Category: Uncategorized

Watch the recording of the Easter Service from 4-12-2020 right here. Thanks to everyone who attended it was a wonderful Easter Morning!

Rise Up O Flame : https://youtu.be/6tchDgLzPXU

Prelude: https://youtu.be/6zqlGXYIsys

Message: https://youtu.be/A2rzgajNn7w

Offering : https://youtu.be/7ZR9TxoZS3w

Or Join us live 4/5/2020 at 10:45AM click the link below

https://zoom.us/j/819618368

Meeting ID: 819 618 368

You may view a video recording of this message on YouTube by clicking here (or read it below): https://youtu.be/dJ4gQmcJqnM

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

The title of my message this morning is “Blessed to Be a Blessing”.

To paraphrase a very old story, there once was man who was walking home when a large storm moved across the land.  The winds were fierce and the rainfall torrential.  The man leaned into the wind and slowly moved forward.

Soon, he noted how creeks and rivers were overflowing.  The water spread across the land and rose steadily.  It reached his ankles, then his knees, and then his waist.  

Fearing for his safety, the man called out, “Source of all life, save me from this flood!”  Soon thereafter, someone saw him struggling through the water and offered him a rope.  “Here, tie this end around your waist.  Together, we will get to safety.”

“No,” said the man.  “I’ve called out to the source of life to save me.   So I trust it will do so.”

He trudged on as the rain continued and the water rose.  It was now up to his chest.

“Source of all,” he cried out.  “I always have acted with good in my heart.  Please save me!”

A minute later, a motor boat came by filled with people.  The boat captain called to the man, “Climb in!  We are headed to high land.”

“Thank you, but no,” said the man.  “The source of all life will save me I know.”

The flood rose further until it was neck high.  The man could barely move the water was so swift.  He again cried out, “Power of love, source of goodness, save me I pray.  I am a faithful man!”

Just then, a helicopter appeared and as it fought against the wind, its door opened and out dropped a rope ladder which fell  into the water only a foot away.  Someone in the helicopter motioned for the man to grab hold.

The man waved his arms for the helicopter to fly away.  “The source of goodness will save me,” he shouted.

And then the rain intensified.  The flood waters rose so that he was swept along with the current.  He became exhausted and could no longer stay afloat.  He slipped under the waves…

Immediately, his soul encountered a bright and warm light.  The man knew he was in the presence of the divine.  

“Oh great power of love,” he humbly said.  “I trusted so fervently in you to protect me from the flood.  Why did you not save me from drowning?”

The light enveloped the man so that he felt overwhelming love.  A soothing voice spoke.

“Dearest one,” the voice said.  “Three times I came to you and tried to save you.  I was the man with a rope, I was the boat captain to take you to dry land, and I was the helicopter pilot to fly you to safety.  But you did not perceive my blessings that were there for you……”

That story speaks to me on many levels.  It’s about trust, listening, wisdom, and most of all not taking for granted the many blessings I have.  Such blessings give me joy, peace, comfort and sustenance – ones that, when all is good, I barely acknowledge.

During these difficult times, I’m also a lot like the man trodding through a rising flood hoping he will be saved by providence, but oblivious to all of the blessings around him.  I have a roof over my head, I have food and drink, work that I enjoy, a loving partner, two precious daughters I communicate with regularly, and deeply good friends who offer me their support.  In the midst of a worldwide crisis, I have abundant blessings that enrich, soothe and yes, help save me.

And yet I have too often looked past them to focus on worry and anxiety.   I fail to see the power of love and good things I already have.  My anxiety is what many experts call “internalized oppression.”  It’s something each of us feel at one time or another and perhaps right now.  It’s  characterized by inward feelings of hurt, worry, or trauma caused by something or someone.   We take the negativity, which may or may not be real, and we internalize the energy from it.  We ourselves literally become a source of negativity.

