Ironicschmoozer’s Weblog


SERMON–Taming the Reptile Brain: Living with Peace in an Age of Anxiety and Anger

Sunday, March 18m 2012

Unitarian Universalist Society, Sacramento

Hymns: Wake Now, My Senses; Spirit of Life/Fuente de Amor; Blessed Spirit of My Life.

 

Prayer:   by Harry Meserve

Singing the Living Tradition #496

From arrogance, pompousness, and from thinking ourselves more important than we are, may some saving sense of humor liberate us. For allowing ourselves to ridicule the faith of others, may we be forgiven.  From making war and calling it peace, special privilege and calling it justice, indifference and calling it tolerance, pollution and calling it progress, may we be cured.  From telling ourselves and others that evil is inevitable while good is impossible, may we stand corrected.  God of our mixed up, tragic, aspiring, doubting, and insurgent lives, help us to be as good as in our hearts we have always wanted to be.  Amen.

Sermon

Sometimes when I read an article about politics on a website, I scroll down and look at the reader comments.   Big mistake!  The lack of respectful conversation–or any true conversation–stuns me.  Many who disagree with the writer or dislike the subject will say unfair things about the people involved or the writer.  When their opinion is the opposite of mine, their hateful comments can make my blood boil.  If their position is one I agree with, then a cheap shot will embarrass and dishearten me:  “Wait, I’m on the same side of the issue, but I can’t bear to be associated with such mean-spirited people.”  The back-and-forth attacks really upset me.  And bad spelling makes it worse.

Yet I must confess, when I’m reading my email, if I feel impatient, hurt, misunderstood, or angry, I have an urge to fire off a righteous retort or a defensive blast.  It’s so easy to vent by hitting the send button, and then regret it later.  Of course, the internet didn’t give birth to potshots and hurtful or

hateful words, it only gives them a powerful platform, always at the ready.

We live in an age of anxiety and quick anger.  It’s easy to take offense, and then hang on to it.  Reactivity and righteousness spill over into all our relationships:  family, friends, groups and organizations.

Even though it can be destructive, such behavior is based in our survival instincts.  It comes from the ancient part of our brain—the reptilian part.  The stimulus for survival takes place in a part of our head where brain activity is automatic.  Consider:  when a reptile sees another being, it does not ask, “Can I eat it?”  or, “Will it eat me?”   Its brain just reacts automatically.  It does not reflect.   From this reptile brain comes our so-called “fight or flight” response.  There is no rationalizing, just an impulse.  We have impulses of which we are not conscious.

Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at New York University, writes:  “Contrary to popular belief, conscious feelings are not required to produce emotional responses.  [Our feelings] . . . involve unconscious processing mechanisms.”[i]  These are primitive circuits, he says.  Through evolution, they have been passed along to all mammals, including us.

Even so, what makes humans different from other animals is our ability to think about the future, assess alternatives, make plans.  We can reflect on the consequences of our actions.  Unless, of course, the reptile brain leads us to react, without reflecting first.

Yet it’s not always easy to reflect.  The part of our brain known as the amygdala “can activate [our] arousal system,” if it senses danger, according to LeDoux.  This can affect how our nervous system will process experiences in the future.  The body’s responses to pain can affect the thinking parts of the brain.  In other words, our mental and physical memory of painful events can lead us to react in fearful ways, even when there is no current threat.  Panic disorders come to mind, as does post-traumatic stress.  Things that objectively should not seem threatening can stimulate a given fear and generate a “fight or flight” reaction.

Few things annoy me more than to be told I am overreacting! However, I can see that a reaction out of proportion to a perceived harm or threat could be a habit of mine, or at least a habit of my nervous system.  We can manage our habits for the better, or we can make habits worse.

Because I work and study in the field of religion, I’ve learned a lot about the damage done to congregations by people and groups who let their reptile brains lead their actions.  Peter Steinke is a family therapist, Lutheran pastor, and organizational consultant.  He studies and works with churches in painful conflicts, and this keeps him busy.  At a workshop I attended some years ago, Steinke said, “Not only is church conflict a growth industry, it is getting meaner and nastier.”[ii] In just a few years, his work with congregations in distress had grown by 200%.  In many conflicts, some people can be very mean.  They do things to one another or say things about one another in contradiction to their stated religious principles.

But churches are not unique.  All kinds of organizations have conflicts, some of them in violation of their stated principles and ethics.  In corporations, clubs, charities and schools; in committed couples and in families, humans have disagreements and stress.  It is part of being in relationship. What matters is how we manage ourselves in the midst of conflict, and how we settle our differences.

In Steinke’s view, most conflicts have to do with anxiety in the system.

Anxiety, of course, is normal.  It is our longtime companion.  Steinke said: If you don’t have some anxiety, you’ll never make any changes.  Just as the pain felt when you touch a hot stove burner can make you pull your hand away, anxiety can serve you in good ways.  For example, the anxiety of loneliness can provoke a person to search for a place of community, for friends, or for a partner.  Problems in society can provoke the anxiety of sadness, frustration, or outrage.  These feelings may lead a person to get involved in making a difference.

The word anxiety comes from a Latin word which means to strangle or choke.  That describes the physical sensation of being in a state of high anxiety.  And, just as we don’t get enough air if we’re being choked, if we’re highly anxious we have less ability to give attention to the options we can choose when facing a challenge.  Anxiety can cloud our awareness the way muddy water clouds a pond.  It can keep us from seeing clearly.

Steinke identified several triggers of anxiety in congregations.  These triggers include the issues of theology, authority, music, money, leadership styles, worship styles, and staff changes.  Anxiety in church life can be provoked by any change between something old and something new.  Fast changes can be disconcerting, yet the slowness of change can be frustrating.  Growth can trigger anxiety in churches, but so can numerical decline.  Sexuality is a charged issue as well.  Imagine all the anxiety in those denominations and churches still unresolved on the status of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender church members or the credentialing of gay ministers.

Issues having to do with property, buildings and space are also triggers for stress in a system.  Steinke said this is understandable, for building issues are territory issues.  Territory is a matter of survival for all animals, including us.  Territory—maybe this is why moving is a big source of stress, as well as kitchen and bathroom renovations.

So it seems, a church is a minefield of human stressors—but so is any relationship of importance.  In any setting, anxiety-triggers have to do with our sense belonging and safety, with identity and inclusion.  We want to be connected to others in meaningful ways.  At the same time, we want to assert our identity and be recognized as individuals.  In human evolution, identity and belonging have been matters of protection and survival.   Even if we can understand the origins of stress and conflict, this doesn’t make it hurt any less.

In all social institutions, Steinke said, there’s been a trend of conflicts with more secrecy, deceit, lying, and self-righteousness.  Some groups not only want to get their way, they want to be seen as right.  They not only want to be right, they want to punish the losers.  I’ve been here for four years, and I think our congregation shows healthy habits, has good skills to engage in disagreement and to respond well in times of challenge and anxiety.

