Ministerial Musings

Moved

2008-08-27T16:29:40Z

This is just to let you all know that the reason you're not seeing much over here is that I've moved my blogging over to http://revcyn.blogspot.com.

Our Heartfelt Prayers

2008-07-28T03:56:13Z

Our heartfelt prayers and thoughts are with the Tennessee Valley UU Congregation and its members and friends, as well as those of the other Knoxville congregations that were affected by the horrible and tragic shooting today in the Tennessee Valley UU Congregation during their morning service.

News Article on the shooting

Build Your Theology

2008-07-23T20:14:48Z

When I first got to seminary, at an evening meet-and-greet event, another seminarian, someone a couple of years into seminary, asked me, "What's your theology."

I was taken aback. No one had ever asked me this question before. And I had never really considered the answer. Despite the fact that I was at seminary, I had never been asked to articulate my theology. I wasn't even sure what the question meant, to be honest. I didn't quite understand the distinction between the question "What is your theology?" and "What is your religion?"

"I'm a Unitarian Universalist..." I stammered.

"Yes," he pressed, "but what is your theology?"

I have no idea what I said next.

I was 24, just entering seminary. I had had only a couple of years as an adult in our congregations, as I had dropped out of UUism in college (too far to walk, no programs for young adults--a common story). But I was a life-long UU, and had gone through a coming-of-age program and participated in adult religious education programs. I wasn't new to the religion. But I was new to the concept of examining one's theology. The question scared me. Was he going to criticize my beliefs? Was it okay to believe what I believed? Did the word "theology" mean something much more advanced than I had to offer? I had explored a little Paganism, and was calling myself an agnostic, but I didn't know much about Humanism at all yet.

In the book Faith Without Certainty: Liberal Theology in the 21st Century, Paul Rasor writes, "Even calling yourself a humanist or an atheist doesn't say much about you. To understand your theology, others need to know things like: What sort of God do you reject? Do you find any directionality or purpose in the universe or in evolution? What sorts of normative claims do you make about the way society should be structured, and where do they come from? Saying you affirm justice for all is nice, but what social arrangements count as just, and who gets to decide? These are important questions in any theology."

Over the course of seminary I did learn to articulate my theology, and to examine it deeply, of course. But UUs shouldn't have to go to seminary to find that sort of exploration. Of course, we do it in courses like "Building Your Own Theology" by Richard Gilbert, or in our own private reading. But there needs to be more in our churches to help us examine our beliefs, articulate them, and live them. In our closing song we sing, "Go now and live your religion" at UUCEL, but what is our religion exactly?

A few months ago, we had the opportunity to present on atheism and agnosticism at the Jackson Interfaith Forum. I, along with two of our members, talked with people from a wide variety of faith backgrounds about atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. Several more members attended and chimed in, as well. It was a great example of having to articulate our theology, but also of opening ourselves up to challenge, to the questions and doubts of others. That kind of exercise, if our faith is a solid one, will only grow faith, not tear it down. I'm hoping this coming year, as I think about fall from the solitude of my "study leave," will include many more opportunities for this kind of dialogue and examination of theology for our members and for myself. It's now 12 years since I started seminary, and one thing I do know: the exploration is never over.

Dancing Around the World

2008-07-16T20:41:33Z

One of my colleagues posted the link to this video:

This guy says on his webpage that he's not religious, but clearly watching his video is, for some, a spiritual experience. And, for others, it's funny, too!

"Let it be a dance we do..."

Atheism and Labyrinths

2008-06-24T19:44:32Z

This past Sunday we had a labyrinth walk following the church service at church. Many people participated, and I found that the labyrinth appealed to young and old, Christian, Pagan, and Humanist. It's amazing how this simple tool can be used and appreciated by such diverse groups of people. There are several people who expressed an interest in having a labyrinth permanently on our grounds, and we have the space for it, if we could figure out how to do it so that it would be able to be easily maintained, mowed over, and parked over, and inexpensive. Those are hard hurdles, but not insurmountable.

Meanwhile, on the same day, a couple of our members and I presented on atheism and agnosticism at the Jackson Interfaith Discussion Group. We spent a lot of time in question and answer. The questions included the usual ones that I've gotten at things like this, such as: What keeps you from doing evil, without a belief in God? and Without God, how do you explain the Big Bang starting? But the questions also took us a lot deeper, into areas I find more fascinating: Is belief or disbelief something you can choose? How does one come by faith or lack of it? How do atheists define God? Do atheists beleive in a soul? In universal truth?

Of course, in true Unitarian Universalist style, the answer to "Do _______s believe ________?" is always, "Well, some do and some don't." But that's part of the point I was trying to make, that atheism is not monolithic. There are all sorts of different types of atheists and agnostics. And they include people who would not say that they are religious, and people who are part of a religion. And, as we see all the time in our churches, people who would say both of those things!

