Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of
Corvallis
Corvallis, Oregon
Crossing Lines: Building Larger Community
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Rev. Gretchen Woods
Reading:
from “Whatever
Happened to We?” by Douglas K. Smith
In UU World, March/April
2005
Today, we must integrate values across our week not just as
individuals – as “I’s” – but also in the groups we’re part of – as “we’s.”
Certainly we all must strive to connect our most heartfelt
values to our everyday lives. But in our culture that challenge has often been
a highly individual, even private, one. The harder challenge is figuring out
how to put our shared values to work in the groups we’re part of – especially
our workplaces, which demand so much of our time and energy, and voluntary
groups like our congregations, which we choose explicitly for our shared
values. The catch is that the groups in which we celebrate our most cherished
values are not often the groups in which we spend most of our time and energy –
and few of our groups overlap or intersect.
Once upon a
time in a congregation in a galaxy far away, a wedding took place in which the
couple desired an open and welcoming atmosphere, all the while knowing that the
mother of the bride was a radical fundamentalist of her religion and very upset
with the choice of liberal minister. The minister was to meet with the bride
and groom to plan the wedding and suddenly found herself confronted by the
mother of the bride. After some skirmishing about theology, the mother of the
bride asked, “Will this couple be married in the eyes of God?” Looking straight
into the eyes of the mother, the minister asked, “Do you believe God is Love?”
“Of course!” the mother replied. “Then I know that this couple will be married
in the eyes of God.” the minister replied. That was the end of the
conversation. The mother relaxed; the wedding went forward uneventfully.
Somehow, the lines were crossed between the needs of a fundamentalist and those
of a liberal couple. Space was made for both to meet in larger community.
Not all
such conversations, discussions, or downright arguments are breached so easily.
Most of us can think of many instances in which lines are dug deeper in the
sand, and no one finds a meeting place, much less a way to cross the lines and
move together. But what causes the lines to be drawn in the first place? I am
willing to bet it is often fear, sometimes greed, and frequently the need to be
justified.
In the case
of the mother of the bride, she had particular fear about her daughter’s soul:
its salvation and ongoing justification with God. The daughter had no such
concerns. She just wanted to marry in a “liberal” or free atmosphere. She did
not want her mother’s fears to taint the glow of this special day nor her love
for a free-thinking man.
The lines
that are drawn out of greed, i.e., the desire to acquire more than one needs of
anything, may reflect a kind of economic fear.
Greedy
people often live by “zero sum thinking,” as economist Garrett Hardin points
out. This is the sense that there just is not enough for all, so individuals or
groups must carve out a larger share for themselves to survive. Survival
fear. I wonder if this isn’t the basis for the millennia long ongoing
battles between Palestinians and Jews, who once lived in harmony when the Jews
were itinerant shepherds and the Palestinians were city dwellers and their
shared commerce worked well for both.
Justification
may be similar fear. Only in this case, the persons involved fear that their
souls or spirits will not achieve salvation. We want to belong to the “right”
group. We want our lives to be affirmed, our being to be honored. We want to be
justified, whether we believe in a god or gods -- or not. God or gods become
symbols of power and justification, whether they affirm a marriage or a
nation’s invasion of other people’s lands. Too many wars have been fought, too
many lives have been taken in the name of justification. Religious
justification seems a flimsy reason at its best, but people resort to it to do
something they may know is not right. It makes a “we” of an “I” but does not
create larger community.
How do
we move from “I” to “we”? How do we cross lines of division, of difference. We,
as human beings, need to connect with other human beings who differ in their
views and in their cultures and needs, but who share our space in some
meaningful way. He notes that we find these “we’s” less often in our actual
communities and more often in our workplaces or organizations in which we share
a search for meaning. Sounds like religious congregations to me. Clearly,
action is more effective when shared by people in larger groups that gather to
express their most deeply held values. Such communities of memory and hope
honor the hopes and hurts of the individual lives present. In fact, this may be
the answer to the question sometimes asked of Unitarian Universalists: “How are
you different from a country club?” We differ in our search for truth and
meaning and our affirmation of world community! This requires more than talk,
it requires action that creates community. It requires enlarging the “we.”
Jay Rothman
describes such a process in his work on “Identity-Based Conflict.” He points
out that the first step to creating larger community is meeting. If people do not meet, it is too
easy to continue to deepen and widen lines in the sand. When people meet, they
need actively to air the differences they experience: the injustices on any of
the sides, whether religious
differences or political differences or any of the other categories that seem
to cause splits among people and lines drawn. But people must not only speak,
but they must also listen to the other side. This alone may not be possible,
but it is essential to the next step, which the late M. Scott Peck calls,
“Listening each other into silence.” The idea is to hear the truth of each
person or group involved in the dispute. Each “I” has its place.
Only then
is it possible to enter the silence in which each is heard but also, in some
small way, understood. In this space of silence and understanding, true meeting
takes place. The other is heard and their needs are taken into account as well
as the pressing needs of the “P” or group in question.
Only then
does one realize that as strong as the differences are and as important as they
are to all concerned, there are also communalities. The Palestinians and the
Jews want safety for their people. Both want safe space for homes and places to
work and commerce between them. Both want freedom of motion. Both want to be
able to honor their religion without interference. Abrogating any one of these
is a source of deep anguish and despair. Life feels meaningless without them.
In the
recognition of commonalities, all parties can find some common goals upon which
they may work together, despite their differences. These goals need to be
articulated. Then the “we’s” can create shared plans for crossing the lines and
helping each other. Rothman’s process has worked with race issues in the United
States and Palestine, but are too easily overcome by violence from a few
committed to division.
The
interesting thing is that people who do not have power needs individually often
can use this process rather well. It is only when people with deeper power
needs insist upon schism or when it is clear that basic needs will not be taken
into account that the lines remain and no headway on shared goals can be made.
As a babysitter in Sarajevo opined several uears before the destruction of her
city, “If the politicians left things to the people, we could work it out, but
they won’t and we shall have war.” Boy howdy, did they – and destruction and
atrocities and more pain and sorrow than any people should experience!
Are we
Unitarian Universalists afflicted with the arrogance of individualism such that
we can’t reach out across lines? Von Ogdon Vogt was once said that there were
actually only about 300 people worthy of being Unitarians in Chicago, so the
new church built for him by a rich parishioner was smaller than the one in
which he previously presided. That’s a real line in the sand: who is worthy of
entry into our hallowed group? Are we willing and able actively to make room
for others to find us and join our “we?”
The
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Corvallis is part of the Corvallis
Interfaith Community and shared with them in worship on October 1 that embraced
differences of worship, diverse experiences of God or god(s), and still created
meeting across lines. We can open our minds and hearts. We can recognize that
we may not hold common cause with Baptists about salvation, but we have on
issues of separation of church and state and congregational polity. We have not
agreed with Roman Catholics about abortion and death with dignity, but we
certainly share a concern for the hungry and the oppressed. We may not be able
to agree with Muslims about gay rights, but we can move together to provide
better solutions to the situation in the Middle East. Can we meet and honor
those shared concerns and not feel it incumbent upon us to force our vision
overall? That is the question, isn’t it?
One of the
paradoxes of this is that we need to let people know who we are as am “I”, what
our values are, and how we already contribute to larger community. We need to
become visible o make connections. I wonder if we aren’t so humble that we
don’t create any clarity about how our Unitarian Universalist values contribute
to community. How often do we let people know that we run for the school board,
or raise funds to clear a minefield, or create a food bank where it is most
needed BECAUSE we are Unitarian Universalists? If we don’t let others know how
our religious values inspire us, surely no one else will. One of our best examples
of doing this is our group at the peace vigils who bear signs saying “Unitarian
Universalist For Peace,” while standing in coalition with Methodists and
Congregationalists and who knows what else. We are clearly visible in those
cases and still in a larger “we.”
Perhaps if we learn to cross lines
and let people know that it is our Unitarian Universalist identity that
inspires us to do so, we will find more ways in which we can meet and work
together with larger “we’s.” We can
know each other as human beings sharing the same wants and needs. As
Marjorie Bowens-Wheatley affirms in her “Litany of Atonement:”
If,
recognizing the interdependence of all life, we strive to build community, the
strength we gather will be our salvation. If you are black and I am white, it
will not matter.
If you are female and I am male, it will not matter.
If you are older and I am younger, it will not matter,
If you are progressive and I am conservative, it will not
matter.
If you are straight and I am gay, it will not matter.
If you are Christian and I am Jewish, it will not matter.
If we join our spirits as brothers and sisters, the pain of
our aloneness will be lessened and that does matter.
In this spirit, we build community and move toward
restoration.
When we
meet those for whom differences matter beyond finding commonality and
community, we need to make better connections, engage “compassionate
communication,” and demonstrate Universalist love that invites them into
restoration with us, with respect, responsibility, and relish for the process.
So Be it! Blessed Be!
“Crossing
Lines: Building Larger Community”
Sunday, October 16, 2005
9:30 and 11:00 a.m.
Welcome and Announcements
Choral Introit:
“Bring It
Home” Betsy Rose
Chalice Lighting
Opening Words
Opening Song:
#113 “Where Is
Our Holy Church?”
Reading:
from “Whatever
Happened to We?” by Douglas K. Smith
In UU World, March/April
2005
Celebrating with Music:
“Would You Harbor
Me” by Y.M. Barnwell
Sermon:
“Crossing Lines:
Building Larger Community”
Sung Response:
#1023 “Building
Bridges” by Greenham Common
Building
bridges between our divisions
I reach out
to you, will you reach out to me?
With all of
our voices and all of our visions,
Friends we
could make such sweet harmony
Spoken Response
Candles of Joy and Sorrow/Offering
Meditation
Closing Song:
# 318 “We Would
Be One” (verse 1)
Closing Words
Closing Song:
#318 (verse 2)