Yet in the country at large, we find ourselves in another big election year.  Self-righteousness is on the rise, perhaps more than ever.   On television, radio and the internet, all the shouting and interruptions, the attacks and accusations, appeal to the combativeness of our reptilian brain.  Yet even as they excite us, they raise our anxiety.  They don’t bring us together, they separate us.

In a family system or in an organizational one, anxiety can spread.  It can be contagious.   According to Peter Steinke, when a group experiences anxiety, there is “an automatic shift of attention and energy” away from reflection and into action.  Under stress we are less clear about all the options available to us. The more a group feels the grip of its anxiety, the less available the group’s values will be for it to draw upon.  This is often why people in organizations can commit acts that violate the group’s own ethical values.  They do not respond, they react.  Sometimes individuals, sometimes whole communities, just react.

However, anxiety is a normal emotion.  Sometimes it can help us.  The question is not how to repress it, but what to do about it when it emerges.  If we recognize anxiety—and respect it—we might keep anxiety from ratcheting up, feeding on itself, tightening its grip.

There are steps we can take, as individuals or by group agreement.  For example, I mentioned how tempting it is to put my anxiety into an email.  For this reason, I try to avoid having important conversations by email.  It’s too easy for my words to be taken in a way I did not intend, and easy for me to take another’s words wrong.  If, as happens now and then, I decide I will write an email about an issue of some tension or confusion, I try to write a draft and save it for a day, to sleep on it before sending it.  This practice lets me vent my feelings, and it lets me reflect.  I may revise an email after sleeping on it.  Or I may delete it, and pick up the telephone instead.

Steinke gives the same advice to families having troubles that he does to leaders of churches in conflict.  This is to maintain clear boundaries between yourself and others.  First, be aware that you need not own another’s anxiety, and need not take responsibility for it.  Second, learn to recognize your own feelings of anxiety.  Own your anxiety, but not that of others.

One way that families and groups avoid inflaming tensions is by the use of  I-statements. For example, “I believe that…” is better than “Everybody agrees…” or “It’s clear for anyone to see that….”

In a stressful conversation or disagreement, Steinke advised, don’t label others or question their motives.  Instead, say how you feel, where you are coming from, what your intentions are.   Rather than make accusations about another’s motives, one can say, “I feel….” or “My intention is….”  Rather than demanding, one can say, “I would like this…”  or “I am making a request that….”

Rather than attacking another person for making a demand we don’t like, we can say “I am not able to do that,” or, if necessary, “I am not willing to do that….” The emphasis is on I and me, not on judging or labeling the other.  By using I-statements, we assert our own needs and set our limits without raising the stakes by accusing others.

It’s good to remember that we have no control over what other people do or say; we have a choice only about what we do.  In case of a verbal attack, it can be tempting to fire back a counter attack.  Steinke suggested more “I statements,” such as “I feel as if I’m under attack and I don’t like it.  I am not able to respond right now.”  Sometimes when I’ve heard hurtful words—about someone else or directed right at me—I’ll say “Ouch!”  That’s my I-statement.

Leaders can be lightening rods for anxiety—leaders of a country, or a congregation, or a family.  For example, a parent is in a leadership role with children.  It takes practice to keep from taking a child’s outburst personally, and to keep from reacting in ways that ratchet up the anxiety.  In whatever setting you might provide leadership, it can hurt to be a lightening rod.  Yet in moments of anxiety, the most important influence we can have on a group is the choice of our own words and behaviors.

We shouldn’t take responsibility for another’s anxiety, but we should accept our own.  We can do this by being aware of our own feelings and experiences.  No need to repress feelings.  Not helpful to take them out on others.  We can recognize our emotions without reacting.  This calls for building our skills of self-awareness.

One way to do cultivate awareness is to sit quietly to be with our feelings, or go for a walk.  The poet Wallace Stevens wrote:  “Perhaps the truth depends on a walk around the lake.”

A meditation teacher of mine has compared the practice of mindfulness to waiting for muddy water in a pond to settle.  The particles of mud ease to the bottom of the pond, and the water becomes clear.  So can it be with our minds.  This teacher has practiced mindfulness meditation for decades, yet even her mind can play tricks on her.   For such an esteemed person, many of her habitual thoughts and feelings are less than flattering.

She admits that her mind and body go through reactions all the time.  Everyone’s  mind has its habitual thoughts, she says.  Mine does.  How about your mind?   She says that her habitual thoughts and feelings include boredom, irritation, resentment, grief, and judgment.  Funny, I thought those were my habits.

Even when going for a walk, or sitting calmly, watching the breath or eating a meal, her attention wanders.  The attention jumps to habitual thoughts, especially those of self-blame or self-criticism.  But when she notices the mind doing this, she tries to be kind about it.  Rather than judging herself for habitual thinking, she just recognizes it.  She nods and smiles and takes a breath.

In fact, she regards her habits of mind as her longtime companions, never to leave her.  When irritation, self-blame, arrogance or any other unpleasant thought arises in her mind, she greets it:  “Hello, judgmentalism, my old friend.” She does not try to fight it off, she just sees it and feels it.

“Ah, resentment there you are again.  Welcome!”

“Ah, craving, here you are.  Welcome back!”

“Hello, self-loathing, my old pal.  I recognize you.  I bow down to you.”

She does not fight the feeling.  She allows it a moment in the spotlight, but then she lets it be.  She gives it a bit of space in the corner of her awareness, but not the whole room.[iii]

I’ve tried her approach in my own practice—and haven’t often been successful.  Yet by this stage in life, I am unlikely to discard all of my stubborn mental habits.  Rather than despair, I’ll try to see my habitual thoughts and reactions as my longtime companions.   They’re along for the journey, but not in charge of it.

Whatever feelings might arise, they are merely our companions; they need not be our drivers.  Perhaps we can try to put this idea into practice.  When anxiety that comes up—notice it, look at it, even smile at it.  Take a breath.

It’s not necessary to do the first thing that any impulse tells us to do.  Our anxiety may not have all the truth about a situation we’re in.  Especially if it’s hot or strong, our anxiety may need us to take it for a walk around the lake.

Perhaps the practice of awareness is a way to peace—within ourselves, in our communities, in the world.  We can aware of what we’re feeling.  We can own our feelings and recognize the feelings of others.  We can practice patience.

Let us keep a little place for the reptile in our heads.  Let us give it good care.  But a reptile shouldn’t run our lives.  With courage and kindness, let us accept our emotional experiences, and notice our habits of mind.  With courage and kindness, let us practice the ways of peace.  May it be so.  Amen, and blessed be.