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman

Names Project

2008-06-03T16:16:47Z

I went to an interesting meeting today with a group of people who are interested in getting blocks of the HIV/AIDS memorial quilt brought to Jackson. It's been a few years since it has been here, so it's great to have people interested in bringing it again. There are lots of ways for community groups to partner with the project, so I'm sure that there's a way for our church to get involved. We're looking at World AIDS Week as a time for the project, so there's lots of time to tie-in church activities, as well. Anyone who has ideas or would like to participate, let me know!

Memorial Gardens

2008-05-23T18:38:12Z

The lastest post on the blog "Best of UU" has a wonderful display of pictures of different UU churches' memorial gardens. It can be seen at http://jesspages.net/bestofuu/05/the-lives-they-lived-hold-us-steady. Following some of the links can take you to more pictures of memorial gardents. The development of our memorial garden is on hold at the moment, but there may be inspiration found in some of these pictures for those who are interested in the subject.

Jeremiah Wright

2008-05-08T20:48:59Z

Our Adult Religious Education class on "Building the World We Dream About" and the Jackson Justice Watch have both been talking about Jeremiah Wright's sermons. Here are a few of the ones that have contained the controversial clips, for people to watch longer segments or the full sermons of.

Here's the one where he says, "God damn America":

Here's the one where he says, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Here's Jeremiah Wright talking with Bill Moyers:

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

The first part of the Press Club Q&A. The speech is worth watching in its entirety, but I'm not putting up all the links.

A piece of the speech at the Detroit NAACP. Also worth watching in its entirety.

UU Attack Ad Parody

2008-04-12T02:16:31Z

Amusing attack ad parody from Dan Harper - http://www.danielharper.org/blog/?p=1252

New Humanism?

2008-03-31T19:25:28Z

A member sent me this link to a radio piece on "Exploring the New Humanism" http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/new_humanism/index.shtml - worth checking out!

New UUCEL Webpage!

2008-03-24T20:19:29Z

The new UUCEL Webpage is now up. It's still at the same site -- www.libertyuu.org -- but it has a brand new look. Check it out!

Public Ministry & the Social Gospel

2008-03-24T16:49:58Z

I've been captivated by the media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barak Obama's (in)famous pastor. I've felt that the relationship between minister & congregant has had a very odd portrayal in the media, one that seems to assume that people sitting in the pews absorb everything a pastor says, uncritically, and, at the same time, if one does disagree, the only thing to do is to leave.

I recommend the latest edition of "Sightings" from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago - http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2008/0324.shtml - as an excellent essay on this subject.

And then add to that a poor understanding of the social gospel, liberation theology, and the traditions and styles of the African-American church, and you get the average piece of news coverage on this subject. I don't excuse everything the Rev. Wright said, but I do think that few pundits and news reporters have bothered to look at the larger context for any of the statements, either the words around the clips that have been repeatedly played, or the larger social context in which they are said.

Foster Care Graduates

2008-02-25T16:07:08Z

Our church recently voted to support a local program that helps young adults who are graduating out of the foster care system. Here's a great article from the Detroit Free Press which shows why such programs are so important: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/NEWS05/802210374/1001/NEWS.

Fellowships

2008-02-24T23:52:33Z

The article on "The Fellowship Movement" in the current issue of the UU World by Holley Ulbrich says, "I found that about 40 percent of the hundreds of little lay-led congregations planted from Cape Cod to Alaska and from Minnesota to the Virgin Islands survive in some form. Thirty percent of the UUA’s current congregations—323—started as fellowships during those two decades." According to the count given in the article, six Michigan congregations were fellowships founded in the fellowship movement period (1948-1967).

It's worth noting that there are many other Fellowships that may continue to have lasting impacts in other ways. The Jackson Unitarian Fellowship (later the Jackson UU Fellowship) was founded in 1958 and existed until 1991. The Fellowship was influenced by the Universalist church from the very beginning, as a member of the church encouraged the Fellowship to join the Unitarians' association, the AUA. During its existence, the Fellowship met at our Universalist church for some periods, and also gave financial support to some of our ministers. Some of the ministers had agreements to preach at the Fellowship on a regular or as-needed basis. The Fellowship, while it was still a separate religious body, jointly ordained one minister with the Universalist church and had a member on the search committee for another.

When the Jackson UU Fellowship closed its doors in 1991, it didn't formally merge into the East Liberty congregation, but it did give us the remainder of its funds and encourage its members to come to UUCEL. Several of its members continue as members of our church today.

The Jackson UU Fellowship wouldn't be one of those fellowships Ulbrich counted when he says 40 percent "survive in some form," as its survival would be hard to trace in UUA records. But it did "survive in some form" and continues to have a postive impact on our church today.

Winter Institute

2008-02-12T18:17:54Z

I just got back from the Meadville Lombard Winter Institute "Can We Build the Beloved Community through Political Action" with Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Rob Keithan. It included the practical, the physical, and the theoretical.

Practically, we learned the dos and don'ts of political action in congregations and as ministers (and religious educators) associated with congregations. We can hold forums and debates, we can address issues, we can lobby (up to a point). We cannot endorse a candidate. Interesting to me, we cannot increase the level of negative criticism of a candidate or encumbent as an election approaches. The advice on that one is to keep your negative critique going strong all the time!

Physically, we did trust walks and trust falls, learning the difficulties of building trust in beloved community. On the trust walk, I learned that it is important for the blindfolded person to speak up if they're not comfortable with the directions. This was important when I was blindfolded, and also when I was the one giving directions. When you're not feeling trust, speak out.

Theoretically, we studied how our schema and heuristics, while learned, make it difficult for us to see anyone other than a white male as "presidential." The difficulties the democratic candidates have in overcoming these difficulties is substantial. We talked more about race than about gender, tracing things back to emotional responses of caucasian U.S. Americans and African-American U.S. Americans following Hurricane Katrina, showing African-Americans more likely to have negative emotions following Katrina, and that this correlates with an experience of already viewing the country as owing reparations to African-Americans, a view that caucasians are substantially less likely to hold. Another study on Katrina showed that when caucaians are shown pictures of people fleeing Katrina who are white and labeled "Americans" they are more likely to believe that the government should do whatever possible to help, whereas if they are shown pictures of African-Americans or people labeled "refugees" or both, they are less likely to believe that the government should do whatever possible. (http://melissaharrislacewell.com/docs/Katrina_Initial_Report.doc)

Dr. Harris-Lacewell asked us the provocative questions: 1. Why doesn't anyone ask whether Mitt Romney is "black enough"? and 2. Why aren't people asking white males whether they're going to vote based on race (Clinton) or gender (Obama) the way they're asking black women?

April Forum

2008-02-11T19:06:29Z

A member of the congregation sent me this...

...which would be a perfect lead-in to "Buy Nothing Day," but instead is my lead-in to saying that our April "commUnity forUm" will be looking at issues of consumption and the media as we celebrate TV-turn-off week.

Prince Among Slaves

2008-01-31T21:50:31Z

I haven't seen it yet, but this looks very interesting. See www.princeamongslaves.tv for more information. I found out about this because I was mailed information on it from the Muslim Association of Jackson County.

Presidential Politics

2008-01-31T20:43:49Z

Tired of paying attention to the U.S. presidential race? Why not turn to the UUA presidential race, instead? There are now two candidates running for UUA president: Peter Morales - http://moralesforuuapresident.org/, and Laurel Hallman - http://www.laurelhallman.com/. It should be an interesting race.

An Open and Affirming Congregation

2008-01-30T20:53:50Z

In Avon Connecticut an annonymous letter was sent to all members of the West Avon Congregational Church stating that the congregation would receive $50,000 if the church would not go through the "Open and Affirming" process, which is the UCC equivalent of our UUA "Welcoming Congregation" process, as I understand it. The Welcoming Congregation process is a process of exploring l/g/b/t issues as a congregation which ultimately results in a church voting whether or not to becoming a Welcoming Congregation, as the church I serve has done. The pastor's letter of the West Avon Congregational Church is an excellent response to situation and can be read at http://westavonchurch.org/pastor/Pastor's%20Page.htm. The letter is excellent food for thought on many issues, both about being welcoming (or open and affirming) to l/g/b/t people, and about the nature of a church, who makes the decisions, the role of money, and more. Bravo to this church and its pastor for a reasoned, thoughtful response to the unfortunate position their church was placed in. It should be a lesson to us all.

Update: The letter has been changed on the "Pastor's Page," so the text is below.

FROM THE SENIOR PASTOR

There is an ancient curse that goes like this, "May you live in interesting times." Well, late December sure felt like an interesting time. Right in the middle of back-to-back snow storms and Christmas season services, each member in Connecticut received an anonymous letter offering $50,000 if the church would cease any discussion related to Open and Affirming or if the church would formally adopt a set of statements which are based on, but go a bit beyond, the votes taken the last time this topic was discussed at West Avon. The church leadership and staff were immediately inundated with calls, letters and emails. To my knowledge not a single message was received that said the church should consider accepting the proposal. A few folks have made clever suggestions of how the money could be requested based on technicalities in the language of the proposal. Outside of these strategizers and humorists, the feedback we have received has been that the anonymous nature of the offer is troublesome. The other main reaction has been one of outrage at what many have described as a "bribe."

I need to repeat a few points I made during worship on December 23rd. The first is that Church Council was aware of this offer and had responded in November that the Council was not interested in the conditions offered. Second, although the mailing looked very similar to others produced by the church, this mailing was not sent by the church but rather by its author. The letter is in no way authorized by the church and does not come with the endorsement of the staff or of Church Council. Third, the letter's anonymous nature has led to a great deal of speculation about who the author is. This is perfectly natural but it has unfortunately led to suspicions about families in the church who have been just as disturbed by the letter as the rest of the church has been. It would have been nice for the author to take responsibility for their actions, but in the absence of that, please try not to compound the damage the letter has done by speculating about the identity of the author.

While many have been disturbed by the anonymous and conditional nature of the possible gift, my own concerns have centered on some other aspects of the communication. One is the idea that the church should not even discuss becoming more welcoming and affirming of people of different sexual orientations. I have written before about the church being a place where people can discuss issues of great importance to their communities and their own lives. I have been in churches where people are scared to talk about issues where there might be disagreement; to me, those are faith communities that are just going through the motions. When you read the book of Acts, you find that, from its very beginning, the church has been a tempestuous thing, involved in discussions about issues large and small. Part of discerning what the church is and where it is going is having the members share their insights with one another. It is how we educate and challenge one another. It is also where we discover how God is still speaking to each person. The idea of being paid to not talk about something is disturbing. It flies in the face of the whole idea of being a Congregational church where the true power and responsibility rests in the hands of the congregation.

Another aspect that troubled me was the very secular political model of influencing policy by giving large sums of money. As I am able to understand it, if the church works on Christian principles, then views of the newest member are just as important as those of the person who has been here for decades. By the same token, those who have more resources should not have more of a say over what happens in a church than those who have less. The world teaches us the opposite, but the church doesn't have to follow that model and abandon the idea that the last shall be first. We should no more abandon dialogue about Open and Affirming because someone has offered a large sum of money than we should immediately accept Open and Affirming if someone countered and offered more. The church should not be for sale.

The interesting thing is, the process so far has been going well; the feedback I have received has been that our process has been open and balanced despite people's fears going into the discussion. We have had a night that explored what Open and Affirming means where we discussed the idea that being open signifies a church that is open to all kinds of people, without limiting their involvement to certain tiers. We also discussed the nature of being affirming which means publicly sharing that our church welcomes many different kinds of people, including those with differing sexual orientations, and views them as equal children of God. Being affirming means we welcome people as they are and, in the case of someone who is homosexual, it means we do not view their living out their sexual orientation in committed, loving and responsible ways as being any more sinful than someone who is heterosexual.

We had Prof. Janell Carroll, a specialist in sexuality from the University of Hartford, come and speak to us about what is known about our sexuality. In a very frank discussion she talked about the many theories and studies that have been conducted to explore what makes someone more able to form strong and meaningful intimate relationships with people of the same gender. This included information about how core a person's sexuality is to their identity; the extra difficulties being homosexual can bring into a person's life; the serious issue of teen suicide that occurs for young people who are struggling with their sexual identity in isolation, surrounded by messages of judgment; and the fact that even after quite a lot of theories and research (some of them rather humorous) there is still not true consensus about how much of our sexual orientation is shaped by nature and how much by nurture.

Most recently we explored a list of scripture passages supplied by someone who is opposed to the church becoming Open and Affirming. Our discussion showed that there are a number of passages in scripture that form the basis for the Church's traditional stance that homosexual behavior is a sin. We also saw that for each passage that seems to either condemn homosexuality or promote heterosexual behavior as the natural way for people to be intimate with one another, there are differing understandings that lead some Christians today to feel that homosexuality is not a sin. Some of the points we discussed were:

• The idea that the biblical passages do not describe consensual loving relationship but rather focus on temple prostitution involved in the worship of other gods as well as homosexual behavior practiced by heterosexual people. The idea of sexual orientation did not even exist until modern history, meaning that people in biblical times assumed everyone was heterosexual.

• Protestant churches have trouble saying that things should be judged simply by what is “natural” and “not natural” as they tend not to condemn interfering with nature by using birth control or aiding infertile couples through medical procedures for example.

• All Christian churches have to be careful about appealing to the biblical model of marriage as the exact example for our lives as the Bible endorses marriage between a man and multiple wives, something for which few churches today are ready to publicly advocate.

• Several passages run into trouble because of uncertainty in the translation of ancient words; this is reflected when multiple translations of biblical texts are consulted showing multiple ideas about what the author might have meant.

• Some passages that describe rape and pedophilia are taken as condemnations of homosexuality, when in fact the offense is there no matter what genders are involved.

• The passages that relate to homosexuality are taken selectively from scripture and stamped with a message of absolute authority, even when passages around them are quietly swept under the rug. So, while homosexuality might be lifted out as an "abomination," nearby verses calling for the death penalty for homosexual behavior are ignored as are verse upon verse meting out similar penalties for offenses like mixing fabrics in clothes or raising different crops too near each other. Homosexuality is characterized as being against nature, but passages instructing women not to be heard in worship, not to teach others, or not to wear clothes that are like men's clothes are seen as passé.

• For folks who challenge the traditional view of homosexuality in the church, the cardinal challenge offered to the church is to examine why passages condemning homosexuality, taken from a different time of scientific and social understanding, are still endorsed while others relating to topics such as slavery, women and violence are challenged.

Jesus offers the challenge, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). Elsewhere, Paul says, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). These are the challenges that supporters of Open and Affirming offer to the church's traditional understandings of homosexual activity.

We still have more sessions that we had planned for the future. We were going to gather to discuss issues surrounding families, blessing ceremonies and marriage. We also have guests scheduled to come and talk about their family's personal journey with the church. Those plans have been pushed back temporarily so we can gather to discuss where we are so far and also allow people to share their reactions to the letter they received. This gathering will happen on Sunday, January 13th in the parish hall at 11am. We invite everyone, including teens, to join us. Child care will be provided and I truly hope you can be there.

This has been a tumultuous time and I wish we hadn't received the letter only a few days before Christmas. It is hard to imagine worse timing. However, there have been some good things that have come out of this experience as well. One of them has been unity of the opposition to the proposal. I am not interested in serving a church that serves the dollar rather than its own principles. I am glad to know that I am far from being alone in feeling that way. Another positive has been hearing from so many of you in calls, emails, conversations and on the dialogue board in the hallway. It has been great to learn more about where the congregation is on the issues we are discussing. Finally, and perhaps best of all, it has been fabulous to see the energy and passion that has been shared by all of you. I hope this means we can look forward to seeing and hearing even more of your thoughts as we continue our dialogue on this and other issues here at our church.

Peace,
Pastor Brian of the West Avon Congregational Church, Avon, CT

General Assembly Update

2008-01-25T20:28:54Z

Update: The Unitarian Universalist Ministers' Association has moved the location of their annual meeting preceeding General Assembly to a location outside the convention center, following the controversy. To read the letter regarding this, see http://www.uuma.org/md08letter.htm.

The Golden Compass: Anti-Religious Propaganda?

2008-01-23T04:25:05Z

Sermon on The Golden Compass, January 13, 2008. Please forgive that my notations are in several different styles.

The Golden Compass: Anti-Religious Propaganda?

A few years ago, I was developing a hypothetical course on science fiction and theology, and asked some of my colleagues in ministry what books they would put on the reading list of such a class. One of them recommended Philip Pullman’s book The Golden Compass, and said, “It’s like the C.S. Lewis Narnia books for atheists.” That was enough for me. So I was aware that the books had what could be considered anti-religious themes. And then this year, a movie came out of the first book in the series. And controversy erupted. I got an e-mail from one friend, which warned parents of the danger of this movie and book that could spread the doctrine of atheism. It said, “The 2007 film "The Golden Compass" is based on a series of books with anti-religious themes. It will be released December 7th during the Christmas season and it is anti-Christianity. The author of this trilogy is an atheist and is trying to influence children against God in a sly way. It stars Nicole Kidman, so it will get a lot of publicity. Spread the word to your Christian friends.” My friend sent it to me thinking I would rebut it. What I said, however, is that, well, to some extent it is true. The author is an atheist or agnostic (he’s described himself both ways). It does have anti-religious themes. In fact, Snopes.com, a website dedicated to exploring and refuting urban legends, lists this e-mail with the status “true.”

And sure enough, some religious groups have taken a stand against this book, most notably the Catholic League. After all, Pullman’s works do have an atheistic worldview. Of course, as an agnostic myself, I don’t find that problematic. And the books do have an other-worldly version of the Catholic Church as the main bad guy, so it’s understandable why some Catholics are upset, although it’s hardly unique. One quote in the book has a character saying, “The Church in recent times, Lyra, it’s been getting more commanding. There’s councils for this and councils for that; there’s talk of reviving the Office of the Inquisition, God forbid.” But that’s not what the core message of the books is really about. As a friend of mine said, “I wouldn't say it's indoctrinating atheism. It's clear that powers exist. It's more like it's telling kids to think critically instead of giving blind devotion.” The message of the books is really about something far more dangerous—it’s a message of responsibility for this world, of the difficulty of growing up, of the importance of resisting what he calls “any arbitrary establishment that curtails the freedom of the individual, whether it be religious, political, totalitarian, fundamentalist, communist, what have you.”[1] Pullman says, “my main quarrel has always been with the literalist, fundamentalist nature of absolute power, whether it’s manifested in the religious police state of Saudi Arabia or the atheist police state of Soviet Russia.”[2] As a this-worldly anti-fundamentalist faith, there’s much there that we can agree with.

This is really about more than Pullman’s humanist theology, however. The Catholic League spends almost as much time talking about what Pullman thinks about C.S. Lewis’ Narnia as it does talking about the religious themes in the books, when it examines Pullman’s worldview. Why? What is at stake here?

