A Bigger Mission, a sermon for the installation of the Rev. Ron Phares at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, Colorado Springs

It is my honor to be here with you on this great occasion, and for Rev. Sean Neil-Barron (who will offer the blessing) and I to bring you greetings from the northern end of the Front Range.

Your new minister and I were baby ministers together in our earliest days of formation – he was an intern serving in Ogden, Utah, and I was the intern in Boulder; after meeting at the District Assembly in 2009, we ended up as study buddies preparing for the MFC.

Our mutual relief and celebration on that day in Boston when we were officially in fellowship will forever be one of my most cherished memories.  

Just like Ron and I share a parallel history of formation, so do the two congregations we now serve, the Foothills Unitarian Church in Fort Collins, and All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Colorado Springs, both trace their beginnings to what we might summarize as: the bold, audacious, and resilient dreams of courageous women. 

It was 1884 when the Rev. Anna Jane Norris arrived in the Longmont area, and began a years-long process of preaching between Longmont and Fort Collins, trying to plant a liberal church. She rode by horseback, and sometimes by rail, and at times managed to attract a crowd of more than a 100. Which was a lot at that time. 

I have spent many hours trying to imagine what brought Anna Jane to Colorado. What inspired her, and what called her. Most of all what kept her going, through it all – 

how she managed to stir up such a resilient faith in a transformed future – a liberal church at the edge of the Rocky Mountains –  long before any real evidence that such a dream could ever become reality.

Sometimes, in this imagining, I feel the echoes of her ministry everywhere: 

in the astonished look of relief on the face of a first-time visitor on Sundays (you know the one?); or in the many sacrifices we all made on behalf of the common good during the early days of the pandemic; and in the gatherings for trans youth we now hold in our church every month that affirms to everyone: you are loved as you are.

I feel Rev. Anna Jane especially when things are difficult, and confusing, when we are trying so hard to discern where love is calling us next, especially when that call beckons towards a place we’d prefer not to go, and a path no one would call easy, or simple.

In these moments, I feel this pulsing sense of mission that I know must have grounded her ministry, and fueled her, and held her steady through it all. An all-encompassing-passion for a message that her sense of call and her faith told her people needed, and that the growing communities in our area needed – the transformational good news that all souls are ultimately held in love, no matter what, for this love to be at the center of everything. A mission like this is the only thing that could explain how she could persist despite unfriendly and even hostile audiences, the near universality of sexism refusing the authority of a female minister, and what were surely not the most hospitable living conditions. 

A deep sense of mission, and also, partnership. For despite appearances, the Rev. Anna Jane was not actually alone in her mission. She was a part of a great network of female preachers who were equally invested in the mission of liberal religion and its power in the western states, a network that became known as the Iowa Sisterhood.

Rev. Anna Jane would have known that less than a decade before she began her ministry, another female minister, one of the first women to be ordained as a Universalist, and a leader in the Iowa Sisterhood had brought the good news just a few towns to the south, to Colorado Springs. 

The Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes moved to the Springs in 1874 for her husband’s law practice, and the first three of their six children were born here over the next three years. I mention her children, because even raising three small children could not stop Rev. Eliza from planting a new Unitarian church in her new town.

While she was not able to serve in full time ministry, she preached regularly, and helped in figuring out the church’s organization (and in her free time, she helped to start Colorado College).

While it’s true that the church that became All Souls Unitarian Universalist was not precisely the same church founded by Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, just as we say about the Rev. Anna Jane Norris and her role in the founding of what became Foothills, this congregation, and Unitarian Universalism in Colorado Springs – and Colorado Springs itself would not be the same without the seeds she scattered in those earliest days of preaching and planting.

The echoes of their ministries, their vision, their dreams are here in this gathering today, in each of us. Their promises, and their failures live in our breath, and in our becoming.  Even now, we would not be the same without their singular commitment to both their mission, and to the partnership that made that mission possible. 

150 years later, I must confess it is hard to imagine what it would feel like to be at the beginnings of liberal religion, rather than in an age declaring its demise.

Since Ron and I started seminary in 2007, the non-stop message has been that the institutional and local church – especially the progressive church – is on the verge of implosion and/or slow drift into oblivion. We have learned that millennials thought we were irrelevant, boomers would soon be focusing on their retirement vacations, and the silent generation were aging out of the heaviest volunteer lifting we had relied on for so long. 

You may have noticed that, in addition to Gen Zers who weren’t yet constituted – this regular analysis left out one generation, which your minister and I, as well as other gen xers now holding so much of the lay and professional leadership in our congregations, might want to suggest was a miscalculation.

My point is, our beloved local Unitarian Universalist congregations – these institutions born of the hard won dreams of the Iowa Sisterhood, and of all those who came before us – and these communities to which many of us have dedicated countless hours if not our whole lives – have long needed what Diana Butler Bass has described as a major re-orientation “if we are going to remain relevant in this new world.”

We have long needed a great shake up in the way we do religious education – 

not because families and children no longer need our faith – they actually need it now more than ever. But more because family life has shifted dramatically in recent decades, yet we are still following patterns we set when today’s parents weren’t even born.    

We have also needed a serious re-imagining of how we talk about and raise money, as younger generations both have fewer or different financial resources, and a much greater skepticism about why they should give those resources to a church, even if it is a church they love. We need new ways for how to speak to that skepticism, and the reasons behind it. 

Maybe most of all, we have needed to address the grip of white supremacy that exists within the DNA of our churches – the shadow side of inheriting our ancestors’ dreams – and that has made many of our congregations some of the least progressive, most mono-cultural white/hetero spaces that many young people encounter in their lives, despite the story many of us tell ourselves, or the call most of us know our faith makes.

We have had a sense of all of these things for a long time, but then over the last few years, these questions have become even more pressing, as the middle and the late middle and the we’re-not-sure-when-it-will-ever-end of the pandemic came. As polarization grew, and fascism flourished. And as the climate crisis came in way too close as fires raged and water negotiations stalled, holding our lives and our planet in the balance.

For some of you who were a part of the High Plains Community, these same years have led you to realize the most faithful thing was to close your church, because sometimes the thing love calls us to do is to end, so that something new can begin. And still, even when we know the decision is right, such decisions still hold grief, and disorientation….

And in this community here at All Souls, you have faced this time without a settled minister, and so uncertainty has been compounded and extended.

All of these feelings in these years, all of these traumas, have meant that sometimes, may be a lot of the time, we start to wonder if the headlines were right. We start to wonder about our very survival, and we take up worry like it’s a spiritual practice. We make our dreams more manageable, and practical, more fitting for the future we can afford.

On more than a few days over the last few years, I know that these sorts of worries have seeped in to my own ministry.  There have been days when I can feel my faith slipping, and the mission drifting, and the partnership feeling less like help, and more just like so much work. 

One day like this I started thinking about the Rev. Anna Jane Norris. Except not thinking. More like, praying to, like the way in my Catholic childhood I used to pray to the saints.

In the silence, I asked for guidance, and for strength. How do I keep going?

And in the silence, I heard words echo back to me, words I wrote down as soon as I finished my meditation so I wouldn’t forget. I still think of them as her words, her echo finding its way to me, and now to you.

She said,

Everything you are thinking about,

All the things you’re stuck on –  all these questions– none of this is God.

God is bigger than you know.

Bigger than what you can dream, or imagine.

I could’ve never imagined you, she said.

I could’ve never imagined this church that you serve today.

It was impossible. And still, somehow I was sure of it, even when there was nothing.

There are dreams at work beyond your own.

So, keep going. Just keep going.

You don’t have to do everything.

Someone will come next.

What you leave unfinished will be their calling.

Sometimes instead of Anna Jane Norris, or Eliza Tupper Wilkes, I imagine the dreams of James Dobson.

Stay with me, because mostly what I mean is, there was a time before Focus on the Family. A time before this town was dubbed “the Evangelical Vatican.” A time when there was no evidence for this future, too. 

But Dobson and other evangelical pastors had a mission to transform this community, and this country according to their values, their faith – and as we all know too well, in many ways they have succeeded. We live in a future they committed their lives to making a reality – a future that has mostly inspired us to conclude that we want to be nothing like them. 

We despise their vision, and so we ditch the idea of mission entirely. We detest their hypocrisy, and so we deride anything so bold, especially when it comes to religion. Their dreams have been so destructive to so many, we diminish our own dreams to a more tolerable size, which helps with that anxiety – at least for a while.

But in the stories of Anna Jane Norris, and Eliza Tupper Wilkes, we remember that the problem is not dreaming itself, but that we have conceded the place of big dreams and bold vision to religions based in hatred and shame, and forgotten our own claim, and our own inheritance to imagine a world transformed by the power of courageous love. 

So, on this occasion of your great new partnership, it seems the perfect time to remember and reclaim our birthright to imagine a future bigger than we can complete in our own lifetime….

Here’s one example: perhaps  we might imagine a highway exit sign, out there along the future path of I-25, whatever that might mean, a sign that directs us to the Unitarian Universalist Visitor Center, a great and world-renowned campus where they teach tools of belonging and resilience and joy, where we learn to take care of each other, and to embrace and learn from our  differences as we all have a piece of the truth – and because a future without falling short would be a future with no humans in it, it would also teach modes of repair and reconciliation, all in partnership with the recently established Department of Peace, which took over half of the old Bases when the military’s budget was cut when the community was transformed by the good news that all souls are worthy of love.

Isn’t it cool how big the future becomes and how brightly we can come alive when it extends beyond our own lifetimes?

Oh, and obviously the Visitor Center would also include accessible, comprehensive sex education for all ages, and the teaching and practice of a new anti-racist culture, and a language beyond gender, ways of greeting each other and being together that we I can’t describe to you in this moment, because they haven’t been invented yet. 

And, the good news is – like Rev. Anna Jane and Rev. Eliza, none of us need dream this big alone.  

Beyond your partnership with your new minister, and with one another, we can know, and we can trust, and we can live out a greater partnership – that so that on those days when we can feel our faith faltering, and it just feels like too much work, we can give each other a call, and we can remember that we do not need to do everything, and as long as we do not foreclose on the future, in all of its wild possibility, we only need to keep going, and keep dreaming.

Trusting that someone will come next, and what we leave unfinished will be their calling.

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Top 23 of 2023

Yes, we are aware that we are solidly into 2024, but Sara and I are finally ready with our list of our favorite shows from 2023! It’s ok, they are still all great shows 2 months later!

As we said in our Top 21 of 2021, and our Top 22 of 2022, we make no claims other than this being a subjective list of shows that we personally loved, and also believe other people will likely love too. And of course, we could be wrong! Not everything is for everyone.

Here are the guidelines we used for this year.

  1. The shows must have had at least one season that was at least partially new in 2023 in the US, regardless of when we watched a show. Aka, even though I watched all of Game of Thrones in 2023, none of GoT is eligible. You’re welcome.
  2. As with prior years, shows that were on our list last year are not eligible this year, even if they had a new season – mostly! We made a pretty big exception which you’ll see below.
  3. We tried really hard (seriously hard work) but we definitely did not watch everything. If there is something here we missed that you think we should have included, please comment so we can watch it! We do this most of all because we love tv, and we want others to enjoy it as much as we do.

Like last year, we split these reviews/summaries up between us – so when we speak in first person, hopefully it will become clear pretty quickly who is doing the speaking….

We’ve been pretty committed to our “no repeats” rule, but this year it felt very dishonest to say that any other non-repeating show was better than Succession or Reservation Dogs in their final seasons, or The Bear in its second season.

Succession – which we reviewed and summarized in our 2021 list – finished its consistently-great run with a surprising, tragic, brilliant season, finally answering the question of who would take over the company. The writing continued to be sharp and original, and the acting was both ferocious and vulnerable – which is perfect for these adult “kids” who really never escaped a childlike desire to be loved and to belong, and yet who keep looking for that love in exactly the wrong ways.

Basically as opposite from Succession as you can imagine, Reservation Dogs – also reviewed in our 2021 list – had its best season in this last season (and the two other seasons were already great!). It figured out its pacing, and its use of the adult characters and their backstories in order to weave a fuller portrait of the community on the whole, and therefore the individual main characters at the heart of this series. Three seasons were not enough for this show, but they finished the story with so much heart, and care for these characters, it was still extremely satisfying, and a real gift to get to watch.

Luckily, The Bear – which made our list in 2022 – was not in its final season! All the themes of the first season – grief and masculinity, family and the struggle to be your own person – get more fully fleshed out in this brilliant second season. The 6th episode, Fishes, with all of the guest stars, has gotten a lot of attention for its build of complex family dynamics, but for me, the 7th episode, Forks, focused on cousin Richie, epitomizes the subtle, authentic character development that this season reveals.

What an incredible pleasure to have discovered the British show Happy Valley late in the year. Ostensibly a police procedural similar to Broadchurch, at its heart this is a show about the complexities of family, loyalty, secrets, and the impossible yet irrepressible desire to attempt to protect our children. I say “discovered” because this show has actually been around for a decade, despite having just three seasons. The first 6 episode season ran in 2014, the second in 2016, and the final season premiered in 2023. This delay was on purpose to allow for the child actor who plays Ryan to for-real grow up.  The effect of this delay is that at least to a degree greater than many series, we get to see the answer to the series’ central question – will Ryan end up ok, and can his grandmother who is raising him protect him as she so hopes? – play out.  This show makes the list this year for this patient storytelling device, and just as much, for its ferocious acting, especially by the woman at the center, Sarah Lancashire who plays Ryan’s grandmother, and police detective, Catherine Caewood. As with a lot of police dramas, you should know going in that there is violence, especially against women, so if that is not for you, this is one to skip. If you can tolerate this, however, this show gives us a uniquely powerful analysis of the misogyny and sexism that can affect even many of the “nice guys,” as well as the complex ways that trying to respond to this violence steadfastly can impact whole families.

In many ways, Fellow Travelers is a romance. The two leads meet cute and quickly connect and surprise themselves at what is obvious if not always named – they are in love. Except, because these two men meet at the heart of the McCarthy era, and both of them are involved in politics, it is mostly never the romance you know it could be. There are so many layers of tragedy here, but not enough to outweigh the beauty of the love that is so compelling, and real. As is the sex, by the way! …if that is something you don’t want included in your tv-watching, this is not the show for you…personally scenes like this just always shock me at how much progress we have made since we worried whether two men could kiss on tv, which was not that long ago. It is especially bittersweet to recognize that the actor who plays Tim – one of the leads, Jonathan Bailey, also played the (straight) lead in season two of Bridgerton – sweet because the same (out) actor is starring in two hot, romantic love stories in the same year – one gay, one straight – without much commentary; and bitter, because whereas the straight love story is guaranteed to work out, the gay one is obviously impossible, and doomed. With that said, part of why I appreciate Fellow Travelers is that you can see clearly that Hawk (Matt Bomer, who is objectively gorgeous, and also out) could choose to be with Tim. It would cost him power, and “normalcy,” sure, but he could. There are examples of others who are making those choices. But he doesn’t. The closet has seduced him more powerfully than Tim ever could.

