Author: Doug Slagle

(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.

Last Sunday I began my December message series entitled “‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Holiday” with a look at one primary theme of the classic film:  each person has greatness within them.  We don’t exist just to exist.  Instead, we live for a purpose and our task is to discover it and then live it out.  Ultimately, our reason for living is to leave this world better off than before we were born.  No matter how big or small we change things for the better, doing so is our greatness.  I quoted an old Jewish proverb, “He or she who saves even one life, saves the world entire.”  That’s our purpose and it is in fulfilling it that we find our meaning.

It takes George Bailey, the central character in the film, thirty plus years to understand his purpose.  He’d been living it and practicing it, but he never understood, until a crisis comes, that he was already doing great things.

The reason he takes so long to realize his purpose is due to an inner conflict – a fight between his dreams, and the reality of his life.  George does not get what he wants.  In his youth, George dreamed of being an architect who would build great structures – and thereby win fame and fortune.  On a date during high school, he tells his future wife this:

“I’m shakin’ the dust OF this crummy little town off my feet and I’m gonna see the world.  Italy, Greece, the Parthenon, the Colosseum.  Then, I’m comin’ back here to go to college and see what they know.  And then I’m gonna build things.  I’m gonna build airfields, I’m gonna build skyscrapers a hundred stories high, I’m gonna build bridges a mile long…”

Soon after he confides these dreams to Mary, his father suddenly dies.  George foregoes college and allows his younger brother to go instead.  He takes over the small Building & Loan bank his father had started.

George continues to put aside his dreams to meet what he considered his obligations.  The greedy competing banker in town, Mr. Potter, tries to close the bank George runs by convincing its Board that the town no longer needs a Building and Loan.

But George gives an impassioned speech to his Board describing the values his father believed in and the reason why he started the bank – not to make huge profits but to help average people buy homes and start businesses.  The world still needs such community spirited banks, he argued.  The Board agrees not to dissolve the bank only IF George remains its President.  George agrees.

George had also made a pact with his younger brother.  He could go to college first – but when he finished, he’d return to run the bank while George takes his turn to go to college.  But Harry the brother returns after graduating with a wife and a career.   With the kind of grace that only some show their siblings, George does not complain.  He stays on as President of a small, barely profitable bank.

George then marries Mary and they make plans for a long honeymoon to travel the world – to fulfill at least one of George’s dreams.  But the stock market crash of 1929 happens and there is a run on banks across the US.  People panic and they want their savings.

As a near riot forms in George’s bank, it faces collapse – much like thousands of other small banks during the Great Depression.  George could let his bank fail, take his honeymoon, go to college and become an  architect.  Instead, he uses the $2000 he’d saved for his around the world honeymoon to pay the withdrawals his frightened customers want.  He saves the bank.

Just before he decides to hand out his savings, he looks at a portrait of his father and reads underneath it his dad’s life motto: “All you can take with you is that which you’ve given away.”

Years later George faces his greatest crisis.  His kind but incompetent uncle, whom George employed in the bank, loses $8000.00 – a huge sum for the time.  The bank does not have enough cash to operate and it faces bankruptcy.  George faces personal ruin and even the prospect of prison.  Mr. Potter is overjoyed.  He can finally be rid of the bank that competes with him by making low interest loans.  He derisively tells George that he’s worth more dead than alive.

Suddenly, the inner battle George had fought all his life is clear.  He’d honored his obligations at the cost of what he wanted.  He’d fought against the ethics of Mr. Potter who symbolizes all that was wrong – and still is wrong – with America.  That’s the idea that our purpose in life is to get all that we can.  Use and abuse others for profit.  Lie and steal to get ahead.  Demean others while bragging about yourself.

In the middle of this crisis, George doubts all that his father stood for, his small town values, and his seemingly naive efforts to help others.  Mr. Potter is right, George concludes.  I should have done what I wanted and ignored serving and giving.  George returns to his dilapidated house a deeply embittered man.  Watch with me that movie scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKco5Tv8ciw

Like many of you, I was inspired by Michael Tacy’s message here two weeks ago.  As I listened to its recording, which is posted on our website, I realized that Michael’s message on “Honesty” revealed someone who can speak to anyone – but particularly to young millennials.  Using humor and a down to earth style, Michael  – you can reach people in ways this old Minister cannot.  You spoke of emotional honesty – the kind we each need to develop.  We must be true to ourselves.

It’s in that light that I confess to you the same kind of struggle George Bailey battles in the film.  I sometimes fight the siren song of what I want – against what I believe is right.  That does not happen often – and usually when it does happen, I find my way back by listening to my better self.

This inner conflict happened to me last month.  Due to a number of circumstances, I felt a lot of stress.  Ministers face stressful situations from time to time – extra work, longer hours, a few people who are critical.  Usually I deal with it, but last month I hit a low point and it happened again just this past Friday.  This is the kind of low that leads George, me, and others to feel as if our work is useless.  We despair that our lives are not what we want.  I confess this as a matter of honesty – and to share my inner struggles.

Several friends and family members, after I shared my feelings last month with them, encouraged me to get what I sometimes think I want –  to end my work stress and take an early retirement.  Life is too short to be stressed and upset they told me.  Use the modest inheritance you received from your dad to support yourself – until Medicare and your retirement savings become available.  Retire now and enjoy life, they said.

As tempting as that idea sounds, and as much as the pleasure seeking side of me wants that, I know it is not what my better self wants.  My better self wants to continue to serve, work and feel fulfilled.  I’m abundantly blessed by what you allow me to do – and that you pay me to do it!  Most of the time I love my work and I remind myself I’m a lucky guy.  It’s a privilege to have this job.

By not getting what I want – what the self-focused part of me wants – I’m paradoxically getting instead what I truly want and need.  I truly want the kinds of things that last.

This battle, what some call the desires of the flesh versus the wisdom of the soul, that’s something many of us face.  We want expensive new things, but our hearts remind us the money can be better spent – or given – elsewhere.  We become unsatisfied with our houses, our spouses, our jobs, or what we’ve saved, and we want new, bigger, sexier or more enjoyable improvements.  But it’s our better selves that tell us there are true and good things to want instead – things that are consistent with what we believe. 

All of this is true of George Bailey.  The lure of the wider world, going to college and becoming famous are very strong.  During much of his early life, he struggles with forsaking his dreams, even though the core of who he is, and what he believes, remind him to live a life of purpose and service.  George deeply believes the quote from his father.  We depart this world only with the things we’ve given away – love, humility, kindness and caring.  Material things, money and pleasure won’t last, nor are they meaningful.  What have we done to help or save other people – and thereby improve the world?  It’s our good answer to that question that is our eternity, and our ticket to lasting greatness.

The Dalai Lama once said, “Remember that sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck.”  He expressed a foundational idea of Buddhism.  By letting go of physical desires and wants, we ironically get what we really desire.  And what most of us really desire is a sense of contentment that is not affected by pleasure or pain.   We desperately want inner peace.

To find that kind of joy, what the Dalai Lama speaks of in his book with Desmond Tutu, The Book of Joy, we must let go of wanting more:  more things, more money, more power, more prestige.  Wanting more of those things does not mean we’ll get them – and not getting what we want leads to disappointment and anger.  That’s what George feels when his world falls apart. 

Real joy comes in letting go of the “me, me, me” prompts of ego.  It comes, instead, by serving, working, and caring.  It comes in quiet humility, gentleness of spirit and a sense of humor in the midst of challenge.  It comes in pouring out ourselves for the sake of others.

For me, not getting what I want is, as I’ve said, precisely what I DO want.  I know the side of me that can be selfish.  But that’s not who I want to be nor what I believe is good.  I want instead meaning, purpose and a sense of fulfillment.  I want to make a difference – no matter how small.

That idea from the film “It’s Wonderful Life” is a perfect one for the holidays.  It captures their essence.  This is a time to celebrate life, love and sharing.  We struggle to remember every holiday season the need to forego a desire for great parties, lavish meals and expensive gifts – to instead seek genuine peace and joy. 

What I hunger for at this time of year are moments to connect with others, to do something helpful for someone in need, and to measure my year’s achievements not by what I got, but by what I gave.

The world seems a particularly dark place this season.  A type of Mr. Potter seems to rule our culture and world.  Too many people are enthralled by his ways – the lying, cheating, insulting and grasping for power, prestige and wealth – all in order to glorify himself.  That’s not a role model we want our children to follow.  And that’s not how we ourselves want to act.  We each have the capacity to be much better.

