The barriers to love

I am proud of Unitarianism/Unitarian Universalism.  The faith to which I have committed myself has been an activist, justice seeking movement. It has been at the forefront of the struggle for GLBT rights. We have seen our male-dominated ministry turn into a majority female one. We continue to struggle mightily to combat the causes of racism and are prepared to do the hardest work of all - to look within for the persistent seeds of that poisonous tree.

But, as the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) President Peter Morales describes as reported in the UUA World, the growing diversity of the leadership of even this remarkably open and accepting faith masks a deeper barrier to true diversity

When we look more closely at the change in our professional ministry, we see that the vast majority of women, gays, and lesbians admitted were middle class, well-educated people of European descent.

The barriers of race and sexual orientation, while challenging, are as nothing compared to the fortress-like walls presented by interconnected differences of culture, education, and social class.

The UUA can be justifiably proud that its two most recent leaders are not from white Anglo backgrounds. Morales is of Mexican descent. His predecessor, Bill Sinkford, is black. But these steps forward hide the fact that class and culture barriers remain intact. Morales again:

We have seen this in our nation with the election of Barack Obama and in our UU movement with the election of the Rev. William G. Sinkford and myself to the presidency. Each of us is less threatening to the dominant culture because we are the products of elite educations and have spent our lives in the dominant culture. If Barack Obama sounded like a poor urban African American he could not have been elected. If I sounded like San Antonio’s West Side barrio, I would not [be] president of our Association.

The barriers of race, gender, and sexual orientation are challenging - make no mistake about it. These differences activate strong hard-wired fears of difference. Those who look or love differently from us make us fearful and wary. But, with honest and courageous effort, we can enter into open dialogue. We begin to understand that they are like us - we have so much in common beneath the superficial differences.

But this moment of conversion happens because more basic, more essential, facilitators of dialogue are present - they are based on other similarities. If class and culture match, we have the tools we need to cut through other differences. Yet we have not connected simply on the basis of being human. We have connected because we share similar struggles, like similar writing, speak in similar vernacular, and have similar goals. We have a common 'language' to allow us to see beyond our differences.

It is when cultural and educational differences between people directly frustrates attempts and deep communication - when  common ground can not be found because we approach life with different stories, with deeply different perspectives based on educational background, and deeply different interests - that we fail to connect.

This is the continuing problem of our world. The divide between rich and poor grows larger in Britain and elsewhere and the divides are not necessarily around skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. The divides are based on class and culture which translate into the presence or absence of opportunity. This is a justice issue - perhaps the single greatest justice issue of the developed nations. As long as class and cultural differences continue to define who we can understand and who has a chance to get ahead, there will not be true equality.

But as Peter Morales adds, this is not so much a practical or political issue, but rather a deeper question of who we choose to be as human beings and to what vision we are dedicated:

This great challenge of culture and class is ultimately a religious, moral, and spiritual issue rather than a social justice issue. Perhaps the great challenge for us [...] is whether we can learn to understand, accept, include, and ultimately love our neighbors who are different from us.

The work is enormous and may never be completed. That is no reason not to begin it. The first step - as always - is the vision. Can we imagine a society where class advantages disappear? Can we imagine a society where our cultural background does not define our opportunities? I hope that we can commit to that kind of a future and begin the work today of trying to understand across the great barriers that would divide the human family.

Spirituality is simple

Someone asked me recently what spirituality is all about.

This is the life I am blessed to lead in vital north London: I am surrounded by people who don't bring a load of biases and preconceptions when it comes to their interest in religion and spirituality. I certainly came to it with those biases from traditional religion! [I apologize yet again to all of you who were appalled and distanced by my fearful response to a proposal to use that S word some 15 years ago.]

Many, many people come to religion with wounds an burdens.  My ministry is rather different. It is so freeing not to have to begin such a discussion with "no, I don't mean that", where that is something that was taught to them early on and presented in an inflexibly doctrinaire manner.

So, I considered this fresh, unbiased question from a young adult who has grown up in a surprisingly secular western Europe.  Every time someone asks something like that I think of it anew – partly because my memory is so bad that I can't possibly remember what I answered last time, but also partly because my perspectives continually change as I grow and (hopefully) mature.

I don't know what I said last time, but this time I suggested that spirituality is about two simple ways of being: awareness and appreciation. Maybe they're not quite so simple though. In fact, I want to use both of those words in their most expansive forms.