[i] “Emotion Circuits in the Brain.”  Joseph E. LeDoux.  Annual Review of  Neuroscience.  23:155–184 (2000).  See   http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.155?prevSearch=leDoux&searchHistoryKey=

[ii] Notes from attendance at a workshop and conversation with Peter Steinke, at Grace Lutheran Church, Palo Alto, CA, 2005.  See his books at http://www.alban.org/bookdetails.aspx?id=2830.  For consultant resources: http://www.healthycongregations.com/

[iii]Remembrances from a dharma talk by Arinna Weisman, at a retreat at Spirit Rock Meditation Center, Woodacre, CA, 2005.  Her book is A Beginner’s Guide to Insight Meditation.  Find her blog, videos, etc. at http://arinnaweisman.org/



UU Sermon: Money and Life, January 8, 2011

Hymns:

“Earth Was Given as a Garden,” “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah,” “For the Earth Forever Turning.”

Reading:

Today’s reading comes from an advice column in the newspaper:  “Money Manners.”   Written by Jeanne Fleming and Leonard Schwarz, it’s in our local paper, and at moneyville.ca. Today’s column (1/8/12)  is:  “What to do when exchanging gifts with a cheapskate.” This letter won’t rival the epistles of the Apostle Paul, but it is heartfelt. [i]

Dear Jeanne & Leonard:

It happened again this Christmas. Each year my husband and I ask his brother what he and his family of four would like for Christmas, and each year “William” reels off a list of pricey items that end up costing us a couple hundred dollars. In return, he sends us next to nothing — this year, a bargain-basket DVD and some drugstore bubble bath. I can’t stand another year of opening William’s cheap gifts and then getting the credit card bill for the nice things we sent his family. What should we do? By the way, the guy’s not hurting for money.   –Nora

Dear Nora:

If you can’t stand playing Santa to William’s Scrooge, stop asking William what’s on his wish list. As it is, you and your husband are putting yourselves in the position of either having to buy the expensive gifts William wants or ignoring his requests. Next year, instead of asking, buy your brother-in-law and his family presents of your choosing, presents you won’t resent having bought when William’s gifts arrive.

Here ends the reading.

 

Sermon

“Get your finances in order!” says the New Year’s Day headline in the newspaper’s business and money section.   The article gives a checklist:  reduce debt, watch your spending habits, and get a discipline of saving money.  Practical, important help.  Yet beneath “getting our finances in order” is everyone’s complicated relationship with money.  This is a spiritual issue, and like other spiritual issues it can’t be taken care of by resolutions and checklists alone.  It takes practice, patience, and honesty with ourselves.

Nearly every faith tradition has something to say about money, wealth, possessions, resources, and the needs of others.  Liberal religious communities affirm the importance of this life, more than a future life.   We do not dwell on otherworldly concerns, but on of how we live in the world as it is.  As a medium of exchange, money is one way that we connect with the world.

Without giving some attention to our relationship with money, we risk ignoring its power and place in our lives.  This is the message of Jacob Needleman, author of Money and the Meaning of Life.  We are at risk of confusing money with our self-worth and our sense of possibility.  In viewing others, we risk seeing money as a measure of character.  In relationships, we risk seeing money—or using it–as a substitute for love or as an expression of our hurt or hostility.   We need to pay attention, be honest, have some patience.

Go with me on a visit home, to see relatives back in my home state, two years ago.  In the prior year, an aunt has passed away.  My uncle—her husband, had died suddenly four decades earlier, when I was about five, the same age as their son.  She and my cousin moved far away from us the next year.  I hadn’t seen her for years before her death.  On this day, I am visiting two cousins and another aunt, in my home town.  “Did you get your money?” one of them asks.

I look puzzled.  “Didn’t you get the letter from the lawyer?”

“No…?” I say.  They tell me all about it.

My late Uncle Roy’s estate included an amount of money for all of his nieces and nephews, to be disbursed if the money remained after his widow would pass away.  Now she has.  So, every group of children of his brothers and sisters will get $48,000, to be divided among them in equal checks.   This means three siblings will share a bequest, getting $16,000 each, and a lucky, only child will get the full $48,000.  I express my surprise at this news. They get the letter out for me, and I read it.  I look at the list of names.  My cousins…my brother… everybody.  But not me.  “I’m not here,” I say.

“Well, honey, you weren’t born yet!”  this aunt says.

“Yes, I was, I say.  I am the same age as his own son.”  He came into our family by adoption at age three. This boy and I were the youngest of the cousins, both of us with older parents.  Surely I was too young for Uncle Roy to decide I was a bad nephew and leave me out of his will on purpose.  He just forgot me.

“What are you going to do?” one asks, getting excited and curious.

“Well, I’m not sure.  I’ll ask my brother about it.  Anyway, it’s only money.”  The rest of that visit, we make small talk.  But my mind is racing.  Let’s see, with my brother, each of us would receive $24,000.  But I won’t.  I was left out!    Did my brother get this letter?  He hasn’t said anything since I got here yesterday.  Is he hiding this from me? I need to ask him. 

The others report to me on a recent phone call from another cousin–the most outwardly accomplished of our generation of the family.    In spite of a hefty two-person household income, this successful relative never has any money.  This cousin has been in touch with all the others.  The demand: Sign the acceptance form and send it to the lawyer soon, so the lawyer will forward the checks.   I realize that neither this cousin, nor any others, will feel like including little old me in the calculation to receive some inheritance.  The only chance is in my big brother’s hands.

My reaction to this news of a surprise inheritance, a potential inheritance, is like not feeling hungry, and then walking into a dining room with a table of steaming food:  suddenly I want some of everything!

I get in the rental car and hit the highway to my brother’s house.  We’ve planned a dinner out, just the two of us. I think:   I’ll wait and see if he brings it up.  No, I need to get it over with. 

            I worry, because he’s been worried about money, unrealistically so in my opinion.  He retired early, but his wife has a great job, their house is paid off and he owns a rental property.  However, we’re now in the Great Recession, he has no confidence in the government, and the angry programs on talk radio just add to his anxiety.

            Well, I won’t make a big deal out of this, I think.  Fights over money can tear a family apart.  Before today, I didn’t imagine having any money than my own earnings.  I think:  If he gives me half, I’ll give most of it away.  I’ll make that commitment right now.  Yes I will!

In the Bible, in the book of Genesis, the brothers Jacob and Esau fight over their birthright, their inheritance.  Esau, as the firstborn son, traditionally has the birthright in the family.  Yet, when Esau comes back from a hunting trip empty handed, and very hungry, Jacob offers Esau a bowl of stew from the pot that Jacob has prepared.  Esau trades in his future inheritance for the short-term gain of satisfying his appetite, his craving.  Later, the younger Jacob impersonates his brother to trick their blind, aged father Isaac into giving the fatherly blessing to him instead of to Esau.   In the story, this blessing cannot be taken back or transferred, even after the stealing is exposed.  This theft launches a tumultuous future for the Hebrew people and sets a standard of disharmony for the whole human family.  The first family feud over inheritance!   I don’t want us to end up like those guys.  I just want us to share.

I’m in my brother’s kitchen.   He’s 12 years older, bigger, and stronger.  He’s standing, I’m sitting.  “I need to talk to you about something,” I say.   I tell him about my discovery today and ask him if he’s received the letter.  He says no.  “Well, the others have,” I say.  “You will.”

I explain the situation, and the humor of being the forgotten one.  He doesn’t get it.   I avoid asking straight out:  Will you give me half of your money?  Again I explain:  “See, each set of siblings has to share each total amount among themselves. Since there are two of us… , each would get…”

“Oh,” he says.  He gets it.  He pauses. “Yeah, I’ll give you some of that money… if you’re nice to me.”  I want to ask: What do you mean by “SOME”?  How big a fraction is that?   And:  What do you mean by NICE?

As a youth I was not nice to my big brother.   Looking back on my childhood, I see I was taking out my rage and frustration on him.  I was angry at our parents.  One was actively alcoholic.  They were distracted parents, unhealthy, older than other kids’ parents, and fragile.  I was careful not to be a burden.  My big brother was happy, athletic, popular.  A safe target for my hostility, and strong enough to take it.  And he took a lot of it, from me.

He married a year before finishing college, against our angry father’s wishes.  After graduation, he was unemployed.  He mowed lawns to make money, and borrowed money from our parents.  Dad used this fact as license to make my brother feel bad.  Every hundred-dollar loan was an I-told-you-so.  On my birthday one year, I got a windfall of cash.  Maybe I was mowing lawns by this time as well.  In any case, I was feeling flush.  Brother came to me and asked for a loan, $100.  Understandably, he didn’t want to ask Dad again.

I lent him the money, and confirmed the terms of the loan by mail.  At age 11, I really liked using the typewriter, and playing with business documents.  He received periodic statements of the debt he owed to me.  Then postcards in the mail announcing “Past Due.”    I don’t remember if he paid me right away, called me names, cried, or got Mom to make me lay off.   It was not a nice way to treat him.

I realize now that in pestering my brother I was trying to make a connection with him—an awkward, hostile, counterproductive, 11-year-old way of connecting.  When he moved closer to our home, my brother made money doing small-engine repair.  I was his agent, putting ads in the local paper, taking phone calls while he was at work.  He paid me a small percentage for this role.  I would type up statements for my commission: I took business reply envelopes from our father’s office and used Whiteout to change the name to my own.  I’d help him keep track of how much he owed me:  $2 here, $3 there.

Now, he doesn’t owe me anything, and there’s a big check waiting for him.  He can choose to split it with me or he can, quite legally, choose to keep it all.

Fortunately, my brother, the first-born son, has chosen to ignore my treatment of him, or to grant me forgiveness for it.  Will he also grant me a full half his money?  He could say he needs to save it for his own two grown children.  He does eventually give me a half-share, but seems to drag it out, with two installments in the mail.  I don’t send a bill this time.

Money has such pull for us, such power.  Of course it does.  Society is organized around it; it’s how we interact for the things we need and want and for the talents and work that we have to offer.  As a medium of exchange, money simplifies our transactions.  Yet because it stands for so much that we need and want and love and fear, money makes life complicated.

Most of us learn our attitudes and habits regarding money from the family culture in which we grow up.   Growth and healing from unhelpful attitudes calls for attention, effort, and support.   How did an 11-year-old loan shark like me learn a more healthy way with money?  Maybe I haven’t!  I do have some annoying habits about money, as well as healthier ones.  I have my times of avoidance and my frantic moments.

But in many ways, I’ve healed and grown.   The support for my growth has come from two sources:  my friends and my Unitarian Universalist religious communities.  Friends who are generous, no matter their wealth or poverty.  Religious communities that remind me of the abundance and goodness of my life.

In a UU community, I am invited to appreciate my blessings, and give thanks.  I learn about the needs of the world beyond these walls. I learn about generosity.   Over the past 25 years, I’ve learned–from UU ministers and church members–that it’s possible to stretch myself and give, and feel good about it.  I can give of my money, talents and time, and feel joy in it, and freedom.  I can also feel good about earning money—not only gratitude to have it, but satisfaction that I have something to offer that people like you have chosen to support.  Of course, mowing lawns for money can offer that same reward.  Moreover, with mowing the results are more certain and visible than in ministry.

But as a fearful young person from a family that fought over money, I didn’t know what it meant, spiritually, to be paid or to pay others, to give or to receive.  I didn’t know money from a spiritual perspective.  As a boy, I went with my mother to a mainline, moderate Protestant Christian church.  I recall they had an annual stewardship campaign, as most churches do.  We paid a monthly pledge.  But I didn’t hear what stewardship really meant.  Back in the 1970s, the church was timid about money and your spiritual life.  It was timid about sexuality too, another topic that makes people uncomfortable.  Both topics do, even though they are important ones.

As an adult finding Unitarian Universalism, I found a place that looks at serious matters honestly.  I learned what stewardship means.  What it means to me:  taking a good look at what has been handed on to you for your use and your care.   Whether it’s the local environment, your neighborhood, your country—it is handed on to you for using, tending, and passing along to

others.  Stewardship recognizes that we stand on the shoulders of generations and institutions that existed before we did.

            Stewardship recognizes that what we do, how we live, what we give, will affect the lives of others, including those who come after us.  We live for a moment in the stream of life, and it flows on.  Stewardship is about connectedness and interdependence.  It’s about belonging to one another, belonging to the past and the future.

            A friend of mine is a Mormon historian.  I ask him:  “Does everybody there really give away 10 percent of their income to the church?”  Yes, he says, most of them do tithe–and they make offerings on top of that.   Mormons have the practice of a fast offering, he tells me.  (I’ve learned that other traditions practice this a well.)  Unless it causes medical problems, they won’t eat for one day a month, and will give away they money they would have spent on food.  They give it away so others may eat.  He says the idea is that all their bounty comes from God, and to make a tithe or an offering is merely to give some of it back.

As a young adult, I learned from my ministers that there are UUs who have a different idea of God—or the idea that there is no God at all—but who still have a practice of giving. They make a goal of giving away a percentage of their income due to their connection to the community, to people and the earth.  From my UU communities, I got the idea to set a target of giving away 10% of my income, and move toward that target over time.  I now give about 5% of my yearly income to the congregation and 5% to other organizations that I care about.  I didn’t learn to do this from my family. I learned it from people like you.

