, and ignored things like our pensions and our health insurance, how many of us could actually “get by” on $6.75 an hour, or $270 a week...before taxes? And yet there are lots of people in this country who are trying to get by on this, or even less....and the realization that if you had to you could too is actually rather liberating....which is not at all to minimize the hardship of those who are trying to do it for real. Thoreau said it as well as anyone: “if you are restricted in your range by poverty...you are but confined to the most significant and vital experiences.... It is life near the bone where it is sweetest. You are defended from being a trifler.”
This brings me to the second observation, which is that the Best things in Life truly are free. “Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only,” Thoreau wrote. “Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul....” And this is not to suggest that because the best things are free, we don’t need money at all. But remember never to let the scramble for money distract you from enjoying the things that money just can’t buy. Because if you do, you are getting ripped off. You are cheating yourself of the World’s most abundant treasures, the things which ultimately make life worth living.
And finally, don’t forget the principle of Noblesse Oblige -- “to those to whom much is given, much is expected.” This simple idea is what truly ties together all of the activities of a meaningful and fulfilling life. When life has treated you to abundant blessings, pass them on. And if life isn’t treating you so well at the moment, don’t be too proud or stubborn to accept and enjoy the shared abundance of others. Because when we let it be what it truly is, Abundance Overflows. It can’t be contained, it can’t be hoarded, it can’t be bottled and sold in stores, or even saved for a rainy day. But the good news is, there’s more where that came from. And that knowledge is what gives us life, and gives us life more abundantly.
READING: from Walden by Henry David Thoreau
“Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Turn the old; return to them. Things do not change; we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do not want society....We are often reminded that if there were bestowed on us the wealth of Croesus, our aims must still be the same, and our means essentially the same. Moreover, if you are restricted in your range by poverty, if you cannot buy books and newspapers, for instance, you are but confined to the most significant and vital experiences; you are compelled to deal with the material which yields the most sugar and the most starch. It is life near the bone where it is sweetest. You are defended from being a trifler. No [one] loses ever on a lower level by magnanimity on a higher. Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only. Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul....
“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth....”
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 22th, 2004
OPENING WORDS: “Real happiness is cheap enough, yet how dearly we pay for its counterfeit.” -- Hosea Ballou
I’ve decided that I could get used to this concept of the one-word sermon title. It’s so succinct, so efficient -- and yet so richly evocative as well. Joy! Love! And now Abundance! -- a word which means, literally, “overflowing,” thus making it a perfect compliment to these other topics of recent weeks. Abundant Love. Abundant Joy. Abundant blessings of all sorts: the word simply overflows with connotations of wealth and prosperity, freedom, success and happiness. It’s a word which positively inspires generosity and creativity; and then there’s always that lovely scriptural reference to John 10:10 -- “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I come that they may have life, and have life more abundantly.” Not “Eternal Life” in the sense of a life-span which lasts forever. But “Abundant Life” -- a life-force which overflows with the Spirit of the Divine, a life-style which is emersed in a consciousness of ultimate meaning and value.
The opposite of abundance might be thought of as scarcity, or deficiency, in which the blessings of life are reduced to a trickle. Poverty and Privation. Hunger, Uncertainty, Fear. I suppose it’s possible to have all these things in abundance as well -- our lives can overflow with the bad as well as with the good, although there is certainly abundant irony in that. And yet, often abundance is in the eye of the beholder...what appears abundant to one may seem barely sufficient, or even inadequate, to another, and how do we determine whose perceptions are correct? In his second Inaugural address in 1937, as America struggled to escape the privations of the Great Depression through a series of controversial federal policies known as the “New Deal,” FDR remarked that “the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Sixty-seven years (and eleven Presidential administrations) later, we seem to have forgotten this fundamental criterion of the worthiness of a society. Has our nation changed so much in just two generations, that we have metaphorically gained the whole world, and lost our own souls? Have we somehow allowed our relative material abundance to distract us from more essential spiritual values of generosity and compassion?
You know, I’ve often had to wonder how it is that such an unrepentant, dyed-in-the-wool Socialist like myself has found himself serving, and serving quite happily and successfully, in such affluent communities as Midland Texas, and Nantucket Island, and now here in Carlisle. I think part of it has to do with the fact that, although I’ve never really had much money myself, I grew up in a fairly affluent household, in a fairly affluent neighborhood, and thus saw close up (and at a very impressionable age) what that was like, along with the abundant psychological pressures that often emerge from wrestling with the temptation of confusing one’s self-worth with one’s net worth. And I think part of it has to do with the fact that I try never to take myself too seriously, which gives others permission not to take me too seriously either, but rather just seriously enough that perhaps they receive some fresh insight into their own lives from looking at life itself from a slightly different perspective.
We Americans like to think that we live in a class-less society. We don’t, really, but since our forebearers once fought a revolution based on the self-evident truths that all white, male property-owners of a certain age were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, it still gives us comfort to pretend that we do. And one of the consequences of this is that no matter how much (or really, how little) money we may have, we still typically feel like we’re “Middle-Class.” Even Bill Gates (who is certainly smart enough to know better), still basically feels like a very, very, very, very well-to-do Middle Class American. But for the rest of us, this same cultural phenomenon often means that we tend to assume that how we live is “normal,” -- while at the same time privately feeling that anyone who has considerably more than we do is somehow “extravagant,” and wondering how anyone else can get by on anything less. These assumptions don’t generally rise to the level of conscious thought; if we stopped to think about it we would know, intellectually at least, that they weren’t exactly true. But typically we don’t think about it, unless something dramatically changes -- unless we lose our job, or are in danger of losing our job; or (which is sometimes even worse) we receive a sudden financial windfall, like winning the lottery. Our comfortable notions of “appropriate abundance” become disrupted, and we are compelled to recalculate our entire relationship to the material world.
Tied in with all of this is something we sometimes like to call the “Protestant Work Ethic.” This term is derived from the writings of a German Sociologist of Religion named Max Weber, who lived and worked about a hundred years ago. Weber was trying to understand why Western Civilization was the way it was, and he basically ended up blaming it all on Puritan angst. Medieval economists (who were basically monks) understood that Personal Industry combined with Frugality (two good “religious” virtues) would eventually create wealth. But they also understood that Wealth often led to laziness and self-indulgence, which in turn often led to dissolute Poverty...and so they encouraged those who would listen to avoid this problem by continuing to work hard and spend little, and contributing their excess wealth to the less fortunate in the form Christian Charity, which would help you get to heaven. But John Calvin believed that the ultimate fate of any particular individual’s immortal soul had all been determined by God before the beginning of time; it was all predestined, and so (according to Weber) this resulted in a situation where Protestant Christians transformed the spiritual “other-worldly asceticism” of the monastery into the “Worldly Asceticism” embodied in the Spirit of Capitalism, in which industry and frugality continued to remain virtues, but accumulated wealth was reinvested in expanding the enterprise, since Charity was now irrelevant to one’s salvation, while success was considered a tangible sign of God’s pre-determined favor. The wealthier you became, the more it meant God loved you. Or at least that’s how Max Weber saw it.
There are plenty of problems with Weber’s sociology, but the great irony is that because his ideas were so innovative and popular at the time they were first published, in many ways they have become self-fulfilling. In large part this was due to the fact that they provided a theological justification for yet another philosophy, known as Social Darwinism, which was already popular at the time Weber was writing. As you might guess, the Social Darwinists believed that human civilization was essentially a struggle for “survival of the fittest” -- society is divided into “winners” and “losers,” both the rich and the poor get what they deserve, and any attempt to ameliorate the suffering of the latter only makes civilization itself less strong. Social Darwinism is a self-serving philosophy which worships both power and privilege, while essentially renouncing the fundamental principles of compassionate ethical conduct commonly shared among all of the world’s great religions. Yet because it sounds “scientific,” and because of Weber’s observation that within some sects of Protestant Christianity wealth was historically considered a sign of God’s favor, it has proved surprisingly resilient, especially among those who have accumulated some degree of wealth, and who want to believe that they are among God’s favorites.
And even those of use who explicitly reject these values and assumptions sometimes still have to deal with their implicit consequences. In my experience, this problem shows up most directly when we enter into the process of trying to figure out for ourselves the precise relationship between work and lifestyle that we believe will produce for us the greatest level of personal fulfillment. It’s a task we typically first confront when we are young and making decisions about our careers, but in many ways it remains a challenge all our lives, as we continue to grow and learn about what truly makes us feel happy and fulfilled. I personally believe, for example, that frugality is still a very satisfying lifestyle choice. I understand that contemporary American society is mostly based on “consumption,” and the notion that somehow acquiring more stuff will provide us with happiness...and at times I still even buy into that...although I try not to take it too seriously. But you can all probably tell just by the way I dress all week long: “Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.” -- I have a whole closet full of stuff like that.
My main problem comes on the other end: trying to figure out where the line is between frugality and parsimony. I don’t mind living cheaply, and I certainly want to feel like I’m getting my money’s worth, but I sure don’t want to be thought of as a cheapskate, either in the way that I treat myself or in my interactions with others. And this brings me to the second part of the equation, which is the realization that generosity is not only an act of charity, of “Love” -- it is also an act of Creativity...a way in which we put our life-energy to work in the world in order to change it for the better. When we allow our Creativity to overflow...when we live life abundantly, sharing our industry with others, good things happen. And this, more than any other thing that we can do, is what gives live meaning.
I want to leave you with just three more brief observations which you can take home with you and ponder over the next few days or weeks, and then maybe when you get a chance you can tell me what you think. And the first of these is the insight that you can almost always get by on a lot less than you think, and that it’s a lot better to figure this out BEFORE you actually have to do it. I have a colleague out on the West Coast who is encouraging folks, as a Lenten discipline, to try to live for six weeks on the minimum wage for their area. I mean, think about that for a moment. Even if we took the mortgage off the table, and ignored things like our pensions and our health insurance, how many of us could actually “get by” on $6.75 an hour, or $270 a week...before taxes? And yet there are lots of people in this country who are trying to get by on this, or even less....and the realization that if you had to you could too is actually rather liberating....which is not at all to minimize the hardship of those who are trying to do it for real. Thoreau said it as well as anyone: “if you are restricted in your range by poverty...you are but confined to the most significant and vital experiences.... It is life near the bone where it is sweetest. You are defended from being a trifler.”
This brings me to the second observation, which is that the Best things in Life truly are free. “Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only,” Thoreau wrote. “Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul....” And this is not to suggest that because the best things are free, we don’t need money at all. But remember never to let the scramble for money distract you from enjoying the things that money just can’t buy. Because if you do, you are getting ripped off. You are cheating yourself of the World’s most abundant treasures, the things which ultimately make life worth living.
And finally, don’t forget the principle of Noblesse Oblige -- “to those to whom much is given, much is expected.” This simple idea is what truly ties together all of the activities of a meaningful and fulfilling life. When life has treated you to abundant blessings, pass them on. And if life isn’t treating you so well at the moment, don’t be too proud or stubborn to accept and enjoy the shared abundance of others. Because when we let it be what it truly is, Abundance Overflows. It can’t be contained, it can’t be hoarded, it can’t be bottled and sold in stores, or even saved for a rainy day. But the good news is, there’s more where that came from. And that knowledge is what gives us life, and gives us life more abundantly.
READING: from Walden by Henry David Thoreau
“Do not trouble yourself much to get new things, whether clothes or friends. Turn the old; return to them. Things do not change; we change. Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts. God will see that you do not want society....We are often reminded that if there were bestowed on us the wealth of Croesus, our aims must still be the same, and our means essentially the same. Moreover, if you are restricted in your range by poverty, if you cannot buy books and newspapers, for instance, you are but confined to the most significant and vital experiences; you are compelled to deal with the material which yields the most sugar and the most starch. It is life near the bone where it is sweetest. You are defended from being a trifler. No [one] loses ever on a lower level by magnanimity on a higher. Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only. Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul....
“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth....”
Sunday, February 15, 2004
LOVE!
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 15, 2004
[extemporaneous introduction]
You know, there’s been so much written and said about the subject of Love that sometimes it seems impossible to come up with a fresh approach to the topic. We see it everywhere, talk about it constantly, but do we ever truly understand it? that is, see love as love truly is, rather than simply being swept away head-over-heels by its irresistible power, often when we least expect it...as so many of us have in our lives (and maybe even hope to again). There are so many truisms, so many fantasies and clichés, yet Love the Cliché will lose out to Love the Irresistible Power every time. And even in the fairy tale, it's rarely "happily ever after." No wonder Shakespeare cautions us to "speak low, if you speak love." Clichés do not become clichés by accident, of course; behind each cliché there is a fragment of a larger truth which mere words simply cannot express with the same intensity and freshness as the experience itself. And yet we inevitably struggle to find those words, as if, by giving a name to what we feel, we might just gain a little control over the experience, just as the Miller's daughter gained control of Rumpelstiltskin in that classic fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm.
What is true of Romance is also, in many ways, true of Religion as well. For example, every Sunday morning here at the First Religious Society we stand up and declare proudly that "Love is the Doctrine of this Church." But what do we really mean when we say this? Typically, when I think of Love in a Religious context, my mind is almost immediately drawn to Paul’s famous description in 1st Corinthians 13: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on is own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." Or I’m reminded of the one Great Commandment of both the Gospels and the Hebrew Bible: to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our strength, and all our mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Or I may even be tempted to try to make sense of the Scriptural admonition to love my enemies, to "do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you"-- perhaps one of the more troubling and problematic edicts of Christian Ethics. And yet, there it is. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.... " "Greater Love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends..." What are we to make of statements like this, in a world where some people are willing to blow themselves up simply to take the lives of a few of their enemies, all in the perceived service of God? And does this somehow in turn justify pre-emptive violence based on fear and suspicion: doing unto others BEFORE they get a chance to do it unto you? Or does Love teach us a better way?
In his famous sermon on "Loving Your Enemies," Martin Luther King Jr. attempted to make sense of these Biblical injunctions by talking about the three different words for love in Ancient Greek: eros, philia, and agape, observing that in each instance it is agape which is elevated to the staring role. King described agape as an "understanding and creative, redemptive goodwill for all" -- a love that empowers us to dwell together in peace. He continued by saying: "An overflowing love which seeks nothing in return, agape is the love of God operating in the human heart. At this level, we love [others] not because we like them, nor because their ways appeal to us, nor even because they possess some type of divine spark; we love [them] because God loves them. At this level, we love the person who does an evil deed, although we hate the deed that [they do]."
Empathy, Compassion, Divine Forgiveness...this is the level at which agape functions. Yet it's often seemed to me that agape love is highly overrated, while eros and philia have gotten something of a bum rap. In the lives of all but the truly saintly, agape rapidly becomes distant and abstract: it lacks the intensity, the immediacy, of the other two types of love. How can we have compassion if passion itself is missing? Where is empathy without a glimmer of understanding?
Erotic love is passionate by nature: intense, immediate, powerful and often irrational. Erotic love frequently manifests itself as the painful hunger to possess, fully and completely, another individual, and to be possessed by them in turn: a union, a mutual joining, a desire to become whole and fulfilled in partnership with someone whose absence makes us suffer, and leaves us feeling fragmented and incomplete, empty and alone. This momentary satisfaction is an illusion, of course: a temporary fusion too intense to be prolonged indefinitely. And yet we crave it with an intensity beyond all other appetites. In the Symposium, Plato has Socrates use the word eros to describe the philosopher's passionate desire for wisdom: a craving, a hunger for the knowledge that will complete us and make us whole, make us one with the truth. When we "seek the truth in love," our search must be a passionate search, our desire for truth something which takes possession of us and drives out all the easy answers and facile explanations: irrational to the extent that it scorns mere rationalization, and satisfied only by a complete and utter union with "The True," however ephemeral it may at first appear.
