March 19, 2003
The Rev. Gretchen Woods
READING: “The Legacy of
Caring by Thandeka"
Despair is my private pain
Born
from what I have failed to say
failed to do, failed to overcome.
Be
still my inner self
let
me rise to you, let me reach
down
into your pain
and
soothe you.
I
turn to you to renew my life
I
turn to the world, the streets of the city, the worn tapestries of brokerage
firms, drug dealers, private estates
personal
things in the bag lady’s cart
rage
and pain in the faces that turn from me
afraid
of their own inner worlds.
This
common world I love anew,
as
the life blood of generations
who
refused to surrender their humanity
in
an inhumane world,
courses
through my veins.
From
within this world
my
despair is transformed to hope
and
I begin anew
the
legacy of caring.
SERMON: Our Ethical and Spiritual Lives
During a session of “Rise Up
and Call Her Name,” a curriculum for Unitarian Universalist women examining
their spirituality, I vividly recall an enthusiastic, if esoteric, discussion
about how women led their spiritual lives in varying cultures of the past.
Suddenly we were stopped dead in our conversation by a young woman who was
obviously distressed. She said, “This is all very well and good, but I am more
stymied by decisions about whether or not to serve my four-year-old cottage
cheese for lunch!” She certainly brought all of us down to the very basics from
which our day to day lives are lived: what we eat, how we shelter, what we say
to our children. I shall never forget her anguish, nor the clarity of her
concern. Heady discussions about ethics and spirituality must have applications
for our every day life. From that perspective, “What Would Jesus Drive?” is a
meaningful question. (Of course, as noted in the most recent “UU World,” there
are those who think WWJD stands for Who Wants Jelly Donuts?)
Today, we examine the third
of the six sources from which our living Unitarian Universalist tradition
draws: “Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and
spiritual lives.” Last year, in tandem with our children’s religious education
program, we explored the world’s religions from “first peoples” to eastern
cultures and back to our own culture and its pluralism. We shall return to this
again in four years when our rotation of religious education returns to that
topic. While I am inspired by world religions from Buddhism to Native American
spiritualities, I would like to focus upon the latter part of the source: the
inspiration of our ethical and spiritual lives, considering what our ethics
are, what spirituality is, and how they are – or should be - linked.
First: What are ethics.
Simply put, ethics are systematic statements of what we discern as right from
wrong, good from bad. Ethics put forth the values we humans hold dear. Often,
they are culturally bound. In ancient Greece, Plato worried that youth should
not hear the unexpurgated versions of Homeric myths. He wrote:
For a young person can not
judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into
his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and
therefore it is most important that the tales which the young hear first should
be models of virtuous thoughts.” (John B. Noss, Man’s Religions, 6th edition, p. 52.)
In Vedic traditions, we
encounter the Law of Karma. Karma means “deeds” or “works.” Karma asserts that
“. . . one’s thoughts, words, and deeds have an ethical consequence fixing
one’s lot in future existences.” (Ibid., p. 90.) This is powerfully bound to
the caste system, as one could expect to move up in caste if one lived a good
life, but would expect to move down, even become an animal, if one behaved
badly. (Ibid.) This may - or may not - have proved a great motivator for human
behavior.
Some anthropologists believe
that laws were developed to codify the ethics of a people when human beings
began to organize into cities. Laws functioned to help them discern how to
behave and the consequences of bad behavior. Consider the code of
Nebuchadnezzar (“an eye for an eye”) or the “Ten Commandments” of Moses or the
Eightfold Path of Buddha; each offered guidelines for moral-decision making,
mostly based upon rules.
What we don’t often think
about is which values underpin these codes and rules. Values are the foundation
blocks of ethics, though sometimes they may be in conflict. As the building
blocks of ethics, values are most basic and broad: life, autonomy, community,
beauty, truth, peace, justice. From values we develop principles. These are
more specific, but still generalized: “protect life,” for example. The Purposes
and Principles of Unitarian Universalism, which we examined in detail in the
Fall, are such principles. From principles we develop norms of behavior, as we began
to do yesterday for our Covenant of Good Relations. Norms can be quite
specific: “Thou shalt not kill.”
All of this can inform our
everyday decisions, even the ones about whether to feed our children cottage
cheese, if we pay attention to the implications of our values, principles, and
norms. In the “Moral-Religious Form of Ethical Decision-Making” I learned from
Dr. George Kanoti at John Carroll University, values and norms play significant
roles for every day life. The process begins with asking: “What is the problem
– Really?” Frequently clarifying this eliminates our moral dilemma. If it
doesn’t, the next question is “Whose problem is it – Really?” This includes
issues of who has the most information, who has the power to do something, etc.
Again, when this is clarified, the dilemma often disappears.
If you still have a dilemma
after the first two questions are answered, then one gets into the nitty-gritty
of struggling with the dilemma: “What are the options?” - leaving none too
ridiculous nor difficult out. This is important because it avoids polarization.
“What are the consequences of the options?” And “what values inform the options
and the consequences?” Working with these three questions will often allow one
to decide, to a degree. We often think “decide” means “pick one,” usually of
two polarized possibilities. This, however is not the case. “Decision” means
“to cut away,” even as “incision” means “to cut into.” If we have brainstormed
a wide variety of options with lots of creative possibilities, we may eliminate
the most ludicrous and still have lots of options.
We may then try one option
(Act), then evaluate the results, and move back into the examination of
options, consequences, and values once again. This is truly effective decision-making,
which does not force a biased either/or process. Unfortunately, most human
systems do not believe they have the time or energy for such care in
decision-making. More’s the pity! Through polarization we can be convinced that
violence or war is the only option to problems we face. Polarization allows us
to avoid using our co-creativity to find more constructive, or, at the least,
less destructive, methods of response. It keeps a rich spectrum of
possibilities from becoming obvious.
So what does all this have
to do with spirituality? From my perspective, spirituality is not an
oogly-boogly experience of some other supernatural world, but a very natural
connection of the finite to the infinite, as my colleague the Rev. Dr. Bill
Houff calls it. It is a connection that links us to all the cosmos and to each
other and energizes us out of the despair of which Thandeka wrote. It is access
to our “inner self,” our Source.
While each of us may
experience the energizing experience of connection differently, spirituality
has deep implications for our ethics. Though some of us may find spirituality
in meditation, some in experiences of the beauty of nature, some in physical
exercise, some in deep thought and rational exercise, some in focussing upon love,
each of us has a capacity to know connections that give us energy and life
abundant. And that sense of energy and connection informs our values: beauty,
truth, goodness, etc.
In our statement of Sources,
we acknowledge connections found in world religions, for there are many.
Buddhism offers enlightenment through meditation and, out of that, the
Eightfold Path: right belief, right aspiration, right speech, right conduct,
right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right
meditation. The Tao of Lao Tse is a recognition of mystery that opens a
complete work of practical principles and norms veiled in poetic language. The
Witches Rede, evolving from mysticism of pre-Christian Europe, “In Perfect love
and Perfect trust, harming none, do as you will,” is less complex and requires
a good deal more thought to use in one’s daily life.” So it goes…
Ultimately, our UU Sources
acknowledge that our minds and our sense of connection are not at odds but work
together for us to come to the best decisions in our own lives, whether it is
to feed our children cottage cheese or to become a conscientious objector to
war.
We know that we, as
Unitarian Universalists have clear values. We affirm and promote “. . .the
inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity, and compassion in
human relations; acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
growth in our congregations; a free and responsible search for truth and
meaning; the right of conscience and
the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at
large; the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
and respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a
part.”
We differ widely on what
that means for our every day lives and the lives around us. Some of us assert
that taking any animal life for food is unconscionable. Others believe that all
life lives at the expense of other life and eating responsibly involves taking
life respectfully. Some don’t care one way or the other. Yet we choose to be in
religious community, struggling together toward living better. When we
co-create a Covenant of Right Relations, the true test comes in how this
exercise affects our response to one another in times of conflict or simple pique.
How will help us to act more respectfully one to another?
For example, some of you
want this congregation to take a stand against war in the Middle East. Others
are adamant that there could be good reasons for such military action. Others
are horrified that I say anything at all about political situations, preferring
that no such discussion come into this place of peace for you. (I LOVE this congregation!) I would like to
suggest that forcing this sort of polarized thought without respect for the
experiences of each person who has a differing opinion places us in as
uncreative a stance as the people we are railing against. I want to listen as
well as to tell my truth, to expand our possible options, rather than contract
and force them.
I think a measured approach
that considers broad implications and does not force opposing views out of the
picture is at the heart of our values. Can we consider that others’ experience
is right for them, even as ours is right for us? How do we reconcile those
differences respectfully? These are important questions that inform our
actions, and I hope will not paralyze us entirely as well. I can assert my
truth that war is not the answer and still accept that others differ from me.
Together we might attain deeper insight to true options.
The real point for me is
that my spirituality, my sense of connection to the entire cosmos, deeply
informs my ethics. My life process has convinced me that non-violence is
preferable to violence, and that we must bring to bear our best rational skills
to find connections among those who would have war. However, I also acknowledge
that there are people, like Saddam Hussein, who have no interest in connection
or ethics, who are immersed in greed for power. How to liberate people from
their grip non-violently still evades me. I am neither willing to march
lock-step into war, nor am I willing to accept the current state of affairs. I
do not see easy solutions in any case because my sense of connection assures me
that there is great injustice and oppression taking place at our behest in that
part of the world. Our hands are not clean.
This is truly a moral
dilemma not easily solved. In such a case, I revert to the Zen koan: “Nothing
that is urgent is important. Nothing that is important is urgent.” I despair of
knowing the best way to resolve the interlocking oppressions here in the United
States, much less in the Middle East. So I offer no easy solution, only a
willingness to remain in the struggle for the long haul, with respect,
responsibility, and relish for the process.
I close with words from my
colleague, the Rev. Mark Belletini:
Go
in peace. Live simply, gently, at home in yourselves.
Act
justly.
Speak
justly.
Remember
the depth of your own compassion.
Forget
not your power in the days of your powerlessness.
Do
not desire to be wealthier than your peers
And
stint not your hand of charity.
Practice
forebearance.
Speak
the truth, or speak not.
Take
care of yourselves as bodies, for you are a good gift.
Crave
peace for all people in he world,
Beginning
with yourselves,
And
go as you go with the dream of that peace in your heart.
So Be it! Blessed Be!