Don t count your days. Make your days count. Mohammad Ali

Transcription

1 Living into Life s Answers Question Box Sermon Sunday, June 5, 2016 Rev. Bruce Southworth, Senior Minister The Community Church of New York Unitarian Universalist Opening Words Readings Don t count your days. Make your days count. Mohammad Ali First of all have patience. I beg you to be patient to all the unsolved problems of your heart and to care for the questions themselves. Do not search for answers to be given; if given, they would be of no use, for you could not live them (another s answers). For the present, live in the questions, and little by little and almost unconsciously you will enter the answers and live them too. Rainer Maria Rilke The larger theme for this morning has two parts: First, we celebrate the holiness of curiosity. We seek to embrace living in the questions. This Holy Curiosity, as Albert Einstein called it, is something too many traditions discourage, while here we know, we truly know, that questions help us to wrestle with worthy choices and to explore life s complexity, chaos, and beauty. Then, the second part is that, by embracing the questions, we live into our own answers. We live with greater authenticity, honor, and integrity, hopefully with less mean-spiritedness, fear, anger, jealousy, self-righteousness, or cruelty or any of the other crippling emotions that distract us from our better selves. In doing these two things, engaging in Holy Curiosity and our personal search for meaning, we share the journey in a lonely world! (1) The first reading reflects upon a question about our approach to different traditions, the unities and universals amid diversity, a key element of our liberal religious faith. Wallace Stegner was a Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist, as well as essayist: 1

2 I believe in conscience, not as something implanted by divine act, but as something learned from infancy, from the tradition and society which has bred us. The outward forms of virtue will vary greatly from nation to nation; a Chinese scholar of the old school, or an Indian raised on the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita, has a conscience that will differ from mine. But in the essential outlines of what constitutes human decency, we vary amazingly little. The Chinese and the Indian know as well as I do what kindness is, what generosity is, what fortitude is. They can define justice quite accurately. It is only when they and I are blinded by tribal and denominational narrowness that we insist upon our differences and can recognize goodness only in the robes of our own crowd. (This I Believe, 226) (2) The second reading is an old folk tale, attributed to various swamis. A water bearer in India had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole that he carried across his neck. One of the pots had a crack in it, while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water. At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years, this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his house. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments, perfect for which it was made. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do. After two years of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. "I am ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you. I have been able to deliver only half my load because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house. Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work, and you don't get full value from your efforts," the pot said. The bearer said to the pot, "Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side? That's because I have always known about your flaw, and I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you've watered them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house." Moral: Each of us has our own unique flaws. We're all cracked pots, but it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding. You've just got to take each person for what they are, and look for the good in them. Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape. Remember to appreciate all the different people in your life! 2

3 Living into Life s Answers Question Box Sermon Rev. Bruce Southworth I begin with this question: Some months ago you spoke about the spiritual state of the Union. What are your thoughts about that now? That first sermon about the spiritual state of the union came shortly after President Obama s State of the Union Address. It was primarily about the challenges of change, with brief reference to the lack of civility in political discourse, and to one of the dangers we face. I quoted President Obama who observed As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background. We can t afford to go down that path. And, I noted that Republican candidates were frequently calling each other liars with increased personal attacks that deflected away from policy conversations, all this to the detriment of our common weal. Then, in early April I referred to the spiritual state of the Union in speaking about our Universalist heritage and P. T. Barnum. Barnum transformed himself from something of a huckster into a new, better person of generosity and kindness, still a showman but one with religious grounding and philanthropy. By contrast, I observed that there was one candidate, who went unnamed, who was increasingly under challenge because of o his apparent misogyny and xenophobia, o dangerous foreign policy statements (like those encouraging proliferation of nuclear weapons), o invocations of violence against some who disagree with him, o inability to focus on substance, o almost daily personal insults to other candidates, reporters, and others; o racial, ethnic, and religious scapegoating; 3

4 o fuzzy thinking; o factual fabrications; and o self-absorption, rather than service. [I also noted] We also see hate-filled tribalistic rallies. Fascist overtones resound, and we sleep through all this at our peril. The main difference between then last January and last April and now is that this dangerous persona is likely to be on the ballot for President of our country in the fall. And that I find scary. And he now adds a personal racist attack on a Federal Judge. Dangerous? I say that as a spiritual matter, not as a politically partisan one. To give it a theological/ethical analysis, I return to the nature of evil. And, as I do from time to time, I share with you one set of measures that can be used to identify some forms of evil. It comes from the insights of Henry Nelson Wieman, the dominant liberal theologian of the mid-20 th century. He found goodness, even God for a while, in creative transformation, specifically creative communication that o builds community across artificial boundaries, o honors individual, personal growth, and o respects the worth and dignity of all persons. And, yes he was a Unitarian. [In his volume Man s Ultimate Commitment, he writes, Creative interchange [communication] provides the standard for judging what is good and what is evil in human life. The good is what sustains, promotes, or favors the creation of appreciative understanding between individuals and peoples [that is, favors healthy, healing, caring community]. (p. 25) The highest good grounds people in community, enriches us, changes us, empowers us, and sustains us. The opposite of the creative good is whatever harms us, breaks us apart, isolates us, and undermines connections among persons. What s not to agree with here? Wieman described evil in terms of five kinds of destructive, bad, wrong-headed, hurtful communication. Those five are 1. Manipulative communication; 2. Deceptive communication, 4