Philia, on the other hand, is a far more rational form of love. The word is frequently translated as "friendship," but this really doesn't do it justice. Philia is a form of love which grows out of our ability to recognize differences of opinion, of preference, of whatever, and still honor that person's integrity and worth, whether we agree with them or not; or indeed, whether we even like them or not. It's the love which enables us to survive our disagreements, and the ebb and flow of our passions, and ultimately to affirm the power of our common humanity: not God's love "operating in the human heart," but an essentially human love born of our ability to perceive and understand our connectedness, and mutual interdependence, with one another as human beings. And the basis of this friendship, this philia, is not so much Affection as it is Respect.
I think the most articulate description of this I’ve ever heard was Kurt Vonnegut Jr’s Ware Lecture "Love Is Too Strong a Word," which he delivered at the UUA General Assembly in Rochester, New York way back in 1986. (I can’t begin to tell you how hard I had to search to find this again, so I’m going to quote it at some length). But essentially, that evening Vonnegut said to the assembled Unitarian-Universalists (myself included):
***
I will tell you what my theory is: The Christian preachers exhort their listeners to love one another, and to love their neighbors and so on. Love is simply too strong a word to be much use in ordinary, day-to-day relationships. Love is for Romeo and Juliet.
I'm to love my neighbor? How can I do that when I'm not even speaking to my wife and kids today? My wife said to me the other day, after a knock-down, drag-out fight about interior decoration, "I don't love you any more." And I said to her, "So what else is new?" She really didn't love me then, which was perfectly normal. She will love me some other time -- I think, I hope. It's possible.
If she had wanted to terminate the marriage, to carry it past the point of no return, she would have had to say "I don't respect you any more." Now -- that would be terminal.
One of the many unnecessary American catastrophes going on right now...is all the people who are getting divorced because they don't love each other any more. That is like trading in a car when the ashtrays are full. When you don't respect your mate anymore -- that's when the transmission is shot and there's a crack in the engine block.
I like to think that Jesus said in Aramaic, "Ye shall respect one another." That would be a sign to me that he really wanted to help us here on earth, and not just in the afterlife. Then again, he had no way of knowing what ludicrously high standards Hollywood was going to set for love....
And look at the spectrum of emotions we automatically think of when we hear the word "love." If you can't love your neighbors, then you can at least like them. If you can't like them, you can at least not give a damn about them. If you can't ignore them, then you have to hate them, right? You've exhausted all the other possibilities. That's a quick trip to hate, isn't it? And it starts with love. It is such a logical trip, like the one from "white hot" to "ice-cold" with "red hot, hot, warm, tepid, room temperature, cool, chilly, and freezing" in between. The spectrum of emotions suggested by the word "love" again: "love," and then "like," and then "don't give a damn about," and then "hate."
That is my explanation of why hatred is so common in that part of the world dominated by Christianity. There are all these people who have been told to do their best at loving. They fail, most of them. And why wouldn't they fail, since loving is extremely difficult. Most of these people are also failures at pole vaulting and performers on the flying trapeze. And when they fail to love day after day, come one, come all, the logic of the language leads them to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that they must hate instead. The step beyond hating, of course, is killing in imaginary self-defense.
"Ye shall respect one another." Now there is something almost anybody in reasonable mental health can do day after day, year in and year out, come one, come all, to everyone's clear benefit. "Respect" does not imply a spectrum of alternatives, some of them very dangerous. "Respect" is like a light switch. It is either on or off. And if we are no longer able to respect someone, we don't feel like killing him or her. Our response is restrained. We simply want to make him or her feel like something the cat drug in.
Compare making somebody feel like something the cat drug in with Armageddon or World War Three....
***
God’s overflowing love operating in the human heart. The passionate desire to be United-And-Made-One with That-Which-Makes-One-Complete. And Respect for one’s neighbor, (and even for one’s enemy) based on a more fundamental sense of self-respect, whether you “love” that other person or not.
Love manifests itself in our lives, and through our lives, in as many different ways as life itself. God is Love. Love makes the world go round. Love is the Answer (could you please repeat the question?). Or recall the passage I read to open the service: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; but when I became an adult, I put an end to childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now Faith, Hope, and Love abide -- these three. And the greatest of these is Love.” Think about this for a moment: what does it mean to “know fully, even as one has been fully known” -- to become an adult, to see life, to see one’s beloved, to see the Creator of the Universe, face to face? Maybe this is really what love is all about -- the ability to look into the face of one’s neighbor, or even a stranger, and see one’s beloved reflected there as well, or to look into the face of one’s enemy and recognize that they too were created in the image of God. I can’t really be certain about this, of course; just because I read it in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s so. But at the very least it is worth a second look, a closer look. Because who knows what one may see in a mirror, if one looks closely enough.
I also want to point out just one more thing here this morning, which is that the Latin word used to translate the Greek agape in this passage (and many of the others I’ve mentioned here this morning) is caritas, which some of you may recognize from the King James Bible as “charity.” God’s overflowing love operating in the human heart manifests itself in the world as Charity. And charity is more than simply giving assistance to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is a tangible expression of God’s love for us all -- an act of generosity inspired by a feeling of gratitude, which encourages us to share our good fortune with others because we realize that we ourselves have been beneficiaries of God’s many gifts to us in ways that we can never fully repay. And so we learn to express our love of God, and more importantly, our appreciation of God’s love for us, by acting in a loving way toward all of God’s creation. And I know that this is a Unitarian Church, and that there are probably a lot of folks here who don’t even really believe in God, at least in any conventional sense of the word. And that’s perfectly fine, because it doesn’t really matter either. What matters is that God believes in us, and trusts that through the power of love, we will eventually grow to our full potential as kind, loving, generous and understanding human beings -- the very people that God intends for us to be.
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; but when I became an adult, I put an end to childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now Faith, Hope, and Love abide -- these three. And the greatest of these is Love.” --1st Corinthians 13: 11-13.
If you are proud of this church, become its advocate.
If you are concerned for it future, share its message.
If its values resonate deep within you, give it a measure of your devotion.
Its destiny, the larger hope, rests in your hands.
--Michael A. Schuler
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday February 15, 2004
[extemporaneous introduction]
You know, there’s been so much written and said about the subject of Love that sometimes it seems impossible to come up with a fresh approach to the topic. We see it everywhere, talk about it constantly, but do we ever truly understand it? that is, see love as love truly is, rather than simply being swept away head-over-heels by its irresistible power, often when we least expect it...as so many of us have in our lives (and maybe even hope to again). There are so many truisms, so many fantasies and clichés, yet Love the Cliché will lose out to Love the Irresistible Power every time. And even in the fairy tale, it's rarely "happily ever after." No wonder Shakespeare cautions us to "speak low, if you speak love." Clichés do not become clichés by accident, of course; behind each cliché there is a fragment of a larger truth which mere words simply cannot express with the same intensity and freshness as the experience itself. And yet we inevitably struggle to find those words, as if, by giving a name to what we feel, we might just gain a little control over the experience, just as the Miller's daughter gained control of Rumpelstiltskin in that classic fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm.
What is true of Romance is also, in many ways, true of Religion as well. For example, every Sunday morning here at the First Religious Society we stand up and declare proudly that "Love is the Doctrine of this Church." But what do we really mean when we say this? Typically, when I think of Love in a Religious context, my mind is almost immediately drawn to Paul’s famous description in 1st Corinthians 13: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on is own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." Or I’m reminded of the one Great Commandment of both the Gospels and the Hebrew Bible: to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our strength, and all our mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Or I may even be tempted to try to make sense of the Scriptural admonition to love my enemies, to "do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you"-- perhaps one of the more troubling and problematic edicts of Christian Ethics. And yet, there it is. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.... " "Greater Love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends..." What are we to make of statements like this, in a world where some people are willing to blow themselves up simply to take the lives of a few of their enemies, all in the perceived service of God? And does this somehow in turn justify pre-emptive violence based on fear and suspicion: doing unto others BEFORE they get a chance to do it unto you? Or does Love teach us a better way?
In his famous sermon on "Loving Your Enemies," Martin Luther King Jr. attempted to make sense of these Biblical injunctions by talking about the three different words for love in Ancient Greek: eros, philia, and agape, observing that in each instance it is agape which is elevated to the staring role. King described agape as an "understanding and creative, redemptive goodwill for all" -- a love that empowers us to dwell together in peace. He continued by saying: "An overflowing love which seeks nothing in return, agape is the love of God operating in the human heart. At this level, we love [others] not because we like them, nor because their ways appeal to us, nor even because they possess some type of divine spark; we love [them] because God loves them. At this level, we love the person who does an evil deed, although we hate the deed that [they do]."
Empathy, Compassion, Divine Forgiveness...this is the level at which agape functions. Yet it's often seemed to me that agape love is highly overrated, while eros and philia have gotten something of a bum rap. In the lives of all but the truly saintly, agape rapidly becomes distant and abstract: it lacks the intensity, the immediacy, of the other two types of love. How can we have compassion if passion itself is missing? Where is empathy without a glimmer of understanding?
Erotic love is passionate by nature: intense, immediate, powerful and often irrational. Erotic love frequently manifests itself as the painful hunger to possess, fully and completely, another individual, and to be possessed by them in turn: a union, a mutual joining, a desire to become whole and fulfilled in partnership with someone whose absence makes us suffer, and leaves us feeling fragmented and incomplete, empty and alone. This momentary satisfaction is an illusion, of course: a temporary fusion too intense to be prolonged indefinitely. And yet we crave it with an intensity beyond all other appetites. In the Symposium, Plato has Socrates use the word eros to describe the philosopher's passionate desire for wisdom: a craving, a hunger for the knowledge that will complete us and make us whole, make us one with the truth. When we "seek the truth in love," our search must be a passionate search, our desire for truth something which takes possession of us and drives out all the easy answers and facile explanations: irrational to the extent that it scorns mere rationalization, and satisfied only by a complete and utter union with "The True," however ephemeral it may at first appear.
Philia, on the other hand, is a far more rational form of love. The word is frequently translated as "friendship," but this really doesn't do it justice. Philia is a form of love which grows out of our ability to recognize differences of opinion, of preference, of whatever, and still honor that person's integrity and worth, whether we agree with them or not; or indeed, whether we even like them or not. It's the love which enables us to survive our disagreements, and the ebb and flow of our passions, and ultimately to affirm the power of our common humanity: not God's love "operating in the human heart," but an essentially human love born of our ability to perceive and understand our connectedness, and mutual interdependence, with one another as human beings. And the basis of this friendship, this philia, is not so much Affection as it is Respect.
I think the most articulate description of this I’ve ever heard was Kurt Vonnegut Jr’s Ware Lecture "Love Is Too Strong a Word," which he delivered at the UUA General Assembly in Rochester, New York way back in 1986. (I can’t begin to tell you how hard I had to search to find this again, so I’m going to quote it at some length). But essentially, that evening Vonnegut said to the assembled Unitarian-Universalists (myself included):
***
I will tell you what my theory is: The Christian preachers exhort their listeners to love one another, and to love their neighbors and so on. Love is simply too strong a word to be much use in ordinary, day-to-day relationships. Love is for Romeo and Juliet.
I'm to love my neighbor? How can I do that when I'm not even speaking to my wife and kids today? My wife said to me the other day, after a knock-down, drag-out fight about interior decoration, "I don't love you any more." And I said to her, "So what else is new?" She really didn't love me then, which was perfectly normal. She will love me some other time -- I think, I hope. It's possible.
If she had wanted to terminate the marriage, to carry it past the point of no return, she would have had to say "I don't respect you any more." Now -- that would be terminal.
One of the many unnecessary American catastrophes going on right now...is all the people who are getting divorced because they don't love each other any more. That is like trading in a car when the ashtrays are full. When you don't respect your mate anymore -- that's when the transmission is shot and there's a crack in the engine block.
I like to think that Jesus said in Aramaic, "Ye shall respect one another." That would be a sign to me that he really wanted to help us here on earth, and not just in the afterlife. Then again, he had no way of knowing what ludicrously high standards Hollywood was going to set for love....
And look at the spectrum of emotions we automatically think of when we hear the word "love." If you can't love your neighbors, then you can at least like them. If you can't like them, you can at least not give a damn about them. If you can't ignore them, then you have to hate them, right? You've exhausted all the other possibilities. That's a quick trip to hate, isn't it? And it starts with love. It is such a logical trip, like the one from "white hot" to "ice-cold" with "red hot, hot, warm, tepid, room temperature, cool, chilly, and freezing" in between. The spectrum of emotions suggested by the word "love" again: "love," and then "like," and then "don't give a damn about," and then "hate."
That is my explanation of why hatred is so common in that part of the world dominated by Christianity. There are all these people who have been told to do their best at loving. They fail, most of them. And why wouldn't they fail, since loving is extremely difficult. Most of these people are also failures at pole vaulting and performers on the flying trapeze. And when they fail to love day after day, come one, come all, the logic of the language leads them to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that they must hate instead. The step beyond hating, of course, is killing in imaginary self-defense.
"Ye shall respect one another." Now there is something almost anybody in reasonable mental health can do day after day, year in and year out, come one, come all, to everyone's clear benefit. "Respect" does not imply a spectrum of alternatives, some of them very dangerous. "Respect" is like a light switch. It is either on or off. And if we are no longer able to respect someone, we don't feel like killing him or her. Our response is restrained. We simply want to make him or her feel like something the cat drug in.
Compare making somebody feel like something the cat drug in with Armageddon or World War Three....
***
God’s overflowing love operating in the human heart. The passionate desire to be United-And-Made-One with That-Which-Makes-One-Complete. And Respect for one’s neighbor, (and even for one’s enemy) based on a more fundamental sense of self-respect, whether you “love” that other person or not.
Love manifests itself in our lives, and through our lives, in as many different ways as life itself. God is Love. Love makes the world go round. Love is the Answer (could you please repeat the question?). Or recall the passage I read to open the service: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; but when I became an adult, I put an end to childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now Faith, Hope, and Love abide -- these three. And the greatest of these is Love.” Think about this for a moment: what does it mean to “know fully, even as one has been fully known” -- to become an adult, to see life, to see one’s beloved, to see the Creator of the Universe, face to face? Maybe this is really what love is all about -- the ability to look into the face of one’s neighbor, or even a stranger, and see one’s beloved reflected there as well, or to look into the face of one’s enemy and recognize that they too were created in the image of God. I can’t really be certain about this, of course; just because I read it in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s so. But at the very least it is worth a second look, a closer look. Because who knows what one may see in a mirror, if one looks closely enough.
I also want to point out just one more thing here this morning, which is that the Latin word used to translate the Greek agape in this passage (and many of the others I’ve mentioned here this morning) is caritas, which some of you may recognize from the King James Bible as “charity.” God’s overflowing love operating in the human heart manifests itself in the world as Charity. And charity is more than simply giving assistance to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is a tangible expression of God’s love for us all -- an act of generosity inspired by a feeling of gratitude, which encourages us to share our good fortune with others because we realize that we ourselves have been beneficiaries of God’s many gifts to us in ways that we can never fully repay. And so we learn to express our love of God, and more importantly, our appreciation of God’s love for us, by acting in a loving way toward all of God’s creation. And I know that this is a Unitarian Church, and that there are probably a lot of folks here who don’t even really believe in God, at least in any conventional sense of the word. And that’s perfectly fine, because it doesn’t really matter either. What matters is that God believes in us, and trusts that through the power of love, we will eventually grow to our full potential as kind, loving, generous and understanding human beings -- the very people that God intends for us to be.
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; but when I became an adult, I put an end to childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now Faith, Hope, and Love abide -- these three. And the greatest of these is Love.” --1st Corinthians 13: 11-13.
If you are proud of this church, become its advocate.
If you are concerned for it future, share its message.
If its values resonate deep within you, give it a measure of your devotion.
Its destiny, the larger hope, rests in your hands.