I’ve read that Peter Singer, the controversial professor of ethics, gives away 20 percent of his income every year to important organizations.  He’s an atheist, so he gives not out of the fear of God or for the love of God.  He does it because he can, and because his giving can make a big difference in the lives of others.

I am now attending a doctor of ministry program, part time.  The seminary is not a UU school, but a progressive, interdenominational seminary.  That’s where my share of the money from our uncle’s bequest is now going.  This inheritance will cover 2/3 of the cost of the degree, so it helps a lot.  I thank my Uncle Roy and my big brother for the money.  I love the school, and don’t mind supporting it with my tuition payments.   The young, entering ministry students there—in the master’s degree program—give me hope for progressive religion.   During the semester, I attend chapel services on Tuesday before lunch.  The music is diverse and fun, sermons relevant and helpful.  At every service the campus chaplain announces the offering, which goes to a cause chosen by the preacher for that service.  I look around and think:  Most of the people here are beginning ministry students, living on loans.  But I’ve realized that the offering is a lesson for the ministry students.  It’s a model about how to ask with grace and honesty, how to show confidence and kindness in asking.  The chaplain says people at the school give “out of volition, not coercion.”  Free-will, not pressure.

He says:  “We ask for your financial support for this work, and for your prayers.” I decide that if they can ask, I can respond, so I participate in the offerings.

Nearly every faith tradition has something to say about money.  Not because it’s bad.  Not because it’s worthy of worship either.  We should not idolize money, nor should we avoid it.

But we can take it seriously. Like most resources, it is limited:  like our time, our attention, our talents, our health—it is limited, and important.

However much, or however little, we have of money…how we deal with it is a way to practice and grow in our sense of stewardship.  We can practice, and we can strive to gain our money responsibly, receive it with gratitude, lend it or borrow it carefully, spend it thoughtfully, and share it with joy.

Responsible, grateful, careful, thoughtful, joyful.  Joyful.

So may it be.  Blessed be, and amen.




TERM PAPER Part 7–Unitarianism and Universalism from New England to the Pacific Coast

 

The first Unitarian or Universalist church on the Pacific Coast was the Unitarian congregation established in 1850 and served by the legendary Thomas Starr King in 1860.[i]  In his 1957 book Unitarianism on the Pacific Coast, the Rev. Arnold Crompton wrote that Unitarian ministers and lay leaders came west following the California Gold Rush and the completion of the transcontinental railroad.  Crompton attributes the growth of Unitarianism to five factors:

First, “transplanted” New England Unitarians wanted a church like those back home….  Second, the tightening of the lines of orthodoxy [in the larger society] gave rise to conscience problems among liberal Christians which led them to seek their own company….  Third, direct missionary activity… established churches or planted seeds of future churches.  Fourth, the great ministers… by their preaching, their leadership, and their lives attracted people to their churches and denomination.  The fifth factor was the changing intellectual climate [especially scientific challenges to traditional theology].

While conclusive evidence is lacking about the Universalists, it seems fair to assume that similar economic promises and the transcontinental railroad brought them westward as well.  Appendix I shows the dates when most Unitarian or Universalist congregations were established on the Pacific Coast in the nineteenth century.  While the dates are similar between the two denominations, it is notable that many of the Universalist churches did not survive.  One that did, in Pasadena, was blessed by a large endowment from Amos Throop, who also founded the California Institute of Technology.

In the rest of the United States, as the number of Universalist churches and members declined in the twentieth century. The standard history of the movement reports that the American Almanac for 1832 lists Universalism as the sixth largest denomination.[ii] However, in a sermon given in 1995 and revised later on his website, David Lawyer cited census and other date to estimate that 49,000 to 64,000 Universalist church members existed between 1890 and 1906.[iii]  Lawyer argues that, contrary to many claims, Universalism was in decline before the twentieth century, and may never have grown as much as its early leaders announced.[iv]

The Unitarians as a denomination had a stronger missionary activity on the west coast, fueled by the Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones[v], a Unitarian leader from the Midwest, and Charles Wendte, who served local churches but also, as part of the Pacific Coast Unitarian Conference, led the planting of many Unitarian churches on the coast.  For a congregationally-based tradition, missionary work entailed pulling together enough local people with liberal Christian beliefs (or better, some with Unitarian backgrounds from elsewhere) and gathering them into a congregation.  This work included advertising, publications, and lectures, working on local causes and civic projects, holding worship and dedicating a church building as soon as affordable.

In 1892, the Unitarian churches in Los Angeles, National City, Ontario, Pomona, Santa Ana, Redland, San Bernardino, San Diego and Sierra Madre attended a conference to organize the Southern California Liberal Conference “as a subdivision of the [Pacific] Coast Conference.”[vi] This reflects a missionary optimism.  Yet few of these churches may have been strong, and half those towns no longer have a UU church.  Just a few years earlier, in 1886, Unitarian leader Charles Wendte (heavily involved in church-planting efforts for the faith) listed only four “stable Unitarian churches on the Pacific Coast”:  San Francisco, Portland, Santa Barbara, San Diego.[vii]

Though based in Boston like the Unitarians, the Universalist Church in America and its state conferences were a much less centrally organized body, and membership statistics are unclear.  While the Universalists’ original evangelistic activity on the other side of the continent was impressive, it is unclear to me whether this Gospel zeal is what led to their founding of West Coast congregations.

In any case, the beginnings of the Unitarian Universalist Church on the island of Negros had no connection to the westward movement of either denomination in the United States.  More recent encounters and relationships do show a mostly-Pacific orientation.  But the founding of the liberal faith in the Philippines was both accidental and home grown.

 




Prayer and Meditation Group: Spirituality in the UU Tradition (book excerpt)

While checking out another book on Amazon, I stumbled on to this chapter (“Prayer Class”) from the book The Stage is on Fire by Katie Steedly.

She attends a UU church (in Canada, I think).  One section is about “the Unitarian Universalist spiritual tradition,” as explained by her minister, and the next section explores the distinctions between prayer and meditation.  Read the excerpt from pages 79-83 at this link.



Eco-Justice Book Review–”Blue Revolution: Unmaking America’s Water Crisis”

This review is from a Scientific American blog posting by a Ph. D. candidate in ecology at the University of Michigan.  Water justice and conservation is important to Pastor Cranky (who can’t bear to see others waste the stuff) and to our UU Legislative Ministry in California.  Water Justice (access to safe, clean, affordable water for everyone) is an important priority campaign for the UU Service Committee.  The book is published by Beacon Press, owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Read the review of Blue Revolution.



Can You Help–UU People & Information needed for Civil Rights UU Legacy Project

The Unitarian Universalist Living Legacy Project is seeking your help in
locating someone who apparently was related to your congregation in 1964-65.
We are attempting to contact Unitarian Universalist veterans of the Civil
Rights Movement to make them aware of a Gathering of such veterans we are
planning for March 30-April 1 in Asheville, North Carolina.  (Please see the
attached description of that event for more details on what we hope to
accomplish.)

In January of 1965 a team of four staff members of the UUA and UUSC traveled
through Mississippi.  They compiled a list of 36 students and faculty who
took part in the Mississippi Summer Project (“Freedom Summer”) and/or other
civil rights activity.  We are trying to locate those people to invited them
to this Gathering next spring.

Margaret Benes and Jonathan Else were two of those people.  We realize that
in this mobile world these people have almost certainly moved since 1965,
but we wanted to ask for data you may have which may help us locate them.
Some of the questions we can think of are given below.  Please answer any
further questions we haven’t been clever enough to frame but that might help
us in our task.

In 1964-65 was these people members?    “friends” of the congregation?
students in an area college or university?

Do congregational records or the memories of long-term members suggest where
this person moved if/when this person left your area?  (Even a generalized
impression may help if we have to resort to a Google search.)  Or is the
person still in your general area?   Do you, miraculously, have an exact or
approximate address for this person?

Do you have any data on possible name change for this person due to
marriage, gender reassignment, or other cause?

Are there other sources you suggest we check with for data on this
individual?

If we succeed in locating this person, would you like for us to suggest that
they re-connect with your congregation so that you can learn more about how
you related to their 1964 experience in Mississippi?

Please send whatever data you can gather (or a note that you could turn up
nothing) to the Rev. Gordon Gibson.



UU Readers Book — our Monthly Discussion Group

Members, friends and visitors to our Sunday services are welcome to attend our monthly book discussion group, UU Readers.  Recent discussion topics:  The Secret Life of Henrietta Lacks, A Visit from the Goon Squad, and Tinkers.  Here is the schedule for upcoming months, based on a vote by current participants in the group.

Oct.  25 – Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick- Doris will lead the discussion.

Nov. – Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak- Jeff  leading.

Dec. – The Lonely Polygamist by Brady Udall – Jim leading.

Jan. – The Yacoubian Building by Alaa Al Aswany- Carol leading.

Feb. – Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand – Jim leading.

The group meets at  6:30 PM, on the 4th Tuesday of each month, at the church.  Come a little early to find out which classroom it’s in.  Room assignments are posted on the “white board” adjoining the canvass-covered entry way sculpture

If you’d like to come and it’s your first time there, let us know.  The contact person or facilitator is listed in the Sunday Blue Sheet Announcements listing as well as the monthly Unigram newsletter.

(This is separate from the monthly Poetry Circle meetings, which are also open to members, friends and visitors. They take place the 2nd Tuesday evening.)

(This is separate also from the monthly Documentary Film Club movie and a discussion about it.  This is also open to members, friends and visitors.  This takes place on the 4th Sunday of every month at 4:00 PM.  Titles are listed in the Sunday Blue Sheet Announcements listing.)

Sponsored by the UUSS Adult Enrichment Committee, all three of these regular activities promote fellowship, ethical and spiritual reflection, intellectual stimulation and laughter.

At UUSS, we gather to deepen our lives and become a healing force in the world.



Magnificent Journey: Religion as Lock on the Past or Engine of Evolution– new book by F. Jay Deacon

 

 

 

http://groundwavepublishing.com/magnificentjourney.html
My friend and UU ministry colleague Jay Deacon has published this new book.  I have yet to get it but the description sounds great and the table of contents is intriguing. Congratulations, Jay!



My Foreword to My Senior Minister’s New Book, “Gods and Consciousness”

At a member’s request and with his help, Doug has compiled four recent sermons on the topic of “God” into a book.

It’s available at our Sunday Bookstore for $10 and through the cursed, community-destroying amazon.com (for less money but with shipping charges that make it more expensive).  But there are many people who may enjoy the book who don’t live in Sacramento.

If you have read the book, Doug invites you to go to amazon.com and post a review of his book.

This is the FOREWORD that I wrote for the book.  Now I can say I am a published writer!

Foreword

            It has been enriching and fun to have known Doug Kraft since 2000, when I was serving a church in Silicon Valley and he was called as Lead Minister by the Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento.  We have served together as officers for the UU ministers’ association in the Pacific Central District.   Our colleagues look to him as a pastor to pastors, coach, accompanist, troubadour, trouble-shooter, sophisticated psychotherapist, and wise elder.  He’s a compassionate and mellow court jester.

Little did I know when I left this District in 2007 that I would return in a year to serve along with Doug, in an associate ministry position at this church.

He’s gone beyond merely recruiting me to the job.  He helped me set up an old futon frame and a new laptop computer, drill holes in my wall and move old furniture in and out of a two-story apartment.  As a colleague and leader, he’s loyal, collaborative and playful.  He’s open to being challenged and is thoughtful in challenging me.  He’s insightful about human nature and forgiving of human blind spots and slip-ups, including mine.

In few parish pastors have I seen such a balance of ministerial talents as we have in Doug.  He stays on top of the facts and figures of the institution’s life and history, and he counsels individuals with care and insight.  He supports the nuts and bolts of board and committee work while keeping our long-range vision, goals and congregational covenant in front of our eyes.  He leads us in song with his guitar, delivers dharma talks, and keeps his church data organized and handy on multiple software applications he created himself.  He devotes heavy amounts of time to reading, sermon preparation and rehearsal, and his daily meditation practice.

Doug doesn’t talk much in his sermons about our Unitarian Universalist spiritual forbears or progressive theological heritage, even though he grew up as a UU in Houston and has served in historic churches in New England and in Sacramento, where Unitarianism arrived not long after the Gold Rush.  Instead, Doug embodies our tradition. The Unitarian minister professor of social ethics James Luther Adams (among others) has said that one of the keys to liberal religion is that revelation is not sealed, but continuous. New insights and understandings about God and human life continue to develop.

So it is that Doug has introduced our congregation to his ideas and those of Ken Wilber about human consciousness and spiritual literacy.  These four sermons invite us to consider how human beings perceive the divine and one another, and how we think about thinking about God.

The sermons are not only rich in analysis and thought, they use vivid examples and stories.  They are compassionate, practical and helpful—as he strives to make all his sermons, and all of his ministry.   Doug invites us to let go of the prize of certainty and the illusion of control.  He invites us to ease up a bit, step back, observe, and relax.  What an invitation.  What a sweet and simple gift.

                        Sacramento, June 2011

 



Why Mr. Emerson Is Your Friend– Sermon for UU Church

 

Preached in Sunnyvale, CA, October 26, 2003

UUs of Petaluma, CA, September 26, 2004

UU Church of Berkeley, CA, July 17, 2005

Unitarian Church, New Bedford, MA, November 12, 2006

UU Congregation of Salem, OR, March 18, 2007

UU Society of Sacramento, CA, August 17, 2008

Eskaton Retirement Village, Carmichael, CA, August 21, 2011

Call to Worship                                                        Words of Gordon McKeeman

We are called to worship not by words spoken, but my miracles recalled:  a baby’s first cry, the petals of a rose, the templed hills, the restless tides of the seas, human love, human hope.

We respond with gratitude, with joy, with wonder at life’s boundless possibilities.

Readings        Poems of J. Rumi, read in Farsi and in English; “The Stream of Life,” by Rabindranath Tagore, from Singing the Living Tradition 

Sermon

            Live in the moment, and appreciate every day.  Notice the beauty of the world around you, and learn from it.  Know that you are connected to all that is.  Trust yourself, be honest, dare to be authentic.

These are teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson.  As a mystic, he believed that all of life was united in oneness.  Emerson embraced life with astonishment.  As a writer and speaker, teacher and friend, Emerson encouraged people to enjoy life, to think for themselves, and to dare to be who they really are.

Emerson was born over 200 years ago, in May of 1803, in the city of Boston.  He died in 1882, when he was 79.  His first wife, Ellen, died when she was 20 and he was 21.  His second wife, Lydian, outlived him by 10 years.

Emerson was the son of a Unitarian minister in Boston.  He attended Harvard, and became a minister himself.  But his great contributions to our culture did not come from the pulpit.  His gifts to us came from his essays, lectures, poetry, and hundreds of personal journals—263 volumes of journals.  Emerson’s ministry was to challenge stagnant institutions and stale thinking.  His ministry was to encourage intellectuals to be bold and original.  His ministry was to encourage people he would never meet to trust their inner voice, and to see life as a never-ending process of growth and self discovery.

Even though he left both the ministry and the church, Emerson built on the spiritual foundation he had inherited from the Unitarian movement.  Back when Emerson was a teenager the first Unitarians in America had proclaimed that people are inherently good.  They said everyone is capable of growing toward the perfect goodness of God.  This potential for growth was shown by the life and teachings of Jesus.  They said that everyone has the right to read the Bible and that we should use reason in applying the Bible to our lives.  This Unitarian Christianity was Emerson’s religious inheritance.  He took this inheritance and ran with it.  Intellectually speaking, Emerson was the rebel child of Unitarianism.

Emerson’s career as junior minister to the First Church of Boston lasted three long years—or they probably seemed long to him.  By Emerson’s adulthood, much Unitarian preaching had become passionless, impersonal and abstract.  Writing sermons cramped his style.  As a pastor, “he sometimes set off to make calls [on parishioners] without detailed directions and therefore spent time visiting complete strangers who had the same name or lived in the same street as a parishioner.”  (RDR 91).  Moreover, he did not like serving Communion.  It seemed to him to be an empty ritual.  For him, to commune with the Spirit of Life was a much broader affair than eating and drinking.  The church’s ritual trivialized true communion.

Emerson and friends who were not satisfied with “the present state of philosophy, religion, literature and education in America” formed an intellectual discussion group known as the Transcendental Club.  (RDR 249)  Over several years its members included Bronson Alcott, George Ripley, Margaret Fuller, and Elizabeth Peabody, and some divinity school students, among other people.  At the beginning, this group had as many members as Harvard had professors:  eleven! (RDR 245).

Some people are thrown a bit by the word Transcendentalism as a label for this philosophical movement.  Emerson himself regretted the Transcendentalism label.  He preferred the term idealism.  (RDR 249)  By whatever term it might be called, this movement was the American version of nineteenth century European literary romanticism.  The features of such writing include an emphasis on the natural world, a view of human nature as full of the potential for good, and a preference for imagination and intuition over traditions and rules.  Emerson’s friends and favorite writers in Europe included Thomas Carlyle and Johann Goethe.  He got Carlyle’s works published in America.  He read Goethe’s works every day.  It took him 10 years to get through all 55 volumes.

Emerson read many things.  His advice to others was to skim and browse while reading.  Look for what you like.  “Skip the paragraphs that do not talk to you,” he said  (RDR 173).  The purpose of education and “the purpose of life is the development of the self,” according to Emerson.  In the schools of our own day, much education has been standardized.  Students learn to ask, “Will this be on the test?”  Teachers are pushed to teach how to pass tests more than how to express themselves.  Schools in our age may be no more standardized than they were in Emerson’s day.  But in any age, his message is radical:  read what you like; think for yourself, be original, see life as never-ending growth and possibility.

Though he lectured to thousands of people, and his essays were published widely, when Emerson wrote and spoke, he imagined he was giving advice to “an unknown friend,” or “an unseen friend.”  Happy is the writer who writes to this unknown friend, he said, rather than with an eye to what will sell, or what will please the public.  (RDR 200)  Emerson himself did not always please the public, to be sure.

For example, in the summer of 1838, by invitation of the graduating seniors of Harvard Divinity School, he gave the commencement address.  He told the gathering of new liberal Christian ministers about the failures of historical Christianity.  First, he said, it had made Jesus the teacher into a myth.  Second, it worshipped the Bible instead of the divine.  The church made it seem if the Bible was not just God’s word, but God’s only word.  Whereas others would say “God has spoken,” Emerson said, “God speaks!”  God’s word is too big to be held in an old book.  Look around you, he said:  God continues to speak.  God is revealed in the wonder of the world.  Look inside yourself:  God continues to speak; God is revealed through the voice in our hearts.  (RDR 290).  He encouraged those graduating ministers to be open to their own spiritual insights, rather than preaching about the spiritual views of people who were long-dead.  He said that everybody could be a prophet and a poet of the Holy Spirit.

For Emerson, no single book deserved to be sacred scripture.  We should write our own Bible.  We shouldn’t depend on the ancient stories of ancient believers—we should have our own experience of the Divine, our own relationship with the Spirit of Life.

The Divinity School Address received more attention and more criticism than anything he had written or spoken so far.  Emerson’s words offended the traditional Unitarians, especially those on the faculty.  A professor wrote a tract against it, calling it the “Latest form of Infidelity.”  It was the “foulest atheism”; it was nonsense. (RDR 299)

This hurt and unsettled Emerson.  He worried that the reaction against this address have reduced his audience for future lectures.  Because of this worry, “he gave away more than his usual number of free tickets,” writes his biographer Robert Richardson (RDR 307).

Even more, the pain of this experience fueled much of what Emerson would write years later in his essay “Self-Reliance,” according to Richardson.  The biographer explains:  “Self-Reliance” is Emerson’s essay “on the un-alienated human being.”  At first thought, it might seem that going along with the crowd is the way to avoid alienation—in a crowd you’re not alone, are you?  Yet if you are not known as who you are, there’s nothing lonelier than being in a crowd.  Emerson said this:  the person who would be an adult must be a non-conformist.

In today’s consumer society, we receive constant urgings to buy, to collect, to upgrade, to be in style, to be up to date.  Such urgings exploit our fears of failing to be part of the crowd.  Yet, for me, conforming to such urgings does not lead to connection with others.  It leads to alienation.  Emerson wrote:  “Insist on yourself.  Never imitate.”  (RDR 180)  That’s a slogan that grabs you, so much so that it could be an advertising slogan. “Insist on yourself.  Never imitate.”

Indeed, several marketing campaigns have used similar slogans:  “Express yourself.”  “Think different.”  “Be an individual.”  “Be your own person.”  “Be all you can be.”  “Have it your way.”  Yet such campaigns want us not to have it our way, but to have it the way they are selling it.  They want everybody to express themselves in the latest version or style or upgrade.  To use the language of self-expression to sell mass culture is to pervert language.  Perhaps this is what makes me feel alienated by it.

Sometimes Emerson has taken blame for promoting individualism to Americans, for promoting selfishness and the lonely worship of the private space.  Indeed, one could take his advice to mean just that:  Trust yourself, reject all conformity, express yourself.

Some of his own friends likely took it as advice to be self-indulgent.  Indeed, his wife Lydian thought they did, and she wrote a satire of his crowd.  She called it the Transcendental Bible.  To Transcendentalists, happiness does not come from doing good, or doing the right thing.  With sarcasm, she writes:  “Never speak of happiness as the consequence of holiness.”  Here’s another transcendental commandment:  “Loathe and shun the sick.  They are in bad taste and may un-tune us for writing the poem floating through our mind” (RDR 312)

I think that’s funny, but I don’t agree with critics who say Emerson gives us license to do whatever we want, to look only at our individual growth and our private needs.  His own life is an argument against selfishness.  It is a model for community involvement and activism.

He and Lydian lived the rest of their lives in Concord, Massachusetts.  Their house was big and busy.  They had relatives living with them, in addition to their own children.  They hosted friends for long stays.  Emerson served on the local school board, the cemetery board, the library board, and the committee that put on the Lyceum, a series of public lectures and other adult education programs.

With regard to social justice, Emerson protested the government’s eviction of the Cherokee Indians from their lands and relocation to concentration camps in 1838.  This is now known as the “Trail of Tears.”  Emerson was heartsick to see the government’s betrayal of a people.  He called it a “crime the really deprives us as well as the Cherokees of a country.”  (RDR 278)

He spoke out on many social issues:  “[He] wrote letters, collared friends, addressed meetings, and signed petitions.”  Emerson was a peace advocate and an opponent of slavery.  He demanded that President Lincoln issue an Emancipation Proclamation.  Indeed, Emerson opposed the Civil War so long as the purpose of it was only to keep the Union together.  He wanted war’s goal to be an end to slavery.

Emerson saw the inter-dependence of nature.  He used the example of nature to argue that we humans are dependent on one another.  He wrote:  “Every being in nature has its existence so connected with other beings that if set apart from them it would instantly perish”  (RDR 258).

In a poem to a flower, he wrote, “I never thought to ask . . . but . . .  suppose the self-same power that brought me here brought you” (RDR 178).

Emerson encouraged intellectual originality as much as religious originality.  He noted that young students “grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, …Locke, …[and] Bacon have given.  [But students forget] that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote those books.”  (RDR 265).

“[Books] have no permanent value,” Emerson wrote.  “….When we are aroused to a life in ourselves [books] grow very pale and cold.”  (RDR 333).  I am sure he would say the same about his own books.  I think he would say we should not read his books for ageless truths, but should read our lives for new truths, and read the natural world for new revelations.

At least this is what I choose to think he’d say, for some of Emerson’s essays and lectures are hard to read through.  His language is flowery. His essays do not build arguments toward a conclusion.  Rather, he wrote in aphorisms, short declarative sentences.  For example:  “We are always getting ready to live, but never living” (RDR 180)

His essays are filled with such quotable quotes; they are, in Richardson’s words, “great collections of sentences on a single topic.”  (RDR 202).

Emerson didn’t think he needed to prove such statements.  They came directly from his intuition.  He trusted his unseen friends to get what he said, and to either accept it or reject it.

In an Adult Religious Education class at the Sunnyvale church (which I served from 1997-2007), a young woman wrote about meaning in her life.  I got her permission to quote her words:

What makes life meaningful to me relates to my capacity to think and live originally.  Do not expect to find a pierced belly button or blue hair on me. That is someone else’s idea of originality.  Mine is not daring to be different, but daring to understand and conduct myself on my own terms, fully aware of the definitive scripts society has for me as a straight woman, a wife, a mother and not much else.  Life is meaningful when I look at the unbearable flaws in my character and find myself still lovable, when I am peaceful enough to take care of myself, thus enabled to take care of others, when I have the capacity to take joy in others’ happiness and to feel others’ pain, when I am sensitive enough to experience an act of vision by which I see meanings in everything and anything, and when I am motivated to think harder and longer until I can put in words ever-present buds of flickering thought or emotions which make my head and heart swell.

I told her that this was very Emersonian—“daring to understand and conduct [herself] on her own terms, [while being] fully aware of the definitive scripts society has for her.”  I asked, “Have you read Emerson?”  No, she said.  My response was, “Well, now you don’t have to!”

We don’t have to read him, but we might be surprised what we find in all that flowery language.

Emerson called for the independence of spirit, but not for spiritual isolation.  Instead, he stressed our oneness and our mutual responsibility.  He warned us not to “obey the private impulse to the exclusion” of our common humanity. (RDR 295)

He believed that what is common to all people is greater than those traits that set us apart.  To Emerson, self-reliance was not personal whim or selfishness, “as if [a person] were . . . severed from all other beings.”  He wrote: “It is one soul which animates all [people].”  (RDR 249, emphasis mine).

Emerson spoke about the need for self-respect in a world that wanted people to conform to its demands.  (RDR 233)  The world still wants you to conform.  Emerson spoke about the need for self-expression in a world that would rather keep you in a category.  The world still wants to keep us in categories.

To express yourself you need courage.  To respect yourself  you need courage.  Emerson’s life was a ministry of encouragement to his unseen friends.  Emerson’s words were a ministry of encouragement.

Live in the moment, and appreciate every day.  Notice the beauty of the world around you, and learn from it.  Know that you are connected to all that is.  Trust yourself, be honest, dare to be authentic.  So may it be.

Please do not duplicate or send as email without permission.  Not to be copied for posting on any Web site.

Source Consulted:  Robert D. Richardson, Jr.  Emerson:  The Mind on Fire.  Berkeley, 1995:  University of California Press.  All my page citations refer to this book.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.