5 3. Muddle-headed communication (Yes, we are responsible for clarity and completeness.); 4. Other-directed communication that seeks only to please another (the bulk of political discourse that so often seems inauthentic); and 5. Reiterative communication. Repetitive statements with little content, feeling, caring, connecting. Empty complaining for example, or worse, e.g., repetition of Big Lies and truthiness, patently false statements with no regard for verifiable truth. So, when we do these things or otherwise hurt others, or diminish human dignity and worth, whenever we violate our Unitarian Universalist principles and values, it is ok to understand the behavior (not ourselves, but the behavior) as evil, wrong, and bad. And then what? We should well shouldn t we, stop it? Combat it? Take responsibility for our actions; apologize when we need to; reach out to another/others; take positive, restoring action. Restorative justice. This process also includes in word and deed, challenging systemic oppressions that undergird much of the tribalism that surrounds us. The brief answer to the question remains: the spiritual state of our republic is deeply challenged. And, even so, I remain hopeful about democracy as frustrating as it might be at times hopeful about the depth and power of our shared values. Next question: Greed when is it excessive? When is it immoral? When is enough? I join those who have affirmed that greed is by definition immoral: an excess of desire for material goods and wealth, or even prestige or power. Some would argue with that condemnation of greed, and they are portrayed in the 1987 film Wall Street, with the character Gordon Gekko, who declared: "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind." That kind of warped mind of individualism beyond community remains ugly. Aristotle warned that possession of wealth affects [one s] understanding of what is valuable, favoring material goods over all else. He observed, In a word, the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool. (How Much Do We Deserve? Rev. Richard Gilbert, p.129) Maybe not always, but frequently. The question that is more challenging is, When is enough? How much? 5

6 On a personal level, we are more often than not deeply shaped by our personal histories, families of origin, and circumstances of birth. Sometimes, we change dramatically, e.g. Mohandas Gandhi, who grew up with certain privileges, became an English-trained barrister, working first in South Africa and then India, before renouncing that for a life of utter simplicity in terms of material goods a spiritual transformation. How much? I remember a study from some years ago in which those of different economic situations were asked how much more income would they need to feel good, better off, things manageable. I don t recall the exact wording: The answer across the board was $10,000 more would be enough. In the midst of the vast economic inequality here in our nation, and globally, I think of an ethic of distributive justice and maxims such as, From each according to one s resources or means; to each according to one s socially recognized needs. (Walzer in R. Gilbert, p. 24) Religious traditions now and historically have generally affirmed matters of social and economic equity. The Canadian Roman Catholic Bishops have affirmed that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich. Equally, giving generosity is a part of spiritual health, yet our atomistic individualistic capitalism gives insufficient credence to the common weal. As we partake of the annual pledge drive to support our Vision to be part of building the Beloved Community, I join our Board in encouraging your annual pledge gifts giving until it feels good. Think about those non-market values that bless you here, and if you think of a couple of possible pledge amounts, I encourage you to pick the higher one. As I think about our unique, committed congregation the lives we share, the community we create, the prophetic vision we support, the work we do, I am reminded of words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who celebrated that divine spark within each of us. He wrote: We are not born free; we are born with a mortgage. That mortgage is a debt, a debt that we owe to the past and to the future. While we live we pay interest and then pass it on to the next generation. That s how churches, communities, and nations survive; by accepting what has been bequeathed and passing it on to those that come after them. This ritual of receiving and giving is an act of Thanksgiving. In the face of greed, from the prophet Mohammad: Our true wealth is the good that we do in the world. None of us has faith unless we desire for our neighbors what we desire for ourselves. 6

7 How much is enough? I encourage each of us to wrestle with this one in nontrivial ways. Probably for many, the answer is that we need less than we have. Next question: How should we feel on the death of psychopaths beyond help (e.g. really abusive parents)? A short answer would be to try to let go of all the pain, fear, or anger; put the baggage down; perhaps hold onto only any good moments, but that might be a too difficult paradox. And an invitation: let s sit and visit, talk, and listen, and see what is what, being stuck, or even being glad. The next question is similar but perhaps less intense, though maybe not: Are there UU-based suggestions for dealing with people who I feel have mistreated me, sometimes repeatedly. I find it particularly difficult when such people are in my family. I don t feel I can just walk away from them. UU based? o Change is possible, difficult often, but new beginnings can happen, especially if there is mutual goodwill remaining. Talk and talk a little more, but I suspect that this is not an easily available path, and likely already tried. o Remember always your own strength, beauty, inherent dignity and worth, and your beauty. o It is ok to protect yourself; set boundaries about behavior, comments, and patterns of others. Speak your own truths, as wisdom dictates. o It is highly unlikely that another person will change, unless he or she wants to, but if so, move toward them. o You can sometimes change a system, a family system, by changing your behavior. Are there new options to create? o Be kind; don t return malice or stupidity with your own malice or stupidity. Speak your truth in love. o We all carry our own wounds, heartaches, and we do not know others in their depths maybe sometimes, but not enough usually to dismiss their humanity. o I is okay to let go and to walk away. Take a sabbatical from family gatherings for a while, even a long while. Do what you need to do to stay sane, healthy and safe. o Share your dis-ease, distress with a friend, partner, therapist. Get some help. We need one another. And, if you wish, let s talk. 7

8 o Grieve the loss of what you had or hoped for, if it comes to that. Next question: Hi Bruce, My question is about the limits of being good manifesting virtue, being righteous, generally doing good stuff. Let me try to explain. I think I understand the concept of, Do no harm. This injunction has clear boundaries for me, since it seems to advise no more than refraining from acts that would have bad consequences for others. But positive acts of goodness seem to be limitless. How far can or should one go in being generous, forgiving, courageous, and temperate, for example? I suppose some prophets have offered their own answers to this kind of question I can recall a few Give all you have to the poor ; Forgive not seven, but seven times seventy. But for me such grand aspirations are not real, and I do not find them very useful. I am no saint and hardly ever even aspire to be one. Is it possible for someone who is no candidate for sainthood to nonetheless be living in a way that is ethically good enough? How do you know if you are or aren't? This question in part refers to a Buddhist vow that I was speaking about on Wesak Sunday a couple of weeks ago: We should do no harm, to ourselves or others. The second vow was to benefit others. And the third was to be in the present moment without an agenda (embracing the goodness of each moment). A short answer, (and this question sent me in all kinds of curious directions): I do believe that it is quite possible to live in a way that is ethically good enough. Saints, exemplars, are great blessings who may nudge in better behavior, but most of us live with our compromises between our best selves, our highest ideals, and our ordinary deeds. And most of the time, for most of us, that gap is ok, more than ok. Good enough. We should not use our ideals, Biblical or otherwise, religious or secular, as clubs with which to beat ourselves. Jesus seemed to have asked us to love one another, and to do unto others what we would wish be done to us. Efforts to do that seem manageable, and not perfectionist. Also, even though western culture is deeply flawed by the history/ideology of original sin, depravity, guilt, and denigration, we are able to flower through self-blessing and the support of those around us. And it seems healthy to me to do whatever we can to combat misplaced guilt. 8

9 We have an inherent worth and dignity; we have a moral sense that is widely shared, recent political discourse notwithstanding. As to how far can one go in being generous, forgiving, courageous, and temperate, there is the annoying admonition from the Dalai Lama: Be kind whenever possible. Then, he adds, It is always possible. How do you know if you are, or you aren t, good enough? Sometimes selfreflection helps, perhaps gets us out of a rut. For example if we deeply believe every one of us can be great, as Dr. King said, because each of us can serve, if we believe that, and you are not helping others in some way, you will know (and you don t have to be a Mother Theresa). For many of us, our moral compass tells us when we err. For some of us, it is a friend, a spouse, a family member who is part of an accountability network. Or a support group, who loves us anyway, and cares enough to hold a mirror up for us to see ourselves if we are less than we aspire to. As Pema Chodron, American Buddhist nun, reminds us, if you miss the mark at times, and do harm in some way, it s ok. Rather than reproaching ourselves, just keep trying not complicated, but important for the soul. We are good people who can change our ways. I also like the teachings of Lao-Tsu: From The Way of Life [# 68] by Lao Tzu who is considered a founder of Taoism as a spiritual path: Everyone says that my way of life is the way of a simpleton. Being largely the way of a simpleton is what makes it worthwhile. If it were not the way of a simpleton It would long ago have been worthless; These possessions of a simpleton being the three I choose And cherish: To care, To be fair, To be humble. When you care, you are unafraid When you are fair, you leave enough for others, When you are humble, you can grow; Whereas if, like men [and women] of today, you are bold without caring, Self-indulgent without sharing, 9

10 Self-important without shame, You are dead. The invincible shield Of caring Is a weapon from the sky, Against being dead. Being alive, rather than dead: enough. Care, be fair and be humble That s good Finally, we are self-correcting creatures when we are awake, question ourselves, and honor Holy Curiosity. With the poet Rainer Maria Rilke, I believe that we must also live into our own answers, living the questions. Today and each day. There is a temptation at times to give up on questions. To accept dogma or simply to give up on thinking altogether, to accept a life of quiet desperation, a temptation to quit thinking for yourself, to quit trusting yourself, to rollover and not just play dead but to be dead in spirit. So, care, be fair and be humble. For me, real life, authentic living, spiritual living, sacred living follows the poet who said do not live other people s answers. By living and loving the questions, we live our way into our own answers, and the world awaited becomes more nearly the world attained. 10