--Michael A. Schuler
Sunday, January 25, 2004
YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 25th, 2004
I was having a little trouble figuring out what I wanted to talk about this week. It wasn’t that I lacked inspiration; if anything, just the opposite -- I had too MUCH inspiration, too many things going on in the world, too many good ideas, all of which deserved fuller exploration and explication. Harry Emerson Fosdick once said that the modern preacher needed to enter the pulpit with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, but even if I just stuck to the headlines it’s hard to know where to begin. Last week’s Iowa Caucuses, next week’s New Hampshire primary, and sandwiched between them, like the rich, creamy middle of an Oreo cookie, the State of the Union Address...and that’s just the timely political stuff. We’ve also got robots on Mars (evocatively named “Spirit” and “Opportunity”), the Patriots are headed for the Super Bowl, and then there are always timeless themes like peace and prosperity, justice and compassion, honesty, integrity, generosity, forgiveness...all of which have received ample illustration, both positive and negative, in recent days, as they do almost every day. There’s so much, it’s hard to know where to begin.
One thing though that has been on my mind quite a bit of late is something that Woody initially brought to my attention. In the most recent issue of The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, there is a comprehensive sociological examination of “Clergy as Political Activists,” which runs well over 100 pages, and reviews the political behavior of clergy across the theological spectrum in the 2000 Presidential election. There are articles surveying both evangelical and mainline Protestant ministers, Catholic Priests, Rabbis and African American ministers, and we Unitarian Universalists even get an article all to ourselves. “Clergy are well positioned to influence others politically,” the study found, because they “tend to be respected both individually and collectively,...are generally perceived to be spiritual and moral leaders who are likely to be attentive to the moral conditions of the world around them, and finally...[they] are generally well educated and engage in more ideological thinking than those with fewer years of schooling.” Well, that all sounded familiar enough; but the most interesting revelation of the study was the extent to which conservative, evangelical Christian pastors now match their more liberal brethren in their levels of political activism.
Historically, mainline Protestant churches have been deeply influenced by a movement known as the Social Gospel, a “theological perspective that stresses structural reform, [and] not just spiritual conversion and personal sanctification, as the means for social change,” and likewise “implies a need for pastors to become politically involved in order to help the less fortunate.” The theology of the Social Gospel served as one of the main inspirations for the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s, the Peace movement of the 1960’s, the Environmental and Women’s Rights movements of the 1970’s, the Sanctuary and Nuclear Freeze movements of the 1980’s, the anti-Globalization and Economic Justice movements of the 1990’s, and it continues to exert a powerful influence over the social justice ministries of mainline denominations today -- not just for Unitarian Universalists, but also for Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Lutherans, American Baptists, the Disciples of Christ, even many Reformed Jews and liberal Roman Catholics.
But over this same period of time, there have been two other interesting developments in American society. The first is that political liberals have grown increasingly disillusioned with religious institutions as vehicles for achieving social change. There are a lot of different reasons for this, but the main one, it seems to me, is that Churches tend to move “at the speed of Church” -- we are far too process-oriented, far too interested in achieving consensus before taking any action, to satisfy most Activists, and thus liberal/progressive politics in this country have become increasingly secular in the last half-century, so much so that pollsters now say that Church attendance has become one of the leading indicators of one’s political sympathies among American voters.
This brings us to the second development, which is that over the past two decades or so religious conservatives have become far more politically active than they were a generation ago. Much of this is due to the efforts of national organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, and Focus on the Family, and it almost goes without saying that this activism takes a far different shape from that of liberals. The activism of religious conservatives tends to be focused on issues of “moral reform” -- advocacy of things like prayer in public schools and support for “traditional family values,” opposition to things like abortion and civil unions. And it is centered around a set of beliefs sociologists call “the Civic Gospel,” which goes something like this: “The United States was founded as a Christian nation; Free Enterprise is the only economic system truly compatible with Christian beliefs; Religious values are under attack in contemporary America; Government needs to act in order to protect the nation’s religious heritage; there is only one Christian view on most political issues, and...it is hard for political liberals to be true Christians.”
I’ll doubtlessly return to this material again in more detail at some time in the future, since I find it fascinating and have only begun to scratch the surface of it, but the point I want to make today is that much of the bitter acrimony and political polarization we are experiencing in our country right now is, at bottom, a conflict between two very different understandings of what it means to be religious. It’s more than just a difference of opinion about policy options. Rather, it’s about two fundamentally contradictory world views, which sometimes use the same words, but in many ways are speaking entirely different languages: a conflict between a spirituality based on tolerance and mutual understanding, which sees all human beings as brothers and sisters created in the image of God, and thus embraces an ethic of pluralism and diversity, and a more rigid style of faith which often times views pluralism and diversity as intolerable violations of God’s Law, which “the faithful” are morally obligated to punish and suppress.
And I’ll tell you right now, I don’t know what the solution is. My faith tells me that if we all just do a little more talking with one another, eventually we’ll arrive at some sort of mutual understanding and a shared sense of purpose...but my experience says that the other side isn’t really interested in what I have to say...they’ve already made up their minds, and are basically willing to do or say whatever it takes in order to get their way. They’ll promise us the moon, tell us things they know aren’t true, spend money they no longer have to punish their enemies and reward their friends. And it all just leave me feeling frustrated, and not particularly tolerant or understanding. And yet, the irony of my situation is not entirely lost on me. I never really understood, until this President came to power, what the “vast, right wing conspiracy” of Clinton-haters was really all about. But now I kinda get it, and I even feel a little sorry for them...having to suffer through eight years of a leader they didn’t respect, and whom they felt didn’t deserve the high office that had been entrusted to him. When the mere sight of someone’s face, or even the sound of their voice, is enough to make you feel physically angry, you are stuck in an extremely unpleasant predicament -- which may be all the more reason for you not to like them, but also does little to help you get out of it. And while ranting and venting may make you feel good for awhile, in the long run what’s the point of haranguing the folks around you about something they aren’t really responsible for, and can’t actually do anything to change anyway? And it also occurs to me, as an historian, that there were people who felt this way about FDR -- the original “that man in the White House” -- and others who felt so strongly about Lincoln that they actually dropped out of the country and started a war of rebellion. And this, perhaps, is the greatest irony of all: that it is the descendants of the people whom Lincoln defeated who now control the political party he helped to create, and who are using their newly-found political power to dismantle as much of the New Deal as they can, ignoring the fact that in many cases it was their parents and grandparents who were the principal beneficiaries of it.
Sometimes politics appear to be about issues of policy -- specific steps that need to be taken in order to address particular problems. And sometimes politics appear to be about leadership: questions of character, vision, and personal integrity. But beyond leadership, beyond policy, are the more fundamental concerns of Peace and Prosperity, and whether or not the benefits of a peaceful and prosperous society are going to be broadly shared among the many, or narrowly concentrated in the hands of just a few. Are freedom and justice, education and health care, food, clothing and shelter, only for the wealthy, the privileged and fortunate, even the morally-deserving? Or should they be distributed as widely as possible, and as equally as equity will permit? What should a society do with its surplus, once the basic needs of its members have been met? Should it be invested for the public good? Saved for a rainy day? Left in the hands of private individuals, because they’ve “earned” it? Used to create art, music, literature, perhaps simply leisure itself? Or should it be given as charity to widows and orphans, the homeless and the less-fortunate, whether they “deserve” it or not? And who gets to decide, and how do these decisions get made? -- by everyone concerned, in an open and public forum, or merely by a handful of the most powerful and influential, and behind closed doors? These are not just political issues; they are also religious issues, involving fundamental questions of fairness and compassion, of right and wrong. The answers may seem obvious to you; I think they seem obvious to almost everyone, until we meet someone who sees things differently. And so the discussion begins again, from a slightly different perspective.
I don’t want to try to repeat here on Sunday morning things you can easily hear or read elsewhere. And I don’t think it really matters whether or not you know which candidates I’m going to support (or not support), or how I feel about specific issues, or even larger questions of public policy. I can’t imagine that it would be too hard to figure out, but it’s also beside the point -- because the real challenge is not to persuade you all to think just like me, but rather to get you to look at your own opinions from a slightly different perspective, until you’re certain you know both what and WHY you believe. And my main mantra for the fall is simply going to be "a free and fair election in which everyone who can vote does vote, and every vote gets counted." How can we possibly claim to be exporting Democracy to the rest of the world when we don't even practice it here at home?
Instead of a Constitutional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, how about one eliminating the archaic Electoral College, and (while we’re at it) making election day a national holiday? Or if we are truly interested in dramatic electoral reform, we could institute proportional state-by-state representation in the House, thus putting an end to partisan gerrymandering once and for all. In the last Congressional election, only four challengers defeated incumbent Congressmen, and according to the New York Times, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, this year there may be as few as 30 where the outcome is truly in doubt. In Pennsylvania, there are half-a-million more registered Democrats that there are Republicans, yet Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation with 12 Republicans and just 7 Democrats. Add in Florida, Ohio and Michigan, and the Republican Congressional advantage swells to nearly two-to-one, although the numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in these states are almost exactly equal. Proportional representation would mean the each political party would present a slate of candidates for the entire state, and representatives would be elected based on the percentage of votes polled by each party. Not only would it more fairly allocate representation according to the number of each party’s supporters, it would also make it slightly easier for minor party candidates to win election, once their support rises to a certain threshold.
I don’t actually expect any of these things to happen, of course. We’ve done things the way we’ve done them for so long, that even when it’s broken we are reluctant to try to fix it. Yet when the margin of victory in a national election is less than the margin of error, or when the winning candidate can poll fewer votes than the losing candidate and still claim victory, or when the outcome of an election is never in doubt in the first place, because the rules have been written in such a way that it is next to impossible for a challenger to defeat an incumbent, democracy itself is in danger. And this kind of threat to our freedom is far more serious than anything posed by foreign terrorists, since it strikes not just at buildings, but at the heart of our society itself. And we defend against it, not with soldiers and weapons, but with our own good hearts, and our willingness to stand up and say what we truly believe.
Top Ten Ways I, Howard Dean, Can Turn Things Around
10. "Switch to decaf"
9. "Unveil new slogan: 'Vote for Dean and get one dollar off you next purchase at Blimpie'"
8. "Marry Rachel on final episode of 'Friends'"
7. "Don't change a thing -- it's going great"
6. "Show a little more skin"
5. "Go on 'American Idol' and give 'em a taste of these pipes"
4. "Start working out and speaking with Austrian accent"
3. "I can't give specifics yet, but it involves Ted Danson"
2. "Fire the staffer who suggested we do this lousy Top Ten list instead of actually campaigning"
1. "Oh, I don't know -- maybe fewer crazy, redfaced rants"
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 25th, 2004
I was having a little trouble figuring out what I wanted to talk about this week. It wasn’t that I lacked inspiration; if anything, just the opposite -- I had too MUCH inspiration, too many things going on in the world, too many good ideas, all of which deserved fuller exploration and explication. Harry Emerson Fosdick once said that the modern preacher needed to enter the pulpit with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, but even if I just stuck to the headlines it’s hard to know where to begin. Last week’s Iowa Caucuses, next week’s New Hampshire primary, and sandwiched between them, like the rich, creamy middle of an Oreo cookie, the State of the Union Address...and that’s just the timely political stuff. We’ve also got robots on Mars (evocatively named “Spirit” and “Opportunity”), the Patriots are headed for the Super Bowl, and then there are always timeless themes like peace and prosperity, justice and compassion, honesty, integrity, generosity, forgiveness...all of which have received ample illustration, both positive and negative, in recent days, as they do almost every day. There’s so much, it’s hard to know where to begin.
One thing though that has been on my mind quite a bit of late is something that Woody initially brought to my attention. In the most recent issue of The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, there is a comprehensive sociological examination of “Clergy as Political Activists,” which runs well over 100 pages, and reviews the political behavior of clergy across the theological spectrum in the 2000 Presidential election. There are articles surveying both evangelical and mainline Protestant ministers, Catholic Priests, Rabbis and African American ministers, and we Unitarian Universalists even get an article all to ourselves. “Clergy are well positioned to influence others politically,” the study found, because they “tend to be respected both individually and collectively,...are generally perceived to be spiritual and moral leaders who are likely to be attentive to the moral conditions of the world around them, and finally...[they] are generally well educated and engage in more ideological thinking than those with fewer years of schooling.” Well, that all sounded familiar enough; but the most interesting revelation of the study was the extent to which conservative, evangelical Christian pastors now match their more liberal brethren in their levels of political activism.
Historically, mainline Protestant churches have been deeply influenced by a movement known as the Social Gospel, a “theological perspective that stresses structural reform, [and] not just spiritual conversion and personal sanctification, as the means for social change,” and likewise “implies a need for pastors to become politically involved in order to help the less fortunate.” The theology of the Social Gospel served as one of the main inspirations for the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s, the Peace movement of the 1960’s, the Environmental and Women’s Rights movements of the 1970’s, the Sanctuary and Nuclear Freeze movements of the 1980’s, the anti-Globalization and Economic Justice movements of the 1990’s, and it continues to exert a powerful influence over the social justice ministries of mainline denominations today -- not just for Unitarian Universalists, but also for Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Lutherans, American Baptists, the Disciples of Christ, even many Reformed Jews and liberal Roman Catholics.
But over this same period of time, there have been two other interesting developments in American society. The first is that political liberals have grown increasingly disillusioned with religious institutions as vehicles for achieving social change. There are a lot of different reasons for this, but the main one, it seems to me, is that Churches tend to move “at the speed of Church” -- we are far too process-oriented, far too interested in achieving consensus before taking any action, to satisfy most Activists, and thus liberal/progressive politics in this country have become increasingly secular in the last half-century, so much so that pollsters now say that Church attendance has become one of the leading indicators of one’s political sympathies among American voters.
This brings us to the second development, which is that over the past two decades or so religious conservatives have become far more politically active than they were a generation ago. Much of this is due to the efforts of national organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, and Focus on the Family, and it almost goes without saying that this activism takes a far different shape from that of liberals. The activism of religious conservatives tends to be focused on issues of “moral reform” -- advocacy of things like prayer in public schools and support for “traditional family values,” opposition to things like abortion and civil unions. And it is centered around a set of beliefs sociologists call “the Civic Gospel,” which goes something like this: “The United States was founded as a Christian nation; Free Enterprise is the only economic system truly compatible with Christian beliefs; Religious values are under attack in contemporary America; Government needs to act in order to protect the nation’s religious heritage; there is only one Christian view on most political issues, and...it is hard for political liberals to be true Christians.”
I’ll doubtlessly return to this material again in more detail at some time in the future, since I find it fascinating and have only begun to scratch the surface of it, but the point I want to make today is that much of the bitter acrimony and political polarization we are experiencing in our country right now is, at bottom, a conflict between two very different understandings of what it means to be religious. It’s more than just a difference of opinion about policy options. Rather, it’s about two fundamentally contradictory world views, which sometimes use the same words, but in many ways are speaking entirely different languages: a conflict between a spirituality based on tolerance and mutual understanding, which sees all human beings as brothers and sisters created in the image of God, and thus embraces an ethic of pluralism and diversity, and a more rigid style of faith which often times views pluralism and diversity as intolerable violations of God’s Law, which “the faithful” are morally obligated to punish and suppress.
And I’ll tell you right now, I don’t know what the solution is. My faith tells me that if we all just do a little more talking with one another, eventually we’ll arrive at some sort of mutual understanding and a shared sense of purpose...but my experience says that the other side isn’t really interested in what I have to say...they’ve already made up their minds, and are basically willing to do or say whatever it takes in order to get their way. They’ll promise us the moon, tell us things they know aren’t true, spend money they no longer have to punish their enemies and reward their friends. And it all just leave me feeling frustrated, and not particularly tolerant or understanding. And yet, the irony of my situation is not entirely lost on me. I never really understood, until this President came to power, what the “vast, right wing conspiracy” of Clinton-haters was really all about. But now I kinda get it, and I even feel a little sorry for them...having to suffer through eight years of a leader they didn’t respect, and whom they felt didn’t deserve the high office that had been entrusted to him. When the mere sight of someone’s face, or even the sound of their voice, is enough to make you feel physically angry, you are stuck in an extremely unpleasant predicament -- which may be all the more reason for you not to like them, but also does little to help you get out of it. And while ranting and venting may make you feel good for awhile, in the long run what’s the point of haranguing the folks around you about something they aren’t really responsible for, and can’t actually do anything to change anyway? And it also occurs to me, as an historian, that there were people who felt this way about FDR -- the original “that man in the White House” -- and others who felt so strongly about Lincoln that they actually dropped out of the country and started a war of rebellion. And this, perhaps, is the greatest irony of all: that it is the descendants of the people whom Lincoln defeated who now control the political party he helped to create, and who are using their newly-found political power to dismantle as much of the New Deal as they can, ignoring the fact that in many cases it was their parents and grandparents who were the principal beneficiaries of it.