The answer is, it’s about the question of what we show our children. Will exposure to religious beliefs, schools of thought we don’t agree with, corrupt them or expand their minds? Are children to basically be protected from dangerous thought, or exposed to wide ranges of opinion? Pullman would put it as, are we trying to keep children from growing up?

I had read the Chronicles of Narnia over and over again as a child, and read them a couple of times as an adult, as well. These books are children’s fantasy books by Christian theologian C.S. Lewis. The most famous, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, is a Christian allegory. The character of Aslan, who is essentially the God of Narnia, is bound to a stone table by the evil witch, and killed. And then he comes back from the dead. It’s pretty straight-forward that that’s a Christian allegory—God comes back from the dead. But as a child, I realized that Aslan was more than the other magical creatures—the real power of the land, but I didn’t get the theology behind the story. It’s kind of embarrassing that I didn’t realize it, but I didn’t. It wasn’t until much later, as a young adult, that someone said to me that they were an allegory of the Christ story, and a lightbulb went off in my head. I’ve talked to lots of other adults didn’t realize it, either, as children. And reading it as a child didn’t make a Christian out of any of them, if they weren’t already. So, first of all, children can be exposed to religious stories without understanding them, or it subtly changing their religious beliefs.

On the other hand, many of us can tell a story of how a book influenced our lives and made us change an opinion. And history is full of these sorts of examples. Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped change the nation’s view about slavery. Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed influenced the auto industry. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair changed how we saw the food industry. I know my father was deeply influenced by two books, a short book on Christianity, and Man’s Search for Meaning (or From Death Camp to Existentialism) by Viktor Frankl. I know a college roommate whose religion was deeply brought into question by the combination of The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley and Margot Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon. In seminary we took a course on books that should be included in the liberal canon, each of us proposing our own books that had changed our lives and deeply influenced our religious path. Each semester for several years, the books would be added to the list by the professor. But do you know what I discovered about that list? It contained a lot of books. And not one of them was a children’s book. Not The Lorax, which could teach environmentalism, not The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, for its Christianity, not The Witch of Blackbird Pond for its themes of religious tolerance. Not one of these aspiring ministers had listed a children’s book as the book which most deeply influenced their religious views.

This is not to say children’s literature can’t be tremendously profound. It’s not to say that it can’t influence us deeply. Only that of all the books people have told me changed their lives, not once has one been mentioned.

But those who fear books like The Golden Compass would have us believe children will be very subtly, but surely, brainwashed by the powerful effects of these fictions. My experience is that by the time a child reads a book like The Golden Compass, which is basically readable at around age nine, they are able to tell truth from fiction. They rarely would say that because the concept of God doesn’t work in an alternative fictional universe, that it doesn’t work here, any more than I was convinced that there was a God from seeing the workings of Aslan in Narnia, which is to say, not at all.

Any theology that is so easily threatened, so easily torn down by fiction, or even by logical argument, is not a theology that is set on a firm foundation. If your religious beliefs can be so easily overturn, they were not strong convictions to begin with. Parents wanting their children to have firm religious beliefs need to not guard them from dangerous alternative beliefs, but rather help their child understand the roots of their faith, why they, as parents, believe what they do. If they’re exposed to a wide variety of faiths, their own will be that much more solid, because they are not torn apart by the existence of contrary beliefs. Children can have a strong moral understanding, a strong theological understanding, if we provide them with it. It’s what we do in our religious education—we don’t tell a child what to believe, we trust in their goodness and in their own spirits for that. What we do is help give that moral foundation, and explore the theological beliefs, and trust that the child can learn to discern truth, if you give the child the right tools of logic, of caring, of listing to one’s own heart and soul.

Sophia Lyon Fahs said this best, when she said, “Some beliefs are like blinders, shutting off the power to choose one's own direction. Other beliefs are like gateways opening wide vistas for exploration. Some beliefs weaken a person's selfhood. They blight the growth of resourcefulness. Other beliefs nurture self-confidence and enrich the feeling of personal worth. Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a changing world. Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with the upward thrust of life.”

We take it as our responsibility to nurture a faith that is strong and resilient. I have watched so many friends, in college, whose faith came tumbling down when they encountered aspects of the world that were different than their narrow faith had prepared them for. If we restrict the range of ideas that children are exposed to, we create a faith that can come tumbling down like a house of cards.

Philip Pullman has thought a lot about children, and their natures. In one article, he states, “Children need to go to the theatre as much as they need to run about in the fresh air. They need to hear real music played by real musicians on real instruments as much as they need food and drink. They need to read and listen to proper stories as much as they need to be loved and cared for.”[3] Pullman also doesn’t believe in keeping children in a bubble. He rails against the C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia in several places, partly because of their Peter Pan-like theme about not growing up. In the Narnia books, when the children embrace adolescence, they can no longer return to Narnia. One of the original four children to go to Narnia grows up too much and can’t return in later books. In The Final Battle, the children who do return to Narnia stay there forever in a child state, having died in the real world. Pullman hates this—profoundly. He states, according to the Catholic League, “I hate them with a deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away.”[4] He also says, “The idea of keeping childhood alive forever and ever and regretting the passage into adulthood—whether it’s a gentle, rose-tinged regret or a passionate, full-blooded hatred, as it is in Lewis—is simply wrong.”[5] (He’s not a man to mince words, most of the time.) In an article about The Golden Compass, Nancy Holder compares the controversy to a discussion she had with a friend who was a new parent. Her friend, who had done a lot of drugs in his youth, said that his child was never going to know he did drugs. He said, “Listen, don’t even open up that door. Lie to your kid if you have to, but keep her safe.” [p. 167] Pullman is all about the opposite of this view—children will face the world eventually, whether we like it or not. His main character, Lyra, does what she wants, pretty much running wild without the presence of her absentee parents, and with little guidance from the scholars in whose care she has been left.

I think this is part of what angers the Catholic League and their compatriots, as much as the theology and anti-Catholicism of the novels. There are a lot of people who want to have pretty tight control over what children can be exposed to. But beyond the question of children and how they grow up, there is still the theology. The people that would bar works such as these from school libraries, or would caution parents against taking their children to the movie are the same ones who would try to keep children from being taught evolution, and the same ones that would try to keep them from being taught about birth control. There’s a real fear of the free exchange of ideas, and of children growing up.

Ultimately, our faith is about free inquiry. We live that in our worship, in our theology, that we are not bound by narrow creed, nor are we to hear my words up here as divinely inspired or necessarily, ultimately true. We have freedom of the pew—the freedom to disagree with whatever the religious authority states. And we have religious freedom to explore our beliefs. The rest of that Sophia Lyon Fahs piece said, “Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged. Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper sympathies. Some beliefs are like shadows, clouding children's days with fears of unknown calamities. Other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing children with the warmth of happiness. Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved from the unsaved, friends from enemies. Other beliefs are bonds in a world community, where sincere differences beautify the pattern.”

Sincere differences beautify the pattern. Our world really is made more beautiful by the beautiful worlds dreamed up in fiction. Our world is made more beautiful by our ability to imagine a place we’ve never seen and never will. Our world is made better through the arts, and the ways they touch our soul. Our world is made better by encountering different theologies and world views from our own. Our principles say we are grateful for religious pluralism, that our religious strength draws from many sources, and that we embrace both love and reason. May it ever be so.

[1] “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 2007, New York, p. 2. http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200710053349.pdf

[2] “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 2007, New York, p. 2.

[3] “Theatre - the true key stage,” Tuesday March 30, 2004, The Guardian, http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1180330,00.html

[4] “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 2007, New York, p. 5.

Healthcare

2008-01-08T19:41:36Z

On January 20th, I will be giving a sermon on healthcare. Today there was a press conference for the Michigan healthcare ballot initiative, which would require the Michigan legislature to work to solve the healthcare crisis in our state. I was one of three speakers at the press conference, and below you will find my words on the subject.

Rev. Dr. Cynthia L. Landrum
Universalist Unitarian Church of East Liberty
January 8, 2008

        I have a pretty mild personal story, of being a full-time worker, yet lacking health insurance, because I was in the gap between when my insurance from my parents ended and my new insurance from the job would start. I suffered a sudden accident that left me unable to work for several months. I got medical care. I lost my job, moved in with my parents because I couldn’t afford rent, and spent years digging myself out of the mountain of debt. It affected my life negatively -- tremendously. I also know what it’s like to have trouble getting healthcare. I struggled to find healthcare coverage because I made the unfortunate decision to switch jobs during a pregnancy, and that pregnancy was defined as a pre-existing condition by most carriers. I know people who have been refused healthcare insurance because of weight, or high blood pressure, or anything that might mean they would actually use their insurance. But these are mild stories in comparison with the true horror stories that are out there.
        I think we, as a country, don’t really believe it. We don’t believe that there are people who work hard, have insurance, and still have to file bankruptcy when they become ill due to the medical debt they accrue. We don’t believe that there are people who are turned away from life-saving procedures because they cannot pay, and die as a result. I say we don’t believe it, because if we did believe it, it would become the most important issue for people of faith, or for anyone life-affirming in their heart of hearts.
        One great religious teacher, Jesus Christ, said “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a Stranger and you Welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you did it to me.” He taught us that the poor, the ill, those who society has cast aside, are close to God’s heart. This incredible religious teacher taught a message of caring for the sick, for looking out for the least among us. He taught it as our religious duty—as individuals, and as a society. Another great religious figure, Siddhartha Gautama, began his religious journey, leaving the palace of luxury, because he came face-to-face with suffering of death and illness. We have Buddhism because one man saw suffering and looked for a way to end suffering. Whether you are a believer of these faiths, or any other, the message from all the world’s greatest teachers, those who we universally have to acknowledge had enduring truths that have inspired generations, all these leaders talked about our responsibility to the sick, to the elderly, to the infirm.
        If we believe that there are people who are suffering, and who need help, then we must help. But the next great myth we tell ourselves is that there is nothing we can do about it. Or we are doing all we can. In Jackson, we see ourselves in a community with high unemployment, in a state with a lot of economic troubles. So we think there’s not much we can do. And we see ourselves as a friendly city, a family-friendly city, a good place to raise a family, a good place where people know each other and care about each other. And we do bake sales and donation buckets and community fundraisers for people when we can to help with their medical bills. So we tell ourselves we’ve done what we can.
        That’s the great myth. Because there is something more we can do about it. There is a way we can help people from having to sell their homes to pay their medical bills. There is a way we can keep people from dying because they can’t afford treatment.
We can raise all the objections we want. There are endless ones, from all directions. But I’m foolish enough to believe that no matter how many objections can be raised, they’re irrelevant. If you’re a religious person, you must, must, believe that it is our duty to care for people. We must, must, abandon the life-killing mythology of self-reliance that is really about self-ishness. We must, must, provide medical care to all our citizens.
         But not everyone is a religious person. And we do have separation of church and state. But what we do not have is a separation between human and state. And this is more than just a religious mandate. This is a human right, a universal human right. And it is a human responsibility. It is at the essence of what it means not just to be a good human being, but a human being at all. We are human only insofar as we can feel empathy for our fellow human beings. An essential part of our humanity is our relationship to the human community. And we are letting our human community, our very humanity, be eaten away at, like a cancer. We allow ourselves to be callous, uncaring, closed off to those sob stories, at our peril.
        I believe we can, we must, end the denial, break down the myths, and acknowledge that we have made a terrible mistake, and are living in the midst of a terrible failure of our system. We all know someone, or at least a story of someone, who has been abandoned by this system, who has been left bankrupt, or left to suffer, or even to die, because they lacked insurance, or because their insurance denied their claim, or because they were eaten up by their co-payments and deductibles and coverage limits. I know how close I came to that edge, over a short-term injury. I know how close to that edge I see people come all the time. And I know some have fallen over. It’s time to change that. And we, as voters in Michigan, have an opportunity to do so now.

Copyright Cynthia Landrum, 2008. All rights reserved.

Technology

2007-12-23T22:22:36Z

I'm thinking about a future sermon on technology. This video is very thought-provoking on the subject. Comment and let me know what you think!

General Assembly Update

2007-12-21T18:27:27Z

On December 14, I e-mailed a letter to our UUA president, Bill Sinkford. In the letter, I wrote:

Dear President Sinkford,
I have been hearing a lot of rumors and questions about the General Assembly site for this year, and was wondering if you or the GA planning committee could put them to rest. Some of them include:

-- Will the site require a U.S. government-issued ID, or will a government-issued ID from any country do?
-- Are there free speech limitations that will be imposed on any areas of the General Assembly? Is free speech limited to a particular area?
-- Who are groups of people who might be restricted from entering the conference center? Does that include include anyone with a felony record?
-- Will discussion that is viewed as "anti-American" be curtailed in any way?
-- Can people be stopped from entering because they appear to be "anti-American" in any way?
-- Is there any portion of General Assembly, particularly the Service of the Living Tradition, that will not be subjected to the security screening?
-- Can some portions of the GA be moved off-site to insure that all our UUs can enter? Again, particularly worship services, and particularly the Service of the Living Tradition.
-- Will there be an off-site area for people to report any problems with the security screening to the General Assembly as it is happening? What recourses will anyone who is stopped have?
-- Was the assurance that the conference site would not be in the security zone by our GA date put in writing in any way that gives us legal recourse?
-- Given this situation, is there any plan to change the structure of GA in any way to make accommodations for the fact that some delegates may not be able to enter? (Electronic voting, an off-site location for voting and viewing the plenary sessions with a live broadcast, etc.)

I know you're probably dealing with a lot of questions on this issue. These are questions that I hear that are being raised by concerned ministers and congregation members. I am not looking for a personal response, but if the UUA administration could in any way address these concerns that people have in an open letter, it would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Landrum
Minister, UU Church of East Liberty, Clarklake, MI

I'm pleased to be able to say that our UUA has now posted a response to these questions, and some others, which can be viewed at http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/updatesannouncements/61425.shtml, and also an open letter about the General Assembly situation at http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/updatesannouncements/61436.shtml. I encourage UUs to read these thoughtful responses from our association. Our association is between a rock and a hard place on the issue of the security perimeter that the General Assembly will fall under, and working hard to find a win-win solution.

2007 Holiday Message from UUA President

2007-12-19T18:39:20Z

President Sinkford's Holiday Message is available in video form here: