Category: Uncategorized

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

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

 

For anyone who has completely read Henry David Thoreau’s book Walden, I applaud you. At over five-hundred pages and filled with difficult language, introspection, philosophy and fictional dialogue between the two sides of Thoreau’s mind, many have said the book is like the Bible – widely respected and referred to, but rarely read in its entirety. It has been called an American classic — one that speaks to many of the qualities that Americans believe they exemplify – self-reliance, love of nature, freedom, spirituality. Over the last forty years it has been embraced by many environmentalists as a prophetic work pointing to the dangers of consumerism and the destruction of nature. Thoreau lived at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and yet he could already see its negative impact on the world and on humanity. Noise, deforestation, urban sprawl, pollution, the extinction of wild animal species – these were all alarm bells he rang in his book that was based on observations he made in 1844. Sadly, as we all know, his warnings have come true. The planet faces an environmental crisis even he did not imagine.
As I continue my August message theme of being the change you want to see, I want to focus my thoughts today on global warming. Whether or not you believe such warming is caused by humans or is simply a natural phenomenon, that is not the point. Almost everyone agrees the planet is warming. The last year that the average global temperature was colder than the 100 year average was in 1985. Every year since, the average temperature has been well above average. Even so, individual weather related events like a single storm or a single cold winter do not prove or disprove global warming. But trends do. And trends do not lie. The earth’s average temperature across the planet, since records first began being kept in 1890, has risen by 1.4 degrees fahrenheit. Such a rise is hugely dramatic – not seen from glacier ice samples since well before humans existed. Average temperatures in the Arctic – in Alaska, Canada and Russian Siberia are at all time highs. Glaciers and ice fields are rapidly melting – only 27 now exist in Glacier National Park in Montana when in 1910 there were 150. The largest glacier found in the tropic latitudes, in Peru’s Andes mountains, has dramatically melted away – losing ice that had taken over 2000 years to form. The Antarctic ice shelf is shrinking and large chunks are regularly breaking off – the largest one ever – larger than Connecticut – broke off this past March and is slowly drifting north, melting as it goes. Sea levels are rising and high tides are now regularly producing floods across the globe. The number and intensity of natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, droughts and severe winters have dramatically increased. Only 15 significant natural disasters occurred in 1900. Over 500 occurred in 2000. Global warming is a fact.
Now, whether you believe that has been caused by humans, another fact is that over 95% of climate scientists from around the world assert that not only is the earth warming at alarming rates, the temperature rise has mostly been caused by human made carbon pollution of the atmosphere. From measurements taken near the time of the Declaration of Independence compared to ones taken today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 30%. While the earth produces natural carbon dioxide, the burning of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal is the primary cause of the increase. Other human causes like deforestation and methane gas producing herd animals like cattle account for the rest of the increase.
While few people can know the longterm affects of global warming, scientists have created computer models showing that by the year 2100, the earth’s average temperature will be seven degrees warmer – a shocking increase that will change climate zones all over the earth. The midwest will be much like our current southwest – hot, dry, and arid. The temperate zone where most of the worlds crops are grown will transition father north – Canada and Siberia will be the world’s new bread basket. The US and Australia will lose much of their agriculture. Florida, most of the east coast and Louisiana will be underwater or else much like Holland – land below sea level and livable only after massive investment of money to build dikes and sea walls. Fresh water will be at a premium with many rivers and lakes drying up.
What this might mean for humanity and the earth as we know it, is frightening. Children born today will likely be alive in 2100. Certainly their children and grandchildren will be. What will life be like for them? It is easy for us to say we will be long dead by then – that the most severe effects will not touch us. But our heirs will suffer because of environmental actions we each practice today. Is that a legacy we wish to give them – that we simply did not care? Even worse, that we cared but did nothing or very little to stop it? As with many problems we face in the world, I believe change can only begin with each individual. We must be the change we want to see.
And that brings us back to a discussion of Henry David Thoreau and his book Walden. He asserted with his Transcendentalist philosophy that human change must be a spiritual one. Like Gandhi, Thoreau saw that change for both himself and others has to happen in the inner soul – in how we see ourselves and our place within the larger universe. Transcendentalism argues that one must consciously work to separate the ego from the true self. Our egos are full of supposed needs and wants. Our true self, he believed, can transcend the ego and live according to how nature intended for us to live. As living organisms like any other, Thoreau asserted humans can exist and even happily thrive with the fulfillment of only four basic needs – food, shelter, clothing and fuel – those sufficient to sustain life. All other of our supposed needs are simply desires manifested in our minds by ego.
By suppressing the ego, Thoreau said, we will find connection with nature, with the universe, and with a contentment that allows us to be at peace. Human society has evolved, he believed, to the point that we think we need more than we do – more elaborate clothing, bigger homes, easier transportation, and manufactured entertainment. In today’s world, our supposed needs are even greater. How many people declare that it is a basic need to have a computer? If we choose to live in human society, it is probably a need we must have. But our bodies, our natural selves, our survival – they have no need for it. As any person older than forty knows, we once lived quite happily without personal computers. In Thoreau’s day, people over fifty had once lived quite happily without railroads.
This recognition by Thoreau was the reason why he retreated to Walden pond to live for over two years in a 10 foot by 15 foot one room cabin he built himself. As he wrote in Walden, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach.” Thoreau saw the dangers of industry and civilization and so he sought to prove to himself and to others that anybody could live an extremely simple life and that such is the key not only to transcendental happiness but the key to preserving all of nature, of which humans are an integral part.
He built his his own cabin, made his own crude furniture, grew or collected his own food and found entertainment in the solitude, peace and glory of nature. He found that simple daily tasks of tending his garden and keeping his cabin in decent repair were all the fulfillment he required. As he wrote, “If a person walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he or she is in danger of being regarded as lazy. But if that person spends days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he or she is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen.”
Long walks in the woods or sitting by Walden pond allowed him to feel like he was like any other creature worshipping the god of nature by immersing within it. No restaurants, no trips to different lands, no industrial made furniture or tools, just him, his handiwork, his simple life reduced to the basic needs.
And that was key to him for his spirituality. Much like Gandhi many years later said that all humans are born spiritually blind, Thoreau believed all people are born spiritually asleep and prone to crave sleep and rest. For him, people must become spiritually awakened by living simply. He compared his awakening to getting up early each day to take long walks in the woods while those who lived in town slept past dawn, cocooned in their comfortable homes. It was during those walks that he came alive to the value of nature, the glory of the earth, and the need for its preservation.
What one finds in reading Walden and studying the Transcendentalism of Thoreau is the belief that inner change is necessary for external change. If we want to save the planet, we must first change our spiritual attitudes about it and, most importantly, about ourselves. Do I really need all that I own, all that I buy? Indeed, I spend a lot of time worrying about my stuff and maintaining it. I spend a lot of time thinking about what I don’t have – newer cars, nicer meals, better clothes, exotic trips. My ego can too often take control of the true me – the me that loves the outdoors, the me that sees fantastic beauty in nature, the me that seeks quiet lakes and trails, the me at peace working in my yard, the more simple me that nature intended I be.
And so to build up the real and natural me, as Thoreau suggested, I must dig deep within myself to identify my ego that wants things I don’t need. Then I must consciously work to separate, as much as possible, the ego from who I am and enable myself to live without as many of my desires as possible. I do not pretend that I or anyone else in today’s world can live much like Thoreau did for over two years – indeed, even he never returned to that lifestyle. But Thoreau’s understanding of our genuine needs in order to live, versus the desires we think we must have, that philosophy ought to give us pause – especially regarding the fact of global warming. Only by simplifying our lives as much as possible, only by reducing our desires can we change attitudes about how we consume and contribute to the destruction of our planet.
That kind of inner change in me would help me buy less, consume less, eat less. My carbon impact on the world would be reduced. I would drive less. I would walk, bike and carpool more. I would be satisfied with what I already have. I’d buy rummage sale items and not shiny new things. Many aspects of my life would change including attitudes about what fulfills and entertains me. Long walks, hiking, gardening, reading and meditating would take up more of my time. I would go to bed earlier and wake up earlier. In everything I do, everything I eat, everything I consume, I would hopefully think of whether or not it was really crucial not only for my survival and happiness but also for the good of nature. In just one example, the New York Times this past week reported that shrimp is now America’s most popular seafood. We annually eat an average of four pounds per person. To meet that demand, farmed shrimp is raised in Asia at great environmental harm. Local, American wild shrimp is better but its seasonal, more expensive and limited. A sustaining ethos, environmentalists argue, is to eat only local shrimp and treat it like a rare and special food – not a mass quantity item. As with all other things we consume, by doing so we would begin to be the change we want to see in saving our planet.
As I said in my message last week, being the change we want to see should NOT be perceived as a sacrifice. The ultimate intent of inner change is about seeking the divine. It’s about connecting with forces far greater than ourselves. In speaking last week about committing to serving the least of our brothers and sisters, I did so not to shame people. In quoting Gandhi, I pointed out how, through service, we can find our beautiful inner divinity that prompts us to love, share and help others.
And that exactly echoes what Thoreau wanted for himself and others. By living a simpler life, by getting back to nature and its wondrous charms, he believed we will find the god we seek. As he wrote in Walden, “Nature is full of genius, full of the divinity; so that not a snowflake escapes its fashioning hand.”
Whatever force it is that created humans and the whole of the universe, that is a power of unknowable wonder. It need not matter whether that force is supernatural or natural – it is a divine force in the sense that it is beautiful, eternal and beyond full comprehension. A snowflake, a quiet pond, a tiny insect, our human brain, distant galaxies with millions of stars – these were all made by the same force and each is a miracle to behold. When we look in awe at nature and, indeed, revere it, we discover we too are divine.
As the earth spins across an inky darkness, seemingly alone in its ability to sustain life, it is imperative that we respect it and all of the creations upon it. Thoreau keenly understood this, writing that a journey into the self allows us to see ourselves, connect with the divine, and thereby find the inspiration to live more simply and protect nature. I pray that each of us take that journey and begin to become the change we want to see.
I wish each of you much peace and joy.