Barry explores the complex nature of forgiveness more deeply than any other mainstream show I can think of.  Barry (Bill Hader) is an army vet turned hitman who after being pulled onstage in an acting class in Los Angeles (where he was on a mission to kill one of the students), realizes that he has deep emotions he wants to get in touch with, forms a deep mentee attachment to the teacher (Henry Winkler) and a romantic attachment to a fellow student (Sarah Goldberg), thus beginning a seasons-long project of extricating himself from the killing business and redeeming himself.  The acting in the show is astonishing, including stellar performances from Bill Hader (the show’s creator, writer, and oft-director), Henry Winkler, Stephen Root, Anthony Carrigan, and, our personal favorite, Sarah Goldberg (a fourth season episode of her raging in an elevator is unforgettable).  As a show about a hitman, Barry has a number of extremely violent scenes, so it is not a show for everyone.  While we have both been watching and enjoying Barry since its first season in 2018, we are so glad we waited for its fourth and final season to place it close to the very top of this year’s list.

Set in a 2023 world peopled by the few survivors of a fungal pandemic that turns people into zombies, The Last of Us follows Joel (Pedro Pascal), a smuggler who lost his teen daughter to the fungus, and teenage Ellie (Bella Ramsey), who is somehow immune to it, on a treacherous journey across the U.S. to synthesize a vaccine using Ellie’s cells.  While the show does an amazing job at world-building, creating a visceral sense of what the world might look like 20 years post-apocalypse (with some beautiful scenes of nature taking over), its real strength lies in the characters’ development over the season and the relationships that they form with one another.  While Joel and Ellie’s relationship is the most central, and its arc the most dramatic, it would be irresponsible to talk about The Last of Us without mentioning that the third episode, almost a stand-alone telling the backstory of Bill (Nick Offerman) and Frank (Murray Bartlett) as they came together over the twenty years since the pandemic hit, is perhaps the single best episode of TV in 2023.  Where there is a fungus that turns humans into killing machines, there is inevitably a great deal of violence; while this is a show that some may not be able to stomach, the depth of love that emerges serves as a counterbalance making it deeply worthy of a watch.

This fresh, engaging, dystopian sci fi series dropped early in 2023, and I haven’t stopped thinking about it all year. Set in an underground city where the last few thousand surviving people are told they must seek refuge from a ruined earth, Silo speaks directly to climate anxiety, late stage capitalism, and anxiety-driven conspiracies, and responds with a hero with the credibility and the vision to insist that more is possible than we yet know. Season two is in the works, which is good news for this series that definitely ends on a game-changing cliffhanger. 

It took me through at least the first few episodes to understand that Beef has a lot more to offer beyond its initial rage plot device. Billed initially as about the beef that two strangers have after a road rage incident, this show is ultimately about mental health, class, loneliness, and Asian American identity. Ali Wong and Steven Yeun have been winning a lot of awards, and they are well deserved, for their strange and deeply vulnerable performances as Amy and Danny, the two who have the beef with each other, and whose lives are both turned upside down by this beef, and also were already pretty obviously not in the best shape before.

  • 10. Tie: Mrs. Davis (Peacock, 1 Season, 8 episodes) / Deadloch (Prime, 1 Season, 8 episodes) We each had one show that we loved, that the other didn’t totally get. It has happened in other years, but usually its for shows we can safely put into the second half of the list where it can feel like a good compromise. This year, we each fell for a show that we really felt belonged in the top 10….so here we are, with a tie for number 10!

From Gretchen, Mrs. Davis: Nearly every episode in Mrs. Davis at one point or another led to me say, “this show is so weird!” Fundamentally an exploration of faith and technology (or even, technology as faith), this show will not be for everyone, but it was definitely for me. Betty Gilpin (if you know her, it’s from GLOW) continues to be a radiant star waiting for even better parts, and the writing is, as you might infer, intensely original, asking the biggest questions of our time – but all with a vibe of a sitcom. This is a show that requires a high degree of comfort with confusion, and surprise, and a willingness to enjoy the ride rather than hoping for a smooth, logical ending. This show is chaotic, and occasionally brilliant, and if you’re up for hanging on, it’s a great ride. 

From Sara: Deadloch: I remember watching the first episode of Deadloch and thinking that the Aussies were having a great deal of fun spoofing the murder mystery genre that I love (think Broadchurch or Shetland); by the end of the season, I was thoroughly enamored of the full cast of characters and impressed by the show’s tackling of issues like gender politics and native rights, while mostly remaining a very, very funny show (note that Gretchen and I differ somewhat in our appreciation of Aussie/Kiwi humor; several of my all-time favorite shows come from down under).  Deadloch is set in a tiny blue-collar Tasmanian town that has recently experienced an influx of lesbians and the gourmet restaurants and performance art they inevitably arrive with (I will never get the a capella rendition of “I Touch Myself” performed by the town’s all-female choir out of my head).  The town is peopled by an over-the-top cast of characters, headed up by my personal favorites, senior sergeant Dulcie who struggles to maintain professionalism (and control of the multiple-murder case that lands in her lap) in her tiny precinct which typically handles things like the enormous local seal Kevin blocking traffic, and her wife Cath, who shows up at the precinct regularly bearing snacks, airing personal (often very personal) needs, and always referring to Dulcie as “sexy” (which her Aussie accent renders as “sixy,” another Deadloch earworm).  While it didn’t rise to the very top of our collective list, Deadloch is the 2023 show that I most looked forward to each week as new episodes dropped (if there is a second season, I am so there; come watch with me!). 

Technically a prequel to the Bridgerton series, Queen Charlotte requires no familiarity with the main story lines, and in some ways if you have been someone who has decided Bridgerton is not for you, Queen Charlotte might be. While still technically a romance, this series is more of a real love story than the others, a love story caught in the complications of mental illness, race, and class. In terms of that larger story, you only might want to know that this is the back story of the Queen in present day, and what led the court to becoming racially integrated. Other than that, you just get to enjoy (and grieve) the chemistry and wonder between the two leads – India Amarteifio and Corey Mylchreest, who are both outstanding. 

The Diplomat is driven by the enormously entertaining chemistry between Keri Russell (who I will watch in anything) and Rufus Sewell as diplomatic power couple Kate and Hal Wyler who are on the verge of separation when they are forced back together for political reasonsReassigned from the ambassador post to Kabul, where she was eager to dig into post-war policies and challenges, to the United Kingdom, which she interprets as ceremonial “crumpet duty” (and is actually an audition for the vice presidency), Kate chafes at her immense residence, tea dress uniform, and, especially, the presence of Hal, who, while hamming up his performance as political “wife” is in constant motion, using his extensive network to influence things behind-the-scenes, usually without informing Kate and therefore serving as a constant liability to her success.  The show is heavy on dialogue (think The West Wing), and long on acting talent (David Gyasi and Ali Ahn are especially memorable), and while it can feel a bit slow compared to many of our other recommendations, as a full season it was one of our favorite watches of the year.

Because I read, and didn’t love (especially the second half of) the book that The Power is based on, it took me a while to trust that this would be a worthy journey. Luckily I stuck with it, and discovered that the series found some nice complexifying moves in the second half, made possible by the fact that it looks like they intend a second season. The premise of The Power is that women (they mean biologically, and they do address trans identity) suddenly gain the power to channel electricity through their bodies. Many men freak out as now, women have the power to kill them, men are pretty sure they are going to use it, and so the men try to outlaw or regulate this power. The irony of course being that men have this power in most cases over women IRL, and women have to trust that they won’t use it – and this reality shapes so much of women’s lives and society today. As is explored in this series. The Power features a big cast, anchored by Toni Colette who obviously is amazing in anything, although the stars are the young women who – once receiving their powers – begin changing everything.

Extraordinary is an oddball superhero show, set in a world where every person acquires a superpower on their 18th birthday (some of the powers are potentially useful, like turning back time or channeling the dead; many are exceedingly silly, like the character whose butt acts as a 3D printer).  At 25, however, Jen (Mairead Tyers) still has no superpower, and the show revolves around her self-obsessive drive to acquire one while making a series of bad personal decisions along the way.  The theme that takes the show beyond being very entertaining (which it definitely is) is the way that we get in our own way, dreaming big but settling into routine.  We see this not only in Jen, but also her two roommates (who are on-and-off-again involved), in Jen’s mother (the brilliant Siobhan McSweeney from Derry Girls, who can control electronics with her mind but can never figure out how they work), and in my personal nominee for Most Unforgettable TV Character of the Year Jizzlord (played by Luke Rollason), a stray cat adopted by Jen who turns out to be a shapeshifter who, after being stuck as a cat for several years, finally reemerges as a very funny, very stray cat-like human (he laps up his milk) who can’t remember his previous life and thus becomes adopted as a fourth roommate.  We encourage you to lean into the ridiculous premise of Extraordinary; it’s well worth a watch.  

I don’t know why Somebody Somewhere didn’t take the first time I tried it, but I am so grateful I went back and tried again in order to check out the second season. This is a beautiful, funny, tragic, honest portrayal of both given and chosen family, centered around Sam, starring the incredible Bridget Everett and her friendship with Joel, who is played by perfectly-cast Jeff Hiller. Set in small town Kansas, over the course of its two seasons, this series accomplishes something rare and beautiful: authentically earned character development and growth. In other words, Sam starts the series not in a good place, and spends a lot of the show not in a good place. And also, she’s trying to figure things out, and like Joel, we are all rooting for her. Personal growth in real life is not easy, or linear, or even all that dramatic when it happens. It is hard-earned, and subtle, and often there is regression just as often as there is progress. This show gets all of this, and offers its characters to us in all of their beautiful mess.

Watching Black Cake feels very much like reading a novel (it is indeed based on a novel by Charmaine Wilkerson) that is enormously enhanced by stunning visuals; every time I sat down for an episode (and this is a show I watched one at a time, savoring the experience), I was fully immersed.  Set in Jamaica, Scotland, England and California, the show is about trauma and secrecy, the immigrant experience, race, and complicated family relationships. Black Cake follows Byron (Ashley Thomas) and Benny (Adrienne Warren) as they grieve the death of their mother and, in the process, discover that her history was much more complicated than they had been told.  While in many ways the show revolves around the unfolding of the life story of their mother Eleanor (Chipo Chung) who pre-motherhood was actually Covey (Mia Isaac), it is at its core about the ways that understanding our ancestors can help us to better understand and come to terms with who we are, and the deeply painful finality that death imposes on reconciliation.

Based loosely on the story of Fleetwood Mac (and largely set in 1970s Los Angeles), Daisy Jones and the Six is a story of sex, drugs, and rock and roll and the ambition, talent, beauty, destruction, and chaos that come along with it.  The story is told in retrospect, through interviews with the band members twenty years later.  At the core of the show is the tortured relationship between Daisy (Riley Keough, Elvis Presley’s granddaughter) and Billy (Sam Claflin), both of whom believe they belong at the center of the stage.  While the story veers into soap opera territory at times (true to its subject matter, addiction, infidelity, and betrayal all make significant appearances), and while Sam Claflin is probably at least ten years too old for his role, we both found Daisy Jones hugely fun to watch.  

Imagine if your younger brother suddenly became Justin Bieber. As in, an overnight-viral teen heartthrob singer blowing up everywhere. That’s the premise of this series that finished up its third and final season in 2023, The Other Two. Drew Tarver and Helene Yorke star as the older siblings Cary and Brooke, who each crave and struggle with similar celebrity as they both take advantage of and resent their younger brother Chase’s fame. Despite the title, the show also includes one other star, their mom Pat, played by the consistently great in everything she does these days, Molly Shannon. The first two seasons of this show were solidly enjoyable, but the third really brought the quality up a level, as they took the plot and tone in a slightly different and more satisfying direction.  Ultimately this is a story about what you think you want (what your ego needs) vs. what will actually create a meaningful life, as well as the emptiness of fame. It’s also pretty routinely quite funny, and overall really enjoyable. 

A Murder at the End of the World is a psychological thriller where the setting (a remote retreat in Iceland that serves as a billionaire’s bunker for the world’s end) play a central character role, and it is the reason I started watching and stuck with this show (it is visually stunning).  In the show’s present timeline, a tech billionaire (played by Clive Owen) invites a group of artists, scientists, and tech geniuses to a summit with an opaque agenda; while reputedly oriented around finding solutions to the climate crisis, it quickly becomes clear that the host has a series of hidden agendas.  When guests start dying, Darby (a young hacker played by Emma Corrin) sets out to solve their murders.  We come to learn that she has relevant experience through the past timeline, where we see her younger self pursuing a serial killer as a citizen detective along with her boyfriend Bill (Harris Dickinson, who also appears at the summit).  Artificial intelligence (in the form of “Ray” within the bunker) plays a key role in the story’s plot, and while I will admit that some pieces of the plot went over my head, I did end the season feeling like the show added some interesting questions to my understanding of the complicated ways AI might play out in the coming years. 

Drops of God is a visually gorgeous show about family, legacy, ambition, and wine.  Set in France and Japan, the story centers around the death of a wine connoisseur with the largest wine cellar in the world and the competition between his estranged daughter Camile and his protege Issei to inherit it.  While there are a few awkward glitches in the storyline, the central tension between Camile and Issei, unknown to one another at the start, fierce enemies throughout, and deeply connected by the end, plays out in really interesting ways as the episodes move forward.  Running underneath is a beautiful storyline about land and, literally, dirt, and the ways that it comes to be connected to families over time.  As someone who loves wine and family stories told in far-off lands, this is a show that, once I started watching it (and got over my general aversion to subtitles), I could not stop. 

From the moment we discover in the first episode that Colin from Accounts is actually a scraggly dog, I was all in.  This Australian sit-com brings together two single-ish people after they are both involved in a traffic mishap that injures a stray dog.  Through eight half hour episodes, we watch their relationship develop from distaste and frequent conflict over the care of Colin to friendship and cohabitation (she moves in with him to help care for the dog) to, inevitably, messy romance.  Harriet Dyer and Patrick Brammall wrote, produced, and starred in the show, and their chemistry is likely enhanced by the fact that they are married in real life.  Season 2 comes out soon, and I can’t wait (if you love this show, I can hook you up with some other fabulous shows from Down Under). 