Sometimes politics appear to be about issues of policy -- specific steps that need to be taken in order to address particular problems. And sometimes politics appear to be about leadership: questions of character, vision, and personal integrity. But beyond leadership, beyond policy, are the more fundamental concerns of Peace and Prosperity, and whether or not the benefits of a peaceful and prosperous society are going to be broadly shared among the many, or narrowly concentrated in the hands of just a few. Are freedom and justice, education and health care, food, clothing and shelter, only for the wealthy, the privileged and fortunate, even the morally-deserving? Or should they be distributed as widely as possible, and as equally as equity will permit? What should a society do with its surplus, once the basic needs of its members have been met? Should it be invested for the public good? Saved for a rainy day? Left in the hands of private individuals, because they’ve “earned” it? Used to create art, music, literature, perhaps simply leisure itself? Or should it be given as charity to widows and orphans, the homeless and the less-fortunate, whether they “deserve” it or not? And who gets to decide, and how do these decisions get made? -- by everyone concerned, in an open and public forum, or merely by a handful of the most powerful and influential, and behind closed doors? These are not just political issues; they are also religious issues, involving fundamental questions of fairness and compassion, of right and wrong. The answers may seem obvious to you; I think they seem obvious to almost everyone, until we meet someone who sees things differently. And so the discussion begins again, from a slightly different perspective.
I don’t want to try to repeat here on Sunday morning things you can easily hear or read elsewhere. And I don’t think it really matters whether or not you know which candidates I’m going to support (or not support), or how I feel about specific issues, or even larger questions of public policy. I can’t imagine that it would be too hard to figure out, but it’s also beside the point -- because the real challenge is not to persuade you all to think just like me, but rather to get you to look at your own opinions from a slightly different perspective, until you’re certain you know both what and WHY you believe. And my main mantra for the fall is simply going to be "a free and fair election in which everyone who can vote does vote, and every vote gets counted." How can we possibly claim to be exporting Democracy to the rest of the world when we don't even practice it here at home?
Instead of a Constitutional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, how about one eliminating the archaic Electoral College, and (while we’re at it) making election day a national holiday? Or if we are truly interested in dramatic electoral reform, we could institute proportional state-by-state representation in the House, thus putting an end to partisan gerrymandering once and for all. In the last Congressional election, only four challengers defeated incumbent Congressmen, and according to the New York Times, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, this year there may be as few as 30 where the outcome is truly in doubt. In Pennsylvania, there are half-a-million more registered Democrats that there are Republicans, yet Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation with 12 Republicans and just 7 Democrats. Add in Florida, Ohio and Michigan, and the Republican Congressional advantage swells to nearly two-to-one, although the numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in these states are almost exactly equal. Proportional representation would mean the each political party would present a slate of candidates for the entire state, and representatives would be elected based on the percentage of votes polled by each party. Not only would it more fairly allocate representation according to the number of each party’s supporters, it would also make it slightly easier for minor party candidates to win election, once their support rises to a certain threshold.
I don’t actually expect any of these things to happen, of course. We’ve done things the way we’ve done them for so long, that even when it’s broken we are reluctant to try to fix it. Yet when the margin of victory in a national election is less than the margin of error, or when the winning candidate can poll fewer votes than the losing candidate and still claim victory, or when the outcome of an election is never in doubt in the first place, because the rules have been written in such a way that it is next to impossible for a challenger to defeat an incumbent, democracy itself is in danger. And this kind of threat to our freedom is far more serious than anything posed by foreign terrorists, since it strikes not just at buildings, but at the heart of our society itself. And we defend against it, not with soldiers and weapons, but with our own good hearts, and our willingness to stand up and say what we truly believe.
Top Ten Ways I, Howard Dean, Can Turn Things Around
10. "Switch to decaf"
9. "Unveil new slogan: 'Vote for Dean and get one dollar off you next purchase at Blimpie'"
8. "Marry Rachel on final episode of 'Friends'"
7. "Don't change a thing -- it's going great"
6. "Show a little more skin"
5. "Go on 'American Idol' and give 'em a taste of these pipes"
4. "Start working out and speaking with Austrian accent"
3. "I can't give specifics yet, but it involves Ted Danson"
2. "Fire the staffer who suggested we do this lousy Top Ten list instead of actually campaigning"
1. "Oh, I don't know -- maybe fewer crazy, redfaced rants"
Sunday, January 18, 2004
THE STRENGTH TO LOVE
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 18th, 2004
I once saw an interview with the actor Ben Kingsley, who casually observed that the secret to his successful characterization of Mohandas Gandhi in the renown Richard Attenbourgh film of the same name, was his realization that Gandhi was not so much a saint who "stooped" to participate in politics as he was a politician struggling to become a saint. I've thought about that apparently offhand remark a great deal since first hearing it. Why is it that professional politicians are so universally held in such low esteem in our society, so much so that even honest-to-God “saintly” individuals (like, say, Jimmy Carter) inevitably appear "compromised" in the public eye when they attempt to participate in the political process? It reminds me of a story I once heard about the syndicated advice columnist Ann Landers, who was approached one evening by a member of the Senate at an Embassy Reception in Washington D.C.
"So you're Ann Landers," the Senator remarked. "Say something funny."
To which Ms Landers immediately responded "So you're a politician. Tell me a lie."
Political activity is the lifeblood of a free society; it is the means by which the will of the people becomes the law of the land. We lift up American Democracy as a model for all the world, yet for some reason we find it all too easy to believe that those who choose to practice politics as a vocation must be doing so from base motives, avariciously, deceitfully, with only their own advancement rather than the best interests of the country or even their own constituents at heart. It’s almost as though we believe that true saints must somehow be "above politics" -- unsullied by the strange bedfellows encountered in smoke-filled cloakrooms. Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread; and Saints, of course, are expected to behave like angels. Politicians on the other hand, remain free to behave like fools.
Of course, it’s not as if the politicians themselves don’t do plenty to bring on this sort of criticism. It’s almost enough to convert even a naive, wide-eyed optimistic Idealist like myself into a confirmed cynic. The events of this past week have been particularly egregious in this regard. While the Democrats were out west in Iowa engaging in their usual round-robin of mutual recrimination, insinuation, and name-calling known as a “Caucus,” the President flew to Atlanta to lay a wreath on the memorial of Martin Luther King Jr. (thus allowing him to bill the taxpayers for his travel), then rode across town to a $2000/plate fundraising dinner (where he raised more money in a single evening than the most credible African-American candidate, Carol Mosely Braun, raised during her entire campaign), after which he returned to Washington DC to announce a trillion-dollar program to send a man to Mars (most of which, if it is actually ever appropriated, will be spent in Texas and Florida: two states critical to the President’s re-election, and notorious for their efforts to circumvent the Voting Rights Act), and that incidentally, since Congress is now in recess, he is going to exercise his “emergency powers” under the Constitution to appoint Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that the controversial Judge had already failed twice to win Senate confirmation, and was opposed (because of his judicial record) by essentially every important Civil Rights organization in the country, including Dr. King’s own Southern Christian Leadership Conference. But Pickering is popular with the Religious Right because of his views on abortion, among other things, thus making his recess appointment a perfect opportunity for both parties to pander sanctimoniously to “the Faithful,” portraying themselves as the last bold defenders of all that is Good, and Moral, and True in our society, while characterizing their opponents as Evil Incarnate. Just to be fair, guess where Howard Dean is attending church this morning? That’s right, in Plains Georgia with Jimmy Carter. And don’t even get me started on all the self-righteous double-talk about civil unions, and the so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”
But confronted with things like this, what are we then to think about that rare politician, like a Mohandas Gandhi, who truly does struggle to become a saint -- who seeks to express through his or her political convictions the high ethical and humanitarian principles of a profound religious faith? Actually, despite my own evolving cynicism, I suspect that this sort of politician is far more common than we generally assume, and that our appreciation of their efforts depends to a great extent upon the degree to which our own political opinions are in agreement with theirs. The road to sainthood is long and arduous, and the dividing line between “saint” and “fanatic” typically razor-thin; many are called but few are chosen; ultimately only history will decide whether or not the struggle was fruitful. Sainthood and the aspiration to sainthood are hardly one and the same. Indeed, so rarefied is our view of the former that often merely the ambition to attain it is enough to taint its purity in our eyes. Yet it would be equally misleading to assume that only those who do not seek it, who have their greatness thrust upon them, are somehow deserving of the mantle of our respect. The inner quality of sainthood is a peculiar combination of humility and arrogance: the arrogance to believe that one's deeply held principles and convictions are important enough to make a difference, and the humility to recognize that this challenge cannot be met by aspiration and strength of will alone.
Martin Luther King Jr. was only 26 years old when he was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, an ad hoc black community group which had been organized to oversee the now famous Montgomery Bus Boycott. As best I can tell, judging from everything I have read, he probably didn't even want the job. At the time, King had been pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church for less than two years, and had only completed the final requirements for his Ph.D. at Boston University that previous spring. Furthermore, his selection as President of the M.I.A. was an overtly political choice. As a relative newcomer to the city of Montgomery, King had yet to become too strongly identified with any particular element within the black community, and thus it was felt that perhaps he could provide precisely the kind of neutral leadership which would allow all of the rival factions within that community to come together in this one common purpose. There was a downside consideration to his nomination as well. Should the boycott fail, as many of the more experienced black community leaders believed it might, this young preacher could easily be sacrificed without endangering these more established leaders' hard earned credibility with both the white establishment, and their own constituencies.
Knowing this aspect of the story, one might easily say that Martin Luther King Jr. did indeed have his greatness thrust upon him, and with the unanimous consent of older, wiser, and more politically savvy colleagues at that. But clearly, this would be only part of the tale. More importantly, there was an inner quality to this aspiring but untested religious leader, an intrinsic quality of saintliness if you will, which, once exposed, blossomed forth into a strength which enabled him to endure receiving dozens of threatening letters and telephone calls each day; to survive slander and harassment by police and other government authorities; to have the front of his parsonage blown off by dynamite while his wife and few-month-old child huddled in the kitchen...to experience all of the doubts and fears and pressures to which the human soul is vulnerable, and still not lose sight of the larger aspiration: a goal which in its very rightness and importance dwarfed both his abilities, and his frailties, as a human being.
To be sure, in many ways Martin Luther King Jr. did have his greatness thrust upon him: he happened to be in the right place, at the right time. But the reason we honor him with a national holiday on his birthday is because he also happened to be the right person to be there in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus. Yes, there was an inner quality of greatness to him. But more importantly, he did not shy from his responsibilities when the need to express that greatness presented itself before him.
From Montgomery, as we all know, King went on to face new challenges and achieve new triumphs: in Birmingham and Selma, in Washington D.C. and Oslo, Norway, where he became the youngest man ever to receive a Nobel Peace prize. Yet I've often wondered whether or not King's greatest challenge and achievement might not have been related to the conflicts which he faced within his own soul, such as the temptation to "retire" as it were from the Civil Rights movement, and accept a lucrative post somewhere in academia, or to spend more time with his wife and his children, away from the death threats and the FBI wiretaps; to grow old in the bosom of the liberal white establishment, lecturing to wide-eyed freshmen about Socrates and Jesus, Gandhi and Thoreau, while writing bestselling books for Harper and Row.
These options were certainly made available to him many times. And yet he chose instead to continue to fill that role which destiny had thrust upon him there in Montgomery in 1955; and this, to me, seems a far more telling mark of King's true "saintly greatness" than any of his other achievements or laurels. It is not merely because King achieved great things that we celebrate his birth as a National holiday. It is also the price he was willing to pay in order to achieve these things -- not for his own personal benefit, but for the benefit of an entire society.
It is difficult for those of us who lack this inner quality of saintliness, this peculiar combination of humility and arrogance,to fully understand what was at stake in Martin Luther King Jr's decision to continue along the path that had been chosen for him, a path which eventually led him to his death on a motel balcony in Memphis. There have been those who have claimed that King was, in fact, a megalomaniac, or that he suffered from a "martyr complex," that his ego was such that he simply could not step out of the national limelight once he had tasted the sweetness of being Time magazine's "Man of the Year."
Nothing, I think, could be further from the truth.
King himself knew better than anyone what was at stake in the drama that was being played out in his frail, mortal human existence. And he spoke of it simply in terms of "The Strength to Love:" the power of God's own overflowing, passionate, creative love for human kind manifesting itself in a single human life. Perhaps it was a form of megalomania, a delusion of grandeur of the most grandiose proportions. But it was also an ultimate act of personal surrender, a martyrdom of the self in the truest sense of that word, as a witness to a creative power for justice far greater than one's own power or creativity.
In the final analysis we must recognize that it was not delusion, but vision, which animated King's career as a civil rights reformer. Commentator Gary Wills has noted that the changes which Martin Luther King Jr. brought to American society were "so large as to be almost invisible." In a few short years, King and those who worked with him swept away an entire system of American apartheid which had existed in the South for nearly a century. Men and women of my generation have had no experience of "whites only" lunch counters, restrooms, and drinking fountains; we have been educated in integrated schools, voted for and elected black politicians, patronized black-owned businesses; and, for the most part, we have done so without giving it second thought.
This is not to say that racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist in this country. White Sheets and cross-burnings may seem like things of the past, but we still have hate crimes in this country; the Ku Klux Klan is still alive and kicking, and has spawned numerous imitators; access to jobs, housing, justice, health care, educational opportunity is still not completely color blind, nor anywhere near equally available to all. In many ways racism has become much more subtle, even sophisticated; it has replaced its white sheets with pinstriped suits, and is fueled as much by the ignorance and the naivete of the well-intentioned (who would just as soon not think about it, and who wish that the problem would simply "go away"), as it is by the malice of those few (albeit increasingly vocal) kooks who would just as soon trot segregation (or its functional equivalent) back out of the closet, if they thought they could get away with it.
Yet King's vision of a truly pluralistic, inclusive, and democratic society, in which individuals are judged by the quality of their characters and not the color of their skins, remains a vivid beacon of our future, untarnished in the nearly half-century which has now elapsed since the bus boycott in Montgomery, which first brought this man to our national attention.
It’s a little-known fact, but my ex-wife Margaret and I were married in Atlanta: at midnight on the Summer Solstice at the Peachtree Plaza hotel during the UUA General Assembly in 1985. It was the first time either of us had ever been in that city; and while we were there we had the opportunity to visit the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Non-Violent Social Change, which is located just up the street from the Ebenezer Baptist Church, "Daddy" King's church, in the neighborhood where young M.L. King spent his childhood. It was the only "touristy" thing we did while we were in Atlanta (we were much too busy being newlyweds to bother with such foolishness as art museums), but we made the most of it; we even bought each other T-shirts. And I spent an hour or so in the small museum there, which is filled with memorabilia of the Civil Rights Movement, and Dr. King's ministry. The one exhibit I found most fascinating was that of Dr. King's preaching robe, a robe not so different from the one I'm wearing now. It surprised me to discover that he was actually a rather short man; I had always envisioned him as some sort of giant, yet I doubt the man whom I imagined could have ever squeezed into the tiny robe I saw hanging there in that glass case. Nor would he have had to. For I realized in that moment, standing there in awe before that tiny robe, that stature is not always a function of physical size. Nor is the significance of a life extinguished by death, when all which that life stood for still burns within the hearts of others. And there is a vitality to all that Martin Luther King Jr. stood for, an immortality if you will, which still lives today beyond the grave. It is a vitality which grows from the capacity for self-sacrifice, from the willingness to stand faithfully in the presence of evil, and surrender one’s ego to the truth of a higher principle. It is an immortality born of our Strength to Love.
