Author: Doug Slagle

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

Please click here to listen to the message.  See below to read it.

As a celebration marking the 50th anniversary of this room – the original sanctuary here, and as the first Sunday of Women’s History Month, it’s appropriate to remember not only the contributions of all who’ve been here over those years, but to specifically remember women who have ministered, served, and led here.  There have been three female ministers to this congregation since 1968 when this room was dedicated.  In 1979, Rev. Shirley Ann Ranck became the first minister at Northern Hills, and the first female minister to preach in this room.  Rev. Sharon Dittmar served here in the late 1990’s for several years and then in 2012 Rev. Joan Kahn-Schneider began her service at Northern Hills.

The legacies of these women are a vital part of our history, but they also highlight the emergence of women as leaders in our nation and particularly in Unitarian Universalism.  Fifty years ago, women accounted for less than seven percent of all UUA ministers.  By 1979, when Rev. Ranck became NHF’s first minister, the number of female ministers in the UUA was nearly 20%.  Today, women comprise a majority of UUA ministers.  The current President of the UUA is Rev. Susan Frederick Gray, elected last year as the first ever female leader of our denomination.  The UUA is thus one of the very few significant spiritual organizations in the world that is mostly ministered to, and led by, women.  And this congregation, over the last fifty years, added its voice and its assistance to realize that achievement.

Within these walls, this congregation has also been substantially led by lay women.  Many women here have served in major leadership positions at GNH, NHF and the former Gathering – facilitating committees, serving on the Board, or being Board President. 

My intention is not to diminish the contributions of men in our past and present, but rather to underline the fact that within the UUA and this congregation over the last fifty years, women significantly served and achieved parity – if not superiority – to men.  And that, in my opinion, is a very good, and very unique thing in women’s history.

That brings me to my message topic this morning and to my message series theme this month – both as ways to honor Women’s History month.  A recent Pew research poll, published by the  Harvard Business Review, of 64,000 people in 53 nations around world, identified ten qualities desired in leaders of government, business, spiritual and charitable organizations.  Out of those ten qualities, including ones like reasonableness, flexibility, looking forward, collaboration and emotional intelligence, only one was identified by those 64,000 people as a mostly male characteristic – being resilient.  The other nine were all identified as being mostly feminine.  The implications of this poll are clear.   A huge majority of humans want mostly feminine qualities to be what rules our nations, and our world.

And my topic today, to examine emotional intelligence, is the number one quality desired in leaders.  Not surprisingly, it is also the primary factor the UUA uses in determining the fitness of candidates for ministry.  A UUA assessment of a ministry candidate asks, Is a person empathetic?  Does she or he exhibit forbearance – the ability to control one’s emotions when provoked?  Is the person both self-aware of strengths, weaknesses and how to best use or improve them?  Is she or he appropriately humble and willing to take responsibility for mistakes?  Is grace offered when others make a mistake?  Is one aware of her or his emotional triggers, how to watch out for them and ways to mitigate them when they happen? 

All of those qualities that the UUA believes are critical for ministry, except one, are identified as mostly feminine in an emotional intelligence test frequently given to job candidates for major organizations.  Out of twelve emotional intelligence qualities tested for, the only one considered a mostly male quality is self-control.  Perhaps it is no wonder, therefore, that the UUA is now a female majority led organization since it intentionally seeks ministers who have a healthy level of emotional intelligence.

A number of studies have proven the wisdom of female ascendance in the UUA.   Possessing strong emotional intelligence, one study shows, is a more accurate predictor of success than is simple intelligence.  Another study shows that organizations and businesses led by women are more successful.  Emotional intelligence was also cited by Charles Darwin as a key element in the evolution and eventual predominance of homo-sapiens.  Less evolved species on the human evolutionary spectrum likely lacked empathy, emotional awareness and self-control.  Their emotions were likely governed by the primitive part of the mammalian brain – the amygdala – which causes the fight or flight response.  That small organ at the base of the brain exists in each of us but it is our evolved awareness of how it affects us, and our learned ability to both control and express its feelings, that has been crucial to human survival and evolution.  And women were the key agents in that evolutionary advantage. 

Importantly, emotional intelligence is vital to our spirituality.  How do we relate with others who are different from us?  How caring and sensitive are we?  How understanding, forgiving, and serving are we?  Are we able to be inspired within our hearts and minds – and are we equally able to so inspire others?  Can we cast visions not just of individual goodness, but of collective goodness?

Once again, numerous studies show that a majority of women have many or all of those abilities.  While many men also possess some or all, less than half do – as results from emotional intelligence tests show.  Because of that fact, psychologists and sociologists identify particular values as mostly feminine ones.  That does not mean, however, that they stereotype all women as emotionally intelligent and all men as emotionally ignorant Neanderthals. 

Even so, the social and hard sciences have conclusively shown that because more than half of all men are not emotionally proficient, societies suffer.  Indeed, just two weeks ago our nation was reminded of a singular fact about mass shootings.  The root cause of them is not mental illness or too many guns.  Those, I believe, are symptoms that can and must be addressed, but they are not the foundational cause of this epidemic of random mass killing. 

Since 1982, there have been 112 mass shootings in the US which are defined as causing 4 or more deaths without any relation to another crime – such as robbery.  Of those 112, only three were perpetrated by a woman.  The rest were all caused by males.  That fact has mostly been ignored by activists and politicians.  What we have in the US, and perhaps in the rest of the world, is toxic masculinity – which I assert is mostly characterized by a lack of emotional intelligence.  Women get just as frustrated or angry as men.  But a majority of women have developed, or have been taught, the emotional coping skills needed to successfully navigate through their feelings.

While men who are not proficient in emotional intelligence do not go out and randomly kill multiple innocent people, studies show a majority of men do lack the ability to fully understand their feelings, to express them in healthy ways, and to empathize with the emotions of others.  When a teenage boy, like the recent Florida shooter, has a troubled youth, he most likely has no training to identify where his angry feelings come from, and how to appropriately express them.  The Florida shooter resorted, like other troubled young men, to the only response he could understand – his amygdala prompt to flee or fight.  Raised as a male, and conditioned by society to act in traditionally male ways, even the choice to flee was not an option.  Fleeing is considered unmanly.  So, the young man fought violently and lethally.

Once again, while all troubled men do not act violently, it is abundantly clear that how we teach and raise boys, and how we expect men to act throughout life, is often toxic for them and our culture.  As a society, we tell boys and men they should be stoic, competitive, aggressive, and rarely show or express feelings of sadness, remorse or empathy.  We elected a President who is a cartoon caricature of those qualities.  We generally do not teach men to possess values that define emotional intelligence: caring, sensitivity, and an ability to express feelings in healthy ways.

I have to admit I am biased in these assertions.  Without stereotyping, and based on both psychology and observation, many gay men do manifest these characteristics I just mentioned that are often considered feminine.  In general, gay men are more expressive, sensitive and emotionally aware.  Those qualities partially define me.  Perhaps that’s a reason why I was drawn to ministry after working eighteen years in the business world – and feeling unfulfilled in a more aggressive and competitive environment.

Even so, as a boy and now as an adult, I sometimes hear advice that implies I act less as a man should supposedly act.  Some friends tell me I can express my feelings too much.  Others have said I can use my expression of feelings to manipulate.  While those friendly admonishments could be correct, I don’t believe they are.  I think they spring from the common, and often misogynistic belief that emotions are girly and bad, and that expressing them, even in limited ways, is equally as bad.  How often do some men tell women they are too emotional, or that sharing their feelings is nothing more than a way to disingenuously get what they want?  Since such things are told to women, they are also told to men perceived to be less than fully masculine.

My point is this: excessive or inappropriate emotional sharing is unhealthy in men and women.  Nobody likes a persistent whiner.  The Florida shooter inappropriately expressed his feelings.   Some people inappropriately express their feelings toward spouses, colleagues, or fellow church members by yelling or being abusive.

The definition of emotional intelligence does NOT include suppressing one’s feelings.  It does include learning and practicing cognitive skills on how to think and talk about emotions.  We need to acquire friends and confidantes in whom we can share our feelings – knowing they will be non-judgmental.   We need to learn strategies of meditation to reflect on our emotions.  We also need to learn to wait in expressing our emotions so we can calm down.  That involves an awareness of our emotional triggers so that when we feel anger or frustration, we do not immediately lash out with physical or verbal violence.  We must instead express feelings honestly and directly, but with kindness.  Any form of violence, including angry or insulting words, no matter how justified, are never appropriate especially for those who wish to practice spiritual ethics of love and respect.

Ultimately, both men and  women should seek higher levels of emotional intelligence.  It is the one form of intelligence that can be learned.  Since emotional intelligence is essential, it’s been shown to be a mostly feminine characteristic, and a randomized poll of people around the world agree, then the logical conclusion is to embrace this feminine side of ourselves.  Honest vulnerability, correctly expressed, does not make one weak.  Knowing our emotions, giving voice to feelings, being sensitive to those of others, and being willing to emotionally heal ourselves and other people, these things make us ironically very strong.  Which is more difficult, to react with impulsive anger, or to reflect, share and gently express?  With that kind of strength, we hold the power to effectively solve problems.  We can thereby help guide our families, workplaces and spiritual communities not with hard power – using bluster and aggression – but with soft power – using empathy and honest dialogue.  Women’s History, and advances in the UUA, prove such soft power is by far the most successful.

I believe emotional intelligence, and the women and men who have practiced it within this fifty year old building, helped make the Gathering at Northern Hills what it is today.  We are imperfect but deeply caring and wise people engaged in a journey to grow ourselves, so that we can then follow in the footsteps of all who have gone before in making the world more compassionate and just.

I wish you each much peace and joy.

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

To listen to the message, click here.  To read it, please see below.

One significant theme from the movie “Mudbound,” which I’ll discuss today as a part of my February series “Black History Month and 2017 Oscar Worthy Black Films,” is the idea of change.  Characters in the film are confronted with changes in their circumstances that they struggle to understand and adapt to. 

What if World War Two had not happened and Ronsel, the young African-American main character, had not gone off to war and tasted freedoms and responsibilities unavailable to him?  What if the white main character, Jamie, had not also gone off to war and discovered that African-Americans were fighting alongside him – at one point saving his life?  What if Ronsel and Jamie had not built a camaraderie of shared wartime traumas – a black man and a white man, in the Deep South, supporting one another as they deal with post-traumatic stress? 

What if Florence, Ronsel’s mother, had not obeyed her white landlord family’s request that she move in with them to tend their sick daughters?  What if she had refused, and those white children had died?

These “what if’s,” and several others, are lingering questions that the film implicitly asks, but never fully answers.

World War Two was an inflection point in US history.  Many African-Americans and women were given opportunities and freedoms previously denied them.  When the war ended, they were forced to return to their previous status.  Women left the factory jobs they held during the war so men returning from war could assume them.  Many African-American men had opportunities to serve in the Armed Forces, and they experienced a level of equality in Europe they’d never had in the US.  But they, too, were forced to return to their pre-war status.

Even though lasting change was denied, doors had opened.  Experiences of wartime equality could not be undone.  They were catalysts for change that helped usher in greater rights for African-Americans.  President Truman ordered the full integration of the US military in 1948.  The Supreme Court handed down its landmark equal education decision, Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, in 1954.  Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed in 1964 and 1965.  Change came after the war, but just as in the film “Mudbound,” it was slow, painful and uncertain.

This theme of change, and how it should occur, pervades much of the film.  Laura and Henry decide to change their lives and move to rural Mississippi, where Henry is from, to become landlord farmers and enrich themselves from black sharecropper labor.  But they find the land and the weather are capricious, and that life on a farm is never easy.  The post-war American economy was booming and yet, as struggling rural whites, those fortunes do not come their way.  They find themselves symbolically mudbound  – stuck in past traditions where poor whites are manipulated and tricked by wealthy whites to keep blacks as an underclass – so poor whites are not.

Florence and Hap, the husband and wife black sharecroppers, face their own mudbound obstacles.  Laura and Henry’s two white children become very ill – potentially near death.  Henry demands Florence leave her family, her children and her injured husband to help nurse his white daughters.  What should Florence do?  Assert her family’s rights and refuse, or accept age old Mississippi traditions:  when white people demand a black person serve them, its wise – for one’s well-being – to not refuse.

Ronsel and Jamie, the two ex-soldiers, make the especially dangerous choice to become friends.  Jamie had learned to respect African-Americans as equals when he was saved by a Tuskeegee fighter pilot who fought off German planes attacking his bomber.   Ronsel found acceptance and love during the war in the arms of a white European woman, and in a European culture that treated him more equally.  Each of their views about race were changed as a result of the war, and yet they too were mudbound on their return to rural Mississippi where racism and the past tried to keep them in their respective places.   Their decision, to go against tradition, and change the boundaries of black and white relationships, proved tragic.   

These decisions – to change or not – haunt the characters as they haunt viewers.  Should changes be embraced, or were they too revolutionary and dangerous?  That’s a question the film never answers. 

Near the end of the film, Ronsel’s father Hap, who was also a minister, stands at the pulpit in his half-built church, with large gaps still in its walls.  This not yet finished church is perhaps the film’s best metaphor about change.  Churches have always been considered versions of heaven on earth.  Is this unfinished church, where all people should enjoy equality, nevertheless a cruel statement that perfection will never happen?  Or, is this church symbolic of something more hopeful?  Does it symbolize the advances African-Americans achieved during the war – and the advances yet to come?  Do echoes of “how long, oh lord, how long must we wait?” sound within its unfinished space?  Or do hope filled strains of “Glory, Glory” rise up instead?  In other words, is the dream of full equality and an end to discrimination half undone…….or half-realized?  Is the glass half empty, or half full?

This image of an unfinished church highlights the ache of black history and its centuries long story of waiting, and of enduring…two steps forward, one step backward.  It’s an allegory for the past nine years in America  – the hope and excitement of Barack Obama’s Presidency crashing into a wall of hate in last year’s election.  Should we be hopeful that America finally saw the innate dignity and intelligence of a black man, and chose him as their leader?  Or, should we be in despair that President Obama’s election incited traditions of hate such that only eight years after he was elected, a bigoted white man was his successor?

That’s a question I believe Rea Dees implies in her film.  How long should blacks – and all Americans – hold onto the hope of an equal society when advances come so slowly and when we often seem to be going backward.  This is, for us, a moral and spiritual question.  A normal response to any wrong, to any form of injustice, is to demand immediate correction.  Fix it now. 

In Black history, the Civil Warmand the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution after it were intended to create immediate and positive change.  20th century Supreme Court decisions, Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s and the election of Barack Obama should have also ushered in immediate change for the better.  Indeed, many commentators said the election of Obama transformed America into a post-racist society.  They were sadly mistaken.  Just as the film “Mudbound” asks, why do events that ought to cause immediate change for good not succeed?  Why has a post-racist America still not come about?

I have no answers.  But I am pessimistic about human hearts in general.  Many world religions tell us that humans are born with original sin.  Jews and Christians believe people are born innately sinful and must become, over time, sin free.  After accepting Christ as Savior, Christians are asked to continually give proof of their salvation by regular repentance and continually becoming a better person.  Despite that work, the Bible says it is only in heaven when a Christian is truly sinless. 

Jews believe in strictly following God’s laws and thus becoming  a righteous person after many years.  And despite that work, Jews must regularly atone for their sins in order to stay righteous.

Buddhists and Hindus have similar beliefs.  People are born selfish, they believe.  People must learn, often over a lifetime, to let go of selfish desires. Only near death, or after many life reincarnations, can one finally learn self-less-ness and thus find nirvana.      

Goodness, these religions tell us, does not come as a gift or something put into us by god or by our genes.  We must intentionally grow throughout life to be kind, compassionate, and respectful to all.  In other words, religions say that sins of racism, self-to used thinking, anger and hate must be cleansed from human hearts after much effort.

In the film “Mudbound,” this kind of personal, inward change is championed.  Jamie is the one white person who awakened to the humanity and equal goodness of African-Americans.  He’s seen them sacrifice and die for others.  But his willingness to befriend a black man as a full equal puts Ronsel in grave danger.  Jamie may have changed, but other whites had not.   Jamie is a symbol of the good that exists in America, contrasted with the widespread hate we also see.

The film seems to say that all people, both good and bad, are stuck in a muddy morass of the past which prevents a more just and more equal world for all people.

As we know, sexism today seems as muddy, insidious, and abusive as always.  Many men think it their right to harass women, pay them unequally, and deny them their rights.  The same is true for the LGBT community.  Same sex marriage became an equal right almost 3 years ago – an historic change for the better.  But, a recent report by the FBI shows hate crimes against gays, lesbians and the transgendered have increased 86% just since Trump’s election.  And regarding racism, that too has painfully gotten worse.  Our black brothers and sisters are demeaned, discriminated against or killed simply at increased rates.

And yet, as the movie shows, the sins of racism and discrimination are not cement.  They slow progress toward equality, but do not stop it.  The arc of the moral universe is long – and full of mud – but it does bend toward justice.  From the dawn of civilization, many people and many nations have abandoned sins of selfishness, greed and discrimination.  Today’s world IS better than in the past.  Hate has not won the war, even if it seems to win to many battles.  Millions have advanced across the moral arc of justice to perceive we are all a part of ONE human family.

Honesty and confession, however, demand we acknowledge our sinfulness.  But the fact that we are imperfect should not upset or discourage us.  For many of us here, our goal is to become spiritually enlightened such that any vestige of intolerance, superiority or bias in us is eliminated.  This congregation, and each of us as individuals, purposefully choose to continually learn how to be compassionate and loving toward all.   We may never reach perfection this side of eternity, but we can come close.  We may never experience heaven this side of death, but we can help build a version of it here on earth.  As Martin Luther King, Jr. said on the day before he was assassinated,

I’ve been to the mountaintop.  And I’ve looked over.  And I’ve seen the Promised Land.  I may not get there with you.  But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.

I believe his words are a sad, frustrating – but hopeful message of “Mudbound.”

I’d like us all to spend the next minutes in silent meditation, reflection or prayer.  Michael will play some appropriate background music while two stones are passed among you – one labeled “courage”, the other labeled “dream”.  As these are passed to you, briefly hold it in your hands, fell the reflections and hopes of those who’ve held it before, pour your god energy and thoughts into it, and pass it along.  Use this time to ponder all of the hate and injustice  in our world, and ways you personally can help.  Let us now spend some moments in meditation and reflection…

(c) Rev. Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills

For any of you who have ever watched a horror film, the movie “Psycho” probably stands out as one of the most frightening.  The building of tension, the social commentary on supposedly virtuous America, and the heart-stopping murder scene all help make “Psycho” one of the greatest films ever.

Prior to it, however, horror movies almost universally used supernatural, unreal monsters to create fear and terror.  Godzilla, Dracula, Frankenstein, a giant ape – these were all fictitious monsters who symbolized human failures and disasters.  Horror films remind us of our impending deaths.   We are all doomed, these films tell us, and while we await our demise, we have no idea the calamities that will suddenly surprise us.

It’s for those reasons that horror films are popular.  They are often rich in symbolic meaning that subtly point to scary things in real life.  The psychoanalyst Dr. Carl Jung believed horror films tap into primitive fears buried deep in our subconscious.  Because horror films often have unreal plots or characters – a supernatural alien from outer space for instance – we are frightened but can still distance ourselves.  That distancing keeps us watching.  We’re pulled into the story but we’re detached in a way we feel safe.  Nevertheless, the monster and the implied message get under our skin and mentally stay with us.

Most of us vividly remember the shower murder scene in “Psycho.”  Many people are like Janet Leigh, the star of that film, who was deeply shaken by the scene – in which she plays the victim.  She refused, for the remainder of her life, to take a shower without her bathroom door securely locked.  The scene reminded her, she said, of how vulnerable women feel.

“Psycho” was thus the first horror film that did not allow as much detachment from reality as audiences might want.  Instead of an unreal, supernatural monster, “Psycho” tells us that true monsters lurk inside of every person.  Janet Leigh’s character Marion is outwardly a beautiful and virtuous woman – an archetype of American 1950’s females.  And yet Marion was raised by an unloving mother, she has an illicit affair, and she steals her bosses money and flees to California for a new life with her lover.  As “Psycho” subtly asks, is that the frightening truth within us?

Despite her flaws, however, Marion is the hero of the film.  It’s her murder that eventually exposes Norman.  And her murder comes in a shower – one which she takes after deciding she will return to her boss and give back the money she stole.  She symbolically showers to purify and redeem herself.  She’s like many of us who make a mistake, but repent for it.

Norman Bates, however, is a seemingly good man who is inwardly evil.  He runs a family business while taking care of his invalid mother.  Beneath that external veneer, however, he has a disturbing hatred for women.  Norman cannot separate filial love for his mother with attraction to women.  He hates his mother’s power over him, and thus implicitly hates the power all women have over him.  He killed his mother and he kills any woman to whom he’s attracted.  Does such monstrous misogyny hide within men?

Hitchcock used the horror film genre to ask these unpleasant questions.  Are we as good as we like to think?  Underneath America’s facade of supposed goodness, “Psycho” implicitly says there lies a brewing cauldron of lust, greed, sexism, and dysfunction.

But, millions of Americans watched the movie anyway.  It made the most money of all Hitchcock films and cost the least to make.  Audiences were captivated by its suspense, the shock of its shower murder scene, the sexuality of Marion, and the psychosis of Norman Bates.  It exemplified the power of horror films to remind us of our failings – while nevertheless entertaining us.

Last Sunday, as a part of my February message series entitled “Black History Month and Oscar Worthy Black Films of 2017,” I looked at the documentary “13th”.  It details American history of using black labor through slavery, Jim Crow, and mass imprisonment.  The motivation, the film reveals, is a continuing effort to control black bodies for profit.

Today, I’ll examine the film “Get Out” which has been nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Actor Academy awards.  Like “Psycho,” it is clearly a horror film.   By using effective symbols, the movie’s director and screenplay writer Jordan Peele reminds viewers, like Hitchcock did, of human shortcomings – in this case racial bias and discrimination.  Peele crafts his message not with lecture type facts, but with implied questions about humanity that “Psycho” also asks.  America seems to have good intentions, but is it as virtuous as we like to think?

Peele likely chose to depict African-American history as a horror film for a reason. Black history, as we know, is full of frightening, real life images – whipped African slave bodies, a lifeless black body with a twisted neck – hanging from a tree, Emmet Till’s lynched and disfigured body, or a black child’s body lying in a playground, toy gun clutched in hand, killed by a policeman.  In other words, as Peele implicitly says in “Get Out,” black history IS a horror movie.

And Peele, like Alfred Hitchcock, masterfully employs horror film methods to both scare and shock.  What I’m about to say will reveal many of the symbols and methods Peele uses.  Even so, I’ll try not to ruin the film for those of you who have not seen it.

The movie depicts a black man, Chris, as he visits his white girlfriend’s parents for the first time.  Almost immediately, Peele uses his characters, their words and their behaviors to symbolically represent larger issues in black history.  Chris is an Every Black Man who slowly realizes that he is both feared and desired.  Many white men fear him and thus want to control and exploit him.  Many white women are attracted to him but they too only want to use him.

Peele suggests that Rose, Chris’ white girlfriend, is someone who uses her seeming innocence to claim she is an ally of blacks and has no personal responsibility for their oppression.  That’s symbolically exposed as a lie when, during Chris and Rose’s drive to her parents house, she hits and kills a deer – a symbol Peele effectively uses.  Chris gets out of the car to investigate.  He comes across a large male deer, with a large rack of antlers, bleeding to death.  Chris is visibly upset but Rose is unmoved.

The death of this deer, what hunters call a “buck,” is foreboding and racially symbolic.  Chris is further unnerved when Rose’s father, Dean, later shows him a mounted male deer head on his home wall.  It’s a trophy he had hunted and killed.  Representing all black men who have historically been called “bucks,” Chris must wonder if the deer’s fate that Rose hits, or that her father hunted, is also his?

       This killing of deer is explored by the lack of empathy Rose has for the one she struck and killed.  Her father, Dean, shows a similar lack of empathy when he’s told about the accident.  He says he’s happy Rose killed the deer and opines that they ruin neighborhoods. To eradicate them is a service to the community, he says.  Such words echo those of many racists who oppose African-Americans moving into their neighborhoods.  Keep them out.  Kill them.

After Chris arrives at Rose’s parent’s home, the film’s tension builds even more.  Viewers meet the odd acting black couple who are the servants – Georgina and Walter.  They act as if they are possessed while they dutifully serve their white employers. Walter is the groundskeeper and he shows open hostility toward Chris – a fellow black man.  We wonder, “What is up with that?”

Chris is later hypnotized by Rose’s mom, a therapist, by the clinking of a silver spoon against her china tea cup.  Once again a black man is controlled with privilege and elitism.  During his hypnosis, Chris mentally plunges into what the movie calls “the sunken place” – a fitting symbol for black history.   He free falls into a dark hole of the mind in which he is fully aware of what is happening to him, but he cannot control his body.  Chris recalls his childhood and the guilt he feels for not having better cared for his sick mother.  This too symbolizes black trauma and the guilt many carry for the hurts their loved ones face – even though it is whites who cause the pain.

Daniel Kaluuya, the Oscar nominated actor who plays Chris, later said about the symbol of the sunken place,  “You’re paralyzed in your life, you want to express an emotion, and then it comes out in rage elsewhere, because you internalized it, because you can’t live your truth…”

There are other meaningful symbols in the movie.  Many of the white people wear some form of red clothing.  Chris wears blue.  That is a clear political message.  Rose is shown at one point watching TV while drinking a cup of milk and eating from a separate cup of multi-colored fruit loops cereal.  The symbol is clear – one does not mix white with other colors. 

Chris is able to momentarily shake the weirdly possessed black servants out of their obedient stupor by using the camera flash on his cell phone.  It’s a symbol for how cell phone cameras, and their videos, have helped blacks and others see the light of their oppression.   

Rose’s parents’ home has the Greek letter Omega displayed on its entrance gates.  Omega is the last letter in the Greek alphabet and is used in the Bible to represent the Apocalypse.  When Chris enters the gates, is he entering his own Apocalypse?  Extending religious symbolism further, Peele likely named his hero ‘Chris’ intentionally.  The name conjures the name of Christ, also a man of color, and tells us that Chris, as an Every Black Man, will be crucified by evil doers.

The terror Chris encounters fits perfectly with its horror film unreality.  Chris is tied up and readied to have his brain removed and replaced by that of a white person.  It’s the ultimate symbol of control over black bodies.  Rose’s parents, Dean and Missy, use black people as vessels into which white brains are put – so that whites can continue living.  That, we find out, was the fate of the servants Georgina and Walter whose brains were replaced by those of Dean’s parents.  This explains why Walter is so hostile toward Chris – his brain had been in Dean’s dad, who was a racist.

Chris does escape and the movie ends in a satisfying way – as do most horror films.  The terrorized hero, who we root for during a story, finally kills the monster – both literally and symbolically.  Audiences cheer that the monster is not all powerful, and that justice and good prevails.

As I said earlier, horror films are intended to frighten and disgust while still allowing viewers to maintain a psychological distance.  The plot, the monsters and the gory images are overly exaggerated in how scary they are.  But all great horror films give audiences a hero for whom they can empathize.  We identify with him or her.  We want them to survive and win because we have, in our minds, put ourselves in their position.

By using a horror film genre that audiences enjoy, Jordan Peele was wise.  Some people dismiss documentaries about racism.  They reject them as boring lectures, or fake news.  But a fictional horror film, directed by someone with skill, thrills many viewers – especially young people – with a scary plot and horrifying scenes.  It also invites viewers to emotionally empathize with its victims.  Horror films subtly get under a viewer’s skin and make them squirm.  Peele does that masterfully in “Get Out.”

African-Americans can cathartically nod at what Chris experiences as they relate to the foreboding and racially charged events happening to him.  They know early on what it takes him too long to realize – get out of that horrific place!

White people, on the other hand, also feel for Chris.  He’s a good man put in a terrifying position everyone can relate to.  Viewers want Chris to win, even as they think that his girlfriend Rose, her mother and father represent racists that they are not.  But Peele does not let white people off that easy.  His monsters outwardly express sympathy for blacks.  Rose prides herself for dating a black man.  Her parents warmly welcome Chris and tell him they voted for Obama.  But they inwardly fear Chris and want to control and deny him.

The terrifying thing about “Get Out,” for me, is my realization that its monsters – like the monster in “Psycho” – could also be in me.  My privilege, my ignorance about cultural appropriation, my sometimes indifference to poverty, discrimination and the hurt of blacks, these can make me a monster too.

That’s a message that haunts me.  I pray however, the horror of that realization will prompt me to do my part to change myself and change society.

   

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills

 

On the night of April 19, 1989, multiple people were attacked in New York City’s Central Park.  One, a 28 year old investment banker named Trisha Meili, was beaten, raped and tortured.  She had been jogging in the park.  Many others were also assaulted.  The press quickly inflamed public opinion against gangs of black teens they said were responsible.  The police labeled the attacks as something they called “wilding”.  They arrested several youth they believed were involved, including five young men whom police accused for assaulting Trisha Meili.

These five young men, all minors, were taken to a police station and questioned.  Four of the teenagers were black.  The fifth was of Middle Eastern ethnicity.  Facing abusive questioning by the police, the five eventually confessed to attacking Ms. Meili.  Despite being minors, their names were leaked to the press.  The next day, their pictures and addresses were published.  They were labeled the Central Park Five.  Their families received numerous death threats.  Donald Trump published a full page ad in all four New York newspapers.  In it he wrote, “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer … I want to hate these murderers and I always will. … How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits?”

While Ms. Meili was not expected to survive, she miraculously did.  She, however, did not remember the attack.  Several months later, the five were tried as adults.  They were described as monsters.  The attack was said to be the worst crime of the 1980’s.  Most people believed them guilty.  Many wanted them executed.  Despite the facts that none of their DNA was found at the crime scene or on the victim, and their confessions were made as a result of police abuse, all five were convicted and sent to prison for 15 to 30 years.

Thirteen years later, a man serving a life sentence for unrelated rapes confessed to attacking Trisha Meili by himself.  His DNA perfectly matched that found on her, as did his descriptions of evidence previously not released.  The New York District Attorney moved to vacate the sentences of the five young men who had spent 13 years in prison.   They were soon released.  As one African-American minister said about the case, “The first thing you do in the United States of America when a white woman is raped, is round up a bunch of black youths, and I think that’s what happened here.”

I recount details of this case because it highlights what director Ava DuVernay points out about black history in her documentary “13th”, which I discuss today as a part of my February message series, “Black History Month and Oscar Worthy Movies from 2017.”  The film was recently honored with an Oscar nomination for best documentary.  It carefully presents black history as an ever changing effort to stereotype African-Americans as subhuman and sinister – people engaged in “wilding” attacks on whites.  In the film, Donald Trump’s full page 1989 ad is used as an example of such racist hysteria and stereotyping.  Defense attorneys said Trump’s ad was a major factor preventing a fair trial.  During his campaign last year, Trump refused to apologize for that ad.  He said he still believes the five are guilty.

The documentary “13th” is titled after the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution which was ratified soon after the Civil War.  It says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…”

Crucial to DuVernay’s film is the exception clause in the amendment that allowed for involuntary servitude by prisoners.  After the end of slavery, the South realized that without slaves to enrich its economy, it needed another solution.  Southern states then began an effort to arrest and imprison thousands of Black men for petty crimes such as loitering.  And they used the exception clause in the 13th amendment to force those prisoners to work for free.  Louisiana’s Angola State Prison, still in existence, was established at the time.  Its 18,000 acre property was a former slave plantation and its owner continued using free black labor after the Civil War – by legally using prisoners.  Such plantation style prisons existed all over the South.

This massive imprisonment of blacks after the Civil War began a pattern of legal enslavement that has existed ever since.  And DuVernay logically lays out in her documentary this history: massive imprisonment evolved to Jim Crow laws that provided justification for the arrest of blacks who broke those laws. 

A media campaign also began to imprint on white minds the stereotype that African-Americans, particularly men, were animalistic and a grave threat.  DuVernay highlights the 1915 movie “Birth of a Nation”, viewed by millions, that depicts black men as prone to crime, laziness and the rape of white women.  It helped create racist fears by which the imprisonment, and thus enslavement, of black men continued.

In the 1960’s, when Jim Crow laws were finally dismantled under Civil Rights laws, white America then found new ways to imprison blacks – and continue using their free labor.  As DuVernay points out, it was no accident that Richard Nixon’s Presidential campaign used the theme of fighting crime, soon after civil rights laws were passed, as a Southern strategy to frighten white voters and thus win elections.  Crime is out of control, Nixon said.  American cities are violent places roamed by thugs bent on destroying society.  Nixon exploited white fear of crime as a thinly veiled attack on blacks, ant-war protesters, feminists and gays demanding their rights.

Astonishingly, a film clip was recently discovered – and is featured in the film “!3th” – in which John Erhlichman, Nixon’s closest advisor, openly admits that the war on crime was, in truth, an effort to imprison blacks and win white votes.

And that effort continued with the election of Ronald Reagan.  He and his wife began what many of us remember as the war on drugs.  Few people, including black leaders, opposed such a seemingly helpful effort.  But new anti-drug laws criminalized the use of drugs such that those who possessed small amounts of illegal drugs were convicted and sent to prison.  DuVernay makes clear that while this impacted many drug addicts, it hit hardest against blacks who were disproportionately arrested and convicted.  If one possessed 5 grams or more of crack cocaine, popular mostly with blacks at the time, the sentence was 5 years.  But one had to possess more than 500 grams of cocaine powder, popular mostly with well-off whites, for the same sentence. 

DuVernay uses statistics to prove her case.  In 1980, the year Reagan was elected, there were 530,000 prisoners in the US.  By 1990, after Reagan’s two terms in office, the prison population had more than doubled to 1,179,000.  In 2014, it had doubled again to 2,326,000.  Today, the US accounts for 8% of the world’s population, but over 25% of the world’s prison population.  We lead the world in the number of prisoners.

And the majority of prisoners are men of color who comprise 61% of all men in prison even though they represent less than 15% of the overall population.  And many of them are in prison for drug related offenses – almost 50% of all inmates in Federal prisons.

And lest these actions are seen as the fault of one political party, DuVernay points out it is not.  President Clinton, in his own efforts to be elected, made fighting crime a signature policy.  He helped pass mandatory sentencing laws which took away discretion from judges.  He also pushed through three-strikes laws that stipulated if a person is convicted of three crimes, even very minor ones, a mandatory sentence of life in prison results.  President Clinton recently publicly apologized for his role in furthering mass incarceration.

But the effort to make crime a racial issue to attract white voters continues today.  DuVerny concludes her documentary with images of black men being arrested, beaten and killed – while Donald Trump’s often racist words provide the sound.  His claim to be a law and order President are interpreted by many to be racial buzz words.  His claim that crime is a major problem in our country is one of his misstatements.  Crime numbers, instead, have steadily declined and today stand at their lowest in half a century – even though our population has increased by a third.

The implicit message DuVernay makes in her documentary is that mass incarceration in America is directly motivated by money and greed – to enrich white elites and use free prison labor – much of which is done by blacks.  Every state in the nation, except Hawaii, uses prison labor for wages of approximately 37 cents an hour.  While some say work is a form of rehabilitation, and a way for the prisoner to earn his or her keep, that is not accurate.  Many experts point out that if prisoners were paid minimum wages for their labor, they could provide money to their families and children – and thereby prevent a family’s need for government assistance.  Prisoners also could save money for when they are released.  A lack of money, often due to an inability to find a job, is the leading cause for ex-convicts to commit another crime after release.   And the menial jobs most prisoners are given do not teach them the kinds of skills needed to find decent jobs.  Even more, forced labor prevents them from receiving the kind of rehabilitation that addresses drug addiction or other issues.

Today, large numbers of multi-national corporations contract with prisons for cheap inmate labor.  AT&T, Walmart, Whole Foods, Proctor & Gamble, Costco, McDonalds and many other companies use cheap prison labor – work for which they owe no employee protections, benefits or responsibility.  As the film ‘13th’ says, prison labor is a modern form of slavery and is motivated by profit and racism.

Issues of mass incarceration and forced labor are ones that disproportionately affect African-American men, but they also affect hispanics, whites and women of all races.  Discrimination of one class of people intersects with discrimination of others such that any form of inequality is an injustice to all. Spiritually, we know this is wrong.  Christian and Jewish scriptures, for instance, say that we are to care for prisoners as if we were in prison with them.  God, they say, cares for all those who are needy – including prisoners.  To be a moral person, Jesus said in his famous teaching in the Book of Matthew, chapter 25, one must feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and care for the prisoner.  In our own Unitarian Universalist principles, every person deserves dignity, justice, equality and compassion.

From a practical perspective, Buddhists teach the idea that wounded people wound others.  Regarding mass incarceration, children and spouses of prisoners are neglected and live in poverty.  Impoverished children are also more likely to themselves eventually be imprisoned.  Prisons, because they mostly seek to punish, help create a class of low skilled, embittered and angry people.  An approach that encourages rehabilitation and compassion is needed, Buddhists say, for the imprisoned.

Over the last year, I’ve been told by some members that this congregation and I, as minister, must do more to address racism.  Other members have alternatively told me that while racism is an important issue, it is not the only troubling issue.  As minister, I try to meet the needs and expectations of all members and that requires I walk a very fine line.  Since its impossible to always please everyone, I often rely on my judgement, experience and personal values to guide me.  I will continue to focus on racism, as I have since I began here.  It is an important issue of our time.  But I will also focus on other areas of concern that, by addressing them, we will also learn and grow.

Importantly, I want to encourage in all of us the foundational ethics of compassion and love.  We each practice those ethics in different ways, according to our individual abilities and personalities.  Some people cook meals for the poor and homeless – meeting a basic need that enables the marginalized to go to school, find work or tend a family.  Other members are activists who immerses themselves in changing unjust systems and laws.  I applaud both.

By educating ourselves about mass incarceration, perhaps by viewing the film “13th”, or reading the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, we will be better informed.  We can then pass that knowledge to our families, colleagues and friends.  We’ll be more informed voters able to recognize when politicians try to cynically scare us.  We’ll vote for those who favor criminal justice reform – and treatment programs instead of punishment for drug use.  We’ll be educated employees – able to lobby for better prisoner wages if our employer uses prison labor.  We’ll be empathetic citizens who rightly expect that fair laws be obeyed, but who are also willing to forgive, befriend and employ those who once were imprisoned.

I’ve added an insert to your programs of suggestions from Africanpall, we’ll understand that fear, greed and selfishness motivates most forms of discrimination – especially black history of oppression.  We can cleanse ourselves of those motivations and then practice timeless ethics of compassion and love for everyone – including those we don’t agree with, and those in prison.   

 

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

 

Click here to listen to the message or see below to read it.

 

A young man named Bennett Brown gradated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1994 with a major in physics and a 5.0 grade point average.  As he pondered what to do after graduation, numerous high paying jobs were open to him – including ones in artificial intelligence, cancer research, and nuclear physics.

Two years after graduating, however, he was working in the South Side of Chicago, as a science teacher, in Du Sable high school.  His pay was a little over $30,000 a year.  He had no car and biked to work.  He lived in a $750 a month apartment.

Du Sable High School has 1400 students and is majority African-American – most of whom live in nearby subsidized housing projects.  On any given day, less than 70% show up for class – and those that do are often late.  Brown was the school’s only certified teacher in physics and chemistry.  Du Sable was lucky to have him.  In the US, only 40% of inner city schools have a certified science teacher.  Brown oversaw a classroom and lab with few supplies or materials.  He worked 60 hour weeks.

He was not just a teacher but involved himself in the community – running an an after school program for gifted fourth graders and mentoring a graduate of DuSable who was struggling to keep up at the University of Illinois.

As Bennett said, his work was a form of activism.  He was not a South Side Chicago community organizer like Barack Obama was, but he was working toward the same goal. 

“We live in a country where the economic class you become as an adult is defined by who your parents are.  Economic mobility is predominantly a lie,” Brown said.  “I was born with quite a bit of privilege.  I feel I have an opportunity to spread that privilege.  Just by teaching, you give back.  But if I were to teach in a wealthy school, who would I give back to?  I’m acting to change the balance of power.”

My message series this month is “Overlooked Discrimination” and we’ve already looked at two – ageism and ableism.  Today, I focus on educationism which I define in two ways.  First, educationism is an elitist attitude that discriminates and stereotypes those who are less educated..  Our culture tends to believe a less than ideal education is one’s own fault – he or she is ignorant or lazy.  We saw this divide in last year’s election when a large majority of persons with high school eductions or less voted for Mr. Trump, while a large majority of those with college educations or more voted for Mrs. Clinton.

The other manifestation of educationism is the discriminatory and unequal access to quality education.  Our nation discriminates against children who live in poor or low property-value communities because of how we fund schools.  Most children who are affected in this way are minorities who live in inner city areas, or rural poor who live in small and mostly impoverished areas.    

One common thread in all forms of discrimination – be it racism, sexism, ageism or ableism, is that they are prompted by a fear of those who are different.  With educationism, that is also true.  We fear those who are less educated because we unconsciously assume they’re mentally deficient and culturally backward.  Many also fear blacks and poor whites as threats to elite privilege.  Denying them access to quality education is a way to insure they remain marginalized.  To salve our unconscious fears of people who are different or a treat to our well-being, we isolate, demean and discriminate.

With Educationism, those who are less educated feel guilt and shame.  Studies show they can lack self-confidence and carry a stigma society puts on them.  That becomes, some economists say, “psychologically constraining” since persons affected by unequal educational opportunity internalize stereotypes about them and then make little attempt to succeed.  They also have poorer health, fewer job opportunities and lower incomes. This situation becomes a vicious cycle from one generation to the next – low education causes poverty which In turn causes children In low income families to repeat the same.

Our culture worships the Horatio Alger myth – that those who study and work hard in life will succeed.  The poor are the lazy ones who do not study or work.  This myth is based on the idea that everybody has an equal opportunity to learn in well funded schools staffed by well trained teachers.  That too is a myth.

A Chicago study of 300 black and white first graders found that when students are given equal educational resources, small class sizes and highly skilled teachers, they all realized comparable levels of achievement.  In other words, a child’s ability to learn and grow into a successful adult is not primarily dependent on how hard one works.  It’s dependent on how much money is spent on that child’s education.

Most states in our nation fund public schools with property taxes.  Logically, children who live in high property value communities can then attend schools with ample resources to fund their educations. 

This system is in direct contrast with European and Asian public schools which are funded equally.  The American education system is one of the most unequal among industrialized nations.  The wealthiest 10% school districts in the US spend ten times the amount per pupil than do the poorest 10%.  We get what we pay for.  Virtually all students from those wealthiest 10% school districts go to college.  A little over one-fifth of students from the poorest 10% districts go to college.

Such unequal allocation of education funds is very evident in Ohio.  Despite four decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court that the way school districts are funded is unconstitutional, Ohio’s school funding method has not changed.  Ohio’s leaders lack the political will to change the system primarily because those who elect them oppose any change.  It’s only fair, many people believe, that their property taxes pay for their child’s education.  The solution, however, is to completely un-tie school funding from property taxes.  Revenue can be raised with income taxes, for instance, and be allocated to schools on a per student basis – thus insuring all children have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Numerous studies show that students learn best when four criteria are met.  1) They attend small schools – 300 students or less.  2) Their class sizes are small – especially at elementary ages.  3) They have access to state of the art, challenging curriculum. 4) They are taught by highly qualified teachers.  All of those factors are determined by funding.

At this point, my message could easily veer off into becoming more a  lecture than a spiritual message.  Gaining head knowledge is important.  But gaining heart and soul knowledge, I believe, is of far greater value.   Our purpose as a spiritual community is not just to know facts, as I’ve outlined many of them, but to feel at a spiritual level the consequences of those facts.  Ultimately, I believe change in a society’s laws and systems to promote equality does not happen until a majority of people change their hearts.

100 years after passage of the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote, sexism is still rampant.  Sixty-five years after the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ruling that unequal educations are unconstitutional, we still have unequal and segregated schools.  Forty years after the Americans with Disability Act was passed, we still struggle with ableism.  Systemic change and passage of laws against discrimination, often brought about by years of organizing and activism, do create better conditions for the marginalized.  But they usually don’t change people’s discriminatory attitudes.

       More important, I believe, is the unseen kind of change in human hearts and souls – the kind of change that prompts one to stop being self focused and focus instead on empathy, compassion and service to others.  Regarding educationism, a majority of people in our nation need the kind of heart change that Bennett Brown had.

Professor Faoud Ajami of Princeton University, a well known TV commentator, says that a politics of love and compassion, instead of the current politics of legislated change, is what is needed in our nation.  He echoes Buddhist philosophy of how real change happens.  It must first begin in us.

Buddhism is often said to be the most equal form of spirituality.  Everybody suffers.   But everybody also has access to full enlightenment and nirvana.  The roadblock to achieving nirvana is our selfishness.  We lament suffering and so we desire things we think will make us happy – material items, judging and putting down others, or discrimination.  When we step out of ourselves and the “poor me” attitude we can often have, we move into a way of thinking that is empathetic.  We begin to stop thinking, “Why do I suffer” to instead think, “Why do others suffer – and how can I help them?”

I am not against the activists and community organizers who push for systemic change in our laws and government.  Barack Obama, perhaps a good example of a community activist change agent, was able to bring about substantial good change in our nation.  But as we see, those changes are being dismantled quickly – all because a large number of people in this nation still harbor prejudice – against immigrants, hispanics, African-Americans, women and LGBTQ persons.  Indeed, we political leaders can initiate change but people from all streams of spirituality – including Atheists  –  can facilitate, I believe, a national reawakening of the soul.  This would not be a religious revival, but a revival of respect and kindness toward all.

That’s why I find the story of Bennett Brown so inspiring.  He’s now working in Iowa City to teach teachers and develop curriculum for inner city schools.  But his early years as a teacher and his continuing work in education are sacrificial.  With his knowledge and skills, he could make millions in another career but he has purposefully chosen to practice activism of compassion and love.

That kind of heart decision, one that denied what he might desire, is one we can all aspire to copy – in our own ways.  How might we support equal education opportunities for all?  How can we choose to deny ourselves in small ways – to volunteer, work or even live in lower property value school districts?  How can we change the hearts of other people or our children to think and act as Bennett Brown?  He has not changed systems or laws, but he’s changed lives.  Which will be more lasting and echo across generations?

A national movement that promotes compassion and love is desperately needed in our nation.  Far too often people today demean and judge others – out of anger, disagreement or fear.  The dark side of humanity discriminates and stereotypes because of fear and selfishness.  As we’ve discussed this month, our culture often isolates and shuns.  We do the same for persons who are differently abled.  And we do the same for the less educated, for blacks, hispanics and the poor of any race.

Practicing selflessness, in some way, is the answer.  To practice compassion, empathy and self-denial does not mean we should give up our jobs and become a teacher, or that we sell our homes and move to another community.  But it does mean we each have the opportunity, in our own ways, to deny ourselves in some big or small way to serve the needs of others.

I love that about this congregation.  To serve and care for others is our collective commitment.  But as we all know, each of our hearts has room for enlargement – to recognize our abundant blessings and then make those available to all others.

Our enlarged hearts, full of kindness and love, will then have empathy for the challenges of others.  No more judgement, no more anger, no more fear, no more discrimination.

       

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

Listen to the message by clicking here or read the message below.

 

Ancient stories from world religions are often dismissed as charming but simplistic.  Addressing the issue of discrimination against persons who are physically or mentally other-abled, three ancient stories from the Hindu, Buddhist and Christian traditions are remarkable for their sensitivity to persons who are other-abled.

One story found in the New Testament is a parable supposedly told by Jesus.  Offended by the sanctimonious hypocrisy of religious elites, Jesus told the story of a wealthy man who wished to spread goodwill and kindness to as many people as possible.  The man instructed his servant to go and invite total strangers to a lavish feast he would hold – free of charge.  The servant asked many, but all said they were too hard heart d, too important or too devout to attend.  Banquets, in the ancient Jewish culture, were often perceived as sinful events with drunkenness and debauchery.

When the servant reported that nobody he invited accepted, the wealthy man was angry.  Go out into the city, he told his servant, and invite the poor, the blind, the lame and the diseased – all who live on the margins of life.  Such people were not welcome in many places because, according to Jewish beliefs of the time, the other-abled and the poor were deserving of their condition.  Either they, or their parents, had sinned and thus caused their condition.

The servant did as he was told and soon hundreds of the poor, blind and lame came to the feast which was a gesture of love and celebration.  The lesson from Jesus’ parable is one he repeated a lot.  It is the weak, marginalized and hurting people who are humble, open minded and generous in the love they give and receive.  They are people familiar with life challenges.  People who are rich, arrogant or pious often shut themselves off from what is truly valuable.

A second story, one told by the Hindu saint Ammachi, offers much the same message.  A young boy learns that his neighbor’s dog will soon give birth.  The boy excitedly asks the neighbor if he can buy one of them.  The neighbor gladly agrees, so the boy then anxiously awaits the birth.

One by one the puppies are born.  As each comes into the world, they let out loud yelps and begin to jostle for the best position with their mother.  They’re large and healthy.  When the mother begins to birth the last of her litter, she struggles.  It takes much longer for the final puppy to be born.  After it emerges, the puppy is small and barely moves.  But the boy immediately tells his neighbor he wants that one.  The neighbor is astonished and tries to persuade the boy to choose one of the first born – the strong ones.  The boy refuses.

Soon, the final puppy does begin to move but it’s clear one of its legs is shorter and misshapen.  It cannot walk like the others.

The boy all the more eagerly declares his desire for that puppy.  The neighbor again tries to persuade him otherwise but finally says he’ll give away the puppy for free.  But the boy is adamant.  He will pay full price.

“Why,” asks the neighbor, “do you want a puppy who cannot run and play as other dogs do?”

The boy sits down, pulls up one of his pants legs and reveals a wooden leg.  “Because,” says the boy, “I too have lost a leg.  I’ll be able to love this puppy and he will love me.  I’ll understand its challenges and he will understand mine.”

The lesson, according to the Hindu saint Ammachi, is that through challenges, we learn empathy, love and joy.

And that truth is one the Buddha understood at an early age.  My third story has him born to a noble family.  He enjoyed a privileged but sheltered life that made him unaware of suffering.  The Buddha’s seclusion, his elders thought, would make him a stronger leader.  But as a young adult, he began taking long walks to meditate.  The elders made sure, however, to clear the streets of people – to shelter him from unpleasant realities.

One day that did not happen.  The Gautma encountered a very old man who could barely walk.  He then came across someone who was visibly diseased.  Finally, he came across a dead body lying by the road.

At first, the Gautma was revolted by these sights.  They were alien to his sheltered life.  But after mediating and meeting with a monk, it’s said the Buddha had his first of several epiphanies.   To be enlightened, he realized, is to understand that suffering in life is real and everyone experiences it.  The way to break the chain of suffering is with kindness and compassion to all.

These three stories, and their similar lessons, remind me of our Unitarian Universalist belief that there is one ultimate truth in the universe – be that God, the power of love, or a scientific unifying theory.  Every religion or form of spirituality (including Atheism) teaches different ways to find that one truth.  No spiritual path to discover that truth is better or worse than another since they all reach the same conclusion.  All offer wisdom and so each must be respected.

My January message series theme is “Often Overlooked Discriminations”, and my topic today is “Ableism.” That is defined as discrimination in favor of those who are considered “able bodied.”  But the three stories I shared point out the fallacy of that definition and our society’s often discriminatory actions toward persons who are other-abled.  And I use that phrase – “persons who are other-abled“- with consideration.  None of us is 100% able bodied.  Each of us are imperfect not only in body, but with our minds too.  I have hearing loss.  I also have an deficiency to think in mathematical ways.  I’m clearly not “able bodied” or “able minded.”  And yet society would likely say I am – or at least appear to be.

It’s a fear of not being supposedly normal, along with self-oriented thinking, that prompts people to stereotype and discriminate.  People sub-consciously fear those who are not like them since they are a potential threat to their well-being.  For our topic today, many people unconsciously fear those who are not what they consider physically or mentally ‘normal.’  People fear being reminded of weakness, illness, and deficiency that they know could happen to them.  67% of Americans confess to being very uncomfortable around the other-abled.  Discrimination results. 

  Persons who are other-abled are often demeaned, shunned and isolated.  They’re referred to by names like (forgive me for saying these words), “retarded”, “crazy”, “crippled”, and “invalid.”  Many are denied opportunities to attend public schools with other children.  They can’t find work with equal pay.   Over 80% of other-abled Americans are unemployed even though most would like to work.  Those who do work are usually employed in so-called training centers which are legally able to pay below minimum wages supposedly because  persons who are other-abled are less productive.  Access to many facilities is difficult for them – as is access to affordable transportation.  They often do not have a say in they’re healthcare decisions or where they live.  Persons who are other-abled are more likely to live in poverty, die at an early age, and face isolation, abandonment and physical abuse.  Many persons who are other-abled lack access to reading and education resources such as books in braille, seeing-eye dogs, or home appliances designed for their use.  Many insensitive, so-called ‘normal’ people, use facilities designated for persons who are other-abled, such as parking spaces, elevators and specially designed restrooms.  Even worse, persons who are other-abled are subjected to benevolent discrimination.  They’re pitied, spoken to as if they’re children, and not treated as if they do not have thoughts or feelings of their own. 

Those who are mentally ill are equally discriminated against.  Guilt and shame are heaped on them as if they are responsible for their illness.  A few years ago, one church member confided to me their life-long battle with clinical depression and the hurt others caused by cruel suggestions.  This person should just snap out of it and be happy, many said.  This person felt deep shame for what has been shown to be a biological  condition caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals – something they cannot help.

I’ve witnessed the same treatment of my mom who has Alzheimer’s.  Strangers and even some family members have avoided her or yelled at her for delusions or failure to remember.  One would never yell at a cancer patient for their illness, but for persons with mental illness – that somehow seems OK.

What is very clear is that persons who are other-abled in our society are often treated cruelly – as if they have no value and are unwanted.  We are an ableist culture.    

One astonishing thing about the uplifting stories from world religions that I told earlier is that they do not represent today’s beliefs by those faiths.  Most religions are ableist and discriminatory in what they believe.  Many Christians believe that everything god has created is good and thus anything that is supposedly not good or not ‘normal’, must have been created by the devil.  Hindu and Buddhist beliefs in karma say that one’s condition in this life is a reflection of what one did in a previous life.  If one is other-abled, he or she must have terribly sinned in a past life.  Orthodox Jewish belief says that a rabbi or religious cannot in any way be blemished, lame or diseased.  His body must be perfect in order to be god’s representative.

These kinds of beliefs heavily influence culture.  Japanese people, for instance, are often very ableist due to their belief in karma.  Those who appear normal and who prosper deserve their condition because of good things they have done.  Those who are poor, sick, or other-abled deserve their condition because of bad things they’ve done.  A version of that thinking is prevalent in the US.  Successful people deserve their success.  Those who struggle deserve their challenges since they are lazy or ignorant.

It is precisely that kind of elitist and self-focused thinking that Jesus and the Buddha condemned.  They both implicitly note the imperfections in us all.  Everybody, they believed, is a person who is other-abled  The journey to enlightenment is therefore a journey into oneself – to see one’s own frailty, one’s own sins, one’s own differences.  Such personal awareness builds humility and empathy.  It fosters connection with others…..instead of separation.  If I TOO am other-abled, why should I fear or discriminate against persons who are other-abled?  If I too will age, or I too have African ancestors, or I too have so-called feminine characteristics, then what reason do I have to stereotype, discriminate and hate?

The heart of god, or the ultimate truth in the universe, does not demand perfection.  Indeed, perfection of the body and mind is a lie our culture wrongly expects.  The heart of god does not promote perfectionism nor a type individualism that fears those who are different.  We were not made to be islands of selfishness.  To think that way is a path to destruction.  We were made to cooperate and be interconnected.  That is a path to universal well-being.

It’s ironic, but from a seemingly weak position of acknowledged imperfection, we are instead powerful.  When we confess our inner truth – our mental and physical challenges, we are strong.  When we treat other people who are other-abled with acceptance and understanding, we are even stronger.  Joined together in kindness and respect for the differences in us all, we will banish fear and prejudice from our hearts…..and then work together to build a better world.

I wish you all much peace and joy.

       

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

Please click here to listen to the message.  See below to read it.

As many of us know, the life of Michael Jackson was defined by his amazing talent, but also by troubling events and depression as he got older.  Jackson once said this in an interview, “I don’t want a long life.  I don’t, I don’t, I don’t.  I think growing old is the most ugliest thing.  When the body breaks down and you start to wrinkle, I think it’s so bad.  I never want to look in the mirror and see that.  I don’t understand it.  And people say that growing old is beautiful.  I disagree.”

As a follow-up question, Jackson was asked if he was afraid to die.  He responded very simply, “Yes.”

Without getting into tabloid reports about his life, it’s nevertheless well-known Jackson was obsessed with youthfulness.  In his thirties he began receiving 13 daily hormone injections to keep him young.  He underwent numerous plastic surgery procedures to change his appearance and keep him looking youthful.  His primary residence for many years was a property he named Neverland after the fictitious place in the Peter Pan story.  He filled it with amusement park rides, pinball machines, candy shops, ice cream parlors and a zoo.  Indeed, it’s said he loved the idea of actually being Peter Pan – someone who never grows up.

The character of Peter Pan, created by author J.M. Barrie, represents the joys of youth.  But he, and the real life Michael Jackson, also represent more troubling issues in our culture about worshipping youth and fearing growing old.  Peter Pan, in Barrie’s stories, forgets all of his adventures so that he never gains wisdom about challenges and setbacks.  His devil may care attitude is selfish and dangerous.  Without knowing about death, Peter Pan simply does not care what he does.  When he faces death after being tied to a rock in the middle of the ocean, he briefly feels scared.  But that thought quickly vanishes.  He acts and thinks like a forever child.

Peter Pan is thus charming and fun.  His character has captured the imagination of children who dream of no responsibilities, no school, and never becoming a boring adult.  Barrie created Peter Pan, however, to admonish children AND adults.  In order to be enjoyed, youthfulness must be understood in the larger context of an entire life. 

My message series theme this month is:   “often overlooked discriminations,” and my topic today is:   “ageism.”  I chose this month’s theme to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s January birthday.  He was a champion for racial equality, but also a champion for ending all forms of prejudice.

My hope is that by looking at three often overlooked forms of discrimination, ageism today, ableism next Sunday, and educationism in two weeks, we will gain insight into the causes of any form of discrimination.  At its core, discrimination is caused by a fear of the other.

Like Peter Pan, most people are born narcissistic and even selfish – with the notion that the world revolves around oneself and one’s needs.  We can learn cooperation and altruism, however, as we mature and grow older.  Juvenile self-centeredness will then fade and youthfulness becomes something still joyful, but complimented by sacrifice, service to others, and a healthy dose of humility. 

That evolution can begin, I believe, when a young person learns about death and one’s mortality.  From that point onward, one either retreats into a Neverland false reality – doing one’s best to hold onto youth and fearing growing old, or …… one accepts his or her mortality and chooses to celebrate every minute of life as a blessing. 

If we don’t evolve, or only partially evolve in our thoughts about living and dying, we will continue to be aware of the universe only as it relates to us personally.  We will be stuck in immature selfishness and see others as a threat to our survival and well-being.  They must be feared and hated.  All forms of discrimination result.

And ageism is one of them.  That term was coined in 1969 and its definition has evolved over the years.  Ageism is now defined as having negative stereotypes or discriminatory thoughts for people based on their advanced chronological age, or a perception of someone as being ‘old’.

Ageism is expressed in numerous ways.  In many organizations, the greater one’s age, the more likely discrimination happens – in hiring, promotions, in downsizing and in pay.  Many employers today want the energy of young people at a low pay rate.  Indeed, the average peak wage earning time for Americans is now between the ages of 45 and 54.  Before age 45, wages increase.  But after age 54, average wages decrease.

Discrimination against those perceived to be old also occurs with healthcare.  Medical professionals often have implicit bias against the elderly by assuming their conditions are incurable and can only be managed.  Someone younger with the same conditions, many studies show, are treated more aggressively.  Older persons are also often ignored or treated disrespectfully in the healthcare industry.

As a general rule, society can be impatient, rude and sometimes violent toward the elderly.  Older drivers are perceived to be less able and slow.  The same can be true when older persons are encountered in the home, at stores or other locations – they move too slow, they’re cognitively diminished, they’re depressing.  Anger and frustration toward them result.

Digital ageism is a recent phenomenon.  Older persons are considered both ignorant and incapable when it comes to digital technology.  The elderly, many people believe, can’t learn how to operate digital devices and they’re inept at understanding or developing anything innovative.  100 years ago, engineers were said to have 35 years before their knowledge and innovative abilities were considered obsolete.  In the 1960’s, it was said to be 10 years.  Now, engineers and their knowledge are often considered outdated after only three years.  Several studies prove just the opposite, however.  People over the age of 50 have no less an ability to learn new technology then those in their twenties.

Benevolent prejudice is another symptom of ageism.  People with good intentions nevertheless implicitly discriminate against those they perceive to be old by speaking to them in very loud voices, addressing them the same as they would a child, or insisting on physically helping them when it’s not needed or wanted.

Ageism also exists even among senior citizens.  Just as some blacks favor other black people with lighter skin tones, some senior citizens discriminate against those older than themselves, or against those with more physical challenges.  In some retirement communities, for instance, persons living independently refuse to dine or associate with those in assisted living situations, or those using wheelchairs and walkers.  Even worse, persons living in skilled nursing facilities are usually completely isolated and ignored by the rest of a retirement community.

Ageism in general is made worse by what is called ‘visual ageism.’  People are discriminated against not because of cognitive or physical abilities, but because of how old they look.  Studies have shown that young people who are made up and dressed to look much older experience significant prejudice – even when they move and think equal to their young chronological age.

Overall, ageism results from a fear of the other – in this case the fear that an older person will upset our sense of well-being by being a reminder of aging and death.  We don’t want to figuratively look in a mirror and see our future selves – those who have wrinkles or grey hair.  That’s why advertising, TV shows and movies have historically emphasized youthfulness.  Many young and old people don’t want to see Maggie Smith or Morgan Freeman in a show.  They want to see Beyonce and Channing Tatum. 

That form of discrimination is even worse for women.  Combining ageism and sexism, older men are often treated with less prejudice than older women.  Older men, in our society, are often considered distinguished, wise and even attractive.  Older women are often not.  Maggie Gyllenhaal, an acclaimed actor who is 37, was recently turned down a movie role because producers believed her too old to play the lover of a 55 year old man.  One famous actress has said that TV and movie roles for women come in three stages – voluptuous babe, then working professional, and finally – the title role in ‘Driving Miss Daisy.’  That prejudice is ageist AND sexist.  Men, both straight and gay, often desire younger romantic partners.  Women have similar desires, but I believe they are more evolved than men – they value the stability, wisdom and touch of selflessness that can come with age.

One of the obvious problems with ageism is that it not only is discriminatory and bad for society, it is also self-fulfilling.  Everybody ages and most will advance to senior citizen status.  But persons who are ageist when they are young, they grow old and are ageist toward themselves.  In other words, if we believe when we’re young that people over a certain age are physically and mentally diminished, that there is no joy in being older, that romance and sex are impossible, and that youth is better, then that is what we’ll believe about ourselves when we’re older. 

Studies show that people who think that older is equal with incapacity and depression, they become that way when they age.  But the opposite is also true.  Those who see age as only a number and who believe one can be active and vital at any age, they end up being vital and happy almost all their lives.

Solutions to ageism are similar to those for racism or any other stereotyping.  For one, we can bring about systemic change by outlawing ageist discrimination.  Australia is a world leader in having anti-ageist laws.  California is not far behind.  Just last year its legislature enacted laws forbidding employers rom asking or keeping on file the age or birthdates of applicants and employees.

Other solutions are more subtle and, I believe, touch on areas of spirituality.  We need to look within ourselves and be willing to examine our fears and biases about the elderly.  Most people are ageist in some way.  I know I am because I lament the physical changes I’ve experienced – grey hair, aches that I never had before, weaker eyesight and hearing.  Very few people truly embrace the natural aging process and celebrate it.

That results from the one great fear we have:   death.  Since we are most likely alone among species in being aware of our eventual demise, we also are alone in suffering the negative consequences of that awareness.  Superstition and religious belief happen, I believe, from a fear of death.  So too do racism, sexism and ageism.   People can’t seem to outgrow and rise above a me-first thinking that places the self at the center of one’s awareness.  I want to survive and thrive.  Anything or anyone that threatens my ability to thrive, I will fear, hate and discriminate against.  That central idea was underlined by Ta Nihisi Coates in his book we read last January, Between the World and Me.  Race is a concept created by whites.  It has no justification in biology.  All humans have virtually the same DNA.  But, whites use race as a way to control and feel superior to blacks – all as a way to economically take advantage of them.

        If we are to eliminate any prejudice, we must eliminate our fear of death.  That means moving away from self-focused thinking that comes with fear.  Regarding ageism, we must eliminate fears that growing old and dying are somehow bad.  That does not mean we should want to die.  It means we must, instead, seek to really live.

As I often say, we can’t know something is good unless we understand its opposite.  Life cannot be fulfilling and joyous unless we know that it is finite.  Can Peter Pan, who never grows old, really be happy?  What knowledge, insights and sense of purpose can he find if the only thing he feels is endless immaturity?  How can he experience the heights of love if he is to never learn the heartache that love can also bring?

If we do our best to understand that death is one moment in our eternity, perhaps it will lose its sting.  I will find eternity, and thus peace and joy, by what I do with my life to make future lives better.   My eternity is also in what comprises me.  The atoms that make up my body and stimulate my brain to think and feel, those will go on forever.   By understanding and feeling the countless satisfactions of life, by being aware that I will exist not just as I am now but in many other forms, I can embrace birth, youth, aging and dying as inevitable – but also beautiful.  To fully enjoy life,……….aging and death must be accepted and even celebrated.

Most importantly, by engaging my mind to think and believe that truth, I will banish my prejudices and implicit biases.  All life, especially ALL people, will truly be dear to me.  They will enhance and enrich my living experience.  I’ll find the same satisfaction in hugging my dying father, or visiting my mom with dementia, as I do when being around young people.  Ultimately, I’ll celebrate life right now and all the good that I can do with it……… and let go of all the rest.

(c) Doug Slagle, Minister to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

Click here to listen to the message or read it below.

One year ago today many of us celebrated the holidays in shock.  Election results from the previous month were a surprise to many and troubling to some.  Even so, the holidays are always a time of expectation and so 2017 was greeted in that spirit.  All is not lost, I felt, and we must invest in our new leader a cautious hope that the good ideals of our nation and people will continue.

One year later, my hopes have been dashed.  Health insurance for impoverished children is about to be eliminated, protected national lands that are home to wildlife and geologic formations of breathtaking uniqueness are now open for pillage, the stock market is at dizzying heights all because the richest 1% will get 82% of upcoming tax cuts, our free press is under attack, a credibly accused pedophile came within twenty thousand votes of being a US Senator – and he was overwhelmingly supported by white evangelical Christians, immigrants drawn to this land because of its ideals and the chance for a better life now cower in fear of a knock on their door in the middle of the night.  We are closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen have been called “good people” by our leader, and this nation now thumbs its nose at a treaty to fight catastrophic climate change.  The world today, as opposed to last December, is very, very scary.

How is that for a cheery opening to this annual Candlelight Christmas Eve celebration message?

If you’ve been here the last two Sundays, you know my series theme this month is “‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Holiday.”  The title of that film and my message series certainly seem incongruous to today’s dark reality.  Is life so wonderful in an America that is becoming mean-spirited and self-focused?  No, it’s not.  But themes in the film tell us that our lives ARE wonderful when they have meaning and when we practice and stay true to our values.  By doing so, we fulfill our purpose in life to act selflessly and we thereby stand against the forces of greed, hate and selfishness.

Frank Capra, the movie’s director, made the film in 1946 when he saw that post-war America was quickly forgetting its values for the sake wealth.  That’s exactly what is occurring today – no better exemplified than the passage this last week of a tax cut bill that enriches the very wealthy. 

Capra elevated to heroic status no less a man than George Bailey, the primary character in the movie.  George is not a typical hero.  He does a lot of good.  He tries to live out his beliefs despite inwardly wanting a more exciting and materially rewarding life.   But George is not a knight in shining armor activist who calls people to follow him as he marches off to battle the evil forces in his time.  Instead, he’s a flawed, sometimes jealous and frustrated man working, as he says, in a crummy little town, in a shabby little office, in a barely profitable little bank. He implicitly asks himself ‘What BIG thing am I doing to change the darkness of this world?  He believes, throughout much of the movie, that his life is meaningless.  In fact, he nearly commits suicide in despair over that thought.

But the reason why George is a hero is precisely because he’s NOT a well known architect, what he dreamed of becoming, or a famous activist who fights the good fight on a national stage.  He’s an Everyman.  He’s me, and he’s many of you.  Even though George is flawed, and sometimes gets frustrated over a life he wish he had, George lives true to his values – one low interest loan to a struggling family, one gesture of kindness, one act of loyalty, one day of serving others – at a time.  In his small job, small bank and small town, he makes a very big difference.  He lives out and practices the ethics we all know to be good – sacrifice, service, kindness, humility, love and generosity.

For our holiday celebrations this morning and tomorrow, we might also remember those are the same values taught in the Christmas story.  Whatever we believe about that story, whether it is fact or an allegory intended to teach,  it nevertheless tells a similar tale of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’.  The birth of a child to poor family in a shabby little town, in a smelly little barn certainly does not seem inspiring.  But the story resonates because of who that baby is said to have become – a man who called people to quietly and humbly practice goodness. 

Jesus was not a warrior, ruler of a nation, or wealthy power broker.  He was poor, uneducated and of average looks.  But he launched a movement that has lasted two-thousand years through the power of his example – daily living a life of serving one leper, one blind man, one beaten down and distraught woman – at a time.  With his deeds he showed others what the heart of god, or force of love in the universe, is like.        

Two world views compete in the Christmas story and in the movie ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ – as they do today.  One way of life, exemplified by the greedy Mr. Potter in the movie, or the ruthless and greedy King Herod in the Christmas story, exalts selfishness – grab all the money, pleasure, prestige and power that you can. 

The other way of life, exemplified by George Bailey and Jesus, is one that gently practices timeless values.

These competing ways of life have always existed.  People are capable of almost holy acts of goodness….but also of the most disturbing deeds of cruelty and indifference.  The clash between thinking only of “me, me, me”, or instead of considering the feelings and needs of others, fights its battle in every human heart.

In today’s America, many people hate the values of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ and the Christmas story – even though they claim to practice them.   Arrogance and bragging about oneself, or what one has done, are somehow good.  Amassing a huge fortune is seen as a sign of greatness.  Attacking and demeaning others who disagree with you are considered a show of strength.  Teaching a child, visiting the sick, cooking a meal for the homeless, living and serving one’s family, standing up for a friend who’s been bullied, being loyal and unassuming – well, those are naive, weak, and essentially insignificant deeds – such people believe.  They don’t compare to the heroic actions of those who are in the limelight – or think they are – because of their arrogance.

But people who say that – are, forgive me – wrong.  The enduring message of the Christmas story, and why the movie ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ remains a classic, is the lesson that one poor and homely carpenter, one small town banker, one everyday, average congregation doing their part to serve others……..they are ironically very strong.  In weakness lies power.  In humility lies greatness.  In love, service and gentleness toward others lies timeless truth.

Last Sunday during Joys and Sorrows time, Leslie Edwards expressed his appreciation for this congregation and its values of giving and volunteering.  We know, of course, that despite his praise, this mostly white and economically comfortable congregation is not perfect and we have much to learn, grow and improve about ourselves.  Inner vestiges of racial basis, white privilege and other flaws can still infect us.  That is one reason why we’re here – to enlarge our hearts and minds.

And yet, Mr. Edwards’ compliments are also well deserved.  We may be small in numbers, and we’re not famous, but we are large in heart.

A few people have said this congregation acts much like a social club – a white, suburban community that shares progressive beliefs but doesn’t promote them.   They’ve also said that about me.  In my case, they have a right to that opinion and I hope to be honest enough to examine my heart to determine if its true.

But about you, this small congregation, I do not agree with their assessment.  Much like George Bailey, we are not perfect people.  None of us are.  We have miles to go until we might say we are enlightened.  But we know that fact, and we are here most Sundays, and we volunteer, give and serve selflessly all in order to try and live out our beliefs and our values. 

I personally do NOT accept the observation that, for instance, working on our Ways and Means team to raise money for the work we do, or spending time teaching children, or cooking a meal for a homeless shelter, or assembling a weekend food box for hungry children, or repairing this building, or taking time to reflect and learn from on an idea we heard here on a Sunday morning, that these, in their own way, do not also address issues like racism and thereby help change the world for the better.

In doing these things, we – like George Bailey – stand in resistance to the national darkness.

To conclude my message, Alan will soon show an 8 minute clip from ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’.  To set the scene, George has just visited a world in which he had not been born.  It’s a frightening place – one that our nation could become if we lose the values we hold dear.  George asks god to bring him back to life – to the reality where he had been born.  In the clip you’ll see, George not only realizes his life purpose, he also comes to understand the intangible wealth he’s amassed.  He’s rich not from the money his friends give to cover his bank’s losses, but because of their love for him – and his for them.  As you watch, I hope the clip helps you understand the same lessons – we each have much to learn – but there is greatness in our everyday acts of kindness and service.  In these troubled times, at this holiday time of hope, let us continue to do our part to practice and encourage….throughout our land….the timeless values we cherish.

Let’s now watch the film clip.