Author: Doug Slagle

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

I think most of us wrestle with the idea of who or what is god.  I have pondered that and I still do.  Nevertheless, I believe god is a concept, or a  force that is the ultimate answer to everything.  That said, I don’t see god as some anthropomorphic being floating on some cloud who is miraculously able to know about, care about, and control everything.  Such a god would be like superwoman – and we all understand she’s a fictional character dreamed up to represent perfection.

Instead, for me, god is us.  You’re a god.  I’m a god.  The guy holding a “I’m homeless, please help” sign on the street corner is a god.  We are all figurative gods because collectively we are the single most powerful force to create good or bad in the world.  Following up on that, our mutual well-being is what should be our greatest concern.  

As gods, we alone have the ability to provably make the world better.  And if you are a god, then I should be very concerned for your welfare simply because you are a force for good.  I should, in essence, worship you.  

That last idea helps keep us, as figurative gods, from being arrogant.  Yes, I’m a god but that means I wasn’t born to think how great I am, but to instead think about how great you are – by doing things to serve, respect, and love you.

Basically, this belief of mine is nothing new.  It broadly describes Humanism as a philosophy and approach to life.  Humanists focus their thoughts, their speaking, and their actions outward, and for other people – to show kindness, empathy and honor to everyone.  We use the amazing gift of our minds to realize that the real power in the universe is not some dreamed up superhero god. 

The great force for good in the world is what we witness every day: people who tend the sick, serve the marginalized, advocate for equal rights, speak kindly to one another, work for a better existence, and who mostly think of others more than themselves.  Humanists are other-people lovers, other-people caregivers, and other-people servants.

And the two most influential institutions humans have organized are 1) religion and 2) government.  People initiated both of these institutions to be Humanist forces for good.

If we look at all of the world religions, we see Humanist values expressed in their Scriptures.  The Christian New Testament explicitly says that the greatest power in the universe – what Christians call God – is in truth the power of love.  And the same New Testament says that if anyone is not loving, kind, respectful and caring toward all others…….well…he or she simply has no understanding of what god or a great power is.

The great figure of Christianity, Jesus, spent his entire life teaching and modeling Humanist values.  If you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, host the homeless, befriend the immigrant, visit the imprisoned, and care for the sick, he famously taught, it will be as if you fed, clothed, hosted, visited and cared for god herself.  In other words, Jesus said people – particularly those who suffer in life – are a god.

The Jewish people believe the same things.  One the three greatest virtues for Jews is to be compassionate.  And Rabbi Hillel the Elder, considered Judaism’s greatest teacher ever, defined for Jews their so-called Golden Rule.  He taught, “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.”  And he emphasized that all of Jewish teachings and beliefs are summarized in that one sentence.  In other words, Jews – like Christians – are Humanists.

So are Buddhists.  For them, our mission in life is to grow our hearts to such an extent that an outpouring of concern and love for others becomes instinct.  The Buddha used a visual analogy to teach this idea.  If we pour a handful of salt into a bowl of water, we can no longer drink from it.  But if we pour a handful of salt into a large lake, we can still drink from it.  The moral of his analogy is to enlarge our small bowls of water hearts into large lake hearts – ones that are capable of loving and serving all humanity without discrimination.

Virtually every single chapter in Islam’s Scripture, the Quran, begins by saying the great power in the universe – Allah – is compassionate and merciful.  It also says that Islam’s concept of Allah, or the great force for good, is all-forgiving and all-loving.  And the Quran’s emphasis is on the word “all.”  I’m not an expert on the Quran, but it seems very clear that Muslims are Humanists too.  Every person has value.  Every person is to be loved and forgiven their flaws and misdeeds.  

I’ve covered what most religions say about loving humanity.  The second powerful institution created by people – government – exists to likewise serve humanity.  It’s a basic precept believed by the founders of this nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.  They are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.  Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

Plain and simple, governments exist to insure the common well-being of people.  Such an idea comes from great 18th century Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Their basic premise was also believed by the likes of Karl Marx and is today the basic premise even of our President – whether or not we agree with his methods.

For spiritual organizations AND for governments, the foundational belief is that human beings are the gods of this world – both to be cared for and loved, and to be put to work to insure that love and care prevail for all.

As I said, I believe those are bedrock beliefs of spirituality and civic government.  The sad thing is, however, these two powerful human institutions have mostly lost their way.  They’ve become selfish instead of selfless.  No longer is humanity to be loved and cared for, it’s only me – or people like me – who are to be loved.

And many religious people and government politicians have adopted that warped attitude.  Humanism has been replaced with “Me-ism”.  What’s in it for me?  What’s in it for my tribe, my posse, my little group of like-minded folks?  I have to admit I sometimes think and act the same way.  If you don’t believe like I do – you’re a terrible person.  You’re not a figurative god to me.  Forget you!  I’ll only love, serve, and be concerned about people who look, act, and think like me.  

If we’re honest, we all succumb to that thinking from time to time.

Fortunately for us as Unitarian Uonversalists, we’ve abandoned the traditional religions and forms of spirituality that have become far too inward looking and acting – selfishly thinking their beliefs are the only right beliefs and every other belief is to be shunned, hated and considered worthy of destruction.  

Unitarian Universalism has thankfully evolved to a point that finds common ground in all religions and all forms of spirituality.  As GNH’ers, we intentionally display the artwork over our chalice table that symbolically says this.  All of history’s great religious figures dance together to the music of the ages – Humanism.

The intent of my message today using the theme, Spirituality in Politics, is for us to consider how to ethically and reasonably apply our values in how we vote.  And I assert Humanism offers us the answer.  Just as we model open mindedness and respect for other religions, we must do the same for other political views.  But respect for other religions and political opinions does not mean we abandon our beliefs in Humanism.  Instead, we must model our spiritual beliefs in how we act and whether or not we approve of how candidates act.

When we vote in nine days, on Tuesday, March 17th, and when we vote on November 3rd, I suggest we vote for candidates who value not only the well-being of all people, but ones who mostly practice  ideals of love, respect, open-mindedness, and humility.  

I believe we can best create change in our nation by supporting and voting not for a candidate who promises to enact laws and policies consistent with our values, but who speaks and acts with an attitude and heart consistent with Humanism.  It’s not enough to agree with what a candidate wants to accomplish.  Increasing taxes on the wealthy, supporting tariffs on imports, or reforming the criminal justice system – these are proposals candidates advocate.  I believe we ought to instead be more interested in their basic character and.heart.  Does she or he have an open mind?  Are they willing to consider opposing views, collaborate, and, when necessary, compromise?  Do they listen to others, show respect and kindness, act with some humility, and care about other people more than themselves?  How they campaign and their past history as a person and as a leader tell us a lot about how a politician will lead – which for me is more important than the promises they make. 

It goes without saying that someone needs a certain amount of arrogance to presume that she or he can solve all the nation’s problems if only they are elected.  But arrogance can go too far, as we know.  It can lead to a “my way or the highway” thinking and a self-focused attitude that assumes they are always right and all others are wrong.  

Humanists should never think or act that way.  Indeed, my Unitarian Universalist colleague at First Unitarian Church, the Reverend Connie Simon, suggests that even the most passionate advocate for social justice and equality can still be paradoxically intolerant, hateful, and disrespecting to others.  In other words, anti-Humanist actions and speech are not unique to either conservatives or liberals.  They have nothing to do with one’s politics and more to do with the content of their character.

What we as spiritual people ought to remember are the lessons of great spiritual teachers – the ones I mentioned earlier.  Jesus taught we are to love and forgive even our enemies.  Muslims say that love defines Allah.  Jews teach the primacy of love with their version of the Golden Rule – “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.”  And the Buddha taught that our hearts are to be like large and deep lakes capable of holding and pouring forth love, honor and kindness to anyone.

Just imagine if we could find a candidate who embodied the best teachings of these great spiritual prophets?  When we decide who to vote for in upcoming elections, I suggest we think of Humanist standards of heart and mind – ones that are foundational to all forms of spirituality and government.  “What would Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, and Rabbi Hillel say?”  As I’ve shown, they would most likely say something very simple, “Love your neighbor.”  

“And who is my neighbor?” you ask.  She or he is every person on this earth.  I propose we vote for candidates who, as much as possible, act and speak according to that Humanist ideal.

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

Please click here to listen to the message:

As we know, the first amendment to the US constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  

In a letter to a Baptist group in 1801, Thomas Jefferson laid out what has come to be the bedrock interpretation of the first amendment.  He wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other – for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should… [build] a wall of separation between Church & State.”

That last phrase has been enshrined in American constitutional law.  It’s been cited in numerous Supreme Court cases as the basis for protecting the religious freedoms of people, and government freedom from religious influence.

We know that Jefferson was far from a perfect man.  His hypocrisy as a slaveholder who coined the words “all men are created equal” is well known.  Despite that, Jefferson was a founding father who deeply believed in democracy.  His liberal spirituality is also well known.  He rewrote the Bible’s New Testament by deleting large sections describing supernatural miracles.  Like many of us, he believed the essential truths found in the Bible are not mythological stories, but are instead ideals of Jesus regarding forgiveness, non-violence, sacrificial love, compassion, and humility.

With regard to Church and State issues, Jefferson also drew upon Jesus’ teachings.  When Jesus was asked by a group of religious elites whether it was right for Jews to pay taxes to the Roman government, he spoke one of his most well-known teachings.  The elites, wanting to have Jesus arrested by the Romans, hoped to trick him into saying Jews should not pay taxes to Rome.  He answered their challenge by famously teaching, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”.  In other words, don’t combine actions like paying taxes and maintaining public roads with spiritual opinions.

This founding principle is nevertheless still a controversial one.  If we live in a free society in which all of us have the right to express our beliefs about spirituality, then how do we not mix those thoughts with matters regarding civic government?  Politicians beginning with George Washington have spoken about their supposed faith in God and have often called the nation to pray for its safety and well-being.  And many contemporary religious leaders regularly speak out about political issues and politicians too.  Despite being a nation which believes in a wall of separation between Church and State, that wall often seems more like a thin curtain.

For us as a spiritual congregation and for me as its minister, there are clear rules about the wall of separation.  The Johnson amendment, which was added to the United States tax code in 1954, is the most famous rule governing church actions.  It forbids any tax-free group from participating in, or intervening in, directly or indirectly, any political campaign on behalf of, or against, any candidate for public office.

The intent of the law, which was not controversial when it passed, was intended to define – particularly for churches and their leaders – the wall of separation.  It is a simple rule.  If religious organizations wish to continue enjoying the immense benefit of not paying taxes, then they must not support or oppose any political candidate, political party, or organization that does the same.  As a quick aside, I estimate that in the sixty years that at least part of this congregation has existed, our total savings from not paying Federal, State, local, property, and sales taxes would amount to at least one million dollars.  And we are just one of about half a million places of worship in the US.

This rule we must follow raises an issue that often comes up.  Many ministers, including me, have spoken about subjects they believe are spiritual but which also have political implications.  For instance, I believe and I’ve spoke about from the pulpit that healthcare should be affordable and available to every person.  Affordable healthcare is, for me, a spiritual human right.  Also stating that belief are many politicians.  And there are many others who oppose it.  Have I, as a result, violated the Johnson law forbidding ministerial politics?  Some people could assert that I’ve implied political support for candidates who believe as I do – and that I’ve equally implied political opposition to candidates who do not believe the same.

This idea of implied political support by churches is one that remains controversial and which courts have often considered.  In US history, however, no legal action has ever been taken against a place of worship based on such implied statements – primarily because a minister may or may not be implying anything.  If you, in listening to my statement on healthcare, make assumptions about which candidate to support or oppose, that is your personal interpretation.

Other churches and ministers have gone much farther.  For instance, a minister might say that affordable healthcare is a spiritual right.  And then he or she will follow up by saying candidate Joe Smith also believes affordable healthcare is a spiritual right.  No actual words are said to vote for Joe Smith, but the implication is very strong.  

Ministers have also said a specific politician’s actions are spiritually unjust – while naming that politician.  I did that on one occasion and a member here suggested I not do it again.  I agree.  While it could be considered legal since I did not advocate voting against that politician, I nevertheless named her or him and perhaps indirectly intervened in politics.  In the future, I will instead say an action is just or unjust without naming a politician. 

The point of my message today is to suggest general principles how this congregation, and us as church members and leaders, can ethically combine spirituality with politics.  As a foundational statement, I believe the angry and often hateful political disunity and polarization in our nation is evil and wrong.  And I believe most people, including me, are responsible for that.  I have wrongly demeaned political opponents and I’ve questioned their motives.  I’ve done that despite it being a spiritual value held by all world religions to practice peace and love to all others by remembering our common human bonds.  All people have, as I’ve often pointed out, 99.9% of the same genetic DNA.  I also believe every single human being seeks the same needs in life – to have needs for food and shelter met, along with higher needs of healthcare, education, freedom, happiness, and life purpose also met.  Every American is thus united in profoundly spiritual, biological, and aspirational ways.  It is wrong, therefore, to essentially be angry at and divided from our closely related human sisters and brothers.

My objective determination about what all people want gets at what I believe ought to be spiritual politics.  We must value the worth and dignity of every person – which includes their opinions.  For me, I believe it is both spiritual AND political to want every person to have their basic needs met.  In other words, to have justice for all.

Given that fact, wise spirituality also tells me that some suffering, while not desired, is sadly inevitable.  Some people get diseases and some do not.  Some are affected by natural disasters, and some are not.  Some people go bankrupt and struggle financially, and some do not.  We must try to eliminate all suffering but fully achieving that goal is unlikely.

A spiritual approach to politics therefore says that while some people inevitably suffer no matter what we do, we can nevertheless aspire for as many people as possible to not suffer and to enjoy reasonable well-being and happiness.  Spiritually, I believe people ought to also show extra concern to those who suffer – the sick, the other-abled, the ones affected by calamities not of their intentional making.

Spiritual politics then tells us that for governments to insure reasonable happiness to the greatest number of people, they have three choices: 1) to politically act to provide basic needs for all, 2) to not act in doing that, or 3) to go slow in doing that.  Since people freely and rightly disagree on how to provide happiness to the greatest number of people, spiritual politics tells me the third option, to proceed carefully and with caution in taking any political action, is the best way to build unity.  It allows time for everyone to consider the pros and cons of a political action.  And time helps to diminish fear, adds clarity to discussions, and helps increase knowledge and informed opinions.

If I had to condense my view of spiritual politics into one phrase, spiritual politics has a liberal goal for everybody to have their basic needs met – while pursuing that goal with a careful approach.  For example, spiritual politics for me wants healthcare for everyone but it advises a prudent and methodical way in how to achieve that – all in order to allow time for informed, calm, civil, and respectful discussion.

This gets at the heart of why I believe there is so much disunity, hate and anger in our politics.  All Americans want basic needs and happiness for all.  We disagree on how to achieve providing basic needs for all and so we have division.  This is where spiritual values must come into play.  Since all Americans essentially want the same thing, we must be deliberate, informed, listening, respectful, and willing to collaborate in deciding how to achieve common goals of basic well-being for all.  Respectful discussion and intentional listening to one another takes time and is never easy.  It is also challenging to accept ideas different from our own.  But if we keep our eyes on the ultimate prize of economic and social justice for all, I believe spiritually minded people can lead the way in how to do that with greater unity.  We, as spiritual people, must model cooperation, listening, gentleness, and respect in our politics.

Foundational to that approach is, for me, selflessness and humility.  I must sublimate my ideas into the wide diversity of ideas and allow the larger body politic to find consensus.  Using the example of affordable  healthcare being a basic need of all people, some want the government to provide it.  Others want the private sector to provide it.  Both sides, therefore, cannot have their way adopted – so each must accept a  combination of opinion – perhaps in the case of healthcare a mix of government and privately provided insurance – or a gradual timetable to achieve a level where virtually all Americans have affordable healthcare.   By keeping our eyes on the prize, and not getting sidetracked by opposing different opinions, we can stay focussed on the shared joy of reaching affordable healthcare for all.

That is, of course, a very difficult proposition given that our nation has 350 million citizens with each having their opinion.  And there will always be some who do not act with humility, but act instead with words of division, greed, anger, arrogance, or hate.  But spiritual people, of which I include all of us, must not accept or use those tactics.  We can lead the way in seeking justice by using spiritually just methods.  To use a beautiful phrase, “When they go low, we must go high.”

I suggest there are a five agreements one must accept in order to be political in a spiritual way.  

First, spiritually political people agree in the commonality of everyone and that there are basic needs every person should have fulfilled.  It is the role of government to make sure those needs are met and, as spiritual people, we have a moral duty to advocate for them.  But, spiritual people and communities must categorically resist the temptation to support or oppose politicians.  The ways of politicians are often messy, but the ways of spiritual people should be pure.

Second, one must acknowledge that the world is imperfect and suffering will likely never be entirely eliminated – even as we must work to alleviate it.  Spiritual people can dream big but must also be practical.

Third, a spiritually political church and people must humble themselves so that selflessness is a regularly practiced attitude especially with regard to opinions.  “My way or the highway” is not a humble attitude.  “My way is just one of many possible ways” is selfless and humble.  

Fourth, spiritually political people should be willing to acknowledge that it takes time to build consensus through the use of respectful and humble discussion.  They must accept that as urgent as achieving justice is, it will never be fully accepted unless a vast majority of people agree on how it is achieved.  

Fifth, I believe spiritually political churches and people should never lose sight of the goal of universal justice and well-being.  That means they remain focused but nevertheless joyful, kind, and peaceful.

Whether one is a deeply conservative person, or a passionate liberal, we want the same things.  We want peace.  We want reasonable well-being for all.  We want an end to human suffering.  We want an America that is safe and economically strong enough to provide for as many people as possible.  But, spiritual people also want to achieve these goals in ways that adhere to not only their values, but the timeless values of most world religions.  The political ways that our nation uses to attain national well-being must be spiritual in nature – framed by kindness, bathed in a cooperative spirit, and energized by a humility.

I wish you each much peace and joy.

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

Please indulge me for a moment and close your eyes.  Now, imagine what it would be like if your present inability to see is permanent.  You will never view another face, the trees outside, or the latest movie at the theatre.  To take this exercise further, imagine what you would do if in about an hour you cannot remember your way home.  Or, during social time after the service, others are talking a great book to read but you don’t understand what they are talking about – and cannot contribute to the conversation.  Or, right now, you realize you need to use the restroom but you cannot get up and walk there.

Take a few moments to put yourself in those situations and imagine how you would feel.

To take this exercise further, and in keeping with my message series this month on love, imagine if everyone here is single you and you are attracted to another person here.  Indeed, you fall in love with that person and want to initiate a relationship with her or him.  But others, including people with good intentions, say that’s not possible for you – or that you are incapable of understanding love because of your physical or intellectual other-ableness.  Once again, how would you feel?

You may open your eyes now as I hope this exercise in empathy for the other abled was thought provoking.  I encourage you to think more about it later today.

Two weeks ago, as a part of my series on diversity love, I looked at a beautiful fictional African-American love story in a book entitled An American Marriage by Tayari Jones.  While the book deals with issues of race, its primary theme is about the universality of love, heartbreak, and dealing with the loss of affection.

Last week, I considered the love between two men – the Ancient Roman Emperor Hadrian and his lover Antinuos.  Their diverse story highlighted the ideal of sacrificial love and how genuine love for another is usually unconditional.  We love her or him without expecting anything in return.

Today, I offer the story of a modern couple – Bill Ott and Shelley Belgard, shown on the cover of your programs.  Bill is other-abled with Down’s Syndrome.  Shelley was born with hydrocephalus – excess fluid around the brain.  That caused her to be intellectually other-abled.

The two met when Bill was 12 and Shelley was 15.  When Bill introduced himself, Shelley’s face lit up with a big smile.  Bill was immediately smitten.  “I didn’t know what love meant until I met her,” Bill now says.

For her, Shelley likens that moment to a scene from a movie.  “I was looking at this awesome guy and I really didn’t want to blow it.  I kind of wanted to play it safe while at the same time I didn’t.”

The two quickly became a teenage couple in love.  They went on dates and attended Bill’s Junior and Senior High proms – both of them joyously dancing alongside their peers.  Their parents helped them in their romance – driving them to various events where they could dance – which they both love to do.

But after High School, when Bill and Shelley moved into different group homes with other-abled persons, they grew apart and eventually lost touch.  A little over ten years later, on a cruise organized for other-abled persons, they met again.  As full-fledged adults, they immediately rekindled their romance.   When Shelley got seasick on the cruise, Bill volunteered to be her helper and, apparently, things got serious.

Two years later, Bill proposed to Shelley.  She quickly said, “yes” but both sets of their parents had misgivings.  Did they understand what marriage meant?  Could they function as a give-and-take couple?  And what about sex and the possibility of Shelley getting pregnant and giving birth to child they would have difficulty raising?

The two suggested they live together, but remain abstinent, to see if they could live as a couple.  Like any two people in a new relationship, they had their ups and downs.  They had to learn how to handle disagreements – something that every couple must learn.  They turned to a therapist who guided them through exercises for lovingly talking through issues.  That’s a skill they still must intentionally practice – but its one they do well.  And, just to reassure their parents, Bill underwent a vasectomy.

As with many couples, the two beautifully compliment each other’s abilities.  Bill is great with directions so he is Shelley’s guide wherever they go since she often gets lost.  When he has difficulty with diction and being understood by others, Shelley quickly steps in to translate.  She has no trouble understanding what Bill says.

While it was deemed by their parents, who are still their guardians,  that Bill and Shelley should not be legally married since they supposedly cannot understand its full meaning (something which seems terribly discriminatory) the two went forward and held a commitment ceremony which everyone present considered a marriage celebration anyway.  Bill and Shelley danced their first dance as a married couple to the song “At Last” – and then they exuberantly joined in dancing with all the guests – including their parents.  In a toast to his bride, Bill said the very best part of their relationship was to be able to live with someone he has loved since they first met fifteen years earlier.  The two are still happily together with each working to support themselves – Bill as a grocery bagger, Shelley as a mail room clerk.

When I did research for this message series, I was touched by each of the three love stories.  The love described in the book An American Marriage is joyous just as the loss of love made me cry.  The history of Hadrian and Antinuos’ love story is equally beautiful – especially Antinuos’s sacrificial suicide and Hadrian’s epic efforts to memorialize him.   Bill and Shelley’s love story is one that also moved me – it is a love that is sincere and natural in expression.  The two are exactly like all lovers and, indeed, they could teach other couples a few things about self-awareness, mutual support, and commitment.

Most of all, the thing that figuratively makes my heart sing is that love between any two people is no different from that shown by all people.  African-American, gay, or other-abled, each of the three couples and their stories I’ve highlighted this month represent very similar ideals about love.  To repeat what I said last Sunday and the week before, love is love no matter who the two are. 

Love is thrilling and often all consuming.  As Tayari Jones says in her novel An American Marriage, love doesn’t just inhabit a home, it becomes the home and is the source of security, happiness, peace, and companionship for any two people.  And when love is lost, with a break-up, death, or an inability to resolve differences, the effect is often devastating and rarely forgotten.  

I shared in my message two weeks ago how the loss of my marriage to my wife, because I realized I am gay, is something for which I still feel great sadness.   I still love my ex-wife.  Someone after that service shared a similar story with me.  This person teared up as they called to mind their story.  Heartbreak from an end of love – no matter how it happens – is universal.  So too is the emotion of total joy when we fall in love – as shown by Bill Ott and Shelley Belgard.  

An added lesson we learn from Bill and Shelley’s love story is that feeling love is an emotion for the complete person.  Too many people think they are in love because they are attracted to the other’s physical beauty.  But if we get to know someone to whom we perceive as outwardly beautiful or handsome, we are either further attracted to them because of their inner kindness, integrity, sense of humor, and grace, or we are repelled by their arrogance, selfishness, and aloof attitude.

Interestingly, Bill has noted that he knew his love for Shelley was real when he realized she was, “a woman who would not prejudge me from the outside – and instead look inside.”  And Shelley truly fell in love with Bill when she understood he loved her inner self too.  As she said about Bill, “He just gets me.”

What Bill and Shelley know is what many other-abled couples know.  They are primarily attracted to the inner person.  They reject what our culture tells us – that it is physical beauty, wealth, or intellectual firepower that is most attractive.  While every person is physically beautiful in unique ways, our culture too often trivializes beauty by thinking it means to be outwardly attractive and supposedly perfect in form.  We forget that beauty is found in many ways – but it’s most importantly found in someone’s heart and soul.  To be warm, friendly, kind, sincere, honest, and humble is, for most of us, to be beautiful.  To be an athletic and muscular male, or a curvaceous, young woman, may outwardly be attractive, but when considering the whole individual, those attributes can often be all that someone has to offer.  Indeed, we each know outwardly beautiful people who are nasty, arrogant, or inwardly ugly.

What our cultural standard for beauty creates in many of us is implicit bias against the other-abled.  Many people can patronize  or infantilize the other-abled.  We can too often see them as incomplete people who are not valued for their unique abilities and inner beauty.   And so we look the other way when encountering them, or we offer them false sympathy, or we under-judge their skills and intelligence, or we treat them like young children.  For me, that sounds like the implicit biases we can have for people of color, women, or seniors.  Such people, like the other-abled, are too often marginalized as being less than some false idea of what is to be perfect, beautiful, or normal.

What is troubling is how prejudice against the other-abled is hypocritical – just as is discrimination against other marginalized groups.  In truth, everybody is other-abled in some way.  Many people wear glasses, hearing aids, are left-handed, need extra time to read and understand things, or occasionally forget names of friends and places.   It is a sad fact about humanity that people can think everyone else is imperfect – but as for me, I’m perfect in every way!  In other words, we can harshly judge others, but fail to take an honest look in the mirror.

Most of all, we can have a totally false idea of what constitutes perfection and beauty.  That discriminatory attitude is one some have for the other-abled.  Indeed, we have too long referred to the other-abled as handicapped, disabled, retarded, or worse…….as if to arrogantly assume that our abilities are the only supposedly right ones to have.  We forget that everybody is “different” or other-abled in some way – which is why human diversity is so wonderful.  

Our spiritual calling is to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person – the first Unitarian-Universalist principle.  For the purposes of this message, that means to value the unique qualities and abilities in everybody – no matter who they are. We need to delete mistaken ideas we may have about what is beautiful, perfect, or “normally-abled.”    

The lesson I’ve learned from Bill and Shelley’s love story – and the other two stories I’ve considered this month, is that Black Love Matters, Same-Sex Love Matters, Other-Abled Love Matters, Heterosexual Love Matters.  Indeed, any form of Love Matters.  Let us therefore examine our minds and our hearts to eliminate implicit biases we may have toward any type of love between consenting adults.  If we do, we’ll then know that love is expressed in the wide diversity of humanity – and it must therefore be equally valued for all .  Quite simply, and I can’t say this too often, love is love is love – no matter who the two are.

I wish you each much peace and joy.

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

Click here to listen to the message:

If you search through history, there are many truly beautiful love stories.  The love stories of Antony and Cleopatra, Abigail and John Adams, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, Marie and Pierre Curie, and Jackie and Rachel Robinson are examples of almost legendary affection and commitment.  But as diverse as those couples were, they shared a love that never had to be hidden – or was subject to persecution.

As the theme for my message series this month says, my intention is to discuss examples of diverse love stories that highlight not only the wide spectrum of human affection, but also the universality of how love is expressed.  As I said in last week’s message, and as I say in every marriage ceremony at which I officiate, love is love no matter who the two people are. 

No bond between two consenting adults is better or worse than another.  Since love is the highest sentiment one can have for another, then it stands to reason that every coupling between two people, since the dawn of humanity, was and is deserving of respect.

In that light, I offer today the example of profound love between the ancient Roman Emperor Hadrian and his male lover Antinous.  On any list of history’s great love stories, their’s is included.

Hadrian was from an elite Roman family.  At a young age he had ambitions to be Emperor but he was unfortunately not related to one.  After marrying into the extended family of Emperor Trajan, Hadrian later persuaded Trajan to adopt him as his son and thus as his successor.

Once he became Emperor, Hadrian worked to strengthen and protect the Roman Empire.  He ruled from 117 to 138 CE and for the majority of that time, he traveled across the vast Empire – from Spain to India and from Britain to Morocco – all to oversee it in person.  Edward Gibbon, writer of the definitive History of the Roman Empire, said Hadrian was one of only five effective Emperors.

During one of his visits to northern Italy, he met Antinous who was from a common but respected family.  Antinous was either 17 or 18.  He was considered to be remarkably handsome, if not beautiful.  Hadrian, who was in his late thirties, was immediately taken with him.  Hadrian declared Antinous to be the handsomest man in the entire Empire and he asked him to join his royal entourage.

For three years, the two were inseparable.  Antinous was educated and quite capable to be the close companion of the worldly Hadrian.  He had skills of hunting and horsemanship – which endeared him even more to the athletic Emperor.  The two hunted lions together in Africa, criss-crossed the Mediterranean in open ships, led the Roman Army in battle, and were a publicly recognized couple.  They did not hide their love.

That was despite Hadrian’s marriage which was apparently loveless.  Emperors were expected to produce heirs but Hadrian and his wife never had children.   Having a lover of either gender was widely accepted, especially for those who had married for political purposes.

Antinous was more than a lover, however.  From all accounts, he was Hadrian’s constant companion, confidante, and partner.  He was the subject of hundreds of love poems Hadrian wrote about him.  He was equally Hadrian’s health advocate and caretaker because the Emperor suffered from a chronic and often incapacitating kidney condition.  On several occasions, he nearly died from it.

During a visit to Rome’s colony in Egypt, Hadrian was again ill.  While the historical record is unclear, during their cruise south on the Nile, Antinous drowned in the river.  Details of how and why it happened are unknown.   But it is known that Antinous died on the same day Egyptians celebrated Resurrection Day of their god Osiris.  Every year Egyptians believed Osiris sacrificed himself to die in the Nile in order to insure it will seasonally flood – and thereby enrich the vital fields alongside it.   The god died so that life would thrive.

Romans at the time, and historians today, surmise that Antinous copied Osiris’ example by sacrificing himself so that Hadrian might be cured.  While it cannot be proven, since nobody at the time knew how or why Antinous drowned, the fact that he drowned alone, on the same day the myth of Osiris was celebrated, seems more than coincidence.

As further evidence for that conjecture, Hadrian’s reaction to Antinous’ death was epic. Within a week of the drowning, Hadrian ordered that a new and lavish Roman city named Antinopolis be built exactly where his lover drowned.  He also declared that Antinous should henceforth be worshipped as a god – an honor previously reserved only for Emperors.  

The cult and worship of Antinous then became widely popular across the Roman Empire for over two hundred years — outlasting memories of Hadrian himself.  The cult’s popularity was primarily due to Antinous’ probable self-sacrifice for the one he loved.  

To encourage worship of Antinous, Hadrian commissioned over two-thousands statues of him and built 28 Temples in his honor – all distributed throughout the Empire.  At Hadrian’s villa, one that archaeologists discovered in the 18th century, there were over 80 statues and busts of Antinous.  Even more, Antinous’ face, as a god, was featured on literally millions of ancient Roman coins.  By all accounts, Hadrian deeply mourned Antinous until his own death twenty years later.

Interestingly, the cult of Antinous began at approximately the same time that Christianity was expanding.  And reaction to the cult by Christian leaders was predictable.  Tertullian, one of the early Christian leaders, asked how a god could be a sodomite.  He and other Christian leaders denounced Antinous’ sacrifice by saying it was done not for love – but for immorality. Such criticism came despite his death’s similarity to Jesus’ death who, according to Christian theology, likewise sacrificed himself as a gesture of love.

What is inspiring to me, therefore, is not just the example of profound love between two men, but what their story says about love in general.  Ancient Greek philosophers said that love is expressed in four ways.  The first type of love, called “storge” in Greek, is the caring and empathetic bond between closely related family members – like that between parents and children.  The second kind of love, called “phillos”, is affection between friends who share common values and interests.  The third kind of love, named “eros”, is one between romantic lovers.  It is passionate love, based on attraction.  The final kind of love, called “agape”, is unconditional and pure and it is the type of love Antinous offered to Hadrian with his likely self-sacrifice.

Modern psychologists note that love is often defined by two or more types of expression.  I love my daughters because they are related to me as offspring.  But the emotions I’ve formed by raising and caring for them also elicit in me unconditional love.  I have both “storge” and “agape” love for them.  Multiple forms of love are also felt by many married and partnered couples.  They first come together by passion and attraction – “eros” love.  They remain together by often becoming best friends – “phillos” love.  And that love can evolve, as it did for Hadrian and Antinous, to be unconditional or “agape” love.  Couples often feel a mix of “eros, phillos and agape” love.

It’s unconditional or “agape” love, however, that’s considered the most sincere.  Jesus, as a Christian god, is worshipped because he supposedly submitted to a sacrificial death as a way to show agape love for humanity.  The Bible indicates, however, that such love was NOT unconditional since only those who believe in Jesus’ sacrifice will enjoy eternity in Heaven.  In other words, Jesus set a condition for his love. 

The problem for me with Christianity is not just its supernatural beliefs in miracles, but its claim that God loves all people.  The truth of Christianity says the opposite.  God will love and reward people only if they believe in and obey him.  If you don’t, God will punish you with an an eternity in Hell.

Whatever is the creative force in the universe, be it a supernatural God, the power of love, or a scientific theory of everything, I don’t believe that force is manipulative or hateful toward anyone.  Indeed, the Bible contradicts itself by saying God created humanity in his image and loves them as his children, even though it also says he sends many who don’t believe in him to Hell.  Once again, that is a problem I have with Christianity.  The kind of love it believes in is transactional and selfish.  You will only be loved if you selfishly believe Jesus is God in order Togo to Heaven.

A more noble love, for me, is that defined by Unitarian Universalists.  We believe that whatever great force there is that defines everything, it loves and accepts everyone.  Nobody goes to Hell, which thereby renders hell as impossible to exist.

Universalists believe every person has dignity and worth.  Everyone is to be loved no matter what.  That is unconditional love.  It’s available to every person, just for being human, and is independent of what one does or doesn’t do.  We are loved no matter what.

That gets at the kind of love Antinous had for Hadrian.  He sacrificed his life for the one he loved.  That’s a love I find stunning in its intensity.  It challenges me to wonder if I am capable of offering it.  To sacrificially love another is to willingly give up something of tremendous value – a significant amount of one’s time, health, or wealth – without wanting anything in return.  That even includes loving someone without expecting them to love you back.  You simply love.  No ifs, ands or buts.

I imagine it is for that reason that Hadrian was so devastated by Antinous’s likely sacrificial suicide for his sake.  It’s also why the worship of Antinous became so widely popular in the Roman Empire and why early Christian leaders were compelled to attack it because it threatened their Jesus cult based on his sacrifice.  Like some religions, they condemned honoring Antinous in ways that are familiar for same-sex couples today.  Same sex love is today often attacked as perverted, unnatural, and deserving of death.

The story of Antinous’ suicidal sacrifice, however, is one for the ages.  Not many people willingly die so that the one they love may live.  One modern writer named Fulton Sheen says, “True love isn’t about you – and what you can get.  It’s about you – and what you have to give.”      

An anonymous commentator added to that idea by saying, “True love is sacrifice.  It is in giving, not in getting; in losing, not in gaining; in realizing, not in possessing, that we love.” 

As with many ideals of right behavior, the difficulty is not to believe sacrificial love is good, but to believe that so strongly that we do our very best to practice it.

Last week I said that every person longs to love and to be loved.  In reality, that order should perhaps be reversed.  We long to be loved and only then are we willing to love another.  The fictional character Carrie Bradshaw, in the famous TV show “Sex and the City”, once said, “Our culture does not love love.  It values the emotion without paying anything for it.”

I confess to sometimes feeling that way.  I like being loved.  But how much do I sacrificially love others by serving, giving, forgiving, and accepting their flaws without implicitly wanting something from them in return?  Too often my love is conditional.  If I love you – you must love me back.

Ultimately, sacrificial love is about what I believe is our purpose in life.  We don’t exist to serve, please and love just ourselves.  While we need our basic needs met first, our purpose is to be selfless and not selfish.   In truth, we should be sacrificial lovers.

I encourage all of us, therefore, to reflect on the nature of love.  In doing so, it’s important to know that unconditional love does not mean one should endure abuse by another.  We can and must love every person, but we need not love their bad actions.  We should set boundaries for how we expect people to act – and establish consequences if they don’t.  But we must still love them as people.  

Antinous and Hadrian’s love is a beautiful example for the ages.  We do not need to die for someone to still be sacrificially giving in how we love our partners, families, friends, and total strangers.  Reason tells us that if everyone was truly selfless and sacrificial in loving all others, everyone would thereby be loved.  Nobody would feel the sting of being hated, ignored, or forgotten.  To love another person sacrificially, is to never count the cost.  If I truly love you, then I simply love you no matter what.

And I wish you all peace, joy and much love.  

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

“An American Marriage”, by Tayari Jones, is a novel true to its title.  As a story about two married African-Americans, its first and foremost a love story with universal themes of passion, coming together, break-up, and finally heartache.  The novel’s many passages about the joys and sorrows of love are ones to be read for any Valentine’s Day.

But, it’s also a story that could only happen in America – a nation that still struggles with racism.  It’s a story with themes of injustice, systemic marginalization of black men, and the suffering of many black women. 

In that regard, it’s a book that explores the nuances of romantic love while wrapped around a darker tale of how racism often distorts the love between two African-Americans.  It’s both a lovely book and a challenging book – one that will make you think as much as it may make you cry.

Roy and Celestial fall in love.  They are both upwardly mobile twenty-something African-Americans with careers and incomes that place them well within the urban, upper middle class.   

Roy comes from hard-working, rural Louisiana parents who devoted themselves to providing enlarged opportunities to their son.  Roy succeeds, earns a college degree, gets a high paying job and considers himself, at a relatively young age, as up and coming.  Celestial comes from wealthy, millionaire parents.  Her father invented a food additive later bought by a large corporation.  She’s refined and privileged enough to expect opportunities will naturally come her way.  She’s not on the up and coming.  She was born already arrived.

They are drawn to one another’s ambition and unique status in the black community.  In that way, the novel touches on themes of class – he from rural poor, she from city wealth.  The book also shines a bright light on how even educated, successful, and well-off blacks are not immune from the injuries of racial stereotypes.

After falling in love, Roy and Celestial get married.  After a year of marriage, they are still star-crossed lovers with plans for having children.  That is, until they take a weekend trip from Atlanta to visit Roy’s parents in rural Louisiana.

Roy’s mom Olive, perhaps like many devoted mothers of sons, does not think her daughter-in-law is a good enough wife to her son.  Because of that family tension – and to support his wife – Roy decides he and Celestial will not stay in his parents’ home during the visit.  They’ll instead stay in his hometown’s only motel.

After dinner with Roy’s parents, and back at the motel, the couple have a fight – one that touches on both of their insecurities.  Roy reveals, for the first time, a secret about his family past – one that he’d kept from Celestial because it highlighted the wide gulf between their backgrounds.  Celestial is wounded he kept such a secret from her for so long.  It touches on her fears of what else Roy might be hiding.

Roy leaves the motel room to cool down his anger – promising to be gone only fifteen minutes.  He goes to fill up the ice bucket and encounters a white woman needing help.  He does a good deed by helping her and returns to his wife.  

Once reunited, the two make-up, assure one another of their affection, and make love.  They fall blissfully asleep before their nightmare begins.

The motel room door is broken down in the middle of the night by police who grab Roy and drag him into the parking lot.  He’s arrested for rape of the white woman he had helped.  A vigorous and expensive legal defense is mounted – one paid for by Celestial’s parents.  But even in these relatively more enlightened times, in a trial with no physical evidence, a black man charged with raping a white woman in the rural South has little chance.  Roy is convicted and sentenced to twelve years in prison.

That summarizes the beginning portion of the novel.  As I said, the novel deals with multiple themes.  But what is remarkable about the book is its intentional effort not to confine itself to being a story about racial injustice.  The heart and soul of the book focuses on love and loss.  That may seem like a sell-out by the author, herself a black woman, by bringing up issues of race and then failing to fully explore them.  However, by examining themes and emotions of love, how they are shared by all people, Jones makes a subtle but bold statement about race and, indeed, humanity.

Love is love no matter who the two people are.  The thrill of passion and the joy of being in love are not unique to any race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.  So too is the hurt of being alone, longing for one’s lover, and of not knowing if or when reunion will take place.  Such are themes found in many love stories and that are eloquently explored in An American Marriage.  The cliche that separation makes the heart grow fonder is true, as the book dwells on during its middle section.  But being apart brings not just stronger love, but also despair.  To love someone, but not have her or him to share, laugh, play, eat, and sleep with, is a feeling many can understand.  That’s the case for couples separated by death, divorce, work, military service, or in this book, imprisonment. 

It’s for that reason that An American Marriage is a love story anyone can empathize with and understand.  It’s one reason Oprah Winfrey chose it as a featured novel for her famous Book Club.  It’s also why it won the National Book Award in 2018 for fiction – along with best fiction book awards from the Los Angeles Times, the NAACP,  and the National Women’s Book Club.  

For me, what makes the novel so beautiful and inspiring is its implied message about the sameness of love.  I intellectually knew that was true,  but to read how love is the same for all, even in a context very different from what I’ve experienced, was very moving. 

I’m a white man who was married to a white woman for eighteen years, during which time we had two children.  I thought I’d fallen in love with my then wife only to slowly realize I’d really fallen into best friendship.  During our marriage I was not, and could never be, physically attracted to her – but I was psychologically unable to accept that truth.  

The hurt my ex-wife felt when I finally confessed to her I’m gay – and the soon after separation, amicable as it was, nevertheless stung us both.  We still bear emotional scars from that – ones that I un-intentionally caused.  Except for my wife’s gender, we’d likely still be married.  I loved her then and I still love her today.  But not in a way that a straight woman longs to be loved. 

And a similar kind of wrenching realization is what Celestial gradually feels for Roy.  He’s an innocent man suffering at the hands of an intolerant society, but yet he’s not with her and the pain of that separated love becomes something Celestial struggles to overcome. 

That kind of loss and struggle to move on is one many people experience.  To be in love, to have a confidante, to be connected to a kind and caring person you enjoy being with – is one of life’s great joys.  It’s the primary experience and emotion everyone wants in life.  It is human to want to love and be loved.  It is even more human to mourn the loss of love. 

That’s the point of my message series this month – to explore the diversity and yet universality of love’s many couplings.  The heights and depths of love are experienced by all variations of people, in many different situations, but the core emotions of it are identical for all.  That truth speaks to the reality that love is the one force that animates all  humanity and, indeed, all life.  Love is what most people believe is the force that defines existence.  For Christians, God is love and love is God.  The Biblical New Testament explicitly says so.  For Jews, the love one has for Yahweh is to honor all that is good and right in life and the universe.  For Muslims, Allah is merciful and compassionate to all – and it is our human role to return that love with both worship to Allah and kindness to others.  

Spiritually, love is also something of a paradox.  This is something most people experience in a relationship and it is another theme found in An American Marriage.  Love unites and divides.  It gives and it takes.  It is both selfless and selfish.

After Roy is sent to prison, the novel describes how he and Celestial deal with the sudden separation and upheaval in their relationship.  Love exists between them but it doesn’t.  Celestial at first visits Roy as often as she is allowed – once a week.  But over time, that subsides and Roy is upset.  If she loves him, why would she not want to see him as often as possible?

For Celestial, love for Roy is tied to romantic memories of their togetherness and so she begins to painfully long for him.  He’s her beloved husband and yet he cannot do anything a normal husband does – be her companion, her lover, her soul mate.  Over time she begins to ponder: why must she also suffer?

Roy feels longing for Celestial and over time that only deepens his love for her.  When we miss someone, we often love them all the more.

This sets up a divide between the two that eventually breaks them apart.  At first they struggle against the toll that years of separation have  taken. But once the thin threads of bonding are torn, it seems almost impossible to knit them together again.  

What adds to Roy’s and Celestial’s heartache is how their best friend comes between them.  Abe lived in the room next to Roy’s at their college.  They were best friends and remained so after college.  Abe then celebrated Roy’s marriage to Celestial – as only a friend would.  And once married, Abe is not only Roy’s best friend, he becomes Celestial’s too.  Once Roy is in prison, Abe dutifully supports both of his friends.  But Abe is the caring and tender presence in Celestial’s life at a time when Roy cannot offer the same.  A wounded and lonely heart being what it is, Celestial falls in love with Abe.  He returns her love all while Roy is imprisoned for a crime he did not commit.

I won’t offer further details from the book because they will take away your feelings about the story as it unfolds and ends.   Ultimately, the book implicitly asks several questions:  Does true love demand undying loyalty?  Can one be in love and yet not in love all at the same time?  Does love demand forgiveness and sacrifice no matter the circumstances?  And, how does one get through the pain of broken love so that life can go forward? 

In so many ways, the beauty and joy of love is often found in its tragedy.  We all know stories of couples who suffer when their partner dies, is unfaithful, or departs.  It seems as if love beckons us to climb its summit peak of passion, only to eventually throw us into the valley of broken hearts.  Why must love be so joyous and yet also so painful?  The novel seems to ask that question and, at the end, provides an ambiguous answer.

For each wedding I perform, I always introduce my homily by saying that love is love no matter who the two people are.  For same sex couples, that message is appreciated.  And for opposite sex couples, I hope the phrase is informative.   Biology and genetics tell us that the bodies of every human being are nearly identical in make up.  We bleed the same.  We grow and develop the same.  Psychology equally informs us that every person cries, laughs, suffers and exults – also in similar ways.  Importantly, we love the same too.

And that’s the tragic but beautiful message of Tayari Jones’ novel An American Marriage.  To be in love, to have been in love, to be or have been coupled with someone who adds comfort, care, and passion to one’s life – these are gifts to the heart and soul.  It is a wise saying that we are to love as if we’ll never be hurt and, even more, that our call is to love deeply – and be thankful for it no matter how long or short it lasts.

        I recommend the book An American Marriage to all of you, as I wish you peace and joy.

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

Click here to listen to the message:

The specter of death seemed to follow Martin Luther King, Jr. throughout his relatively short life.  At the age of twelve, he was asked to  watch his younger brother for an afternoon.  But his brother slid down a bannister when Martin was not watching and crashed into King’s grandmother – who suffered a heart attack and died.  Young King was shaken by her death.  Blaming himself, he fell into a deep depression.  Two days later, in an attempt to kill himself, he jumped out of a second floor window.  He was badly bruised but otherwise unhurt.

Seventeen years later, in 1958 while signing copies of his book Stride Toward Freedom, he was approached by a white woman who asked if he was THE Martin Luther King.  He said he was.  She replied, “I’ve been looking for you for years” and then stabbed him in his chest with a pointed letter opener.  It almost penetrated his heart.

Ten years after that, on April 4th, 1968, Dr. King was in Memphis, Tennessee to lead a protest march by striking sanitation workers.  He had been feeling the weight of his many years as an activist and the constant  opposition he faced.  For several months he’d had insomnia and migraine headaches.  Many of his colleagues later said they believed King suffered from depression.  

In a sermon delivered the night before the protest march – and his assassination –  he seemed to have a premonition.  “Like anybody,” he said, “I would like to live a long life.  Longevity has its place.  But I’m not concerned about that now… 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.  And I’m happy tonight.  I’m not worried about anything.  I’m not fearing any man.  Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

Using a Biblical analogy meaningful to African-Americans since the days of slavery, King was likening himself to the Bible’s Moses – and his black followers to ancient Jews who had been slaves in Egypt.  When ancient Jews worshipped a golden calf, the Bible story says God punished them, including Moses, by ordering that all those alive at that moment would never enter the Promised Land of Israel.  Only their descendants, after all of them had died, would do that.  Forty years later, when Moses believed he would soon die, the story says he ventured to the border of Israel and climbed a mountain so he could look into, and at least get a glimpse of, the Promised Land.

Many people said Dr. King that evening sensed his death was near, but he was encouraging his followers to trust that they and all oppressed people will eventually reach the Promised Land.

The next day, the sanitation worker protest march added to King’s dismay.  The march ended with a riot, despite King’s pleas for non-violence.  Returning to a second floor room at the Lorraine motel, he was somber and he made plans for a soul-food dinner.  He asked one of his advisors to have the hymn, “Precious Lord, Take My Hand,” sung that evening at a church service.  King washed his face and at 5 PM stepped out on the motel balcony.  The sun was setting.  A rifle shot rang out.  King was hit by a bullet and pushed back against the wall – his arms outstretched.  His spinal cord was severed and he died almost instantly.  Dr. King was 39 years old.

Five days later, in Atlanta, Georgia and later at his alma mater Morehouse College, funeral services were held.  At the service in the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he ministered, Coretta Scott King had him eulogize himself.  She had a recording of King’s last sermon at the church played.  In that sermon, Dr. King requested that at his funeral no mention be made of his accomplishments, awards, or honors.  “Let it instead be said about me, that he tried to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be right on the war question, and love and serve humanity.”

Later that day, at Morehouse College, King’s final hymn request was honored.  HIs favorite singer, Mahalia Jackson, sang “Precious Lord, Take My Hand.”

Dr. King’s simple wooden casket was then loaded onto a crude farm wagon drawn by two mules – used to symbolize his work for the Poor People’s Campaign.  The three and 1/2 mile funeral procession was attended by over 100,000 people.  Leaders from around the world were there.  President Johnson sent Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in his place.  The procession passed the Georgia capital where then Governor Lester Maddox had earlier refused to have flags lowered to half-staff despite the day being an official national day of mourning.  Maddox had many times called King an enemy of the people.  The governor stationed 64 helmeted troopers on the capital steps to prevent a riot that of course never happened.

King was buried in a cemetery mostly reserved for African-Americans.  His body was moved in 1977 to a plot just between the King Center and Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Six years after his assassination, Martin Luther King’s mother was herself shot and killed while playing the organ at Ebenezer Baptist church.  The assailant was a mentally ill man who hated Christians.

While Dr. King obviously believed his accomplishments were to have solely heeded Jesus’ teaching to serve the least of humanity, he nevertheless did much more.  To name just a few of what King accomplished in just ten short years of activism, he led the successful Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, which ended segregation in that city and in the rest of the South.  He delivered one of the most inspiring speeches ever on Civil Rights – the famous “I Have a Dream” speech.  He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy of non-violence and equal rights.  He formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that still promotes Civil Rights and the philosophy of non-violence.  His work was crucial in passing the national Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.  He equally helped pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protecting the right to vote by all citizens.  He strongly advocated for the Immigration and Nationality Services Act also of 1965 which allowed expanded immigration from non-European nations, and he was instrumental in passing the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which banned all forms of housing discrimination.   He also founded the Poor People’s Campaign, an organization still at work to end greed and economic inequality.

Today and tomorrow, when we remember and honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the only national holiday for someone who was not President, I suggest we reflect on his legacy and perhaps hear what that means for people of color.  Many commentators say that King’s legacy has too often been framed by whites, like me, and their perspective of him as an advocate non-violence.  It often seems forgotten that, like Jesus who he tried to follow, King was a radical.  He proposed a wholesale end to systems in our economy, government, media and culture that exploit people of color and the poor.

But how Dr. King is seen and remembered is itself segregated.  Many people of color see Dr. King’s legacy as one not yet realized.  King himself said that the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were not statements of fact, but were tragically statements of intent.  As women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, Muslims, the other-abled, the poor, and LGBTQ persons can all testify, America’s founding principle of liberty and justice for all – are not yet reality two-hundred and forty-four years later.

Since that is so, just what is the legacy of Dr. King?  Is it that he achieved many great things, but not the ultimate prize for which he gave his life?  And if that is the case, what profound teachings did he leave humanity that will finally get black people and many others to the Promised Land of peace and justice?

While Dr. King’s nonviolent activism is most remembered, it seems his belief that greed is the real reason behind racism and oppression, is a bigger legacy.  In the last few years of his life, he focused more and more on economic inequality and the Poor People’s Campaign to solve all oppression.  For him, that was in keeping with the teachings of Jesus – that hate comes from exploiting another person for one’s own advantage.  Ta Nehisi Coates essentially agreed with this view in his book ‘Between the World and Me’ – that this congregation read two years ago.  Slavery and racism, Coates said, were and are rooted in greed and using black bodies for economic gain.

But Dr. King, from his spiritual perspective, saw a broader problem.  Humanity’s negative inclination to exploit others is universal.  King was always an advocate for black people, but he also advocated for everybody who faces discrimination and injustice.  Indeed, his very last protest march was not for racial justice, but in behalf of striking white, black, and brown garbage workers.  And his plea for what should be said of him at his funeral perfectly illustrates his thinking about his life purpose – to do as Jesus called everyone to do – feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and heal the wounded.  

That follows his theology.  God loves all people, but her heart is broken at the sight of those who hurt.  If we are to be human gods and goddesses, which I believe is our life purpose, then it is our duty to show love to everybody and most especially to people who suffer.  That’s what Jesus taught.  It’s what King believed and did.  It frames, for me, the reason for what is currently on our front sign, “Black Lives Matter.”  Black lives are not more deserving of love than any other life – but clearly many of their lives ARE threatened.  They hurt, and compassionate people respond. 

To fully understand whatever King’s legacy might be, I believe it is to understand his views transcended racism and segregation.  As he said, “God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men, and brown men, and yellow men;  God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race.”

This fits with another quote from Dr. King that offers further insight into his theology and his thinking, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: ‘What are you doing for others?’”  That perfectly states his Christian beliefs, his understanding of life purpose, and his activism.  For Dr. King, God calls us to share her love by serving others.  For me and any of you who are not religiously inclined, it’s not a supernatural god who calls us to serve, but rather our relationship as fellow humans that does so.  Every person shares the same 99.9% of DNA – as proven by the human genome project.  Since that is so, empathy impels us to feel and understand one another’s pain, and then seek to alleviate it, because we are all profoundly related.

As a white man, I am unable to know or fully understand the pain of African-Americans.  I have no experience of what it is like to live, breathe, and work knowing many judge me by the color of my skin.   But in the realm of empathy, I know what it is like to be judged for something I cannot control – my sexuality.  I’ve felt multiple instances of bullying and marginalization for being perceived as less than an assertive, straight, athletic, male.  I’ve also seen the pain of my daughters when they’ve been marginalized for being female: boys who abused them, or teachers who demeaned them by steering them away from the sciences and toward more supposedly feminine studies.  I’ve also sadly seen how some people reacted to my mom and her dementia when I used to take her out in public.  Her odd behavior had one restaurant manager ask us to leave.

Once again, Dr. King understood all of this marginalization and much worse.  He once wrote, “The more I observed the tragedies of history and man’s shameful inclination to choose the low road, the more I came to see the depths and strength of sin.”

The troubling fact of life is the cruelty people can so often show to others.  But the high road, the one so often less taken, is the path of empathy, compassion, love, and reconciliation.

For whatever it is worth, I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. is a prophet for the ages – someone who walked in the moral footsteps of Jesus and Gandhi.  Perhaps not surprisingly, all three were people of color, all three were radical advocates for justice and human equality, all three were murdered and martyred for their beliefs.

I conclude with Dr. King’s words – ones that encapsulate for me his life, his death, and his legacy:

“I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.  I believe that unarmed truth, and unconditional love, will have the final word.”

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

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

In almost all polls taken over the past several years, Martin Luther King, Jr. enjoys a 90% approval rating.  What is surprising is that at the time of his assassination in 1968, King had a 75% disapproval rating in most major polls.  He was disliked not only for his activism for racial justice, but also for his stand against the Vietnam War and for his support of the Poor People’s Campaign – a movement he began.  

Dr. King perceived the underlying reason for racism in America as due to economic greed and exploitation of African-Americans.  To address such exploitation, he proposed a massive 50 billion dollar fund be established by the Federal government to assist blacks and poor white people.  If poor and oppressed whites were persuaded to join ranks with blacks in support of such a huge assistance fund, they could form what he called a grand alliance to once and for all realize the promise of American opportunity and justice for all.  

And King’s opposition to the Vietnam war was similarly motivated.  He believed the use of poor black and white young men to fight America’s wars was unjust.  His advocacy was thus not just about race, but about overall justice for every marginalized person no matter their race.

These social justice views of King, which are often overlooked today, were a primary reason he had so many enemies.  He threatened not just racial segregation in America, but this nation’s framework of privilege for wealthy elites – all built on taking advantage of people of color, immigrants, the poor, and even the middle class.

Based on those views of Dr. King, powerful forces of wealth in this nation – the media, corporations, and the very wealthy often portrayed King as a communist and extreme radical.  By 1968 when he was killed, their efforts had been successful given the number of Americans who disliked him.  Dr. King had many enemies.

President Franklin Roosevelt once said that he hoped history would  judge him not by his friends, but instead by his enemies.  The actor Paul Newman echoed FDR’s thinking when he said, “A man with no enemies is a man with no character.”  And the novelist Victor Hugo equally once wrote, “You have enemies? Why, it is the story of every man who has done a great deed or created a new idea.  It is the cloud which thunders around everything that shines.”

If these men were on to something, that having enemies is often the mark of someone who is making a difference for good, then King was truly great. Perhaps worse for King than the large number of his enemies, were the many people who acted like friends, while they secretly attacked him.

President Lyndon Johnson was one of those.  He is often credited for getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into law and for being a friendly collaborator with Dr. King.  But Johnson had a long history as a Senator from Texas opposing Civil Rights.  He privately demeaned King by referring to him as that, “goddamn, ’n-word’, preacher”.  Andrew Young, one of King’s closest advisors, said this about Johnson, “On the surface we were being smiled at and granted grudging support; below the surface we were distrusted, resented and undercut.”  Many historians believe Johnson only supported the Civil Rights Act only because it had first been  proposed by President Kennedy, and Johnson jealously wanted to outshine JFK.  Historians also believe Johnson cynically believed he would win many black votes – despite his history as a racist.  

It’s also been mostly forgotten that the Civil Rights Act became law because of Republican Party support.  The measure would have been soundly defeated were it not for over 80% support by Republican Congresspersons and Senators.  In other words, many Democrats were not truly friends of Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement – and Republicans were.

Equal to some Democrats being enemies of King, so too were many white politicians and leaders in the North.  When King began his efforts to improve conditions for urban poor – particularly in Northern cities – he was hated all the more.  Many people in the North criticized the segregation policies of the South.  But when Dr. King rightly pointed out how many communities in the North did the same – just with more subtle and nuanced ways – he was then hated by many northerners.

When Dr. King led protests in Chicago against unfair housing practices like high rents for tenement housing, and red-line exclusion of black people from certain neighborhoods, he was met with violence that he said was far worse than what he had ever experienced in the South.

One of the institutions of power that was permitted to attack Dr. King was the FBI.  As its leader, J. Edgar Hoover openly harbored racist views.  He’d grown up in the South and it is believed by many historians that he had black ancestry.  Many historians also believe Hoover was secretly homosexual.  As some people do, Hoover likely transferred his self-hatred hypocritically on other people – and Dr. King was a target.  The FBI conducted a secret and unconstitutional effort to regularly bug King’s home, offices, and motel rooms – all in order to portray him as a moral fraud.   

At one point, the FBI sent to King’s wife Coretta a tape recording of King having an affair with another woman in a Washington DC hotel room.  With the recording came a note telling Mrs. King that her husband would soon be exposed and that, to save his reputation, he should do the right thing and end it all – an encouragement for Dr. King to commit suicide.  Similar tape recordings of Dr. King allegedly engaged in affairs were sent by the FBI to other black ministers and Civil Rights leaders – all to destroy King’s reputation.

Another effort to attack King was to expose Bayard Rustin, one of King’s close advisors and the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington.  Rustin was a gay man – and Dr. King knew this.  When the FBI threatened King with revealing a romantic encounter Rustin had with another man, unless he was fired, King refused.  He stood by Rustin as a colleague and as an expert grass roots organizer who almost single-handedly was responsible for the huge success of the Washington DC, I Have a Dream, March.   

My overall point for detailing King’s enemies is to emphasize how targeted and threatened he was during most of his activist years.  His home was bombed, he was shot at, he was hit many times with rocks and bottles, he received numerous death threats, he was falsely arrested by multiple Police Departments for ridiculous violations like loitering, and he was even stabbed in the chest and nearly killed over ten years prior to his death.

It is not exaggeration to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was the most hated man in America from 1956 to 1968 – when he died.  He didn’t just have a few enemies, like most people.  He had millions of them, many of whom were very powerful.

Most important for us, however, is to be inspired by and try to emulate how King reacted to his attackers.  In one sermon, King spoke from personal experience on how he believed people should follow the spiritual ethic of loving one’s enemies.  

First, he said people should look deep within themselves to perceive how they are imperfect.  We each have flaws, he said, that enemies use to their advantage.  If we are honest, we should admit our flaws, try to correct them, and thereby confound our enemies by becoming a better person.

Second, King suggested we should look for the good in our enemies.  To do this, King said, will dispel any toxic hatred within oneself.

As I discussed in last week’s message and as we just heard in his own words, King deeply believed love is the only power strong enough to defeat hate and win over an enemy.  But he was also practical enough to understand how hate ultimately harms the one who hates.

Third, King suggested that the best answer to an enemy is to let your  work speak for itself.  When we are working to achieve good things, there will always be people who want to defeat our efforts.  If we resolve to work all the harder at doing good, and not be dismayed or distracted by enemy attacks, we provide a perfect response to an enemy:   your attacks cannot defeat me.

Fourth and finally, King encouraged people not to respond to an enemy by attacking them in return.  Instead, he advised we leave it to God to determine consequences for an enemy.  King’s advice echoes what virtually all spiritual people believe:    good always overcomes evil.  

That follows what I believe about the Buddhist and Hindu concept of karma.  Both believe that it is the sum of one’s actions and words that will determine his or her fate.  For people who are motivated to put good into the world, and who do their best to achieve that, good things will happen to them.  And the reverse is true for those who perpetrate negativity and harm.  Such is a universal law of life, in my mind.

As an example, this month the world honors and celebrates Dr. King’s birth.  J. Edgar Hoover and King’s many other enemies are largely forgotten – and if they are remembered at all, it is not flattering.  For me, our real afterlife comes in how we impact the world long after we have passed.  Many of us may not be remembered as Dr. King still is, but the true measure of a person is the lasting influence their lives have.  The good we do today, the charity we give away, and the sacrificial service we offer to others will pay dividends long into the future. 

One-hundred years from now, will the good work we perform today still be impacting others – however indirectly?  If it does, we will be living onward in beautiful and eternal ways.  As a great prophet for the ages, Martin Luther King, Jr. now enjoys his good karma, and his Heaven, in the lives that his words and actions still improve.  His many enemies now suffer an opposite fate. Their legacy and their eternity are relegated to the garbage heap hell of history.

The reality is that our legacy – how the universe is affected by our lives – is NOT determined by how much fame, power, or money we amass, or how much nastiness and hate we cause.  Our eternal legacy is, for example, in the changed life of a child born into poverty whom we help or advocate for.  Because of our work, she gets an education and enjoys opportunities to succeed, have children of her own, and pass onto them values of diligence, charity, and goodness – all so that they in turn will teach the same to their children.   And on and on.  Our name may be forgotten, but the soul, and the effects, of our goodness will be eternal.

Dr. Martin Luther King understood that truth.  His enemies were many and the attacks they threw at him stung, but his enemies did not enjoy final victory.  King’s faith in himself, the righteousness of his cause, and the goodness of his methods, will all live forever precisely because they were founded on love and empathy – even for his millions of enemies.

I wish you each peace and joy.

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

Please click here to listen to the message:

During the summers of 1944 and 1946, at the ages of 15 and 17, Martin Luther King, Jr. travelled with other Morehouse college students to Connecticut to harvest tobacco.  The students were well paid for their work which helped them pay for their educations.  What is interesting about the trips is how they shaped King’s views on segregation and racism.  In a letter home during his first trip, King wrote, “After we passed Washington there was no discrimination at all.  The white people here are very nice.  We go to any place we want to and sit anywhere we want to.”  Many years later, King wrote, “After that summer in Connecticut, it was a bitter feeling going back to segregation.  It was hard to understand why I could ride wherever I pleased on the train from New York to Washington and then had to change to a Jim Crow car at the nation’s capital in order to continue the trip to Atlanta.”

For King, his summers in Connecticut ingrained in him a deep anger at segregation – and more importantly a desire to fight it however he could.  King later wrote in a magazine article, “I grew up abhorring segregation, considering it both rationally inexplicable and morally unjustifiable.  I could never accept the fact of having to go to the back of a bus or sit in the segregated section of a train.  The first time that I was seated behind a curtain in a dining car,  I felt as if the curtain had been dropped on my selfhood.”

King was born in 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia.  His given brith name was Michael King, Jr.  His father, who was Minister to the Ebenezer Baptist church in Atlanta, travelled to Germany in 1934 and was inspired by the Protestant Reformation leader Martin Luther.  As a result, King, Sr. began calling himself and his son, Martin Luther King.  The names stuck.  And that re-naming was symbolic of Dr. King’s life.  His values, and his views about racism, were strongly shaped by Christianity.  

King was highly intelligent and skipped both his freshman and senior years in High School.  He matriculated at the age of fifteen to Morehouse College and graduated at the age of 19.   He first intended to be either a lawyer or a doctor but near the end of college, he had an epiphany.  He later wrote that he had suddenly realized that the Bible “contains many truths which cannot be escaped” – and so he committed himself to become a minister to promote such truths.  At 21 he graduated from Seminary and at 25, he earned his doctorate in Theology.

Many years later, King wrote about his Seminary years, “At this stage of my development, I was a thoroughgoing liberal.  Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I could never find in fundamentalism.”  

But King soon perceived shortcomings in theological liberalism.  Its belief in the goodness of humanity was misguided, he believed.  “The more I observed the tragedies of history and man’s shameful inclination to choose the low road, the more I came to see the depths and strength of sin.”

King saw the nature of humanity through a Christian perspective.  His views, however, were a combination of liberalism and fundamentalism.  His fundamentalist side saw racism as sinful and something to be vigorously fought.  But his liberal side believed people who perpetrate acts of injustice can be fought not by anger and physical force, but by love.  Understanding this dichotomy in King gives insight into why his later protests were so successful and why, still today, he remains a figure whom many people believe followed in the footsteps of Jesus and Gandhi.

For King, segregationist laws are evil actions committed by otherwise good people.  Even so, racism is an affront to God who created a perfect and peaceful universe.  King embraced a viewpoint many people criticize as naive – hate the sin but love the sinner.  For King, such a viewpoint reflected an awareness that history is a long succession of people’s inhumanity toward others – and that such behavior must be attacked.  Importantly, however, methods for attacking evil must be carried out with loving concern for those who practice evil.  King always said he had no quarrel with racists as individuals.  But he took vehement stands against their racist beliefs and actions.   

This viewpoint was well stated by King.  He said, “The gospel at its best deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his body, not only his spiritual well-being, but his material well-being.  Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.”

King therefore saw the effort by blacks to win full equality as a spiritual endeavor.  Implicit in his belief was that those who endure the pain of racism and who struggle to end it are on the right side of God.  As he said, “God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men, and brown men, and yellow men;  God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race.”

For King, the teachings of Jesus offer a bright path to justice.  I believe that’s something to remember in understanding many African-American views even today.  Christian principles guide many of their attitudes.  For them and for King, Jesus was more than a religious figure.  He was an activist liberator who fought against hatred and inhumanity by teaching and encouraging God-like love.

Crucial to King’s thinking was therefore understanding how Jesus opposed the discriminators of his day.  Jesus fought against haters not with an army of warriors, but with the power of love.  That is not just cliche.  It’s true.  I, along with many experts, believe substantial portions of the Bible detailing Jesus’ teachings are historically accurate.  It was only much later writers, each with religious agendas, that added supernatural myth to the truth of Jesus’ life.

It’s because of that fact that we today can heed Martin Luther King’s encouragement to follow the example and teachings of Jesus.   And the primary principle of Jesus that King adopted was non-violence.  Jesus did not physically attack his opponents.  He expressed love for his enemies and a hope that if they could understand God’s love, they would change their sinful ways.  Jesus did not die a martyrs death during armed conflict.  He surrendered himself for sacrifice as an example of non-violent opposition.  These were lessons that fully informed how and why Martin Luther King, Jr. believed what he did about non-violence.  Fight hate forcefully – but with love.

Like Jesus, King’s fight against hate was not with syrupy sentimentality.  King’s non-violence was active and it was practiced with full awareness of the the evil that can exist in human hearts and minds.  As he said, “I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love, love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith.  There is another side called justice.  And justice is really love in calculation.  Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love.”

After earning his doctorate in Theology, in 1955 King was appointed Minister to a church in Montgomery, Alabama.  Soon after his appointment, blacks in the city began a boycott of the city’s bus system because of its segregation policies.  Despite being relatively unknown, he was asked to be the movement’s spokesperson.   He immediately perceived the significance of boycotts as a way to fight.  King said, “I am concerned about our moral uprightness and the health of our souls.  Therefore I must oppose any attempt to gain our freedom by the methods of malice, hate, and violence that have characterized our oppressors.”

He drew much of his inspiration on HOW to fight evil from Mahatma Gandhi.  He saw how Gandhi’s Indian policy of non-violence, called “satyagraha”, was a model to use.  Gandhi’s satyagraha against British colonialism used love-force as a way to fight.  It is not passive and meek, but instead quite forceful.  One looks for the falsehoods in an opponent’s repression and then calls attention to the truth of their immorality in a non-violent way.  The goal is to change an oppressors heart and thereby change his or her actions.

Many white Christians in 1956 Montgomery supported segregation.  King and the bus boycott pointed out the Christian immorality of laws that forced blacks to sit in the back of buses, or use separate and inferior facilities.  King pointed to Jesus’ actions and teachings to highlight the hypocrisy of white Christian society.  Jesus taught and modeled love and equality for the marginalized – the poor, the lame, the blind, lepers, women, non-Jews, and those of other races.  It was simply a matter of comparison for King and his followers to point out that segregation and discrimination are not loving, and are contrary to Christianity.  Boycotts were this a non-violent form of aggression designed to highlight immorality.  Even more, King emphasized that for blacks to continue submitting to segregation, was to themselves participate in a moral wrong.  The Montgomery bus boycott was not just a way to peacefully fight back, it was a spiritual statement – “We will not participate in your immoral actions.”

King later said about his time as leader of the Montgomery bus boycott, “I came to see for the first time that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence, was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.”

The Montgomery bus boycott led King to adopt six preconditions for non-violent action – ones that remain guidelines for non-violent protest today.  First, a person or group must thoroughly educate themselves about an injustice.  Second, a person or group must educate others about the injustice and why it is morally wrong.  Third, one must remain committed to non-violence even in the face of violent opposition.  Fourth, one must negotiate by bringing the oppressed and the oppressors together.  Then, according to King, a person or group should “Use humor, intelligence and grace to lead to solutions that benefit the greater good.”  Fifth, if negotiation fails, an oppressed person or group should initiate non-violent action – like a boycott.  Sixth, a person or group must always act and speak peacefully and constructively.  That includes peacefully agreeing to disagree – while continuing efforts to end injustice.

My hope is that a better understanding of King’s principles of non-violence will inspire more people to act the same.  Most people never act physically violent.  But many do, on occasion, speak with verbal violence.  Using sarcasm, anger, demeaning words, or by raising the volume of one’s voice, people can attack and bully others.  Many justify their verbal violence by arguing they are fighting for justice and what is right.  Others refuse to negotiate with oppressors because that signifies, for them, a surrender to evil.  But the examples of Jesus, King and Gandhi point to a far different conclusion.

Creative and forceful non-violent actions are not weak.  They are instead paradoxically strong.  Indeed, it is far easier to hit or verbally bully someone than it is to peacefully argue against their actions.  That does not mean King, or non-violent advocates today do not understand the nature of evil and the frustration oppressed people feel at the ongoing reality of inequality.  When talking about blacks who rioted, King counseled against those methods.  But he equally said that riots are the voice of those who have been unheard for too long.  Despite their anger, King believed in the redemptive and healing power of love to fully defeat hate and evil.  Throughout his life he refused to believe a moral outcome justifies immoral violence to achieve it.  Even more, violent actions are never successful for very long.  Violence only embitters opponents and motivates them to attack in response.  That, as King said, creates a continuing cycle of violence.

For me, for this congregation, for anyone who desires to create lasting change in the world, I believe the lessons of Dr. King are timeless.  They remind me to try and think before I write or speak – something I don’t always do.  His principles also remind me that evil can never be ignored and must be fought – but that it takes creativity and strength of character to fight, argue, and advocate with love.

In this year 2020, a time filled with demagogues, tyrants and forces of hate that appear to get more and more powerful, fighting with love seems naive.  Were Dr. King to be alive today, I imagine he’d be terribly frustrated at the excruciating slow progress to end racism.  Even so, given his principles, it seems likely to me that he would still be preaching creative non-violence and, most of all, love even for enemies.

I wish you each much peace and joy.

Please click here to listen to the message:

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

On this night of all nights, most of us want to spend it with people we love – and who love us.  In many cases, those people are our biological family members.  Indeed, the traditional image of families during the holidays is one of several children, a dog and cat, a mom, a dad, grandparents, and perhaps some aunts and uncles all gathering to exchange gifts or share a festive meal – one big, happy, and loving family celebrating together.

But that white picket fence image of family is, of course, just that – an image.  Like many traditional stereotypes of what comprises family, the one I just described has never been true – even as we like to think it was.  There have always been families separated by circumstances beyond control, or families missing a member or two because of death, illness, or estrangement.  In some cases today, children have no birth parents caring for them.  They’re being parented by grandparents or even people who have no blood link to them.  And many older people have no children, grandchildren, or nieces and nephews in their lives.  They can often spend the holidays alone.

In cultures besides that of the United States, the traditional concept of family has never been accurate either.   For many centuries, family in Japan meant the entire village in which one lived.  In indigenous tribal communities of Polynesia, Africa, and here in the U.S., children consider ALL elders as parents since child raising is a communal responsibility.  The tribe is thus one very large family.

And, of course, in today’s culture, the idea of family has assumed a much wider definition.  Parents of children might be two moms, two dads, or a single parent or grandparent.  For my daughters, their so-called modern family includes their dad and his same-sex partner – along with their mom and her new husband.  I also know many people for whom family is comprised of just friends.  For them, family is the people to whom they are close to by choice………..and not by biology.

I appreciate the concept among many today to refer to multiple non-biologically related people as “brother or sister.”  We apply such words to people we value and respect – whether or not we share the same parents.  I love how two well-known individuals, of seemingly very different backgrounds and views, model that ethic.  George W. Bush and Michelle Obama now refer to one another as sister and brother from another mother.  They’ve formed a close bond that transcends biology – much less politics and race.

Despite traditional and non-traditional concepts of family, there still remains a desire in our American culture to honor family togetherness.  That is especially true for the Christmas and Kwanzaa holidays we celebrate this evening, tomorrow, and the day after.  The original Christmas story itself honors the idea of family – a mom and a dad and their newborn child are joyously together – no matter their poverty and lack of proper shelter.   It must be noted, however, that even that first Christmas story idea of traditional family is not what it appears.  The Bible itself admits that Joseph is Jesus’ adoptive dad – and not his biological dad.

Kwanzaa, as a seven day holiday intended to celebrate African culture and heritage, lifts up family togetherness as its primary value.  Just like Unitarian Universalists have seven principles that guide their spirituality, so does the Kwanzaa holiday have seven principles that define and guide it.  And the very first Kwanzaa principle, Umoja, calls for those with African heritage to importantly honor the unity……..the unityof family and of community.

Beginning on December 26th, families of African heritage gather together every night to discuss that day’s Kwanzaa principle and to light one of seven candles in their kinara, or Kwanzaa candle holder.  The family then says a prayer and ends it, each night, by saying together “Harambee” – which is Swahili for “Let’s Pull Together”.  Unity of purpose, love, and family is a recurring theme in the holiday.

And that same theme defines Christmas and, indeed, all of Christianity.  From the beginning the Bible, through the Ten Commandments, and including Jesus’ statements, the Bible teaches respect for the family and its members.  People are to not only honor their mothers and fathers, friends and neighbors, they are also to love and honor total strangers.  When he was once told that his mother and brother were waiting to see him, Jesus pointed to the hundreds of people surrounding him and said, “Who is my mother and my brother?  Here are my mother and my brothers…”  His message, as we know, was one of love and respect for every person – not just blood relations.

That enlarged family ethic got lost for a time in the United States, but thankfully it has been renewed over the last twenty or more years.  I’ve mentioned that twice this past year I’ve guest spoken at the Unitarian Universalist church in Key West, Florida.  That church, called One Island Family UU, conceived of its name from Key West’s motto – “One Human Family.”  I love that motto.  It captures what Key West has always been about – to welcome and celebrate people of any race, religion, sexuality, or economic status.  

But more than a motto for one city, I think “One Human Family” is a motto for the world.  When the human genome was finally and completely mapped in 2004, it was astonishingly discovered that each and every human being shares 99.9% of the same DNA.  The .1% of DNA that humans do not share determine minor differences such as eye and hair color – and, of course, the amount of melanin in skin.  Such minor differences can be found even in biologically related families.  But the bigger point is that the 8 billion people comprising the human species are all closely related.  Everybody belongs to the One Human Family.

My message series this December has been entitled “Around a World of Holidays” – and we’ve examined inspiring values from December holidays in Scandinavia, China, Israel and, for this evening, here in the United States.

And what inspires me about Christmas and Kwanzaa as American holidays, is their mutual emphasis on unity and love not just for our biological families, but for our much larger community, nation and world families.

It is cliche, but still true, that family ought to be defined as where the heart lies…….with people who we love.  In that case, each and everyone of you are my family – as members of this congregation, as friends and family of members, and as visitors welcomed and embraced.

The Christmas and Kwanzaa challenge for me, therefore, is to tear down the false walls that define traditional family.  Christmas and Kwanzaa, as we celebrate them in America, call us to disregard the minor differences between us – and to literally think of each other as brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle, cousin.  That is the message of the two holidays we celebrate tonight – that the human family wants and needs unity, respect, and love.

My daughter Amy and her husband are in town now – visiting from Denver.  My partner Keith and I had dinner with them yesterday.  And after this service, Keith and I will rush out to meet my other daughter Sara and her husband.  And tomorrow evening, it will just be Keith and me sharing a non-traditional holiday meal at an Indian restaurant – one of the few places open on Christmas.

And so I’ll be very blessed this Christmas.  Last night I was with family.  Tonight I’m with two of my families – all of you – and later with my eldest daughter.  And tomorrow evening I’ll have dinner with my other family – a man I love very much.  But in the days, weeks, months and years beyond these holidays, I – and all of you – will be with our One Human Family.  And it is with all of them that we must draw close, find common cause, and cherish.

I wish each of you, my sisters and my brothers, much peace, joy and a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and meaningful Kwanzaa.