When he is called for Jury Duty in Los Angeles, Ronald Gladden (played by himself) is told that the cameras around him are part of a documentaryEveryone else in the courthouse, however, is a professional actor, and the case is made up. Elected as jury foreperson, Gladden is expected to keep his fellow jurors (with whom he is sequestered for the three weeks of the trial) in check, a task that becomes increasingly difficult as their scripted eccentricities escalate and the trial itself grows ever more wacky.  It is LA, so the fact that famous actor James Marsden is also called doesn’t give away the ruse, and his performance as a satirical version of himself is one of the highlights of the show.  The show works because of who Gladden shows himself to be over the course of the season; a thoughtful, light-hearted, and deeply kind human being.  In the end, the show is about the power of one person to impact a communal experience, and the final episode is a true delight to watch.  

I didn’t watch the other mini-series about this real life 1980s crime (that one called, Candy, starring Jessica Biel, premiered last year) so I can’t offer any particular comparisons between that and this one with the equally straightforward title, Love and Death. This series stayed on my list all year because I couldn’t shake Elizabeth Olson’s stare as she (as Candy) attempts to make sense in her own head of her life getting stranger, and stranger – all a result of her own choices, and all possibly because she is simply bored. First, she starts an affair with her best friend’s husband (starring the equally formidable Jesse Plemons), and second, she ends up murdering his wife (yes, her best friend) with an axe.  Obviously if you don’t like true crime dramas (or the portrayal of gruesome murders), this is not for you. But if you are one who loves trying to puzzle out what still more than 40 years later makes no sense, Love and Death offers you a great challenge. 

Posted in Pop Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

All Bodies are Sacred (Hallelujah!)

Hallelujah to the grace

And the body 

and every cell of us all

The Hallelujah of the body begins at birth.

I have been present at two births in my life, (other than my own) neither of them my children’s.

At the time my babies’ lungs first met the air, and the blood and mucus were wiped from their skin, in those moments, they were still in my mind, disembodied dreams, whose imagined lives would not become material realities for me until days later. 

Even now, I feel in my body, the grief of not being there those first 2 days for my daughter, 3 for my son. I take some solace that they were not alone; they were held by nurses who later told us the stories, and by their birth mother, who did not.     

Some days, I wonder how my life, and theirs would be different, if my body had been the one to give birth to theirs.   

Not enough to wish it was so – adoption is a strange, complicated, magical path of making family, and one that epitomizes the tangled blessing we often talk about. Still, since that very first intro session for foster-adoptive parents, I have always felt that my children didn’t need to grow in my body for me to be their mom. The distance between our bodies, our obvious separateness, even while we have learned to trust our closeness, is its own Hallelujah.

This does not, however, take away from the uniquely powerful – even mystical experience of birth, the bizarre and beautiful arrival of one body through another’s. Birth reminds us that at the center of sacredness is interdependence, the undeniable and never simple reality that we are all bound up together, even as we are also, at that moment of life’s beginning, horribly, thankfully, separate.

To call our bodies sacred is to know that they are always a manifestation of our interdependence, and our separateness; from this, an ethic of the body grounded both in personal autonomy, and intentional collectivism can both be argued. That these two orientations inevitably come into conflict is at the root of some of our most complex social issues, and rather than reduce them to quick polls and clickable headlines, we would do better to treat this tension with reverence, and humility, knowing we are treading on holy ground.

Sacred – at least in some faith traditions – often implies pure, or clean, or reliable. Despite the best efforts of some arms of western medicine, this is not what birth reveals of the holy, or what we, as Unitarian Universalists, mean by sacred.

Birth is messy, and loud, and at least to some degree, unpredictable. In the two I’ve seen close up, I heard words coming from my friends that I had not before, and have not since, imagined them uttering. Strings of words blurted out in agony and ecstasy, and surprise at their own body’s power and vulnerability, felt so presently, and immediately.

Birth smells – of shit, and blood, and of all the fluids of the body. Birth is literally organic, and looks, and sounds, and smells like it.  

Just like death.

Death is its own story of the sacredness of our bodies, not because they come to their end and make way for a new disembodied existence, but because at every moment, including in the moment of death, our bodies are a revelation. A promise not for some other heaven, or some other life, but a wondrous invitation to gratitude and reverence that for this time, we have this one.

Bless your body
Bless your heart
Bless your holy kneecaps

The body at death, just as with birth, is fragile, and messy, and still, unpredictable. As one example, we are told our whole lives how much our bodies need certain amounts of water, and nutrients – but at the end, sometimes they persist, despite missing all these marks. And sometimes, even though all these things have been given the body declares it is ready to be done anyway, and release comes quickly.

I know that for many people, there is wisdom and comfort in the idea that after our bodies are done, our spirits, or souls, will live on. If this is true for you, this worship series and I do not intend to try to talk you out of it.

What I do mean to trouble is that fact that too often the hope of a life after death comes with a sense that our bodies are the problem. The thing that must be discarded in order for the real heaven to begin. As if our bodies are the sin, the shame, the reason for the so-called fall – especially when those bodies fall outside of the norm, when they are fat, or disabled, or trans; not white, not male, not young, not straight.

It can be a way to justify a body hierarchy that values some bodies more than others, and to map morality on to the ways our bodies exist in the world.

This body shame and body hierarchy in turn manifests as racism, and ableism, homo- and trans- phobia and sexism, ageism, fatphobia, and classism. As Sonya Renee Taylor writes in The Body Is Not An Apology, “When we speak of the ills of the world – violence, poverty, injustice – we are not speaking conceptually; we are talking about things that happen to bodies. When we say millions around the world are impacted by the global epidemic of famine, what we are saying is that millions of humans are experiencing the physical deterioration of muscle and other tissue due to lack of nutrients in their bodies. Injustice is an opaque word until we are willing to discuss its material reality.”  

To privilege the immaterial self over the embodied one can also be a way to disregard the particularities of how we each show up in the world, since after all, material differences don’t really matter.  

Most often this occurs in the sometimes-well-intended approach of color-blindness, which as Taylor notes “not only makes invisible all the experiences a person has had that were shaped by their racial identity or color, it implies that to truly respect another human being, we must obscure their areas of difference.”

Like holding the tensions of interdependence and personal autonomy, the sacredness of bodies also invites us to hold the tensions of pluralism. That is, to set contradictory and complex differences alongside one another and call it all holy, and worthy of devotion, without needing to conceal or even compare those differences. To simply say – hallelujah for it all

Comparison is – after all – often a way to put one another on our own terms, or, more likely, into the terms of the default body we hold consciously or subconsciously in our minds.

What is the default body you hold? The norm you compare yourself, or others to? The right body, the good body, the body at the top of the hierarchy – the body in the “after” picture in a before and after . 

Cole Arthur Riley (in Black Liturgies) describes the moment that a neurologist called her disabled for the first time. As she writes, “Until then, the thought had never occurred to me. Later, as I was walking with a friend, I used the language myself, and she stared back at me in horror. Well, you won’t stay like this, she said. This won’t be forever.” The implication was that her body had to be on the way to recovery, and fully-abled, or it was not as good, or right, or sacred.

Default bodies are often able-bodies, bodies with all their limbs and their senses intact; bodies that are healthy – by which we also often mean to imply, skinny.

In her book, Fat Church, Anastasia Kidd shares that this book is her “first public admission to being a fat person.”

She goes on to say that “this will seem like a strange statement to anyone who has ever met me. There is no doubt that my body is hugely, impressively fat. My corpulence has been the most constant companion and my most prominent defining feature; the biggest frenemy I could imagine throughout my life.”

Kidd rebelled against the label of fat, as she says, because “I was trying to avoid the attributes culturally conjoined with fat. like fat-and-lazy, fat-and-unhealthy, fat-and-ignorant, fat-and-ugly, fat-and-smelly, fat-and-selfish. I would be hard working, healthy, educated, pretty, perfumed, and selfless.” But it was never enough. She was still doing all of these things while fat.

Like a lot of us, Kidd had absorbed messages about bodies from her mom, who had been on one diet or another her whole life. After her mom died, Kidd had a big a-ha.  

As she writes, “For far too long I had bought into the dieting cliché that said I was a thin person trapped inside a fat body. I thought of my fatness as a temporary state, something I intended to eliminate and thus never cared to get to know. But what if my fat was never a problematic surplus? What if it’s just me?….This mental shift itself was absolutely revelatory.”

Hallelujah

to the body

to every cell of us all

Believing our bodies are a problem we need to solve is not something we are born with.

As Taylor writes, “Babies love their bodies! Each discovery they encounter is freaking awesome! Have you ever seen an infant realize they have feet? Talk about wonder! That is what an unobstructed relationship with our bodies looks like.”

“You were an infant once, which means that there was a time when you thought your body was freaking awesome too. Connecting to that memory may feel as distant as the farthest star. It may not be a memory you can access at all, but just know that there was a point in your history when you once loved your body.”

Technically, that body you loved is the same one you are living in now. Except that this body here has since seen the passing of decades, and diseases, the survival of stresses and sports of various extremes, the coming and going of adolescence and teeth, romance and rules for fashion and standards of beauty, learning and then forgetting so many facts, and stories, and names – which means that it is also not the same body, not hardly at all.

This sacred body is the most constant throughline of our human existence, and also yet another reminder that the only thing that doesn’t change, is change.

At any given point, and likely at many points, across all of these changes, all of us will find ourselves in a not-so-loving relationship with our bodies, and feel that our “sacred selves” and our bodies are distinct, and at odds, even irreconcilably so.

Here’s one of my stories:

In 8th grade, I broke my leg while skiing, and ended up in a full straight leg cast hip to toes, for almost 5 months. I was 13. It brought a swift end to basketball season, and an extended pause in my year-round swimming training, and a serious challenge for how I would get to my classroom on the third floor in a building with no elevators.

The height of middle school awkwardness combined with the heavy cast I lugged around for those months – plus the fact that it was long before water proof casts were a thing….Makes it so remembering this time still makes me want to shrink to the point of invisibility. I was so angry at my body – basically for existing. To imagine my body as sacred, in those days, broken and awkward and demanding attention as it was – I couldn’t.

Even now, when I try to tell myself: that body, my body, was sacred – requires intentional de-programming, as I try to overcome the other messages I received at the time – disappointment from my coach, teasing from friends, and annoyance from the school administrators and my teacher. Mostly, shame at how much my body needed,  and how often I had to keep asking for help. And then shame about shame. Because why should I be ashamed? And then anger about the shame.

It is not an easy path to transform all of this to holiness, especially when combined with all of the moments since where hallelujah has felt so far away.

When I first started in ministry, as a cis-woman in my late thirties, I used to joke that the most radical thing I could do with my body would be to get bangs. (The one time I did, I still remember someone saying, Sunday morning, I’m not sure I even recognize you as my minister now!)

Going on 12 years later, as a now 48-year-old woman who has lived through a global pandemic, while also parenting kids whose own bodies bear the effects of their birth parents’ trauma and addiction, within a country that repeatedly fails to treat my body, or most others, as sacred, I have come to believe that the most radical thing I can do with my body is to say honestly, and publicly:  

I am on a journey with my body. It has changed; it will keep changing. Some of those changes I chose, and I will choose. Some are genetic, and some feel completely random, even unfair – Some days I still get angry with my body, and get caught in comparisons and feel the story of body shame trying to get me. But still this journey – like all of our journeys – is not incompatible with a commitment to understanding my body in all of these changes, as perpetually, and persistently gloriously – sacred.

It is one of my favorite things about the poem from Andrea Gibson, a Boulder poet who lived for a long time with chronic Lyme disease, and who is currently living with terminal cancer. That whatever the world might say about how their body should, or should not be, whatever the pain their body holds, in the middle of all its brokenness, they find their way to the hallelujah.  

To affirm that our bodies are sacred, at every step of the journey, does require deprogramming from body hierarchy, and shame. It means looking at every part of our bodies and saying: “this too, is sacred, and this, and this…”  even as it may change, tomorrow.

And then to build on this, extending to every other body, at every part of their journey, “this too, sacred, and this, and this….”

And then to let this affirmation lead us to imagine an entirely new economy. Think about it.

And transformed public spaces.

And a whole new legal system tha would take seriously both bodily autonomy, as well as the complex questions that arise from our interdependence.

It is – as Sonya Renee Taylor says, “to become architects of a world that works for everybody, and every body.”  

It is to awaken “to who you have always been: the physical, spiritual, and energetic manifestation of radical self-love.”

It is to claim that as Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “our bodies are our selves, our souls are the voltage conducted through neurons and nerves, and our spirits are our flesh.”

Such that “the spiritual realm is so enmeshed with the physical that it is imperceptible,” and “the chasm between the spiritual and the physical is no greater than that between a thought and a word.” (Cole Arthur Riley in This Here Flesh)

This is after all is some of the best good news of our Unitarian Universalist faith –that salvation – or you might say, wholeness – can be found in this life, in these bodies, in this hallelujah – and that everything – as Peter Mayer sings – is holy now.   

Bless your heart
Bless your body
Bless your holy kneecaps
They are so smart
Hallelujah to your weather veins
Hallelujah to the ache
To the pull
To the fall
To the pain
Hallelujah To the grace
And the body
and every cell

of us all

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What You Can Control

The Work That Is Theirs to Do by Joanna Fontaine Crawford

And said, “That’s enough of that.”

And the day came when finally they put down their burdens

The moment was full of sorrow but also relief

Arms exhausted from carrying the burden

Of trying to entice, persuade, people to be more

Compassionate, wise

They continued their own work of building a world more just

But were freer, lighter

The responsibility for others’ thoughts was gone

They taught through their actions

For anyone willing to read their lives

You can see them now at work in the daytime

Singing and laughing in the evenings

Ask for their views and they’ll give a mysterious smile

You can join them, you know, but you cannot fight them

For they just continue on their way

Doing the work that is theirs to do

They do not seek your agreement, your approbation

When they encounter an obstacle, they find a way over it

I have never seen people who worked so hard

Look so at peace.

Sermon: “What You Can Control”   

Like a lot of other people at the time, when I first saw the Christmas movie Love, Actually, just over 20 years ago, I thought it was incredibly sweet, even clever, and the kid was so adorable.  Have you seen this movie?

If you haven’t – basically, it portrays 10 different love stories that by the end you realize are all connected, and that love is all around, to quote the movie’s central song.

Even if you have seen Love, Actually – have you seen it recently?

Because what’s amazing is that watching Love, Actually now, 20 years after its premiere, it seems not at all sweet, or charming – and instead you realize, it’s pretty sexist, and fat-phobic, and those 10 stories are mostly examples of people with very bad boundaries.   