Awareness is not simply the state of being 'not blind' to everything around us, but rather a condition where our senses are almost tingling and reaching out to take in everything – to catch the smells and sights and sounds around us - everything – good and bad - and especially to take in our fellow beings.

And by appreciation I want to go much farther than the positive but superficial sense of “I really appreciated the card you sent” but rather the sense of that word as a full understanding of the meaning and importance. Appreciation is joy at seeing a flower. It is a feeling of awe at taking in a view of the clear night sky. It is sharing a sense of another person’s sadness to the extent that you feel it in your own guts.

Spirituality as awareness and appreciation connects us to each other. It connects us to everything around us. It brings us joy and sadness and allows us to live deeply and fully.

And that's the goal. That's the way of being that we're after in the spiritual pursuit.

What is the path to approach this goal?  Ha!  Trick question... I'm a Unitarian. There are many valid paths.  These two qualities - awareness and appreciation - have been the goals of many spiritual teachings. Meditation is an obvious tool for increasing awareness. Prayer a well-known approach to increasing our appreciation. Praying five times daily as Muslims do or uttering a blessing for almost every act of the day as do Orthodox Jews - the potential to grow in a awareness and appreciation is enormous.

Some will disagree. The goal of spirituality, they may say, is to know God.  Well, then, we must ask what it is to know this God? What is the effect of knowing God. Hafiz - the 14th century Persian Sufi mystic - tells us that the true vision of God can be identified as one that makes you "more human, more kind to every creature and plant that you know."*  


Do you have a better definition of spirituality? I'd love to hear about it.


*Translated by Daniel Ladinsky

Growing old gratefully

I have been a bad blogger!  It's been ages since my last post. The summer slowness combined with a steadily growing to-do list has been the cause. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more regular at this now... [I wish Unitarians had confession so I could be absolved of my sin of lazy blogging!]

I see a big part of my job as a minister to be naming and combating the evils of modern western culture. Of course, I understand those evils rather differently that other religionists who might use similar words. To me, gay rights is a good, not an evil. Increasing power for people to make decisions about the nature of their deaths is another good that too many religious people will call an evil.

Make no mistake about it, our culture is full of its own evils. Materialism, fierce individualism, lack of compassion, tolerance for injustice and poverty - these are all evils that we must oppose.

Another evil is tied up with our attitude toward aging.  Aging is bad. Aging is shameful. Aging makes you less of a person since physical attractiveness is one of the key ways we - and especially women - are measured.

And so, I was delighted when a woman in my congregation asked me to help her think about how she would celebrate her 60th birthday. She decided to bring together her many friends and relations and we began the evening with a ritual - a ritual of transition - a rite of passage.

Now, if she had been recently born, I would know what to do. If she were just reaching adulthood, there would be a more-or-less standard ceremony to perform. Marriage or death - same idea.  And yet, this important life transition - from adult to elder - is rarely marked in our culture. (Yes, I am aware of 'croning' rituals derived from Wiccan traditions. I drew on these, although I could find only limited resources.)

The intentions for this ceremony were to mark an important transition, to strengthen connections, and to help bring an appropriate dignity to the aging process.

The only laugh of the evening came when I said "we have come not to console but to celebrate this transition." It was a laugh of unease and discomfort. Everyone - whether under or over that 60 year mark - knew full well that aging is not to be celebrated in our culture.

But that night, we did celebrate. Everyone had an opportunity to offer their love, their wishes, recollections, and blessings to the new elder. They sang together, they embraced and kissed. And finally, to demonstrate the transition in a physical way, I asked the group to divide themselves at the two ends of the room by age - under 60 at one end and 60+ at the other. This was another moment of discomfort. The under 60s were quick to get to their positions...  Not surprisingly perhaps, the others perhaps a bit less ready to be recognized for their ages.

And the new elder was then ushered from one end of the room to the other, a guide and example to the 'youngers' she left behind and to be welcomed by the group of her own elders who promised to guide her.

The evening's events left me with an ever-stronger understanding that our elders are truly treated as second-class citizens. They are no longer considered attractive for the all-important mating game. They become legitimate targets for a type of ridicule and derision as would be completely unacceptable for almost any group.

Maybe honouring and dignifying transitions would be a good step in helping to change this awful cultural bias.  I hope so.

OK, who else wants a 60th (or 65th? 70th?) birthday ceremony?  I'm ready when you are!

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.