READINGS. The Friendly Forest by Rabbi Edwin Friedman from Friedman Fables

DRAWING THE LINE: THE SPACE BETWEEN BORDERS & BOUNDARIES Rev. Erin Gingrich Delivered to the Unitarian Universalist Church in Reston on October 30, 2011 READINGS The Friendly Forest by Rabbi Edwin Friedman from Friedman Fables Once upon a time in the Friendly Forest there lived a lamb who loved to graze and frolic about. One day a tiger came to the forest and said to the animals, "I would like to live among you." There were delighted. For, unlike some of the other forests, they had no tiger in their woods. The lamb, however, had some apprehensions, which, being a lamb, she sheepishly expressed to her friends. But, said they, "Do not worry, we will talk to the tiger and explain that one of the conditions for living in this forest is that you must also let the other animals live in the forest." So the lamb went about her life as usual. But it was not long before the tiger began to growl and make threatening gestures and menacing motions. Each time the frightened lamb went to her friends and said, "It is very uncomfortable for me here in the forest." But her friends reassured her, "Do not worry; that's just the way tigers behave." Every day, as she went about her life, the lamb tried to remember this advice, hoping that the tiger would find someone else to growl at. And it is probably correct to say that the tiger did not really spend all or even most of its time stalking the lamb. Still, the lamb found it increasingly difficult to remove the tiger from her thoughts. Sometimes she would just catch it out of the corner of her eye, but that seemed enough to disconcert her for the day, even if the cat were asleep. Soon the lamb found that she was actually looking for the tiger. Sometimes days or even weeks went by between its intrusive actions, yet, somehow, the tiger had succeeded in always being there. Eventually the tiger's existence became a part of the lamb's existence. When she tried to explain this to her friends, however, they pointed out that no harm had really befallen her and tha perhaps she was just being too sensitive. So the lamb again tried to put the tiger out of her mind. "Why," she said to herself, "should I let my relationship with just one member of the forest ruin my relationships with all the others?" But every now and then, usually when she was least prepared, the tiger would give her another start. Finally the lamb could not take it anymore. She decided that, much as she loved the forest and her friends, more than she had ever loved any other forest or friends, the cost was too great. So she went to the other animals in the woods and said good-bye. 1

Her friends would not hear of it, "This is silly," they said, "Nothing has happened. You are still in one piece. You must remember that a tiger is a tiger." they repeated. "Surely this is the nicest forest in the world. We really like you very much. We would be very sad if you left." (Though it must be admitted that several of the animals were wondering what the lamb might be doing to contribute to the tiger's aggressiveness.) Then said two of the animals in the Friendly Forest, "Surely this whole thing can be worked out. We're all reasonable here. Stay calm. There is probably just some misunderstanding that can easily be resolved if we all sit down together and communicate." The lamb, however, had several misgivings about such a meeting. First of all, if her friends had explained away the tiger's behavior by saying it was simply a tiger's nature to behave that way, why did they now think that as a result of communication the tiger would be able to change that nature? Second, thought the lamb, such meetings, well intentioned as they might be, usually try to resolve problems through compromise. Now, while the tiger might agree to growl less, and indeed might succeed in reducing some of its aggressive behavior, what would she, the lamb, be expected to give up in return? Be more accepting of the tiger's growling? There was something wrong, thought the lamb, with the notion that an agreement is equal if the invasive creature agrees to be less invasive and the invaded one agrees to tolerate some invasiveness. She tried to explain this to her friends but, being reasonable animals, they assured her that the important thing was to keep communicating. Perhaps the tiger didn't understand the ways of the lamb. "Don't be so sheepish," they said. "Speak up strongly when it does these things." Though one of the less subtle animals in the forest, more uncouth in expression and unconcerned about just who remained, was overheard to remark, "I never heard of anything so ridiculous. If you want a lamb and a tiger to live in the same forest, you don't try to make them communicate. You cage the bloody tiger." Matthew 5:38-48 from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Revised Standard Version "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; 2

for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. SERMON Our readings this morning hand us what seem to be two very different set of instructions about how we are to respond to when evil crosses our door. In the Friendly Forest we are told tigers do what tigers do and the only way to live harmoniously is to cage the bloody tiger. In the second reading from the Bible, Jesus has been translated to say resist no evil, if they strike the right cheek, turn and give them the other, if they take your outer garment, given them also your inner garment, if they ask you to go the first mile, also go the second. The first seems to say, have boundaries! The second seems to say boundaries are counter to the religious calling to make the earth fair and all her people one. This is a question people have wrestled with since probably before we even had language- the question of how are we to be with one another when one among us falters. From a biological perspective the question could be with which set of actions are we more likely to be safe and survive? Will we be safer with them gone? Or will the person react and strike out more fiercely if we stand against them? In psychological terms this is a classic example of the more basic existential angst we have that Jung describes as the balance between togetherness and separateness. How much separateness can we express without damaging the overall sense of togetherness that we also desire? In religious terms, the question could be framed around forgiveness, or alternatively, the question, who has the authority to cast judgment against another? This question about how are we to be with one another when one among us falters or allegedly falters is particularly relevant for our congregation to reflect upon this fall. About a month or so ago a man charged with allegations of production and possession of child pornography came to our church. He made an appointment with me to ask if he could attend services here. I consulted with local clergy to learn how other churches have responded to such requests by alleged pedophile offenders. I consulted our chosen lay leadership here in the church- the board, the Safe Congregation Task Force and the Transition Team- the group of people who so graciously met with me for the past year once a month to reflect on the ministry of our church. 3

After research, discernment and conversation, we came to the conclusion to not allow him on the premises at this time. I made myself available to meet with him for spiritual consult over the phone or in a public place, but he was not to be allowed on church premises for any reason before his trial concludes, which was set for October. Once the legal aspect of his situation is finished, we would be open to further discuss both his needs and our congregations. We decided this in part because we do not know him and we cannot ascertain the level of threat he would be to the people and children in our congregation. We have not had a prior relationship with him and we do not have the professional training necessary to determine how safe or dangerous he might be. We decided to let the court be the judge of his level of threat to society. As such, we let him know that at this time before his trial he was not allowed on the premises. This decision has spurred conversation in our church. In the weeks that followed some people expressed concern about this decision and brought their concerns to various board members. Some expressed concerned that we ought to be a forgiving people and welcome him into our church, that we ought to help him recover from his faltering. I appreciate people sharing their thoughts and celebrate our willingness to engage in the conversation of what it means to be a church. We will be having a listening session next Sunday following the second service to give more people a chance to reflect upon this question and help provide input for the board as we seek to establish policies to guide how we will respond when amongst us falters. This morning I offer the readings and my reflection upon them as just one religious voice speaking to this age old question of being in community alongside our shortcomings. But first, as an aside I want to say to those of you who have challenged the leadership s decision, hallelujah! You expressed concern about the boundaries established by the leadership of this church! I say hallelujah because there was a time in this church when people didn t come forward when they felt that the boundaries in the church were off. At a few points in our church s history, boundaries were crossed, they were not healthy and people weren t sure what to do about it. One of the ministers here committed sexual misconduct as did other staff. People may have talked to someone about it or they may not have. People may have talked to someone on the board about it or they may not have. Some people did talk to the minister, others didn t. Regardless, there weren t adequate structures in place to help people figure out how to navigate this difficult terrain of what to do when someone among us falters, and especially when it s your ministerial or staff leadership. This is typical behavior, by the way, and not just in churches, right? Many people do not address issues directly when conflict arises in their day to day lives, let alone in their church where they come for inspiration and renewal or to work towards larger issues of social justice and find a way to leave a legacy of love and larger meaning with our lives. I m not sure how many of us come here to work on our relationship skills. Does this resonate with you? And 4

yet, how many of you come here for community, for a sense of greater connection? So, while dealing with boundaries and conflict may not be your ideal path for spiritual growth and or fulfillment, it is part of the package. Both of our readings pointed towards this today. The issue of how do we deal with one another when one falters is an age old challenge with which humans have wrestled. So, hooray for engaging in this meaningful dialogue and speaking up when you think the boundaries are counter to our religious callings to love one another and promote justice and equity in our relations. Now, back to the readings. The fable, The Friendly Forest, explores this very question about how to respond to someone who invades boundaries through the example of the tiger. The animals in the forest kept encouraging the lamb to talk to the tiger, to work to reduce the lamb s own reactions, to find a way within the lamb itself to accept the tiger s behaviors and thereby change the relationship. The lamb decided this was not working for it and it would leave. The other animals encouraged the lamb to try harder. However, the lamb came to understand what another fellow animal expressed at the end. When a tiger enters the forest you don t do what you can to accept the tiger s aggression, disregard for the safety of others, or disrespect. No. When a tiger invades your boundaries you cage the bloody tiger. Friedman expounds upon this notion in his books about congregational and organizational leadership. As a family systems therapist and rabbi, he coached individuals and organizations to help improve their functioning by working with the natural leaders in these groups, regardless of actual role or rank, to encourage them as leaders to cultivate their capacity to draw lines and do what is healthy for the group, not what will placate or please the group. He writes leadership is about progress not pleasing people or creating peace. He also writes leadership is about responsibility not mere empathy. He claims in his book, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, no amount of deeply empathizing with a person or communicating honestly will necessarily motivate a person to change their behavior or modify their willingness to invade another s space. He says, It has rarely been my experience that being sensitive to others will enable those 'others' to be more self-aware, that being more 'understanding' of others causes them to mature, or that appreciating the plight of others will make them more responsible for their being, their condition, or their destiny. (137) Friedman says, The great myth is that feeling deeply for others increases their ability to mature and survive. (134) He calls it the folly of trying to be reasonable with a virus. (135) This doesn t mean in all instances we can t learn from one another through deep conversation or that we won t learn from one another through this kind of deep empathy. However, it is saying that deep empathy and communication is just one tool, and as such it has its limits. It doesn t work on all materials. The same way massaging a broken bone doesn t provide healing, so too, deep empathy is not always the way to heal a relationship that s been broken. Sometimes, a tiger is a tiger and there is no amount of communication 5

that will change this. In these moments, acceptance of people and the reality of who they are is key to finding realistic options for a way forward. Friedman admonishes us that along the way religious people have lost track of this insight and think that we must accept any and all behavior because we are called to love each as our own. An Episcopal priest shared this reflection on one of Friedman s stories. 1 Friedman had been talking in his lecture about how organizations and faith communities can improve their functioning with one another. He said, We put up with a lot of unkind and unpleasant behavior thinking it would be un-christian to confront those behaving poorly. And, indeed, the rabbi continued, often in synagogues, people are unwilling to hold one another accountable for comparably bad behavior, out of the very same vague notion that it would be un-christian to do so. We get the rabbi's irony, right? Of course there is no real community, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise, without, among other things of course, accountability. Compassionate accountability, yes; but, nonetheless, accountability just the same. In a word, the un- Christian thing is not to hold one another accountable. This brings us to the reading from the Sermon on the Mount we heard earlier. Many interpretations of the text we shared this morning lead us to believe that Jesus is saying Christianity is about accepting all behavior, not holding others accountable. Walter Wink, a theologian and historical scholar of the bible, disagrees. He claims that most translations of Jesus teaching on the mount lead people astray from Jesus radical teaching. He says that when the translators working for King James translated the text from Greek into English they, chose to translate antistenai as resists not evil....jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. That would have been absurd. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. The Greek word is made up of two parts: anti, a word still used in English for against, and histemi, a verb which in its noun form (stasis) means violent rebellion, armed revolt, sharp dissension A proper translation of Jesus teaching would then be, Do not strike back at evil (or one who has done you evil) in kind. Do not give blow for blow. Do not retaliate against violence with violence. Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-roman resistance fighters. The only difference was over the means to be used. (441-442) Antistemi may be translated variously as, Do not take up arms against evil. Do not react reflexively to evil. Do not let evil dictate the terms of your opposition. The Scholars Version 1 Rev. D. Wallace Adams-Riley, http://www.stpauls-episcopal.org/index.php/our_rector/blog_post/a_friedmanian_moment 6

translates it brilliantly as Don t react violently against someone who is evil. The word cannot be construed to mean submission. (ibid) Further Wink illustrates his point providing contextual, cultural analysis of the examples Jesus provided to further explain himself. Back in Jesus time you were not to use the left hand to strike someone, this hand was used only for unclean tasks. Wink tells us that even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance. (ibid) To hit someone with the back of your right hand was not a fist fight, but an insult. Wink tells us that, One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with the fist, four hundred zuz for backhanding him: but to an underling, no penalty whatever). Wink assures us that Jesus response to give the person the other cheek if they strike your right, is to subvert this demeaning act, not to be passive and accept it. Jesus was often speaking to the oppressed, to those underlings subjected to cruelty in their lives. He instructed them to say with their behavior, as Wink says, Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that. You cannot demean me. (443) In the example of the coat, Wink tells us that it was commonplace for people who were incredibly poor to use their outer garment or jacket as collateral for borrowing money. These people clearly had nothing else to give as collateral and so as such, it was law for people to return the coats at night so that the person could sleep with it, as surely this was their only possession and without it they would freeze at night. So, Jesus suggested to these incredibly poor people. If someone sues you, most poor of the world, and tries to take your coat, give them, too, your undergarment- your underwear. It was considered shameful at the time if you were to see someone naked. Not shame on the naked one, but upon the one viewing it. Jesus told the poor to cast shame onto those oppressors who do not understand the burden and oppression they are imposing when they care more for their money than for their brethren. (ibid) In the third example, Jesus tells if we are asked to walk the first mile, go also the second. At the time, the Roman soldiers were short in number according to the territory they must cover in the region. As such it was legal for a soldier to ask a local person to carry their 65 pound bag for a mile, but only one mile. If they forced the person to go further they would be in serious trouble. This was to help the army without pushing the people too far. Jesus instructed the people to rebel against the Romans by insisting they carry their bags the second mile. This would inevitably confuse and bewilder the soldiers. Were they being set up to get in trouble? Were others really wanting to help? Why would they do this? It restored a sense of agency and dignity to those being oppressed. (444-445) Time and time again Jesus teaching and examples were calling people to nonviolent resistance not docility or passive acceptance of all behavior as the Christian thing to do. Jesus was all about accountability and calling people to justice, to compassion, to caring for the 7

least of those among us. Jesus was not saying have no boundaries, he was saying play with them. Manipulate them to jeer at oppression and help reveal to those who are hurting others your own humanity. He was offering a third way to respond- not violence, not passive acceptance, but a third way in which we bring our love to bear through dignified actions that reveal our power, agency, and thus, our common humanity. Jesus taught people to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. He doesn t say invite them into your lives no matter what. He says love them, pray for them. Keep compassion in your heart. Believe in the first principle and also in the others. As Unitarian Universalists, we are most likely to frame a response to the question how do we respond when one amongst us falters and breaks just relations with one another by speaking about our first principle - our commitment to affirm and promote the inherent dignity and worth of each and every person. This is not the end of the discussion, though, as it is only the first principle of seven principles, and the others offer guidance for our religious response as well. Saying we see the worth of every human being does not say we see worth in all actions. It doesn t say we will accept any and all behavior. Our other principles affirm this. Our congregations also affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and we share the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. To do this, we absolutely cannot treat all behavior the same. The principle calls us to justice, which means we must draw some lines as to what is acceptable and just and what is not. We are called to draw these lines towards justice and equity with compassion in our relations. As religious people, we know that we must resist evil. We must take a stand. We must also not allow our hatred of evil actions and harm caused to ourselves or others to harden our hearts or we stand to lose access to the beauty in life that we are working to enrich. Our principles guide us to walk in love and treat each other accordingly. Love does not mean accepting all behavior however. As Wink shows us, not even Jesus meant that. Saying we affirm and promote the inherent dignity and worth of all people means we never want to lose faith in humanity, but we also can and must be strong in our leadership to promote justice, equity and compassion in our relations. Works Cited Wink, Walter. Jesus Third Way. Liberating Faith: Religious Voices for Justice, Peace and Ecological Wisdom. Ed. Roger S. Gottlieb. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. 441-449. Print. 8