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 18th, 2004
I once saw an interview with the actor Ben Kingsley, who casually observed that the secret to his successful characterization of Mohandas Gandhi in the renown Richard Attenbourgh film of the same name, was his realization that Gandhi was not so much a saint who "stooped" to participate in politics as he was a politician struggling to become a saint. I've thought about that apparently offhand remark a great deal since first hearing it. Why is it that professional politicians are so universally held in such low esteem in our society, so much so that even honest-to-God “saintly” individuals (like, say, Jimmy Carter) inevitably appear "compromised" in the public eye when they attempt to participate in the political process? It reminds me of a story I once heard about the syndicated advice columnist Ann Landers, who was approached one evening by a member of the Senate at an Embassy Reception in Washington D.C.
"So you're Ann Landers," the Senator remarked. "Say something funny."
To which Ms Landers immediately responded "So you're a politician. Tell me a lie."
Political activity is the lifeblood of a free society; it is the means by which the will of the people becomes the law of the land. We lift up American Democracy as a model for all the world, yet for some reason we find it all too easy to believe that those who choose to practice politics as a vocation must be doing so from base motives, avariciously, deceitfully, with only their own advancement rather than the best interests of the country or even their own constituents at heart. It’s almost as though we believe that true saints must somehow be "above politics" -- unsullied by the strange bedfellows encountered in smoke-filled cloakrooms. Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread; and Saints, of course, are expected to behave like angels. Politicians on the other hand, remain free to behave like fools.
Of course, it’s not as if the politicians themselves don’t do plenty to bring on this sort of criticism. It’s almost enough to convert even a naive, wide-eyed optimistic Idealist like myself into a confirmed cynic. The events of this past week have been particularly egregious in this regard. While the Democrats were out west in Iowa engaging in their usual round-robin of mutual recrimination, insinuation, and name-calling known as a “Caucus,” the President flew to Atlanta to lay a wreath on the memorial of Martin Luther King Jr. (thus allowing him to bill the taxpayers for his travel), then rode across town to a $2000/plate fundraising dinner (where he raised more money in a single evening than the most credible African-American candidate, Carol Mosely Braun, raised during her entire campaign), after which he returned to Washington DC to announce a trillion-dollar program to send a man to Mars (most of which, if it is actually ever appropriated, will be spent in Texas and Florida: two states critical to the President’s re-election, and notorious for their efforts to circumvent the Voting Rights Act), and that incidentally, since Congress is now in recess, he is going to exercise his “emergency powers” under the Constitution to appoint Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that the controversial Judge had already failed twice to win Senate confirmation, and was opposed (because of his judicial record) by essentially every important Civil Rights organization in the country, including Dr. King’s own Southern Christian Leadership Conference. But Pickering is popular with the Religious Right because of his views on abortion, among other things, thus making his recess appointment a perfect opportunity for both parties to pander sanctimoniously to “the Faithful,” portraying themselves as the last bold defenders of all that is Good, and Moral, and True in our society, while characterizing their opponents as Evil Incarnate. Just to be fair, guess where Howard Dean is attending church this morning? That’s right, in Plains Georgia with Jimmy Carter. And don’t even get me started on all the self-righteous double-talk about civil unions, and the so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”
But confronted with things like this, what are we then to think about that rare politician, like a Mohandas Gandhi, who truly does struggle to become a saint -- who seeks to express through his or her political convictions the high ethical and humanitarian principles of a profound religious faith? Actually, despite my own evolving cynicism, I suspect that this sort of politician is far more common than we generally assume, and that our appreciation of their efforts depends to a great extent upon the degree to which our own political opinions are in agreement with theirs. The road to sainthood is long and arduous, and the dividing line between “saint” and “fanatic” typically razor-thin; many are called but few are chosen; ultimately only history will decide whether or not the struggle was fruitful. Sainthood and the aspiration to sainthood are hardly one and the same. Indeed, so rarefied is our view of the former that often merely the ambition to attain it is enough to taint its purity in our eyes. Yet it would be equally misleading to assume that only those who do not seek it, who have their greatness thrust upon them, are somehow deserving of the mantle of our respect. The inner quality of sainthood is a peculiar combination of humility and arrogance: the arrogance to believe that one's deeply held principles and convictions are important enough to make a difference, and the humility to recognize that this challenge cannot be met by aspiration and strength of will alone.
Martin Luther King Jr. was only 26 years old when he was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, an ad hoc black community group which had been organized to oversee the now famous Montgomery Bus Boycott. As best I can tell, judging from everything I have read, he probably didn't even want the job. At the time, King had been pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church for less than two years, and had only completed the final requirements for his Ph.D. at Boston University that previous spring. Furthermore, his selection as President of the M.I.A. was an overtly political choice. As a relative newcomer to the city of Montgomery, King had yet to become too strongly identified with any particular element within the black community, and thus it was felt that perhaps he could provide precisely the kind of neutral leadership which would allow all of the rival factions within that community to come together in this one common purpose. There was a downside consideration to his nomination as well. Should the boycott fail, as many of the more experienced black community leaders believed it might, this young preacher could easily be sacrificed without endangering these more established leaders' hard earned credibility with both the white establishment, and their own constituencies.
Knowing this aspect of the story, one might easily say that Martin Luther King Jr. did indeed have his greatness thrust upon him, and with the unanimous consent of older, wiser, and more politically savvy colleagues at that. But clearly, this would be only part of the tale. More importantly, there was an inner quality to this aspiring but untested religious leader, an intrinsic quality of saintliness if you will, which, once exposed, blossomed forth into a strength which enabled him to endure receiving dozens of threatening letters and telephone calls each day; to survive slander and harassment by police and other government authorities; to have the front of his parsonage blown off by dynamite while his wife and few-month-old child huddled in the kitchen...to experience all of the doubts and fears and pressures to which the human soul is vulnerable, and still not lose sight of the larger aspiration: a goal which in its very rightness and importance dwarfed both his abilities, and his frailties, as a human being.
To be sure, in many ways Martin Luther King Jr. did have his greatness thrust upon him: he happened to be in the right place, at the right time. But the reason we honor him with a national holiday on his birthday is because he also happened to be the right person to be there in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus. Yes, there was an inner quality of greatness to him. But more importantly, he did not shy from his responsibilities when the need to express that greatness presented itself before him.
From Montgomery, as we all know, King went on to face new challenges and achieve new triumphs: in Birmingham and Selma, in Washington D.C. and Oslo, Norway, where he became the youngest man ever to receive a Nobel Peace prize. Yet I've often wondered whether or not King's greatest challenge and achievement might not have been related to the conflicts which he faced within his own soul, such as the temptation to "retire" as it were from the Civil Rights movement, and accept a lucrative post somewhere in academia, or to spend more time with his wife and his children, away from the death threats and the FBI wiretaps; to grow old in the bosom of the liberal white establishment, lecturing to wide-eyed freshmen about Socrates and Jesus, Gandhi and Thoreau, while writing bestselling books for Harper and Row.
These options were certainly made available to him many times. And yet he chose instead to continue to fill that role which destiny had thrust upon him there in Montgomery in 1955; and this, to me, seems a far more telling mark of King's true "saintly greatness" than any of his other achievements or laurels. It is not merely because King achieved great things that we celebrate his birth as a National holiday. It is also the price he was willing to pay in order to achieve these things -- not for his own personal benefit, but for the benefit of an entire society.
It is difficult for those of us who lack this inner quality of saintliness, this peculiar combination of humility and arrogance,to fully understand what was at stake in Martin Luther King Jr's decision to continue along the path that had been chosen for him, a path which eventually led him to his death on a motel balcony in Memphis. There have been those who have claimed that King was, in fact, a megalomaniac, or that he suffered from a "martyr complex," that his ego was such that he simply could not step out of the national limelight once he had tasted the sweetness of being Time magazine's "Man of the Year."
Nothing, I think, could be further from the truth.
King himself knew better than anyone what was at stake in the drama that was being played out in his frail, mortal human existence. And he spoke of it simply in terms of "The Strength to Love:" the power of God's own overflowing, passionate, creative love for human kind manifesting itself in a single human life. Perhaps it was a form of megalomania, a delusion of grandeur of the most grandiose proportions. But it was also an ultimate act of personal surrender, a martyrdom of the self in the truest sense of that word, as a witness to a creative power for justice far greater than one's own power or creativity.
In the final analysis we must recognize that it was not delusion, but vision, which animated King's career as a civil rights reformer. Commentator Gary Wills has noted that the changes which Martin Luther King Jr. brought to American society were "so large as to be almost invisible." In a few short years, King and those who worked with him swept away an entire system of American apartheid which had existed in the South for nearly a century. Men and women of my generation have had no experience of "whites only" lunch counters, restrooms, and drinking fountains; we have been educated in integrated schools, voted for and elected black politicians, patronized black-owned businesses; and, for the most part, we have done so without giving it second thought.
This is not to say that racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist in this country. White Sheets and cross-burnings may seem like things of the past, but we still have hate crimes in this country; the Ku Klux Klan is still alive and kicking, and has spawned numerous imitators; access to jobs, housing, justice, health care, educational opportunity is still not completely color blind, nor anywhere near equally available to all. In many ways racism has become much more subtle, even sophisticated; it has replaced its white sheets with pinstriped suits, and is fueled as much by the ignorance and the naivete of the well-intentioned (who would just as soon not think about it, and who wish that the problem would simply "go away"), as it is by the malice of those few (albeit increasingly vocal) kooks who would just as soon trot segregation (or its functional equivalent) back out of the closet, if they thought they could get away with it.
Yet King's vision of a truly pluralistic, inclusive, and democratic society, in which individuals are judged by the quality of their characters and not the color of their skins, remains a vivid beacon of our future, untarnished in the nearly half-century which has now elapsed since the bus boycott in Montgomery, which first brought this man to our national attention.
It’s a little-known fact, but my ex-wife Margaret and I were married in Atlanta: at midnight on the Summer Solstice at the Peachtree Plaza hotel during the UUA General Assembly in 1985. It was the first time either of us had ever been in that city; and while we were there we had the opportunity to visit the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Non-Violent Social Change, which is located just up the street from the Ebenezer Baptist Church, "Daddy" King's church, in the neighborhood where young M.L. King spent his childhood. It was the only "touristy" thing we did while we were in Atlanta (we were much too busy being newlyweds to bother with such foolishness as art museums), but we made the most of it; we even bought each other T-shirts. And I spent an hour or so in the small museum there, which is filled with memorabilia of the Civil Rights Movement, and Dr. King's ministry. The one exhibit I found most fascinating was that of Dr. King's preaching robe, a robe not so different from the one I'm wearing now. It surprised me to discover that he was actually a rather short man; I had always envisioned him as some sort of giant, yet I doubt the man whom I imagined could have ever squeezed into the tiny robe I saw hanging there in that glass case. Nor would he have had to. For I realized in that moment, standing there in awe before that tiny robe, that stature is not always a function of physical size. Nor is the significance of a life extinguished by death, when all which that life stood for still burns within the hearts of others. And there is a vitality to all that Martin Luther King Jr. stood for, an immortality if you will, which still lives today beyond the grave. It is a vitality which grows from the capacity for self-sacrifice, from the willingness to stand faithfully in the presence of evil, and surrender one’s ego to the truth of a higher principle. It is an immortality born of our Strength to Love.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
WHAT UNITES UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS?
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 11th, 2004
There's a rumor that goes around every year about this time, among students completing their preparation for the Unitarian Universalist ministry, that the one question you can pretty much count on being asked by the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (which is the body responsible for examining and credentialing aspiring ministers in our movement), basically goes something like this: Imagine that you are on an elevator with someone who knows nothing about Unitarian Universalism except that you are a Unitarian Universalist minister. Explain our faith in the time that it takes to travel from the 1st to the 25th floor.
It's probably a good thing that I saw the Fellowship Committee many, many years ago, because I'm not sure I could come up with a good answer to this so-called “elevator question.” For one thing, I can't even remember the last time I was in a building with 25 floors: frankly, I tend to live my live a lot closer to the ground, and typically don't spend a lot of my time in expensive hotels or high-rise office buildings. But this is a minor detail. I also have a problem in that now that I have finished my PhD and am officially The Reverend Doctor (and occasionally even Professor) Jensen, whenever I’m asked questions like this, I habitually tend to offer complex and elaborately-nuanced answers requiring footnotes -- answers which are historically accurate and precise, but which really offer very little in the way of useful information. So when somebody asks me "What is Unitarian Universalism anyway?" I might begin by asking them whether they’ve heard of the Pilgrims, and conclude fifty minutes later, after outlining four centuries worth of theological development, by saying something along the lines of “Unitarian Universalists are the direct spiritual and institutional descendants of those courageous souls who crossed the Atlantic ocean in 1620 aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in the New World, and created American democracy in the process." Or if I'm feeling a little cranky or petulant, I might just say something like "Unitarian Universalists are Enlightened Puritans" and leave it at that. Back in the 19th century Dean John Gorham Palfrey described the Unitarian students of the Harvard Divinity School as a combination of "mystics, skeptics, and dyspeptics" — and, so far as I could tell, things really hadn't changed that much by the time I got there 150 years later. But none of these answers really tells a person much about contemporary Unitarian Universalism; instead, they tend to be kind of vague, arrogant, and elitist, which, for an outsider, is probably exactly the kind of impression they have formed of us already.
So today I'm going to try to improve a little upon these answers. And I want to begin by talking a little about the underlying problem that sometimes makes it difficult to explain Unitarian Universalism in 25 floors or less. Historically speaking, Unitarianism, Universalism, and Unitarian-Universalism were and are all non-confessional faiths. What this means is that we are a Church without a Creed: there is no standard statement of belief or doctrine to which Unitarian-Universalists must assent in order to become a member of the church. And what this sometimes translates to in the popular imagination is that we are a church that has no beliefs, and where people are free to believe whatever they like.
Well, this is obviously absurd. There are lots of things I would like to believe that I can't or don't believe. I would like to believe, for example, that good will always triumph over evil, that the truth will always drive out falsehood, and that when left to their own devices, people are basically pretty decent and will inevitably do the right thing. I used to believe all of these things, but I have seen the opposite often enough now to know that they are not always true. And this is really what Freedom of Belief is all about: not an opportunity to believe whatever you like, but the liberty to believe what your reason, your conscience, and your experience tell you to be true, independent from any external, authoritarian coercion. Truth is the ultimate arbiter of belief. And the Truth it its own proof, and frankly cares little whether we believe it or not.
This brings me to another thing that is sometimes said about Unitarian Universalism that really isn't so. Critics of our movement sometimes claim that Unitarian Universalism is a subjective and relativistic faith, with little regard for objective truth or moral absolutes — that we essentially exalt human reason above the so-called "Word of God." Once again, nothing could be further from the fact. There are a lot of folks in this world who will tell you that they know exactly what God is thinking, and that if you really want to do God's Will you'd better do exactly as they tell you. Unitarian Universalists tend to be a lot more humble than this. We understand that "now we see as through a glass, darkly;" that none of us will ever know the Divine "perfectly," in its essence, but rather that we can appreciate Ultimate Reality only through our personal experience of it, however limited that may be. A lot of us aren't even sure that "God" is a concept that really does justice to our experience of the Sacred, but this is not to say that we have mistaken our subjective experience of a thing for the thing itself.
Socrates realized that he was the wisest philosopher in Athens because at least he was aware of his own ignorance. Unlike the other people with whom he spoke, he knew what he did not know. Unitarian Universalism's reputation for subjectivity and relativism grows out of a similar sense of intellectual humility. It's not that we exalt human reason above the Word of God. But how else are we to understand the Will and the Word of the Divine, if not through the use of our own human reason? And likewise, since human beings are not omnipotent, omniscient creatures, it's only natural that we should expect a certain amount of diversity of belief among us. It's not that we think we're all equally right. It's just that we recognize the possibility, that we are all probably a little wrong.
