Do you know the truth?

"Truth" is something we hear quite about often in religion – including in an ultra-liberal one such as Unitarianism.

As part of its seven principles, the American Unitarian Universalist association’s congregations pledge to affirm and promote “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning”

The truth is that we mention truth a lot. I went looking through our two current British Unitarian hymnbooks. 88 of our hymns mention truth!

So, throwing caution to the wind and showing a complete absence of good sense, I thought today would be a good day to take on “The Truth.”

What is it?

I have a feeling that truth can be rather overrated.  Some truths are not so helpful at all… The answer to “do I look fat in this outfit” is always “no”! I don’t care what else is going on – the answer is “no.”

But of course, the kind of truth we are talking about today is not simply the one that is the opposite of the falsehood. This truth speaks to the true, more essential nature of things – the deeper reality behind what is apparent.

Our culture is steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and whether we recognize it or not and whatever we may believe, much of what just seems like part of the secular culture originates in that tradition.

In the Gospel according to John we find this passage:

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

That phrase – “the truth will make you free” is shot throughout our culture. And that Christian truth – for Christians, the truth, is the truth of Jesus’ identity with God the father and his role in bringing salvation to believers. So, believing the Christian truth brings freedom from sin and freedom from death.

I rather like Gloria Steinem’s turn on this oft-quoted Christian phrase. Her version: “The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.” Isn’t that the truth?

The Christian Truth is the Christian path to salvation, accomplished by belief. If you believe this truth – the one and only truth, then you will be saved.

I think you will immediately recognize that this approach is not exactly a great fit with a faith like Unitarianism. If we accept a diversity of beliefs, we can’t very well do that with the attitude “well, we accept your belief even though you are just dead wrong and headed for hell!”

As Kahlil Gibran writes in The Prophet: “Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'”

A few billion people in the world follow religions that offer up different essential, cosmic truths. At Buddhism’s core are the “Four Noble Truths”, which acknowledge life’s suffering, explain its cause, and offer a way in which to eliminate that misery.

In Judaism and Islam, truth centres on the word of God as revealed in the bible or the Quran, but rather more like Buddhism than Christianity, the path has more to do with how to live than specifically what to believe.

A little quiz for you:

True or false: Today is Sunday
True or false: You are in the UK
True or false: It is the afternoon
True or false: You are sitting comfortably
True or false: The purpose of life is to love
True or false: There is a single absolute truth to be found

I wonder how that last question would have been answered here 50 or 100 years ago. I suspect that more people would have said ‘true.’

We have changed tremendously as a society. We have moved from the modernistic impression that there is a truth to be found and – if only we can find it – life will make sense. With that truth in our hearts, we will be united, heaven with come to earth and all will be well.

The post-modern view says… well, I suppose it says ‘it depends.’ Post-modernism acknowledges the existence of many truths. Truth is no longer a simple matter of matching understanding to a single kind of reality and having it right or wrong… Truth is complicated.

As Unitarians – as people committed to worrying less about what we believe than how we live our lives – we have a real challenge before us when confronting the issue of truth.

We must accept that there are different truths, even though those truths are in conflict with one another. If you have found your truth or your truths, what does it mean if mine are different? Does that mean that at least one of us is wrong? How do we manage that?

Perhaps some light is shed on the question by Andre Gide’s comment: “Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.”

Philosophers have wrestled with the question of truth for millennia now. And ultimately – each of us needs to do a bit of wrestling on our own as well.

For some, truth is simply an accurate correspondence between what we understand and what is actual. There is a real truth and other notions are simply false. It is sunny or it is not. There is only one answer.

Others see truth not as an absolute, but as a property determined by some larger system. The truth may simply be determined by what most of us believe. Is this England – well, yes. It’s England because that’s what we’ve all agreed to call it. If we changed the name tomorrow, the answer would instantly be different.

And the final approach is the philosophical school called Pragmatism. This is perhaps the most radical view of truth – maybe it’s no coincidence then that this is the one I find myself most attracted to. Pragmatism’s view of truth is revealed in these words written just over 100 years ago by William James:

“Pragmatism asks its usual question. ‘Grant an idea or belief to be true,’ it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false?’”