Boundaries, according to renowned therapist Nedra Glover Tawwab in her book, Set Boundaries, Find Peace – “are rules, expectations, needs, and desires that help you feel safe and comfortable in life and in your relationships.”

I also really like Prentiss Hemphill’s definition – that “boundaries are the distance at which I can love you, and me, at the same time.” 

Or, to give it a Unitarian Universalist flavor, we could also say – boundaries are the place where I can uphold your inherent worth, and my inherent worth – equally, and at the same time.

Tawwab describes six different types of boundaries –  

  • Physical
  • Sexual
  • Intellectual
  • Emotional
  • Material
  • Time

Tawwab says that the most common boundary struggle people have is in the emotional boundary realm – where we try to tell other people how they should feel, or what they should think, or when we take on other people’s feelings as our own.

This is where I want to return to Love, Actually, and specifically the character Sarah. Played by Laura Linney, Sarah is a middle-age white woman who has been secretly crushing on her co-worker Karl for more than two years – but she has never really acted on it or made herself available, as Sarah’s life instead revolves around caring for her brother, Michael, who is mentally ill. 

One night, at the staff holiday party, Karl asks Sarah to dance, and it’s clear the feelings are mutual. He ends up driving Sarah home, and then they start kissing…and it’s everything she’s hoped for – until she gets a call from her brother. She turns away from Karl, and gives all of her attention instead to the call, and the support Michael needs right then and there.

Karl goes home – and he and Sarah never end up getting together.

Sarah has taken on so much responsibility for her brother’s emotional and psychological state, there is no room for her own emotional needs. Even twenty years ago, it was clear that Sarah has an issue with emotional boundaries.

Which I think, was supposed to evoke sympathy – that she was stuck in this predicament – another sort of love story I suppose, and even admire Sarah for her self-sacrifice.

This was not, however, my reaction.  Instead, I remember thinking: why didn’t she just let that call go to voice mail? Why didn’t she find different supports for her brother? Does she not have enough self-worth to make space for her own needs, and to tell her brother no?

In other words, I was less sympathetic, more judgy.

As I said, a lot has changed in the last 20 years –  in the world, and in our individual lives. Two years after I first judged Sarah for her bad boundaries, my first child was born.  And obviously, I bring this up because there is absolutely nothing like parenthood to teach you about the difference between what you know in your head you should do, especially around things like boundaries, and what is actually possible to do in real life.

By which I mean to say, there’s a risk, in a twenty-ish minute sermon on the powerful practice of setting, and maintaining boundaries. A risk that we would all leave here just like my 28 year old pre-kid self – filled with judgment for anyone who can’t figure out how to maintain good boundaries, including – and probably especially ourselves.

When really, figuring out our boundaries is a complicated, life-long process, a constant negotiation. It’s why we should always talk about boundaries as a practice, not something anyone masters or achieves.  Most importantly, boundaries are always a systemic issue, not just a personal, individual one. After all – boundaries are only relevant when you are talking about being a person in the context of other people – so we can never think about boundaries as if they are only about a single individual who is good, or bad at them. 

We must always hold in our view, the systems and society that the individual is a part of, and whose “well-boundaried” life relies on whose so-called bad-boundaries in order to function. 

All this to say, watching Sarah’s story twenty years later, instead of judgy, I find myself instead feeling angry. Angry at the lack of social systems to better support people who are mentally ill or otherwise cognitively impaired. And at the way so many people –most often, but not always, women – end up sacrificing themselves trying to fill this gap, only to be told they have “bad boundaries.”

And, I get angry for the ways that we are taught that this is what compassion really means. That compassion means setting aside our own needs and feelings, and orienting instead towards the needs of our loved ones.

I feel angry for all of us, and for the sacrifices we’ve had to make – and I feel angry, and sad – for the times I know I too have felt I had no other choice than to set aside my needs to care for others, including, as my change in perspective indicates, my children.

To be clear, I love my kids so much.

And, there have been many times, especially when they were younger, that it felt like they had a black hole of need that would just suck me up, if I let it. It is obviously their job to have needs, and it is my job to not let those needs suck me up, and instead to know where my limits are, to communicate those limits, and then to help them gain the skills to tolerate the discomfort of my no.

Or, let’s be honest, I needed to grow my own capacity to tolerate and not rescue them from their discomfort.

That we have succeeded in this work even occasionally feels now like a huge accomplishment.

No part of this process of setting boundaries is easy, after all – it requires discipline, and intention – first to discern the boundary in the first place – and then to communicate it, and then to uphold the thing you communicated through actual action. 

These are the three parts of setting boundaries –

  • Discern what you need
  • Communicate what you need
  • Uphold what you communicated with your behavior

The first part – discerning what you need – often happens because a need you aren’t fully aware of isn’t getting fulfilled.  You find yourself feeling overwhelmed, or resentful; or maybe burned out and like you don’t have any time for yourself.

Having these sorts of feelings are a good sign that you have a need that isn’t being fulfilled.

Sometimes this need is obvious – you need your friend to stop treating you like their therapist; or you need your spouse to take a more active role in household chores; or you need to stop answering emails on your days off.   

Sometimes needs are more obscure, or more ambiguous. Like Sarah, it can be hard to know exactly what your choices are, and what limits you have that are your bottom lines, especially when resources feel scarce. 

Finding a listening partner – a therapist, or a willing friend – especially someone who has been in a similar situation, or turning to a journal – can help you sort through your needs, and your limits, and then hopefully, turn these needs into speech.

This is the second part of boundary setting – to literally communicate your needs. Despite what we may hope or believe – people cannot accurately assume your boundaries based on your “body language or unspoken expectations,” and be assumed as a matter of “common sense.” When it comes to boundaries, subtlety is not your friend.

Be clear, explicit, and direct – saying things like:

“When we have a disagreement, I’d like you to use a lower tone and take a break if you are getting too heated.” Or, “If you need to change our plans, send me a text at least a few hours before.” Or, “I’m more of a handshaker; I don’t want to hug.” (these are just a few of the examples Tawwab’s awesome book provides)

Explicit, clear, and direct.  Not subtle.   

Then, the final step – also not easy – is to “uphold what you communicate through your behavior.” i.e. when the “boundary is violated, you need to reinforce it with action.”

For example, someone I was close to used to call me after they had been drinking – and it made me very uncomfortable. Finally I got up the courage to say explicitly, clearly, and directly – please don’t call me after you’ve been drinking. They agreed. But not too long after, they did it again.

So I had to say – explicitly, clearly, and directly: you’ve been drinking, which means I can’t talk to you now, and then I hung up.

It was more than just uncomfortable, it was painful.  But over time, it got easier. New habits grew, and our relationship improved. We might want to believe that once we’ve communicated our boundaries, most people will follow our requests. But – as you may have noticed – it’s more likely that it will take a few times of reinforcement, as even the most well-intentioned among us have a hard time shifting the grooves of our relationships.  

Expecting up front that people will likely respond to your requests with pushback or limit testing, defensiveness or questioning can help normalize and de-personalize these reactions – and help us stay grounded in our response. 

It also helps to remember this when we are on the receiving end of someone else’s boundary clarification – to recognize that it is normal to feel anxious, defensive or resistant.  Which means, we can and should be compassionate with ourselves rather than getting caught up – once again, in self-judgment. 

We can simply notice whatever feelings come up, and then to try to find a calm place of curiosity to respond from – remembering that someone communicating a boundary to us is in most cases a sign they want the relationship to continue, and for trust to deepen. 

Finding that place of calm and curiosity as we negotiate our respective needs is a process that UU minister and family systems coach Jake Morrill describes as the three puzzle pieces of self-differentiation.

  • 1. Take a stand
  • 2. Keep in touch
  • 3. Keep cool

Self-differentiation is simply the family systems word for practicing boundaries while in relationship other people who are also practicing boundaries. 

The first puzzle piece of self-differentation, Jake says, is to take a stand – this is the clarifying of your own needs and goals – your boundaries. Say what you will and won’t do.

The second is when we connect in with others, and stay aware of their goals and their boundaries. We practice curiosity and consider perspectives different from our own. 

And finally, we keep cool.

This is where you take a stand and keep in touch at the same time – holding your own boundaries, while also taking in another’s – while also regulating the inevitable anxiety that arises in this combination. It is the practice of pausing, noticing what is coming up, taking some regulating breaths, and then returning to curiosity before responding.

The practice of self-differentiation seems to me one of the most tangible expressions of Unitarian Universalism – where we are actively affirming the worth and dignity of both ourselves, and another, and finding ways to honor both our own, and their piece of the truth. It is one practical and transformational way to live out our covenant in our lives.    

It is also where having a regular spiritual practice really pays off – because this is advanced level self-regulation.

Sometimes I have tried to imagine a totally re-written Love, Actually, updated to reflect a healthier practice of love all around us, a love infused with healthy boundaries and self-differentiation.

In the re-imagined story for Sarah, I can see her being more honest with Karl about what was going on with her brother, and setting some clearer expectations for what a big shift she would be trying to make in her life.  

She could then speak with the facility where her brother is living to establish clear hours where she would, and would not be available, and they could brainstorm ways to support him in her off-hours; of course, she could communicate these same boundaries to her brother.

Each of these steps would make more space for love to show up in her own life – and for Michael to establish new connections with different people too – to grow love in his life, too. 

So often when we think about our lives, and the life we long for – collectively, and individually, we tend to focus on how other people need to change – people from other political parties, or from other states; people with more power, or the people we live with, or next to, our kids, our parents, our friends  – but this focus means we neglect the thing we have the most control over, which is ourselves.

When we practice authentically discerning and communicating our own needs, and limits, while also remaining in connection and partnership with other people and their needs and limits – and tap into that place of curiosity, and calm through it all – this practice has the potential to shift our lives, and our relationships dramatically.   

In this presidential election year – with all of the challenges we know we face, let us – as Joanna Fontain Crawford writes, “set down the burden of trying to entice or persuade people to be more compassionate, or wise, and instead focus on building a world more just, singing and laughing as we go, teaching through our actions, and doing the work that is ours to do.”

And may love – well-boundaried and fully differentiated – guide us through it all.

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Choosing to Love, Anyway – Christmas Eve 2023

Readings:

Homily

In Bethlehem tonight, the usual extravagant Christmas celebrations have been canceled. In place of Glorias echoing across the land, there is war and grief, all across Palestine and Israel, and in Gaza. As the Mayor of Bethelhem declared today, Christmas this year, must be found in the rubble.

And in our own country, despite candles and carols still enduring, we also know grief. Democracy teeters, divisions are daily, and regardless of proclamations from ancient angels and progressive politicians – fear often engulfs us. 

Christmas always arrives at midnight, A Powell Davies declares – so, where is the bright star of hope this year, in this persistent and pervasive dark? 

Davies wrote the words Sean offered us in 1944, in the middle of World War II. A time of great suffering, and struggle across the globe – and still most people, most Americans, continued to believe that, as Davies says, “the good and the true are stronger than anything that stands against them, and sooner or later will prevail.” 

Most Americans believed this, but not all. 

In 2020, I had the chance to interview local activist Florence Field, who spent part of her childhood in the Japanese-American internment camps set up by the US government during World War II. In that conversation, Florence told me that her biggest lesson from the time – and ever since – was not that the good would definitely prevail, but that democracy is fragile, and should never be taken for granted. We must work for it, she told me. We must never give up. We must be vigilant.   

I have thought a lot about Florence’s pragmatism ever since that conversation – or what you could even call skepticism about humanity. It’s the sort of skepticism that often becomes cynicism or selfishness. But that wasn’t her story. For Florence, the injustices she experienced  instead became a lifelong commitment to working for peace and justice, civic engagement and voting rights – and she did so with a relentless passion and joy for life and for her community. 

None of this was the result of confidence in the ultimate success of “a world of gladness in which all cruelty is gone.” I’m not sure she even believed that such a world was possible –  if it was, she saw no evidence of it around her. 

Although I am pretty sure she would not have named it this way, I have come to believe that what drove Florence was not confidence, but faith.  Deep faith. 

I know –  faith is probably the last word you would expect to hear from a Unitarian pulpit, especially on Christmas Eve. So let me clarify. 

By faith, I mean a commitment to living according to certain values, and according to a vision of the world – despite all evidence about whether the vision is actually likely to come true. 

Faith is what Vaclav Havel was getting at when he said, “Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out.” 

This faith is the bright star that Christmas invites us to follow this year.   

The faith of Christmas does not ask us to rest assured in the ultimate success of “a world of gladness from which all cruelty is gone” or “in which the joy of each is the joy of everyone, the sorrow of each the sorrow of all.” 

Christmas asks us instead to know the ache of this world where so many children are unsafe, and so many go without enough food, or shelter; where borders close and health care is refused – to look at all of this and to keep finding ways to shelter one another. Even the stranger, and the outcast. 

Christmas challenges us to feel all of the risk of life today, the journeys we are required to go on, the battles we must endure – and says – don’t just turn inward in an impulse to protect yourself. And don’t let fear drive your decisions.  Instead, open your arms wider.  And keep throwing open your doors. 

Make ready the space. Make ready your heart.

Even though you don’t know how it will turn out, and despite no guarantee at all of a happy ending. 

To live by this sort of faith does not require any particular belief, but it does take a kind of practice. A steady habit that involves community gathering around – like we see gathering around Joseph and Mary and Jesus in Luke, and it requires regularly slowing down, and listening for the possibility of love breaking through once again. Just like we are doing here, together, tonight.  

This Christmas – despite all evidence, let us keep choosing to love, anyway. We can still be for each other, a resting place in the storm – even after everything. In the midst of sorrow and struggle, we can still be ever vigilant in our joy. We can keep singing, and laughing, and we can know, deep in ourselves, that it is all a gift.

For we too know, especially after all we have known in the last few years, there are no guarantees about how everything will go in this life – we can only trust in the rightness of the choice to live from this story – this story of goodness, and love, gentleness, and peace – this story that urges us to follow, and lead, and come alongside, even in the deepest winter, and the darkest night.

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gather in Storms

Reading – a combination of Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s 2022 and 2023 Hanukah reflections, which end with this reflection

Hanukah isn’t just about what happened in the past, on the calendar. It’s about who we are capable of being. It’s about the bravery, will and determination to reject tyranny. It’s about the survival of the Jewish tradition, the protection of what is most holy to us. If so, perhaps we can remember what lives in our Holy of Holies now, 2000 years since we’ve had the physical space: We are all, our Torah teaches, created in the divine image. All of us. Every last one of us. Not a single one of us disposable, not a single person replaceable, no “collateral damage.”