So, in a movement where there is no authoritative creed to guide us, where individual conscience and experience comprise the pathway to religious knowledge, and a wide degree of diversity of belief is considered normative, where do we look to identify the qualities that we have in common, and which unite us as a religious community? One obvious place is to the past: to the heritage and traditions that have historically defined our community, and given it its unique character. The Unitarian historian Earl Morse Wilbur has written that there are three "controlling principles" that have historically characterized our movement since the time of the Protestant Reformation, and I think you will recognize them immediately from what we have just been talking about. They are "complete mental freedom, unrestricted reason, and the generous tolerance of differences, in religion."
So, Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance, these three abide. The first expresses our faith, our trust, that if we strip away the external barriers which restrict us from seeking Truth, we will eventually discover it. The second represents our optimistic expectation that we possess the ability to know the Truth when we see it, our hope that we will recognize Truth for its own sake, and not merely because it is vouched for by some external authority. And the last, and in many ways the greatest of these principles — tolerance — is the tangible manifestation of a community based on notions of love and mutual respect, and the realization that we can all possess different gifts and different insights, and still associate together as one body.
Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance are not, however (at least according to Wilbur) "the final goals to be aimed at in religion, but only conditions under which the true ends may best be attained. The ultimate ends proper to a religious movement, are two" Wilbur writes: "the elevation of the personal character, and the perfecting of the social organism, and the success of a religious body may be judged by the degree to which it attains these ends." In other words, our methodology is our content, but our success is to be measured "by its fruits" — by our ability, in Wilbur's words, "to live worthily as children of God, and to make [our] institutions worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven."
"Well, this is all fine and good" you may well be thinking, "but it's also a little abstract. I mean, Freedom, Reason and Tolerance are great, but how does someone go about putting this all into practice on a practical basis?" Think of the potential complications. Is Freedom absolute, or are there also certain responsibilities that go along with it? Does a reliance upon Reason automatically preclude intuitive or emotional approaches to religion? And what are the limits of Tolerance? — how should we hold individuals accountable to the entire community when their behavior threatens to tear it apart? These are the kinds of pragmatic considerations that must be addressed by any group of individuals attempting to bring these abstract principles to life. Yet we've been doing it more or less successfully now for hundreds of years — what is the secret of our success?
I've already spoken about how we are a church without a creed — how there is no explicit statement of belief to which the individual must subscribe in order to become a member of the community. But this does not mean that we are not accountable to one another, or that there are no implicit beliefs which we share. When I say something like "Unitarian Universalists believe that 'To Question is the Answer,' and that a Free and Responsible Search for Truth and Meaning, unencumbered by coercive and authoritarian external restrictions, will eventually result in the discovery of both.…" I have expressed a pretty broad-reaching assumption both about the nature of Truth and the process by which we seek it. And these assumptions manifest themselves not only in high-sounding, abstract principles, but also in the very methods by which we organize our religious societies and conduct our public worship.
Unitarian Universalist religious societies are organized according to the principle of Congregational Polity. At the heart of our worship service is a doctrine known as Freedom of the Pulpit. And holding it all together at the center, in the place of an explicit, confessional creed, we lift up the notion of a Covenant: a relationship of reciprocal accountability and responsibility, of mutual trust and support, which does not require us all to think alike in order for us to act together for a common purpose.
Congregational polity is more than just "majority rule." The principle of Congregational polity essentially states that while we may all be members of the "Church Universal," here in this particular place we ourselves are responsible for carrying out the mission of the ENTIRE church, and we therefore have the authority to make the decisions that will empower us to do so. It's that simple. Local Responsibility equals Local Authority. We don't need to get permission from somewhere else in order to put our faith into action in our own front yard.
Freedom of the Pulpit is also a little different from Freedom of Speech, although obviously the two are related. Both draw their strength from the notion that the truth plainly spoken, free from fear, free from censorship, free from the threat of retaliation, has the power to expose falsehood for what it is and drive it out of the shadows of our lives. But the pulpit is not a soapbox — nor is a worship service simply another free forum in the marketplace of ideas. The Free Pulpit draws its authority from the relationship between the Preacher and the People, a relationship of trust, of service, of honesty and authenticity — and in this respect it differs dramatically from the kinds of assumptions which drive our political discourse, in which partisanship is assumed, and truth emerges from the conflagration of open debate. We expect our politicians to lie to us, and for their opponents to attempt to expose those lies. But the job of the Preacher is to expose the lies that we tell ourselves: to confront our excuses, to challenge our shortcomings, to exhort us to do better than we have done in the past.
And how do preachers do this? By opening their own lives and their own struggles to public scrutiny — and by sharing whatever truths they have found in the course of their spiritual journeys, in the hope that the people sitting in the pews will be able to recognize those truths in their own lives as well. "The true preacher can be known by this," Ralph Waldo Emerson observed in his Divinity School Address. "that he deals out to the people his life — life passed through the fire of thought." The relationship between pulpit and pew is not one of debate, but of dialog — and Truth resides in the places where authentic life touches authentic life.
This brings us at last to the idea of Covenant, which is essentially nothing more than a mutual promise among a group of people to be faithful, to be accountable, to be authentic to one another. It is an agreement, to quote the traditional language, "to walk together according to God's Holy Ordinances, insofar as they shall be made known to us in his Blessed Word of Truth." To walk together in Truth, according to our best understanding of it: this is the promise that makes both Congregational Polity and Freedom of the Pulpit effective tools for both the cultivation of our private character, and the reform and revitalization of our civil society.
In a way, our name says it all. The one tangible thing that Unites Unitarian Universalists is that we are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association. "Unitarian" because we have historically affirmed that God is One — and that however imperfectly we may understand it, the same standard of Truth applies to all people: rich or poor, black or white, male or female, believers and non-believers alike. "Universalist" because we are confident that ultimately All Souls will be reconciled to their Creator: that every human being has inherent worth and dignity, and that we are all sisters and brothers to one another, sons and daughters of the power that gave us life, created in the image of God. And "Association" because our relationship with one another is lateral rather than hierarchical — we are accountable to the law that is written upon our hearts, and seek the assistance of our neighbors that they might help us to discern it.
I didn't become a Unitarian Universalist because someone cornered me in an elevator and shared their succinct yet snappy testimony with me. I became UU the old fashioned way: through my family. My mother was the daughter of a Jewish Socialist and a Methodist Sunday School teacher; my father's family were Scandinavian Lutherans, who faithfully attended church every Christmas eve. When my parents decided it was time for my brothers and I to receive some religious education, they sought out a community that would honor those diverse backgrounds, and still provide us with the opportunity to think for ourselves, to find our own way in the world, to discover who we really were and what we believed and how best to put those beliefs into practice in our lives.
That was over 40 years ago now, and I still don't have it all figured out...but I've had some excellent teachers along the way, received a lot of support and nurture and guidance in my journey, and made some pretty good friends as well. There have been some tough times, and there have been some really terrific times, and there have been a lot of times when it was just kind of tedious, and a little frustrating, and I wondered whether a particular meeting, or workshop, or sermon was ever going to end. (I suspect that there may be some of you who are feeling that way right about now) But you know, that's life. And that's Church. And at the end of the day, I wouldn't want it any other way....
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 11th, 2004
There's a rumor that goes around every year about this time, among students completing their preparation for the Unitarian Universalist ministry, that the one question you can pretty much count on being asked by the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (which is the body responsible for examining and credentialing aspiring ministers in our movement), basically goes something like this: Imagine that you are on an elevator with someone who knows nothing about Unitarian Universalism except that you are a Unitarian Universalist minister. Explain our faith in the time that it takes to travel from the 1st to the 25th floor.
It's probably a good thing that I saw the Fellowship Committee many, many years ago, because I'm not sure I could come up with a good answer to this so-called “elevator question.” For one thing, I can't even remember the last time I was in a building with 25 floors: frankly, I tend to live my live a lot closer to the ground, and typically don't spend a lot of my time in expensive hotels or high-rise office buildings. But this is a minor detail. I also have a problem in that now that I have finished my PhD and am officially The Reverend Doctor (and occasionally even Professor) Jensen, whenever I’m asked questions like this, I habitually tend to offer complex and elaborately-nuanced answers requiring footnotes -- answers which are historically accurate and precise, but which really offer very little in the way of useful information. So when somebody asks me "What is Unitarian Universalism anyway?" I might begin by asking them whether they’ve heard of the Pilgrims, and conclude fifty minutes later, after outlining four centuries worth of theological development, by saying something along the lines of “Unitarian Universalists are the direct spiritual and institutional descendants of those courageous souls who crossed the Atlantic ocean in 1620 aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in the New World, and created American democracy in the process." Or if I'm feeling a little cranky or petulant, I might just say something like "Unitarian Universalists are Enlightened Puritans" and leave it at that. Back in the 19th century Dean John Gorham Palfrey described the Unitarian students of the Harvard Divinity School as a combination of "mystics, skeptics, and dyspeptics" — and, so far as I could tell, things really hadn't changed that much by the time I got there 150 years later. But none of these answers really tells a person much about contemporary Unitarian Universalism; instead, they tend to be kind of vague, arrogant, and elitist, which, for an outsider, is probably exactly the kind of impression they have formed of us already.
So today I'm going to try to improve a little upon these answers. And I want to begin by talking a little about the underlying problem that sometimes makes it difficult to explain Unitarian Universalism in 25 floors or less. Historically speaking, Unitarianism, Universalism, and Unitarian-Universalism were and are all non-confessional faiths. What this means is that we are a Church without a Creed: there is no standard statement of belief or doctrine to which Unitarian-Universalists must assent in order to become a member of the church. And what this sometimes translates to in the popular imagination is that we are a church that has no beliefs, and where people are free to believe whatever they like.
Well, this is obviously absurd. There are lots of things I would like to believe that I can't or don't believe. I would like to believe, for example, that good will always triumph over evil, that the truth will always drive out falsehood, and that when left to their own devices, people are basically pretty decent and will inevitably do the right thing. I used to believe all of these things, but I have seen the opposite often enough now to know that they are not always true. And this is really what Freedom of Belief is all about: not an opportunity to believe whatever you like, but the liberty to believe what your reason, your conscience, and your experience tell you to be true, independent from any external, authoritarian coercion. Truth is the ultimate arbiter of belief. And the Truth it its own proof, and frankly cares little whether we believe it or not.
This brings me to another thing that is sometimes said about Unitarian Universalism that really isn't so. Critics of our movement sometimes claim that Unitarian Universalism is a subjective and relativistic faith, with little regard for objective truth or moral absolutes — that we essentially exalt human reason above the so-called "Word of God." Once again, nothing could be further from the fact. There are a lot of folks in this world who will tell you that they know exactly what God is thinking, and that if you really want to do God's Will you'd better do exactly as they tell you. Unitarian Universalists tend to be a lot more humble than this. We understand that "now we see as through a glass, darkly;" that none of us will ever know the Divine "perfectly," in its essence, but rather that we can appreciate Ultimate Reality only through our personal experience of it, however limited that may be. A lot of us aren't even sure that "God" is a concept that really does justice to our experience of the Sacred, but this is not to say that we have mistaken our subjective experience of a thing for the thing itself.
Socrates realized that he was the wisest philosopher in Athens because at least he was aware of his own ignorance. Unlike the other people with whom he spoke, he knew what he did not know. Unitarian Universalism's reputation for subjectivity and relativism grows out of a similar sense of intellectual humility. It's not that we exalt human reason above the Word of God. But how else are we to understand the Will and the Word of the Divine, if not through the use of our own human reason? And likewise, since human beings are not omnipotent, omniscient creatures, it's only natural that we should expect a certain amount of diversity of belief among us. It's not that we think we're all equally right. It's just that we recognize the possibility, that we are all probably a little wrong.
So, in a movement where there is no authoritative creed to guide us, where individual conscience and experience comprise the pathway to religious knowledge, and a wide degree of diversity of belief is considered normative, where do we look to identify the qualities that we have in common, and which unite us as a religious community? One obvious place is to the past: to the heritage and traditions that have historically defined our community, and given it its unique character. The Unitarian historian Earl Morse Wilbur has written that there are three "controlling principles" that have historically characterized our movement since the time of the Protestant Reformation, and I think you will recognize them immediately from what we have just been talking about. They are "complete mental freedom, unrestricted reason, and the generous tolerance of differences, in religion."
So, Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance, these three abide. The first expresses our faith, our trust, that if we strip away the external barriers which restrict us from seeking Truth, we will eventually discover it. The second represents our optimistic expectation that we possess the ability to know the Truth when we see it, our hope that we will recognize Truth for its own sake, and not merely because it is vouched for by some external authority. And the last, and in many ways the greatest of these principles — tolerance — is the tangible manifestation of a community based on notions of love and mutual respect, and the realization that we can all possess different gifts and different insights, and still associate together as one body.
Freedom, Reason, and Tolerance are not, however (at least according to Wilbur) "the final goals to be aimed at in religion, but only conditions under which the true ends may best be attained. The ultimate ends proper to a religious movement, are two" Wilbur writes: "the elevation of the personal character, and the perfecting of the social organism, and the success of a religious body may be judged by the degree to which it attains these ends." In other words, our methodology is our content, but our success is to be measured "by its fruits" — by our ability, in Wilbur's words, "to live worthily as children of God, and to make [our] institutions worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven."
"Well, this is all fine and good" you may well be thinking, "but it's also a little abstract. I mean, Freedom, Reason and Tolerance are great, but how does someone go about putting this all into practice on a practical basis?" Think of the potential complications. Is Freedom absolute, or are there also certain responsibilities that go along with it? Does a reliance upon Reason automatically preclude intuitive or emotional approaches to religion? And what are the limits of Tolerance? — how should we hold individuals accountable to the entire community when their behavior threatens to tear it apart? These are the kinds of pragmatic considerations that must be addressed by any group of individuals attempting to bring these abstract principles to life. Yet we've been doing it more or less successfully now for hundreds of years — what is the secret of our success?
I've already spoken about how we are a church without a creed — how there is no explicit statement of belief to which the individual must subscribe in order to become a member of the community. But this does not mean that we are not accountable to one another, or that there are no implicit beliefs which we share. When I say something like "Unitarian Universalists believe that 'To Question is the Answer,' and that a Free and Responsible Search for Truth and Meaning, unencumbered by coercive and authoritarian external restrictions, will eventually result in the discovery of both.…" I have expressed a pretty broad-reaching assumption both about the nature of Truth and the process by which we seek it. And these assumptions manifest themselves not only in high-sounding, abstract principles, but also in the very methods by which we organize our religious societies and conduct our public worship.
Unitarian Universalist religious societies are organized according to the principle of Congregational Polity. At the heart of our worship service is a doctrine known as Freedom of the Pulpit. And holding it all together at the center, in the place of an explicit, confessional creed, we lift up the notion of a Covenant: a relationship of reciprocal accountability and responsibility, of mutual trust and support, which does not require us all to think alike in order for us to act together for a common purpose.
Congregational polity is more than just "majority rule." The principle of Congregational polity essentially states that while we may all be members of the "Church Universal," here in this particular place we ourselves are responsible for carrying out the mission of the ENTIRE church, and we therefore have the authority to make the decisions that will empower us to do so. It's that simple. Local Responsibility equals Local Authority. We don't need to get permission from somewhere else in order to put our faith into action in our own front yard.
Freedom of the Pulpit is also a little different from Freedom of Speech, although obviously the two are related. Both draw their strength from the notion that the truth plainly spoken, free from fear, free from censorship, free from the threat of retaliation, has the power to expose falsehood for what it is and drive it out of the shadows of our lives. But the pulpit is not a soapbox — nor is a worship service simply another free forum in the marketplace of ideas. The Free Pulpit draws its authority from the relationship between the Preacher and the People, a relationship of trust, of service, of honesty and authenticity — and in this respect it differs dramatically from the kinds of assumptions which drive our political discourse, in which partisanship is assumed, and truth emerges from the conflagration of open debate. We expect our politicians to lie to us, and for their opponents to attempt to expose those lies. But the job of the Preacher is to expose the lies that we tell ourselves: to confront our excuses, to challenge our shortcomings, to exhort us to do better than we have done in the past.
And how do preachers do this? By opening their own lives and their own struggles to public scrutiny — and by sharing whatever truths they have found in the course of their spiritual journeys, in the hope that the people sitting in the pews will be able to recognize those truths in their own lives as well. "The true preacher can be known by this," Ralph Waldo Emerson observed in his Divinity School Address. "that he deals out to the people his life — life passed through the fire of thought." The relationship between pulpit and pew is not one of debate, but of dialog — and Truth resides in the places where authentic life touches authentic life.
This brings us at last to the idea of Covenant, which is essentially nothing more than a mutual promise among a group of people to be faithful, to be accountable, to be authentic to one another. It is an agreement, to quote the traditional language, "to walk together according to God's Holy Ordinances, insofar as they shall be made known to us in his Blessed Word of Truth." To walk together in Truth, according to our best understanding of it: this is the promise that makes both Congregational Polity and Freedom of the Pulpit effective tools for both the cultivation of our private character, and the reform and revitalization of our civil society.
In a way, our name says it all. The one tangible thing that Unites Unitarian Universalists is that we are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association. "Unitarian" because we have historically affirmed that God is One — and that however imperfectly we may understand it, the same standard of Truth applies to all people: rich or poor, black or white, male or female, believers and non-believers alike. "Universalist" because we are confident that ultimately All Souls will be reconciled to their Creator: that every human being has inherent worth and dignity, and that we are all sisters and brothers to one another, sons and daughters of the power that gave us life, created in the image of God. And "Association" because our relationship with one another is lateral rather than hierarchical — we are accountable to the law that is written upon our hearts, and seek the assistance of our neighbors that they might help us to discern it.
I didn't become a Unitarian Universalist because someone cornered me in an elevator and shared their succinct yet snappy testimony with me. I became UU the old fashioned way: through my family. My mother was the daughter of a Jewish Socialist and a Methodist Sunday School teacher; my father's family were Scandinavian Lutherans, who faithfully attended church every Christmas eve. When my parents decided it was time for my brothers and I to receive some religious education, they sought out a community that would honor those diverse backgrounds, and still provide us with the opportunity to think for ourselves, to find our own way in the world, to discover who we really were and what we believed and how best to put those beliefs into practice in our lives.
That was over 40 years ago now, and I still don't have it all figured out...but I've had some excellent teachers along the way, received a lot of support and nurture and guidance in my journey, and made some pretty good friends as well. There have been some tough times, and there have been some really terrific times, and there have been a lot of times when it was just kind of tedious, and a little frustrating, and I wondered whether a particular meeting, or workshop, or sermon was ever going to end. (I suspect that there may be some of you who are feeling that way right about now) But you know, that's life. And that's Church. And at the end of the day, I wouldn't want it any other way....
Sunday, January 4, 2004
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 4th, 2004
It was the night AFTER Christmas, and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, EXCEPT for...have you figured it out? I first became suspicious when I noticed that Parker’s kibble seemed to be disappearing...but I couldn’t remember seeing her eat it. Then came the tell-tale droppings, and then finally, one morning, I came downstairs to the kitchen a little earlier than usual and caught sight of a little gray tail scurrying beneath the oven, and I knew that I had uninvited company.
Poison, of course, was out of the question. Poison is an indiscriminate Weapon of Mass Destruction; I wouldn’t want Parker to get into it by mistake, and besides, if I’m going to kill something, I want to see the body. A cat would probably be the best solution, at least over the long haul. Cats are not only efficient hunters, but their mere presence also represents a significant deterrent to future insurrections. Cats and mice have an instinctive understanding of one another -- cats are natural born predators, and mice seem to know this and try to stay out of their way. I even envisioned the mercenary surrogate I would acquire: a lean, stealthy, and appropriately bloodthirsty tiger-striped kitten whom I would name “Halliburton” (since names like “Bushie” or “Rummy” or even “Wolfie” just seemed a little too warm and fuzzy for the aggressive killing machine I had in mind). Unfortunately though, cats and dogs also sometimes have an instinctive mis-understanding of one another, and I wasn’t that certain about how well my current critter would respond to an interloper in her territory (although she hasn’t really seemed to mind the mice much). So for the time being, at least, I am left to rely upon the more traditional tactics of counter-insurgency: resource denial, superior intelligence, and the occasional well-placed and attractively-baited booby-trap, or “mechanical ambush” as they now sometimes more properly identified.
So as I shopped last week for a “better mousetrap,” I realized that it has been nearly two decades since I last confronted a situation like this. And I was a little surprised to discover that the price of the technology hasn’t changed a penny in all that time: two for 99 cents, wherever better mousetraps are sold. Back in those days, I was a young, newly-married minister living in Midland Texas, with an nine-year-old step-daughter who loved animals...especially small cute gray furry animals...and a twelve-year-old step-son who loved to torment his sister. And after I trapped the first mouse, Stephenie was so upset (and Jacob so obnoxious) that I became remorseful, and vowed I would never again take the life of another living creature (or at least not any small cute gray furry ones)....and then I made the mistake of writing about my experience in the church newsletter, which resulted in all sorts of unsolicited advice, and even letters from all over the country, some containing plans for humane “live” traps...some of which actually worked.... Except that the mice kept coming back, and inviting their friends....and that was when Margie went out and got a cat, and we never saw another living mouse again (or at least not any that lived for long).
But now I’m wondering, what ever happened to that somewhat naive, somewhat idealistic, sensitive and compassionate young father of young children, to turn him now into such a relentless, calculating, cold-blooded killer, someone who is perfectly capable of the premeditated extermination of unwanted vermin from his home with hardly a second thought or even a moment’s lost sleep. Did I just grow up? Or did I lose track of something important along the way? Or maybe it’s a little of both?
The start of a New Year is traditionally a time for reassessing the past, as well as charting a new path to a better future. We reflect upon where we’ve been and resolve to do better, to BE better, than before. People resolve to quit smoking, to lose weight, maybe to pay off their credit cards and start saving more money...they join health clubs in great numbers, and for a month or so they may actually even go. And, of course, it’s a cultural cliché that nothing ever really changes; and yet, when we look around, we see that over time, people and things DO in fact change. Maybe not all at once, and maybe not exactly the way we’d planned, but change does indeed happen, whether we want it to or not. So the issue is not really whether or not things will ever change; the issue is how aware will be be of those changes AS they happen, and how much control will we exert over them? Awareness and Control: our sense of the latter is often extremely exaggerated, since it’s such a comforting fantasy to believe that we have effective control over what happens to us; but it is actually only through the former -- through our ability to perceive accurately and understand what is happening all around us, that we truly gain any meaningful direction over our lives at all.
In any event, I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about the kind of resolutions I want to make for this next year, and also reflecting upon the year just past -- which was really quite an eventful year for me: a new job in a new community, the end of an eighteen-year marriage, and two moves when you stop to think about it: a relatively short one from Nantucket to the mainland, and the other much more significant cross-country move from my old home in the Pacific Northwest here to New England. And between my learning how to let go graciously of the old, and anxiously trying to figure out all of the nuances of the new, not to mention my frequent obsession with what I saw happening around me politically in the world, I sometimes felt like I’d let myself get wound up a little more tightly than I was accustomed to beneath my otherwise ordinarily calm, collected, and perfectly controlled exterior. And I also found myself reminded of something that Winston Churchill once said, that “a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject,” and wondering how far down that path I’d wandered myself, and what in the world I was going to do about it.
I didn’t really come to any resolution on that one -- like many of you, it’s probably going to be something that I continue to wrestle with throughout 2004....and the closer we get to the election, the more difficult it is going to be for everyone in the country. But I can at least still change the subject, at least for the time being, and talk about something a lot more pleasant. This past Christmas Season really turned out to be quite delightful for me, despite the fact that I hadn’t really planned on celebrating Christmas much this year. I think it all started the weekend of the Greens Sale and the big blizzard...all that snow (which, being from Oregon, I had dreaded) actually turned out to be quite beautiful, and we had surprisingly good turnouts at all the events, especially the Sunday evening winter holidays concert, which I thought was absolutely magnificent. Likewise, the Pageant (which I had heard so much about) was even more fun than I had imagined, while the anxiety I’d been feeling about conducting three different Christmas Eve services for the first time quickly disappeared when the time at last arrived, and as the evening progressed each service seemed to build upon the others, while developing its own special personality, each one special yet slightly different. Even Margie McCormick’s memorial service last weekend, which one might ordinarily tend to think of as a sad occasion, had such a warm feeling to it, as people who knew and cared about her came together one more time simply to be with one another, and to share their memories of her remarkable life. And as I shared these moments with all of you, I felt so privileged to have been invited to become a part of all your lives, and thus that much more at home here in this new community.
And now it’s the start of yet another New Year, and time to look forward to a future that for the moment exists only in imagination. For years I used to celebrate the beginning of a New Year by stopping off at the post office and mailing in my sometimes as many as a dozen entries to the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. One of the dubious advantages of living in a household with three different last names, and reading a lot of magazines, is that we tended to get a lot of junk mail, although I'm still not certain why I ever actually bothered to send them all in, since no one I know personally has ever won anything from one of these contests. I guess it just seemed worth an hour or so of licking and pasting, and a few dollars in postage, to have the legitimate prerogative of daydreaming about what I would do with all that money if I actually won it. I know a lot of people who consider this sort of daydreaming a values clarification exercise, something along the lines of “where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also.” Personally though, I’ve often felt that the daydreaming itself is probably just as valuable as the actual money would be. If I actually had that much money, I would probably spend a lot of my time worrying about how to hold on to it, or even worrying about whether or not I could actually trust the people I’d hired to hold on to it for me. Money solves a lot of problems, but it also brings problems of its own. In many ways, I’ve already won the most important lottery of all -- I’m alive, and in relatively good health, and free to dream to my heart’s content about anything I please, and then to pursue those dreams that seem most “worthy” to me, and through my own efforts, make them real.
There's something about the coming of a New Year that lends itself naturally to daydreaming, to the intentional cultivation of a spirit of hope and optimism, a sense of possibility and new beginning. It's difficult to ignore it even if we try. As I hinted a little earlier, I once read that the three most common resolutions this time of year are to quit smoking, to lose weight, and to "get in shape" (whatever that means) -- but let me tell you, as someone who smoked two packs a day from the age of seventeen to the age of thirty-three, and then gained fifty pounds when I finally resolved to give them up in earnest, I’ve pretty much concluded that it’s probably best to follow the path of “all things in moderation, nothing to excess,” and to try to be content with whatever shape I am. The truly tough part was realizing that, no matter how much I work out, or how closely I watch what I eat, I'm never going to be seventeen again, or even thirty-three; that the fantasies of youth are unavoidably tempered by the realities of maturity, and that I will never, say, throw a long pass for the winning touchdown in the fourth quarter of the Rose Bowl, nor even daydream about it with the same intensity that I did when I was younger. With each New Year a little bit more of my life is behind me; with each new beginning, we mark an end to another dream that will never be.
Knowing this, I think it's important that we learn to choose our resolutions with care. Quitting smoking and losing weight are great, for as far as they go, but what kind of "shape" do you really want to be in a year from now? What WOULD you do if you won ten million dollars, and what's keeping you from having the best part of that now, if you choose? This is what I learned from my years of daydreaming about winning the lottery: that the really important things in my life have nothing to do with money itself, but rather with the illusion of freedom which money seems to buy, the ability to stop worrying about the trivial and the mundane, and to concentrate on the truly significant.
But the wisdom to concentrate on what is truly significant is not really something that you can purchase with cash. It's the product of a willingness to search your own soul, and the courage to pursue what you find there. And it's also an ability to recognize your responsibilities and confront your limitations, to affirm your commitments and the values on which they are based, to balance the demands of the present with the possibilities of the future, and to walk that narrow path from wishful thinking to knowing contentment. When you finally take the time to figure out what really matters, to move beyond dreams of eternal youth and a thirty-two inch waistline, or cars and clothes and boats and travel, and recognize your more essential hunger for a spiritual freedom which material things so often only pretend to satisfy, you discover that it takes more than a nice house to make a real home, and that the true measure of wealth lies not in what you have acquired, but in your capacity to share generously with others.
I also want you to know that it gives me no real joy to be winning my war against the mice. I’d gladly negotiate with them, if I could only figure out a way to understand them, and to make them understand me. I’d be happy to feed them, and give them shelter from the elements, even protect them from cats, if they would just mind their own business, and stay out of my stuff, and occasionally clean up after themselves. But I also know that’s not going to happen, and unless I do something about it, the problem is only going to get worse. But it gives me no pleasure to take their lives, nor do I feel especially superior to them because I can trick them into sticking their heads into a fatal trap with just a little daub of strategically-placed peanut butter. I do it because I have to, and that makes me a grown-up. But I wish it were otherwise every time I put one of their warm, furry, broken little bodies into an old plastic bag and throw it in the trash. And while it might seem a lot easier just to pay someone to do all this for me, at the end of the day I don’t think it would make me any better a person. If I’m going to kill something, I want to see the body.
Our lives can often seem like a series of compromises between the material demands of physical survival and frustrated aspirations of a more intangible nature, which we often but dimly understand. We look at our lives, we feel that something is missing, we hunger for something more, and then we try to fill that empty space as best we can, sometimes with money and the things money can buy, and sometimes with things far more valuable. But however you may resolve this year to change your lives for the better, I hope that some of you, at least, as you're evaluating your priorities for the next twelve months, will chose to bump up your participation in the life and activities of this church just a few notches higher on the scale. It doesn’t have to be a lot -- just find some new, small thing that captures your interest, and then maybe invite a friend along to share the experience with you. I can attest from personal experience that it really is a lot easier than either quitting smoking or losing weight. And it really can help you get in shape for whatever it is you dream of doing in the years ahead. Within this community of memory and hope, we strive together to create from our dreams a sacred space of wisdom and renewal. Resolve, this year, to take a little more time to more fully become a part of it, so that it, in turn, may more fully become a part of you.
ANN LANDERS’ PERPETUAL NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS
Let this coming year be better than all the others. Vow to do some of the things you’ve always wanted to do but couldn’t find the time.
Call up a forgotten friend. Drop an old grudge, and replace it with some pleasant memories. Share a funny story with someone whose spirits are dragging. A good laugh can be very good medicine.
Vow not to make a promise you don’t think you can keep. Pay a debt. Give a soft answer. Free yourself of envy and malice. Encourage some youth to do his or her best. Share your experience, and offer support. Young people need role models.
Make a genuine effort to stay in closer touch with family and good friends. Resolve to stop magnifying small problems and shooting from the lip. Words that you have to eat can be hard to digest.
Find the time to be kind and thoughtful. All of us have the same allotment” 24 hours a day. Give a compliment. It might give someone a badly needed lift.
Think things through. Forgive an injustice. Listen more. Be kind.
Apologize when you realize you are wrong. An apology never diminishes a person. It elevates him. Don’t blow your own horn. If you’ve done something praiseworthy, someone will notice eventually.
Try to understand a point of view that is different from your own. Few things are 100 per cent one way or another. Examine the demands you make on others.
Lighten up. When you feel like blowing your top, ask yourself “Will it matter a week from today?” Laugh the loudest when the joke is one you.
The sure way to have a friend is to be one. We are all connected by our humanity, and we need each other. Avoid malcontents and pessimists. They drag you down and contribute nothing.
Don’t discourage a beginner from trying something risky. Nothing ventured means nothing gained. Be optimistic. The can-do spirit is the fuel that makes things go.