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

 

To download and listen to the message, please click here.  To read the message, please see below.  
Mahatma Gandhi’s encouragement for people to be the change they want to see is a good expression of his life philosophy. Humans mistakenly believe, according to Gandhi, that they have the capacity to control and change the universe in any way they please. But they have a much greater ability, he believed, to remake themselves. All people have flaws, but they also have the power to change them for the better. An important first step, he said, is for individuals to have the willingness to both admit their flaws and then work to correct them.
Gandhi therefore echoed the teachings of Jesus in his famous sermon on the mount discourse. In referring to Jesus and some of the things he is supposed to have taught, I focus not the on the divine, Son of God, Christ figure found in the New Testament, but on the historical man who most scholars believe truly lived. He was a man who so influenced his band of followers that they did not want memory of him to die – and so they created a religion centered on his ideals. For myself, I do not worship him as Savior but instead seek to learn from him as a great human prophet who spoke many universal truths found in all world religions.
In his sermon on the mount, Jesus both taught the merits of humility, gentleness, and peacemaking as he also spoke strongly against hypocrisy. Don’t pray in public as a way to show how pious and holy you are. Do it in private and thus express your true heart feelings. Don’t lavishly and openly give to charities as a way to publicly prove how kind you are. Do it anonymously and with a motivation not to boost your ego but to help others. Finally, he asked his followers to refrain from judging others. Don’t be a hypocrite, he implored, by constantly pointing out the speck of sawdust in someone’s eye when you have a whole log in your own. Employing this funny and memorable analogy to make his point, Jesus asked what Gandhi later taught. Work on changing yourself first instead of trying to change someone else or even the world as a whole. Each person has enough inner work needed to change themselves such that focusing on the flaws of others is both judgmental and hypocritical. Be the change you want to see.
For Gandhi, this meant that the problems of the world begin in the human heart. War, poverty, hate, discrimination, greed, murder, anger – they all have their roots in the hearts and minds of individuals. If each person simply focused on changing their individual flaws, the world as a whole would be changed for the better. In this regard, our desire for social justice starts with our willingness to change our personal attitudes, actions, and ways of thinking. If I decry the reality of violence and war in the world but then angrily speak to a neighbor, co-worker or family member, I have made myself a hypocrite. If I verbally sympathize with the plight of the poor and hungry but do nothing to address it by my own actions to help, I’m a hypocrite. If I envision an end to racism, sexism and homophobia in the world, I must first confront and address subtle attitudes of discrimination inside me. If I want peace in the world, I must have peace in my own heart by how I forgive others. I must be the change I want to see.
And that is the theme for my three August messages. My topic for today focuses on how we can intentionally and realistically resolve to serve the least of our human brothers and sisters – the poor, hungry, homeless, sick and marginalized. All of us would like to see a world where nobody suffers, where all have the basic needs of life provided them, where no child starves for want of food or gets sick and dies for want of decent sanitation. I propose, therefore, that each person channel their social justice hopes into personal change and personal action. I propose we each pledge to freely donate at least one year of work time – over our entire lives – to directly serve the poor.
This year of service pledge is one we can take during an entire lifetime – to literally accumulate hours of hands-on service for the poor and marginalized – equal to 2000 total work hours that comprise a year of labor. Many cultures promote this idea of civic service by the young. Mormons ask their young people to serve for two years of mission to evangelize for the faith. Young Jews from all over the world volunteer to serve on Kibbutzim – communal farms or factories where everyone shares in the work and resources. In our own nation, we have the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and Teach America where young people sign up, for almost no pay, to serve one to two years helping the poor, underprivileged and sick. We also have almost a million men and women volunteer to put themselves in harms way to defend our country. Noting the benefits of serving others, several commentators have encouraged requiring a National year of service by young persons – in the military or in a civic organization like AmeriCorps. The goal in each case is not only to enable a large resource of able bodied volunteers for needed service projects, it is also to mature and enrich the lives of youth – in the time between high school and college. Far better, it is argued, for youth to see the world as it really is than to immediately head off to an insular college campus for study and partying.
But for most of us, as adults, it is one thing to encourage a year of service to the poor by young people – and quite another to accept the challenge for ourselves. Taking a single, entire year off to serve the marginalized is possible for only a few. But, to accumulate over a lifetime a year’s worth of serving hours – 2000 of them – that is a manageable goal for any person. It’s a goal any adult can at least begin to accomplish. It’s a goal worthy of being promoted, encouraged and transformed into a cultural norm – one that every human citizen willingly takes up. It’s a goal I have taken up – one which I began by accumulating hours of hands on service – nearly twenty years ago.
If every person across the globe were purposefully working to accumulate 2000 hours of service for the least of our human brothers and sisters, problems of poverty might be drastically reduced or eliminated. As I like to say, god is not some outside force that does good for the world. God is us. We, the human species, have the power to be the change we want to see.
That power to become a force for change is what motivated Gandhi. His life goal was to self-realize, to come face to face with the divine source of truth. Worldly pursuits for money, power and pleasure did not interest him. They lead only to emptiness and a shallow soul that never quite understands itself – much less universal truths. When we serve others, Gandhi believed, we not only self-realize by gaining wisdom, growth, discipline, humility and maturity, we connect with forces far more profound and life-enriching. To truly find yourself, he said, one must submerge in the task of serving others.
The whole of the universe is inter-connected, Gandhi asserted. When someone steps outside of themselves and purposely works to serve the messy needs of another, one encounters the reality that people all over the world are much the same. In that regard, those who serve the marginalized come to see the oneness of humanity – each one of the billions of people on the planet share the same impulses to find meaning, love and security.
As a lifelong advocate of ahisma – Hindi for non-violence – Gandhi encouraged peacemaking in our speech and our actions. Not only do we avoid harming others by what we might negatively do, we can promote ahisma by what we do for good. Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, educating the poor, welcoming the immigrant – these are ways to eliminate the violence of suffering in other lives. Serving others is a direct form of non-violence.
And that practice of service or ahisma is what allows us to discover the spiritual truths we all seek. We find peace in our souls and in our hearts when we have been kind to others, when we have directly served their needs. We reach levels of contentment, joy, and, yes, self-realization by having gotten our hands literally and figuratively dirty in service. We suddenly see the world, all of creation and all people as one big, messy, constantly changing, diverse, and yet exquisitely beautiful amalgamation. Indeed, in this way we find a transcendent connection with forces greater than just ourselves – forces of unconditional love, altruism, sacrifice and humility. When we help others realize the basic needs of dignity and wholeness by serving them, we ironically find those things for ourselves.
As Gandhi believed, each person is born symbolically blind. It may take a lifetime to really see and find truth – but an important way of doing so is to humble oneself and serve. By serving we gain symbolic eyesight which is really spiritual insight. By serving others we become in tune with all of the ways humanity suffers. But we also become in tune with their hopes, dreams, joys, prayers and sacrifices. We see the pain but we also see the healing because we become a part of that healing – no longer an island unto our selfish selves but a vital part of a loving, giving, serving, and understanding One Human Family.
When Mother Teresa looked into the face of a diseased and impoverished dying man from the streets of Calcutta and said that she had seen the face of God, she was touching on this truth. When a senior woman member of the Gathering spends hours every week tutoring a young inner city youth and inwardly cries with joy every time the child successfully reads a sentence or learns a math problem, that truth is touched. When people volunteer and travel many miles to build homes, clinics and schools for the poor with their own hands, this truth is touched. When Jesus taught that those who clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, feed the starving, and welcome the stranger – that they will find the realms of heaven, he was speaking to this truth. Heavenly insight and peace are found in loving others. They are found in humbly giving and serving. They are found in being the change we want to see.
My friends, I often say in my Gathering messages that life is not just about meeting our own needs and desires. Ultimately, it is about what we have done for others. This belief of mine holds true for individuals and for churches. Our purpose for existence is not to merely suck up the pleasures of life or to sit in so-called holy huddles with an inward focus. That approach will lead to an impersonal and uninspired culture of which I want no part.
Securing happiness in life is a worthy goal but the ironic truth is that our ultimate, ultimate! contentment and discovery of universal spiritual truths lies in having an outward focus and purpose that reaches beyond ourselves, that truly connects with other people. As individuals, congregations and churches, our task is to be agents of change both for ourselves and for the world. If the Gathering or Northern Hills were to cease to exist tomorrow, we must hope the wider community would notice – that all of our efforts to change things for the better would be no longer and that we would be profoundly missed. The same, it is hoped, will be said about any of us at our passing – that the world was a better place because of us, that we changed other lives for the good, that we gave a year of our lives to offer succor and comfort to the afflicted, that we found the key that unlocks the mystery of our existence : that we touched the face of the divine and found there-on the face of a brother and sister in need.

I wish you all much peace and joy.

For our heart to heart time, or as we at the Gathering call the message talkback time, I’m interested particularly in hearing experiences you have had when serving others gave you greater insight, growth or perspective. How did an act of service change YOU for the better?
For myself, I recall a work team trip I took about fifteen years ago to help build houses for homeless families in Mexico. Most lived in what could only be described as dirty makeshift shacks of cardboard and sticks. I worked on a team that built a nice but small one room home with a foundation, a shingle roof, real windows and doors. During the week the father helped us in the construction. The woman busied herself with chores of laundry, cooking and bringing us cold drinks. Their five year old daughter was left mostly to herself by our worksite. And this young girl spent hours every day amusing herself by playing with an assortment of bottle caps and small rocks that she maneuvered through the dirt pretending they were trucks or people or whatever in her imaginary play. No real toys – just bottle caps and rocks. I was struck not only by her ingenuity but by her overall happiness playing with whatever she could find. Her example reminds me of my perspective on material things and my desire for so-called toys. I used her example with my two daughters and I still do – they like to roll their eyes at me when I repeat it. I’ve been blessed in life with so much and yet that girl with so little showed me a contentment and happiness that often eludes me.
I welcome your comments about my message or on your own experiences with serving people in need….if you would, please use the microphone here to my right for your comments so that all can hear.

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

 

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

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

 

On March 3rd, 1913 our country was preparing to inaugurate Woodrow Wilson as the 28th President. He won easily over incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft and Bull Moose Party candidate Teddy Roosevelt. Wilson ran on a platform of liberal reform. Democrats took control of Congress in that 1912 election resulting in their control of the government. Wilson and the Democrats soon passed multiple progressive laws.

Even so, Wilson was hardly a great progressive. In many ways he was racist and sexist. He extended laws that prevented equal employment opportunities for African-Americans. He refused to desegregate the Army and Navy. He signed the infamous Alien and Sedition Act which widely discriminated against immigrants. He also turned a deaf ear to the rising support for women’s suffrage. When suffrage advocates were arrested, jailed and later began hunger strikes to protest their treatment, he refused to intervene.
His haughty attitude toward women was on full display on March 3, 1913 – the day before his inauguration. He arrived at the Washington DC train station and was greeted by almost nobody. The tens of thousands who had come to DC for the next day’s inauguration were lined along Pennsylvania Avenue to watch the first ever Women’s Suffrage March – initiated to call the nation’s attention to the fact that women had played no role and had no vote in the Presidential election. Wilson had refused to meet with, speak at or otherwise support the Suffrage march. He declared that Suffrage was an issue to which he had not given much thought.
But hope, for women, was in the air on that March day just over one-hundred years ago. The Women’s Suffrage March on Washington was the first national protest by women. Alice Paul, the leader of the National Women’s Suffrage Association, had decided women should emphasize peaceful acts of protest – marches, picketing, sit-ins and hunger strikes – instead of merely offering mostly ignored opinion columns and polite petitions.
Over 8000 marchers participated in that day’s parade. Delegations from thirty countries and all forty-eight states marched. Near the end of the column of marchers were hundreds of men who supported women’s suffrage. They endured catcalls questioning their manhood and jeers telling them to wear skirts. Sadly, at the very back of the parade column were African-American women placed there by organizers who feared losing the support of Southerners.
The parade leaders, despite that act of injustice, employed striking visual symbols to represent ideals of democracy and human rights. Many women wore all white with colorful scarves. Others dressed up to resemble the Statue of Liberty and Lady Columbia – the symbolic figure of freedom. Bands played the Star-Spangled Banner and other patriotic songs. Floats representing ideals such as liberty, justice, charity and peace were in the parade. At the very front – leading the marchers toward the capital and announced by trumpets sounding a fanfare – was twenty-seven year old attorney and leading Suffrage advocate Inez Millholland. With flowing hair, riding a white horse, wearing a long white cape and carrying a white banner, her appearance was designed to invoke the image and symbolism of Joan of Arc. Like her, Inez was a peaceful woman warrior leading her followers in a righteous cause.
Sadly, as in many cases when non-violence confronts hate, the marchers were attacked. Soon after the march began, thousands of men surged into the street to block the women. Marchers were taunted, groped, beaten and forced to push their way through leering and cursing men. Ambulances rushed to the scene. Over two-hundred women marchers were injured and hospitalized. The police did nothing to stop the violence. Many joined in attacking the women.
Press coverage of the mob riot against marchers was sympathetic. Headlines around the country the next day spoke not of Wilson’s inauguration but of the abuse suffered by Suffrage marchers. Public outcry about male behavior toward the women was strong. Congress soon held hearings about police conduct and, more importantly, about Women’s Suffrage.
The parade and the image of men attacking innocent women asking for the right to vote are seen by many historians and herstorians as THE pivotal event that prompted Congress and others to seriously take up women’s suffrage. Inez Milholland, dressed in a white robe and atop a white horse, was the visual symbol and leader of it all.
She had been recruited by Suffrage leaders to be their leader for a number of reasons. She was strikingly beautiful which countered stereotypes that Suffragettes were not feminine. But Milholland was more than a pretty face. She had been a leader in the Suffrage movement for many years beginning during her time at Vassar college where she organized one of the first ever college Suffrage protests. She later applied to Ivy League Law Schools but was rejected because women were not allowed. She was eventually admitted to NYU school of law and became one of the nation’s first female lawyers. She represented countless progressive causes – the NAACP, the peace movement, children’s rights, union workers, immigrants and prisoners.
Milholland was a highly effective speaker and she became the spokesperson for Women’s Rights – giving hundreds of impassioned speeches across the country. After her fame had risen to new heights, she embarked on a grueling national speaking tour in behalf of universal suffrage. Diagnosed with a form of pernicious anemia and advised by doctors to cancel the tour and rest, she refused. During a speech in Los Angeles in 1916, she collapsed unconscious. She died a few days later at the age of only 30. She had literally become a modern Joan of Arc martyr for women’s rights.
In June of 1919, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the 19th amendment to the Constitution granting women the right to vote. In 1920, after two-thirds of the states also ratified the amendment, it became law. Inez Milholland was credited at the time as the brave leader who had taken up the banner for women’s rights. Today, she is one of America’s unsung and mostly forgotten heroines.
On her death, the Philadelphia Public Ledger newspaper wrote,
“Beautiful and courageous, Inez Milholland embodied more than any other American woman the ideals of that part of womenkind whose eyes are on the future. She embodied all the things which make the Suffrage Movement something more than a fight to vote. She meant the determination of modern women to live a full free life, unhampered by tradition.”
Our purpose in remembering Inez is to undertake more than a history lesson. It is, instead, to find spiritual inspiration from her life and the example she set. Woodrow Wilson, with all of his liberal, arrogant paternalism, did not cause the passage of women’s suffrage. Nor did an all male Congress. It took everyday women like Inez and countless women like her to effect change.
Most importantly, as the Philadelphia newspaper wrote, Inez Milholland stood for the political, economic, social and personal empowerment of women. She not only demanded that each person, no matter their gender, has dignity and value, she lived in a way that asserted the kind of inner confidence equal to that of men. As a self-actualized woman, she defied the traditions that allowed only men to become lawyers. She later married a dutch businessman but she refused to be confined within the limits of traditional marriage. She had her own life. She insisted, with his consent, on an open marital relationship where she controlled her own sexuality and destiny. She used her beauty and sex appeal to advantage – proving that women were not merely sex objects and mothers, but that, like men, they were intelligent and capable.
Women at that time could be legally raped by their husbands, contraception and abortion were unavailable, domestic violence was not prosecuted, women could not initiate a divorce, they were left penniless if they did divorce and any property they owned or money they made became that of their husbands. Inez refused to live by those standards and, in doing so, fought the battle for gender equality by her own life example.
In the nearly one hundred years since women gained legal equality with men, the fact remains however that women have yet to achieve the parity that Inez advocated. Women today comprise 52% of our population. They now earn more college and graduate degrees then do men. But they still make only 78 cents to every dollar a man does. Out of 535 members in Congress, only 90 are women. Out of 50 governors, 5 are female. Of the Fortune 500 corporation CEO’s, only 22 are women. Females comprise only a third of all practicing doctors and lawyers. Less then 10% of all Silicon Valley technology entrepreneurs are women. In churches across America, 61% of members are women and yet only 12% of all clergy and 23% of lay leaders are women.
In a word, why? Why are these inequalities still present? Sadly, our culture, our religions and our education systems all diminish the self-confidence of young girls and women. At early ages girls are told they should act in certain ways – to not compete, to not speak too loud, to not be aggressive, to not be the word that rhymes with witch. Most boys, on the other hand, are told to be the exact opposite.
Studies show that most women believe they must be nearly perfect before they will have the confidence to take risks in work or career – to seek a promotion, to ask for a raise, to pursue a job that is highly competitive. As a result, many women tend to pull back, self-defeat and hesitate in taking the kinds of risks that men routinely pursue to assert and advance themselves. Men are generally more willing to pursue highly competitive jobs, to speak first in, and verbally dominate meetings, to ask for pay raises and promotions even if they are only marginally competent. As one psychologist puts it, most men have an honest over-confidence in themselves – they truly believe they are great. Many women, on the other hand, have an honest lack of self-confidence in their abilities. They truly believe they are less than competent.
According to neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine of the University of California at San Francisco and author of the book The Female Brain, all women and a few men have an enlarged area of the brain, the anterior cortex, that initiates emotions. Because of this, women experience both good and bad emotions more frequently. They feel greater numbers of self-diminishing emotions like incompetence, depression, worry, doubt and fear. Most men experience these too but not in the same number. Of added benefit for men, they have been conditioned by society and by high levels of testosterone to move past such negative feelings, to feel confident and to assert themselves. Women do the opposite. The female brain with its larger emotion causing cortex causes girls and women to tell themselves they should hold back, they should avoid “leaning in”, they should hesitate taking on many challenges.
The lesson of Inez Milholland is not just that she worked for gender equality. It is that she personified self-empowerment in ways typically only men exhibit. At a time when gender inequality was far worse than today, she was able to find within herself the courage to go beyond the social and legal barriers to success – to pursue an education, to have a career, to speak her mind, to confront injustice and hatred, to conduct a marriage on her own terms, to control her own sex life.
Spiritually, she discovered and then used the power we have all been given by whatever it is we believe to be god. That gift from our creator is to exercise the personal freedom innate to humanity, to find our purpose, to live and serve others in ways that maximize our abilities.
The continued task for any of us, me included, is to let go of self-doubt, to change the destructive inner voice and instead find inner peace and self-confidence. We can realize cognitive change by purposefully banishing negative thoughts of worry, doubt and fear and replace them with positive ones of empowerment. No longer should we allow ourselves to engage in negative self talk – I’m no good, I’m unattractive, not competent, weak, powerless, hopeless. Instead, we can and should remember ways we have achieved, ways we have taken risks and made a difference, ways in which we have successfully empowered ourselves. It may be cliche to say, but we become what we believe we are capable of achieving.
There are likely far more unsung heroines in American history than there are unsung heroic men. Most women are simply not ones to proverbially toot their own horns. And yet women like Inez Milholland show us the way. They provide examples of strength and power used not for the self, but for the greater good. Ultimately, when women are denied equal opportunities, when they are taught to deny their own abilities, the world is diminished. Any person’s self-defeating emotions hold them and humanity back. Our world is then filled with wounded people who hide in the dark, who limp along in life unfulfilled and sad. But it is our task, both collectively and individually, to heal such hurt. For women who lack inner confidence, who too easily listen to the jeers of a racist, sexist and homophobic society, they must act like Inez Milholland, like Joan of Arc. They must change the way they think about themselves. They must ride their white horses, unfurl their banners and boldly go forth with the power to be capable and powerful – to be heroines for justice and for good.
I wish you all much peace and joy…