But psychology experts say we can cure ourselves from a negative mindset by recognizing that we have the cognitive power to banish it.  We have the cure and it is through changing our thinking by reflection and meditation on the good in life.  Optimistic people have figuratively set around themselves a barrier that only allows blessings through.  We have the tremendous ability to build our own cognitive barriers that permit us to only focus on good things.

Mostly, experts suggest that to be positive means to refuse being a victim.  Everybody can feel victimized by this virus, or any other negative thing, if we choose to think that way.  We can also choose to see ourselves as powerful people who have the capability both to avoid catching the virus, and to not be one of its emotional victims.  One way to do that is to think, feel, and thereby BE blessed.  

That thought came to me as I read a column in the most recent UU World magazine by Reverend Ana Levy-Lyons.  The article is entitled “Kindness to the Thousandth Generation” and its message is that while the Bible’s Old Testament says people suffer the consequences of bad actions by past generations, the opposite is more true.  We enjoy and are  blessed by the good actions of our ancestors.  

Rev. Lyons asks us to therefore focus on positive blessings in life and to forsake negatively focused commandments and rules.  Indeed, she implies something I’ve long believed.  Framing in positive terms how we should act and speak is much better than constricting life with more negatively focused rules.  In other words, might we think more about encouraging love and our blessings, instead of being warned against lying, killing, stealing, or being envious – as the Bible’s Ten Commandments do?

A blessing is an act, utterance or encouragement of kindness wished upon or done for another.  A blessing provides an opportunity for the recipient to feel loved – and to sense the presence of something greater than themselves.

When we encourage people to be a blessing – to be more loving, speak more gently, or find peace in their hearts, I believe we are far more effective in creating the attitude we wish for – both in ourselves and in others.

This idea has, for me, great usefulness in how I think about the present challenges.  Instead of dwelling on the negatives that face the world, I can remember my blessings – and the power every person has to be a blessing to others.  The world may seem like floodwaters are rising, but in most of our lives there are countless people and things for which to be thankful.   And there are countless things we can do to be a blessing.  If we do these, I believe we can transform our thinking.  As we deal with the figurative flood, I want to see and appreciate the figurative ropes of kindness, boats of human connection, and helicopters of uplifting joy that I either already have, or that come my way.  And I want to be a symbolic boat of human connection and kindness myself.  As I am blessed, I want to bless. 

One way to look at the morality of blessings is with the philosophy of utilitarianism first proposed in the eighteenth century by Jeremy Bentham.  He suggested that the only good thing in life is happiness and that the only way to do and be good is to provide happiness to others.  A full stomach, shelter, affordable healthcare, freedom from discrimination – these are all good because they bring well-being and happiness.  In other words, utilitarianism says that an action or thing is only useful if it causes the greatest possible good for as many humans and creatures as possible. 

And during these past few weeks, I’ve better understood that concept.  That’s because I’ve done what many psychologists and psychiatrists say is one way to overcome depression or a negative attitude.  I’ve tried my best to think about good things and to mostly shut out the bad.  Experts encourage people to write a blessings letter to oneself or write in a blessings journal about all of the enriching, good and happy things in one’s life.  Several studies show that those who do one of these exercises, they later experience a significant decrease in depression and increase in happiness.  Literally counting one’s blessings is a key to feeling content.

And blessed people usually become blessings themselves.  The study showed that happy people are more likely to be altruistic and caring to others.

Another study showed that couples who are very satisfied in their relationship, they share with their partner one thing a day that they are grateful for in that person – 70% or more days a year.   I’m grateful for how you hold my hand.  I’m grateful for how you make the bed every day.  I’m grateful for the love and companionship you offer me.  

Couples that are the least happy, including those that break-up, offered a daily word of gratitude to their partner less than 45% of days in a year.  

Telling your significant other how and why they bless you will make not just both of you happier, it will be one way to build a meaningful and lasting relationship – and that includes not just romantic partnerships, but friendships, family relationships, and parent / child interactions.

For me, remembering my blessings – and trying to be a blessing to others – is a way to deal with current anxiety and worry.  It’a a way to get out of a Me-ism mindset.  “I don’t like being isolated.”  “I miss being with Keith and all of you at church.”  Instead, my goal should be to adopt more of a “I am blessed” mindset: “I am richly blessed by my daughters’ phone calls.”  “Keith blessed me with his visit last weekend.”  “Church friends bless me with their support, emails, and phone conversations.”  In other words, life right now, and life at any other time, is not about what I DON’T have, but about the good I DO have.  I need to do everything I can to think that way.

As an alternative to the Ten Commandments which tell us what we should supposedly do or not do, I suggest we look at what Jesus taught in his famous sermon on the mount.  As always, I offer teachings from Jesus or other religious figures not to say that their religion is the most insightful, but rather to point out, in this case, the greatness of Jesus as one of many very wise human prophets – and not about him as a god.

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus listed ten blessings.  As I read each one that I have paraphrased, think about the message he wanted to get across in an encouraging and positive way – and not as a commandment.  Think about how a particular blessing speaks to you during these times.

1. Blessed are the poor for they mostly rely on the power of love to feel happy – and not on money or things.
2. Blessed are those who mourn the death or illness of others, for they will find comfort in the compassion they feel.
3. Blessed are the humble for they have true greatness.
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice because they will build it in our world.
5. Blessed are those who show mercy because they will receive it in return.
6. Blessed are those with pure hearts because they understand truth, beauty, and kindness.
7. Blessed are those who promote peace, because they themselves are at peace.
8. Blessed are those who act and speak with love, because they are part of the greatest force in the universe.
9. Blessed are those who are criticized for trying to do what is good because they are courageous.
10. Blessed are those who are happy, because they become a blessing to others.

  Dear friends, I believe all of us are blessed people.  We belong to a loving and caring community.  We have friends and families who care for us.  We have the basic needs of life – food, water, and shelter.  We have meaning in life to create good in the world.  That gives us a purpose which thereby defines who we are as individuals and as a community.  

We are in the midst of a mighty struggle not just against the corona virus, but against internalized oppression – our own anxiety, fear and depression.  Let us be blessed by knowing we are overcomers.  Let us be blessed by our grateful hearts.  Let us be blessed by one another.  We are fortunate beyond measure.  In knowing and feeling these truths, we will feel more content, loved, and joyful. 

I wish for all of us the blessing of feeling blessed.

And now, while Sue Cline opens up Michael Tacy’s mic for him to play some soothing background music, let us share a brief time of meditation.  If you wish, please close your eyes.  I will read famous blessings from several world religions.  Use this time to take in the words and perhaps find meaning for yourself…

From Celtic Spirituality – words slightly changed:

I weave a silence onto my lips.
I weave a silence into my mind.
I weave a silence within my heart.

I close my ears to distractions.
I close my eyes to attractions.
I close my eyes to temptations.

Calm me, O Source of Life, as you still the storm.
Still me, Power of Love, keep me from harm.
Let all tumult within me cease.
Enfold me, Great Mystery, in your peace.

From Native American Spirituality:

May the Earth bless us with stillness

     as the grasses are stilled with light.

May the Earth bless us with humility

     as blossoms are from the bud.

May the Earth bless us with caring

     as the mother who secures her young.

May the Earth bless us with courage

     as the tree which stands all alone.

May the Earth bless us to forget ourselves

     as melted snow forgets its life.

May the Earth bless us to remember kindness

     as dry fields weep with rain.

From Judaism – words slightly changed:

May Yahweh bless thee and keep thee. 

May she make her face shine upon thee, 

and be gracious unto thee.

 May Yahweh lift up her countenance upon thee, 

and give thee peace.

A Christian Blessing from St. Francis – words slightly changed:

Great mystery, make me an instrument of your peace.  