Read something uplifting. Deep-six the trash. You won’t eat garbage -- why put it into your head? Don’t abandon your old-fashioned principles. They never go out of style. When courage is needed, ask yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
Walk tall, and smile more. You’ll look 10 years younger. Don’t be afraid to say, “I love you.” Say it again. They are the sweetest words in the world.
Recipe for a Prosperous, Peaceful Year-Round Year!
Take twelve, fine, full-grown months,
see that these are thoroughly free
from all old memories of bitterness,
rancor, hate and jealousy;
cleanse them completely from
every clinging spite:
pick off all specks of pettiness and littleness;
in short , see that these months are freed from all the past;
have them as fresh and clean
as when they first came from the great storehouse of Time.
Cut these months into thirty or thirty-one equal parts.
This batch will keep for just one year.
Do not attempt to make up the whole batch at one time
(so many persons spoil the entire lot in this way),
but prepare one day at a time, as follows:
Into each day put twelve parts of faith,
eleven of patience,
ten of courage,
nine of of work (some people omit this ingredient and so spoil the flavor of the rest),
eight of hope,
seven of fidelity,
six of liberality,
five of kindness,
four of rest (leaving this out is like leaving the oil out of the salad, don't do it),
three of prayer,
two of meditation,
and one well selected resolution.
If you have no conscientious scruples,
put in about a teaspoonful of good spirits,
a dash of fun, a pinch of folly,
a sprinkling of play, and a heaping cupful of good humor.
Pour into the whole love ad libitum and mix with a vim.
Cook thoroughly in a fervent heat;
garnish with a few smiles and a sprig of joy;
then serve with quietness, unselfishness, and cheerfulness,
and a Happy New Year is certain.
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 4th, 2004
It was the night AFTER Christmas, and all through the house, not a creature was stirring, EXCEPT for...have you figured it out? I first became suspicious when I noticed that Parker’s kibble seemed to be disappearing...but I couldn’t remember seeing her eat it. Then came the tell-tale droppings, and then finally, one morning, I came downstairs to the kitchen a little earlier than usual and caught sight of a little gray tail scurrying beneath the oven, and I knew that I had uninvited company.
Poison, of course, was out of the question. Poison is an indiscriminate Weapon of Mass Destruction; I wouldn’t want Parker to get into it by mistake, and besides, if I’m going to kill something, I want to see the body. A cat would probably be the best solution, at least over the long haul. Cats are not only efficient hunters, but their mere presence also represents a significant deterrent to future insurrections. Cats and mice have an instinctive understanding of one another -- cats are natural born predators, and mice seem to know this and try to stay out of their way. I even envisioned the mercenary surrogate I would acquire: a lean, stealthy, and appropriately bloodthirsty tiger-striped kitten whom I would name “Halliburton” (since names like “Bushie” or “Rummy” or even “Wolfie” just seemed a little too warm and fuzzy for the aggressive killing machine I had in mind). Unfortunately though, cats and dogs also sometimes have an instinctive mis-understanding of one another, and I wasn’t that certain about how well my current critter would respond to an interloper in her territory (although she hasn’t really seemed to mind the mice much). So for the time being, at least, I am left to rely upon the more traditional tactics of counter-insurgency: resource denial, superior intelligence, and the occasional well-placed and attractively-baited booby-trap, or “mechanical ambush” as they now sometimes more properly identified.
So as I shopped last week for a “better mousetrap,” I realized that it has been nearly two decades since I last confronted a situation like this. And I was a little surprised to discover that the price of the technology hasn’t changed a penny in all that time: two for 99 cents, wherever better mousetraps are sold. Back in those days, I was a young, newly-married minister living in Midland Texas, with an nine-year-old step-daughter who loved animals...especially small cute gray furry animals...and a twelve-year-old step-son who loved to torment his sister. And after I trapped the first mouse, Stephenie was so upset (and Jacob so obnoxious) that I became remorseful, and vowed I would never again take the life of another living creature (or at least not any small cute gray furry ones)....and then I made the mistake of writing about my experience in the church newsletter, which resulted in all sorts of unsolicited advice, and even letters from all over the country, some containing plans for humane “live” traps...some of which actually worked.... Except that the mice kept coming back, and inviting their friends....and that was when Margie went out and got a cat, and we never saw another living mouse again (or at least not any that lived for long).
But now I’m wondering, what ever happened to that somewhat naive, somewhat idealistic, sensitive and compassionate young father of young children, to turn him now into such a relentless, calculating, cold-blooded killer, someone who is perfectly capable of the premeditated extermination of unwanted vermin from his home with hardly a second thought or even a moment’s lost sleep. Did I just grow up? Or did I lose track of something important along the way? Or maybe it’s a little of both?
The start of a New Year is traditionally a time for reassessing the past, as well as charting a new path to a better future. We reflect upon where we’ve been and resolve to do better, to BE better, than before. People resolve to quit smoking, to lose weight, maybe to pay off their credit cards and start saving more money...they join health clubs in great numbers, and for a month or so they may actually even go. And, of course, it’s a cultural cliché that nothing ever really changes; and yet, when we look around, we see that over time, people and things DO in fact change. Maybe not all at once, and maybe not exactly the way we’d planned, but change does indeed happen, whether we want it to or not. So the issue is not really whether or not things will ever change; the issue is how aware will be be of those changes AS they happen, and how much control will we exert over them? Awareness and Control: our sense of the latter is often extremely exaggerated, since it’s such a comforting fantasy to believe that we have effective control over what happens to us; but it is actually only through the former -- through our ability to perceive accurately and understand what is happening all around us, that we truly gain any meaningful direction over our lives at all.
In any event, I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about the kind of resolutions I want to make for this next year, and also reflecting upon the year just past -- which was really quite an eventful year for me: a new job in a new community, the end of an eighteen-year marriage, and two moves when you stop to think about it: a relatively short one from Nantucket to the mainland, and the other much more significant cross-country move from my old home in the Pacific Northwest here to New England. And between my learning how to let go graciously of the old, and anxiously trying to figure out all of the nuances of the new, not to mention my frequent obsession with what I saw happening around me politically in the world, I sometimes felt like I’d let myself get wound up a little more tightly than I was accustomed to beneath my otherwise ordinarily calm, collected, and perfectly controlled exterior. And I also found myself reminded of something that Winston Churchill once said, that “a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject,” and wondering how far down that path I’d wandered myself, and what in the world I was going to do about it.
I didn’t really come to any resolution on that one -- like many of you, it’s probably going to be something that I continue to wrestle with throughout 2004....and the closer we get to the election, the more difficult it is going to be for everyone in the country. But I can at least still change the subject, at least for the time being, and talk about something a lot more pleasant. This past Christmas Season really turned out to be quite delightful for me, despite the fact that I hadn’t really planned on celebrating Christmas much this year. I think it all started the weekend of the Greens Sale and the big blizzard...all that snow (which, being from Oregon, I had dreaded) actually turned out to be quite beautiful, and we had surprisingly good turnouts at all the events, especially the Sunday evening winter holidays concert, which I thought was absolutely magnificent. Likewise, the Pageant (which I had heard so much about) was even more fun than I had imagined, while the anxiety I’d been feeling about conducting three different Christmas Eve services for the first time quickly disappeared when the time at last arrived, and as the evening progressed each service seemed to build upon the others, while developing its own special personality, each one special yet slightly different. Even Margie McCormick’s memorial service last weekend, which one might ordinarily tend to think of as a sad occasion, had such a warm feeling to it, as people who knew and cared about her came together one more time simply to be with one another, and to share their memories of her remarkable life. And as I shared these moments with all of you, I felt so privileged to have been invited to become a part of all your lives, and thus that much more at home here in this new community.
And now it’s the start of yet another New Year, and time to look forward to a future that for the moment exists only in imagination. For years I used to celebrate the beginning of a New Year by stopping off at the post office and mailing in my sometimes as many as a dozen entries to the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. One of the dubious advantages of living in a household with three different last names, and reading a lot of magazines, is that we tended to get a lot of junk mail, although I'm still not certain why I ever actually bothered to send them all in, since no one I know personally has ever won anything from one of these contests. I guess it just seemed worth an hour or so of licking and pasting, and a few dollars in postage, to have the legitimate prerogative of daydreaming about what I would do with all that money if I actually won it. I know a lot of people who consider this sort of daydreaming a values clarification exercise, something along the lines of “where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also.” Personally though, I’ve often felt that the daydreaming itself is probably just as valuable as the actual money would be. If I actually had that much money, I would probably spend a lot of my time worrying about how to hold on to it, or even worrying about whether or not I could actually trust the people I’d hired to hold on to it for me. Money solves a lot of problems, but it also brings problems of its own. In many ways, I’ve already won the most important lottery of all -- I’m alive, and in relatively good health, and free to dream to my heart’s content about anything I please, and then to pursue those dreams that seem most “worthy” to me, and through my own efforts, make them real.
There's something about the coming of a New Year that lends itself naturally to daydreaming, to the intentional cultivation of a spirit of hope and optimism, a sense of possibility and new beginning. It's difficult to ignore it even if we try. As I hinted a little earlier, I once read that the three most common resolutions this time of year are to quit smoking, to lose weight, and to "get in shape" (whatever that means) -- but let me tell you, as someone who smoked two packs a day from the age of seventeen to the age of thirty-three, and then gained fifty pounds when I finally resolved to give them up in earnest, I’ve pretty much concluded that it’s probably best to follow the path of “all things in moderation, nothing to excess,” and to try to be content with whatever shape I am. The truly tough part was realizing that, no matter how much I work out, or how closely I watch what I eat, I'm never going to be seventeen again, or even thirty-three; that the fantasies of youth are unavoidably tempered by the realities of maturity, and that I will never, say, throw a long pass for the winning touchdown in the fourth quarter of the Rose Bowl, nor even daydream about it with the same intensity that I did when I was younger. With each New Year a little bit more of my life is behind me; with each new beginning, we mark an end to another dream that will never be.
Knowing this, I think it's important that we learn to choose our resolutions with care. Quitting smoking and losing weight are great, for as far as they go, but what kind of "shape" do you really want to be in a year from now? What WOULD you do if you won ten million dollars, and what's keeping you from having the best part of that now, if you choose? This is what I learned from my years of daydreaming about winning the lottery: that the really important things in my life have nothing to do with money itself, but rather with the illusion of freedom which money seems to buy, the ability to stop worrying about the trivial and the mundane, and to concentrate on the truly significant.
But the wisdom to concentrate on what is truly significant is not really something that you can purchase with cash. It's the product of a willingness to search your own soul, and the courage to pursue what you find there. And it's also an ability to recognize your responsibilities and confront your limitations, to affirm your commitments and the values on which they are based, to balance the demands of the present with the possibilities of the future, and to walk that narrow path from wishful thinking to knowing contentment. When you finally take the time to figure out what really matters, to move beyond dreams of eternal youth and a thirty-two inch waistline, or cars and clothes and boats and travel, and recognize your more essential hunger for a spiritual freedom which material things so often only pretend to satisfy, you discover that it takes more than a nice house to make a real home, and that the true measure of wealth lies not in what you have acquired, but in your capacity to share generously with others.
I also want you to know that it gives me no real joy to be winning my war against the mice. I’d gladly negotiate with them, if I could only figure out a way to understand them, and to make them understand me. I’d be happy to feed them, and give them shelter from the elements, even protect them from cats, if they would just mind their own business, and stay out of my stuff, and occasionally clean up after themselves. But I also know that’s not going to happen, and unless I do something about it, the problem is only going to get worse. But it gives me no pleasure to take their lives, nor do I feel especially superior to them because I can trick them into sticking their heads into a fatal trap with just a little daub of strategically-placed peanut butter. I do it because I have to, and that makes me a grown-up. But I wish it were otherwise every time I put one of their warm, furry, broken little bodies into an old plastic bag and throw it in the trash. And while it might seem a lot easier just to pay someone to do all this for me, at the end of the day I don’t think it would make me any better a person. If I’m going to kill something, I want to see the body.
Our lives can often seem like a series of compromises between the material demands of physical survival and frustrated aspirations of a more intangible nature, which we often but dimly understand. We look at our lives, we feel that something is missing, we hunger for something more, and then we try to fill that empty space as best we can, sometimes with money and the things money can buy, and sometimes with things far more valuable. But however you may resolve this year to change your lives for the better, I hope that some of you, at least, as you're evaluating your priorities for the next twelve months, will chose to bump up your participation in the life and activities of this church just a few notches higher on the scale. It doesn’t have to be a lot -- just find some new, small thing that captures your interest, and then maybe invite a friend along to share the experience with you. I can attest from personal experience that it really is a lot easier than either quitting smoking or losing weight. And it really can help you get in shape for whatever it is you dream of doing in the years ahead. Within this community of memory and hope, we strive together to create from our dreams a sacred space of wisdom and renewal. Resolve, this year, to take a little more time to more fully become a part of it, so that it, in turn, may more fully become a part of you.
ANN LANDERS’ PERPETUAL NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS
Let this coming year be better than all the others. Vow to do some of the things you’ve always wanted to do but couldn’t find the time.
Call up a forgotten friend. Drop an old grudge, and replace it with some pleasant memories. Share a funny story with someone whose spirits are dragging. A good laugh can be very good medicine.
Vow not to make a promise you don’t think you can keep. Pay a debt. Give a soft answer. Free yourself of envy and malice. Encourage some youth to do his or her best. Share your experience, and offer support. Young people need role models.
Make a genuine effort to stay in closer touch with family and good friends. Resolve to stop magnifying small problems and shooting from the lip. Words that you have to eat can be hard to digest.
Find the time to be kind and thoughtful. All of us have the same allotment” 24 hours a day. Give a compliment. It might give someone a badly needed lift.
Think things through. Forgive an injustice. Listen more. Be kind.
Apologize when you realize you are wrong. An apology never diminishes a person. It elevates him. Don’t blow your own horn. If you’ve done something praiseworthy, someone will notice eventually.
Try to understand a point of view that is different from your own. Few things are 100 per cent one way or another. Examine the demands you make on others.
Lighten up. When you feel like blowing your top, ask yourself “Will it matter a week from today?” Laugh the loudest when the joke is one you.
The sure way to have a friend is to be one. We are all connected by our humanity, and we need each other. Avoid malcontents and pessimists. They drag you down and contribute nothing.
Don’t discourage a beginner from trying something risky. Nothing ventured means nothing gained. Be optimistic. The can-do spirit is the fuel that makes things go.
Read something uplifting. Deep-six the trash. You won’t eat garbage -- why put it into your head? Don’t abandon your old-fashioned principles. They never go out of style. When courage is needed, ask yourself, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
Walk tall, and smile more. You’ll look 10 years younger. Don’t be afraid to say, “I love you.” Say it again. They are the sweetest words in the world.
Recipe for a Prosperous, Peaceful Year-Round Year!
Take twelve, fine, full-grown months,
see that these are thoroughly free
from all old memories of bitterness,
rancor, hate and jealousy;
cleanse them completely from
every clinging spite:
pick off all specks of pettiness and littleness;
in short , see that these months are freed from all the past;
have them as fresh and clean
as when they first came from the great storehouse of Time.
Cut these months into thirty or thirty-one equal parts.
This batch will keep for just one year.
Do not attempt to make up the whole batch at one time
(so many persons spoil the entire lot in this way),
but prepare one day at a time, as follows:
Into each day put twelve parts of faith,
eleven of patience,
ten of courage,
nine of of work (some people omit this ingredient and so spoil the flavor of the rest),
eight of hope,
seven of fidelity,
six of liberality,
five of kindness,
four of rest (leaving this out is like leaving the oil out of the salad, don't do it),
three of prayer,
two of meditation,
and one well selected resolution.
If you have no conscientious scruples,
put in about a teaspoonful of good spirits,
a dash of fun, a pinch of folly,
a sprinkling of play, and a heaping cupful of good humor.
Pour into the whole love ad libitum and mix with a vim.
Cook thoroughly in a fervent heat;
garnish with a few smiles and a sprig of joy;
then serve with quietness, unselfishness, and cheerfulness,
and a Happy New Year is certain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