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

This message was offered in collaboration with the Northern Hill Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.  The Gathering and Pastor Doug were privileged to participate in this service at the Northern Hills location.

 

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

 

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

 
In January 1865, the end of a very long and very bloody Civil War was near. The Union Army under the command of Ulysses Grant was laying siege to Petersburg and Richmond, Virginia. They had the cities surrounded and its residents were living on subsistence rations. A force of forty thousand Confederate soldiers faced a Union Army of nearly one-hundred and fifty thousand. Confederate leaders from Jefferson Davis to Robert E. Lee were openly planning to evacuate the Confederate capital. In the South, defeat was in the air.
The final Union Army offensive began in July of 1864 – almost one-hundred and fifty years ago today. The north had pushed southern forces further and further south – never quite defeating them but finally cornering them into an area around the Confederate Capital. Throughout the pivotal months of siege warfare, General Grant and the Union Army had a key spy deeply imbedded within the Confederate inner sanctum. This person was so close to Jefferson Davis that daily briefings by his generals, war documents and battle orders were all listened to, read, remembered and reported almost verbatim. Such vital intelligence about Confederate plans made their way across enemy lines to the Union command center and the desk of General Grant. It is not an exaggeration to say that the intelligence gathered by this Union spy was invaluable to the capture of Richmond in April 1865 – which very quickly led to the Confederate surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, the end of the Civil War and the demise of slavery.
But in January of that year, as defeat seemed inevitable, Jefferson Davis realized there had to be a spy in his midst and he was determined to discover who was responsible for the pending Confederate defeat. Spies that worked for either the South or the North faced tremendous danger. Those caught were questioned, beaten, tortured and executed.
In this case, the spy who had personal access to Jefferson Davis lived and worked within the Southern White House. She was a house slave named Mary Elizabeth Bowser who operated under the assumed name of Ellen Bond. She had been personally hired by Varina Davis, First Lady of the Confederacy. While Mary Bowser was highly intelligent and educated – having attended a Quaker school in Philadelphia, her spy alter-ego Ellen Bond was illiterate, dull, dim-witted and completely servile. Mary acted this role extremely well. Her presence as a slave during meetings between Jefferson Davis and his generals, her access to Davis’ work papers and her photographic memory were never revealed until after the war. Even then, Varina Davis denied the spy that did so much damage to the Southern cause had been a supposedly ignorant black woman living in her home. “I had no educated negroes living in my house,” she arrogantly claimed. But she was wrong.
Mary Bowser, knowing she was close to being discovered, fled the Southern White House in the middle of night sometime in January 1865. Before departing, she started a fire which she hoped would burn the house down. The fire was quickly put out but Mary did escape, she crossed Union lines and lived to see the end of the war – an outcome she had greatly helped bring about.
After the war, the Union Army destroyed almost all records of Mary’s spy efforts in order to save her and others from Southern retribution. She was given no reward for her work and bravery. She was completely ignored by Northern leaders and history writers. After the war, she soon vanished into obscurity. We know almost nothing of the rest of her life. It was not until the 20th century that her spy efforts again came to light and it was not until the 1960’s that the Federal government formally acknowledged her vital contributions and inducted her into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. A drawn likeness of her, which appears on the front of your programs, hangs in the CIA headquarters.
The Civil War is a defining episode in American history. Its outcome determined whether this nation would live true to its founding ideals of July 4, 1776. Across our country are countless monuments and tributes to men who fought in the war and helped save this nation. There are even thousands of monuments for Confederate men who fought against the Union. And, there have been a few efforts to acknowledge the contribution of African-American male soldiers who fought in the war – and of free black men who argued against slavery. But, there are precious few tributes for women – much less for African-American women who also fought against the South. Civil War monuments, statues and history books detail the exploits of men – mostly white men. It is largely assumed that enlightened and brave white men were primarily responsible for winning the freedom of slaves.
According to other such histories, Jim Crow laws and segregation of schools were ended by white judges; Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s were made possible by white Congressmen and a white President; white voters were responsible for electing the first African-American President. Even today, white activists, charities and churches are given outsized credit for the fight against racism. But such histories are incomplete, too one sided and completely ignore the groundswell of social forces that made such landmark events happen.
Sadly, the written record of human activity since the beginning of time is mostly about men. Since it is men who have written much of history, their patriarchal prejudices are quite evident. To use an alternative word for history – “herstory” – is to acknowledge the vital but far too often overlooked contributions of women in the advancement of human rights, dignity and well-being.
As we celebrate this weekend of our nation’s birthday, it is wise to remember that the record of who we are, what we have become and how we got here is not a chronology of deeds by mostly white men. Indeed, the chapter of straight, white male dominance is thankfully giving way to what America has always been – an ever churning mix of native-American, pioneer, immigrant, small farmer, slave, factory worker, woman, latino, son or daughter of almost every ethnic group on earth. America is not the product of top-down actions by leaders and power brokers. It is not defined by the actions of privileged, white men.
Our true history and herstory is a record of bottom-up movements and actions – the kinds of everyday and unsung heroics of millions of people like Mary Bowser. Presidents, business people and Generals all have their due – but they often rode to fame on the backs of so-called common people and common women like Mary Bowser, Inez Milholland and Emma Goldman – three women whom I will focus my messages on during this month of July.
But even my focus will not be on these specific women but on who they represent and the grassroots social forces that truly made America. Such forces like that of opposition to slavery are written in the mundane and simple everyday acts of defiance, protest and rebellion of African-Americans – especially women. The great and mighty Union Army of the North did not win the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln did not free black men and women. The slaves won their own freedom.