Pragmatism judges the truth of a belief or idea by its effect.

The notion that there is no absolute truth does not mean that we should not search. I tend to stand with Clarence Darrow – the famous American civil rights lawyer who said:

“Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coattails.”

I don’t necessarily recommend pragmatism as a guide to truth suitable for a University exam, but in our religious and spiritual lives, I submit that it is the only guide we need.

Any belief that makes us more loving, more kind, more compassionate, more ready to go out and help others and help to make a better world – that belief is true. Beliefs that turn us inward, close us to love, close our hearts – those beliefs are false.

Ours must be a religion that accepts and honours all truth – even those truths that are in conflict, one with the other. This is our great challenge: to embrace the contradictions, to live in the ambiguity, to accept our differences, to teach and learn from one another, as we find the truths that lead us toward wholeness.

Let’s close with the words of one of my Unitarian heroes - the 19th century’s Rev. Theodore Parker – he who wrote his sermons with a pistol in his desk and a sword by his side in case he should need to defend the fugitive slaves he sheltered in his own home. His wish and mine:

Be ours a religion which like sunshine goes everywhere,
its temple all space,
its shrine the good heart,
its creed all truth,
its ritual works of love.

How to Start a Mega-Church in 7 Steps | Irreducible Complexity

Over at Irreducibility Complexity, Ian wrote a wonderful post two months ago [hey - it's summer. I'm allowed to be slow...] on How to Start a Mega-Church in 7 Steps.

I have very mixed feelings about what he's written... I'm pretty sure he's right about the content. Of course the plan he lays out is entirely cynical, calculating and businesslike. I am certain that good religion should not be like that (or if I am feeling more skeptical, I am sure that religion is always like that - and when it's not, it is is a matter of incompetence rather than intent!)

For a really sincere religious movement dedicated to inclusiveness, openness, faith, and transparency, much of what seems necessary to succeed in such a large-scale way also seems contradictory to the mission. We want everyone to have a say, and that very democratic process may be antithetical to the kind of bold leadership and decisive strategy that leads to huge congregations. Can't we just imagine the committee meetings trying to decide about whether or not to have a rock band? Each person giving their personal preference about types of music and winding up with a compromise that pleases no one completely...

On the other hand, if religious people are serious about religion in the sense of service to the world and not just to themselves, they ought to be doing everything it takes to include more people. Is this where liberals go wrong? Too much emphasis on making ourselves comfortable and not enough on transformation or service?

Of course, I only want people who have an inclusive religious ethos to succeed. Anything homophobic, doctrinal, repressive, misogynistic, superstitious, abusive, etc. should not be permitted to read Ian's post!

Unitarian, Quakers, Liberal Jews and any other group that is working for true justice and is truly accepting of all - study this carefully!!

Congregational Growth: a simple "how-to" guide

The growth scheme presented here some time ago is now endorsed by the EC and included on the UK Unitarian GA web site. We have also included all kinds of linked resources. Take a look if you think it might be helpful to you!  A simple growth scheme for congregations.

Who will speak up for offensive offenders?

Author sentenced to six years in prison for possessing child porn

This recent CNN.com headline seems almost unremarkable. News reports reach us nearly every day about the sexual abuse of children. There is the Catholic priest scandal, of course, but other stories appear with great frequency: teachers, strangers, and now children's book authors. It feels as though there is an epidemic of child abuse and it is unsurprising, therefore, that the public would call for a very strong response. Such heinous crimes are surely deserving of severe punishment. Sexual abuse of children arguably ruins lives and thus is comparable in some ways to grievous bodily injury or even murder.

But wait a moment. The author in question - K.P. Bath - is not accused of molesting children. He is not even accused of participating in or abetting the molestation of children. He is accused of possessing pictures of the molestation of children.

I was curious how others would view this case, so I began to read the comments attached to the article and elsewhere. Most of them suggested that the punishment was - if anything - not severe enough. Many comments expressed the hope that Mr. Bath would be raped in prison - repeatedly and violently - as a fitting punishment for his perversion.

Remember that the crime in question is possessing pictures. In the internet age, possessing pictures can be identical to viewing them, as anything viewed on a computer is stored there unless removed by very deliberate and vigorous means.

K.P. Bath will go to prison for six years for looking at pictures - nasty, horrible pictures. His life is ruined, even if he is not assaulted in prison. There is almost nothing else that carries a stigma as strong as a child sex crime. The pictures that he looked at will ensure that he will never again lead a normal life. He will be subjected to continual suspicion and abuse and may not be able to support himself.

Why is harsh punishment appropriate for this crime? The comments are again interesting. Some suggest that looking at the pictures is equivalent to the original abuse and that the children are being abused again each time they are viewed. I would note that it is also illegal to possess pictures of simulated child pornography - even if real children are not involved. This seems to deflate the re-abuse argument somewhat.

Other comments insist that possession of child pornography must be harshly punished because it leads the viewer to abuse children. Aside from the fact that there is apparently no evidence for a causal connection between pornography and abuse, one has to consider whether our laws should go so far as to punish an activity that could - at some later date - make commission of a crime more likely. We can imagine all kinds of images and writing that could easily fall into that category, including most films made today, violence-laden as they are.

The most compelling argument for criminalizing and harshly punishing the possession of child pornography is that acquisition of these materials helps to create a market for materials whose production causes immense harm. Clearly, it is too difficult and too ineffective to target only the producers of this material. Thus, the argument goes, we must target the consumers. For the same reason, it is illegal to possess endangered species of animals - criminalization reduces the market and thus reduces the attractiveness of the production - the activity that causes the damage.

How do we understand the severity of the sentence? Six years in prison for a first offense?

Are long prison terms for child porn viewers the best way to reduce the market for this kind of material? Possession of endangered species is generally punishable by hefty fines. Would this not be effective for pornography? What about prohibiting offenders from accessing the internet or use of a monitoring system that records every site they visit?

While the goal of preventing abuse of children is obviously a good and right one, the punishments for possession seem so extreme as to suggest that there is more going on here. Indeed, the western world is, and has been for some time, seized by a terrific anxiety about child sexual abuse. We imagine sexual predators everywhere (except perhaps where they are most likely to be found - among family members and close friends). People have been arrested for taking innocent pictures of their own children. Those of us whose work involves children know that we must never be alone with a child. Sadly, it is common for teachers to avoid touching children - even to comfort them when they are distraught.

The viewers of child pornography are not sympathetic characters. Few people are willing to go out of their way to defend them or to suggest that punishments might be unnecessarily severe. Indeed, those few people who posted comments suggesting that it was not quite right to wish that K. P. Bath would be raped in prison for six years were immediately labeled "pedo" themselves. (I myself feel significant trepidation at posting this blog for fear of such reactions.)

I recall learning as a child of many examples of persecution throughout history and I remember wondering how anyone could have allowed these abuses to take place without saying anything: Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, the Spanish Inquistition, witch trials... I wondered if I would be brave enough to speak up. Viewers of child pornography are not innocent victims as were the Jews of Nazi Germany or supposed witches, but the apparently excessive harshness with which they are being treated seems to suggest some parallels.

Maybe it felt like this to be a bystander to the Inquisition. Maybe people said to themselves "Gosh, that seems a bit harsh, but I don't want them looking at me... and he is speaking heretically... who knows where that could lead!  I think I'll just keep my mouth shut." It was a wise move, I suppose. Defending a Jew, an accused 'commie', heretic or witch was downright dangerous.

Somehow, we must find the courage to stand up for the rights of all - including those for whom we reflexively feel disgust. We need to ask whether the punishments being meted out are truly appropriate and necessary for the best interest of our society. I don't have the answers to those questions, but I do want to stand up and make sure they are being asked.

Locking up children

I have come to realize more and more how very fortunate I have been in my life. I could list many instances of this good fortune, which I surely did nothing to deserve. Just one for today: I have never had the misfortune of being entangled in the criminal justice system. It is only now that I am beginning to understand more about this  monster that we - as citizens - create in an attempt to uphold the rule of law.


An excellent recent report from the New Economics Foundation is entitled Punishing Costs: How locking up children is making Britain less safe.  As of February 2010, there were 2,195 10–17-year-olds imprisoned in England and Wales. 82 per cent of 12–14-year-olds sent to prison have never committed a violent offense. These seems like shocking facts, even before we know that this is a higher rate of child imprisonment than almost any other developed country. It seems all the more shocking when we learn that child imprisonment is neither a good strategy for reducing crime in the long run, nor a cost-effective strategy.

Child imprisonment is not without rationale, of course. There are indeed benefits to incarceration of children; it dramatically reduces or eliminates their ability to commit crimes and abuse drugs for the period of their imprisonment. The problem - from a cold detached perspective - is that this approach is neither effective or efficient. A year's imprisonment costs society more than £140,000. £100,000 of this is in the direct cost of imprisonment. A minimum of £40,000 of additional costs results from all the many negative consequences of imprisonment: reduced ability to earn, disconnection from education, increased criminality upon release, and reduced connection to family and community.

There are clearly better ways to deal with young offenders, including helping them (through mental health and drug services and providing paid work) before they offend.

Why then have we as a society opted to use approaches that are both less humane and less effective than alternatives when dealing with child offenders? 

According to the NEF report, a key factor is a mechanical and systematic one: the central government bears the entire cost of prison placements while local councils are responsible for the services that might keep kids out of prison. In other words, imprisonment can seem to councils like a respite from the duties and cots of dealing with children in trouble. Imprisonment is more attractive locally because it reduces problems and costs. It's only a disaster when we see the bigger picture.

As a person who believes in the possibility for goodness in everyone, I have a profound moral objection to a criminal justice system that does not aim to reform offenders whenever possible and give them the possibility of living with dignity. I have a profound moral objection to a system that it more inclined to spend money to punish and sequester offenders than to help them avoid becoming offenders in the first place. I would have these objections even if the system were cost effective. To find that it is neither humane nor effective should outrage all of us. This is no way to treat human beings - especially children.

Being wrong as a spiritual practice

Failure! Oh, that is a bad word. "You failed" seems like one of the most deflating things we can hear. When I was a laboratory scientist, failure was part of the game. Everything was an experiment. Sometimes things were successful and sometimes they failed. That's just how it works.

In other parts of our lives, trying and failing just seems much worse than not trying at all.

Over at Ministrare, my colleague Sean Dennison wrote recently about human fallibility and forgiveness.  He describes something that all of us probably see in organizations (and feel in ourselves) too often - the fear of making mistakes:

I’ve watched people, committees, and whole congregations become paralyzed by this anxiety.   I’ve seen ideas that were destroyed by an almost compulsive need to imagine every possible thing that could go wrong and try to figure out how to avoid them all.

His take on it is that Unitarians are more afraid to make mistakes than others and that this comes down to theology. He chalks this up to the Unitarian move away from certain aspects of Christianity:

when we moved away from orthodox Christian theologies of sin and redemption, we gave up the stories, theology, and practices of forgiveness as well.

I could not agree more that the fear of making mistakes is paralyzing. It is destructive of trust and prevents the formation of truly authentic relationships within congregations. It prevents us from growing and learning because growth always means stretching and trying something new.

I’m not convinced, though, that a strong theology of sin makes anyone less susceptible to this sort of thing. I haven't seen a lot of conservative Christians coming up to me lately to say "sorry - I was wrong." Quite the contrary. So if orthodox Christian belief is a key to being more willing to be wrong, there must not be many true orthodox Christians - ones who really, really believe the teachings of their faith (and that is certainly very possible.)

I'm not even sure that this fear of mistakes is so much a particularly Unitarian (or non-Christian) thing as it is a 21st century, mean old work-a-day world thing. It is part of the materialistic tool kit required for “success” in the regular world. People have bosses and want to get ahead. You get ahead by being right - even if you're wrong. People don’t just drop that ethos when they walk into church (unfortunately).

A minister - or anyone in a position of influence - has some opportunity to change that at least a bit. The most effective approach is modeling. If I admit when I'm wrong - often and loudly - and show that the world does not come to a sudden end, it may make members of my congregation more willing to do the same. And, if we can accept that failure is not a disaster, we become more willing to try new things. So what if it doesn't work? We'll never know unless we try.  (One more experienced colleague advised me to make deliberate mistakes and then admit them!)

Sean's post got me thinking about something else though. I'm very focused on spiritual practice at the moment and especially thinking about non-traditional practices.

We know that needing to be right is destructive of relationships and communities. We know it makes us timid and defensive. What if - as a spiritual practice - we make a point of finding something we are (or were) wrong about and admitting it. First, admit it ourselves, but under the condition that we are going to be accepting and gentle about it. "I put too much salt in the hummus." And my response: "So what! The Queen's not coming for dinner tonight!" 

And then maybe admit it to a person you trust. Start small: "you know, it turns out I was wrong about dolphins just being gay sharks.* Oops!" See what happens...  If it's not a disaster, then maybe we can learn that we don't actually have to be right all the time.

One of the central notions of spiritual growth is putting aside the stuff that distracts us from authenticity, connection, and wholeness. It's not about creating something new, but about cultivating and revealing what is already present - although fragile or obscured.  If we learn that have to be right all the time, maybe that helps us to put aside the overriding ego thing just a bit

For this week, I think I'll give this a try and find something every day to be wrong about!  Anyone else willing to give it a go?

To begin for today, I was wrong to buy that Tesco 'value' paper shredder. Although it was cheap, it keeps jamming all the time. I should have spent more to get something more reliable.

Oh, I was wrong ignoring the half and half brown and green composting rule too. the compost is getting stinky.

And while I'm at it, the readings I chose for the service today were no better than just OK...

Now, let's see if the sky falls!

*Glee reference

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo spirituality

I have developed a problem shopping in large stores. It's simply that I am overwhelmed by an excess of choice. I remember being in the toothpaste section in a one of the big American supermarkets. I just wanted toothpaste - simple ordinary toothpaste - for tooth brushing. You know? Nothing special please! There had to be a good 25 feet of toothpastes. Toothpaste for tartar, toothpaste for fresh breath, toothpaste to whiten and brighten. Toothpaste with fluoride, toothpaste with mouthwash, and toothpaste with special unnamed magical ingredients that would surely win you the partner of your dreams. If that choice of contents weren't enough, you have to choose between tubes, gels, pastes, pumps, drops...  and everything comes in five or six different sizes. Oh no! How can I make the 'right' choice? So many options! Help!

As I recall, I had to be rescued from the toothpaste aisle and led gently but firmly to a small mom-and-pop store that only sold two kinds of toothpaste. Done!

Now, when I shop in any large store, I remember to bring one of the most important childhood decision making tools with me: the ancient wisdom of eeny, meeny, miny, mo...  It never fails.

In some ways, spiritual practice is like shopping for toothpaste. If you are a strict _____ [fill in the blank with the religion of your choice], your path is constrained and proscribed. Simple. Just like the mom-and-pop store. You can choose between two kinds of prayer. Easy enough...

If, however, you are seeking spiritual growth outside of a traditional religious structure [Unitarians included here], you are in the mega-market toothpaste aisle! You have too many choices and, like me, you may go into the overstimulation daze and choose nothing. You don't meditate because it might be better to pray, or to do yoga, or to take a walk in the park, or or or or or...

Just like the toothpaste though, there really is no right answer. Eeny meeny miny mo is not a bad way to approach the problem. The truth is that any reasonable spiritual practice will help.

Why? Because spiritual growth depends always on being present, noticing, being mindful, being connected. However you describe it, this quality of awareness is the foundation upon which everything else in the spiritual life is built. You can't notice the sacredness of life if you are not aware. You can't detect the divinity in each person if you never look in that special, deliberate way that requires slowing and focusing. You can't detect the 'still small voice' if you can't stop long enough and listen intently enough to hear.

My advice: Just pick one and start.

Yes, different practices will help in somewhat different ways. After eeny, meeny, miny, mo takes you a certain distance, you may become aware that what you need now is something that is more physical, more focused, more people-oriented, more humbling, more emotional, more intellectual, or more creative. That wisdom will emerge once you are on the path. The key is to get started.

Often incorrectly credited to Goethe, but no less important if another author is responsible, are these words:

Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it!

Nothing could be more true of your spiritual journey. Get started, even if your choice depends on the wisdom of eeny, meeny, miny, mo.