Where there is hatred, bless me with love;

where there is injury, pardon;

where there is fear, trust; 

where there is despair, hope; 

where there is darkness, light;

where there is sadness, joy.

Bless me that I may seek not so much

to be consoled – as to console; 

to be understood – as to understand; 

to be loved – as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive; 

it is in blessing that we are blessed,  

and it is in dying to self that we find life abundant.

From Islam – words slightly changed:

Almighty Allah, bless those who are sick by removing their sickness.  

Bless them by easing their suffering and healing them.

Bless us with steadfastness and patience.

Bless us with caring hearts and truthful tongues.

Bless our daily affairs and grant us the gift 

of forgiveness for our shortcomings.  Amen

  I am grateful for each of you and what you give the world.  Thank you for listening.

You can watch a YouTube video recording of this message here: https://youtu.be/412YNZ6q7-A

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

Hello Gathering at Northern Hills members and friends!  Thank you for logging into this YouTube Video message.  We are offering this  Sunday message video as a way for you to stay connected to your church while it is temporarily closed due to the coronavirus outbreak.  While the local outbreak is not currently serious, by temporarily closing – along with many other churches, schools and other public venues we are hopefully being public servants operating in the best interest of all.   Fear is not our motivation.  Instead, we hope along with you and many others that by reducing the number of large group gatherings in our area, we will help minimize or local coronavirus infections outbreaks.

Most of all, I encourage you to take care of yourselves, maintain social distancing as much as possible, wash your hands, self-isolate if you are even slightly sick, stay in touch by phone, text, email or social media with church friends.  Let’s please be sure to check on each other – in particular those who live alone.  

This is a time to model all of our better angels – with more love, more compassion, more care for one another.  And most of all by being selfless instead of selfish.  We do that by accepting our temporary closing of church, by not hoarding health supplies needed by doctors, nurses and the truly sick, and by reaching out to the most vulnerable.  And so I begin my planned message for Sunday, March 15th.

My message theme this month is “Spirituality in Politics” and it is to explore how spiritually minded people, like all of us, can engage in civic political matters.  As I discussed two weeks ago, we as a church should never endorse or oppose any specific politician or political party.  Indeed, as a tax exempt organization, we are legally forbidden to do so.  We can, however, speak in favor of issues and policies that touch on what it is we spiritually believe.

An important principle which we do believe, and which is enshrined in our Seven UU Principles, is that all people have worth and dignity.  We are to model that belief in how we speak and act.  Since that is so, I believe we should be part of solving the political disunity and polarization in our nation. 

In 2018, an organization called “More in Common” undertook a landmark study of political polarization in America.  It was a strictly non-partisan study which sought to understand the causes of political polarization and how to help reduce it.

8000 scientifically chosen people were involved in the study – people who represent the broad diversity of America.  The first  question the study asked was whether or not political differences in our nation are too big to overcome or, if they are instead solvable such that we can all live more amicably.  77% of all 8000 people in the study said our differences are NOT so big that we cannot be respectful and more unified as a nation. 

That result is a very positive sign.  We have not reached the point, as America was before the Civil War, that a majority of Americans choose open warfare as the only solution.  Thankfully, America today is a long way from that.

The “More in Common” group then asked all 8000 study members to take a quiz which asked about one’s core values as well as the actions each takes as a result of their core values.  A link to this same quiz has been emailed to most of you.

The quiz was written by sociologists and other experts in order to understand the core values of most Americans.

Results from the quiz indicate that America is not polarized between just two opposite sides, but is instead divided into seven unique political identities.  Those identities are 1) Liberal Activists representing 8% of the population 2) Traditional Liberals at 11% of Americans 3) Passive Liberals at 15% of citizens 4) Politically Disengaged persons at 26% 5) Moderates at 15% 6) Traditional Conservatives at 19% and 7) Devoted Conservatives at 6%.  If you take the online quiz, it will tell you which group you likely fall into.

What these seven American political tribes or identities reveal is that there is a very large component in our nation called the “Exhausted Majority”.  These are citizens who are tired of division and polarization.  They hold many traditional American values like a belief in freedom, equality, and the pursuit of the American dream.  They are proud of the nation and they want to move past the seeming divisions that are causing hatred and disrespect.  Members of the Exhausted Majority may hold different opinions but they are each similar in their open mindedness and willingness to be politically flexible.  Most of all, this majority believes that finding common ground in our nation is possible.  They are upset that it has not yet  happened.

What the study revealed is that the two extremes of the seven tribes, what the study calls the two “wings” of American politics, they are responsible for what appears to be our nation’s division.  So-called Liberal Activists and Devoted Conservatives, who together just 6% of Americans, together are the drivers of what appears to be national disunity.  

In other words, the wings are deeply divided and are at polar opposites in their core values, but the “Exhausted Majority” are much less divided.  This majority of citizens, ranging from traditional liberals to moderates, to disaffected voters, to traditional conservatives, want to find common ground and want to end disunity.  

To understand the core values of the two disunity extremes or wings of  American political identities, the study asked six core value questions.   I want to highlight for you the significant disunity not between all Americans, but between the two opposite wings of political identities.  When asked by the study if you agree with the statement that men and women have different roles in society, just 15% of Liberal Activists agree.  96% of devoted conservatives agree.  And the national average is is 61% agree.

When asked if they agreed with the statement that hard work will always insure success, 5% of Liberal Activists agreed, 92% of Devoted Conservatives agreed, and the national average is 54%.

On the matter of agreeing with the statement of “I’m proud to be an American”, 45% of Liberal Activists agree, 91% of Devoted Conservatives agree, and the national average is is 78% agreement.

Do you agree with the statement that men begin their careers with an advantage, 91% of Liberal Activists agree, just 18% of Devoted Conservatives agree, and the national average is 45%.

Do you agree that the government should insure all Americans are provided for?  94% of Liberal Activists agree, just 3% of Devoted Conservatives agree, and the national average is 46%. 

Finally, for the statement “I’m NOT proud of American history”, 60% of Liberal Activists agree, 5% of Devoted Conservatives agree, and 27% is the national average.

What is clear from these core value statements is that there is a very, very wide gulf between the two wings or extremes of American politics.  And they, according to More in Common, drive what appears to be our national divide.  As More in Common states, polarized beliefs have become a business model especially for the media and for social media.  Executives of such media companies have realized they get a larger audience for their TV network, or their internet website, if they showcase the most extreme voices – people who are absolutely certain of their opinions and people who eagerly demean those on the other extreme.  These media companies believe  that nuanced opinions and moderate voices are relatively boring and they don’t create the kind of entertainment that liberal activists or devoted conservatives do.

All of that attention focused on the two wings of American political thought, those that combined represent only 14% of the total electorate, are responsible for making it appear that our politics are extremely polarized when, in fact, they are not.  These loudest voices, are also responsible for causing many voters to disengage –  particularly the passive liberal group and the politically disengaged group.    According to More in Common, a huge number of the people in those groups are so off-put by the loudest and most angry extreme groups – on both sides of the divide – that they no longer vote or pay attention to national politics.

On several political issues, Americans are more united than divided.  60% of all Americans believe racism in the nation is at least somewhat of a problem.   69% believe the same about sexism.  And 60% of Americans now support same-sex marriage rights.

What the More in Common study showed is that the American electorate is complex and not as divided as many think.  It also showed that 3 out 4 Americans want unity and believe that finding common ground is not only possible, but should be actively pursued by politicians.

Of more importance to me and perhaps all of you, is how we as spiritual people can help diminish division in our nation and not alienate many Americans from the political process.  I list three action steps we can take to help reduce disunity and division amongst ourselves and in our country. 

First, I believe that the more we personally interact with those with differing beliefs, the more we can understand them.  Experts say this should not just involve listening to Fox News if we’re a liberal or to MSNBC if we’re conservative.  Indeed, those networks enhance the voices on the wings of American voters and studies show they cause more moderate groups to become more depressed and those on the wings of politics to further harden their opinions. 

Instead, experts suggest we find opportunities to engage in well moderated citizen assemblies where mixed political groups deliberate over challenging social and political issues.  Such assemblies that have been held resulted in a remarkable ability to find common ground and even agree on possible solutions to problems.

Second, as I’ve often encouraged, genuine empathy is an often overlooked attitude.  Experts say people must try to adopt the perspective of others – to not only walk in their shoes but to try and inhabit their minds.  One study asked participants to adopt the mindset of the transgendered – to feel as if they were a male born in a female’s body and vice versa.  And then they were confronted with issues that face the transgendered in everyday life – using the restroom that aligns with their new gender for instance.  Surprisingly, even the most skeptical of participants toward the transgendered, when asked to mentally pretend to be transgendered, were able to empathize with how they feel and to then believe they are being discriminated agains by society.

I’ve said in several messages that empathy involves not sympathy or even agreement with another.  It asks for intense listening to the other – especially to their feelings and what they experience.  Who, for instance, could not empathize with the fears many black mothers and fathers have for their teenage sons as they begin to drive and could potentially face one bad apple policeman who has a trigger finger?  Or understand the 2016 election vote of a laid off assembly line worker whose job has been transferred to China and who, at a middle age, cannot learn a new career and is relegated to a minimum wage job?  

When we figuratively feel the wounds that others feel, I believe we can then understand why they believe and vote as they do.

Third, as I discussed last week, I believe that by finding a larger identity than that of a small group, we will then open our minds to more diverse thinking.  Instead of being Democrats or Republicans, might we instead enlarge our identity to be Americans or even as Humanists and World Citizens?  The current coronavirus shows us that all people sink or swim together.  The disease does not care whether we are from China, Italy, or the State of Washington – or that we are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or Atheist.  The same is true for good things in life.  Since every person can equally get sick from this  virus, every person should therefore have access to affordable healthcare.   We all belong. We are all members of the same human family.  We need to think and act that way – and not as a member of some narrow religious, political, ethnic or any other group.

Of course, to think and act according to these three suggestions is easier said than done.  It’s not easy to empathize with someone who says they hate me because I’m a liberal or because I tend to vote differently from them.  But empathize, understand and respect them is something I know is a great virtue – one that has been practiced by all the great figures of history – Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many others.  

This past Wednesday, a few of us here were at the Lighthouse Youth Shelter preparing and serving lunch to the homeless kids there.  I was struck at one moment with the time-worn adage – “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”  I’m no better than any of you, but my realization was that I’ve been lucky in life – born to well-off parents, born with white privilege, born with health and intelligence I mostly inherited, and then given many advantages.  Where would I be if I had not been so lucky?  I might well be in a similar homeless shelter – ignored by many, and dependent on the kindness of strangers.

Conservatives are right that a good portion of success in life comes from hard work.  And Liberals are also right that such is not always the case.  Many, many people work very hard in life but still end up homeless, poor or struggling.  Still others are born with very little luck.  And many others on the lucky side of life barely work and still end up rich and seemingly successful.  

Might each political group see beyond their core belief regarding that question of hard work and success – or any other subject – to instead see that life is complicated and there are rarely absolute answers to anything?  Let’s avoid extreme opinions.  Let’s keep open minds.  Let’s be willing to change our minds.  Let’s seek understanding, empathy and generosity of heart for those who have different ideas and opinions.  Let’s never judge others but instead understand them and try to work with them.  

We know these practices and attitudes are universally good, and so lets endeavor to actually practice them – and thereby encourage finding common ground with almost anyone.         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please click here to listen to the message:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you each much peace and joy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish you each much peace and joy.

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

Click here to listen to the message:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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