Category: Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you all much peace and joy. 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you each much peace and joy…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

I encourage us for the next few minutes to assume an unbiased and objective mindset.  Let’s review a set of facts I’ll present and then make a reasonable conclusion about them.

We all know about the two recent hurricanes which struck the U.S.  Never before have two hurricanes with such strength hit our country in the same year.  Hurricane Harvey caused unprecedented flooding in Houston.  Nearly fifty inches of rain fell in that area within a forty-eight hour period – the most ever recorded there in that amount of time.  Weather experts say it was a one in one-thousand year event.

Hurricane Irma completely devastated multiple Caribbean islands.  It became a category 5 storm earlier and farther to the east than any other recorded hurricane.  At one point, it nearly exceeded the upper limits of hurricane strength categories with winds over 190 miles per hour – something unprecedented in history.  When Irma reached Florida, it was over four-hundred miles across – entirely covering the state.  Only by Irma losing some strength over Cuba was an even worse Florida catastrophe averted.

Many people believe climate change helped make these hurricanes stronger than they would otherwise have been.  Proof of that connection is not direct or absolute.  Nevertheless, both hurricanes traveled over ocean waters that were very warm – much warmer than what has been normal over the past hundred years.  Warm oceans evaporate at higher rates – and water vapor is hurricane fuel.  In fact, three hurricanes are churning in the Atlantic as I speak – one possibly following Irma’s path.

It’s not just tropical hurricanes that are causing worry.  Storms of all varieties – blizzards, tornadoes and torrential rains are increasingly more intense.  Their levels of rainfall or snowfall far surpass what used to be considered extreme. 

On the opposite end of weather, droughts are more intense and longer lasting than historically normal.   The California drought that ended this past winter lasted over five years.  Water aquifer levels below ground were brought to never seen before lows.  Parts of Africa continue to suffer longer than normal droughts that are rendering many areas uninhabitable.

Warmer ocean temperatures are also blamed for melting large areas of glacial ice – in Greenland, the North Pole and in Antarctica.  Such ice is thousands of years old but it has only recently rapidly melted.  In July, an ice berg the size of Rhode Island melted enough so that it separated from Antarctica.  It’s now drifting north to melt and further increase sea levels.

In the North Pole arctic area, sea ice is now mostly gone during summer months when only a few years ago it never melted.  The Arctic ocean is thus open in the summer between northern Europe across the North Pole to Alaska and Asia.  A luxury cruise liner just completed a voyage across the Arctic sea for the first time in history.  Once again, warmer than normal ocean and air temperatures are the cause.

Finally, rising sea levels due to melting glaciers and ice bergs are affecting low lying coastal areas.  The city of Miami regularly has its streets flooded during full moon high tides.  Sea levels across the globe have risen in the last one hundred years by almost a foot.  At that rate of increase, cities from New York to Miami to London to Hong Kong will be under water a hundred years from now.

Few people doubt that climate change is occurring.  Most scientists, however, assert climate change is caused by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which creates a greenhouse effect and higher temperatures.  This, they say, is primarily due to one factor: human caused air pollution.  Other human caused air pollution comes from gasses in spray cans, from the raising of cattle and other ruminant animals that produce methane flatulence, and from widespread deforestation of trees.

Scientists say climate change can be caused by natural factors such as increased solar radiation, a change in the Earth’s orbit, or variations in the reflectivity of the Earth’s land mass.  In hundreds of studies, however, several facts have been proven.  Natural factors that could cause climate change have been ruled out.  Solar radiation hitting the earth has remained constant.  So has the Earth’s orbit. 

On the other hand, human caused factors that could cause global warming have all increased.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have steadily increased over the last hundred years.  Gasses from aerosol sprays have also increased.  And, large areas of the earth that used to be forested have been cut down to make room for the raising of livestock.

All of this has led the International Panel of Climate Change Scientists to conclude recently that, “It is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on Earth’s climate since 1750.  And by ‘extremely likely,’ we conclude a probability greater than 95%.”

Many people, however, strongly disagree with that conclusion.  They believe climate changes are natural and that there is no direct evidence to link the events I’ve recited and human made pollution.  Indeed, they claim the evidence is circumstantial and thus weak.

The definition of circumstantial evidence, however, is any fact that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion —much like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime implies someone who left the fingerprint is the criminal.  By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of a conclusion explicitly – like a video showing a person commit a crime.  In other words, direct evidence is evidence that does not need inference to prove a conclusion.

To prove a scientific conclusion using circumstantial evidence – like human caused climate change, one piece of evidence cannot be relied upon.  Scientists must use the sum of many circumstantial facts to reasonably prove something – much like the International Panel of Climate Change Scientists used hundreds of studies to conclude they are 95% certain people are causing it.  Indeed, in criminal convictions that use circumstantial evidence, the standard is that the collected pieces of circumstantial facts must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That does not mean guilt beyond any doubt.

According to the magazine Psychology Today, there are three kinds of human ignorance.  One is ordinary ignorance which means that one simply does not know something.  A fact has not yet been learned.  There is nothing wrong with ordinary ignorance.   Another kind of ignorance is called higher ignorance which means a person acknowledges his or her ignorance on a certain subject and has the intention to gain knowledge to erase the ignorance.  Higher ignorance admits there are some things which cannot be 100% proven by direct evidence. 

The third kind of ignorance is willful ignorance which means that a person intentionally knows what is reasonably true, but chooses to ignore that.  Willful ignorance is when a person refuses to abandon their beliefs and instead learn or accept knowledge that contradicts his or her beliefs.

My point and the subject of my message today is this:  our goal as spiritual people is to embrace higher ignorance and work against willful ignorance.  For most of us, that is a common sense argument.  Most of us accept the higher form of ignorance which says we cannot absolutely prove human caused climate change, but an examination of the facts says it is reasonably true.  That contrasts with the willful ignorance of those who deny it. 

The same is true of Biblical creationists who claim God made humans and animals only six thousand years ago.  They refuse to abandon their beliefs even in the face of countless pieces of scientific circumstantial evidence indicating there has been a natural evolution of species over billions of years that has led to present day humans and animals.   Are there direct pieces of fossil evidence showing a sequence of one lower life form having evolved to its more advanced cousin?  There are a few but not a couple complete sequence of fossils.  Just as with climate change, such direct evidence is very rare because its difficult in almost all matters to directly prove something.  We almost always must rely on circumstantial evidence – and our reason – to conclude what is true.

It is easy for me and perhaps for you to point fingers at those who deny the science behind climate change or evolution.  I’m a rational person who would never want to be willfully ignorant.  And yet, if I honestly examine all my thoughts and actions, I am often willfully ignorant.  I’m blind to many of my faults.  I can refuse to heed medical advice, I don’t always act, speak or listen as I know I should – with decency, kindness and respect.  I admit to holding implicit bias within me – stuff that I hate but it’s nevertheless there.

Psychologists say there are three reasons why I and others are willfully ignorant.  First, I can be what is called a “cognitive miser.”  I do not cognitively examine the evidence of something if I don’t feel I have to.  As I related in a message last month, I avoided having a colonoscopy for over seven years even though I knew facts prove that for anyone over 50, it saves lives.  When I finally did have the test in June, a small but treatable cancer was found and a few weeks later surgically removed.  I will be fine.  But had my willful ignorance continued, I could be standing here five years from now with a much worse prognosis.

I can also be a cognitive miser about my flaws and weaknesses.  I often fail to examine my deficiencies and thereby don’t try to improve myself and grow.  This willful ignorance about my health or my weaknesses is itself a flaw.  Self-awareness, however, requires I embrace higher ignorance and admit the things about me that I refuse to accept.  Only then might I embark on a useful endeavor to grow, learn and change.

A second psychological reason I can be willfully ignorant is that I – like many people – prefer conformity.  Like many people, I frequently rely on group-think to direct my actions and thoughts.  Conformity has positive aspects that can encourage us to cooperate, find common ground and live at peace.  But it also leads people to ignore alternative facts, ways of life and things that go against popular beliefs. 

The third and last reason people are willfully ignorant is that most hate to admit when they are wrong.  White supremacists cannot admit the  abundant studies that show Blacks, Hispanics and other people of color have equal or higher intelligence capabilities than do whites.  Fundamentalist Christians cannot admit portions of the Bible are wrong. Far too many politicians and those who support them dangerously refuse to believe people are causing climate change.   For these people, misguided or bigoted beliefs define who they are no matter what the facts otherwise show. 

The antidote for willful ignorance is education and a willingness to acquire new knowledge.  Indeed, the foundation of all education is a humble admission of ignorance.  I assume that’s why many of us attend here.  We have the humility to know what we don’t know and the courage to want to learn and grow.   Our presence here is also an implicit admission that we are flawed – or at least I am!  Any spiritual community is worthless unless it serves as a symbolic school for the flawed, as opposed to the pretense that it is a museum of the perfect. 

In a gentle and loving community like ours, we encourage, inform and, at times, hold each other accountable.  We do this not to judge, demean or shame.  Instead, we come here with a common desire to be more self-aware and then to change for the better.  And that in turn will help us change the world for the better. 

That is why higher ignorance is crucial for us and for the world.  It’s why willful ignorance is so dangerous.  Higher ignorance is firmly rooted in using reason to conclude, with circumstantial evidence, what is true and what is not.  And so I encourage us one and all to be be gentle educators of others about climate change, evolution, God and other universally important subjects.  But I also encourage us to examine ourselves and find where we too can be willfully ignorant – in our flaws of bias, arrogance, disrespect, and unkindness that we refuse to acknowledge or change. By embracing a higher ignorance, we will create beautiful change – in ourselves and in the world.

I wish you all much peace and joy.

Meditation Moment…

Please click on the below audio files to hear a sample of service elements for the special 93rd birthday celebration of Mr. Leslie Edwards, retired U.S. Air Force Tuskegee airman, community leader and activist for racial equality, beloved member of the Gathering at Northern Hills.

“Africa Unite” sung by Emmanuel

“I saw Jesus at Home Depot” by Ray Nandyal

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

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

 

Some of you may know of the famous progressive evangelical speaker, writer and minister Tony Campolo.  He’s written over thirty books, has appeared on many TV shows, he was the personal minister to President Bill Clinton, and he is widely acclaimed for his impassioned speaking abilities.

Others of you, particularly former Gathering members, know of Tony’s son Bart.  Bart Campolo ran a street ministry in Walnut Hills.  He was also a progressive evangelical Christian.  As an accomplished speaker, he guest spoke at the Gathering twice.  He was recently on the cover of the New York Times magazine and a story about him was featured inside.

In 2013, after being seriously injured in a biking accident, Bart had a born again experience.  He realized that thoughts about God, Jesus, prayer or Heaven rarely crossed his mind and were never a part of his ministry to help marginalized people.

After he explained to his wife Marty that God and Christ were not the center of his life, she asked why he still claimed to be a Christian.  “You don’t believe in God, Heaven, or the resurrection of Jesus.  And neither do I.  Why are we pretending to be something we are not?”

Bart Campolo was stunned by her question.  He was not a Christian, he admitted to himself.  He was an Atheist.  That admission led him to reorient his life.  A year later he and Marty moved their family to Los Angeles where he became the first ever Humanist Chaplain at the University of Southern California – and one of the first in the country.  He’s also become a regular speaker at the Sunday Assembly of LA – otherwise known as an Atheist Church.

The Sunday Assembly is a new movement established in 2011 by two British comedians.  The first Sunday Assembly was held in London and it now has assemblies in over 45 cities around the world.  Members of assemblies meet regularly on Sundays, they sing pop songs, listen to TED talks or messages from other speakers, and work to help local charities. They are churches without God.

Bart Campolo’s reverse conversion has been controversial.  So too is the rise of Atheist churches.   They are both attacked by religions on one hand, and by fundamentalist Atheists on the other.  Christians ask just what Atheist churches worship.   “What’s the point?”  they say.  They also pray for Bart while accusing his mom and dad of failing as parents – since they did not raise a son who kept his faith.

Fundamentalist Atheists, on the opposite side, decry Bart’s efforts to make Atheism function like a religion.  They oppose Atheist churches and their seeming religiosity.  Anything, they say, that invites even modest superstition like Buddhism, yoga, or pantheism and paganism, are myth oriented and based on emotion.  These critics contend that Atheist churches are copies of what religions wrongly do – like wasting people’s time and money.

Christopher Hitchins, one of the so-called fundamentalist Atheists, self-defines himself as not just Atheist but Anti – theist.  He is vehemently against all gods and all forms of spirituality.  He believes the primary purpose of an Atheist is to actively fight against any spirituality and the religious indoctrination of children.

My odd spiritual journey includes my own reverse born-again experience – similar to Campolo’s.   I was raised in an unchurched home. After marrying and becoming a father, I began to have strong doubts about myself.  I had gay attractions and those felt inconsistent to what I wanted to be – a so-called normal, heterosexual man. 

I began attending a Methodist church after my youngest daughter was invited to be a part of its children’s choir.  I would attend to listen to her and therefore had to listen to the sermons.  They told me that I was sinful and headed to hell because of my thoughts.  I could cleanse myself and be right with God, however, if I believed in Christ and his death on the Cross.  The power of that message for me was very strong.  I had been depressed for many years and felt tremendous guilt about my gay thoughts. 

I immersed myself in religion by studying the Bible and Christian doctrines.  I enjoyed relating to people and caring for them in times of need.  I attended seminary and was encouraged to become a minister.  A large evangelical church on the eastside hired me as an associate minister for Pastoral Care – to visit the sick, perform weddings and funerals, and provide pastoral advice.

One particular belief I learned as a Christian is that the Holy Spirit, or God, inhabits the mind and soul of every believer.  Through prayer and study of Scripture, the Holy Spirit removes a believer’s temptations and sinful thoughts.  And so I honestly believed, prayed, studied and even hired a Christian therapist to guide me as I tried to change.

To my profound disappointment, that never happened.  As hard as I tried to think differently, to stay occupied in church work, to pray and believe with sincerity, my inner gay attractions remained.

That dissonance between who I wanted to be, and how I actually thought, reached a crisis point.  I was miserable and felt I was the worst of people – a hypocrite and fallen Christian.  But soon I began to question God instead of myself.  Why have you forsaken me God, I asked.  After changing my life for you, after devoting my livelihood and my family to you, after truly believing in your power to create a better me, why have you not cured my thinking?

I concluded that if God loved me as the Bible says, God would either change me – or accept me as I am.  Since my attractions were not changed and since I was told many times that God does not accept homosexuals, I concluded God and religions are therefore hateful frauds.  Soon thereafter, I came out, left my ministry job, and embarked on a journey to understand myself and the truth about religion.

I began a two year process to reverse study the Bible from a scholarly perspective – to learn about its inconsistencies, its many false assertions, and its frequent lack of connection to proven history.  Much of the Bible, I learned, was written by ancient men to encourage beliefs they wanted to promote – much like fables were written.  I also explored what it means not to believe in God or Christ. 

For many people, Atheism is a dirty word with connotations of immorality.   But that is clearly not so.  Atheism simply means to not believe in a theistic, supernatural being, or beings, who created and now controls the universe.  During the years after I became an Atheist, I investigated the philosophical reasons why supernatural gods are unproven and false.  I also studied how Atheism is guided by reason and provable fact.  For my message this morning, that is my intent – to offer my belief that Atheism, secular Humanism or simple non-belief are positive and moral alternatives to religion.

When I became a Christian, emotion ruled my brain and reason did not.  That’s a primary issue I have with religion.  They are rooted in emotionally motivated beliefs which are far removed from dispassionate and rational knowledge.  Fear of death, hell and eternal judgement are strong feelings – ones that can overwhelm an otherwise rational mind.  Facts are difficult things when they contradict what a person emotionally wants to believe.

Once I began to examine religion, however, I realized my earlier belief in God was motivated by dislike of myself and my fear of being judged.  Despite all the claims by religious people that there is proof of God in their changed lives, that is subjective – as it had been for me.  I had no verifiable evidence God exists other than my desire that there be one. 

Religious folks also rely on supposedly common sense arguments for God’s existence – like the watchmaker proposition.  The universe is so complex, like a watch they say, that common sense proves there must be a watchmaker god who designed everything. 

Laws of physics and science, however, are more impersonal, random and complex than believing in a watchmaker god.  Reason, experiment and mathematical truths indicate that there is a grand designer of the universe – but it is one rooted in observable fact and governed by provable physical laws.  That truth reminds me of a favorite bumper sticker: “Gravity.  It isn’t just a good idea.  It’s the law.” 

Almost all physicists agree – the universe is governed and defined by math.  It’s equations are exceedingly complex and are still being discovered, but everything from you, the I-Pad from which I’m speaking, to planets orbiting stars millions of light years away – all are defined and governed not by God but by math.

Central to most religious critiques of Atheism is the accusation that without God, Atheists must be either amoral or immoral.  They echo the author Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s claim that if God is dead, everything is permitted. 

Since God is the all powerful creator of the universe and the source of truth, as theists and religious people believe, everything she or he commands must be good and moral.  Since Atheists do not believe in God, how do they decide what is moral?  They can’t, and thus lack any sense of good or bad.

From an Atheist perspective, however, just because the universe is governed by natural laws, and not the commands of some god, does NOT mean there are no universal moral truths.  Objects and ideas in the universe have value independent of whether or not any god created them.  Truth is a concept that has value.  Humans and their well-being have value as do animals and plants.  Things that sustain life also have value.  Such value does not come from god but rather from the inherent goodness of something – simply because it exists.  Such is a natural law that Atheists and many others believe. 

In other words, Atheists think and act morally, and Atheist churches promote morality, by emphasizing the value of people, as well as the earth and all life upon it.  This form of Atheism, what some call Humanism, focuses on the well being of people and whether or not their value is respected and honored.  Such morality sees injustice, poverty, and oppression as great sins. 

But critics of Atheism do not stop there.  They say that since Atheists believe the universe is operated by mathematical laws, there is no meaning or purpose in life.  And some militant Atheists like Christopher Hitchins help make that argument.  Since the universe is governed by laws of evolution and natural selection – or survival of the fittest – theses Atheists claim people SHOULD be self-interested, self-focused and selfish.  That’s simply how the universe operates – or so they say.

Once again, these arguments against classic Atheism miss a crucial fact.  Human existence may have been determined by evolution, but that does not mean human lives are not valuable.  As a I pointed out, the moral law of the universe is that all things and all life have inherent worth – simply by existing.  That’s underscored by the seventh principle of Unitarian Universalism – all things exist inter-dependently and deserve respect. That precisely states our life purpose – to honor and serve the value of all things.

That morality rejects a survival of the fittest philosophy.   Our survival is not a “win – lose” proposition – the strong live, and the weak must die.  That’s a type of individualism and me-first attitude based on selfishness and greed.  Instead, life is a “win – win” proposition.  We live because we value each other, strong or weak, and we strive to cooperate instead of compete.

Such is a life purpose for everyone – not just Atheists.  It’s a lesson taught and promoted by Atheist churches.  This universal morality has proven through millennia of time that when people or other species cooperate and care for one another, instead of compete, everyone does better.  And because of that truth, we are called to morally promote cooperation, peace and well-being.  When we practice that, we have no need for selfishness.  As part of a compassionate and caring whole, individual well-being is insured.

Many people assume Unitarian Universalists are Atheists.  I reject that definition.  UU’s instead emphasize an open minded approach to spiritual matters.  World religions are not completely wrong.  They offer many helpful insights for how to live.  Indeed, most of history’s great prophets, like Jesus, were religious and their teachings help direct us in how to be compassionate people.  What is important for me and for this church is to see the good in Atheism and see in its philosophy the ideals that guide us – that the universe and all life within it uhas value.  That’s something we intuitively believe, but it must inform how we live.  Black lives, like all lives, have value.  The poor, hungry and homeless have value.  Empathy, humility and gentle kindness are moral things to practice because they are directed at people – all of whom are valuable.  Atheists, therefore, serve a morality and life purpose founded on the implicit worth of what the universe has created.  God is not a puppet master floating on some metaphysical cloud.  God is all of us

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

Listen to the Message here or read below:

 

Black, Poured Directly into the Wound

BY PATRICIA SMITH

Prairie winds blaze through her tumbled belly, and Emmett’s

red yesterdays refuse to rename her any kind of mother.

A pudge-cheeked otherwise, sugar whistler, her boy is

(through the fierce clenching mouth of her memory) a

grays-and-shadows child. Listen. Once she was pretty.

Windy hues goldened her skin. She was pert, brown-faced,

in every wide way the opposite of the raw, screeching thing

chaos has crafted. Now, threaded awkwardly, she tires of the

sorries, the Lawd have mercies. Grief’s damnable tint

is everywhere, darkening days she is no longer aware of.

She is gospel revolving, repeatedly emptied of light, pulled

and caressed, cooed upon by strangers, offered pork and taffy.

Boys in the street stare at her, then avert their eyes, as if she

killed them all, shipped every one into the grips of Delta. She sits,

her chair carefully balanced on hell’s edge, and pays for sanity in

kisses upon the conjured forehead of her son. Beginning with A,

she recites (angry, away, awful) the alphabet of a world gone red.

Coffee scorches her throat as church ladies drift about her room,

black garb sweating their hips, filling cups with tap water, drinking,

drinking in glimpses of her steep undoing. The absence of a black

roomful of boy is measured, again, again. In the clutches of coffee,

red-eyed, Mamie knows their well-meaning murmur. One says She

a mama, still. Once you have a chile, you always a mama. Kisses

in multitudes rain from their dusty Baptist mouths, drowning her.

Sit still, she thinks, til they remember how your boy was killed.

She remembers. Gush and implosion, crushed, slippery, not a boy.

Taffeta and hymnals all these women know, not a son lost and

pulled from the wretched and rumbling Tallahatchie. Mamie, she

of the hollowed womb, is nobody’s mama anymore. She is

tinted echo, barren. Everything about her makes the sound sorry.

The white man’s hands on her child, dangled eye, twanging chaos,

things that she leans on, the only doors that open to let her in.

Faced with days and days of no him, she lets Chicago — windy,

pretty in the ways of the North — console her with its boorish grays.

A hug, more mourners and platters of fat meat. Will she make it through?

Is this how the face slap of sorrow changes the shape of a

mother? All the boys she sees now are laughing, drenched in red.

Emmett, in dreams, sings I am gold. He tells how dry it is, the prairie.

 

Mamie Carthan was born on November 23rd, 1921 in the small town of Webb, Mississippi.  Shortly afterwards, she and her parents moved to Argo, Illinois so her father could work in a corn processing factory.  They were part of a large exodus of African-Americans from the Jim Crow South who looked for greater opportunity up North.

Mamie was a hardworking and intelligent youth.  She was the first African-American student to make the A honor roll in the nearly all white Argo High School – and the fourth African-American to graduate from it.

At age 18, she met and fell in love with an amateur boxer, Louis Till.  Mamie’s parents did not approve, but she married Louis anyway and nine months later gave birth to her first and only child – Emmett Till.

After a divorce two years later, Mamie raised Emmett as a single mother on the South Side of Chicago.  She worked as a clerk for the Air Force and earned wages that placed her well within the middle class.  When Emmett was five, he contracted polio and was hospitalized.  He recovered but, as a result of the disease, developed a persistent verbal stutter.

Mamie’s son was a happy, fun loving boy who loved doo-wop music and Jack Benny.  He was popular and the center of attention at school.  Emmett was also fiercely loyal to his mother.  Their relationship was loving, protective and close.

During the summer of 1955, Mamie’s uncle, Moses Wright, visited Mamie and Emmett.  He was a sharecropper and part-time minister in the Mississippi Delta region.  Emmett, who had only known life in a big city, was captivated by Moses’ stories of fishing and tromping through rural bayous and backwoods.  Mamie was pleased her 14 yer old son, who had never known his father, looked up to Moses.  When he suggested Emmett return with him for a vacation in Mississippi, Mamie reluctantly agreed.

Before he departed Chicago, however, she warned Emmett about how to behave as a black male in Mississippi.  She told him, “If you have to get on your knees and bow when a white person passes, do it willingly.”  In her book, The Death of Innocence, written years later, Mamie said she was anguished about allowing Emmett to visit Mississippi.  She was only two when she left that state but she’d heard stories from her parents about white supremacy and lynchings of blacks in the state.  For her, Mississippi was an alien and dangerous place.

Mamie’s fears for her son in Mississippi proved valid.  One Sunday morning, Emmett and other boys played hooky from his uncle’s church.  They went to a local grocery to buy candy.   The store was owned by Roy Bryant and managed by his wife Carolyn. 

What happened in the store is not fully clear, but most facts indicate Emmett encountered the young and pretty Carolyn.   Emmett may have been attracted to her, got nervous speaking with her, and began to stutter – due to his childhood bout with polio.  Mamie had taught her only child to whistle softly to himself when that happened – as a way to calm himself and speak more clearly.  His friends say Emmett never physically or verbally accosted Carolyn.   Forty-three years later, Carolyn admitted Emmett said and did nothing menacing.  Nevertheless, she acted offended at the time and quickly told her husband that a husky black teen had not only whistled at her, he’d made sexual advances.

Late the next night, Roy Bryant and his cousin drove to Moses Wright’s house and kidnapped Emmett Till.  They tied him, put him in the back of their truck and raced away.  Moses Wright spent the night searching for Emmett – hoping to find a beaten but still alive nephew.

Three days later, the body of a naked black boy was found floating in the Tallahatchie River.  It was unrecognizable.  It was later identified as Emmett Till because the body wore a small ring recently given to him.  Emmett was bloated, had barbed wire bound around his neck, he’d been dragged behind a truck, had his tongue cut off, one eye gouged out, and the side of his head smashed in.

The local sheriff encouraged a speedy Mississippi burial.  Mamie refused.  She asked that Emmett be placed in ice and returned to Chicago.  Later, she instructed that her son’s funeral be open casket.  His death had become national news – a young African-American boy lynched in the deep South for doing nothing more than whistling in the presence of a white woman.  Fifty-thousand people came to Emmett’s funeral.  Many were overcome by the sight and smell of his body.  Photographs of Emmett’s horribly disfigured face were published in newspapers around the world.

Mamie told the press that the world needed to see what had been done to her son.   In her book she wrote, “Have you ever sent a beloved son on vacation, and had him returned to you in a pine box, so horribly battered and water-logged that someone needs to tell you this sickening sight is your son, lynched?  People had to face my son and realize just how twisted, how distorted, how terrifying race hatred could be.”

One month later Roy Bryant and his cousin were put on trial in Mississippi.  Mamie flew down to testify.  Emmett’s uncle also testified and, in doing so, displayed the kind of courage few black men in the South dared show.  Defense lawyers questioned whether Emmett was dead by claiming the body pulled from the Tallahatchie was not him.  The ring had been placed on it.  Emmett, they suggested, had run away and was up to no good.  The all-white jury spent 67 minutes deliberating – with the foreman stating that if it weren’t for a soda-pop break, it would have been much shorter.  The two defendants were found not guilty.

One year later, now immune from prosecution under double jeopardy laws, the two were paid by Look magazine for an interview.  They admitted they murdered Emmett saying he’d still be alive if he hadn’t acted equal to whites.  He and other black boys needed to be taught a lesson.

Emmett’s lynching is credited with igniting the modern Civil Rights movement.  Langston Hughes wrote a poem soon after.  Toni Morrison wrote a play.  Bob Dylan composed a song and only three months later, Rosa Parks said that when she was ordered to the back of a Montgomery, Alabama bus, she thought of Emmett Till and thus refused.

Gwendolyn Brooks wrote her famous poem “The Last Quatrain of the Ballad Of Emmett Till” as a tribute.  Brooks is considered by most scholars to be one of the foremost 20th century American poets.  She was the first African-American to win a Pulitzer Prize.

This past March, an assembly of poets continued an annual tradition called the Golden Shovel Award in which writers are asked to honor a deceased poet by taking a line from their best poem and incorporating its words into a new and freshly written poem.  This year they honored Brooks and her poem about Emmett Till.

Patricia Smith, an acclaimed contemporary African-American poet, then wrote the poem I consider today – Black, Poured Directly Into the Wound.  This message is the second in my August series I’ve entitled “Summer Poetry for Reflection.”

What I find poignant in Smith’s poem is its focus on Mamie and her grief.  The poem is immediately relevant because it captures not just the feelings of every grieving mother, but more importantly of today’s black mothers whose sons have been unjustly murdered.   The poem is neither political or angry.   Instead, it goes beyond surface emotions to plumb the depths of grief felt by a black mother – her pain, her struggle to make sense of horrific tragedy, her obligation to grieve in ways that transform a son’s killing into a cause.

In Smith’s poem, Mamie’s world is turned upside down.   Images in the poem evoke that kind of ironic inversion.  The world is no longer blue and green.  It’s red and full of doom.  Mamie is no longer pretty, pert and golden skinned.  She’s raw, red eyed, screeching, and threaded awkwardly.  She’s gospel – or good news – revolving into a symbol of bad news.  She’s a victim and yet she’s not.  Emmett’s friends blame her as the one who sent him off to be lynched.  She’s thus emblematic of how too often our culture blames black victims for their injury.

Mamie is still a mother, “once you have a chile, you always a mama,” the poem says.  And yet Mamie isn’t.  She, with a hollowed womb, is an echo of what she once was.  She’s nobody’s mama anymore. 

The once golden hued boys who played with her son, she sees them as drenched in red.  They too await a bloody end.  And Emmett, whose body is literally fat meat, he inhabits her dreams wreathed in gold – a halo wearing son marching through a dusty eternity.  Mamie’s grief wound is thus aggravated not by salt poured into it – but by all the history of blackness.

I often encourage empathy.  Patricia Smith’s poem does the same.  Her poem cries out with the anguish of a black mother – emotions nobody but she can feel.   We’re asked to not just understand those feelings, but literally feel her confusion, anger, disconnection, numbness, and gut wrenching grief. 

It takes all I can muster to imagine the worry and grief of a black mother.   When tragedy comes to the Mamie Tills, Sabrina Fultons (mom of Travon Martin) or the Samaria Rices (mom of 12 year old Tamir – killed by Cleveland police as he played with a toy gun), they are expected to be the face of every mom’s grief – all the better for whites to feel empathy.  And yet whites can’t fully offer that.  Our experiences of sorrow and prejudice and fear is too limited.

Black mothers and their sons have a distorted relationship due to centuries of racism.  Mother’s who were slaves had to watch as their beloved babies – particularly their sons – were ripped away and sold for profit.  Solomon Northrup’s narrative in Twelve Year’s a Slave describes seeing the mother Eliza plead and cry hysterically for her master not to sell her son – and then be threatened with whipping unless she stopped.

The same scene was replayed under different circumstances, but identical context, when Leslie McSpadden, mother of Freddie Gray who was tumbled to death in the back of a police van, collapsed with anguished cries after hearing her son was dead.  She later said the news made her feel as if she had been killed.  “There was,” she said, “a feeling that there was no respect, no sympathy, nothing for my son.”

Black mothers are often blamed for their tough discipline of boys, for their seeming lack of tenderness, for their often angry attitudes toward men.  Patricia Smith reminds us, however, of the love a black mother has for her sons, for her keening grief at their deaths, and for their obsessive protections over them – yelling, cajoling and even encouraging their emasculation – all to somehow save them from tragedy.

My relationship with my mom – and that of other gay men with their moms – is nowhere near as fraught and pained as it must be for black men and their mothers.  But I believe there are faint echoes of similarity.  Reflecting on Smith’s poem, I can hear those faint echoes in my past.  They help me empathize with black moms.

Bullied as a boy, I recall my mom comforting me – encouraging me to be strong and reassuring me I’m loved.   She openly cheered at my little successes – hoping to empower my self-esteem.  She even had me transferred to a small private school – all to better protect me.

Years later, after I came out, I recall her stern looks at dad when he told a crude joke about gays, or laughed at something I’d wear or say that was not masculine enough.  She mourned my divorce – but she also understood why.  She never spoke the word “gay” with me, but she knew. And she never stopped enjoying my company, cheering my adult little successes, or acting the protective lioness.  Perhaps like a black mother, she feared for me out in a hostile world.  I wonder about the nights of worry she may have had for me – as a bullied young boy, as a quiet teen moving into adulthood, as a gay man venturing into a new life.  My mom, like black moms, had a bond with me forged not just by love…..but also by worry.   

The lives of sons matter deeply to almost ALL mothers.  Patricia Smith’s poem reminds us that Emmett Till’s life mattered to Mamie – as did the lives of his many friends – all symbolically drenched in red.  The same is true of Sabrina Fulton for Travon Martin, Leslie McSpadden for Freddie Gray, and the slave mom Eliza for her son Randall.  The lament of most black mothers is one I want to understand and feel.  It’s the cry of a whole nation of black mothers saying together – “the lives of our sons, their black lives, they matter.”  That’s a cry that goes far beyond white counter arguments.  Of course, police lives matter.  Of course, all lives matter.  No black mother would ever disagree.

But history’s terrible images of black men swinging lifeless from trees, of weeping boys sold away from their mamas, of young men languishing in prison for drug addiction, of Emmett Till, Travon Martin, Tamir Rice and thousands like them dead too young – and their killers walking away unpunished – such images plaintively implore the truth that black lives deserve the spiritual imperative of respect and dignity.  To understand that, to feel that, to empathize with that, and then be drawn to advocate for that, we need only listen and reflect on a black mama’s cry…

I wish you peace.

Michael Tacy will now sing for us Billie Holliday’s song “Strange Fruit.”  I encourage us, while Michael sings, to meditate on the ongoing tragedy of racism and hate in our nation.  In doing so, I encourage us to imagine the hurt and grief and anger of black mamas.  I encourage us to inhabit their pain and then use that feeling to touch our souls…

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

Some Keep the Sabbath Going to Church

BY EMILY DICKINSON

Some keep the Sabbath going to Church –

I keep it, staying at Home –

With a Bobolink for a Chorister –

And an Orchard, for a Dome –

Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice –

I, just wear my Wings –

And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church,

Our little Sexton – sings.

God preaches, a noted Clergyman –

And the sermon is never long,

So instead of getting to Heaven, at last –

I’m going, all along.

 

 

          There is a story about a mom who knocks on her son’s bedroom door on a Sunday morning.  “Wake up, dear” she says.  “It’s time to get ready for church.”

“I don’t want to go to church,” the son replies. 

          “Why not?” the mother asks.

“I’ll give you three reasons,” the son says.  “One, church is boring.  Two, the people don’t like me.  Three, I want to stay home.”

“Well……. dear,” the mother says sternly.  “I’ll give you three reasons why you ARE going to church this morning.  “One, we honor the sabbath in this house.  Two, you are a grown man and should not act this way.  Three, you are the minister!”

Another story about not wanting to go to church has Bob arriving at a stadium well after the game has started.  “Wow.  You are late,” Bob’s friend says.  “What took you so long?” 

“I was deciding between coming to the game or going to church,” Bob replies.  “I had to toss a coin to decide.”

“That shouldn’t have taken too long,” the friend replies.  “Yeah,” says Bob, “But I had to toss it forty-two times!”

These stories are funny, but they highlight why many people avoid attending church.  On a day of supposed rest, by coming to church you have to get up relatively early, get dressed, drive fifteen minutes or more, sing songs that you’d never sing otherwise, listen to a long and boring message, drink weak coffee, exchange pleasantries with people you may see only once a week, and then arrive back home with the day half over.  And, after all of that, you’re asked to pay for the experience!

As Emily Dickinson implies in her poem, why bother taking all that effort to attend church when church can be right outside your door?  Many people feel most at peace, most reflective, and most connected to great forces in the universe when they are in the midst of nature – in one’s backyard, in a park, or someplace far into the wilderness.

With her seemingly simple poem that we just read, Dickinson relates a gentle skepticism of traditional religion and its declaration that religious buildings are the only places to worship, learn and grow.  She implies that what man has made, God has made better.  As she writes in the first line of the poem, some keep the Sabbath by going to church.  Her implication is of a traditional religious structure, or place, for guided worship.  She, however, honors the Sabbath at home – in an orchard in her yard.  She capitalizes the words ‘Home’ and ‘Orchard’ to indicate they are just as holy as any cathedral.

Dickinson tells us that in nature’s church, one not crafted by human hands, her worship is led by things much more authentic and holy than those found in religious churches.  A bobolink bird provides the music instead of a human choir leader or music director.  (By the way, I love hearing songbirds – but for me, I prefer hearing Michael!). That same bird is the one who calls her to worship in nature’s church – instead of a clanging bell. 

Some Sabbath keepers wear a surplice – a religious vestment much like a long robe.  Dickinson, instead, wears her angel’s wings – once again implying that the items people use to enable worship are less holy than the things people cannot make – like song birds, an orchard, or a good heart worthy of angel’s wings.  These are the items, she implies, of a real church, of Nature’s church, of one people cannot make.

Above all, Dickinson is guided by the voice of god in her church.  No person is needed to come between Emily and her god.  It’s not a human clergy person who tells her of spiritual matters – of kindness, charity, and humility.  It’s likely her inner voice – a godly conscience heard in reflections as she sits in her garden.  Without any description in the poem, we can nevertheless imagine the short sermon god offers in her in nature’s church – wind whispering through trees, crickets chirping their endless chime, and birds trilling – one to another.  Such a sermon need not be any longer or more profound than nature announcing the miracles of life. 

Who makes the wind and what causes a bird to sing?  Such are reflections to ponder when listening to nature’s sermon – one that if we think about it is perhaps the greatest of all sermons.  The ultimate Truth of the universe, whatever we believe that is, speaks and sings and shines and echoes in Nature’s church.  That’s a miracle for all to accept.

Dickinson claims in her poem a Transcendentalist and even  Unitarian perspective on faith and salvation.  We do not claim a rightful place in heaven because we regularly attend church, or follow religious rules.  Instead, we claim a place in heaven simply by our existence and by our appreciation for the majesty of creation.  We see god in the intricate beauty of life, the interdependence of all things, and the respect that each deserves.  Our place in heaven, Dickinson writes, is not something we await for in an afterlife.  Heaven is all around us.  It’s right here, right now.  Much like the French philosopher Voltaire said, our life purpose is to tend our garden – this earthly version of Eden, paradise or heaven.  That is our responsibility – to help build a place of peace and goodness for all.

As Emily implies, we may think we build mini-versions of heaven with our church buildings – places in which we think we hear god.  When we do that, however, we miss hearing the real god, and we miss experiencing the real heaven.  Church, god and heaven are as close as our back door – out in the fields and forests and vast cosmos.  Man-made Church structures, Emily Dickinson says in her poem, are essentially irrelevant.

As a minister, as one who Dickinson implies is irrelevant, too preachy and long in his messages, it might seem odd that I agree with her poem.  It  says in verse much of what I believe.  Large and ornate churches offend me.  Like her, I love Nature’s church.  Pretentious Pastors, Ministers, Bishops, and Popes are equally offensive in my mind.  What makes them more holy and more in tune with spirituality than any of you?  To wear a cleric’s collar, to solemnly fake-worship in flowing robes, and then to perch oneself on a high pulpit and preach down upon a supposedly sinful congregation, all of that is the height of arrogance in my opinion.  I assume, by now, you know that is not the kind of minister I am.   

My role here is one among equals.  I’m a fellow traveler on our journey of spiritual exploration.  I am simply one who enjoys taking the time to explore spiritual subjects in depth – and then raise questions for me and you to consider.  I facilitate and I coordinate, but I hope I do not try to tell you what is Truth or what you should believe.

Like Emily Dickinson, I will encourage you to find your church out in nature and to ponder therein the great questions of existence.  As a facilitator, I help manage – along with you – this physical place in which we meet.  In my opinion, it might as well be called a launching pad, or a center of empowerment.  All of us come without any belief that we enter holy ground here.  This is not a place to hear the voice of whatever we believe is god – or is not god.  This place is, as I said, a launching pad we use to send us forth out there – beyond these windows – to go out to where god DOES dwell.  It’s in nature’s realm – as well as in the streets, byways, homes, hospitals, and homeless shelters that we will find god – whatever it is she might be.  The place to hear her, to worship her, to learn from her and do her good work, is out in our garden, the earthly realm that is our heaven and ours to continually improve.

For Emily Dickinson’s nineteenth century time and place, our understanding of what defines a church did not exist.  Even Unitarians of the time saw churches as sacred places.  With greater insight as to what might constitute god, however, we as Unitarian Universalists now define church as something very different then before.  Church is not this room of wooden beams, a lectern, piano and chalice.  It’s not our Quimby room, classrooms, or offices.  As comfortable as this structure is, it is not holy, it is not even super special in the eternity of time.  It is definitely not church.  Church, instead, is flesh and blood.  It’s all of you.

And it’s in that regard that I claim church, as we define it as a congregation of people, IS important, valuable and worthy of our Sunday morning time.  Amongst each other – in church – we find the support, human connections, shared insights, common interests, friendships, learning, growth and empowerment that we need in order to tend our garden and thereby hear the voice of whatever is god to us.

These four walls do little for us beyond providing shelter and a meeting place.  As I said, this physical place is not church.  Church is this congregation in which we feel loved and appreciated.  It’s our community  in which we are supported in times of need – and to whom we support in their times of need.  Church is this community that helps refine our thoughts about the universe and what is god.  Church is this community that encourages our better angels – imploring us to be gentle, peaceful, compassionate, just, and humble.  Church is this community that lovingly challenges us in ways we fall short – in any of our misguided thinking, or behavior.  Church is this community that intentionally focuses on the education and well-being not just of our children – but all children.  Church is this community that enables us to serve the outside world – a group that combines resources of money and time so that we can feed, clothe, comfort and advocate for the poor, lost and hurting.

This congregation, what I say is the real church, is nothing like the stale and false church of tradition, or the one some go to that is described in Emily Dickinson’s poem.  It’s not one that makes holy the man-made.  It’s not one that I suggest you, or I, or anyone else, should avoid on Sunday mornings.  By ourselves we cannot support, grow, serve and practice all the things that 120 of us can better do together.  It’s also, I humbly claim, not one we should take for granted.  This church, this community, needs our regular presence.

That gets to the heart of why this church, this congregation, exists.  As individuals, we are not here for ourselves.  We are not here to be served and waited upon.  We are here to do the exact opposite.  We instead serve and wait upon others in countless ways – with our time, resources, and encouraging words.  We do these things in order to mutually equip one another to go out into the world and serve it.  When any of us are away for long periods of time – from this church of people – we miss out on needed ways to love and serve.  And those who are away miss out on ways others can serve and love them

I strongly believe in short breaks from anything we regularly do.      All of you generously give me a Sunday a month off.  That helps me to re-energize for my ongoing work.  Time off is essential for all of our well-being.  But time off is limited and a return to work is a necessity.  For us as a community, as a church, when some are away we deeply miss them.  We hope for their quick return.  We need them as much I believe they need us.

Emily Dickinson’s vision of a true church – one found in nature and outside man-made walls, is one many of us embrace.  That true church is not this building.  It’s not me, or Michael, or our Board.  As I’ve said, the true church is all of us being launched from here out into the world.   It’s all of us pondering, learning, and working in our respective gardens of influence.  It is all of us searching for, and sometimes finding, the reality of god in all of her gritty beauty – in the loveliness of nature as well as in heartaches of poverty and injustice.  That’s the realm of heaven – a place we, as Dickinson writes in her poem, we go to all along…

I wish you much peace and joy.

TalkBack