Maybe this year, this Hanukah, we can rededicate all that has been defiled to this essential truths. Maybe this year, the radical act of bravery and valor can include undoing some of the Maccabees’ binary thinking, remembering that we must know who we are—but that when we hold ourselves in too brittle a way, we splinter—and/or hurt others.

Maybe this year, instead of making the same kinds of mistakes, we can learn from Hasmonean history and create a possibility for a world in which we can both hold ourselves, and also make space for others.

And I reckon that that is the miracle we most desperately need right now.

Sermon – Gather in Storms

That we would learn from our past, that we would choose a different course, that we would dedicate ourselves to the idea that no person is disposable. That would be a miracle, mostly because we can see no evidence that such a thing is possible from here, no reasonable person would believe it. It would be a miracle.

The news out of Gaza, the land so close to where the historical and rabbinical record of Hanukkah is set, hurts so deeply, the only moral reaction is horror, and a call for the violence to stop. This is not a political statement, it is a human, and religious one. Because like the Jewish tradition, like Islam, and Christianity, we Unitarian Universalists also hold most holy this idea that every life has inherent worth, that we are all beloved.

That the world’s major religions all hold this affirmation as central might make it seem obvious that killing one another en masse, would be immoral, even, evil; it might make war itself the greatest sin. If these are your holiest teachings, it might even seem obvious that, as my Mennonite teacher Dr. Vincent Harding wore as a button every day of his life, war is terrorism. 

It’s one of the greatest debates in religious history, the justification of violence – when if ever, it is moral, and when it is not. Christian scholars have spent pages and pages and hours and hours defining the doctrine of a Just War, a definition that now guides military action and international law, at least theoretically. The repeated statement that Israel has a right to defend itself is appealing to the idea of a Just War. As is the appeal to proportionality, and the impact on civilians, especially children, of which about 8,000 have died in Gaza in the last 10 weeks

Hanukkah ended Friday, and no miracle is in sight.

So what do we do with this story, now? This gap between the miracle we are promised, or the light (beyond just the sun) we are told returns in solstice, or in the hope of love born anew in the Christmas story – what do we do with the gap between this good news we supposedly celebrate this time of year – and the truth of our lives today – when there is no Christmas Truce even being proposed, and when so many people are tender, and worried, and unsure how to say the truth without ending up in a fight.

One perfect example of exactly this worry came to us earlier year, in the middle of the second season of what I consider the best tv show of the year, The Bear (which you can find on Hulu).

It’s Christmas Eve, and the Berzatto family is gathering for dinner: the extended family – random cousins and family friends, Uncles and in-laws – no children, although one of the characters is pregnant, and throwing up off and on – just one part of the gathering’s chaos.

The night is loud – people are talking over each other, with pointed put downs only family members can pull off, and the whole thing is punctuated by kitchen alarms (the old kind – that make the very loud RING) going off regularly and randomly.

At the center of it all is mom, cooking a traditional Italian dish that no one knows for sure what it means, except it means a lot.  It’s a complicated dish, requiring careful timing, coordination, and calm – and in place of all of these, mom has instead multiple glasses of wine.  Over the night, she grows increasingly inebriated, and agitated; at one point she even threatens suicide – like, while cooking dinner. Is it a serious threat? It sounds like it, but also it’s quickly moved on from, so…no?   

There’s a history here, maybe this exact scene or something like it has repeated over the years, – it’s clear. There’s history and habits everywhere. Each person has their role, and even when they want to stop, to change – they can’t. The youngest daughter, Natalie, for example, has a habit of asking her mom, are you ok? Even though everyone, including Natalie, knows this just triggers her mom more. But she can’t stop.

The family sits down to dinner, finally – maybe they have survived, when Natalie asks one last time: Mom, are you ok?

Mom totally loses it. She leaves the table, the whole family erupts into a brawl, which is only interrupted when mom drives her car through the front of the house.  

Scenes like this are why friendsgivings were invented – family gatherings become too painful, hold too much history. Grievances and conflicts long left unaddressed, trauma left unhealed, all of these simmer right below the surface until like in The Bear, they don’t just boil over, they explode…and then we just don’t gather anymore.

Priya Parker – in her book The Art of Gathering, reflects that we often prioritize peace in our gatherings, or at least, the appearance of peace. A sense of harmony and being free from any agitation or conflict.

This can be exactly the right choice in some gatherings. Especially for people who are either post-trauma or still actively experiencing trauma. American Jews and Muslims, recent immigrants, trans people, people of color, abuse victims, veterans, and anyone who lived through a global pandemic are all currently experiencing, or very recently coming to terms with, trauma. So, you know, everyone. 

Everyone is tender, and worried, and have various capacities to deal productively with this trauma. 

Like the Maccabees, not all of us have paused for EMDR. Which, in case you don’t know, is a form of therapy to address and heal trauma.    

And so we often find ourselves avoiding anything heated, or divisive or that could lead to disaster – mom driving the family car through the side of the house is one potential outcome, but many of us have our own, sometimes less, and maybe more extreme examples.

NPR’s Life Kit this week ran a story on 4 scenarios that can ignite a family fight, and strategies to minimize them – it’s worth checking out if you’re heading into a family or work gathering in the coming weeks. 

One potential fight they describe is when a family member brings up a controversial topic – which could be anything from transgender youth to Taylor Swift to why your cousin isn’t married yet….controversy is so easy to come by these days.

I don’t know if this is because things are actually at a higher stakes – I only know things feel higher stakes.  The impact of disagreement comes at us harder, like an attack, and we move more easily into defensive, or even our own attacking posture.    

Author Jonathan Haidt compares our age to the time after God destroyed the tower of Babel – a time with “people wandering amid the ruins, unable to communicate, condemned to mutual incomprehension.”

We have political divides, racial divides, generational divides, religious divides  – but as Haidt says, “Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.”

Babel is a story about language, and not being able to hear one another, especially across our differences; differences become problems to overcome, rather than opportunities to learn from. We live in an age of hyper-communication, but we are losing the ability to hear one another, and to be heard.

For these reasons, Priya Parker wonders about the base assumption that harmony in our gatherings is always the highest good, or that an agitation-free environment is always the most welcoming one.   

As Sarah Schulman describes in her book Conflict is not Abuse, we often “conflate discomfort with threat,” and “mistake internal anxiety for exterior danger, and in turn escalate rather than resolve” what might otherwise be very low-level conflicts. We need more practice in speaking to one another across our differences, and dealing more directly with our disagreements. Which means our gatherings must not always be about our common ground, sometimes we must instead intentionally pursue our divides. 

Afterall, a lot of the time, the peace we are working so hard to maintain is a false peace; what we are actually working so hard for is to avoid and sidestep anything of real substance. We are so afraid of offending anyone, we say nothing that really matters. Our gatherings are empty, or boring, and often, sad. Here are people who we say we love, who love us, who are our family, or our friends – and we must work to avoid anything real. 

One of my favorite parts of seminary was the fact that we had many different faiths and beliefs present –but often my liberal Christian friends would promise me: don’t worry, when we gather, I won’t talk about Jesus. 

I was like – why, isn’t he the whole reason you’re here? If you don’t talk about Jesus, how will I ever really get to know you? Do you not want me to know you?

They didn’t want to offend me – which I appreciate – but I was there to learn! And the best learning of all was when people I respected, and cared about, would tell me why they loved Jesus. And then, when they would ask me about Unitarian Universalism….and then, when our Heathen classmate shared about Heathenry, and our Jewish classmate shared about Judaism….

Importantly, there was no attempt to convert each other in this sharing. There was no attempt to say who was right, or wrong, or even if we agree or disagree.  It was a practice focused on empathy, and understanding. It was listening with a sincere desire to know one another, and to marvel at our differences. Sharing our differences became a chance for deeper connection and intimacy, rather than a source of division.   

In this spirit, Parker rejects the longstanding social rule that makes politics, religion, and sex all taboo topics in social and work gatherings. These are all topics that can often be uncomfortable to talk about, of course – but there are ways to make our gatherings safe places to be uncomfortable, together.

To start, we can ask the people gathering what they would need to speak about certain topics safely? And what they’d need from the group to be willing to take the risk of telling the truth?

These questions help to create what in our faith we call a covenant, the promises we make to one another about how we will be together in a community connected not by a list of shared beliefs, but by how we agree to treat one another.  Covenants need not only be a church thing – you can use this good and healthy idea wherever you are attempting to practice being human, with others. 

Sometimes our answers to the question – what would you need to feel safe – tell us that there is nothing that would bring us to safety. And that’s important information too. 

Power is real – in families, in society; and many conversations are never going to lead to healing and growth, but more likely contribute to harm, and so please don’t mistake this as a message encouraging you to empathically listen to your transphobic racist Q-Anon affirming relative share their most deeply held beliefs over the holidays. I mean, not unless there’s something there that’s calling to you – in which case, you are in charge of your own boundaries – and please, report back.

Partly the problem with just diving into disagreements like this scenario implies, is that our best hope for productive conflict – or what Parker calls good controversy – is to engage with some intention rather than simply just rushing in. In addition to the covenant, the conversation itself needs a degree of structure, even facilitation – someone who has been charged to step in if the covenant is breached and to offer a care-filled re-direct. 

Parker also encourages the use of ritual – as Sean and Elaine explored with you last week.  Maybe something as simple as a stone passed to indicate who is talking, or maybe a candle is lit as each new topic begins.

Finally, she encourages playfulness – her favorite controversial gatherings included what she calls cage matches – don’t worry, it’s just verbal wrestling matches, but they still have rounds and knockouts and judges and team names.

To intentionally invite our differences, and to cultivate empathy across our differences, is to risk being changed by another. It’s scary, and vulnerable, but it is a risk we take when we realize the status quo isn’t working anymore, that it isn’t good enough – that the risk of changing, and for something new to be born, is worth it. 

As Parker says, engaging conflict is often messy in the beginning, and even in the middle, but “good controversy is often ultimately cleansing, and clarifying, and can be an antidote to the world’s BS.”

Behind the violence we see now in Palestine and Israel, there are thousands of years, and millions of stories of families, individuals, tribes who experienced trauma, and then kept on going. Millions of gatherings without sufficient time or space for empathy or understanding or truth telling, they passed this pain down generation to generation unhealed, and the cycle remains unbroken. 

Tragedy begets tragedy. 

We who have families and complicated stories and trauma inherited and experienced can understand at least to some degree how violence like this, over time, could become a viable response, a stand-in for empathy that repeatedly fails, and for communication that never finds its way across the rubble of Babel. 

And in this, we can also understand the story of Hanukkah, and Christmas, and of love re-born, and light returning, even though they seem so far from real life then, or now. 

Like most stories passed down, stories turned into ritual and religion and national myths – behind the too-perfect promise, there is almost always something messier, something with painful echoes still playing out today. Trauma that was never resolved, complicity that was never acknowledged, land that was already occupied.  

And we can understand the desire to turn away from the pain, to prioritize harmony and good feelings over the messier, more dangerous truth.  

We know what it is to live in the storms while longing for the chaos to end, and for winds to still.

And yet what the complexity of these stories remind us is that peace – real peace – is not about refusing to wrestle with the mess, or face the disagreements, and hoping it will all just go away.  Real peace is not some final static end we can proclaim, or some future moment we pray Gaza, or congress, or your family, or your own heart will reach, and stay put ever after. 

Peace is a practice, as John Paul Lederach writes, a continuously evolving way of being in relationship that requires we face – not turn away from – “the inevitable ebb and flow of human conflict.” 

Peace is not, it turns out, all that peaceful.

Which is why in these still darkening days, in the midst of this still blazing storm, we must try to do better.

Personally, it’s why last week, I decided to change my focus for today – I have been feeling so caught unable to say anything in response to the violence in Gaza and Israel. To say anything is always going to fall short – it’s going to disappoint someone, hurt someone, miss the mark. I don’t pretend to understand what is happening, let alone what should happen. But also, avoiding saying anything of substance is worse. It is a false peace.  

Speaking today, with you, does not mean I said everything right, let alone final. It just opens up a conversation where we can learn together, where we can acknowledge our heart break, together.  

We must practice telling the truth to one another, even when it is uncomfortable, even when our words are imperfect, or worse; we must practice making room for human beings to grow, and to change, to apologize, to do better. 

It is not too late for us to be the ones who do better. 

It is not too late for us to be the miracle we long to see.

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gather in Joy – a sermon for our first Sunday in our new sanctuary

Can you believe it?!

I never doubted we would get here, really, but we have been talking about needing a bigger sanctuary since I started at Foothills 11 years ago, and that conversation had been going on long before I arrived

To finally be here, with all of you, is glorious, and unbelievable, and it leaves me with just one question: 

What are we going to talk about now? Now that we won’t be talking about needing a new sanctuary, what are we going to talk about? 

I’m joking, and I’m not.  

Plans for this morning’s gathering started over 15 years ago, but were then shelved. We always say it was because of the economic crisis of 2008. But I have wondered sometimes if what really happened is that we just weren’t sure yet why we would need to build a bigger space. I mean, we knew practically why. Fort Collins was growing, the church was growing. The 150 seats were routinely filling up, the choir was taking up half the seats and the children were filling up the rest.

I mean we didn’t know why in a deeper sense. 

Beyond the numbers, and the crowds. The need behind the crowds. There were likely seeds of this why, scattered amongst the community.  Nothing like this ever happens after all, without the seeds of it being there the whole time. But the particular, articulated why that would drive us towards this sanctuary, this gathering, to see this vision through the pandemic, to give in ways that most of us have never given before, to know we’ll still have to keep giving like this for a while – and to do it gladly – to believe we could do it, and to persist through all of the challenges, and there have been some challenges. We needed to know the deeper why to make through everything – to here, and now. And this why, it took a while. 

Hundreds of small conversations. Small groups that at first looked totally unrelated to building a bigger building, but were instead about belonging, and spiritual growth, and deep listening. Wellspring groups, justice groups, groups for grief, and support, for meaning making, and service, and laughter. 

And then getting to the why took explicit conversations about mission, values, and vision – and magazine covers with headlines announcing the Foothills church of 20 or more years out. 

Most of all getting to the why required taking ourselves, and our work together seriously. Believing that this place, and what we are doing matters – not just to the people who are here, or who will ever come through our doors – but to the wider community, to our world. 

To say we are here not just for social gatherings – although we like those too – but for a vital purpose. Our faith has a life-giving, and life-saving purpose. 

We had to decide to take ourselves, and this place, our faith seriously. We had to shake off whatever remnants we were holding on to of what former UUA president Susan Frederick Gray described as a casual faith; that is, a Unitarian Universalism, and a covenant, that would require not all that much of us. 

