Author: Doug Slagle

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering UCC, All Rights Reserved

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

 
Reinhold Niebuhr, the famous 20th century theologian and writer whom many of you know or have studied, has been widely followed. He has influenced American Presidents across the political spectrum, from FDR, to Reagan, to Obama. Martin Luther King, Jr. said he looked more to Niebuhr’s ideals then he did to Gandhi’s. Niebuhr wrote one of the best known and perhaps most influential prayers of our time – the so-called Serenity prayer:
God grant me the serenity,
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Widely used by Alcoholics Anonymous and similar organizations, the implicit meaning of the prayer gets at the fundamental paradox we find in humans. Alone at the pinnacle of all creation in terms of intellectual capabilities and the power to exert control over nature, humans are nevertheless prone to the sin and downfall of pride. For Niebuhr, that is the ultimate flaw within the human character – our propensity no matter one’s religion, politics, intelligence or social status – to assume we have the insight, the answers and the power to change almost anything.
This sin of pride derives, according to many Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians, from humanity’s very beginnings. According to the Bible and the Koran, pride began at the moment Adam and Eve defied God and ate from the Tree of Knowledge. In doing so, they sought to be like God. And that original presumption has led humanity, according to the Adam and Eve myth, to think and act according to their own selfish desires.
Many Christians therefore believe in the original sin of all people – since we are ancestors of Adam and Eve. We are a fallen species, stained by selfishness and pride that is imprinted on our very souls. Our only hope for redemption is to follow religious teachings of self-restraint and obedience. In recognition of our sin, in understanding that only an all powerful and theistic god can rescue us, we must submit, surrender and give in. We are fallen. There is no hope apart from a supernatural god.
In conflict with that view, however, has been the long march of historical argument that the earth and humanity are perfectible. From Aristotle, to Enlightenment thinkers, to twentieth century secular humanists, has come the viewpoint that our lives can be redeemed by our own actions. Hope does exist and we need not turn to some outside god for salvation but, instead, to ourselves. Humans are not born with the original sin of selfishness. That is a learned behavior and it can just as easily be unlearned. As I often say, God is not some outside force that controls our destiny. God is us. It is the power of the human spirit, it is we – who are to work for a better planet.
What distinguished Niebuhr, reflected in his Serenity prayer, was his refusal to take sides in this debate. He charted what was and still is a middle course between conservative and liberal theology – one that he called “realistic.” Implicit in his beliefs and in his prayer is the idea that yes, sin exists, but there is a difference between that which we have control over and that which we don’t. For Niebuhr, we exist at the mercy of a higher power but that higher power allows humanity both the ability and the responsibility to confront and change the sins, flaws and failures in our world.
All around him Niebuhr saw an imperfect world bullied by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. In his day, evil existed in the face of the Holocaust, in racism, in the mistreatment of factory workers. Differing from the thinking of many Christians, Niebuhr asserted that humanity cannot sit idly by in the face of such evil – trusting in the eventual triumph of God. Idealistic pacifism and reliance on prayer can only go so far. Humans must have the COURAGE to change the things over which they do have control. That was and is a radical departure from much of Christian thinking which often promotes acceptance of injustice in anticipation of a better afterlife. Humans, he claimed, can and must act as agents of goodness to confront many of the defects in our world. That was, and is a more liberal understanding of human purpose.
But just as important, for Niebuhr, humans must also find a certain serenity by accepting that people and much of the universe are not perfectible. Echoing what more traditional theologians believed, Niebuhr agreed that humanity is stained by original sin. Hitlers and Stalins and the KKK will always exist and we cannot change the darkness in their hearts and minds. We only have the ability to fight against the consequences of their evil. Human nature is too sinful, too broken, too fallen to completely fix. We must have the peace of mind, the serenity to let go of changing the the flaws found in the hearts or minds of people. Such change, if it is to be done, must begin with each individual person.
The key in resolving these two impulses – to work for change, or to accept what cannot be changed – these are resolved by human reason. Our minds give us the ability to perceive the difference between opposing the actions of people like Adolf Hitler, which we can influence, and shaking our fists in impotent anger at how their minds think. In other words, may we have the serenity to accept the reality of imperfection in the hearts of others and in ourselves. May we nevertheless have the courage to confront their actions. May we have the wisdom to know the difference. And in perceiving that difference, we will find our peace of mind.
My introduction is an indirect way to address my topic this morning – how do we simplify our lives by simply letting go? Sin, evil and suffering affect all of us. What is our answer to that? Cower in fear. Rage with anger at all of the injustice that we see and feel? Burn with bitter resentment? Refuse to forgive? Immerse ourselves in trying to judge, fix and solve all of the problems and flaws we see around us and in others? Assume that God will take care of the world’s flaws in his or her own way? Such attitudes consume our energy, complicate our thinking and waste our time. Is there a simpler approach?
I have related in some of my past messages how I was a hands on father. My girls were a project to me – one assigned to me by the fates of life. But, I was determined not to fail. I wanted them to be special. I wanted them to achieve. I wanted them to be good, decent and kind people. I wanted them to be little trophies to put on my symbolic shelf and look upon with pride at my job well done. In many ways, I believe their mom was the same.
And while I see my girls today with all of their beauty of body, mind and spirit, I look at them now not so much with pride as I do with simple love and honest enjoyment. I like being around them. And that was not always the case. As a hands on dad, they resented my obsessive concern and nagging. We had our fights about missed curfews, lackluster grades, rebellious behavior. There were times times when I honestly looked them in the face and said, “I will always love you, but right now I don’t like you very much.” And, in their own way, they said the same thing back to me.
About eight years ago, however, all of that angst and sturm and drang miraculously changed. While not conscious of it at the time, my relationship with my girls became more calm, more enjoyable, more deeply loving. Of course, I want to attribute this to the fact that they finally grew up and accepted all that I had been telling them over the years! In reality, I see now that it was me who grew up. I changed. Instead of obsessing over every detail in their lives, instead of worrying about everything they did, instead of seeking to change them in ways that sucked the life out of our relationship, I began to just let go – to the point today where I have almost totally let go. I had held my figurative, tiny, fragile, birds in my hand too tightly. Their wings were crushed. Once I opened my hand and allowed them to fly free, their spirits soared – and mine along with them. I had to let them go in order to really hold onto them.
How I wish I had applied the Serenity prayer when my girls were younger. Indeed, all of my efforts to control them and change them only worked to control me and alter my better instincts – for the worse. Had I understood then that I could not not change them or control them, only they could do that, our lives would have been much simpler. Had I the wisdom to control only what I can truly change – me! – then all would have been different. Their behavior and their choices were up to them. Yes, there are consequences to their behavior – the law of naturally reaping what they sow – but I could choose to be in control by not being angry, obsessive or bitter. “Here is my boundary. If you cross it, this will be the consequence. You have the freedom to choose how you want to behave and how you want to grow up.”
Niebuhr’s philosophy speaks perfectly to the role of parenting or of relating with anyone. Wisdom and experience tells me that I cannot change anyone. Nor should I judge or demean anyone. Finding simplicity in my life means seeing my girls and others in their goodness and in their beauty – loving them and accepting them for who they are – while letting them, and not me, seek the kind of inner growth and change only they can execute.
Grant me the peace, the calm, and the unconditional love, yes unconditional love, of accepting others as they are. Grant me the courage to place reasonable boundaries around myself – protecting me from the negative actions of others. Grant me the wisdom to know that I cannot change others – nor can they change me. Change is a choice only each person can make about themselves.
While Niebuhr believed in a god that ordered the universe, his theology does not exclude humanism and Atheism. Indeed, the Serenity prayer places humans at the center of life. It is not a god that controls our destiny, but us. We choose to be at peace, or not, by letting go of anger, bitterness and strife. We choose to let go of worry and doubt. We choose to share with the poor, feed the hungry, show compassion to the sick, act humbly and gently toward others, and work against injustice…….or not. Evil pervades the world but we can simplify life by focusing on areas over which we have genuine influence – the effects of evil that we see, and the flaws we find in ourselves.
What we learn to let go of is the idea that we have control over much else in life. Indeed, what we discover is the more we try to control things, the more we try to control others, the more out of control we really are. Letting go, however, is counter-intuitive. I must lose control in order to gain control. I must let go in order to hold on. I must die in order to live.
How many of us constantly work to change what we don’t like in a lover, partner, spouse, child or friend – believing we will improve them or the relationship? How many of us are distrustful, jealous or too needy toward someone we love, believing we will hold onto that person? How many of us yearn to find a romantic partner, searching desperately for Mr. Right or Ms. Perfect, believing we will then be happy? How many of us live in constant fear of illness, death, or harm – believing we will thus be protected? How many of us slog away at a job or role in life we dislike, believing we could not survive without it? How many of us despair at our own inner flaws, body image or sense of self believing that is just the way we are?
The ironic fact we find is that our efforts to change another person will not bring them closer. It drives them away. The same happens when we are too needy or too jealous. Searching in desperation for a lover only sends the signal that we are unhappy and no fun to be around. Living in fear and striving to protect ourselves from harm does not insure a longer life, it only diminishes it. Staying with a job we hate puts food on our tables, but it prevents us from doing what we truly enjoy. We survive, but we don’t thrive. Choosing to be stuck in any self-destructive behavior or thinking does not insure our contentment. It holds us back from life-enriching beauty, compassion and happiness.
In this way, Christianity and Niebuhr provide valuable insight. We must die to self in order to really live. We must kill the self pride that assumes we can change people or events beyond our control. We must slay the green eyed dragon of jealousy and envy. We must poison the black fear that restrains us. We must stifle the notion that we cannot be happy as a single person. We must accept our innate weakness – yes weakness – in changing many things. We cannot change our boss. We cannot change the weather. We cannot change the freeway traffic jam we get stuck in. The only realm over which we can legitimately act as an all powerful god, is the kingdom of our own hearts and minds. We can change ourselves.
By letting go in many life situations, we find the miracle of resurrection, of new life, new relationships, new happiness, new passion, new contentment. And life is so much simpler.
I confess there is much about me that I must work to change. I worry about bad things happening in so many situations that I am blinded to the joy of living in the moment. I focus on what others think of me so much that I neglect what I think about myself. So often in here on Sunday mornings, for instance, I get caught up in controlling the details of a service, in trying to offer an interesting, inspiring message, that I am mostly deaf to what I say or to what is going on – I read the readings, sing the songs, deliver my message as well as I possibly can. But, I miss the spirit, I miss the simple pleasure of living in this wonderful hour. I want the passion, the life, the beauty, the funny mess-ups, the good but imperfect human that I am. I want this in many areas of my life. I want peace. I want serenity. I want to let go…
As you might pray the Serenity prayer for me, I pray it for each of you.
(Communion – then talk back)

 

 

(C) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering UCC, All Rights Reserved

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

There is a story about a young boy who lived during the Middle Ages. As he walked down a dirt road, he came across a man who was hard at work with a hammer and chisel pounding away at a large stone. Sweat was pouring from his brow. He was angry and frustrated. “What are you doing?” asked the boy. “I’m shaping this darn stone!” muttered the man.
The boy walked a ways further down the road and met another man doing the same thing – hammering and chiseling away at a stone. But this man seemed neither angry or happy. He simply chiseled away. “What are you doing?” the boy asked. “I’m shaping this stone for a building.” answered the man dully.
About another mile down this road, the boy came across a third man engaged in the same work – hammering and chiseling away at a very large stone. This man, though, was whistling and smiling as he labored. He too was sweating but he looked up brightly and greeted the boy with a smile. “What are you doing?” the boy asked. “I’m shaping this stone to be part of a cathedral!” the man happily replied.
This fable has been told and retold as a lesson about attitudes toward work. It’s been an obvious truth since the dawn of humanity that we must work to survive. In more primitive economies, humans could survive by hunting, gathering and making simple necessities – crude tools, baskets and clothing. Survival was the sole motivation for work. But as cultures advanced and as humans began to work at jobs for which there was no direct link to survival, tasks needed to offer more emotional and psychological meaning. Do we slog away in life chipping away at rocks, or do we work to build inspiring legacies that make the world better?
How we think about work is important, but for much of human history we could also be inspired simply by what we did: as a mason, a farmer, a trader. We built houses and factories. We grew food. We enabled human commerce. We changed the world. Both the work and the employer gave us our identity. This was true even for many of our grandparents and parents – a career was an identity not just by the company we worked for but by the transformational nature of the work. Companies saw themselves as social agents of change and their employees were partners in that effort who, with hard work, were rewarded with higher pay, career advancement and meaning.
There was an implicit understanding between employer and employee – both were joined in common cause to help change the world for the better. IBM employees were building the digital revolution that would change how people live. Proctor and Gamble employees produced goods that made household tasks easier and less time consuming – thus freeing particularly women to engage in work outside the home. Work could meet survival needs, allow the purchase of a few luxuries and give a person the kind of personal fulfillment that comes from having purpose.
Because of technology, global competition and simple greed, much of that has changed. Work has often reverted to be like more primitive tasks humans used to do – repetitious labor for which we gain the means to survive but which often lack deep fulfillment. In many cases, people no longer work to help change the world. They work in order to survive at the level of meeting basic needs.
But as the fable that I related implies, it is essential for our well-being to be able to think about our work and our time in helpful ways. If our purpose in life is to make the world a better place, then our work life ought to reflect that goal. So too must our leisure time and personal time. Our lives ought to be simplified to meet that one overall life purpose – does what I do with my time, either directly or indirectly, enable my life mission? In very simple terms, will all of the time I spend help build a better world?
That leads me to my theme for this month – to find simplicity in life such that it is reduced to the basic questions we face. Today’s topic: to stay productive but not busy. Next Sunday: to eliminate the kinds of thoughts and attitudes that divert and distract us – worries, fears, doubts, anger – and to find instead the proverbial “silver lining.” Finally, in two weeks: how to surround ourselves only with the so-called “right people” – those who uplift us, encourage us and love us in ways that help us to maximize our potential and our purpose.
The sayings of Buddha, which are often condensed approximations of his more complex writings, indicate that all of existence is governed by impermanence – nothing lasts as it is. As humans, we have no control over impermanence and its five main forces – growing old, getting a disease, dying, decaying and, finally, changing into different forms of matter. Our only human answer to these forces of impermanence, according to the Buddha, is to search for and find inner peace and to ultimately, hopefully, find a state of enlightened Nirvana. Since most of the forces of impermanence involve the constant passing of time, we soon learn we cannot stop it. We hate its expenditure. We fight against it. But time, whatever such a concept is, rolls inexorably onward.
As the Buddha said, “Life is swept along, next to nothing its span. For one swept to old age, no shelters exist. Perceiving danger in death, one should drop the world’s bait and look for peace.” He goes on to say that such peace does not mean inaction but rather serene acceptance. In doing so, one is able to understand the implications of inaction and wasting time. The Buddha concluded, “Whatever you are doing now may be your last act on earth. It may very well be your last battle. Why the hesitation to change?”
Ultimately, we must wisely use the time we have. Even this hour we spend every Sunday morning – we must ask, “does it redeem its use such that not only are we better off but are the areas of life we influence better off because of our time spent here?” If we cannot usually answer “yes”, then we ought to let go and move to a usage of time that truly fulfills a life purpose.
This thought echoes that found in the Christian Bible. Paul exhorts followers in one of the churches he founded to “redeem the time” they used. In other words, time will be spent no matter what we do with it. But if we redeem it, we will have exchanged it for something valuable. Are we caught in endless cycles of time use that sap our spiritual and emotional energy, that bore us, that diminish us in anger, envy, depression or worry?
I would often get upset when my girls were sometimes assigned homework that seemed, at least to me, to be repetitious busywork – designed not to stimulate learning as much as to bludgeon to death an already learned concept. There was little or no creativity needed to do the work. No thinking. No real learning. No growth.
I can find myself often doing similar things as an adult – like reading a contemporary pulp novel that entertains but does not enlighten. Or I’ll watch, out of weird fascination, some mind numbing infomercial for which I have no interest in the product, or I’ll aimlessly use my iPad to surf the internet. Or, as is my occasional downfall, I’ll spend hours worrying about some small event or something negative said to me by another. Sadly, there are too many hours of time that I have spent wastefully. In doing so, I have neglected my purpose in life.
But how do we stay focused on using the time we have productively? About three years ago I encouraged in one of my messages that every person write a mission statement for their lives. If you did not hear that message or just ignored me, I encourage you to do this exercise – to write a personal life mission statement. What are the things most important to you and to the legacy you will leave behind? What is it that you want to define how you spend your time? What are your specific talents and passions that you want to use and enlarge?
In that previous message, I spoke about 83 year old Gene Sharp who decided, after a life of interest in non-violence, to write a 72 page manifesto on ways to actually practice non-violent confrontation. His booklet was widely reprinted and used in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions – sparking creative thinking in those movements on how to speak and act without physical or verbal violence. I also spoke about Muhammad Yunis and Grameen Bank, two low-level bureaucrats from Bangladesh who yearned to create real change for the people they served. They founded the mico-loan movement that has helped over 90 million people buy farms or start small businesses in mostly third world nations. They recently won the Nobel Prize in economics for their work.
In that Sunday message, I asked you to do this exercise at home and then display your written personal mission statement someplace that you will often see – posted as the opening page on your computer or on a paper taped to your bathroom mirror. My personal mission statement, as I recited it to you, was and still is: “To live self-aware and with purpose; to practice compassion, empathy and humility; to embrace life-enriching joy in what I do; to encourage spiritual beauty in myself and in others; to leave this world in peace.”
One person e-mailed me after that Sunday message saying that he or she did not have a purpose in life. One lived. One worked. One made a family. One grows old. And then one dies. That’s the sum total of human purpose.
But this person, on reflection, realized he or she had real purpose and had, in truth, been living out that purpose even without consciously realizing it. By writing down a mission statement, he or she could now use time and resources to even better accomplish a life purpose.
If we are to be productive in our use of time, and not just busy, having a life mission statement or purpose is a must. It is like having a destination in mind when we set out on a trip. Without knowing where we want to go, how will we ever truly get anywhere? The same holds true in life. Where is it that we are going?
By establishing a mission statement, we can then order our lives in such a way that meets our mission. Every day, for instance, if we want to be productive in our use of time, we should determine one or two things we can do that directly speaks to our mission – to read an article or book pertinent to our passion, to volunteer in some way that teaches or enlarges our skill for others, to find time to reflect and deeply think about our life goals, to look for small ways in our career work that will directly add to our life mission – to learn something new, to attempt a task never done before, to acquire or grow the attitudes necessary for our mission. There are few jobs from which we cannot derive meaning and purpose – if we see them in the larger light of our purpose. Are we chipping away at a stone just to survive or are we working, learning, planning for a Cathedral?
Productivity experts advise other more practical ways to remain productive in our use of time:
to refuse to be a slave to or addict of technology;
to only single task and forget the idea that multi-tasking is good;
to set firm boundaries by gently but firmly telling ourselves, others and even our bosses when tasks are trivial and do not fulfill a larger purpose to improve the world;
to practice mindfulness by focusing only on the here and now – the present – and thus refusing to engage in remorse over the past or worry about the future;
to reframe mundane tasks like walking a dog in order to use them for something better – for instance to meditate or reflect;
and, finally, to work way ahead of schedule so that we are not rushed or otherwise distracted.
When we simplify anything in life, we reduce it to its most essential elements and practices. This must be the same with our lives. Since our lives are counted by time, we must reduce our expenditure of it only to what is most essential. None of us are billionaires when it comes to the amount of time we have. By letting go of the useless, wasteful and empty, we can instead fill our time with what is uplifting, meaningful and good. That does not mean we become Puritan like workaholics who see virtue only in hard physical labor. Ease, meditation and relaxation have an important role to play by adding to our energy levels.
Ultimately, however, we live for a reason. No matter who or what we believe created us, there exists an implicit purpose to our existence. Mere survival is not it. Our species must go on and thrive. All creation must be preserved and enlarged. Progress and evolution must march onward toward the goal of better lives for all people and all creatures. If heaven on earth will never truly be achieved, we can at least help humanity move closer to that ideal. That is the overall human purpose and we must each then find our individual purpose that fits within the larger goal.
That is the key, therefore, to getting out of a rut of mindless work and empty busy-ness. If we remember that we are are about helping to build something greater than ourselves – we will then find more ways to productively spend our time. And our lives will be simpler and less confused if we stay focused on that mission. What is your passion? What is the legacy you want to leave behind? What symbolic Cathedral do you hope to help build? Don’t stop thinking, planning, working toward that goal. Our life mission must last until our very last breath.
Because of our brains, souls and spiritual way of thinking, humans have the unique duty, yes the duty, to continuously improve the world. Alone among all creatures, we have that ability and that responsibility. None should live without purpose. We must redeem our time. We must build our Cathedral and, in doing so, find our peace and joy.
I wish you all a life of purpose!

 

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering, UCC, All Rights Reserved

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

 
Jesus’ so-called sermon on the mount discourse is said by many to capture the entirety of his beliefs. Of paramount importance to him and to each person ought to be the well-being of others – particularly those who are sick, poor and hurting. The heart of the divine, he said, is with those who are meek, humble, hungry and poor. They understand what it means to rely on hope, trust and faith.
I use Jesus as an example in some of my messages not to endorse Christianity as a religion but instead to look to his teachings as ways for us to learn and grow – much like we also often look to other historic prohets for their insights.
Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, focused heavily on human attitudes. For him, hypocrisy is one of the greatest of evils. And too many people are prone to it, he said. As a result, he spoke against the kind of hypocrisy that professes concern for family life but then easily abandons wives, in his time, to poverty. He also pointed out how violence and murder are condemned by all people. But then he added a twist. Verbal violence, name calling and angry words are equal to murder. Both physical AND verbal violence are inconsistent with human goodness.
He also highlighted hypocrisy with regard to adultery. One might believe it inappropriate to physically engage with a person besides one’s spouse or partner. But Jesus called out those who believed they were pure of committing physical adultery but who nevertheless lusted with their thoughts. Both are forms of infidelity. Implicitly, he says many people are guilty of some form of adultery – physical or mental – and thus should not wag their tongues in condemnation of others.
He had particular scorn for those who give lavishly to the poor or other charities and make a big show of it. What is their true motivation? To help someone else or to bring attention to oneself? The same ethic holds true for the outwardly pious and those who pray long and loud prayers in public. What is their motivation? Is it to deeply connect with a force greater than oneself, or to again seek favorable attention?
Ultimately, he asked his listeners, where is your heart? In what do you place your trust? In money? In things? In yourself? In being adored and admired by others? Or is your heart motivated by higher ideals – to help others, to love others, to quietly and humbly serve?
My message series this month seeks to address the ethics of several modern issues. Technology. Raising children. Genetic research and testing. It is almost impossible to know what Jesus or any other prophet like Buddha or Mohammed would say about such issues. But as I’ve said before, many ethical teachings including those found in the Bible, Torah, Koran or Veda are not fixed in time. Their teachings cannot rely on the literal words that were written thousands of years ago. They must evolve according to new insights and new revelations.
For instance, there are nine verses in the Bible that explicitly condemn homosexuality. For many Biblical fundamentalists, those are the words of God, the Bible says they are so, end of debate! Their minds are closed.
But the ancient mind had no concept or knowledge of modern psychology and recent discoveries about human sexual orientation. Just as Jesus sharply condemned those who discriminated against persons born with a disability, the same might apply to those born gay – not that being gay is in any way a disability. The point Jesus made was that any person, any created thing is good and wonderful. All should be loved.
These same principles can be applied to how we understand the ethics of genetic research, testing and technology – my topic for today. Geneticists have proposed four ethical standards. First, is the research or gene technology beneficial to humans? Second, does it live up the standard of “do no harm”? Third, are standards of justice and fairness applied in its use? Fourth, do people retain autonomous and private control over their own genes and any genetic test results or treatments?
Recently, new research was revealed that caused alarm in some religious fundamentalist circles. It put to test the first ethical standard: does a technology help people? Scientists at the Scripps Institute in San Diego published results last week of their work to create entirely new life forms. These scientists have not just manipulated existing genes and DNA, but they developed a way to add chemical molecules to e.coli cells such that their DNA would then recognize the chemicals and use them to produce synthetic and a heretofore unknown pair of nucleotides that are the building blocks of all DNA. The result is a DNA double helix that nature has not produced and likely never will on its own. This synthetic biology or SynBio, as it is called, creates a new life form.
In this case, scientists are attempting to manufacture new kinds of living cells that can then be used for industrial and medical purposes. Such cells are envisioned to one day be living nano computer chips – microscopic cells that can be turned on or off in order to serve binary computing needs. And, they might serve as new types of medicines – cells that directly deliver a drug at a microscopic level. All of these cells will be totally man-made with DNA structures unknown in the natural world.
Many fundamentalists and some ethicists reacted strongly to the news. The implications of the discovery, they say, are profound. Humans are no longer manipulating life. They are creating it by manufacturing life forms that nature never intended. What if this technology proceeds and we become capable of making not just DNA for single cells but new animal or human DNA that would produce alien life of no natural origin? We are acting as if we are God, or at worst, like Frankenstein mad scientists, critics say.
But is that a worthy ethical response? Does this new technology not hold the promise of much greater disease treatment? Might it not greatly help humanity? Is that not the stated motivation of these scientists? If something can potentially be used for harm, for evil purposes, does that make the technology itself bad?
As Jesus pointed out, humans have always been able to turn something good into something bad – marriage, charity, or prayer as he discussed in his sermon on the mount. As in those cases, our ethical response must be toward demanding ethical behavior by people in how they use and apply new technology. The ability to create new life is not evil if that knowledge is applied ethically and for the good of others. In that regard, the technology is a divine gift – something wonderful and fully supported by any moral standard. Our role as humans is to insure that our hearts and our motivations, as Jesus constantly taught, are directed in the right way.
Regarding the ethical standard that demands people have autonomy over their own genes and genetic test results, the questions are equally complex. Within the last six months, scientists announced that they are nearing the ability to have a genetic blood test accurately determine whether or not a person will develop the Alzheimer’s disease. Such a test, for me, is both amazing and frightening – given my own mom’s diagnosis. Am I a genetically prone to the disease? If so, what would I do with that knowledge?
The PBS network recently sponsored and televised just such an ethical discussion. One daughter of an Alzheimer’s patient was asked if she would have the new genetic test. Yes, she replied. It would be liberating. As much as she did not want to hear bad news, she owed an ethical obligation to herself and to her family to know the truth. She could mentally and physically prepare herself for the disease onset. She could get her affairs in order. She could discuss with her family all of her wants and needs. She could assure them of her love. She might even choose to end her life at some point prior to the full disease onset in order to spare her family.
Another woman whose parent has the disease said she would refuse to take the test. If she were shown to have the Alzheimer’s gene, she would live in constant fear. It would depress her, affect her mental well-being for the years she has remaining and deeply darken her outlook on life. Not knowing, she said, was the ethical approach for her and her family so that all are spared premature worry. Even more, she asked, how ethical is it to kill oneself and leave one’s family with that burden?
While Jesus often taught that the search for truth is a worthy goal, he also emphasized the integrity of each person to make life choices. He also underlined the precious nature of life and that all people are loved – no matter a disability. Is a victim of Alzheimer’s any less worthy than another? Should that person be considered a burden and someone who should commit suicide? Is their life still not precious?
We see two competing interests – to serve and protect the feelings of family who will have to deal with a future Alzheimer’s patient, and the rights of any person to determine their own lives. In this case, the ethic of autonomy and freedom to choose what to do in response to a genetic test are paramount. Some may want to know the truth. Others will not. Freedom demands the right of each to choose. Both are operating from firm ethical ground. Once again, the standard applies regarding what is the motivation? What is in the heart?
Having autonomy over our genes was further underscored by a Supreme Court decision last year. The court unanimously held that a Utah company that discovered and patented two genes causing breast and ovarian cancers cannot continue to patent and profit from these human genes. Humanity owns and retains control over its own genes since they are an implicit part of who we are. While tests to detect such genes can be patented, the life structure itself, this piece of created nature, cannot be exclusively owned by another. It’s not as if this company wanted to own the rights to just a few individual genes. It wanted to own the right to the very idea of these genes and thus control all such cancer genes wherever they exist.
The court cited a statement from Jonas Salk who developed the polio vaccine in the 1950’s. When asked if he would patent his vaccine, he replied no. The vaccine was an amount of dead virus that initiates an immune defense. These dead viruses are a part of nature he said. He merely determined how to put them to good use. “Can you patent the sun?” he asked.
All of nature, all of humanity are wonderfully created things. What we discover about nature and our bodies is still a part of nature – and still under universal ownership. Nobody can own and profit from such natural wonders.
The third ethical standard proposed by geneticists is one of justice and privacy. Genetic tests must not be used to discriminate. Results must be private and they must be strictly limited in how they can be used. Police in a small Virginia town recently asked a number of African-American men to voluntarily submit to DNA testing. The town was being terrorized by a serial rapist who was described as African-American. While many did volunteer, many others refused. Accusations of racism were made along with concerns about just what the police would do with all of the DNA data they collected. Save it to check on future crimes? Share it with outside interests who might use it to discriminate? Exactly what tests would be performed on the DNA – ones for identification or ones to determine other factors such as who carries the sickle-cell anemia gene? What about those who refused to be tested? Would that cause them to be targeted by police as possible suspects? Finally, are we moving as society toward a national DNA database where our genetic codes will be saved and used in ways to limit our freedoms – to deny us health insurance, to invade our privacy, to illegally monitor our private activities?
In matters of genetic privacy and non-discrimination, courts, laws and ethical standards have not reached definitive conclusions. If an insurance company could learn that I am genetically disposed to Alzheimer’s, will they want to insure me – or at least charge me much higher premiums? Could genes identifying race be used to discriminate? Do I have the right to privacy over my own genetic structure such that nobody can access it without due process?
Justice demands that genetic testing and data be used fairly and without prejudice. Such genetic data, if it is used for statistical analysis or other research, must be wiped of other identifying information. Our personhood, our rights of freedom must be preserved. Our genes cannot be used for unfair or discriminatory purposes. In that regard, they must remain private or sharply limited in their use and application.
The final ethical standard put forward by genetic scientists is an easy but profound one to apply. Do no harm. It echoes the sign outside of Google headquarters that implores its employees, “do no evil.” Just as all world religions teach the Golden Rule to treat others as one wants to be treated, the logical corollary to it is to do nothing that hurts another. No violence. No angry or hurtful speech. No discrimination. No hatred. No bitterness. No theft. No deception. Genetic researchers must not pursue research or perform a test that has the potential, by itself, to harm. If a test or form of research is intended to be used for good but can potentially be used for evil, then ethics, laws and standards will be determined by reasonable persons to limit such behavior. This echoes Jesus’ teaching. Don’t put your trust in things that will eventually rust or rot away. Put your trust in what matters and what endures – truth, goodness, compassion, service, reason and love.
We find with regard to genetics that scientists have thoughtfully determined ethical standards to apply. The future role of all humanity is to apply them and to follow them. Above all, we can find in any genetic research the glory of nature – the complicated, intricate wonder of a woven DNA strand that contains the biological code that then defines life.
Whatever it is that we each choose to believe wrote our genetic coding – evolution, nature, God – we cannot help but step back and behold our DNA with awe: mysterious, beautiful in design, elegant in structure, fantastic in function. But what supercedes human genetic coding is the ethical coding imprinted on human souls – the impulse to share, the desire to love, the satisfaction of serving and caring. It is as if our souls were created to preserve and protect all that our physcial genes have made – to insure lives of health, happiness and growth for every person. Let that motivation be our guiding light, and the primary ethic, in all we do.
I wish you all peace and joy.

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering UCC, All Rights Reserved

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

​The millennial generation, or Gen-Y’s as they are often called, were born between 1982 and 2001.  They are the first generation to have mostly come of age during the digital revolution when all forms of technology like facebook, iPhones and YouTube became popular.  They are mostly the progeny of Baby Boomers.

​David, who lives in San Francisco, is part of a millennial trend called nouveau hippies.  He lives in a large Victorian house named the “Embassy” that he shares as a type of commune with fifteen other millennials.  He spends his days taking yoga classes, waiting tables at a coffee house to pay for his share of expenses, and attending Edwardian themed parties at which he wears monocles and dresses in period clothing.

​Becky, another millennial, recently mourned the death of her mother.  She received many condolences from friends but they all came to her by text message – with words like “How are you?” or, “Sorry”.  At her mom’s funeral, many of her millennial friends had never attended one before.  They took “selfies” at the funeral – “selfies” being a millennial coined word defined as a picture a person takes of oneself by holding the phone camera at arms length.  The pictures were promptly posted on facebook both as a way to share community sorrow and to mark a new phase in their lives when attending funerals will be more common.

​Shani is a single millennial who lives in New York.  Her dating life is defined by text messages she receives from various men who will contact her a few hours before an event and ask her to “tag along.”  She has occasional sexual encounters with the men she tags along with but they usually happen at his apartment which is shared with other guys and resembles a fraternity house room.  She says most men her age spend more time worrying about their Netflix list of movies than they do planning an evening out with a girl.  Marriage for most of her friends is still a distant prospect with most millennials waiting until their late twenties or early thirties to tie the knot.

​Forbes magazine indicates that millennials are smart and tech savvy but they have certain quirks that employers must understand.  They want to listen to music on their iPhones while they work, they want more time off then they do higher pay, and they are not very loyal to an employer but instead constantly look for other jobs with a better workplace environment.

​It has become a trend to express concern about the millennialgeneration.  They are often derided as self-indulgent, spoiled, narcissistic and with an inflated sense of self.  In a recent poll of millennials, 80% believe they are “gifted”.

​But millennials are also driving the current technology revolution and economic expansion.  Some commentators call them the new pioneers as they push our nation into unknown cultural and technological realms.  They are focused less on amassing large sums of money and buying expensive material goods than they are on quality of life issues like time off, recreation, and social benefits.  Millennials typically are happy living in cities and small apartments.  They shun the suburbs and their large, cookie cutter houses.  Many do not want to own cars but prefer biking, ride sharing and mass transit.  They are environmentally conscious and are pushing for renewable energy resources.  They are strong advocates for GLBT equality, immigration reform and inter-racial relationships.  Organized religion is not relevant to many of them.  Being literate and completely comfortable with all forms of digital technology is mandatory.  The trauma of 9/11, two wars and the worst recession since the Great Depression haveprofoundly shaped their attitudes.

​And while such a discussion of millions of millennials can lapse into stereotype, their cultural characteristics do broadly hold true and they do cross racial and ethnic lines.  In a recent book entitled Black America Study, black millennials are just as tied to technology as their white peers.  They take for granted an increasingly multiracial society and it is noted that there exists a growing divide between blacks born before the Civil Rights era and those born after – many younger blacks call their parents and older blacks “the enemy within”.  African-American millennials are optimistic about the future and believe their generation will finally push the nation into full multiculturalism.  Hispanic millennials are much the same.  They shun the religiosity and traditions of their parents at equally high rates as they embrace a positive, change focused outlook with technology leading the way.

​While many of the millennial attributes seem foreign to those of us who are older, it is clear that this generation will soon dramatically change our nation, its culture and its politics.  In most respects, that will be for the good.  My two daughters are millennials and they closely mimic its culture.  My oldest daughter is 29.  Marriage and having children is at least a few years away.  At her age, I was married with a four year old child and another on the way.  Sara once shared an apartment with a gay guy.  They remain close friends and they often double date.  Having a variety of diverse friends is both important but unremarkable to her.  She has many friends who have moved back in with their parents.  She texts friends constantly.  Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are constant media resources – a newspaper, TV newscast or printed book are rarely accessed.  While she is now in nursing school, she spent her years after college working in a home for mentally challenged women – displaying an indifference toward high pay but also a deep empathy for the disadvantaged.

​Like her fellow millennials, Sara is a wise and caring person.  Issues like equality and happiness in life are important to her. Being rich or driving the best car are not.

​I relate all of these characteristics of the millennial generation as a way to highlight a current concern expressed by older people.  Themillennials, they say, were raised by Baby Boomers like myself who chose to indulge their children and spare them, as much as possible, the hurts and setbacks of life.   My ex-wife and I practiced what is referred to as helicopter parenting – monitoring the lives of our girls constantly.  They were a part of youth sports teams at which winners and losers were not important.  Every kid was acknowledged, praised and earned ribbons, medals and trophies just for participating.  As a child, Sara was not a great soccer player.  She would stand in the field and pick dandelions while play happened all around her.  Even so, her mom and I, as well as her coaches, praised her as if she were the very best.  

​We kept the lives of our girls constantly busy with ballet lessons, youth sports, homework and summer camps.  We would do anything for our girls – sacrificing most of our free time for them.  We were like many Baby Boomer parents reacting to the less involved way we were brought up.  Raising kids and meeting their needs was an obsessive project – we were incubating our girls in a protective cocoon for as long as possible.

​And cultural commentators now say millennials, as a result, lack the basic ethics of hard work, strength, resilience and humility.  They are ill equipped to deal with the real world of being fired, suffering a loss or economic insecurity.  They are spoiled narcissists who collect Facebookfriends like they used to collect participation ribbons.  Some millennials do believe that success in life is merely a matter of just showing up.  Both conservatives and liberals decry the millennial generation saying that they were spoiled as children in ways that shape their ethical approach to life – they can’t handle suffering, they want things given to them, they don’t know how to sacrifice and work hard.

​In many ways, this kind of thinking is shaped by old style economic and theological ideas.  Life is tough.  People suffer.  People must therefore work hard just to survive.  There is no free lunch.

​Economically, older Americans expect people to earn what they get in life.  Differences in income are often believed to be determined by how hard a person works.  This carries over into how many Americans understand religion.  We earn God’s love by being moral, nice and upright – by how we act and what we do.  We reap what we sow, as the Bible says.

​This is a conditional view of life which, as I said, is shared between liberals and conservatives.  Success in life and being loved by God are conditioned on doing good work.  That is an ethic which many of us believe should be taught to children.  Sadly, many of us now believe, that ethic was not well taught to the millennial generation.

​The striking fact about how many millennials were raised is that they were NOT taught a conditional understanding of life.  Millennials were often parented unconditionally.  They did not have to earn recognition for what they did.  They were praised and rewarded simply for being – simply for being a child.  And many experts now see this as a strength and hallmark of millennials.  Far from being ill equipped to deal with life setbacks, far from having the neuroses and insecurities many Baby Boomers have,millennials have an inner sense of well-being and positive attitude that will serve them and the world well.  How they were raised, therefore, can give us insight in to how one might raise an ethical child.

​Millennials, for instance, do not see diversity as a threat to them even if they are, like my Sara, straight, white and relatively privileged.  Every person has value because that was an ethic millennials were taught.  Thisis having an important impact on culture and politics.  Millennials are a driving force in changing attitudes about gays and lesbians as well as other racial groups.  Their happiness and inner security do not come from external rewards and recognition but from having a healthy self-confidence.  If 80% of millennials believe they are gifted, experts believe that will transfer into how they will achieve and innovate – as fearless people who embrace change unlike more fear based older generations.

​Many millennials do not need a theological God to make them feel valued.  They have been raised to feel that.  Love was not given to them conditionally.  It was freely given in the form of affirmation no matter what they did or did not do.  And this view is beginning to show up in how young people see economic inequality and social welfare.  Hard work does not alone determine success in life.  A teacher or social worker provides more value to the world than a Wall Street hedge fund trader.  People are good no matter what.  Success in life is measured more by happiness, personal fulfillment and recreation.

​While no generation of parents are perfect, many experts believe that Baby Boomers got it right in terms of raising children with confident inner selves.   As infants and young children, experts today believe that constant nurture and affection are vital.  One cannot spoil a child too much but instead build into him or her an intrinsic sense that the world is relatively safe thus translating into a willingness to take on challenges without fear or doubt.

​Other experts encourage the use of nouns instead of verbs when praising a child.  For instance, saying to a child who has willingly cleaned his or her room: “You are a very helpful and good person” versus “You cleaned your room really well.”  The use of a noun encourages a child to understand that he or she is already good and as a result does good things.  Psychologically, that translates into a child and adult who feels good about him or herself.  That further translates into greater empathy, humility and kindness.  One need not act arrogantly or selfishly if one already possesses inner confidence.

​Above all, raising an ethical child understands the difference between a child feeling shame and one feeling guilt.  Shame feelings are rooted in inadequacy and a sense that one is inherently of no worth.  Shame filled children are told they are bad.  They are only praised or loved when they do good.  Guilt, however, is legitimately felt as a result of a bad action.  One can still be good even with occasional lapses.  Emotionally healthy children and adults do not feel shame.  They are confident enough such that mistakes do not set them back.

​Raising an ethical child is therefore focused on building a core sense of self that is appropriately confident.  As we all know, one cannot love others unless one intrinsically loves oneself in a healthy and non-egotistical manner.  Experts say that parents should spend as much time with a child as possible – choosing to frequently interact and play with them.  They should also put up a so-called “wall of fame” that prominently displays a child’s works – from drawings to homework to pictures and awards.  Doing these things lets a child know that they have value as a person who is wanted, enjoyed and unconditionally loved.

​Parents should also model ethical behavior to children instead of preaching to them about good or bad behavior.  In one study, children and parents were asked to play a game of marbles.  Children whose parents played the game with a fun spirit and who generously gave away marbles to others – the kids were twice as likely to act in the same manner.  Children whose parents simply told them to be generous were much less likely to practice it.

​This gets to the other side of raising ethical children.  Parents must not only be ethical themselves but they must model the kind of inner confidence they want their children to acquire.  Experts encourage parents to work on their own insecurities and depressions as a way to help instill self-confidence in children.  Insecure parents often raise insecure children.  And insecure children and adults are not as likely to be ethical.  If the world is a place to be feared, people are more prone to be selfish, to act and speak unkindly, and to see life as a conditional exercise where only the hardest working and wealthiest deserve good things. .

​If we believe we are all children of God, or of some force greater than ourselves, then how we feel loved by that figurative parent is crucial.  Most world religions believe that life on earth is like a test – we must not only learn right from wrong but then we must live it out with a passing grade.  But life is not a test.  It’s an experience and a gift – one that we only get once.  To be a genuinely ethical person, generous, empathetic and compassionate behavior must come from the heart and soul.  We cannotearn the title of goodness.  We must simply be good in ways that pour out of us in unconscious ways.  To encourage that development in children, its essential that they be raised in ways that allow them to feel safe, loved and valuable – not for what they do but simply for who they are.

     This attitude transfers to how we ought to see other people – as children of some powerful force – God, natural forces, the power of love – ones who were wonderfully brought into being.  Since that is so, every person has value.  We all deserve equality of opportunity.  We all deserve the basics of life.  We all deserve the honor of being respected and valued.  So much of the hate, violence and political divisions in our nation and world come from a root sense of insecurity about self and life.  If each person were raised in a way that told them they are a champion, that they are special, there would be far less resentment, jealousy, and anger in our world.  Those negative attitudes do not come honestly – they come from deep insecurity and fear.  People can be gay, straight, black, white, liberal, conservative, religious, Atheist, native born, immigrant, whatever – and that’s OK.  That’s good!  Humanity is a beautiful and colorful tapestry woven by our maker in a way that says each unique thread is vital to the well being of all.  This is a KumBahYah ethic but it rings eternally true.

   The hunger of any human heart is to feel loved and appreciated.  Such a feeling is oxygen to the soul.  For any of us who may have lacked such love and respect in our upbringing, we can find it in how we give, serve and treat others.  We can let go of anger at our parents and try, instead, to break cycles of insecurity by building into others – and especially children – the kind of self love that is uplifting, pure and modest.  Only by finding such inner peace can we, and the children over whom we have influence, grow into ethical and intrinsically beautiful people.  Long live the millennial generation!

I wish you all much peace and joy.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

​Most of us know the legends of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.  Originating as a series of poems written in the thirteenth century, the legends of King Arthur grew in popularity during medieval years when theatrical productions of the tales traveled from city to city.  Alfred Tennyson re-popularized the tales in the nineteenth century as Arthur again became a cultural hero and ideal leader who fought for justice, equality, and fair play.  His Camelot kingdom was a type of earthly heaven – a vision of a perfected world where the forces of good not only battle evil but prevail.  

​Tennyson elaborated on Camelot by also describing a mysterious place called the island of Avalon where forces of magic operate for the betterment of humanity.  After he is seriously wounded in battle, Tennyson’s King Arthur travels to Avalon to be the healed.  Avalon is the place where his powerful and mystical sword Excalibur was manufactured and forged.  The magic of Avalon heals Arthur as he basks in its regulated climate that prevents storms, wind, cold and hail – a place that is a part of the natural world but also mystical in its powers.

​Many contemporary commentators believe humanity has created its own Avalon with the development of life changing technology.  We inhabit a world in which we can fly thousands of miles in a few hours, appear in pictures and video transmitted instantly around the world, heal our bodies of disease by manipulating cells and their genetic structures, and consult with machines that are smarter and intellectually superior to even the most intelligent human.  Compared to life only a century ago, we now inhabit a world where technological magic has transformed the earth into one that is vastly better, in many respects, than ever before.

​But much like the mythical Camelot and Avalon, our very real technological earth is not perfect.  It is infected and brought low not by machines themselves, but by their misuse, by the frailties, imperfections and flaws of their human users.  The Atomic bomb was created as a machine of mass death which also paradoxically saved millions of lives.  But it is now a doomsday machine device – a form of technology that could end much of human life in a matter of minutes.  The computer was developed as a machine of efficiency – something that can calculate and analyze vast amounts of data in milliseconds.  It has become, in the hands of humans, something addictive, something often trivial, something that has already replaced millions of human workers and caused a crisis inunemployment.  The ability to decode cells and genes has led to disease curing as much as it has also spawned the frightening human potential to play god by controlling, manipulating and even creating life.

​Confronted with massive and rapid technological change, humans have responded in different ways.  Many critics reject modern technology by seeing the changes it brings as evil and destructive.  Technology causes humans to disconnect not only from nature but from each other, they say.  Technology dehumanizes, destroys empathy, encourages isolation, fosters materialism, imperils the natural world and often leads to unintended but quite evil applications.

​My parents are examples of people who are viscerally afraid of and dislike the internet, smartphones, Facebook, and most computers.  These are the toys of irresponsible young people who text and drive, or waste hours of time doing trivial things like playing games and informing others of their everyday activities.  Even with her dementia, my mom still shakes her head disapprovingly when she sees me using a computer, believing I should be doing something useful.  She refuses to believe it is a tool for my work – as essential to what I do today as a pen and paper were to Pastors a century ago.  

​My parents proudly announce how they are smarter and better than those who waste time and money on modern computing devices. While their observations about usage of the internet, Facebook and smartphones are partially true, my parents have become modern day “flat-earthers” – the same as those who in the past denounced as useless and evil such historic technological advances like the railroad or the telephone.

​Using almost the identical arguments of those who have criticized the internet, computers and social media, early opponents of the telephone said it would be used by criminals, reduce privacy, spell the end of writing, and ultimately be nothing but a toy.  President Rutherford Hayes said of the telephone, “It is an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?”

​When Alexander Graham Bell offered to sell his telephone patent to Western Union, a corporate committee set up to consider the purchase announced, “Why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States?  The device is hardly more than a toy.  It is inherently of no use to us.  We do not recommend its purchase.”    

​My goal in the message series this month, “A Matter of Ethics” is toprovoke thought, discussion and consideration of ethical questions.  Ultimately, for any person who considers spiritual matters, ethics are central principles which ought to be the focus for consideration.  When Jesus taught and practiced ideals of non-violence and humility, he was promoting ethical standards.  The same with Buddha when he encouraged letting go of material attachments as a way to find peace.  Even as they could not have imagined many of the issues facing modern society, universal ethics can be drawn from what they and other historic prophets taught.  For our topic today, how do universal ethics operate in a world seemingly taken over by indifferent and amoral technology?

​To set a foundation for a discussion of ethics, it’s important to review the four primary ways people approach ethical issues.  The utilitarian approach, originally defined in the eighteenth century by Jeremy Bentham,considers the outcome or consequences of any action.  Does somethingcreate maximum happiness for the greatest number of people – no matter the ways it is achieved?    Duty ethics, as elaborated by Immanuel Kant, considers the rightness of actions and behaviors, no matter the outcome. Virtue ethics looks at the overall quality of a person’s total character.  Finally, relationship ethics focuses on human communication and interactions.  Something is ethical if it encourages greater understanding between people.

​ Our difficulty lies in which ethical approach to apply?  The Atomic bomb, as used by the U.S., killed perhaps 150,000 people: a horrific death toll.  But it ended the war.  It prevented an invasion of Japan that likely would have laid waste to much of that nation while killing potentially hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers.  From a utilitarian perspective, it produced happiness for a maximum number of people.  But from Kant’s perspective, any machine that kills so many people must by itself be unethical even if it ultimately saved even more lives.

​Technoethics is an emerging field of thought that is being strongly encouraged in engineering and other scientific fields.  Scientists, inventors and others responsible for developing new forms of technology are tasked with examining inventions from an ethical perspective not just for the present but also for the future.  They are encouraged to think as creatively as possible by imagining possible future unintended uses or consequences.

​Ethicists and scientists have tentatively arrived at a very loose set of standards that ought to be applied to any technology before it is widely introduced.  Interestingly, they combine the four ethical approaches that I just discussed.  At the corporate headquarters for Google, located in Silicon Valley and at a place where thousands of its employees walk by every day, a large and permanent sign is prominently displayed.  “Do No Evil” it reads.  Such a maxim is Google’s universal ethic as its employees work on an array of life changing forms of technology from wearable computers like Google glasses to robotic, self driving cars.  

​Ethical considerations for technology that most experts agree on are: Does a certain technology add value to human life?  Does it not onlyadvance knowledge but also advance human efficiency, health, well-being, or happiness?  Can the new technology be understood, at a very basic level, by the average person?  Will the new technology be cost effective and thus affordable to many people?  Will it be equally available to most people and thus help promote human equality and fairness?  Will its uses do more good than bad for the greatest number of people?  Has it been studied as much as possible to determine any negative unintended uses or consequences?

​A twentieth century french philosopher, Michel Henry, wrote against technology and its influence.  Henry believed that technology separates humanity from the natural world.  Indeed, he believed technology is a materialistic pursuit that reduces the world into commodities and things to be exploited.  By detaching themselves from nature, humanity allowstechnology to alienate people from ethics of collaboration, harmony, gentleness and peace.  The hell-bent pursuit of innovation harms humans instead of helping them.  Implicitly, an ethical approach to most forms of technology is to avoid it.

​Henry was reacting to a more famous contemporary of his, the German philosopher and theologian Martin Heidegger who wrote extensively on technology and its ethical applications.  His approach to technology was not to see it as something detached from the natural world but as a fundamental part of it.  Technology, he believed, revealed nature.  Any form of science or innovation reveals truth and natural laws.  He drew an analogy with the Rhine river – a thing of beauty and power.  Harnessing its energy to produce hydroelectricity simply reveals something that was already inherent in the river.  Something mysterious and powerful ispartially revealed which does not negate or take away the beauty of the river.  Indeed, he believed hydroelectric power reveals one facet of the river’s beauty.

​In this way, Heidegger believed, technology has a spiritual component.  Instead of being something to avoid or sharply limit, the pursuit and use of science and technological innovation is a spiritual exercise that peels away layers of mystery.   And that only leads to more layers of mystery yet to be revealed.  The essence of computers andFacebook and atom bombs and gene splicing have all been inherent in nature  –  in the protons and electrons and cellular structures that have existed over eons.  To understand them and put them to use is to reveal aspects of the divine.   While Heidegger does not explicitly use these words, his argument is clear:  God is seen in any form of technology.  It is a piece of nature as worthy of respect and admiration as is a sunset or a line of towering mountains.  Humans have not, in a philosophical sense, made the computer – they have simply revealed it.

​New technology is, according to Heidegger, not a matter of fate but it is discovered in a purposeful linear direction toward truth.  Technology is a form of revelation that is and will forever be ongoing.  It is directed on a progressive path – things that reveal hidden truths.

​All of this is a highly philosophical consideration of technology that can help us find an ethical response to it.  Michel Henry touched on the negative uses of technology.  Humans can use it to destroy the natural world of which they are also a part.  But Henry was only partially correct.  The truth is not that evil is inherent in technology but rather evil is found in misguided human application of it.  Texting on cell phones, for example, is not a bad technology by itself.  It is a useful innovation that helps people.  Used unethically – by texting while driving, texting in the middle of a meeting or during church – that is what is bad.  Ethics therefore cannot apply to the technological thing – only to how it is used or misused.

​Of great importance to us, therefore, is to understand technology andhow it works.  We must then be aware of its good or bad uses and thereby apply ethical standards for its use.  Ethically, we must learn about a technology’s functions even if we choose not to use it.  We cannot be ignorant of it.  As Heidegger points out, technology and science must be seen in their existential context.  Along with the natural world, technology s
imply is.  It is nature and nature is it.  Within this framework, all forms of technology have always existed and, because of that, they are as intrinsically good as any other part of the universe.

​Who cannot marvel in awe at the wonders of today’s technology?  It is said that the hundreds of computers used to guide the Apollo spacecraft to the moon and back were, in their totality, far simpler and less powerful than any single one of the smartphones present in this room.  Such power is staggering in light of human history.  What has been technologically achieved in the last century surpasses all the rest of technological achievement over previous centuries all put together.  And this onward rapid innovation will only increase.  In many of our lifetimes, robots will do more and more work without ever growing tired or bored.  Nano technology will soon be here with computers the size of pinheads that can be, for instance, injected into our bodies to monitor our health and robotically search out and destroy disease.  Google has already developed and is widely testing thousands of self driving cars on public streets in California.  Within ten years I predict many of us will get into a car, tell it where we want to go and then sit back, read our iPads and drink coffee while it safely takes us there.  We are not on the cusp of a science fiction world – we have already moved into it and innovations will keep coming faster and faster.

​So what should we do?  Fear it?  Ignore it?  Condemn it because we are not used to such things?  While I don’t demean my parents or others who don’t use various forms of technology, my plea is for any person to understand it and respect it.  We cannot become like the zealots of the past who refused to recognize that the earth revolved around the sun or that all matter is composed of unseen building blocks called atoms.  That attitude may seem silly to us today but those who decry computers, social media or other technologies will be similarly laughed at in the future.

​Whether or not I choose to use Facebook, for instance, is not a pertinent ethical question.  We all have freedom of choice.  To be ethical about it and technology in general, however, I must not deride it, sneer at it, or fail to learn about it and understand it.  As just one example of contemporary technology, Facebook has applications and uses that are revolutionizing human communication – for good and bad.  But it’s good uses have helped spread democracy, improve the condition of women, and reveal evil when it rears its ugly head in the form of bigotry, greed and hate.  It is a worldwide communication tool from which none of us can hide.  ​

​As spiritual progressives, we understand the need for progress in order to improve human life.  Refusing to remain stuck in the past, progressives see life, ethics, technology, morals, politics and spirituality as things to be continually questioned, studied, and revealed.  Absolutists who believe we already have found all truth fail to see the dynamism ofexistence, knowledge and spirituality.  To assume we already know all truth is to make ourselves like God.  Instead, truth will continue to be revealed in the form of technology – things of tremendous power, utility and beauty.  We do not fear them or run from them.  We instead embrace them with the awareness that the thing itself cannot be evil or bad, only how some humans use it.  

​And that truth requires we apply the ethics I previously elaborated – or as Google constantly reminds its employees – “Do no evil.”  Indeed, the use of any form of technology falls back on the one eternal and universal ethic which I often speak – the Golden Rule: the ethic of acting, speaking and treating others in the same manner which one hopes to be spoken to and treated by others.

​Ultimately, as Martin Heidegger believed, any form of technology is a beautiful and amazing picture of the natural world – a way to see, understand and benefit from nature and the divine.  Our ethical approach to technology, therefore, must be to accept it and respect it while understanding that it is we humans who will use it for good or evil.  Consistent with our purpose in life, may we enthusiastically use alltechnology to build, here on earth, a Camelot, an Avalon, a Garden of Eden for each and every person.

I wish you all much peace and joy.

​For our talkback time this morning, we invite any and all briefcomments or thoughts.

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering UCC, All Rights Reserved

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

When each of my two daughters were in High School, they went through a phase that many people experience at some point in life. They rebelled. They defied the cocoon of suburban morality and safety that their mom and I had tried to create for them. At an early point in their high school years they each began to hang out with the allegedly bad kids, the different kids, the ones who did not fit into the well-scrubbed, preppie, rich, blonde and beautiful group. My daughter Amy’s new friends were comprised of the outcasts – the ones who dressed in black, the artistic and theatrical kids, the rebels, the not so beautiful, the ones who smoked behind the gym, even one brave young man who had come out as gay.

 

For me, a Pastor in a local church, this was alarming stuff. And their mom was concerned too. We saw little evidence that our girls were doing anything significantly bad. There was no evidence of drugs, no hint of early sexual activity, no school skipping. But they did sneak out of the house a few times. They admitted to some smoking and some drinking. They got angry at our rules and my expectation that they attend my church’s weekly youth group. There were the normal parent-teen fights. Overall, it was their new friends that alarmed us. It was guilt by association. Our girls would be supposedly bad girls just because of the kids they hung out with.
I talked to Amy this past week – first asking permission to talk about her today and second asking about that period in her life. During her junior high years, Amy experienced a medical condition which caused much of her hair to fall out. For a young teenager, nothing worse could have happened. She wore hats and we arranged for hair pieces to try and cover up the condition. But, her appearance was still very different. Amy became anxious, upset and shy. Sadly, as she now tells me, many kids at school were horribly cruel to her because of her strange appearance. Some of her former friends – those in the so-called “in crowd”, immediately turned on her. To those kids, she was no longer the vivacious, happy and pretty girl. She was different, sullen, and someone who wore hats and wigs.
As Amy told me this past week, it was the outcast kids, the Gothic ones, the rebels, the smokers, the geeks who embraced her and befriended her despite her appearance. The so-called bad kids were the nice ones. And Amy found something wonderful and surprising in them……as bad as they seemed on the exterior, they were the most generous to her, the most willing to understand and help, the ones who accepted differences in others more willingly. They weren’t saints and they had their issues of anger, intolerance and self-destructive behavior. But for Amy, these were kids who did not care about her hair, her clothes, or her parent’s lack of high status. Unknown to her mom or me, Amy was learning from this group of kids the values which make her a kind and compassionate person today. We’re all different in our own ways. We all occasionally break rules of good behavior. We all want many of the same things in life – love, happiness, security. But the greatest gift we can offer others is the gift of acceptance, appreciation and respect.
Most of us know the Good Friday and Easter stories. We see reminders of it outside many churches. Three crosses are lined up, the middle one usually a bit larger and draped with a purple cloth, to symbolize royalty. These symbols remind us of Jesus’ crucifixion as they also remind us that, according to the story in the Gospel of Luke, he was not crucified alone. He was executed in the company of two condemned thieves, two low-lifes, two of the baddest of the bad. This indicates that Jesus’ execution was not a particularly special event. The Romans crucified people almost every day – doing so along roadways in order to show the population who was in control. Jesus was just another outcast whom the Romans wanted to eliminate.

 

Luke tells us that as Jesus hung on the cross, as he neared death, one of the criminals began to derisively harangue him. “If you are so great and so powerful Jesus, why are you here? Why don’t you save yourself!” Importantly, however, the other thief tells his cohort to shut up. Jesus, this man said, was being executed for what he taught and not for any real crimes. He should be honored and not condemned.

 

Jesus praised the man for his words, implicitly thanking him for his words of support. And then Jesus acknowledged him as a person of goodness, as one whose heart was sincere and full of compassion. They would meet again that day in Paradise, Jesus said. This criminal, this low-life had understood Jesus and what he taught. And Jesus befriended him.

 

 

 

This last act of grace by Jesus has been long discussed. For many, it indicates that even a death-bed confession of sincere faith will be enough to get one into heaven. God judges the heart and not necessarily a lifetime of actions which may or may not be good. What is also striking is that Jesus would, at a moment of great pain and distress, reach out to one who was beneath him in stature and reputation. It is typical of how he apparently conducted most of his life. As the Bible explicitly states, Jesus was a friend of those who were deemed sinners and bad people. He was a friend and frequent companion of low-lifes, thieves, prostitutes, tax-collectors, cheats, and drunkards. And the Easter story of how he offered kindness to a dying criminal, proves it.

 

Many Christians, if they must admit it, do not like the Bible verse in the Gospel of Matthew saying Jesus was a friend of sinners. They take pains to re-interpret it and claim that he spent time with bad people only in an effort to change them. They point out that the Bible never describes Jesus as himself indulging in anything they would consider sinful.
But common sense and a basic understanding of human nature tells us that Jesus likely did drink and enjoy alcohol, that he likely enjoyed the attention of women, and that he clearly enjoyed parties in the company of people with bad reputations. He was more than their friend. He was one of them in that he grew up in a backwater town, hung out with outcasts, and he lived among street people – those who used any means to survive. Indeed, he too had bad reputation – a man who was followed by gossip that he was bastard child. Jesus is described as a man who frequently attended raucous parties – events where wine and very flirtatious women were present. His first miracle, as the Gospel stories report, was to turn several large vats of water at a party into wine – a story that indicates alcohol was important to him. Befriending a common criminal was therefore something typical of how Jesus lived and acted.

 

But what does this nuanced understanding of Jesus mean for us on Easter? What does it mean for us as an example of how we might live and act?

 

One of Eugene O’Neill’s more obscure plays is entitled “Lazarus Laughed”. It’s described as a philosophical piece – one that is intended to teach a clear lesson, much like the morality plays of medieval times. As many of us know the Bible story of Lazarus, he was the first human to have supposedly returned from the dead. He was resurrected by Jesus in a miracle said by interpreters to foreshadow the Easter resurrection. The Bible story has Jesus coming to Lazarus’ tomb after he had been buried for four days. In an amusing exchange between Jesus and Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, they warn him not to enter the tomb. “He stinketh”, they say – in the King James Version of the Bible – a translation I find amusing.

 

At any rate, O’Neill describes a Lazarus who emerges from his tomb laughing uproariously. As crowds of people clamor to ask him what death is like, he reports that there is no death – only God’s eternal laughter. Over and over he is tested in his faith and questioned about his death experiences. But O’Neill’s Lazarus simply laughs all the harder in a joy filled way – one that shows he was not only happy to be alive but that he was exulting in its pleasures. No matter how much he is tested, tortured and put through miserable experiences – much like the Bible character Job – Lazarus does not wilt, but continues to laugh and be joyful. Brought before the Roman emperor Tiberius who cannot tolerate a message that tells people not to fear death, the play comes to its dramatic end. As Lazarus is threatened in the play with a horrible death of being burned alive at the stake, he repeats his mantra – “There is no death, only laughter and joy!” The curtain falls as flames hiss and burn a laughing and happy Lazarus.

 

O’Neill clearly wants his audience to reflect on the meaning of life and death. And such reflections lead us to what we might learn from the Easter story and from Jesus’ embrace of so-called sinners, raucous parties and joyful living. It’s not Jesus’ literal resurrection from the dead on Easter that has meaning and importance for us. Whether or not we accept his resurrection in deep faith or not, that’s not what ought to be important. Death might be the physical end of life but the fear of it can also be a symbolic diminishing of our life experiences. We can be physically alive but dead in spirit, dead in joy, dead in laughter, dead in kindness, compassion, service and love. As Eugene O’Neill shows us in his play, Lazarus refused to be dead in spirit due to a fear of death.

 

The important lesson of Easter for me is that Jesus was resurrected in the hearts and minds of his followers. His way of life, his teachings, his ethics, his modeling of friendship with supposedly bad people – these are the things that did not die. And his followers would not let them die but instead sought to retell them and spread the news of them as far and as wide as possible. This was a man, they implicitly said, who understood the heart of God, who understood the joyful and fulfilling way of life. It’s not about outward appearance, hypocritical moral piety, and a dour existence denying life’s many pleasures. Laugh! Love! Create! Serve! Embrace this gift of living and make sure to spread it and insure it for as many people as possible.

 

What my daughter Amy learned when, like Jesus, she began to hang out with people of bad reputations is that they often hold the keys to life that many of us never find. Too many of us are obsessed with how we appear, with acquiring things that show off our success, with serving the demands of our petty egos, and with looking down on or ignoring the outcasts in life – the poor, the addicts, the gays, the differently appearing, the unwashed, the ugly, the criminals, the homeless ones born on the wrong side of the tracks.

 

Such people understand what it is to be humble, to live without plenty, to be someone who is considered different, to be called a sinner. They have no masks. They have no appearances to keep up. More often than not, they understand what it means to accept others, to rely on faith, to give, to serve, to enjoy simple pleasures of friendship, parties, drink and fun. The earthy, dirty, and profane ones are often those who hold the keys to love and life.

 

Jesus did not call us to as much serve these people. He called us to join them and to BE one of them: to live without the small worries of property, to throw off the hypocritical standards of pious living, to let go of ego, to reject life diminishing fears of pain and death. The kingdom of God is here right now folks. Make it better. Enjoy it. Share it with others. Embrace it.

 

We had a party of sorts here last Sunday. It was a Passover Seder celebration and meal. I was acting my usual Martha self – trying to make sure all of the details were nice. Even so, I had fun too. I really enjoyed a service in which I could also listen to others, eat, laugh, party. What touched me at the time was how this congregation reacted to the guests in our midst. A new couple walked in a bit late, expecting a church service and instead found themselves quickly sitting at a dinner table – one they chose to sit at all alone. A homeless and wheelchair bound man came in too – wanting some food and to share our good times. So too did Adam, the homeless young man who has attended in the past. In the middle of our Seder event, members got up and purposefully went over to sit with and befriend the new couple sitting by themselves. Others helped the man in the wheelchair, got him his food and listened to his story of being an Iraq war veteran down on his luck. Others sat next to and welcomed Adam, once again into our midst.
These were small acts. But they were Jesus acts. Welcome new ones. Good to see you homeless guys. We’re having a party. Join us! I love and deeply admire this little, humble Gathering that does so much.

 

My friends, what was horribly displayed on that first Good Friday 2000 years ago at the three crosses was hate and death. Hate for the one who is different. Hate for one who advocates for the dispossessed. Hate for the criminal. Hate for those who break religious rules of so-called good behavior. Hate for one who hangs out with and is a friend of alleged sinners and bad people. Death, in all its manifestations of body and spirit, was on display.

 

What was resurrected three days later on Easter morning was love. Love for others no matter how different. Love for people with all their flaws, sins, diseases and issues. Love for life and its pleasures. Love for reaching out and serving family, friend and stranger. Love for peace and non-violence. Love for humility and generosity.

 

The death we must fear is not the end of our physical bodies. The death we should fear, instead, is the hate that can infect us and others: the hate that fears those who are different; the hate that wags its hypocritical tongue at the alleged sins of others – all while ignoring more profound sins in the heart, the hate that purposefully looks away from those who suffer in poverty, hunger and hopelessness.

 

May we, this day of all days, reflect on what it means to celebrate an Easter of laughter, an Easter of joy, an Easter of love and friendship with any and all people – no matter how coarse, sinful or dirty they might appear. For you see, my dear friends, there is no death, only eternal laughter and joy and building a new and better earth. Happy Easter everyone.

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering, UCC, All Rights Reserved

 

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

 

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

 

Just after Jesus spoke his famous parable of the Good Samaritan to his disciples and followers – a parable where he taught that people should show compassion and service to others no matter how lowly or different they might be – he taught a new lesson by his actions, instead of by story. Jesus and his disciples, as reported in the Gospel of Luke, arrived at a small village outside of Jerusalem – one called Bethany which sat on a hilltop overlooking the famous city. As was his practice, he found shelter in the home of one of his supporters – in this case two sisters named Mary and Martha. In the hours before dinner, Martha was busy doing all of the work necessary to be a good host to someone of Jesus’ stature. Gracious hospitality was and still is a common middle eastern ethic – but it is one whose tasks fall largely on the shoulders of women. The male host typically makes a grand show of offering lavish hospitality to a guest – even as it is understood that the women of the household do all of work to prepare sleeping quarters and cook a suitably nice meal.

In this case, Jesus was shown great honor as a famous rabbi and itinerant sage. The work to host him should have been shared by the two sisters equally but, instead, it was Martha who did all of the work. Mary, on the other hand, appears to have been the idle one who sat at Jesus’ feet to talk to him, listen to him and learn from him. Obviously annoyed by her sister’s unwillingness to help, Martha scolds Mary and demands that she help too. Jesus, however, assures Martha that what Mary was doing was good – she wanted to learn and be present in the moment. Martha, Jesus implied, was the busy do-gooder who was blind to the real purpose of hospitality – to show companionship with another person. This account is typically used as an object lesson for the Martha’s of the world – of which I tend to be one. It’s not the quantity, expense or abundance of food, drink and sleeping quarters that are of primary importance in gracious hospitality, it’s the depth and quality of human connection that are a priority. Jesus seems to teach that it was Mary who understood this principle. Martha did not.

While this lesson is one to be learned, there is another lesson in the story that is often overlooked. Martha was performing the typically female role. Even today, it is often women who do the majority of hospitality functions. Men serve as the social host – the one who makes the personal connection with a guest. In this episode, Mary was acting as a man would. She was the one sitting with Jesus, learning from him and conversing with him. Such actions, however, were not acceptable in that culture. Women were to know their place in the social strata – as persons inferior to men, as persons who served and performed the functions of less intellectual or social importance. Martha was angry that Mary had stepped outside the cultural standard. Jesus – as a man – should have supported Martha. Serve me, feed me Mary, but do not speak with me. You are a woman and not my equal.

Instead, he taught the exact opposite. Mary and Martha, he suggested, should both sit with him, converse with him and enjoy his company. They should not concern themselves with typical cultural roles for women but instead enjoy the purely human impulse for camaraderie, friendship, and understanding. That is not an exclusively male privilege. Everyone should enjoy that right.

Very emphatically, by his eagerness to visit and speak with women, by his teaching to Martha that she too can enjoy socializing with a rabbi or anyone else for that matter, Jesus gave evidence that he not only believed in the equality of women, but that he was willing to advocate for it and practice it. He was a spiritual radical as much then, as he would be today. He was a feminist at a time when extreme male chauvinism was not only normal but the supposed right way to think.
This outreach to women – a class of outcasts in his time – is one reason why women were the last at the Cross of Jesus’ crucifixion and the first at his tomb. They mourned his death the longest, they were the ones willing to remain associated with him as a condemned criminal, unlike his male followers, and they were the most eager to honor his life by assuring a dignified burial. Women were acting out of appreciation for, and solidarity with, Jesus – a friend of all marginalized persons. As the British writer Dorothy Sayers writes in her book Are Women Human? : “Perhaps it is no wonder that women were last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this man – there never has been such another. He was a prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never patronized them, never made arch jokes about them, who took their questions and arguments seriously.”

Even so, women are often overlooked participants in the Good Friday and Easter stories. We tend to focus on the actions of Jesus himself, his male disciples and his male enemies. My message today seeks to correct that oversight as it emphasizes Jesus’ historic words and actions as one of the first male feminists.

Most current scholars assert that to be a feminist, one must not only profess the equality of women, one must also never act or speak in a way that demeans women or accepts a cultural norm of male domination. In all four gospels, Jesus lived up to this standard. Indeed, in other non-Biblical accounts of his life, the Gospel of Peter for instance, his stature as a supporter of women is even stronger. That he was a vocal feminist appears to be an historical fact.

While Jesus’ actions may not seem remarkable today when there are many women and men who advocate for gender equality, in the context of his time and culture his teachings and actions were revolutionary. Time and again he scorned religious laws that a man should never associate with or touch anyone considered religiously unclean and unworthy – like the handicapped, lepers, those with skin disorders, the mentally ill, people of other faiths, the sick, the poor and so called sinners like thieves, adulterers, or tax collectors. Prominently added to that list of outcast persons were women.

Indeed, the religious fundamentalists of Jesus’ day were called “black and blue Pharisees” because they literally practiced the rule that men were to in no way associate with women, except for one’s wife in the privacy of the home. Fundamentalist men of the time therefore walked in public with their eyes shut tight because they might see a female – even a little girl. They kept their eyes shut even as they would then bump into buildings, get run over by a cart in the street or trip and fall down – all to avoid glancing at a female. To bear multiple bruises was a sign of male piety – better to get hurt than to demean oneself by looking at a woman.

We need only imagine the psychic damage such attitudes did to women. Most men did not care. A common daily prayer of the time was, “Praised be God that I was not born a Gentile, praised be God that I was not born a dog, praised be God that I was not born a woman.” Teaching females how to read, write or understand the Torah was also prohibited. One first century rabbi said, “Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness.” Educating a girl was therefore the equivalent of raising her to be a whore.

This perception of women as the ones most likely to engage in sexual sin came from the belief that Eve tempted Adam with sex to eat the apple. Indeed, the four Gospels indicate that women bore all the blame for sexual sin – it was the adulterous woman who was to be stoned, not the man. It was the woman who had been married and divorced multiple times who was a sinner – not her husbands. It was prostitutes who were to be shunned and not the men who purchased their services. It was women, as luridly described in the Book of Leviticus, who were religiously unclean during their monthly periods and for seven days thereafter. A husband and all other males, including any boy over 13, were to be informed of her period in order that they avoid any contact with her.

The famous Jerusalem Temple was divided into a series of walled courtyards which limited access to areas closest to the Holy of Holies, where the male God resided. The outermost courtyard, outside of that reserved for Gentile men, the farthest from God, was the court for women. No female could be member of a synagogue, they could not pray in public and they were separated from men in all religious functions. The Proverbs of the Fathers, a common book of Jewish sayings, contains this injunction: “Whoever speaks much with a woman draws down misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the law, and finally earns hell.”

A man at the time could, according to popular rabbinic teaching, divorce his wife for any reason – even for the mistake of burning his food. A husband merely had to to hand his wife a signed statement that he divorced her and she was sent away. In a culture where wives did not co-own marital property, where women could not be educated, and where any non-virgin female was to be shunned, the financial prospects for divorced women were bleak. The insecurity wives must have felt cannot be imagined.

All of these apartheid practices towards women contrast sharply with the words and actions of Jesus. He not only befriended women, he refused to act as a supposedly normal man by treating them as his inferiors. He associated with women in full public view – refusing to practice the insulting ritual of closing his eyes in their presence. A substantial number of women were his constant followers and financial supporters. He welcomed their attention, allowed himself to be touched by them and advocated for their protection. His famous divorce teaching that excluded any reason for divorce with the exception of adultery was not designed to uphold the religious sanctity of marriage but rather to purposefully protect women and their rights. His divorce teachings were directed at men who routinely abandoned their wives as he pointedly disagreed with famous rabbis on this and other issues.

He disregarded rules about associating with menstruating women in his encounter with a woman who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years. She reached out to touch him, hoping to thereby be cured. By every standard of the time, Jesus could have demanded she be stoned to death for making him ritually unclean. Instead, he publicly praised her for her faith as he also declared her healed of her condition. By his actions, he restored her dignity and value.

Time and again he promoted equal and generous treatment of women – telling Peter’s mother-in-law to remain in her sick bed and not get up to serve him as she was expected to do, he praised a prostitute for her tenderness and faith when she cleaned his feet with her hair, and he promoted decency toward widows who, like divorced women, were often left without any way to support themselves. Overall, he considered women to be fully equal with men as he forgave them, assured them of God’s love, taught them, praised them, consulted them, accepted their help, ate with them, and enjoyed their company as much as he did his male followers. Secure in his own masculinity, his actions were unheard of, radical, scandalous but nevertheless deeply feminist. We do the historic Jesus no credit if we forget this, if we choose to interpret him as a political revolutionary instead of as a leading prophet and example of outreach to persons on the margins of a male dominant and elitist culture. Jesus was a radical feminist for his time and ours. Easter confirms it.

At his arrest on Passover Eve, Jesus’ band of followers were thrown into disarray. Peter attempted a worthlessly showy effort to fight back against Roman soldiers even as he then quickly hid his identity and his association with Jesus in order to save himself. Almost all of Jesus’ other male followers did the same – retreating to a secret hiding place where they fearfully waited.

In contrast to them, most of Jesus’ female followers remained with him on that first Good Friday as he was publicly tried and condemned, whipped, stripped naked, paraded through Jerusalem, nailed to a cross, and slowly suffered a humiliating death. His mother, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, Joanna, Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee and many more women stayed with him until he died – their anguished cries for a man who had treated them as equals – heartbreaking. Jesus was not just a rabbi to them, not just a great man, not just a local celebrity. He was their advocate, their feminist messiah.

Upon his death, these women quickly wrapped his body in a burial cloth and helped inter him in a dignified grave. Since it was Sabbath eve, they like all other Jews quickly finished their work before sunset. They would return at the end of the Sabbath and at first daylight – what is now known as Easter Sunday morning. Arriving at the tomb, they intended to open the grave and anoint his body with oils and herbs to preserve it. Even after his death, they would show Jesus their love and appreciation for his support.

Whether or not the story of Easter is true, the accounts that women discovered his empty tomb, saw a vision of an angel and saw the resurrected Jesus, it is clear that the prominence of women in the Easter drama should not be overlooked. Indeed, Easter’s story is based on the testimony of women – that they, and not men, were eyewitnesses to what Christians assert is the single greatest event in history.

According to the Easter story, because of their love for Jesus, women discovered the resurrection and thereby helped, at least allegorically, redeem humanity; they helped tell the world that the realm of God’s love is at hand, that the perfection of earth is possible, that people need only look to Jesus to know how to live, speak and act. At a time when women could not testify in any court of law – their testimony being considered unreliable, women were nevertheless key players in the Easter story. Their devotion and their appreciation of Jesus as a feminist advocate kept them at the Cross until the bitter end, led them to his tomb, and helped establish him as one of history’s great prophets. Even as male writers of the Gospels altered facts about Jesus’ life, they could not and did not alter the fact that it was his female followers who refused to abandon him.

As with many other areas in life, if we seek wisdom about equality for women, if we want to fully honor the decency, goodness, compassion, and wisdom of women in general, we can look to the words and actions of Jesus. Too many Christians ignore the example of Jesus in their attitudes toward and treatment of women. It has been religion that has subjugated women and thereby encouraged larger society to also demean them. Genuine spirituality, as taught and practiced by Jesus, does the opposite.

Women must be paid equally. They must be able to be spiritual leaders – Pastors, Priests and Popes. They must enjoy the same right to reproductive freedom as men. They must be freed from outrageous claims that they are responsible for their own rape or abuse. They must be able to work in a career of their choice – from tending the home to being a business executive to becoming President. These are not true because I say so. They are true because of the universal equality of genders as clearly taught by Jesus.

As key participants in the Easter drama, women deserve far more credit for the role they played in his life and ministry. They were instrumental in the founding of the Jesus movement. Their support of his legacy helped spread news of his spiritually revolutionary message – a message that soon captivated all civilization. Even as that message was later distorted and exaggerated by men in order to create male structured religion, we can sift through all of the distortions to find the true Jesus – a feminist, an advocate for equality, a champion for the poor and the marginalized, a threat to the powerful and arrogant. I hope that this Easter we might see the holiday as a celebration of all Jesus’ teachings – and most especially his support for women as the equal of any man, including himself.
I wish each of you peace, joy and the empowerment to be your true self.

For talk back time, I pose this question:
What role has religion or spirituality played in framing your outlook on gender equality? What can we specifically do to make things better for women?

 

To listen to the message, click here:

To listen to the message, please click here:

(c) Doug Slagle, Pastor at the Gathering, UCC, All Rights Reserved

 

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

Will you donate $5, $10 or $20 in appreciation for this message? Your online tax-deductible donation will help us continue our charitable outreach work to homeless children and provide future online messages.  Please click the “Give Online” button located above. Thank you!

 

Jonathon Zagami is an Iraqi war veteran. At the age of 18, he signed up to join the army and eagerly went to war believing he could help change that nation for the better. He was an affable, outgoing guy who made friends with anyone. Two years later, in 2005, he returned to the U.S as an angry, profane and sullen man. He kept to himself, turned away friends, cursed others, and retreated into his own world.
As a combat engineer in Iraq, he helped to clear mine fields and demolish buildings suspected of being enemy bases. He was kicked in the head and knocked unconscious for several hours while doing Iraqi crowd control. Later, he was twice knocked unconscious as a result of being near mortar fire. He’s been diagnosed as having lasting brain injuries as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. He has suffered several strokes since his return and his future health prognosis is uncertain.

Today, however, he is a college graduate and a salesman for a national Insurance company. He’s also the founder of a veteran’s advocacy group called “No Man Left Behind” which raises money to support persons suffering from PTSD in particular. He also helped found a group on many college campuses that assists returning soldiers adjust to student life.

Jonathan’s life today is remarkable considering his serious injuries and how he acted when he returned. Much of his success is due to his hard work and determination. But a huge amount of credit also goes to his sister Jaime who has been his guardian angel and fierce advocate since he first went to war. While in Iraq, she communicated with him every day. She sent 50 pound weekly care packages to him and his army buddies – full of food, music CD’s, newspapers, magazines, and even items for female soldiers in Jonathan’s unit. Jaime never forgot her brother and made it her mission to stay in constant touch – listening to him talk about his experiences, lifting him up with jokes, and supporting him as needed.

When Jonathan returned, it was Jaime who worked to console him and help him re-adjust. Even so, he was profoundly disabled. A year after his return, she convinced him to enroll with her at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She was his constant supporter and advocate in college – helping him register for classes, reminding him of important tests and assignments, acting as a go-between when he got angry or acted strangely. Jonathan found it difficult to tolerate the typical college life of care-free students – the drunken parties, filthy dorm rooms, skipped classes and self-focused lives. He fought with many fellow students – acting out the anger and frustration that can come with PTSD. But his sister smoothed his rough edges, encouraged him, supported him, and cheered him on in his studies. Four years after enrolling, Jonathan and Jaime stood together on the graduation stage – their arms entwined. Jonathan calls his sister his hero. Jaime says it is the other way around. Nevertheless, Jonathan says he could never have attended, much less graduated, from college had it not been for his sister.

Today, they both regularly volunteer for the organization they founded – “No Man Left Behind”. It recently raised almost as much money for injured veterans as did a well known Boston Red Sox veterans charity. Along with two other siblings, Jonathan and Jamie will soon compete in the Boston marathon together – Jaime being the one to set the pace and to constantly inspire her big brother onward.

Who has inspired you in your life? Who has been someone who influenced you and encouraged you? To inspire another person is to influence, move or guide them to a newly perceived truth about themselves, their actions or life in general. The apostle Paul, writing in his first letter to the Corinthian church, said inspiration is a spiritual domain that is not of the rational mind. When we are inspired, he seemed to imply, we have reached a higher plane of awareness that is beyond thought. Our minds and consciousness are elevated and in tune with something transcendent and beautiful. It is like hearing a great piece of music or viewing a cloudscape over a set of towering mountains. We can neither articulate or analyze our feelings of awe, wonder and emotion. We are simply inspired.

Henry David Thoreau wrote that when we are inspired, we are transformed in our thinking, through both reason and emotion, to perceive something anew in a fresh and passionate manner. However it worked, the young man Jonathan that I just spoke about was obviously inspired to a new outlook on life, and himself, through the encouragement, example and support of his sister. Much like what the apostle Paul alluded to, she tapped into something spiritual in her love and support of her brother. We often do not recognize our actions as such but to inspire someone goes beyond using mere words. Indeed, to be inspired is to be touched by something other worldly, profound and deeply meaningful. Such a feeling initiates a desire to do something creative and purposeful. Inspiration is therefore not contemplative but is, instead, action oriented. It is easy to tell another what to do or how to act. It is quite another to inspire someone to act – to cast a vision of wonder and goodness that leads them to act in new and wonderful ways.

With my message series this month, I believe that one amazing gift we can offer others is the gift of inspiration. As much as we have benefitted from those people who have inspired us – perhaps a parent, a teacher, a coach, a friend, an artist, a social activist, or maybe a lowly Pastor – our calling is to pay their inspiration forward. We have the potential in each of us to cast a vision that prompts others to move beyond themselves to do good and great things. In this way, as I’ve often said, it is not a supernatural god that inspires the world to become its it’s Edenic ideal. People do that. It is we who are gods and goddesses who inspire miracles. We are the ones with the ability and potential to figuratively move mountains, cure diseases, heal broken hearts, feed the multitudes, transform hatred into love, bigotry into celebration and hopelessness into opportunity.

History is populated with ordinary, otherwise unknown women and men who have inspired millions – Rosa Parks, Todd Beamer of 9/11 heroics, the anonymous man who stood in front of tanks at Tianamen Square, Ryan White the young AIDS victim and humble advocate, 84 year old Edith Windsor whose lawsuit ended the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Mohammed Bouazizi – the Tunisian man who set himself afire to protest injustice and thereby sparked the Arab Spring revolutions.

While such persons literally inspired others to change history, we have that same power to change lives – to be people who don’t merely speak of social justice, who don’t occasionally perform acts of charity, but who act and speak in ways that inspire those in our spheres of influence to passionately embrace change for the better. We inspire others by being people of action – people who are living examples of serving and caring. It is said that St. Francis of Assisi uttered the famous words that people should spread the teachings of Jesus as often as possible – and only when necessary to use words. We inspire others less with what we say than with what we do.

Inspiring people first and foremost show others that they care. They are passionate about what they do and passionate about serving and elevating those around them. The old adage also applies here in terms of actions versus words – other people don’t care how much you know, they care how much you care. If I even hope to inspire someone, he or she must intuitively know that I am invested in their well-being, that I have shown through my actions that I want them to thrive and that I am concerned about their well being.

Second, inspiring people encourage others with praise. They see the good in others and they are not shy in saying so. They are cheerleaders who lift up and never tear down. In order for any of us to be able to go out into the world to love and serve others, we must first love ourselves. Therefore, to inspire others, we must help people love themselves in such a way that encourages their self-confidence and action.

Third, inspiring people cast wonderful and beautiful visions of what can be achieved. An inspirational person is an effective vision caster. He or she sets challenging but realistic goals that others want to attain. When we inspire others, we figuratively paint a picture of possible greatness that people passionately want to achieve. While it is often said that inspiring people are eloquent and capable communicators, that is a fallacy. We can be inspired by persons who love what they do, who are excited and eager to create change, who model the kinds of behaviors and demeanors that are kind, generous, purposeful and humble. Beautiful words are helpful. Beautiful actions are essential.

Fourth, those who inspire others are not arm-chair generals who rest behind the front lines and merely tell others what to do. Such people are never willing to ask others to tackle a challenging task that they are not also willing to tackle themselves. They have the courage to stand in front and beckon others onward. Indeed, the symbolic analogy is one of a leader who points to a mountain and asks others to join him or her to climb it and plant a symbolic flag on its summit. People are inspired by such a person, and his or her passion, to then also climb that mountain no matter the cost. This task, this mythic mountain – is for humans to be builders of a new creation, a new and better Earth.

What grand visions have animated this congregation? We began as a group of people determined to be a place of respite and care for those who support and embrace diversity – who defy the bigots of the world. That vision became one where we sanctified our ideals by establishing a new and progressive version of what a church should look like. Since then, we have continued to evolve that vision of ourselves. We are no longer content to simply talk about changing the world but instead seek to be a church that is actively doing something to create it. We see ourselves as a place where members sacrificially join together to improve the lives of homeless youth and break the cycle of poverty. It’s a vision where we commit to self-improvement by listening to and following messages of change so that we are practitioners of peace, diversity, humility, and empathy.

And this vision does not rest. Our vision is one with a lofty goal – to firmly establish the Gathering as a progressive change agent in our community for decades to come – one that is growing, vibrant and active. Our task is not to gather into a holy huddle, to comfort ourselves with smug assertions of how good we are, to turn into a place that excludes others, to become another man-made spiritual bureaucracy that is tired, outdated and worthless. Jesus condemned people who symbolically lose their saltiness – who become bland. Instead, he inspired us and others to be defiantly non-religious, defiantly diverse, defiantly anti-bureaucratic, defiantly willing to change, defiantly affirming of any person – especially those on the margins of life and society.

To keep ourselves inspired and evolving, we will continue to set annual goals – to expand how we learn and serve. This past year we added to our outreach efforts by tutoring in our neighborhood elementary school, working with Habitat for Humanity and serving a community Thanksgiving meal. We will work to expand those efforts in the next year while dreaming of and adopting new ways to stir up change. We will not rest, we will not stagnate, we will not console ourselves with what we have already done. Instead, we will be an inspirational place and one that progressively looks to the future. We will continue to ponder and explore questions about ourselves and our world that expands our spiritual awareness of how to act, speak and care for others. We will grow in how we practice with one another the ethics of empathy, understanding, and service. We will grow as models of humility and gentleness. We will each be doers and not just talkers. We will not grow weary when our work seems fruitless, when we are low in funds, when our impact seems small. We will be people who inspire those around us – our families, our colleagues, our circle of friends – sharing with them visions of what motivates us.

Each of us has valuable visions of what the world should look like. We can either spread the gospel of our personal visions by talking about them. Or, we can instead spread them by our example. We can be people who collectively come together to both inspire one another as we work to inspire our community.

The amazing gift we have at the Gathering, the amazing gift we have in ourselves, is the spark of inspiration that not only dreams of a better world but actively works to create it. This spark of inspiration is a gift we want to give away. That spark ought to ignite us every Sunday to go out and do the work we are called to do. To paraphrase the apostle James – one who I believe spoke the true heart of Jesus – let us not be hearers of the word only, or speakers of the word only, but doers of the word – people who actively give away the gift of inspiration with our love…and our work.
I wish you all much peace and joy.