I pray that you and I defy what the darker side of humanity tells us we want.  Let us – this Hanukkah, Christmas, Solstice and holiday season – not want what we think we want.  Let’s hold true to our values and beliefs and practice goodness, humility and kindness.  In doing so, we will get what we need and what we truly want – a life that means something and a life legacy that lasts into eternity…

I wish us each THAT kind of peace and joy… (introduce Cheryl and Spark) – One way this congregation serves and makes a difference, not just to address poverty and homelessness but also racism.  We advocate and speak to issues we care about with our hands on work.  Cheryl Leksan will now talk about Upspring.

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

Audio to the message is in two parts.  Please click here to listen or see below to read the message.

Most of us have heard about the Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai.  She became the youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner ever three years ago.  But many of us do not know her life story.

Malala was born in 1997 to a professor and his wife in the Swat region of Pakistan – a mountainous area that borders Afghanistan.  While the birth of girls is not as widely celebrated in many Pakistani families as is that of boys, Malala’s parents were overjoyed.  Her father determined his daughter would have all the opportunities available to boys.  Malala was enrolled in a local girl’s school and encouraged to learn and achieve.

When she was ten, a Muslim fundamentalist group named the Taliban took control of the Swat area.  They promptly imposed religious laws that outlawed TV’s, music, movies, books and education for women and girls.  Malala’s school was closed. 

Using a fictitious name, Malala began to blog for the BBC about life under the Taliban.  Her description of the days before her school was closed were particularly moving.

Eventually, the Pakistani Army regained control over the Swat region but the Taliban remained a threat.  Even though schools for girls were reopened, the Taliban continued to oppose them with terror and intimidation.

Malala’s fame….and notoriety grew.  The New York Times wrote about her advocacy for equal education of girls and soon her identity became an open secret.  One day in 2012, gunmen boarded her school bus and demanded she be identified.  She raised her hand.  The gunmen shot her in the head, neck and shoulder.  She was critically wounded and nearly died. 

Malala survived long enough to be transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in London where she fully recovered.  She renewed her work with even greater intensity – to insure girls are treated with dignity and that they have full equality with boys.  She founded the Malala Fund that builds schools and advocates for girls and young women around the world.  Schools in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin American were started because of her activism.  Thousands of girls owe their educations to her.  And thousands of future children of those now educated girls will also owe their well-being to her.

It might seem incongruous that I’ve opened my message entitled “It’s a Wonderful Life Holiday: L’Chaim!” with a description of Malala Yousafzai – a young Muslim girl.  My opening is perhaps equally incongruous with today’s service – one to honor the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah that begins this Tuesday. 

In truth, celebrating Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan or Christian ideals in a Unitarian Universalist church is nothing new.  Each stream of spirituality offers truths from which we can learn, but all world religions teach the same Golden Rule ethic.  We are to love and respect others at least equal to how we ourselves wish to be loved and respected.

The Hebrew phrase ‘l’chaim’ in my title, is a celebratory one meaning “to life!”  Jews exclaim these words on many joyous occasions.  It reminds speakers and listeners of blessings both big and small.  Most importantly, “l’chaim” reminds people of the gift of life.  We each have one chance to exist and, no matter the challenges we face, our mere being – the fact that we breathe, think, love and procreate – is a miracle.  That’s something to never take for granted or waste.  And with the miracle of “being”, comes a responsibility to have purpose.  We don’t exist just to exist.

That idea is wonderfully represented in Malala Yousafzai’s life.  One teenage girl, facing obstacles of hate and violence, has by herself impacted millions of lives – directly and indirectly. 

That idea is also inherent in the history of Hanukkah.  The ancient Seleucid empire, which ruled Israel beginning in 444 BCE, was led by a maniacal and arrogant dictator named Antiochus Epiphanes who took power in 175 BCE.  Like fundamentalist Muslims of today, he imposed radical laws on the areas he controlled – including Israel.  His laws were a direct assault on Jewish religious and cultural beliefs.  Jews were forced to worship Antiochus – instead of their own Yahweh.  Worship was sexualized and the Jewish Temple was used for that.  Pigs were incorporated into worship – all to further offend pious Jews.  An alien and provocative culture was imposed.

In 166 BCE, a young man named Judas Maccabaeus decided he’d had enough.  He led a small army in guerrilla type warfare against the dictator.  After many small skirmishes, Maccabaeus’ army wore down Antiochus’ larger army and forced it to flee.  Israel became an independent nation once again.

After restoring their nation, Jewish priests began to clean and restore the Temple in Jerusalem.  After finding the Temple’s large ornamental menorah, that by tradition was always lit, they realized there was only enough sacred oil to keep it lit for a day or less.  It took at least eight days, however, to make more holy oil.  The priests lit the lamp anyway and, to their day by day surprise, found it stayed lit until enough new holy oil was made.  Celebrating this miracle of Hanukkah began.

Judas Maccabaeus’ zeal and courage changed the course of history and impacted, for good, the lives of millions.  Indeed, his actions and courage indirectly influenced Jesus who was also a Jewish militant – one who, a century and a half later, challenged Roman and elitist control over Israel.

My connection of young Malala Yousafzai to Judas Maccabaeus is not stretched.  Their deeds are great and their influence therefore is very large.   But such greatness, and that of other famous figures of history, is not limited to only a few people.  Nobody aspires to fame when they begin their life’s work.  Mostly, people simply begin to act in ways that help others.  And it is in doing so, that a few become famous.

I believe, however, in everyday greatness – the kind that is not found in history books but which every living person can and should achieve.  This is the kind of greatness that also influences the world for the better – but in less noticed ways.  We all have this potential greatness in us, but first we must identify it and then go out and use it.  As I said earlier, we must find our reason for living and then pursue it.

That notion brings me to the holiday film classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  The hero of the film, George Bailey, realizes his reason for living later in life.  He eventually understands his purpose is equal in goodness to that of his younger brother and others who become famous because of good deeds.  That is a primary theme of the film.  Every life has a great purpose.  Whether or not we become famous for exercising it is not important.  When we change the world for the better – even in small ways – we touch the future in exponential ways.

George owns and runs a small bank that his father began – one that safeguards people’s money and invests it in the community – for local businesses and homeowners.  He stayed behind in Bedford Falls, at his father’s request, to run the bank.  He married his high school sweetheart and they raise three children – all while George’s younger brother goes off to war, becomes a celebrated hero, and with his Hollywood good looks, returns to fame and fortune.

In the middle of his relatively ordinary life, however, George faces a crisis.  His genial but incompetent uncle loses over $8,000.00 of bank funds – a large sum in post-depression America.  The bank does not have enough funds to cover customer withdrawals.  George is accused of fraud and theft.  He faces not only financial ruin, but the likelihood of prison.  Its at this low point that George prepares to kill himself by jumping off a bridge – so his wife can collect modest life insurance.  The film scene you’ll see now immediately follows George’s near suicide…

(Click on the link to watch a YouTub clip from the film)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPpfmEiyJ3k

One of George’s statements in the clip you saw is a sad one.  “My family and friends would be better off without me.  I wish I was never born.”  It’s a phrase repeated by many people who have been knocked down by the vagaries of life – prejudice, poverty, bad luck, illness, depression.  Too many people believe their life is not worth living. “What good,” some ask themselves, “do I bring to the world?”

Before my mom suffered from Alzheimer’s, she and I  would regularly talk for hours about many subjects.  We confided to one another our hopes and our fears.  It saddened me when my mom told me on several occasions that her life had little meaning.  “What have I done,” she asked, “to improve the world?  I’m just a housewife and I’ve not saved or helped people like your father – or others who are successful.”

Her lament was not that different from George Bailey’s. I tried to help her see that her life, indeed, had great value.  I won’t recount all she’s done, but my mom was a twenty-five year almost daily volunteer at Hospice of Cincinnati, loyal wife to a successful surgeon, mother to three, grandmother to four, and a close friend to many.  Directly or indirectly she helped change the world.  I would not be who I am – whatever modest positive influence I have – were it not for her.  And my daughters would not be caring nurses – helping hundreds – were it not due the influence my mom had on me – and thus on them.

After the scene you saw, Clarence the angel takes George Bailey on a journey into a world where he never existed – granting his wish to not have been born.  What George finds on this journey is a town named not Bedford Falls, but Pottersville – after a greedy businessman who runs this other-worldly town’s only bank that invests not in local mortgages or small businesses, but in run down tenements, pawnshops and brothels.  Pottersville is a dreary, crime ridden place.  Citizens are joyless, poor and beaten down.  George’s wife is a frightened and lonely spinster.  Even more ominous, news from the war is bad.  Since George had never been born, he had not saved his drowning younger brother in a boating accident of their youth.  With a dead younger brother, there is no hero to save the lives of hundreds of soldiers who would, in turn, save other lives.

An obvious lesson from the film and from the lives of Malala Yousafzai and Judas Maccabaeus is that one life does, indeed, profoundly matter.  My mom’s life matters.  So does yours and so does mine.  Our lives matter when we find and practice the purpose for why we exist.  That purpose is not to become great or rich and powerful.  It’s to add our share of service, love, and comfort to the world – one family member, one child, one hurting soul at a time.  When we create even small change for the better in an often dark and hate filled world, our existence is transformed into greatness.   We fulfill the ancient Jewish proverb – “He or she who saves one life, saves the world entire.”

As Jews everywhere light their Hanukkah menorahs this coming Tuesday, and for the following seven nights, they implicitly celebrate that ideal.  One small, seemingly insignificant light can become a beacon of brilliance.

In the coming holiday weeks, may we nightly light a symbolic Hanukkah candle in our minds and hearts – and make a joyful toast to spouses, partners, families, friends and ourselves…. “L’Chaim!”  To life! 

And as we drift off to sleep each night, may we then dream of our greatness – our past and future work, no matter how seemingly small, to serve and save the lives of others – and thereby save the world entire.

I wish you each a Happy Hanukkah – one that is enriched with much peace and joy.        

(c) Michael Tacy, Music Director to the Gathering at Northern Hills, All Rights Reserved

Please click here to listen to the message.

(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.

As all of us know, Easter Sunday celebrates for Christians the day they believe Jesus rose from the dead.  Its date changes year to year because it closely correlates with the Jewish holiday of Passover.  Passover was and is usually celebrated by Jews on what Christians call Good Friday – the day Jesus was crucified.  The Last Supper was a Passover Seder meal.  Easter and Passover are thus forever closely linked.

Fifteen days after Easter comes the Christian celebration of Pentecost.  That is when the holy spirit is said to have come down from heaven to empower Jesus’ followers.  That event is when Christianity, as a religion, is believed to have begun.

Important for my topic this morning, “God is a Socialist,” this is what the Biblical Book of Acts, chapter 2, says about the very first Christians and how they practiced their faith after Pentecost::

All the believers were together and had everything in common.  They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.   Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts…

All the believers were one in heart and mind.  No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had…God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them that there were no needy persons among them.  For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The first Christians took to heart what Jesus had taught.  No longer would they be indifferent to the needs of the poor, homeless and sick.  Money and resources were shared by everyone.  Early Christians created the version of heaven on earth that Jesus had advocated – one that exemplified god as the power of love.  Compassion and gentleness were genuinely practiced, all had homes, clothing, and food.  Arrogance, material wealth, and greed were considered sins.  Christianity began as a socialist religion.

Of added interest is what the book of Acts describes later.  All of the early Christians sold their homes and then contributed the money to the communal account.  But a few did not.  One couple sold their home but they contributed only a portion of the proceeds to the community.  The rest they secreted away for themselves.  The Bible says that both the husband and wife were struck dead soon after.  The lesson of the story is that selfishness is a bad attitude.  It leads one to forget about the poor.  God, Karma or simply one’s conscience will punish the greedy.

That ethic was repeatedly taught by Jesus.  Many of you know his famous saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it will be for a rich person to go to heaven.  He used that vivid imagery to teach his lesson.  Too much wealth often causes arrogance, a lack of compassion and a lust for more.  He did not teach that a wealthy person cannot go to heaven, but that if one is rich, he or she ought to deeply reflect on their attitude and how they use their money. 

Ultimately, Jesus taught that one can only serve one boss – in this case either god or money.  If one chooses to serve money, he or she will despise god.  For us, that teaching might be interpreted as the love for money and material things often leads to a disdain for charity and compassion.

Interestingly, Jesus also taught, as quoted in the book of Luke, chapter 14, a practice we follow here.  He said that when one holds a feast or banquet, one should make a point to invite those with less.  Don’t hold a party just for the fortunate few.  Hold it for everyone and thereby practice universal love and equality.

I so appreciate how some of you have followed that ethic and offered to pay for GNH members who have tight holiday budgets and would otherwise forego attending our holiday party.  We are a beloved community that does not esteem the sum of someone’s wealth, but rather the unique goodness in each person.  All are invited to attend every event we hold – no matter what can be paid or not.  That seemingly minor practice is our own version of socialism.

Jewish religious rules, established centuries before Jesus,  encouraged similar attitudes toward wealth and treatment of the poor.  Farmers were forbidden in the Book of Leviticus from reaping crops along the edges of fields.  Produce from those areas must be saved for those in need. 

       Also, every fifty years was declared a year of Jubilee.  It was a celebration year when all debts were forgiven.  Land, houses and property reverted back to the first owners and everyone essentially began anew.  Nobody owned land but rather leased it until Jubilee years – all of this was due to Jewish belief that Yahweh, or god, is the true owner of everything.  People own nothing.  That early Jewish ideal was an early socialist one.  Wealth could not be passed from one generation to the next because of the Jubilee.  People could be economically comfortable, but nobody could be rich – all because of the Jubilee.  It significantly contributed to a more egalitarian society.

Sadly, Jubilee ideals were not long practiced.  The book of Amos, chapters 2 and 4, says Jewish culture eventually turned greedy and uncaring.  It quotes god as saying this:

For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They who sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.

They who trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground,
and they who deny justice to the oppressed.

You will each go straight out
through breaches in the wall,
and you will be cast out toward Harmon.”

Harmon was the sewage and waste dump for Jerusalem.  It was a foul place that burned almost non-stop.  Jews considered it the gateway to hell.  The Biblical message is clear.  God champions equality, respect and dignity for everyone – especially the poor and marginalized.

As I said two weeks ago, there are over two thousand verses in the Bible that teach compassion and justice for the poor and oppressed.  I could spend the next week repeating them.  Suffice it to say that the Bible, from beginning to end, is full of verses that teach economic justice as a primary concern of god.

As I’ve also said the last two Sundays, I lament the misinterpretation of the Bible by many religiously conservative Christians.  Many of them ignore these 2000 plus verses and instead focus on a few which they believe teach a prosperity gospel.  God will reward those who are faithful with abundant wealth, they believe.  They quote the book of Malachi, chapter 3, which says god will “open the windows of heaven for you and pour out all the blessings you need”…….IF you tithe ten per cent of your income to his churches.

But this interpretation – that god will enrich you if you give generously to his churches – is grossly inconsistent with the true message of the Bible.   Malachi verses say that if you donate to the work of a church, you will be blessed.  The verses do not say you will be blessed with money or things.  You will be blessed instead with a joy that comes from giving – the kind that brings a content feeling after serving and caring for another.  Indeed, Jesus taught that we should save up the kind of good wealth that rust and moth can’t destroy – meaning the “wealth” of charity, kindness and humility.

Prosperity gospel Christians, like the televangelist who refused to open his 17,000 seat church in Houston to victims of hurricane Harvey, also often cite the book of Philippians, chapter 4, which says god will meet all a believer’s wishes.  He will do that, they believe, because god has made a contract with humans.  In this prosperity theology, god will bless us and allow us dominion over the earth in return for our obedience – meaning if we obey his rules, believe in him, and give to his churches, then he will make us as wealthy as we desire.

I believe such teachings are both wrong and, frankly, evil.  Imagine hearing such an interpretation of the Bible, believing with all your heart that it is true and yet years later, you find yourself deeply in debt and not rich.  Have you not believed?  Is your faith deficient?  According to the prosperity gospel, it is.  If you are fortunate to be wealthy, however, that means god favors you!  You truly believe and have been faithful to him.  Such an interpretation of the Bible is used today as a form of social Darwinism.  The rich deserve their wealth because they are the good and capable.  The poor deserve their poverty because they are bad, lazy and stupid.  If you are unlucky enough to be middle class or poor, well your faith must be no good.  Or your donations to the church have not been large enough.  Why not write a big check to the church and then,THEN god will make you rich!

If these interpretations of the Bible are accurate, then why was Jesus so poor?  Why did he not have a house of his own?  Why did he need to rely on the kindness of his followers for support?  Why did he tell a wealthy, arrogant prince that the only way he can get to heaven would be to give all his money to the poor?  Why did he tell the story of Lazarus and a rich man?  Lazarus, who was poor all his life, finds himself resting in the peace of heaven, while a rich man, who was Lazarus’ exploitive employer, pleads from the fiery depths of hell to have pity and give him a drink of water?  According to conservative Christian misinterpretations of the Bible about wealth and poverty, Jesus should have been

weak, sinful and dumb.

Woe to false teachers and hypocrites, Jesus often said.  I imagine he would say the same to wealthy ministers and Christians who believe and teach a prosperity gospel.

As I’ve done at the conclusion of my last two messages, I explain the primary point of my message.  Does the Bible say god is a socialist?  Yes and no.  The Bible does not condemn wealth.  Rather, as I’ve said before, god condemns greed and the love of wealth.  It’s our attitude toward money that counts.  Can a rich person go to heaven?  Of course.  Wealthy individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet might meet the criteria for heaven – if one exists.  They earned their wealth by hard work and innovations that should be rewarded.  Most important, they have pledged the vast bulk of their wealth to support the poor, sick and oppressed.

But philanthropy is not socialism.  Indeed, under most forms of socialism, Gates and Buffet would not have been able to make their fortunes.  Furthermore, the inclination of many wealthy people is, as Jesus said, to always want more and to mostly ignore the poor.  Ideas like trickle down economics and unrestrained free market capitalism inspire rampant greed and the ultimate failure of a society.

As an economic idea, socialism suggests that the means of production be communally owned and profits be fairly distributed.  That model, as opposed to capitalism, however, is a difficult one to favor since it can lead to laziness and an unwillingness to work hard or innovate.  Your neighbor, who may not want to work, will get just as much as you.  The Bible teaches that those who wish to eat must also work and that those who DO work hard are worthy of their wages.  Jesus, I believe, would not support unrestricted capitalism – but neither would he advocate pure socialism.

What I do know is that in the modern world, the Nordic economic models of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland offer a possible resolution between capitalism and socialism.  Citizens can own private property and they can modestly prosper themselves through hard work and innovation.  But extreme wealth is not possible.  But neither is extreme  poverty.  Many peoples believe those countries come the closest to practicing genuine Jesus ethics and the type of socialism adopted by early Christians.

What I do find offensive are interpretations of the Bible that say god will reward believers with great wealth.  Such teachers and preachers have hijacked the Bible.  As progressively spiritual people, we must take it back.  The ideal society, as clearly taught in the Bible, is one similar to that created by ancient Jews and early Christians.  In such societies, there was no poverty, no want and no hunger.  Everybody worked and everyone shared with one another in a compassionate, gentle and cooperative realm of peace and joy.   I believe we should aspire to do the same.

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

 

The Biblical Book of Genesis, chapter one, says the following:

God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may have dominion over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 

   So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.   Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

When considering the title of my message today, “Surprisingly Liberal Lessons from the Bible: God is a Tree-Hugger” these verses are crucial ones to examine.   They have been been used by conservative Christians and Jews as justification for supporting exploitation of the environment.  They rely on several key phrases in the verses.  The verses also imply that humans are extremely important to god.  We were intended to be the pinnacle of everything she created.

The passage then says humans are to subdue and have dominion over the earth and all creatures who populate it.   We are supposed to conquer and then dominate all of nature.

As I said in my message last week on the topic ‘God is Gay’, most conservative Christians and Jews understand the Bible literally.  It means what it specifically says, they believe.  Their understanding of the Bible is thus not open to nuance, symbolic meaning or new interpretation.  Modern science and its discoveries are equally irrelevant to them.  Differences in how ancient words are translated, or the context in which they were originally written, are also unimportant.  If the Bible says God, as an  all powerful theistic being, looks like us, created the universe in six days, and did so six thousand years ago, then that is exactly what happened.

Much like the six Bible verses that supposedly condemn homosexuality have been misinterpreted by Christians and Jews, so too has the passage from Genesis I  been misinterpreted.  For conservative Christians and Jews, Genesis is literal history.  They refuse to see it as allegory  – a myth likely intended not to be fact, but to teach principles about how and why the universe and its creatures came into existence.  For religious conservatives, the Bible’s creation story teaches that humans are a special and superior creation.  They alone have souls and are given the ability to reason.  Because of these attributes, humans exist not as one part of nature, but as rulers over nature. 

The universe, according to a conservative understanding of Genesis, is anthropocentric.  Humans are the literal and symbolic center of the universe.  We are the reason why everything else exists.  Nature is to serve us.

That understanding of what the Bible says has therefore impacted how humans have historically treated nature.  In 1967, Professor Lynn Townsend White wrote a landmark article for the journal Science.  In it, he claims that Christians have long interpreted the Bible to say that the earth is a resource for human benefit alone.  That view has always been harmful to the environment, he wrote, but it began to cause even greater harm with the Industrial Revolution when the extraction of resources, and pollution of the earth, became exponentially greater.

In White’s view, the problem for the environment is not man-made science and technology, but rather the exploitive attitude people have toward the earth.  That attitude comes directly from a conservative misinterpretation of the Bible.  We must abandon our contemptuous and superior attitude toward the earth, be believes, and instead adopt what the Bible actually teaches: the earth and its creatures are equal to us, we must live in balance with nature since we are a part of it, and most important, we are not to have dominion over nature, but rather as good stewards of it.

Last Sunday, Jack Brennan said during talkback that he mostly did not care what the Bible says – even as he agreed that it teaches some worthwhile ethics.  In many respects, I agree with him.  The Bible is just one source to which we can look for spiritual wisdom.  But it is not the only source and so it would s not as important as many Americans make it.  The Torah, the Koran, the Hindu Upanishads, the wisdom sayings of indigenous peoples, and numerous science books all offer equally valuable insights.

A basic principle of Unitarian Universalism is that we look to many sources for capital ’T’ Truth – or what some call ‘god.’  In that regard, we believe there are many paths to finding Truth or god.  Science, spirituality and humanist / Atheist beliefs all offer a path for determining them.

The problem with fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as I see it, is that they claim their particular path is the ONLY path.  All others are invalid.  Religious conservative have the right to believe this in their homes and places of worship.  They do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others through laws, schools and textbooks.  Nobody has a monopoly on what might be spiritually true since god, or no god, is a matter of belief and not empirical, evidence based based conclusions.  Despite that, religious fundamentalists continue to try and impose their beliefs about scriptures on everyone.

And that is precisely the reason why I ultimately disagree with Jack Brennan.  We should care what the Bible says and how it is interpreted –  since it unfortunately influences our rights, laws and environment.  Even more important, it is essential to counteract conservative misinterpretations with ones that are open minded and, yes, liberal.   My message series this month is one way, I hope, to equip us with arrows of truth to counteract the misinterpretations.

In 1999, conservative U.S. Christians published what is called the Cornwall Declaration on the environment.  Calvin Beisner, founder of this fundamentalist Christian movement, says pro-environmentalists are part of what he calls “the green dragon.”  For many Christians, a dragon is representative of Satan.  Environmentalists are the enemy of Christ and all Christians, he said.  Environmentalism is a cult that considers nature more important than people.  He claims the Bible teaches that humans are “special creatures, in a class of our own, quite separate from, and superior to, trees and animals.”  Environmentalists are neo-pagans and pantheists – spiritual groups he says are Satanic.  Those who profess a concern for the earth, plants and animals commit the greatest of sins – according to the Biblical author Paul – they worship creation instead of the creator.

In 2004, the most influential of conservative Christian denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention, resolved at is annual conference to oppose pro-environment solutions which it claims are not Biblical, are based on false science, and prevent the free access to natural resources that exist for human benefit.

As an interesting observation, the current EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, is a committed Southern Baptist, a deacon in his Oklahoma Southern Baptist church and member of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Board of Trustees.  He has said he believes God would never allow climate change to happen, and it is therefore not real.

Professor White’s claim that religious interpretations of the Bible have harmed the environment seems to still be happening even as I speak.

So, how has the Bible been misinterpreted?  In the Genesis verses I read earlier, humans are to have dominion over plants and animals.  They  are to subdue the earth.  The Hebrew word for dominion – as used in original manuscripts of Genesis – is “radah”.  It means to rule or control.  In other Bible verses, “radah” has an antagonistic meaning – to defeat and strike down an enemy.  The word ‘subdue’, which also appears in the verses, is translated from the Hebrew word “radash,” which means to subjugate.  These translations are why conservative Christians and Jews have historically interpreted Genesis to mean humans are commanded by god to control, subjugate and exploit nature as they wish.

But as I said last week, religiously conservative interpreters and preachers are disingenuous when they claim the Bible teaches nature is ours to dominate.  Genesis, chapter 2 is believed by most commentators to provide a detailed explanation of Genesis chapter 1 and the notorious verses I read earlier.  For example, Chapter 2  elaborates on chapters one’s statement that god created male and female.  Chapter 2 gives the details on HOW she created humans – by gathering up dust to form Adam and by taking a rib from him to form Eve.

Other details in chapter 2 offer context for the chapter 1 words ‘dominion’ and ‘subdue’.  In Genesis, chapter 2, the Bible says this: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it.”  It does not say humans were created to dominate and subdue Eden or nature.  In Hebrew, the word for tend is “shamar” – which means to guard, watch over and protect.  The Hebrew word for cultivate is “abad” which means to serve.  Translated according to these meanings, Genesis, chapter 2, provides this contextual detail to the verses I read at the outset: “God took humans and put them in nature to abad and shamar it – to serve it, to protect it, and to watch over it.”

In other words, the Bible itself tells people how to interpret it.  Humans are NOT to dominate and subjugate nature.  We are NOT to be conquerers and rulers of it.  We are to be guardians and good stewards of it.  And stewardship is a key idea here.  It contrasts sharply with the idea of dominion.  Our Board stewards this congregation, its finances, resources and staff.  It does not subdue you – and if it tried, I imagine we’d all revolt.  Parents carefully and lovingly steward their children to adulthood.  Since my mom cannot make decisions for herself, I steward her money so she will be provided for.   Stewardship implies a deep and watching love for another – one that involves tenderness, care and guidance.  That is how the Bible teaches how we should treat the environment.   

Many other verses in both the Old and New Testaments agree with that tree-hugger and surprisingly liberal lesson.  Psalm 24, attributed to King David – the most revered of Jewish leaders – says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.” Psalm 95 states that the sea and the land are God’s since he made them.  The New Testament book of Colossians, chapter 1, says the same.  All of nature, its resources and its plants and animals – including humans – belong only to God and she loves them all.  Nature does NOT belong to humans.  The book of Job, chapter 12, says that nature instead reveals god to us.  Attributes such as goodness, beauty, living in balance and, yes, peace – are all evident in nature.  As Unitarians, we believe the same.  The earth and all that live upon it ARE god.

The Biblical book of Revelation, the last in the Bible and one that describes the end-times, says in chapter 11 that on the final judgement day, god will rage against – and punish destroyers of the earth.  In Revelation, chapter 22, it says that after punishing earth’s destroyers, god will restore the earth to how she created it.  In that restored earth, in a new garden of Eden, a bright and clear river will flow.  Countless trees, loaded with abundant fruit, will grow too.  Lions will lie down next to lambs.  Peace and harmony will predominate.  In other words, god’s intention is that the earth be an Eden like perfection – clean, unpolluted, and widely populated with plants and animals all living in balance.

Just as I concluded my message last week, I believe the Bible has been wrongly translated and misinterpreted by religious conservatives.   It’s been hijacked by them.  As religious progressives, our task is to rescue it for the sake of our nation’s laws and policies.

As stewards of the earth, it does not belong to humans.  It is god’s – it is hers – meaning that it belongs to eternity, to all creatures, and to the idea of capital ’T’ Truth.  How we individually steward nature says much about who we are and the legacy we leave to our children, grandchildren and generations beyond.  If god is the power of love and we are to be god-like powers of love too, then we must act with love toward our future progeny by leaving them a thriving and healthy planet.  The Bible tells us we are to serve, protect and love the earth, and all that dwell upon it.

I wish you all peace and joy.          

      

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

You may listen to the message by clicking here or see below to read it.

This past Tuesday was the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther publishing his 95 protests against the Catholic Church.  That act stands as one of the most significant events in human history not because of its implications for Christianity, but because Luther asserted the freedom of individuals to think for themselves.  One does not need a Priest, Pope or King to determine what to believe.  

Luther claimed, however, that the Bible is the only source for understanding god and her teachings.  Many critics say that claim made the Bible an idol – a human made thing that is worshipped apart from its meaning.  For us, it would be like worshipping the flaming chalice instead of the ideals it represents.  

Conservative Christians and Jews worship the Bible like an idol by claiming its verses mean exactly what they say and that they should be understood literally.  They mostly ignore the context of those verses or how ancient words were and are translated. 

For today’s message that I’ve entitled “Surprisingly Liberal Lessons from the Bible: God is Gay”, I believe that such a literal approach to understanding the Bible negatively influences how people consider homosexuality.  Bible verses that supposedly speak against it have been misinterpreted or wrongly translated.  That has led to discrimination and persecution of gays, lesbians and transexuals.     

I believe the overall message of the Bible is that god is love – a statement which the Bible itself makes.  While I don’t believe god is a theistic being floating on a heavenly cloud, whatever she is – or is not, she is a force for truth and love.  Everything and everyone that manifests those qualities are therefore god-like.  God is thus gay but also straight, bisexual, transexual and all other identities.  God is not just one form of love, she is ALL forms of love. 

That understanding is dramatically different from that of religious conservatives.  The problem with their thinking is a refusal to be open minded to different or ongoing interpretation.  Indeed, despite scientific and social justice advances, conservative Christians and Jews still literally believe Bible verses indicate the earth is six-thousand years old, that women are to be subservient to men, that homosexuals are abominations, and that African-Americans are deficient because they are descendants from one of Noah’s cursed sons.

These beliefs are not just private ones by people who have a right to believe as they wish.  They are interpretations that have been forced into our laws, textbooks, and popular opinion.  My message today will be one, I hope, that provides “arrows of truth” we can use against false interpretations of the Bible.

I’ve elaborated in past messages how I was treated by a former church when I came out as gay.  I was told by members and fellow ministers that I was possessed by the devil and was destined for hell.  The six so-called homosexual “clobber” Bible verses were read to me as if I did not know them.  People defined me by one small part of who I am, and thus dehumanized me.  I was no longer a friend or minister – with strengths and flaws like any other person.  I was a disgusting person worthy of death – all words from their interpretation of the Bible.

What happened to me was nothing compared to what has happened – and still happens – to millions of gay men and women.  Nineteen years ago Matthew Shepard was abducted, beaten, tied to a fence and left to die in Laramie, Wyoming – because he was gay.  Less than fifty years ago, men and women in the US were regularly arrested for visiting gay bars.  Not much more than a hundred years ago, men and women in England and the U.S. were imprisoned for being homosexual – Oscar Wilde being the most prominent.  Today, in nations from Russia to Uganda, gay men and women live in fear of being found out, imprisoned, tortured and killed.  All of those actions are justified by people who cite verses from the Bible.

But the Bible verses they cite are falsely interpreted.  Indeed, the Bible’s six verses that are used to condemn homosexuality actually teach against attitudes of greed, cruelty and lust.  There are also several verses which can arguably be interpreted as endorsing homosexuality and that even suggest Jesus and other Biblical characters were gay.

The oldest term for homosexuality is sodomy.  It’s a pejorative term that should rarely be used.  It comes from the Biblical book of Genesis, chapter 19, which tells a story about the mythical town Sodom.  Two angels, disguised as men, visit Lot and his family who live in Sodom.  One evening a mob of the town’s men gather outside Lot’s door.  They demand that Lot force his two guests outside so that the mob can rape them.  Lot is horrified and refuses to comply.  As the mob becomes more insistent, Lot offers to send out his two daughters instead.  The story is deeply troubling and says something more significant about how ancient cultures treated women then it supposedly does about homosexuality.

The disguised angels are not raped but god angrily destroys Sodom.  Only Lot and his family are allowed to escape – even though Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar salt for looking back longingly at her hometown.  As a result of this myth, the word ‘sodomy’ has been – and still is – used to derisively refer to homosexuality.

What Bible interpreters, translators and preachers have historically refused to do, however, is teach the Bible’s own reason for why Sodom was destroyed.  This is what the Biblical book Ezekiel, chapter 16, says:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

The Bible itself says it was not homosexuality that made god destroy Sodom.  Instead, the wealthy town had become abusive and uncaring toward the poor, immigrants, and homeless.  Nowhere in the Bible is it said that god destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality.  

Two other often cited verses by Christians and Jews come from the book of Leviticus, chapters 18 and 20.  That book is a laundry list of religious rules to govern the behavior of ancient Jews – ones like rules forbidding the eating of shellfish, cutting one’s sideburns, or mixing fabrics in clothing.  Out of many rules like those are two against men who have relations with men.  The breaking of any of the rules, however, was labeled an abomination.

Religious conservatives are thus disingenuous when they claim the two rules against homosexuality are universal ones intended for everyone.  These people fail to provide the context in which the book was written.

Leviticus was written around 500 BCE after Israel had been conquered by Babylonia – today’s Iraq.  That conquest is historical fact.  Jerusalem and its great Temple were destroyed.  Many of its citizens were forced into slavery.  Many rabbis of the time blamed Jewish culture for its fall.  Jews had become rich, lazy, uncaring and promiscuous.  Much like in today’s America, the wealthy few prospered while the majority struggled. 

Jews were implored to care more about people than wealth, and care more about being and doing good than just appearing good.  And so rabbis compiled a list of behaviors to encourage Jews to return to the heart of their religion and renew their compassionate and decent ways.   When read in context, Leviticus is a document intended for a very limited audience, time and set of circumstances.  It was not written with any understanding of science, psychology or circumstances outside of its particular situation.  If it was, then Christians and Jews who today shave their sideburns, eat shrimp or wear polyester are committing sins that Leviticus says are worthy of death.     

Two New Testament verses are also routinely used by conservative Christians to attack gays and lesbians.  One verse from the book of Romans, chapter 1, allegedly says women and men who sleep with same sex partners are disgusting and deserve death.  Another verse from First Corinthians, chapter 6, supposedly compares gay men to thieves and murderers.  They will not go to heaven but go instead to hell. 

I have a problem with Paul as a Biblical author and teacher.  Paul was a self-proclaimed apostle of Jesus but he never met Jesus and admits to once being a militant Jew who opposed him.  And yet Paul arrogantly claims he was equal to the followers who faithfully supported Jesus before his death.

Because of that fact, I find minimal value in Paul’s teachings but great value in the teachings of Jesus as contained in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Jesus never taught against homosexuality in the gospels.  It is troubling to me, therefore, that Christians prefer to listen to Paul instead of their messiah Jesus.

The two verses from Paul that supposedly condemn homosexuality are incorrectly translated and understood.  In those verses, Paul used an extremely rare ancient Greek word when allegedly referring to gay men:  as-ren-koi-tai.  Literally translated, the word is a combination of two ancient Greek words for ‘male’ and ‘bed.’  Translators long ago thus decided it meant men who bed with men. This word, however, appears almost nowhere else in ancient writings.  Where it does appear, in two non-Biblical documents, the word refers to people who abuse the poor.

That meaning makes more sense considering the context in which Paul wrote.  Paul spread Christianity in a self-focused Roman culture that ostentatiously displayed wealth, entertained itself with gladiator fights to the death, and encouraged sexual abuse of women, slaves, children and animals.  If one reads Paul’s verses in that context and with the translation I’ve described, he condemned not homosexuality, but rather Rome’s decadent culture.  Indeed, Paul adds that the people he condemns are greedy, arrogant and boastful.  They are not loving or merciful.

If you see a recurring theme in Bible verses that allegedly condemn homosexuality, you are right.  There are over 2000 verses that condemn greed and indifference to the poor.  There are just six supposedly against homosexuality.  When examined closely, those six verses don’t even condemn same sex love – but say what the rest of the Bible does.  The most important ethics to follow are to live humbly and care for the poor and marginalized.

But beyond those verses, I also believe there are Bible verses that endorse homosexuality.  In the book of Matthew, chapter 18, Jesus addressed the issue of marriage and sex.  As a part of that discourse, he discussed eunuchs and their place in society.  For his culture, eunuchs were not only men unable to procreate, they were also gay men.  Since a word for “homosexual” did not exist at the time, scholars claim the word “eunuch” included any man who did not have relations with a woman.   Jesus says that those eunuchs who are gay are born that way.  And he follows that up by saying they are loved by god.

Later, in the book of Acts, chapter 8, Jesus’ apostle Phillip meets and baptizes a black eunuch whom he saw reading an Old Testament passage that sympathetically discusses those who are despised and rejected.  Some commentators believe this eunuch was a gay man.  The Jesus ethic of inclusion and love for everyone was what Phillip followed.

Of equal interest is the fact that the Bible favorably depicts three possibly gay couples.  Namoi and Ruth are one such couple in the book of Ruth, chapter 1.  They are strong, independent women who the Bible says loved one another like Adam loved Eve.  King David, the most revered leader in Jewish history, had a deep and close relationship with Jonathon as described in the book of Second Samuel, chapter 1.  The two were inseparable, they embraced passionately after a long separation and David’s love for Jonathon is described as greater than that for a woman. Added to these verses are ones that I and others believe suggest that Jesus was also in a gay relationship. 

Jesus regularly referred to the apostle John as his beloved.  At the last supper, John rested his head on Jesus’ shoulder in a public display of affection.  After the supper, on the night before his death, Jesus retreated to a quiet place to reflect.  The gospel of Mark, chapter 14, says that a young man, dressed only in a short, one piece tunic – male underwear of the time – was with Jesus.  Some interpreters believe the young man was John.  The next day, as Jesus was being executed, only his mother and John stayed with him – the two people he loved most.  Even though Jesus had a brother, his last wish was that John bring Mary into his home and take care of her.

Commentators believe the Bible shows that each of these three couples – Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathon, Jesus and John – had at least homo-social relationships – ones that were intimate, close and loving.  The Bible never says those relationships were wrong.

It’s a provocative claim to say god is gay.  That’s not the primary point I want to make, however.  The Bible has been symbolically hijacked by religious conservatives who say it teaches against same sex love.  They have a right to that interpretation but a more accurate interpretation of verses in the Bible is surprisingly liberal.   The Bible is primarily concerned not with sexual behaviors, but with encouraging acts of charity to those who suffer from prejudice, poverty and illness.  Most importantly, as I said at the outset, the Bible tells us that whatever one believes god to be or not be, she is compassionate, caring and kind.  God most certainly does not hate gays, lesbians and transexuals.  In fact, the Bible tells us she loves them just as much as she loves all people.

I wish you all much peace and joy. 

Text of Dave’s message to be posted soon.  Stay tuned!

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

 

All of us likely know the popular wisdom saying about killing the goose that lays a golden egg.  It’s from one of Aesop’s fables.  The story, which I embellish, goes as follows: a happy farmer and his wife live on a small plot of land that provides them all they need.  One day the farmer discovers his goose has laid a strange looking egg – one he cannot eat.  He realizes it is an egg of solid gold.  He and his wife are delighted.  They suddenly have wealth they never had.  They immediately buy new home furnishings – but soon complain that the new things don’t look very nice in an old and drab farmhouse. 

After the goose lays another gold egg, the farmer and his wife build a large new house so their furniture will look nicer.  But that winter, the house is cold and damp.  The farmer and his wife do not have enough money to buy warm clothes and pay to heat their large home.  Once again, the goose comes through and they have enough money to buy winter clothes and provide heat.

But a new house, new furniture and new clothes do not seem enough.  They realize that when warm weather comes, they will need new summer clothing, many fans to cool their home, and a horse and wagon to take them to nearby mountains where they can enjoy cooler air.  They also say they need new kitchen items to better cook food, new cows to provide fresh milk and cheese, more geese and chickens to provide edible eggs, and a new tractor to till the field on which to grow grain to feed their animals.

The farmer and his wife suddenly realize all of these new things cannot be paid for with one gold egg.  They want many gold eggs – and they want them now.  The farmer decides they should kill the goose to remove all of its golden eggs at once – and thereby have enough for their many supposed needs.  He kills his beloved goose and begins to explore its inside organs.  After panicked searching, he finds no gold eggs.  He had literally and figuratively killed the goose that lays gold eggs – his ticket to long term well-being.

The fable is obviously one about greed and how the downside of that mindset often leads to excess and overreach.  But as Tom just taught our children, the story might also be interpreted as one about differences between abundance mentality and one that is fearful of scarcity.  No matter how much we have, our tendency is to think we need more.  That’s a truth many people discover when their income improves.  The more well-off a person or family becomes, the poorer they often feel.  In a 2016 survey, one-third of American households with annual incomes over $75,000.00 live paycheck to paycheck.  Nearly 75% of Americans have less than $1000.00 in a readily available cash savings account.  The average family owes $16,000.00 in credit card debt. 

I’m reminded from these statistics of a commercial that aired a few years ago.  A man sits on his lawnmower on lush, green grass in front of a large suburban home.  He smiles at the camera and says his family has two new cars, a boat, a house with a swimming pool, and they just returned from a European vacation.  He pauses for several seconds – and then says through a very forced smile – “And we’re in debt up to our eyeballs!”

Sadly, many people are killing the goose that lays a golden egg.  They choose short-term pleasure over saving that can insure long-term happiness.

For such people we often render unkind judgement.  They are greedy and impulsive.  Because of these supposed flaws of character, they deserve their financial distress.

But psychologists believe, instead, that many people suffer instead from an unconscious fear of scarcity which prompts behaviors that ironically cause the very thing they fear.  The farmer and his wife succumb to that fear.  Once they begin to have extra wealth, they spend it on things they believe they need, only to find themselves in a cycle that tells them they don’t have enough – which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Instead of being content with what one has – which is the foundation of abundance thinking, financial experts say most people fear scarcity no matter how much they earn or have – and so they irrationally go into debt, overspend on housing, and crucially are unable to mentally separate needs from wants.

This fear of scarcity manifests itself in several ways.  It begins with feelings of insecurity and a lack of confidence, psychologists say.  That insecurity leads to a fear of scarcity which orients the brain to think only of what he or she believes they lack.  The hungry focus on food.  The lonely focus on social isolation. And those who feel poor focus on buying and spending.

What this irrational mindset causes are counter-intuitive outcomes.  The hungry often overeat and become even more unhealthy.  The lonely latch on to the first person that shows them attention and often end up driving that potential friend away.  Those who feel poor – even persons who earn middle class or higher incomes – overspend and then actually become poor.  It’s not gluttony, social awkwardness or greed that causes such results.  They all originate from basic insecurity and fear.    

As Dr. Brene Brown, author of the book Daring Greatly writes, the fear of scarcity comes from lies our unconscious minds tell us – we don’t have enough, be afraid, consume, consume, consume!  We irrationally believe the opposite of scarcity is abundance – lots of food, being a millionaire, or having many friends.  In truth, the healthy opposite of scarcity is just enough.

A mentality of scarcity, experts say, causes anti-social behaviors.  Such fear causes people to feel entitled, hold grudges, blame others, avoid change, be pessimistic, play the victim, be impulsive, hoard things, hope others will fail, think they already know everything and….overall, to feel unfulfilled. The overriding attitude is one of selfishness and me-first.

A philosophy of abundance – or enough – causes people to instead have mostly cooperative attributes.  Experts say that those with an abundance mentality have a strong sense of gratitude, they freely compliment others, they give others credit for things well done, they’re generous and optimistic, they are proactive, they volunteer and serve, they embrace change, they want to continually learn and grow, and overall, they exude joy.

We do not need to be a millionaire, eat large meals, or have a hundred friends to feel abundance.  Instead, we simply need enough for basic needs – and then believe we have all we need.  That switch of cognition is the way to address inner fear.  If I can learn to believe I have enough, and intentionally try to regularly think and feel that way, I will reorient my brain’s thinking and end negative behaviors.

The Swedes have a name for a philosophy of enough.  They call it “lagom“ and they use it in a popular proverb which translates as “Enough is as good as a feast.”  Swedes are taught at a young age that just the right amount, not too little and not too much, is best.  Sweden has some of the world’s highest tax rates – but they use tax money to insure that everyone has “lagom” – enough.  And that earns them happiness levels that lead the world.  As a culture, they promote the ethic that moderation in all things is key.

Jesus taught about this abundance mentality with his so-called miracle of loaves and fishes.  It’s a story told in all four of the Biblical gospels.  Five-thousand admirers traveled to the countryside to hear Jesus speak.  Like many ministers and rabbis, he spoke too long and it got late.  His disciples became afraid.  It was getting dark, most of the people lived a ways off and had not eaten for many hours.  The only food that could be found were five fish and two loaves of bread.  Jesus told them to break the food into pieces and distribute them.  Amazingly, all 5000 were fed enough.

Whether or not the miracle happened is not my point.  The story and lesson has power.  Perhaps less miraculous events did take place.  It’s easy to imagine that people who had hidden a stash of food in their clothing were motivated to share.  Perhaps many took less then their share.  Perhaps others did without – knowing they could forego one meal.  Perhaps some enterprising persons began fishing in the nearby Sea of Galilee to provide additional food.  Whatever happened, writers of all four gospels believed the story important enough to include since it highlighted Jesus’ attitude about wealth – recognize we already have abundance, trust in the goodness of others, and importantly, always serve, share and give.

The Buddha taught much the same.  Our primary problem in life is desire, he said.  We want – and then we want some more.  These wants cause us distress because we usually don’t get what we want.  We then spend a lot of time dreaming and scheming but never feeling content.  When we let go of our desire, we learn to be satisfied – I have enough, I need no more, I’m at peace.  Our attachment to things, and wanting more of them, as the Buddha said, comes from fear – exactly as modern mental health professionals say.

Instead, Buddhist mindfulness asks us to recognize our fears when we feel them.  As we acknowledge them, we should reflect on them: Where does that fear come from?  Is it a realistic?  What is the truth of my present situation? 

Hopefully, such mindful reflection will help one begin to let go of insecurity.  I’m not really poor.  I have a decent house, enough food, and a few close family members and friends.  In truth, I’m rich!

For me, a fear of scarcity has several unwanted effects.  I can hold back, hoard money I do have, and be miserly.  I convince myself I need an IPhone 8, a new pair of hiking shoes, or nicer things for my house.  I can forget that money is simply a means to love, serve and feel the kind of peace that money cannot buy……..(pause)

It is never a minister’s place to tell church members what to pledge and give.  That is a deeply personal and very private matter.

What a minister can and should do is suggest the right principles behind giving.  Believe me, I require such reminders as much as anyone.  It’s a universal truth that irrational fear is unhealthy.  It’s why many say the opposite of love is not hate, but instead fear.  Learning to let go of feeling insecurity opens up hearts to love, serve and give.  A lack of fear helps one understand what is really important – the intangibles of life like feeling totally at peace in the arms of a loved one, enjoying simple pleasures like walks in a park, or the company of dear friends.  The greatest of life’s intangible wealth, though, is to feel purpose and meaning – to know that one has tread gently in life – humbly listening, serving, giving and making a difference for good.

No matter the words we use in a Unison Affirmation or Mission Statement, that is who we are and what we do.  We come to learn, grow, and be inspired – and then quietly return to our homes, workplaces, schools, and cities to make them better. 

We are not perfect in that mission, but we are doing very well.  And to make sure that continues, to make sure we do not isolate with fear inside these walls, we depend on each other – in our shared encouragement, serving, sharing and giving.  And with that togetherness, we perceive this congregation’s abundance.  Our cup overflows.

As we meditate on what to give next year to support the work we do, I know that such a mentality of love and abundance will guide us.

I wish you each 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 or see below to read it.

My message series this month is entitled “Seasons change and so can we!”  Today I’ll examine the topic of changing insensitivity.  Next week, I’ll look at changing a fear of scarcity.  And in two weeks time, we as a congregation will examine and discuss together the topic of changing implicit biases.

This series is one that emphasizes my belief that we are each change agents.  We live for a purpose – to change for the better ourselves… so that we can, in turn, change the world for the better.

Todays topic on changing insensitivity came to me about two months ago.  I was attending our monthly Sunday Planning Team meeting.  The agenda comprised sharing team member feedback on recent services, as well as discussing plans for upcoming ones.  Half-way through the meeting, however, I realized something was wrong.  Instead of being a true meeting – one that combined the shared thoughts of all those attending – it had become a meeting of one.  I was doing most of the talking.  I was leading but not facilitating.  I was not engaging in the kind of collaboration I encourage.  I focused mostly on points I wanted to make.  I failed to be aware of what others might be thinking or feeling.  I was using the force of my words to direct the meeting.  In other words, I was acting and speaking with insensitivity toward people I consider not only colleagues, but also good friends.

When I thought about my insensitivity later that day, I realized it was but a small example of what I decry in our society and world.   People everywhere are often terribly insensitive to the thoughts, feelings or dignity of others.    People speak far more than they listen.  They frequently don’t care how others might be hurt or adversely affected by their words or actions.  To be sensitive has come to be considered weak and ineffective.  Being politically correct was compared with being a snowflake in last year’s election – someone so delicate that they melt under the light of truth.  Boldness, arrogance and politically incorrect words have become the mark of strength in today’s world.

Like many of you, I’ve been saddened by this recent phenomena.  But I was even more saddened when I realized what I dislike in others can also be found in me.  Fortunately, I had enough sensitivity in that Sunday Planning team meeting to shut up (permanently gagging any minister is almost an impossibility!) and instead I began to listen and solicit other opinions.  And I hope that sensitivity will continue in future meetings I attend.

As I’ve thought about insensitivity in the world and in me, I believe three are three ways one can change it.  Doug’s three paths to greater sensitivity, and thus less insensitivity, are 1) be aware of others and their feelings at all times, 2) listen more than speak, and 3) always practice gentleness.

In any area of human interaction, I believe one must first be situationally aware of – or sensitive to – the feelings, thoughts, culture and background of others.  That involves using discernment to perceive how others feel and think, as well as immersing oneself in different surroundings to better understand the lives, traditions and challenges of others.  

As many of you know, I believe self-awareness is a worthy quality to have.  If a person is not able to perceive and admit to their strengths and weaknesses, then one has no hope of evolving and growing.  Coupled with self-awareness, however, is a complimentary ability to be fully aware of situations – with a special focus on sensing the feelings and thoughts of others. 

Most of us know the clues that help us perceive how others feel in any interaction.   The key is to remember to look for the clues and be sensitive to their existence.  Facial expressions are perhaps the most helpful clue’s for perceiving how others feel or think.  Does a person’s face show boredom, sadness, disapproval or surprise?  Do they maintain eye contact, or are they looking down or away?   Faces are windows into another soul.  When we perceive another’s inner fears, sorrows or joys, we can then sensitively adjust our speech and actions – to be more calming, apologetic, or upbeat

Experts also suggest we look for body language clues – are people we meet or speak with engaged and eagerly leaning into a conversation?  Or, do they lean away, slouch or seem disinterested?  Folded arms are a universal sign of disapproval or defensiveness.  Looking at the clock or one’s phone, or even worse – sleeping – these are obvious signs of disinterest.

Being aware, however, is not only about being sensitive to emotions and body language.  It also includes being sensitive to a situation.  Is it the right time or place to email, speak or act?  What’s clues about culture, tradition or values of other people can be used to guide a conversation? 

Also, can we expand our situational sensitivity by intentionally placing ourselves in unfamiliar or challenging places?  It was enlightening for me, as I know it was for other former Gathering members, to have our former church located downtown in Over-the-Rhine.  Most Gathering members lived in the suburbs but consciously chose to attend a church in an area where whites are a minority, where the homeless and poor predominate, and where the hurting and lost often end up – the addicts, prostitutes and mentally challenged.  For me, it opened my eyes to the conditions prevalent in such neighborhoods and to the humanity of area residents.  I know I am more sensitive as a result.

Like many former Gathering members, I particularly remember a former member named Danny.  He has some undefined mental challenges that may include Tourette’s Syndrome.  Danny would speak out in the middle of a service, gesticulate with his hands and arms, get up and walk around, or otherwise cause a mild disturbance.  His actions were sometimes annoying and they were certainly odd to visitors who did not know him.  But, as we grew to be aware of Danny’s life – his mental challenges and his lack of family or support systems, we saw how he’d overcome those obstacles to be a kind, concerned and self-sufficient man.  Keith and I occasionally see Danny and we stop and have a chat.  Putting ourselves in places where one can meet people like Danny is helpful for anyone – it broadens our knowledge and, hopefully, our empathy.

I lament the loss of that church location even as I am deeply thankful for this place.  Fortunately, I know that I and others in this congregation have multiple opportunities to serve and interact with the homeless and poor.  Increasing sensitivity to challenged persons is one reason why I encourage serving at the Lighthouse Sheakley homeless shelter, at the Valley Interfaith Community Resource Center – only a few miles from here, and at the UpSpring summer camp for homeless children.  Some of you tutor at area disadvantaged schools.  I firmly believe such interactions help not only those we serve, but also us.  We get out of the bubbles in which at least I too often live – and we open ourselves to the wider world around us which needs our awareness and help.

The second path to sensitivity is to listen more than speak.  That means one must not only hear what another says, one must to be an active listener – a person who engages in conversation to learn, empathize, and respect others. 

Many experts claim that listening is the most fundamental of interpersonal communication skills.  As a culture, we admire those who speak passionately and eloquently.  But, as experts say, eloquence is secondary to the ability to comprehend, assimilate and show concern for what has been heard.  Far too often, I will hear words spoken to me, but I am too focused on what I want to say or what I believe to be true – and thus do not listen to and understand the content or emotions of what has been said.  I hear but I don’t listen.

To become an active listener, like being more aware, involves conscious effort.  Active listening uses of all of the senses.  One not only hears a speaker, one also sees, smells and perceives underlying facts and feelings of what someone says.  Active listeners are alert and attuned.  Their body posture leans toward the speaker. Arms are never crossed but are instead loose and open.  Active listeners offer continuing verbal and non-verbal feedback with periodic smiles, nods, or “mmmn – hmmm’s”.  Active listeners also mirror what is said by expressing a relevant emotion – a laugh at something funny, a look of sorrow at something sad, or a shake of the head at something disappointing.  Such mirroring lets the speaker know they’ve been both heard and understood.

Active listeners also ask clarifying questions of what a person has said.   They remember a few key points (most especially the speaker’s name!) and include them in a brief summary once a speaker concludes.  Those who are excellent listeners fully give themselves to the other.  They do not think of what they want to say when the other is talking.  Nor do they interrupt to argue or change the subject.  They not only make a speaker feel as if they have been heard, active listeners make the effort to comprehend and empathize with what’s been said.  This does not mean a listener must agree with a speaker.  But, and this is a critical but, sensitive people – those who are excellent listeners – they let go of their egos to fully understand and show respect.

Finally, I believe the third way to be sensitive is to be gentle at all times.  Gentleness is not weakness, but instead shows consideration and kindness in all that one says and does.  The operating principle of gentleness is to do no harm to the feelings of others.

Gentleness is a spiritual ideal valued in all world religions.  The Bible says that one’s actions should always be peaceful, gentle, and merciful.  Jesus described himself as being gentle and humble of heart and he asked his followers to be the same.  The Buddha said that no matter what else a person does in life, he or she must be gentle if his or her intention is to never hurt or harm another.

The challenge for all of us is to disagree with someone while still being gentle.  President Obama wisely said people can disagree without being disagreeable.  That’s an art that is difficult to practice but must nevertheless be everyone’s intention.  When I believe I should share my hurt feelings with an offender, I try to use what I call a verbal, or wirttien, “love sandwich.”  I first thank the person for their opinion or action – doing so without any sarcasm, judgement or anger.  Then I tell them in a kind way how I wish things had happened instead – once again not judging the other but making them aware of the substance of my disappointment.  I finally conclude my communication with an offender by again expressing love – telling him or her how appreciative I am for them and the specific ways they help or are kind to me.  I sandwich my disappointment in between two slices of love.  That not only helps me maintain loving feelings for the offender – it usually helps him or her accept what I’ve said.

I believe gentleness also sometimes means that we forgive and forget offenses.  We let go of a desire to tell another how hurt we are.

I’ve learned the hard way that telling someone I’ve been hurt by a mild offense is not worth it.  Life is too short to be critical about many things in life.   We are all imperfect and often do not intend to be so.  We just are.

The Buddha, like Jesus, encouraged forgiveness.  One should strive to be mindful of one’s anger, Buddha said, and then work to let go of it – as a way to build peace in oneself and in others.  Forgiveness represents the highest ideal of gentleness when one purposefully decides not to add harm on top of harm. 

Acting with awareness, active listening and gentleness echoes the universal ethic to practice the Golden Rule.  All world religions and all forms of spirituality include the Golden Rule in their beliefs – we are to treat others at least equal to how we want to be treated.  When I take the time to consider how I must be sensitive to the feelings of others – how I might hurt another – and then go out of my way not to cause hurt, I treat another how I want to be treated.  When people are treated with sensitivity, they naturally respond with the same.  Peace, even in the smallest of situations, is thus created and spread into the world.