We had to decide that we would be the sort of community as she says “where we can bring our heartbreak and our pain and anguish and be reminded that we are not alone, that we are held by a love that never lets us go.” A community of “courage and deep practiced compassion, of resilience and resistance.” 

We had to believe that there was – there is something here worth sacrificing for, committing to – and then to call that something the presence and partnership of courageous love. 

Without this understanding, these conversations, this commitment, and this clarity of purpose – we would never be here, in this moment, in this building, in this gathering. 

In her book, The Art of Gathering, Priya Parker describes gatherings – and she’s not talking specifically about church –  although those too – but all gatherings – from the small everyday ways we gather, to holiday parties, to classrooms to competitions to protests – every sort of gathering, she says, is an incredible opportunity for us to learn who we are, and why we matter. 

How we gather, she says, is how we live. Except, most gatherings, she says, don’t come close to this possibility or promise.  

Mostly, because those of us who plan the gatherings don’t pause to consider any given gathering’s deeper purpose. Instead, we jump right into the gathering’s form – we throw a birthday party, we facilitate a company retreat, we host a candidate forum, we plan Sunday worship….and we skip right over the deeper needs we want to meet in any of these gatherings.  

Beyond marking another year of life.  Or making a strategic plan. Or knowing the candidates’ positions. Or even, beyond celebrating the opening of a new sanctuary. What is the need we are trying to fulfill behind these obvious and practical tasks? 

Once we understand a gathering’s deeper purpose, we can go back to the question of form – and consider more intentionally, what structure we should follow, what rules and expectations we will set, who we will invite, what space we will gather in – all chosen in service of the deeper purpose.  

Parker encourages us to find a purpose for our gatherings that is disputable – as in, not something everyone would agree with, or that just anyone would pick. 

For example, you may have seen that we are hosting a drag Christmas on Saturday December 23rd. The form we’re using is generally a drag show mixed with the story of the nativity. Which is – let’s be honest – already disputable for some people. But the purpose for the gathering is not simply to see local drag queens as the three magi. Even though we are super excited just for this.  

The deeper purpose is to give queer people an explicit place in the Christmas story, especially in a month when many in the LGBTQ+ community struggle with families who aren’t accepting, and in a time in our society when rights are being rolled back. 

The need we want to meet is a need for belonging, and inclusion, the need for celebration. 

This purpose in turn leads us to the form – the use of this story that has been kept queer people out of community – the Jesus story; and it leads us to this place – a church – that is so often a site of exclusion – and instead to use these tools as expressions of acceptance, and the embodiment of universal love. 

Which, by the way, is the actual message Jesus offers. But that’s a different sermon! 

Parker talks about the Japanese concept of ichi-go ichi-e, which roughly translates as “one meeting, one moment, in your life that will never happen again.” It’s a way of remembering that even if you recreate the exact concept for a gathering multiple times, the people who gather won’t ever be the same, as their lives continue to change, and life itself changes. 

So what is the unique opportunity of this gathering, with these people at this time? And what do we hope will be different, because of this specific, unique gathering?

As you are planning your gatherings over the next few weeks, I encourage you to ask yourselves these questions – what is your disputable purpose? And what is the specific opportunity this gathering offers? 

Especially for those gatherings you do every December, and including family gatherings, and work gatherings, even larger gatherings you may be hosting. 

What is the unique opportunity – with these people, at this time? 

What do you hope will be different because you gathered? 

For example – instead of a holiday gathering being just about getting the family together, a deeper purpose might be to connect the younger generations of cousins together after the recent death of the family matriarch. This deeper need might then mean the cousins are invited to bring a gift for one another that tells about their connections to their grandmother, and what part of her lives in their own lives.  And this would become the centerpiece of the whole gathering.  

As you’re thinking about these questions, you might find some resistance coming up in yourself, something along the lines of – Who am I to impose my desires on everyone else? Or, what if everyone thinks my idea for a purpose is dumb, or overly earnest? 

Inviting and hosting is always vulnerable – it asks us to put ourselves, and our intentions out there, and to see if and how people will respond.  Will they want to come? Will they have a good time? Will it be meaningful, or boring, or worse? A gathering is ultimately an invitation to give away your time – which is a precious resource. So we want to respect our guest’s time most of all – we want it to feel like this gathering was something worth showing up for.  

Given the stresses of life today, you might be saying to yourself – my guests just want to chill, no pressure, no expectations. They want to chill, and they want a host who will also chill.

This impulse to chill, as in stay relaxed, and low-key, or to use Susan Frederick-Gray’s word, casual – this impulse Parker says, is the biggest obstacle to meaningful gatherings today. 

As hosts of any given gathering, we don’t want to seem controlling, or invasive; we don’t want to be laughed at for taking something more seriously than other people are willing to, and we sincerely worry that it would be arrogant to assert a more explicit purpose or structure for any particular gathering.

Gathering people together is an act of love, Parker says, and it is also an act of power. The power to create something that connects people, fosters belonging, and forms identity. Gathering together has the power to change people – guests, and hosts.  And, gathering people together also has the power to leave people feeling pretty much the way they did before, just with a little less time on their hands. 

To step into this power with intention is to recognize that gatherings – and their guests – require protection. They need protection from each other – not usually in a physical sense, although sometimes. But more, there needs to be some set – and enforced – norms and boundaries that help protect the purpose above anything else. 

You’ll see, for example, in our new all-gender bathrooms, we have some guidelines posted – some new norms. Because we want to protect the purpose of that space – which is about safety, and inclusion, and respect.  

Enforcing set norms can sometimes feel like we are being mean, or overly harsh, or taking it all too seriously – but really, we are just doing our job of protecting the purpose for everyone who has come to the gathering for that purpose. 

Over the last 15 years, I’d guess I’ve been a part of planning more than 600 Sunday gatherings, where the task is always to identify the deeper purpose and need, in the particular – and to shape the form and structure to serve that need. As a staff team, for every Sunday, we ask ourselves how the whole service, and how every element in the service will be worth people’s time – your precious time  – how this gathering will be worth showing up for, staying put for.  

How each moment can tend to all of those things our chalice lighters named, and more. And sometimes, it’s true, we all have moments where we wonder if it would be better to be more chill. Especially in our faith where we affirm the agency of each individual person, and the freedom to act according to your own conscience, we are cautious about anything that could seem imposing, or controlling. 

But ultimately, we know that every person who will come through those doors every Sunday for years beyond our own lifetimes will arrive like each of us here today – “hungry to be gathered in, nothing of them found foreign, or strange, and nothing of their lives left behind, or carried in silence, or in shame.” 

To find here, sanctuary, and refuge, to be sanctuary for one another. In these days -we know – it is no time for a casual faith, or for chill gatherings.  

It can sound like a lot of pressure to hold – and sometimes I get confused and feel it that way. But then I remember – in this faith, and in this community- we are not a bunch of guests, with just a few of us hosts responsible for it all. Here, to be a member, means to join a whole team of hosts – so that all of us are responsible for gathering people in – including and also beyond Sundays – responsible for focusing us and our gatherings over and over again on a deeper purpose, the deeper why that we all worked so hard to discern and articulate, the deeper need that brought us all here.  

Which brings me back to the question I started this sermon with: 

Now that the building is done – what are we going to talk about? 

Let’s be honest, for a while we’re going to keep talking about the building. 

How amazing is it is. How incredible it is that we did it. And we should.  We need to take a deep breath and keep taking it all in.  

But then, after some time, my guess is we will all feel ready to think and to talk not just about a place to gather, but about the gatherings themselves. The gatherings that will happen in this great room, and also in all the little rooms we gather in – in our building, and in homes, in zoom rooms, and in the community, in advocacy, and in service. 

Because even now the need we are called to meet is changing, our needs, the world’s needs. The hunger we are called to feed. The norms we will need to set, the boundaries we need to hold, the structures we are called to explore in order to serve these changing needs – all of these are yet to be discovered anew, as we now get to turn our attention fully to our deeper purpose and the way it is calling to us in the particular here, and now.  

What I’m saying is – it’s official. We never have to talk about having three Sunday services ever again. Instead, we get to put that energy into the deeper purpose we were after all along. From here on, we get to discover and then we get to fiercely protect all that this purpose requires of us in all the ways we gather, for all of our days ahead. 

This is the work before us, and friends, it is our gift, and our joy.  

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Goodness Beyond the Good Life

Reading: Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front, by Wendell Berry

Last Sunday, I told you about sitting down with the Rabbi from Har Shalom, and how the first people to call her after the Hamas attack were Christian Evangelicals.

What I didn’t tell you, is that she shared this with me because she was surprised, and sad, that she didn’t also get a call from us. Not because she thought we’d have a particular position, but because she thought we would be there for them in their grief and fear.

Your community always has a moral compass, she said, sadly.

I did eventually email her – it’s how we ended up sitting down, but it took long enough that it left questions, and feeling alone in loss.

There are a lot of reasons why we as an institution didn’t reach out sooner, some we shared in our public letter – like, we were unsure how to respond, and also we failed to fully understand the impact of an attack on Israel on American Jews. 

But for me, personally. There is another reason I didn’t reach out sooner. Which is, that I was really busy.

I was caught up in my own world, my own troubles – we had to close our building that week due to construction, and we were hosting a training with people from across the country; and at home, my partner was out of town, and it was my daughter’s 18th birthday, and my son broke his finger, and then my father-in-law broke his rib…I was really, really busy

I did not say any of this to Rabbi Finestone that day – or, include it in our public letter. Because really, it doesn’t matter.  The failure to call was still a failure to call, and there’s no excuse that makes that feel better.

But I’m sharing it here – not to spread my regret around, but because it is such a perfect example of life today. Whatever our intent, or our values, we are too often too busy, too consumed by our own lives. The urgency of our daily lives means we don’t call.  Let alone march, or organize action for meaningful change. I mean, who even has time to fight fascism?   

After all, we are taught that the good life means focusing on our own good lives, leaving little margin for things beyond our immediate sphere. We learn to strive for our children to be happy, for our grandchildren to have a better life than we had – to have more financial security, more personal satisfaction. And to call that good – enough. We learn to be good consumers, clear about our personal preferences, and experts at acquiring the stuff that satisfies these preferences. 

The values of the market, reinforced by the American Dream and the (often, but not always) invisible forces of white supremacy, patriarchy, and compulsory heterosexuality conspire to keep us caught in a value-system centered on competition, extraction, and wealth accumulation. Depending on our race, our mental and physical health, our sexual orientation, our gender and a host of other factors we may be more or less constrained in this system….but we are all caught.   

Even if we actively despise all of these values, we still need to worry about our own retirement, and the market, and the value of our homes, even if we find the whole system abhorrent – we have to think about our own security. Or at least, if we’re lucky, we get to think about our own security – our retirement, and our homes. 

We are caught in a systemic selfishness, a structural self-interest that often inhibits even the most developed moral compass from meaningful action.

Unitarian ethicist James Luther Adams specifically identified the ways that people of a liberal faith can get caught in this reality. You may remember JLA as the one who traveled to Germany and returned with a fervor for articulating a liberalism that would stop fascism if it came to the United States.

To begin, he described the historical vulnerabilities of liberalism, specifically what he calls its idolatry of individualism.

Ironically, the liberal value of the individual arose in response to the threat of authoritarianism, and the fear of limits on personal freedom and autonomy. The old idea of live, and let live; of respecting people’s choices, even if they are not ones you would make yourself – these are positive, and important values of our liberal faith.

It is only when individualism is taken as the ultimate good – or as JLA describes, “when a social movement adopts as the center for loyalty … an inflated, misplaced abstraction made into an absolute” that it fosters the fascism it was originally intended to prevent.

This perverted understanding of liberal faith fails to pair individualism with community, where protecting the vulnerable is our ultimate shared end.

Without community, liberalism, JLA says, confuses good theology with an individual’s “good life,” and offers a kind of self-satisfied moralism of ethical precepts that relies on “’progress’ ideology.” This form of liberal faith “misses the depth dimension, and becomes impotent in dealing with the ultimate issues of life.” (All of these quotes are from JLA’s essay, “Guiding Principles for a Free Faith,” which is published in On Being Human Religiously.)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian most known for his resistance to the Nazis, identified those who idolize individualism as one of the two types of groups who passively ensured the success of the Nazis.

“Such people,” he wrote, “neither steal, nor murder, nor commit adultery, but do good according to their abilities. But in voluntarily renouncing public life, these people know exactly how to observe the permitted boundaries that shield them from conflict. They must close their eyes and ears to the injustice around them.” (from Ethics, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer; also, see this blog post on Bonhoeffer)

Besides these privileged individualists, Bonhoeffer identifies centrists as the other key passive collaborators in the Nazi’s rise. “With the best intentions,” he writes, “they believe that, with a little reason, they can pull back together a structure that has come apart at the joints. They want to be fair to both sides, and so they are crushed between the colliding forces. Bitterly disappointed that the world is so unreasonable, they [too] withdraw” just like the first group, and become focused on their own individual goodness.  (also from Ethics)

Especially for those of us who do spend a good deal of time caring for others, caring about systemic injustice, and trying to be for a goodness beyond our own individual lives – it can be pretty uncomfortable to name the ways we are caught in a structure that inhibits our resistance.

It can be uncomfortable, but I hope it can also be helpful. In naming this as a systemic issue, we can hopefully avoid the guilt that can paralyze us when we think we are the problem, or when we believe we are personally failing. We can instead remember that we are all caught in this structure that is built to make opposition – let alone the creation of sustainable alternatives – fail. 

The structure is what’s failing.  We are all just doing the best we can.

Starting from this assumption – that we are all doing the best we can in a broken system encourages in us a cooperative generosity, from which we can imagine not just resisting, but actively practicing an alternative vision for life, together. 

Something, like the vision Wendell Berry offers in his Manifesto. 

Wendell Berry wrote this poem – and his other Mad Farmer poems – 50 years ago, even though it feels so current. Except for maybe his binary wonderings about men and women and power. The line “when they want you to buy something, they will call you” seems like a direct reference to what author Shoshana Zuboff calls surveillance capitalism. 

Berry – now age 89 – has spent his life critiquing both liberal and conservative versions of individualism, and the base assumption that “if you want it, you should have it.” More than just critique, Berry’s life reminds us that we can, with a sustained commitment to the collective good, reclaim our capacity to resist, and rebuild; we can resist the forces that keep us caught, and become effective actors in the fight against fascism.

In that spirit, I once again will end my sermon with a list of practices – this week oriented not towards church – although your church can and should help you with these – but more ways for your own life to be a protest.  Ordered in what I think will be increasingly uncomfortable challenges. 