In the shadows of Civil War herstory are the unsung words and deeds of countless black heroines – women who died unsung and unknown but who loosed the whirlwind that precipitated the demise of slavery. Such women offered the moral imperative for an end to slavery: women whose children were ripped from their arms to be sold away, women raped by white overseers, women who quietly subverted the southern economy through theft and sabotage, women who escaped and fled north, mothers who painstakingly learned to read and write – all the better to teach their children, women who committed the most painful act of revenge possible – by literally killing their children and thus sacrificing their babies on the altar of human freedom. The fight against slavery was waged by those most injured by it : black women, men and children.
Mary Bowser, an almost unknown American heroine, is the face of such unsung women – those who have lived out stories of prejudice, suffering and heartbreak but who fought back and who, even today, quietly advance the arc of moral herstory.
One of the hallmarks of authentic spirituality is the search for universal truth. We may never fully discover it and it is most certainly not found in the dusty pages of ancient and outdated Scriptures or in the mythologies of some god. It is also not exclusive to the acts and histories of power and wealth. Rather, it is found in our questions, in peering into our souls, in finding and discovering common yearnings for peace, justice, and goodness that transcend time and place. We each seek that elusive spark of spirit that animates each human to love, to forgive, to soothe, to help, to cry, to hunger for a world that is fair and kind to all.
In that regard, we learn from the actions of Mary Bowser that our history and herstory is far more complex. We find in her the shared instinct all humans have to find meaning in our lives not by wealth, power or privilege but by common acts of service and heroism for others. Such acts by us and others may never make it to history books or newspapers but they are just as noteworthy, just as crucial in the long arc of moral history that bends toward justice. Indeed, we find in the actions of Mary Bowser someone who was content with her obscurity even as she risked her life for freedom. In such humility is found true motivations to serve causes greater than ourselves and to be content just in that – without need for attention, or fame. Each person, each of us has the power to make history and most of us will do so in relatively obscure ways. But our service is nonetheless important and historic. In our power is the ability to help end hunger, to combat poverty, to fight racism, sexism and homophobia with words and deeds. We participate in the sweep of historical forces that are defined not by politicians and leaders but by everyday people who choose to help make a difference.
In the fight against slavery, we can also learn of other small acts of rebellion in the first person accounts of former slaves themselves. Interviewed and memorialized during the 1930’s as a last chance way to preserve eyewitness accounts of the slave experience, many former slaves told how they defied, like Mary Bowser, the slave system.
After the Nat Turner slave uprising of 1835, it became illegal throughout much of the South for any slave to be educated. Nevertheless, such laws did not prevent African-Americans from fighting back. Many slaves secretly stole spelling books and hid them in order to learn to read. Some silently listened outside of white schools in order to soak up an education denied them. Others enlisted the clandestine teaching of educated slaves and formed what they called “pit schools” – classrooms hidden in ravines, caves or hollows. Through stories, song, small gatherings, and religious sermons preached by one of their own, slaves taught themselves their own history, their own culture, their own way of defying white domination.
But seeking an education was not some simple way to rebel. It was fraught with danger. As one former slave tells it, the first time one was discovered learning to read or write, he or she – no matter the age – was whipped by cowhide. The second time one was whipped with a cat-o-nine tails – strands of leather whose ends were tied with sharp nails to bite into flesh. The third time one had his or her two forefingers chopped off.
Those slaves who could write forged documents and passes that allowed some to escape. Still others altered purchase receipts, food orders and bookkeeping records in order to subvert and confuse the economic system. Some committed small acts of sabotage against the slave economy.
One former slave humorously told in 1937 of how slaves routinely tricked their white overseers – both to survive and to rebel. In one instance, just before nine hogs were to be butchered and sold at profit for a white plantation owner, they were found lying dead in their pens. The white overseer was shocked. What had happened, he asked. The various slaves grimly told the white man that they believed the hogs had all died of a serious and infectious condition called “mallitis.” This overseer turned pale, ran from the hog pen and told the slaves they should dispose of the dead hogs – which they quickly did by butchering them, smoking the meat and enjoying feasts like they had never had before. It seems, as the former slave recounted, that the “mallitis” disease fell upon each of the hogs after they had been swiftly struck between the eyes by a large wooden….mallet. Such a simple act of rebellion did as much as any white soldier to diminish and defeat slavery.
Other everyday acts of slave rebellion were just as effective but far more heartbreaking. One former slave told of a female slave who was to be seriously whipped for some infraction. As a woman, being whipped across one’s naked body was both humiliating and horrific. This woman declared to all that she would not be whipped. Quietly, the night before her punishment, she slipped out of her cabin, found a nearby tree, swung a rope over one of its branches, and then hung herself.
Another story told to the 1930’s historians was of a woman who had given birth to many children. After each one had reached the age of two or three, the white owner would take the child and sell it. Finally, this woman had enough. She would no longer enrich the white owner at the cost of her children. Having two children still of young age, she gave them each one night a specially prepared bottle. The next morning they were dead.
Slave resistance took many forms but one of the strongest was the refusal to give up hope. Appropriated from whites, Christianity offered slaves a way to express their culture and their dreams in ways that spoke to the real ideals of that religion. Prayer and spiritual songs were ways to secretly rebel against oppression. Slaves identified heavily with the Exodus Bible story of Jews and of Moses who escaped Egyptian slavery. The Promised Land was not just Canada where they could live free – but heaven and the afterlife. In that way, slaveholders could own the body but not the soul, not the spirit. Death was not so much a punishment but a deliverance.
For each of us, the Fourth of July celebrates not just the white founding fathers who charted our independence. It must not be just a holiday when we bow in honor of the history we’ve been taught. It is, instead, to celebrate the truth that countless millions of unsung Americans have dreamed, worked and sacrificed for a better nation – people like Mary Bowser. We celebrate this weekend simple acts of everyday heroism that made and continue to make our country – particularly by those who rarely get credit – women, slaves, immigrants, the poor and dispossessed.
The unsung heroines of America are much like Mary Bowser. They are even today inner-city African-American girls and boys who, like their ancestors, pursue learning against great odds – who out of the depths of poverty unknown to many of us – quietly defy systems that elevate only the rich and powerful. The ideal American heart, the ideal American soul is like most souls across the world. It beats for justice, it hopes for peace, it serves others beyond the self, it exists for a purpose and a reason…to help build a better earth for each and every person. May each of our hearts, I pray, beat in union with that rhythm.

I wish you all much peace and joy.
At the Gathering, one of our traditions is to engage in a time of comment after a message – words from the congregation. We like to say that the message is not over until others have had their say.

And so I welcome your thoughts and comments – particularly on my belief that grassroots social movements and actions by everyday people are what really shaped American history and herstory. For Gathering folks, the practice here is to use the microphones at the side of the sanctuary.

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

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

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

 
Like many of you, I think that my life is more complicated than I want it to be. And life complications are often my fault. I have either created complications for myself or else I don’t do anything to eliminate those imposed upon me.
One area of my life that I can honestly say is relatively peaceful is my work. I’ve found simplicity in my relationship with all of you – who are, as we believe at the Gathering, my bosses. In preparing this message, I thought about what makes my work feel mostly simple and therefore mostly peaceful. I have my roles and responsibilities but the simplicity of my work life is due, mostly, to the people in this church – to you – to those whom I fortunately found who are the “right” people to be around.
My work is kept simple because I am surrounded by right people who engage me emotionally and intellectually without being demanding. I am surrounded by right people who want to join me in my work – helping when possible, willing to say no when necessary. All of you as right people mostly encourage me in ways that make me want to be better. You offer praise when it is deserved and a gentle word of advice when that too is deserved. I am uplifted when I’m around you – no matter who that person is. I really like you – and I like being around you. You make me happy. You mostly add to my energy levels. You mostly offer me a feeling of being respected and cared for. You are not constantly in my life. I’m physically away for periods of time. But reunions are always good, comfortable and easy. My work life feels simple, uncomplicated and peaceful because of you.
What I describe is what most of us want with all of our relationships – at home, at work, at play. We want peace. We want calm. We don’t want drama.
And while having the right people in our lives is only one aspect to finding a peaceful and more simple life, it is one area that all of us can make happen. For simplicity sake, we need the right people around us – people who are positive, upbeat, loving, encouraging, funny, caring, generous, sharing, open, trusting, humble and loyal. To eliminate at least one complicating element from life, we need the courage to remove people who are not “right” for us – people who are toxic and who, more often than not, tear us down, discourage, gossip, demean, envy, hurt, demand, and are negative about us. Life is too short to put up with such people. Life is too short for them to put up with me if I am such a toxic person. Not only do we need right people surrounding us, we need to be the kind of right person who surrounds others. It works both ways.
In that way, having the right people around is not a selfish need. In reality it is a generous way of living – a way to simplify life so that it can be better used unselfishly in serving, loving, and caring. Indeed, if we seek to have the right people around us but are not ourselves the kind of right person for them to be around, the relationship will not work. Its a symbiotic way of relationship – a mostly equal exchange of energy such that we give in ways that effortlessly comes back to us. Love begets love. Positive people attract positive people. Empathy and generosity inspires the same.
Dan Buettner is a contemporary author who has gathered a wide following. As a National Geographic magazine writer, he seeks out and writes about areas of the world where large numbers of people live to be 100 or older. He calls such areas of the world “Blue Zones.” His TED talk on the subject has been viewed by over 2 million people. He was recently the keynote speaker at President Bill Clinton’s health and aging symposium. In studying one common aspect of Blue Zones around the world – in areas like Denmark, Singapore, Sardinia Italy, Okinawa Japan and, surprisingly, San Luis Obisbo, California, one trait stood out. The majority of people in these Blue Zones self describe as being very happy. The crucial and common key to their happiness, he found, was that the majority of them were surrounded by a small, close and deeply loving group of family and friends – so called right people.
It seems that reducing stress, particularly with our interpersonal relationships, not only simplifies our lives but also produces positive physical benefits. People live longer. Buettner found that in the United States, people who rate themselves as extremely happy in life spend at least seven hours a day socializing within a network of right people – those who support and love them. For Americans, having modest financial security offers a three-fold increase in one’s level of happiness. But having supportive and caring friendships increases one’s life happiness by an even greater amount. And being happy with one’s work and career, his research finds, is determined by whether a person has at least one very close friend in the workplace.
Choosing a job solely because one’s friend will work with you is not a common criteria Americans use. But in Denmark, a place where due to high taxes a garbage collector brings home about the same income as a lawyer, people choose their work not because of salary but by what will make them happy. And many Danes therefore choose jobs where their friends work. It is not surprising, Buettner claims, that Denmark is a Blue Zone – an area where people are not only exceedingly happy but where they also tend to live very long lives – many well beyond 100.
Just this past Wednesday, the New York Times published details of a landmark program taking place in one high school located in the South Side of Chicago – one of the most racially divided and underprivileged communities in the nation. This program draws young black teenage males together into small groups and then strongly reinforces a form of future casting. Each young man determines what he wants to be in life and is then continually urged and supported by his peer group to keep that vision in sight. They are asked to wisely choose how they act in many situations – for instance, whether or not to punch someone or, even worse, pull out a gun in a conflict. Staying in school and studying harder are also reinforced by this type of support group. The idea is to use peers – other African-American teen males – as a way to bolster self-esteem and right decision making through beneficial group support led by male school teachers – to replace street gangs with school support groups. In other words, will these boys have the right people or toxic people around them?
One expert on choosing the right people to be around suggests that we each take an inventory of those already around us. We must ask ourselves: Are we able to be ourselves when we are with a particular person or group of people in our lives? Are we accepted, respected and understood? Is there an equal exchange of energy or are we emotionally and mentally drained by them? Are we listened to by a friend or partner or, is it mostly the other who talks about him or herself? Do those around us celebrate our success? Are they committed to our relationship? Do we feel good about ourselves in their company? Are we happy and positive when around them? Are we inspired and encouraged by them to be better people – do they cast visions for us in ways that capture our strengths? Are they loyal or do they tear us down behind our backs? If we cannot give positive answers for most of these questions, we are not in the company of the right people. We need a change.
Just as important as our inventory of people around us is their inventory of us as individuals. As I alluded to earlier, an inventory by others about us is a likely predictor of whether or not we already have the right people around. We must be a right person in order to have right people in our lives. The two go hand in hand. Show me a person with good, caring and inspiring friends and I will guarantee that person is equally good, caring and inspiring.
Qualities of toxic people, however, vary from person to person. Overall, however, they do not simplify your life. They complicate it. You do not feel better having been around them. You feel worse. Toxic people often have a grandiose air about them – they brag or boast about themselves and often have a high need for being the center of attention. They rarely admit when they are at fault. They put you down, are judgmental and critique aspects of your personhood – your personality, your body, your values or your intellect. They usually blame others for their problems and they refuse to apologize when they are wrong. They are envious and jealous of you and others. They are overly competitive. They are usually depressed and are almost always experiencing some form of self-perceived catastrophe. They talk more than they listen. They do not or cannot understand your needs and your concerns. They regularly remind you of your flaws and past mistakes. They are cool toward you when you succeed or get attention. They are vindictive. They kick you when you are down.
And such qualities are similar when applied to toxic churches and groups of people. There is no accountability for leaders in toxic churches. Members have little say in how things are done. There is no recognition for personal achievement or work. Toxic churches or groups are overly demanding of one’s time and resources. Leaders are authoritarian, intimidating and not approachable. All people are not welcome. Shame and guilt are encouraged instead of positive attitudes and inspirational growth. There is little or no sense of being fulfilled and enlightened.
What we find with toxic people that surround us is that we want to change who we hang out with but are often too afraid to do so. Toxic people and groups are emotionally controlling – saying the fault of discontent lies with us instead of at least partially within themselves. Such control can prevent us from moving on and letting go. We need, instead, courage.
My message last week of learning to let go applies to toxic people and groups. Yes, we should accept them as they are and not try to change them. Only they can do that. But we can let them know how we feel and we can apply the kind of reasonable boundaries that will protect us from hurt. “I love you and respect you as a person but when you judge me, when you demean and criticize me, I will choose to limit my time around you. I will choose to find, instead, people who support and inspire me.”
Setting up appropriate boundaries are not selfish acts. They are ways to protect ourselves in order that, as I said earlier, we are better able to flourish as individuals – to serve, give and love. Without protective boundaries to limit toxic people or groups around us, our lives lack peace. We are stressed by constant demands of our attention and time. We are stressed by put-downs and jealousy. We are stressed by a lack of support and understanding. Ultimately, we are unhappy.
Boundaries limit the access toxic persons have to us. Sadly, we may need to erect such boundaries for people we once considered friends, lovers, spouses, or family members. I do not believe boundaries should be used to punish others or that they should be implemented in a mean spirited manner. Indeed, we should forgive the other if we have been hurt and boundaries help enable forgiveness. We let go of the hurt while wisely protecting ourselves from being hurt again. The relationship can even be maintained on a limited level. But intimacy, close friendship, and deep connection cannot be sustained with toxic people. We can love but let go.
When we talk about building a loving community around us, we mean that we purposefully want to be around the right people. And we purposefully commit to working on being a right person for others to be around. Supportive and loving communities, I believe, ought to be relatively small. How many close friends do we each have the time in which to invest? Experts say we can generally only have between 2 to five close and intimate friends. How deep can our relationships be if we have too many? The same, I believe, holds true for churches. Megachurches offer wonderful programs and services with all of their resources. But, one must belong to a so-called small church within the big church – a small group, book club or serving team and that can then limit one’s sense of belonging to the larger church.
The advantage of a small church of right people is that the entire community can be people we know and who support us. It is small enough to enable that. I love that I can know the names of every member and regular attender here, that I can know a bit about their lives and their families, and that they can know the same of me. I never tire of seeing many of the same faces each Sunday – indeed, that helps build even greater intimacy.
I hope many of you feel as I do. That in here, we are appreciated and respected as a unique individuals. We are listened to. We are encouraged. We are uplifted. We are happy to be here. A toxic church offers none of that. I’ve been in some toxic churches. I know what they look and feel like.
But most of all, the wonderful quality about the Gathering is that right attitudes are expressed to everyone. We may occasionally get on each other’s nerves, but the atmosphere in here, the unspoken ethos in here, is that all are welcome, all are respected, all are listened to, all are cared for, all are important and valued – no matter what. We never claim to be perfect. I am far from it. But we do claim our desire to grow in becoming right people and right individuals who live out the ethos of which I just spoke. What we pray for, what we work towards, is that we will carry with us the right attitudes found in here out into into our other communities – into our homes, our workplaces, our other circles of friends. We want to find and build other right groups of people much like the Gathering. And outside these doors we want to be the same kind of right person that we are in here.

I pray this be so for me, as I pray it be so for you. I wish you all much peace and joy.

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you all much peace and joy.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you all much peace and joy.

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