Category: Uncategorized

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

 

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

For just a moment, imagine if I handed each of you right now a magic penny whose value multiplies by 100 every year.  After one year, you’d have a measly $1, after two a paltry $100, after three $10,000, after four $1 million, and after five years, $100 million.  That would be an astonishing thing but we would both then notice that 99% of the five year value of that coin comes during the fifth year.  We might wonder, what was the coin doing those first few years?  As any mathematician or financial advisor knows, it was compounding.

That miracle of compounding has happened much the same way with technology.  Within the last 250 years, the vast majority of technology we use today was invented.  Since modern humans first emerged over 200,000 thousand years ago, we might assume that early people were intellectually lazy or simply stupid.

That, of course, is false.  Human knowledge and technological advancement happened much like the compounding value of the magic penny.  It took a very long time to develop the intellectual and scientific foundations for more recent innovations and discoveries.

125,000 years ago, humans finally learned how to create and control fire.  50,000 years ago humans developed crude stone tools.  8000 years ago the first metal tool was developed.  4000 years ago, the wheel and abacus were invented.  The printing press came 600 years ago; the telescope and microscope 400 years ago; the first steam engine 300 years ago; airplanes and cars 115 years ago; electric computers 65 years ago; the internet 28 years ago, artificially intelligent machines 7 years ago.

In the perspective of 200,000 years of homo sapiens history, the breathtaking rapid technological advances of the last two hundred and fifty years is astonishing.  Artificial intelligence itself has led to even more amazing technological firsts – driverless cars, robots that can learn, and the kinds of technology that may truly upend – and perhaps make inconsequential – the very existence of humanity.

This evolution of technology has been spurred throughout history by one common desire – the desire to make life more convenient.  When early humans invented spears tipped with flint arrowheads, they caught more food, their families were healthier, and they had more time to create new innovations – like domesticating wild animals so they no longer had to hunt. 

That same impulse for convenience led to the invention of the steam and gasoline engines.  Humans could use them to grind their grains, weave their fabrics and quickly transport themselves across long distances.  Life became more convenient. 

Similar inventions of convenience today allow me to a deposit check instantly by taking a digital picture of it with my smartphone and sending it over the internet to my account.  No longer must I drive to my bank, stand in line for a teller, and then wait 3 days for me to be able to spend.

But, as we have come to realize, technological advancements are not always as good as originally thought.  Nuclear power offered the chance for limitless energy, but its dangers have the potential to destroy us.  Gasoline engines clearly made life easier but their carbon dioxide emissions will cause profound climate change.  Antibiotics have saved millions but they have also caused the rise of superbugs to which our bodies are defenseless.

Added to those concerns comes a recent article by Professor Tim Wu of Columbia University that asserts the continuing development of technological conveniences threatens human significance.  Symbolically, technology can get us to the top of mountains via a car or helicopter without having to hike or climb, but what is the satisfaction of that?  Technological convenience, Wu writes, diminishes our minds, our bodies and the values that define us.  The pursuit of convenience destroys values like hard work, diligence, and perseverance.  It also harms our ability to solve problems, and it can call into question the very reason why we exist.

Since our purpose is to do more than merely eat, procreate and seek pleasure, what happens if the work that defines us is increasingly done by machines?  Indeed, the recent invention of machine learning presents the very real possibility that years from now, not too far off considering how fast technology advances, the Gathering at Northern Hills will not hire a Minister, or Music Director but will simply purchase software to sing and play the piano, and prepare and deliver Sunday messages.  Very few members of the congregation will have jobs either – since most work will be done by artificially intelligent machines – from providing legal advice, to teaching, to serving as doctors and nurses, to engineering, to even designing and building other machines that can learn and think. 

And that takes me to the theme of my message series this month, “The Road Less Traveled” and to my topic today, “Embracing Inconvenience.”  While making life easier seems to be the road best taken, might the road less taken, the one that embraces inconvenience and challenge, be the one that makes all the difference?  For the sake of our survival as a meaningful and capable species, shouldn’t we try to balance our lives by NOT using so many technological conveniences?  Shouldn’t we, instead, embrace the inconvenience and the challenge of growing our knowledge, stretching our muscles, hiking to the summit of a symbolic mountain……and thereby live out our purpose – to work, think, serve and improve the world?

The pursuit of convenience by most modern cultures is premised on the idea that physical and mental labor is a burden – things we should avoid if we can.  In the early twentieth century, convenience in the home became a goal.  Washing machines, vacuum cleaners, electric ovens, and dishwashers were all supposed to make life easier – particularly for women.  Betty Friedan, in her book the Feminine Mystique, wrote that the modern woman, despite having multitudes of time saving machines to help with housework, now spends more time doing housework than her great-grandmother. As Friedan notes, that says something not just about technology but also about sexism.

Convenience comes with a cost.  It imposes more demands on people while also eliminating many of the skills and abilities that make us human.  Why learn the art of cooking if one can pour a mix into a bowl, add water, and then pop it into a microwave for heating?  Far from enhancing the art of food selection and preparation, or the health benefits of eating natural foods, we now consume highly processed food products manufactured in factories and cooked by machines – all for the sake of convenience.  We’ve lost a meaningful connection to what we eat – and how the preparation of food enhances our minds, bodies and souls.

The same is true for office related machines.  Copiers, printers, computers, and word processors were all supposed to make business more efficient and thus allow more time for other tasks. Why bother learning greater language skills if computers correct spelling and grammar?  Why learn advanced research methods, critical thinking, or the ability to analyze complex issues if Google and the internet provide immediate answers?  Why spend an evening with close friends engaging in enlightening conversation if one can sit alone, log into facebook or Twitter, and chat with total strangers?  Even worse, we’ve all seen groups of people who are physically together, but nevertheless isolated in a digital world displayed on their smartphones – and not being present with people sitting right next to them.

Even relatively new forms of technology now seem irrelevant.  Why anticipate and wait for a cherished TV show if one can instantly stream it via the internet?  Why hand write a letter if one can email, or why email if one can text, or now, why text if one can Tweet?  Indeed, Evan Williams, the co-founder of Twitter, recently said that convenience is the driver of everything we invent.

That fact, for me, is frightening.  As I discussed in last Sunday’s Easter message, challenges may not be enjoyable when we are in the midst of them, but by enduring and persevering through inconvenience, we find a new awareness about ourselves and about life.  It’s ironic but true that we cannot fully know what joy is unless we know its alternative – pain and struggle.

For me, my goal is to self-actualize and become more enlightened, more capable, more loving, and more at peace.  Technology can help me  achieve that goal but it must not supplant it.  In other words, if I can use a word processor to write better Sunday messages, that’s a good thing.  But if I use computers to replace my critical thinking abilities, what have I become?  Technology can be a useful extension of me, but it can also become a destructive replacement of me – erasing all the things that make me – me. 

I imagine I’m like most of you.  I find meaning in what I do – my work, my service to others, my love, my thoughts, ideas and opinions.  If I use technology to do those things for me, I’ve ceased to really exist – I’ve stopped meeting the criteria of Blaise Pascal, the famous enlightenment philosopher who said, “I think, therefore I am.” 

If I don’t think, if I don’t work, if I don’t struggle, cry, hurt and deeply feel – all because technological conveniences now do those for me – then I am nothing.  My very soul – the essence of my being – will have died.

And that, I claim, is a stark danger for me, for you, and for all humanity.  In his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, Arthur Clarke explored the theme of how tools and technology affect humanity.  Hal, the all-knowing and all-seeing computer in his film, has progressed in artificial intelligence to the point that humans are irrelevant and even dangerous to its existence.  Hal then kills almost all of the humans on their spaceship.  But Clarke made sure that one astronaut in his story wakes up to the threat and puts Hal under his control.  Clarke’s moral is that humanity can and will harness the good from technology – while preventing its dangers.

That is wishful thinking in my opinion.  For me, it all comes down to a  human spiritual malaise – one that often leads people to think only of themselves and their comfort.  The easier, more pleasurable and more hardship-free our lives are, the better.  Unless we as humans understand that selfish character flaw in us, and work to overcome it, I believe we will continue the headlong pursuit of technological convenience at the expense of taking the inconvenient road less traveled.

As I said earlier, I don’t believe we should abandon all technology.  Clearly, advances in medicine, transportation and computation have improved human life.  But I do believe that technological advances have also compounded to the astonishing point – like the magic penny I earlier presented – such that each new innovation has the ability to fundamentally alter or even destroy our meaning and purpose. 

If Pascal was right, that thinking implies existence, then if machines become capable of truly thinking, then they will have a form of life previously not imagined.  And given the fact that the universe is governed by immutable laws of mathematics, machines that can calculate perfectly will easily outwit our imperfect brains.  Much like homo sapiens evolved beyond and ultimately replaced lesser hominids like Neanderthals, machines could evolve and replace us.

The solutions to this troubling possibility are simple.  First, we must stop believing that technology is benign – that it’s neither good for bad.  As tools created by humans, technology will reflect our qualities .  As such, we must intentionally design technologies so that they reflect our good values.  We’ve seen the importance of this with recent revelations about facebook.  Initially, it was hailed as a way to bring people together.  It can be a force for good that encourages values we hold dear – democracy, equality, human connection and coexistence.  But just as facebook is used as a force for good, it is also used as a force for evil – spreading falsehoods, hate, bigotry and maliciously encouraging disunity and anti-democratic forces.  That must not be allowed.  We must demand facebook programmers, engineers and executives design its technology so that it protects and enhances our universal values – or else abandon it..

The second solution is to willingly embrace inconvenience and do more things on our own – without advanced technology.  We must accept and embrace the challenge of learning, struggling, overcoming and thereby bettering our human condition.

By implementing these solutions, we will take the road less traveled – the one of less selfishness, high ideals, and difficulty.  Our purpose is not to merely survive as easily as we can, but to thrive – and that can only come as we balance the conveniences of technology with the challenges of our values – work, persistence, service to others, learning and, yes, enduring hardship.  Embracing inconvenience is one path, a road less taken, that will make all the difference……

        And I wish you much thoughtful peace and joy.

           

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

 

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

 

For many of us who are spiritually open-minded, or for those who are non-spiritual but honor humanist ideals, celebrating religious holidays like Passover or Easter can seem meaningless.  Since one may not believe in the supernatural miracles that supposedly saved ancient Jews from slavery, or the alleged resurrection of Jesus from the dead, then why do we bother with a Passover family meal or an Easter service?

That’s a legitimate question.  And a possible answer should include more than the reply that Passover and Easter are parts of our Judeo-Christian culture.  For us as thinking, rational people, celebrating things we don’t believe in should provide some value – or else be abandoned.

I believe the implied lessons from Easter, despite its religious origins, do offer value and wisdom to people of any faith, or no faith.  Easter, in particular, is a story with all kinds of truths that Christians and non-Christians can remember and follow.

As most know, Easter is the ultimate day of joy for Christians.  All of Christian history, all the books, sermons, prayers and practices of that faith rely on the Easter morning story.  As the Bible says, without Easter morning, Christianity makes no sense.

That assertion comes from accepting the Easter story told in the four Biblical books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Jesus’ tomb, the story goes, was found empty two-thousand years ago by several of his women followers.  It’s a tribute to them, and to women in general, that they practiced a mostly feminine attribute – they alone were loyal to Jesus as the last to ones at his death, and the first to discover his empty grave.  He’s is alleged to have appeared fully alive to the women on Easter morning and to then appear to hundreds of people in the days to follow.

This came, as the story says, after he’d been terribly whipped, killed by one of the most agonizing methods possible, confirmed dead, and then entombed for two days.

The night before his trial, torture and execution, what Christians call Maundy Thursday, it’s said that Jesus assembled his twelve disciples to celebrate a Passover meal.   It’s from this meal that the tradition of bread and wine communion began.  It’s also at that meal that Jesus learned one of the disciples, Judas, had made a pact with the Romans to betray his whereabouts.

After the meal, Jesus retreated to an olive grove overlooking Jerusalem.  This secluded place was the spot where he wanted to reflect and pray in preparation for his anticipated arrest and death.

It’s said he was in such anguish as he prayed that night that he sweated profusely – even to the point that blood oozed from his skin.  In his prayers, the gospels quote Jesus as crying out and pleading with God to spare him the next day’s horrors.  At some point in the wee hours of Friday morning, Roman soldiers came for him.  His hard night of terror would lead to a daytime of intense suffering.

Much of the story about Jesus’ death cannot be conclusively proven, but many details are historically accurate.  It’s factual that Romans used crucifixion to execute thousands of criminals and enemies.  It’s factual that Pontius Pilate, who condemned Jesus to death, was the Roman governor of Palestine at that time.  It’s also factual that Christianity rapidly spread soon after the Bible says Jesus died.  It’s a bit ironic that the powerful Roman Empire that killed him was peacefully taken over by Christianity less than three hundred years later.

It’s unlikely, therefore, that the religion was invented.  It had to have been based on the life and teachings of a real person.  Because of that, most scholars and historians believe a man named Jesus of Nazareth did actually live, he did teach many profound lessons, he did accumulate thousands of followers during his lifetime, and he was executed because he represented a threat to Rome and to religious elites.

So, it’s also likely the stories about the night before his execution and the details of his death are true.  It’s only when the miraculous story of Easter morning is examined that scholars and historians object.  It is surmised by many scholars that Jesus, like most victims of crucifixion, was unceremoniously taken off his cross, buried in a common grave, and his body was possibly dug up and consumed by wild dogs.

          The ensuing dejection of his thousands of followers cannot be underestimated.  Jesus was seen as a potential leader along the lines of King David – one who would lead a revolt against the Romans and wealthy elites.  Others were strongly drawn to his spiritual wisdom – to forgive, love one’s enemies, practice non-violence, and care for the poor and marginalized.  With his death, all of the hopes invested in him seemed to die too.  It’s entirely understandable that his followers then remembered him by recounting stories of his life and repeating his teachings.  In time, stories about him were written down and embellished to the point that fact and myth were mixed.  Still later, admirers of Jesus made him god-like, someone who performed miracles and who could defeat death.  The Easter morning story was the primary part of the effort to turn a great human being into a supernatural god.

        The apparent myth of Jesus’ resurrection does not, however, diminish its meaning or lesson.  It’s often said by Christians that the joy of Easter could not happen without the suffering of Good Friday.  And that statement is more than a religious belief.  Implicit in it is a fundamental truth for all people – and thus the point of my message today and my message series this month.

        Challenges in life are made worse and become pointless unless we find a way to transform our pain, and thereby transform ourselves.  Taking the easy way, avoiding or running away from hardship, is to symbolically take the road most taken.  As Robert Frost implies in his famous poem, the road less taken, the one still beaten down because it’s way is hard, is the better one.  It’s the road that will make all the difference.

        And that truth is evident in the story about Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection.  On the night before he died, he was desperate.  His fear was apparent to all who saw him.  He clearly knew the excruciating pain and humiliation that awaited him.  He could have slipped out of the city before his arrest.  But he didn’t.  He endured his hard night perhaps as a final lesson for his followers  – that real courage is not displayed by fighting with physical or verbal violence. 

        Often, courage is in how one quietly perseveres with as much peace and humility as possible.  Courage is Mohatma Gandhi during his salt march protests against British colonialism.  Courage is Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers walking across the Edmund Pettus bridge into bigoted mobs.  Courage is one standing with quiet dignity against hate directed their way, it’s someone bravely but peacefully facing a terminal disease, or anyone gracefully bearing any obstacle head-on.

        And the triumph of Easter morning, myth as it may be, is testimony to the reality that endurance with dignity pays a reward.  Jesus as a human, not as a god, is perhaps the single greatest person in history.  That’s not because he fled from his trials, it’s because he didn’t.  His resurrection, in that regard, may not have been a literal one, but it’s meaning is true nevertheless.  Jesus as a person of history lives onward – as does anyone who selflessly suffers but helps improve the world anyway.

        Multiple psychologists assert the truth of this.  When any of us are in the midst of hardship, the way to successfully endure and find peace is not to avoid or run away.  Instead, experts say we should examine our suffering and determine where it comes from.  Even though we will likely attribute our suffering to external causes – a negative person, an illness, a job loss……..that is not why we suffer.  Instead, our suffering comes from our fears – fear of thinking we’re inadequate, fear of feeling demeaned, fear of being forgotten after we die.

        Once we identify our root fears, then logic and reason can take over.  Are we really inadequate?  Haven’t we succeeded in numerous ways?  Are we really being demeaned by others?  Or, is someone else’s negativity their own problem – and not our’s?  And, what about our fear of death?  What is it about it that we are afraid of?  Have we not left our good marks on the world?  Have we not loved and served and sacrificed?  Have we not sent out ripples of goodness far into eternity – things we’ve done that have improved other lives and that will be paid forward forever?

          The truth is that our fears are often illogical.  Once identified and rationally considered, we can change how we think about them.  It’s a timeless truth that how we suffer has less to do with external influences and far more to do with internal issues of fear and insecurity.  Most of us have the power and ability to end our suffering by changing our perception of it.   

        Added to that fact is the reality that pain is real, but it will end.  Indeed, the cycle of life is always one that moves from happiness – to challenge – to suffering – to recovery – and back again to happiness.  As much as we know that from past experience, it will help us to remember that through our hard night. 

           And even when we are at at death’s door, our life will not truly end.  We need not fear insignificance.  Our lives will go onward due to all we have accomplished in love, kindness and service.

          Ultimately, be it in the throes of challenging circumstances, or during our final days, there will always, always, always be scores of things for which to be thankful and from which we can find Easter-like joy.

        This path, this challenging road to find lasting contentment, is the road less taken.  It’s a road, however, that we instinctively avoid.  Flinching from pain, fleeing from hardship, drugging ourselves to numb our pain, these are ways humans have always taken the more traveled road.  At that road’s end, however, there will only be an illusion of peace.  There will be no contentment, no lessons learned, no insight into one’s soul, no hard won conquest of fear, no Easter like celebration.

        I read now from Robert Frost’s poem:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both.

And be one traveler, long I stood,

And looked down one as far as I could,

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim

Because it was grassy and wanted wear,

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same.

And both that morning equally lay,

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

        

        For you and me, may we heed the Easter lesson and take the road less traveled.  May we consider all that challenges us, all that stings, all that tries our souls.  And I pray that from those considerations, a dawning truth will emerge.  Life is hard, but we are stronger.  Our bodies may hurt and even perish, but we will never die.  There is no end, no conclusion to the road less traveled.  Instead, it will be a path to find eternal peace and joy that surpasses all understanding.

I wish you a very blessed Easter.

In the spirit of this morning, please quiet your minds and hearts and join me in a guided Easter reflection….

Let us reflect on challenges before our world…

The wars and killing that devastate people and cultures,

The hatred that divides instead of unites,

The injuries to our oceans, land and air,

The struggles of poor and marginalized persons,

The anger of persons discriminated against – who see members of their communities beaten and even killed,

The challenges of the other abled, sick and dying….

Our hearts break for so many, many, many wounds……………….

But through these hard nights of challenge behind us and still ahead of us

Our souls rejoice for all that is good and blessed…

For advocates of peace, justice and equity…

For helping hands who feed, soothe, comfort and care for the hurting,

For diversity of life and humanity – the flowering of many creatures and many peoples each adding their beauty to one another,

For lovers, spouses, partners, children, parents, friends who sustain and support us,

And finally for the hope that remains inside us – a hope we refuse to let die – that good will prevail, that light will conquer darkness, that joy will come in the morning!!!!

Officer Arnold is a Cincinnati Police Officer who has been a member of the Sentinel Police Association since 2013 and has served on its Executive Board.  Officer Arnold believes in active Police community involvement.  He also supports oversight of the Police Department by the Sentinel Association.  Its motto is: “One Voice, One Action, One Spirit.”

Officer Arnold’s regular community outreach through his large email following and posting of local job opportunities was responsible for us finding our new and much valued Administrator Adrienne Campbell.

 

Listen to Officer Arnold’s Message Here:

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

I presented the two videos we just watched as our Moment for All Ages because I wanted them to be a funny and endearing moment of reflection for kids and adults alike.  I’ve asked that the children’s RE teachers briefly discuss the videos with the kids.

For all of you, please just shout out – so I can hear – a one or two word idea you got from the first video we watched – the one with the birds.

Now, please shout out a one or two word idea you got from the second video – the one with the polar bears.

I chose these videos to watch because I believe they capture the essence of what it means to collaborate.  And that topic of collaboration, as you know from the title of my message, is one many people, including many experts, believe is a value expressed by a lot of women.  In the Harvard Business Review poll I’ve cited the last two weeks about values people all over the world want in their leaders – and whether or not the value is mostly feminine or masculine – collaboration was judged mostly feminine and it was ranked number four, out of ten, of most desired leadership qualities.    

A majority of the world’s people not only seek leaders who act in mostly feminine ways – with emotional intelligence, progressive thinking, empathy and collaboration – they are also implicitly rejecting traditional patriarchy.  In a book entitled The Athena Doctrine, How Women (and Men Who Think Life Them) Will Rule the Future by John Gerzema, people all over the world are frustrated by leaders who who behave in typically male ways, with control, aggression and black and white thinking.  Most people believe these mostly male behaviors are responsible for wars, income inequality, racism, scandal and reckless risk taking.

Evidence based research supports that belief.  Most women, experts have found, think less of themselves when compared with their peers.  Many men, on the other hand, overestimate their abilities compared with their peers.  In short, studies show that men tend to have inflated egos and a greater sense of self-worth.  Women, on the other hand, tend to shortchange their skills.  That key attribute, to think less of oneself, is what ironically leads people to be more collaborative.

An analysis of voting patterns by US Senators shows this collaboration gender difference.  In the last seven years, female Senators have co-sponsored an average of 171 bills with members of the opposite party.  Male Senators have co-sponsored bills across party lines an average of only 129 times.

Another recent study by two college professors took 500 male students and 500 female students and divided them into same gender pairs.  They were then asked to select, as a pair, 100 shares of any stock that the pair believed showed the most profit potential.  The female student pairs were far more likely to compromise on their stock choice.  For the male pairs, it was usually an all or nothing proposition.  Either the two men agreed on a stock, or else no selection at all was made.  For them, it was a my way or the highway approach.

The study showed, one of the professors said, that men tend to believe they have something to prove to another man.  They often refuse to back down from a position in order to show they are strong.  Women, this professor said, have no inner need to prove anything with other women.   Their sense of self is not as precarious as that of men.  Indeed, this professor remarked that many men will go out of their way not to compromise with another man – for fear that to do so is emasculating.

Regarding the two videos we watched, the predominant message I got from the one with the birds is patriarchy.  Only those birds who appear the same are welcome in the flock.  The one who is different was not only unwelcome, but was mocked.  Even within the flock of similar feathered birds, there is tension, competition, and conflict.  Each bird jostles to be the lead bird, the one at the center.  Ego and selfishness describe the flock’s general attitudes.

The Coca-Cola commercial, on the other hand, is a beautiful depiction of collaboration.  It echoes the famous Coke ad of the 1970’s that shows a group of people from all over the world singing “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.”  For me, these Coke commercials exude all of the human values we esteem – but too often fail to practice.  Harmony, sharing, gentleness, humility, and most of all love.  The polar bears work and reach together for the moon – all so they can share a Coke – which the commercial implies is an inspirational symbol of unity.

For many reasons, that brief commercial strikes an emotional cord in me – one that reminds me of love I have for those I’m close to.  It’s warm, endearing and yes, even feminine, in how it champions affectionate care and selflessness above all else.

Collaboration as a practice or value is one I advocate for GNH perhaps the most.  It’s a primary one I hope to myself become better at – and one I encourage this congregation to practice in all it does and says.

Collaboration gets at the heart of who and what we want to be.  Without a collaborative spirit, I don’t believe we can be truly loving, generous, open minded, humble, or concerned about issues of justice.  Collaboration is what the eight billion residents of this planet implicitly want to do.  We want human connection.  We want the kind of intimacy with others that is comforting and affirming.  We want connection with others from the moment we are born, until the moment we pass.

I recall last May when my father died.  My siblings and I gathered around him in the intensive care unit, held his hands, and together, as his life faded away, jointly shared with him all he meant to us and how we loved him.   Much like in the Coke commercial, we too were reaching for the moon in one of life’s most poignant moments.  Together, we wanted to send him into eternity knowing his life had meant something and that, most of all, he could die knowing he was deeply loved.  That exemplifies for me the kind of connected collaboration we seek with others – something that only happens when people intentionally come together to achieve something greater than themselves.

When we think of collaboration as an idea, however, we too often think of it in everyday, practical terms.  Teamwork, cooperation, sharing.  Those are essential components of the idea, but collaboration expresses all of the human values we believe in.

If we want democracy in this congregation, in our cities and in our nation, we must collaborate.  That means we will each have opinions about various matters, but we intentionally agree to live together as one people and to collaborate in a way that allows church members, city dwellers and US citizens to co-exist peacefully.  Democracy, in order to work, requires respect for all.  It demands listening to others.  It expects all will be treated equally.  None of these things can happen unless we cooperate, collaborate and, yes, learn to compromise and even lose a debate, or an election, with grace.

If we want healthy and thriving romantic relationships, families and friendships, we also must collaborate.  That means we recognize in these intimate relationships that each person has value and each has something worthwhile to contribute.  We don’t impose a hierarchy in our relationships – that one person is better than another.  And we communicate as lovers, parents, children, siblings or friends with open generosity and humility.  We may challenge one another from time to time – but that is done with the aim to encourage and inspire.  Indeed, to lovingly and gently challenge spouses, family members or friends is a hallmark of close relationships.  We implicitly trust that the other wants what is best for us.  People in close relationships lift up and never tear down.  Once again, we cannot do any of these things unless we collaborate.

If we want success in the work we do – here at church, at our workplaces, or in our justice advocacy, we too must collaborate.  That means we listen, we empathize, we don’t judge, and yes, once again, we compromise and find common ground.  We engage in the sharing of ideas and encourage a diversity of thought.  Only with a collective blending of best ideas can we find solutions that work.

Finally, if we want genuine peace in our homes, churches and world, we must above all things collaborate.  Rigid, confrontational and self-focused thinking is what leads to conflict.  And that, sadly, is too often caused by patriarchy.  As was shown in the study of student collaboration, men too often refuse to compromise and cooperate.  Those are signs of weakness many men believe.  I admit to sometimes being prone to this thinking too.  Our culture demands that men not appear weak.

But history’s battlefields are littered with the bodies of young men – sent off to war to prove that a particular leader or nation is stronger and more manly.  Homes, churches, schools, businesses and governments are similarly littered with lives destroyed by fake masculinity – that of arrogance and self-important attitudes.

Time and again, however, humility, collaboration and compromise are shown to be ironically more powerful.  Gandhi and Martin Luther King showed their true strength in acting and speaking non-violently.   Jesus taught that the meek and gentle shall inherit the earth and that only peacemakers are worthy of God’s blessing.  Ramadan, month long fasting and five times daily prayer for Muslims are ways to sublimate themselves before forces of love greater than themselves.  The same is so for Hindus and Buddhists who, perhaps more than any others, intentionally work to diminish their egos in order to find lasting peace and enlightenment.

Moving from selfishness – to selflessness – is one of the hardest things we do.  Being too self focused is my number one life obstacle.  Such thinking has a number of negative manifestations, but for us today, collaboration stands as a primary response.  When we cooperate with others, when we humble ourselves and our opinions, when we genuinely listen, share and love, we tap into all that is good and effective.  We need to get in touch with parts of ourselves that are vulnerable, that yearn for connection, and as I’ve said in my three messages this month – that many people consider feminine.  We need to abandon vestiges of patriarchal egotism that can exist in both men and women.  We need to collaborate, compromise and ultimately love enemy and friend alike. 

      May that be so with me, as I pray it is with you.

     

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

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

 

Two years ago during a Democratic Party primary debate, Hillary Clinton was asked if she was a moderate or a progressive.  The question was posed because of accusations that Ms. Clinton was not a true progressive.

Ms. Clinton replied to the question by saying this, “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”

Her response was a defense not only of her thinking, but also that of women in general.  Many women are progressives, but their approach is different from that of men.  There is, I believe, a gender difference between how women and men are forward thinking or progressive.

Ms. Clinton’s response, therefore, highlights my topic this morning.  As you may know, my series theme this month is “Feminine Values that Should Rule the World.”  Last Sunday I discussed emotional intelligence as a leadership quality that many experts consider is a mostly feminine attribute.  Today, I want to look at looking forward as another leadership quality that is mostly feminine.

I cited last week the Harvard Business Review study and poll of 64,000 people in 53 countries around the world asking them to state the qualities they most want in their political, business, spiritual and non-profit leaders.  These same people were later asked whether they thought the qualities they listed are mostly feminine or mostly masculine attributes.  Of the top ten leadership qualities listed by all those polled, all but one were considered by respondents as mostly feminine.  Emotional intelligence ranked number one.  Looking forward was number two.  To put it simply, a majority of women and men around the world believe that having a forward thinking approach is an attribute they highly desire in their leaders and it is a mostly feminine one.

Forward thinking is generally defined as being progressive, dynamic, bold, pioneering, modern and innovative.  Interestingly, several of these qualities are often viewed as mostly masculine traits.  To be traditionally masculine is to be bold, dynamic and innovative.  They are not qualities most people would associate as mostly feminine.

And yet, as Hillary Clinton pointed out about herself, she is a forward thinker – a progressive.  How can she, or any woman for that matter, be progressive if it means one must be bold and dynamic?   Is there a possible disconnect between the genders about just what constitutes forward thinking?  I believe progressivism in women is different and it is exactly what the worlds needs today.

To be clear, women in the United States are overall more progressive than men.  Voting patterns as well as beliefs about many social issues prove it.  In last year’s election, 53% of women voters supported Ms. Clinton compared with 41% of male voters who supported her.  That gender gap was true for whites and blacks – more women from each racial group supported her than did men.  More women support gay rights and marriage equality than do men.  More women support gun control and military disarmament than do men.  And more women oppose the death penalty and support the Affordable Health Care Act than do men.

Interestingly, however, most female forward thinking is far more nuanced than such data indicates.  Women are forward thinking in the way that Hillary Clinton described herself. 

According to this view, many women are what I call practical forward thinkers.  Men tend to be focused on the philosophy and politics of an issue, while women in general focus on finding solutions and making sure that whatever belief they hold, a workable answer is a priority.

According to the Harvard Business Review, many men excel at being forward thinking visionaries and they lead accordingly.  They offer a compelling vision in such a way that prompts others to follow.  But men being men, most of those who are considered visionary leaders are lone wolves.  They create a vision and they alone express it to others and then act as the sole leader.

And that is strikingly different from how many women approach problems.  In general, women collaborate and seek other ideas of how to fix something.  Women, in other words, tend to focus on finding practical, common sense answers.  They care less about themselves appearing as bold leaders, as they care about working with multiple people to find a solution that is bold and innovative.  Looking forward for women, therefore, is not about debate and being a leader, it’s about making sure the desired outcome actually happens.

An example of this approach is how the Premier of Canada’s Northwest Territories addressed that province’s issue of fighting poverty.  Typically, the problem became a political argument between conservative and liberal men.  Conservatives advocated for less government involvement and liberals essentially wanted more government involvement.  Eva Aariak, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, refused to engage in that debate.  Instead, she enlisted the advice of stakeholders in the poverty problem.  She convened listening sessions with community, neighborhood and family groups to hear their thoughts.   She found that most people wanted government assistance to fight poverty, but that anti-poverty programs should be run and determined by each village and neighborhood – not by the central government. 

Ms. Aariak adopted polices to channel funds to various localities but then let them decide how best to use the dollars.  This allowed communities to be flexible and to determine assistance on an individual by individual basis.  Some people need funds for education.  Others who are unable to work need direct financial help.  Still others need tough love to work or learn.

This relatively novel approach was called by Premier Aariak a bottom up approach.  It was not conservative or liberal, and it was not run by those in power.  But it was a new, forward thinking idea, crafted by multiple people at the grass roots level, that actually worked.  It fit Hillary Clinton’s definition of being progressive in a way that accomplishes something.

In the Harvard Business Review article, one female corporate CEO described her leadership this way: “I don’t see myself as particularly visionary in the creative sense.  I see myself as pulling and putting together pieces of information or observations that lead to possible strategies and future opportunities.”

This executive’s progressivism is built on collaboration – a mostly feminine quality I’ll look at next week.  Unlike many men, her approach is not to debate and engage in a competition of ideas.  Instead, she pulls together many ideas, from many people, and assembles them into a solution.  No individual is the owner of the solution.  Everybody owns it.  No person comes out the winner.  Everybody wins.  That is a mostly feminine quality that should rule the world – one where argument and competition are reduced and compromise and consensus prevail.

Stephen Prothero, author of the book “Why Liberals Win the Culture Wars (Even When They Lose Elections), asserts that men are often the driving force behind conservative culture wars – ones against gay rights, abortion, feminism, sexual liberation, and secularization.  Men are often those who are “anxious about the loss of old orders and the emergence of new ones.”  Politicians use culture wars to gain their votes and get themselves elected.  For instance, non-college educated white men were the predominant demographic group who supported Donald Trump in last year’s election.  Their anxiety over loss of jobs and economic opportunity was and is real.  Their concerns were exploited by Trump in his attacks against immigrants, Muslims, people of color and women – all of whom he implied are taking away white male jobs.  But while Trump won the election, Professor Prothero says he is likely to not win the overall culture war.

Indeed, he points out that none of the culture wars have been successful since women won the right to vote in 1920 – primarily because women have added their forward thinking values to the national debate.

Their values may have seemed to lose – as they have in several elections over the past hundred years.   But mostly feminine forward thinking has nevertheless prevailed.  That was due, I believe, to the up from the bottom, ground level ideas and changes offered by many people.  We saw that in the Civil Rights victories of the 1960’s, in the LGBTQ equal rights and marriage equality movement, and now in the feminist MeToo effort and Black Lives Matter protests.  We are beginning to see such success in the gun control effort – spurred not by any particular leader, but by thousands of grass roots youth – many of whom are female.

The implications of this are significant.  On a spiritual level, forward thinking is foundational.  Every world religion is based on the need for change – inwardly in people, and outwardly in society.  One’s heart must first perceive his or her self-focused way of thinking.  By changing that, one perceives new ways to interact with others and be more at peace.  I assert that any form of honest spirituality moves one forward from selfishness – to selflessness.

Once people have so changed, societies can then change too.  Rightly applied, spirituality leads large groups of people to embrace a concern for others – for the marginalized, the poor, for those who have little hope.

This spiritual value of change is also mostly feminine.  Men have it too, but the poll I mentioned earlier indicates most people around the world believe more women have it than do men.  That confirms why women often comprise a majority in churches and spiritual organizations.  They, along with men who think the same, accept and want change in both themselves and in the world.  Spiritually minded communities, like the Gathering at Northern Hills, are perhaps best aligned to not only be forward thinking, but to actually get things done.

As its name implies, conservatism on the other hand wants to look backwards, mostly due to fear of change.  Don’t take a new job, don’t merge with another congregation, don’t try out new music, don’t adopt new technologies, don’t examine and change inner flaws.  Maintaining the status quo, as we know, is not a healthy strategy.  Change and forward thinking define the universe, and must define our lives.

And looking forward should incorporate many of the mostly feminine qualities needed to be effective – ones like emotional intelligence, listening, collaboration, and reasonableness.  To look forward in ways that will succeed, multiple people need to participate and be heard.  Progress is not measured by the accomplishments of lone wolf leaders, but by the collective work of many.

This speaks to values at work in this congregation and ones we seek to follow.  We don’t as much talk about problems, as we try to do something about them – even in small ways.  We are like Hillary Clinton – we’re progressives who get things done.   And we do so not because I or the Board says something is good to do – but because all of you, the congregation, collectively believe its good to do.  It’s one thing to lament homelessness in our city.  It’s quite another to jointly serve, love and assist the homeless.  It’s one thing to decry racism.  It’s quite another to admit vestiges of implicit bias in our congregation and ourselves, and then make conscious efforts to eliminate it.  That’s the essence of honest spirituality – to believe in something so strongly that words are not enough.  Deeds must be undertaken to prove a belief is sincere.

Most of all for us, who lament the direction our nation seems to be heading, we must try to see things in perspective.  Culture wars against social progress will always happen.  People will continue to be afraid of change.  Culture wars will occasionally win elections that seemingly cause us to go backwards.  The reassuring lessons of history and spirituality show us, however, that our nation and world have advanced in being more selfless in ways earlier generations would have never thought possible. 

This current period of anger, hate and fear toward people who appear different – this too shall pass.  It will not prevail over the long term and the seeds of its fall are already apparent.  That will be due to the application of mostly feminine values – ones like having a forward thinking attitude.  These values not only should rule the world, I believe they do in the hearts and minds of millions of women – and men who think alike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you each much peace and joy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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