1. Re-define what you mean by “success.” A few weeks ago, Sean preached a sermon praising failure, saying, “We should fail at perfection if it means we strive for radical acceptance; we should fail at independence if it means we strive for interdependence; we should fail at efficiency if it means we strive for sustainability; and we should fail at individual material wealth if it means we strive for collective prosperity.” Which is all another way of saying, we need to re-define success itself. 

To re-imagine our lives based in a success that is collective, sustainable, connected, and caring requires a re-imagining of what achievements we prize, what judgments from others we can endure, and when we tell ourselves we are doing a good job. Because it’s the internal messages that can really get to us, so we’ve got to re-program ourselves, tell ourselves new stories about what matters, and the vision we are working towards – and ps, you probably can’t find it on Pinterest.

2. Embrace a Long View of Time. As Americans, we tend to have a very short memory, and a very limited concept of time, especially given today’s media cycle.  

But it is helpful to recognize the longer arc at work in today’s reality. The seemingly abrupt emergence of fascist tactics and ideologies in recent years is actually the outcome of decades-long reactions to the civil rights movement, and second wave feminism. As Paul Mason writes, “fascism results when the fear of freedom is triggered by a glimpse of freedom.” (Here’s a summary of Mason’s book, How to Stop Fasicsm but also check out the book itself!)

A long view of time reminds us of the resistance movements that have been, and still are a part of human reality – that we need not invent resistance ourselves.

A long view of time also requires the discipline to break free from the cycle of crisis response, and instead invest in systems that could prevent the emergencies in the first place. For example, while we had an incredible response to last winter’s sudden arrival of immigrants seeking shelter in Fort Collins, since then it has been difficult to prioritize the resources to create the systems to support the ongoing arrival of immigrants to our community. Urgent calls and emergencies capture our attention, but it’s the ongoing, non-emergency systems-building work that would create a more durable solution, regardless of what happens in the next election cycle.

Just as importantly, a longer view of time reminds us that this work will last our whole lives. Which means we can and must be sustainable in our practice, taking regular time for rest, renewal, and reflection.  As the Oakland-based justice group the Movement Generation reminds us, if it’s not soulful, it’s not strategic, emphasizing the need for the work of resistance itself to be so irresistible, it can hold us through the best, and the hardest times.

  • 3. Blame the billionaires. Despite what social media and journalists keep telling us, the source of fascism is not the crowd gathering at Trump rallies, and it’s not even the brother-in-law you’ll be sitting down to dinner with on Thursday – or not, because last year got too heated. To find the real problem, follow the money. 

The individuals and multinational corporations that disproportionately hold the wealth in our country and who could on their own address many of the collective problems we face, and could, if they wanted, stop the rise of fascism. But they don’t want. Fascism brings with it an underfunded IRS, insufficiently progressive tax policies, and a lack of environmental or safety regulations. 

As Wendell Berry observes, both liberals and conservatives have been so preoccupied by our respective focus on securing individual freedoms, we have “refused to look straight at the dangers and the failures of government-by-corporations.” We must re-focus our attention on these hoarders of wealth, and resist the outrage machine of social media that only feeds the profits of tech giants and media conglomerates. 

4. Expand the Idea of Family. The nuclear family unit is often lifted up as the source of social stability, which is what makes it such a critical site for resistance and re-envisioning. Specifically, we need to go back to Hillary Clinton’s “Village” idea, but take it more literally than she probably meant it.  Raising kids today is not a job for just two adults, not anymore, maybe not ever. We need more hands on deck. We need trusted adults who have the margin in their lives to build real and invested relationships with children who are not their own, and with their parents – to the point of calling each other family. (I really like this article talking about this idea.)

We also need to be more open to and publicly supportive of alternative family structures that are more common in the queer community, and in Gen Z: multi-adult and mulit-generational households, long term co-housing, and poly relationships to name a few – recognizing that any effort that sanctifies a wider circle of concern is a good thing. 

Finally, let’s elevate friendships to the same social status as our marriages. We have so many social rituals and celebrations of marriage, yet so few affirmations of our friends, even though our friends are vital to our survival. Imagine if it was normal for friends to throw themselves anniversary parties, or wear jewelry symbolizing their mutual commitment.   

5. Let go of your money (on purpose!). To give away our money, especially in ways that reach a good beyond our own lives or lifetimes is a powerful act in resisting capitalism, which tells us once the money is yours – it’s always yours, or your children’s, regardless of whose sacrifices helped make that money possible. 

To give away your money is to recognize instead our interdependence, and the systems we are all a part of that made that money possible.

At the micro level, especially within communities of color, younger generations are already practicing this through crowd funding after a lay off, or for medical crises, or for a first home purchase.  It’s a beautiful, countercultural practice, and it is insufficient for the change we need.

For that, we must reconsider generational giving, and challenge the assumption that our descendents are automatically the primary recipients of our estate. Intead we can think about using our wealth as a key tool of inter-generational justice, including addressing the longstanding question of reparations (or this one if you can’t read the Atlantic).

Where to give your money if you don’t give it to your children is a big question – and a whole other sermon – but the book and the website Decolonizing Wealth is one place to start if you are curious about this powerful form of resistance.

You may have realized the 5 together give us the useful acronym REBEL –

  • Re-define success
  • Embrace a long view of time,
  • Blame the billionaires
  • Expand your idea of family, and
  • Let go of your money on purpose

Certainly this is not an exhaustive list – I hope you’ll come up with your own things for our shared manifesto, our vision for a radical resistance and re-imaging.  And then I also hope you’ll consider which of these you will experiment with – and what you are willing to sacrifice.   

In his final analysis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer realized the Nazis could not be stopped, because people weren’t willing to sacrifice – not enough. They wanted first some reassurance of their own continued safety, and the safety of their children before they would act. They didn’t want to look like “radicals” – they wanted to be reasonable. 

To practice resurrection – as Wendell Berry says –  is to recognize that the structures of our lives must be undone, and let go. That life has become too small, too individualized, too caught.  And, it is to instead be a part of an expansive new way of life, a movement fighting for the birth of Beloved Community, abundant life, for all. 

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Church as Countercultural Practice

A couple of weeks ago, I sat down with Rabbi Finestone, who serves Congregation Har Shalom, just down the road. We were speaking about the attack on October 7th, and what her community has been feeling since.  She shared many things that have stuck with me, including that in the first few days, the most consistent calls of support her community received were from evangelical Christians.

My heart sunk when I heard this. Not because she received calls of support. But because I know – and she knows – that this support is not exactly what it might seem. 

Today, some of the biggest supporters of Israel are evangelical Christians who believe that the return of Jews to their homeland is a pre-requisite for the second coming of Christ. In fact, as of 2017, 80% of evangelical Christians believe that the creation of Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Of course, most of these same Christians also believe that in returning, Jews must and will experience a conversion to Christianity. Which means that Christian Zionists support Israel, but they don’t actually support Jews.

In case you’ve wondered when you’ve heard some of the far-right politicians espousing both 100% backing of Israel and 100% support of establishing Christianity (their version) as American law, now you know why.

This impulse – seen especially in the American right today – is just one example of the ways that church, and faith can collude with hate-filled, fascist ideology. It’s a recent example, but not the most explicit.

Nearly a century ago, before the rise of Hitler, Germany was mostly Christian, and mostly German Evangelicals, who were working for the establishment of a national church, which, in the 1920s began to coalesce around issues of nationalism, ethnicity, and antisemitism. It was this group that in 1933, when Hitler came to power, took the Nazi ideology and ran with it. The church in Germany was not just a bystander in the face of fascism, it was, in many cases, an active collaborator. 

In many cases – but not all. Some people in the German Churches weren’t so convinced. Especially around the requirement known as the Aryan Paragraph, which said that baptized Christians would have to prove they were of Aryan ancestry. This caused a huge conflict, not because it was antisemitic, sadly, but because it was saying baptism wasn’t enough to make you a “full” Christian.

This conflict led to the start of a resistance movement called the Confessing Church, which included theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer – although, Bonhoeffer’s eventual participation in a failed plot to kill Hitler, was far more radical than the Confessing Church ever managed to be.

This conflict also led to the Nazis taking control of local churches and arresting the bishops. In response, the churches launched a huge protest in the streets of Munich – not a good look for an emergent authoritarian regime.   

In the 1980s, when the Republican party first joined forces with the evangelical church, they were taking lessons from what happened in Munich with the churches.  Because they understood that when people are driven by and organized through their church – a different sort of power is unleashed. The resistance isn’t just another issue, it is core to who you are, it’s connected to self-worth, your existential responsibility. 

So that when their churches called on them to resist, German Evangelicals didn’t just march, they declared an ultimatum.  Nearly 90,000 people made it clear that they would leave the Nazi party if the bishops weren’t freed. 

And guess what? It worked. The bishops were released. The state backed down.  The bishops got to control their Churches.

There was so much power in these communities of faith. The sort of power that could have shifted the entire trajectory of history. 

Imagine, if 90,000 people had instead shown up, in those early days, with the same insistence, that they would leave the party unless the persecution of Jewish people stopped. Instead of upholding the unjust dominant culture, perhaps they could have been a force of disruption, dismantling, transforming, and saving.  

Church holds so much power. Power to cause harm, and power to save. But because so much of the power churches hold has been used to harm, and because of the hypocrisy this harm indicates – people of goodwill and big vision – in increasing numbers, especially over the last two decades – have been rapidly abandoning the practice of church.

30% of Americans now, compared to 17% just fifteen years ago, say that they have no religious affiliation.  In place of joining a faith community, people today will often strive to be good people, and follow a spiritual path, outside of community, Finding tools and people, practices, and volunteer opportunities in the same way we do everything else – individually, and in whatever frequency or mode they can fit into their free time.

This consumer-like mode has made podcasts and pseudo-communities like Glennon Doyle’s Together Rising, and her podcast We Can Do Hard Things very popular.  Which – I mean – I listen to We Can Do Hard Things, and a bunch of others like it, and I take a lot from them, truly.    

And, still, neither Glennon Doyle, nor any of the pod squad brought my family dinner when my daughter had surgery a couple weeks ago. But you did. Maybe not you personally – but this church did. So, you did. 

And Thich Nhat Hanh, or Valerie Kaur, inspiring teachers though they are, and important – neither they nor their Instagram posts have been greeting and sheltering trans folks fleeing unsafe states. But you have been. 

You made those meals, and offered that shelter. You show up in real life, make love tangible, embodied. 

And this is the power of church that we miss when we throw it all out. This central practice of showing up for each other in this collective casserole reflex that spans generations, and this covenantal community that shows up for more than ourselves – this is what makes church a uniquely powerful way to resist, and even transform unjust forces in the dominant culture – even when that culture includes the rising tides of fascism, as Sean described last Sunday.

Before you wonder, let me clarify, I don’t mean that you can’t be a good person, or have a real spiritual life, or experience authentic community without church.  More, I mean that, when I talk to other non-profit leaders, or activists, or when I talk to my friends who are not a part of a church community, I can’t help but think that they are at a real disadvantage. And how much harder, and lonelier their path likely is.

To attempt to forge community without the standard practice of gathering together every week, intentionally co-regulating your nervous systems with one another – in silence, in song, in the simple act of greeting each other, and directing our shared attention towards a greater purpose and wider love.

I just don’t know how I would do it. 

Not to mention, their people probably don’t sing to each other at the hospital, sit in parents circle each week while their kids are singing in the holiday choir, or think intentionally about what music they’d want playing in their final days, or make big batches of coffee for strangers – and for the most part, their communities do not include seven generations of people from infancy to age 103.

Intergenerational community, and intentional relationships are a part of many organizational mission statements, but rarely are they built into the very DNA of their organization in the way they are in church. 

Let me pause for a moment to talk about the word “church,” which may have been causing some squinting or protective postures this whole morning, and I’m guessing it doesn’t help to tell you that the roots of the word church are from the Latin word for Circus.

Before Latin, we find the roots of church in the Greek ecclesia, which refers to a gathering of citizens attending to the concerns of their community. And still, it is the Christian appropriation of this term that most readily comes up. Church signals: Christian. And although our community includes Christians, and we find wisdom in Christian teachings, we are not a Christian Church.

The word Church can feel unwelcoming to some – especially those who are not from a Christian background – Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist UUs especially. All this is why sometimes, instead I say congregation, or faith community, or just community. All of these words are also true, and you are free to use any of them, or any other word that allows you to connect to rather than flee from the thing the word is attempting to point to, these practices and this power I am trying this morning to describe.

Ultimately, I keep coming back to the word church not just because it has fewer syllables….but because it is what we have been called since 1898, and so it connects us with all of those liberal religionists of more than 100 years ago.

“Church” is a way of laying claim to our own history, to the sacrifices, and positive purposes that made all of this possible. This gift of community we get to receive.

“Church” is a way to refuse to concede this tradition – our tradition – to those who use church in harmful ways, and refuse to let them take this beauty, this blessing, from us, or from our ancestors, who fought so hard for the right to practice this sort of church. 

As Unitarian ethicist James Luther Adams wrote, “We have a responsibility to maintain the heritage that is ours, the heritage of response to the community-forming power [in the universe], which calls us to the affirmation of that abundant love, which is not ultimately in our possession but is a holy gift.”

James Luther Adams spent time in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, where he got a close in look at the church’s failure to stop the rise of the Nazis.

Later, he described this time as inspiring in him, a “conversion.” Not in the traditional religious sense, but in the sense that it inspired him to change his life, entirely. Change how he understood what it meant to be moral, what is required of each of us, and the role of faith and the church in resisting tyranny. 

He asked himself – if fascism comes to the States, what in his past behavior would show a capacity for effective resistance? It’s something each of us might ask ourselves. What from our habits would safeguard freedom, and democracy? And how does our faith inspire, or shape these habits?

JLA realized his main habits on behalf of democracy were voting, and staying informed, which he decided was not enough. He recalled his anti-Nazi friends say, “If only 1,000 of us in the late twenties had combined in heroic resistance, we could have stopped Hitler.”

JLA spent most of the rest of his life attempting to articulate a religious liberalism that would center habits and commitments to ensure that both liberal churches and the people who in them would be not collaborators, or even bystanders – but rather active forces of resistance to fascist ideologies or strategies, or authoritarian impulses. 

In this spirit, I want to end my sermon with an articulation four key practices that allow church to be the place where – as author Robin Meyers describes, “we learn and then take direct and indirect actions to oppose those things   in the dominant culture that brings death and indignity to any member of the human family, or to creation itself.

  1. Practice 1: Covenant. Covenant is the practice that grounds all others, our promises.  To self, to others, to something greater. Our promises of love, of abundant life. Covenant directs our commitment and our loyalty to the place where the good for self, others, and life itself overlap, which is why covenant makes individualism, as well as parochialism, impossible.  Covenant is where social change, pastoral care, and self-care are inseparable, and interchangeable. To be a covenantal rather than creedal faith is to refuse to be a religion of domination and control. It is to invite explicit consent, to welcome difference, and to prize individual agency. Individual agency, that is, within the context of relationship – which is covenant’s way, and its end. Covenant requires negotiation and explicit conversation, and is therefore an affirmation of our interdependence, and inherent worth. And finally, covenant teaches us that humans are promise-making but also promise-breaking creatures, and so we must take seriously the human potential to cause harm, including the existence of evil, and learn and practice forgiveness, repair, and beginning again.    
  2. Practice 2: Small Groups. Small groups are where we practice covenant. By small I mean fewer than 12, although anything smaller than what you experience on Sunday morning is probably a good start. Gathering like this is essential, but also insufficient. Margaret Mead described the power of a small group to change the world, but studies show that it’s not really one small group that makes a difference, it is a bunch of small groups intermixing with other groups – especially when these groups are from different demographics, perspectives, and ways of being – as with interfaith or cross-cultural relationships – small groups connecting with other small groups become engines of emergence and co-creation where new culture is discovered, and created, and they combine the power of deep relationships with the strength of a large network – which is how you can get 90,000 people working together to make Nazis –  or anyone seeking authoritarian control – back down.
  3. Practice 3: Sustained Habits that Care for the Soul. Despite the trends in our wider culture, I still find getting up on Sunday morning and setting aside this time to be in community to be one of the most radical, counter-cultural acts we can practice, and one of the best ways to be able to face the harm that humans can and do cause, because it connects us relentlessly with the other story of human goodness, generosity, and love. Beyond Sundays, care for the soul includes intentional practices of rest, connecting in nature, vespers in the park, yoga, tai chi, meditation, singing, gardening, biking, art….whatever habits we can sustain, with regularity that help reset our nervous systems, build in us a deeper resilience, and connect us with beauty and the love at the center of our covenant. Integrating these habits into our community creates a collective embodied capacity to meet whatever challenges we face with integrity and courage.
  4. Practice 4: Holy Curiosity. This is the practice that affirms with everything in us, over and over, that truth is ever unfolding. There is so much we do not know, cannot know – about ourselves, about others, about this life – about the past, or the present, let alone the future – about our families, or science, or the cosmos, or about the meaning of it all….Holy curiosity means we are learners, rather than knowers – which means we do not know how this story turns out, and it’s never too late to act. Learners make mistakes, and are wrong, at least some of the time.  Learners seek partners who hold them accountable, and who help them widen their view. Learners spend their whole lives trying to ask better questions, trying to listen more deeply, trying to expand their imagination, and their vision, and trying to unlearn systems of oppression. Learners celebrate their past, but also commit to learning from it, recognizing the tendency of humans to repeat patterns; learners understand that neither justice nor freedom is ever a given. 

Maybe you thought I would share a list with more direct action – clearer mandates for protesting, or legislative action, or organizing – to ensure we are resisting. What I have learned, and seen happen here, is that when these other practices are sustained, the community itself identifies those requirements as they emerge, and does what is required. When we integrate the practice and wisdom of covenant in all we do, when we commit to knowing each other – and our wider community in small groups,when we sustain habits that care for our souls, and when we practice a holy curiosity, we are incredibly, and uniquely powerful.

In these days where churches continue to cause so much harm, we must not cede this power, our power, our gift – to the forces of division, and hatred. we must claim the power of church to resist injustice, dismantle oppression, and uphold the still possible vision of a world where all are free. 


References & Further Reading

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lifewords

Twenty four years ago this week, I was on a flight to Portland to meet up with my parents. I had words I needed to say to them for the very first time. Words that were too big for an email or a phone call, or even a handwritten letter.  

My words were also too big to say while on the drive from Portland to their house two hours away, but they couldn’t wait. So from the backseat of my dad’s car, I told them I was in love. With a woman. I was bisexual. 

For a few moments, my silence instead became theirs.

Seconds passed, which felt like decades, as mile-marker reflectors flew by us in the dark. Finally, there was mocking laughter, and all of their defenses came up.  They could not believe the words I was saying, refused to hear them. I tried again. And again, and again, to say words that they would understand. 

It was the beginning of a years-long conversation between us, attempting to bridge the distance between my silence, and theirs. After all the many words we have said to each other over the decades since then, the truth is now, they mostly don’t remember that first conversation. 

The speaking has changed them, and me, and us, and for the good. We did manage to bridge the distance. So much so now, they don’t even remember the silence. 

But I do. I still hold it all, in my heart, I hold every word. 

Some words are like spells. Bringing them to speech changes everything. Immediately, and then over time, as what is spoken sinks in and becomes a new reality, creates a new world. Words like, I love you.  Or I’m trans. Or, let’s get married. Words like, I need help, or I’m sorry.  

What are the words in your life that just by the speaking, moved you from one reality into another? The words that changed your life, the life of people you love, the words that made, and re-made whole worlds.

This power of words being spoken is what psychologist Robert Eichberg and activist Jean O’Leary understood in 1988 when they designated October 11th as National Coming Out Day.  They were trying to decide how to respond to continuing anti-gay legislation, and decided that the act of saying true words would be their best hope for turning fear into celebration.

Over three decades later, coming out is a concept most of us have a sense of – the power of claiming your own truth to change things. But what can get lost in our understanding of coming out today, is the importance of the words themselves. 

Instead we might emphasize the simple knowing of what is true – say, the coming out to ourselves, less than the actual saying of specific words. 

Some balk at the idea of labels in all their concrete specificity for identities always emergent and truth that is always unfolding, and so downplay the importance of specific words. 

Words are imperfect approximations of truth, of course – it’s why it took so damn long to bridge the distance of understanding with my parents – and words are always just a snapshot of a moment in time.  

And still, there is something uniquely powerful in the bringing of these sounds to our lips, the particular consonants and vowels, the physical breaking of silence. 

Silence can be so seductive, at least for a time. 

Silence tries to convince us we can keep things from ever changing, that not-changing is better, that somehow by not bringing truth to speech you can make that truth no longer true, or at least no longer matter quite as much. 

Silence over time can become a kind of culture, a self-protective habit passed down generation to generation, within families, and then communities, until there is silence about the silence itself. 

As poet Adrienne Rich wrote, “Whatever is unnamed, undepicted in images, whatever is omitted from biography, censored in collections of letters, whatever is misnamed as something else, made difficult-to-come-by, whatever is buried in the memory by the collapse of meaning under an inadequate or lying language – this will become, not merely unspoken, but unspeakable.” 

This is the sort of silence upon which white supremacy and patriarchy depend, which is why speaking some words out loud can feel for some of us like such an impossibility, like learning a language long forgotten and forbidden. 

In silence, the amygdala runs the show. That part of our brain that thrives on threats, and fear, and reduces all of our options into fight, or flight, freeze, or fawn, and that disregards all logic as nonsense. 

Silence is seductive, and it is also eventually suffocating. To keep our truths unspoken is to be eaten alive from the inside.  

As Black lesbian poet Audre Lorde writes, “you’re never really a whole person if you remain silent, because there’s always that one little piece inside you that wants to be spoken out, and if you keep ignoring it, it gets madder and hotter and hotter, and if you don’t speak it out one day, it will just up and punch you in the mouth from the inside.” 

Scientifically speaking, to live with the amygdala in charge has significant implications on our health – it reduces immune response, increases physical pain, anxiety, and depression, and increases the risk for high blood pressure, heart attacks and stroke. 

Studies have shown that the brain responds uniquely to words we speak out loud – it re-focuses our self-understanding, and calms the amygdala. 

To break the silence is to literally save your own life. 

As Audre Lorde writes, “I have come to believe over and over again, that what is most important to me, must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood. That the speaking profits me, beyond any other effect.”  

It is one reason the practice of confession can be so powerful, to put to words the harm you have caused is to begin a process of healing in yourself, and in those you harmed. 

This power of speaking words aloud is something that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his “Don’t Say Gay” law understand very well, and it’s also something that Moms for Liberty and book-banning politicians and local school board candidates understand – just how powerful it is to say specific words out loud. 

Bringing words to speech is a dangerous act, not just psychologically, although that would be enough to justify fear, and trepidation, for saying certain words for the first time. As Lorde writes, “in the cause of silence, each of us draws the face of her own fear – fear of contempt, of censure, of some judgment, or recognition, of challenge, of annihilation.” 

We fear for ourselves, and sometimes even more persuasively, we fear for people we love. We sit on words that we have known in our hearts for a long time, maybe whole lifetimes because we are afraid that saying them would destroy more than we can handle. 

Silence, for all of its suffocation, is still better, we believe, than such undoing. 

I quit. I want a divorce. I’m sick. My child’s not reaching her developmental milestones. My drinking has become a problem. I was abused. I abused. I have dementia. I’m dying.

As ministers, we’re often the place people go to for a kind of trial run for first times with words like these. A safe person with whom you can try out the words with the idea that by position or trust we will un-hear it, if by the saying, the destruction becomes clearly too dangerous, or if the words once spoken no longer seem true or important after all.  

Sometimes people will meet with me, and tell me they are thinking of leaving their marriage, for example. But then, some time later I check back, and they have genuinely found a way through it. 

Sometimes the saying of words helps us to know the world we want to keep working for, the truth that is worth holding on to; and sometimes it just tells us we aren’t ready yet, but we will be, someday.

Sometimes people share things like this with ministers with the hopes that we will talk them out of it, that in some kind of holy wisdom we will see right through them and call it out as nonsense. 

I should tell you now, at least when I’m showing up as I mean to, you might wish for this, but I won’t deliver. Unlike other faith leaders, UU ministers claim no special access to divine wisdom, and we don’t claim to know more about your life and your truth than you do. 

The only thing we can affirm is that these words are your words, your truth, your story, and the best we can offer is to receive you in whatever you are wanting to share.  

For any of us to receive lifewords like these, life-changing words from another – it is an honor, and a privilege. And it matters – almost as much as the speaking itself, how we receive the words.  

The challenge of course, is to simply listen, and truly hear. Which requires a kind of double awareness.  

First, of the ways we are entirely separate from the one speaking. It is their journey, their truth, their worlds coming undone, or beginning anew. Not ours. We may want to relate, and unthinkingly write our own experiences on to theirs, but we must let them be the central character of their own story, and set aside our own narration for a time. 

However their truth is impacting us – whatever our reactions. We must refuse to fix, or problem solve – unless they explicitly ask for such support – and even then, we must tread lightly.  Let their process unfold in whatever way it will. To leave space for them to reveal themselves to us, and to themselves. To leave space for them to be still growing, and becoming, and changing. To let the words be spells of freedom, rather than just new prisons.  The more connected we are to another, the harder this first awareness will be. 

Our children, our parents, our spouses – their revelations will inevitably feel close in, and we can get confused between their truth, and our own. The best practice in these moments is to return to our breath, and to pause. To know and affirm that we do have our own truth that we will need to say, but that maybe ironically, for a time, our silence will be our gift. To trust that the time will come, and the person to whom we will speak that truth may or may not be this person whose truth we are now receiving. 

I never thought my parents shouldn’t have their own process about my coming out – their own feelings, their own words they needed to say and try out and work through. Of course they should. I just wasn’t the right person to receive those words.  

This question comes up often when I am talking with a couple considering ending their relationship – they want to turn to each other, to continue to be the recipient of their respective emerging truths, but it is nearly impossible to be the person with whom you are struggling to be in relationship with and be the person to whom you are turning to for support about that struggle. It’s part of the process to find someone else to turn to, and to receive the words you very much need to speak. 

It is such a critical part of breaking silence – to be aware of who the right person is to receive, and to discern the right timing. Especially in the earliest stages, it can get so confusing what to say to whom. And here I want to go back to one of the phrases I offered earlier – the words, I have dementia.  

These words are often first spoken in our community – in a small group, or in a meeting you set with one of the ministers, or with a friend you’ve met here. I have dementia. Or maybe, my spouse has dementia. Dementia is such a particularly complex reality that so many of us are wrestling with these days. Dementia can make it hard to put things into words; to literally find the words. Memory is intertwined with our identity, especially for people who have been overly-identified with their capable brains for most of their lives, as many of us have. So that by saying I have dementia, we can have a sense that we will become somehow less of a person, at least in terms of how others see us.

It’s a fear, and it’s also a potential reality – just as with a lot of the other lifewords we might share for the first time – that they will be received with a de-humanizing distance.  But this is why we who receive such words must hold on to a second awareness – alongside the awareness that we are entirely separate from the one speaking, must be the awareness that we are also entirely connected.  That there is nothing another person can share that will make them any less human than we are, or that could be completely foreign to us or our potential realities. We must refuse to overly “other” another.  We must retain a sense of humor, even a lightness. Not to downplay what someone is sharing, but more to hold on to the truth of the person that is unchanged, even as they are sharing something that may be world-shifting. 

When we put to words something for the first time, we need to know that we can still be seen for the person we are, not overly identified with these new words themselves. As queer theorist Kathryn Bond Stockton reminds us, we need to leave some space between us and the words, to remember that the words – powerful as they are, are always an approximation of the truth, not the truth itself.  

With this in mind, I have found that a willingness to say “I have dementia” when do have dementia – is one of the best ways to maintain and even deepen our connections with one another and our sense of shared humanity. Because it gives words to a reality that is there whether you name it or not. Which reduces anxiety, and makes space for that humor to come through, and for humanity to be retained. 

It is often the case that we try not to say words because we are afraid that they will be disconnecting – that we will lose relationships as a result of our utterances. And for a time, that may be true. For some relationships, it will inevitably be true. But the truth spoken and acknowledged is ultimately always more connective than untruths left in silence. We are one in shared reality, whether it is a reality we explicitly name or not, and the truth still sets us free.    

So, “What do you need to say? Audre Lorde asks. “What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own, until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence?”  

In these days, speaking remains a revolutionary act. A resistance to the forces of shame and erasure,a willingness to be a full person, ever in progress, an act of trust that we could be received by another, a steadfast faith that through all of life’s tangled blessings, love persists. It is an act we do for ourselves, and it is an act we do for all of us collectively, to ensure the triumph of diverse human truth, that no truth will become unspeakable.   

Let us be for one another, a safe place to say the words that need saying for the first time. Let us be the people who speak aloud the truth. Who refuse the suffocation of silence, and who proclaim the liberating life-saving necessity of speech. 

Posted in Sermons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment