Wednesday, December 6, 2017

2017.12.3 The Gift Economy

2017.12.3        “The Gift Economy”   Rev. Laura Bogle


Reading          by Alison Luterman

Consider the Generosity of the One-Year-Old
who has no words to exchange with you yet,
and instead offers up her favorite drooled-on blanket,
her green rhinoceros as big as she is,
her cloth doll with the long blonde pigtails,
her battered cardboard books, swung open on their soggy pages,
her limitless heart.

If you were outdoors she would hand you a dead beetle,
a fistful of grass, a pebble,
by way of introduction or just because.
And if, a moment later, she wants it back,
it would be for the joy of passing
these simple symbols back and forth,
freely offered, freely relinquished,
This is me.  Here is who I am.  Oh.

In the same way, sun
drapes a buttered scarf across your face,
rose opens herself to your glance,
and rain shares its divine melancholy.
The whole world keeps whispering or shouting to you,
nibbling your ear like a neglected lover,
while you worry over matters of finance,
of "relationship,"
important issues related to getting and spending,
having and hoarding,
though you were once that baby,
though you are still that world.  

                    
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robin Wall Kimmerer is a scientist, a professor of botany and ecology, and a person of Native American Heritage.  In her recent book, “Braiding Sweetgrass,” she tells of how the early summers of her childhood she would spend hours out picking wild strawberries.
“I’d lie on my stomach in my favorite patches, watching the berries grow sweeter and bigger under the leaves. …
Even now, after more than fifty Strawberry Moons, finding a patch of wild strawberries still touches me with a sensation of surprise, a feeling of unworthiness and gratitude for the generosity and kindness that comes with an unexpected gift all wrapped in red and green.  ‘Really? For me? Oh you shouldn’t have.’ After fifty years they still raise the question of how to respond to their generosity.”

One way, she says, to respond to generosity is to pass on the gift.  She and her siblings would always pick enough berries for their Father’s special shortcake on father’s day.  His favorite.  “it was a gift that could never be bought.”

She remembers an early lesson in economics when one summer she was hired to pick cultivated strawberries on a neighboring farm.  Earning a dime for every quart.  And the owner of the farm saying to her, “These berries belong to me, not to you.  I don’t want to see you eating my berries.” The cultivated berries had become an owned commodity, and if Robin wanted to bring any home, she had to spend most of what she had earned picking the berries, to buy the berries, which sold at 60 cents a quart. 

In contrast, the wild berries were there as a gift—they belonged to themselves, not to anyone else or to the marketplace.

She writes, “Gifts from the earth or from each other establish a particular relationship, an obligation of sorts to give, to receive, and to reciprocate.  The field gave to us, we gave to my dad, and we tried to give back to the strawberries.” (25)

You could say Robin’s whole book is a meditation on the moral disconnection that happens in the great so-called Free Marketplace, where we are removed from the relationships and reciprocity that occurs when we look on the world and each other as gift.

Think about a time you received a gift – what was your response?  One of gratitude?  Did it make you want to give something back in return?  How did it make you feel? 

Now think about the last time you bought something – put gas in your car, went to the grocery store, went to the department store, exchanged money or more likely, you didn’t even exchange money with a person, you simply put a card in a slot and mysteriously paid.  What were you thinking?  What was your response?  Very often, for me, anyway, it’s simply completing a task. There’s not a feeling of connection.  There’s an emptiness in the transaction.  Or perhaps a sense of despair--  Maybe we think… wow I just spent the equivalent of hours of labor to put gas in my car just so I can work more.  Or maybe… I have no idea where any of this food was grown or who grew it.  Or maybe… I wish I could buy that sweater I saw, that would just complete my life, but it’s too expensive.  Or maybe I buy it anyway and just put it on the credit card, only to find out that another sweater produced in Honduras, or wherever, does not in fact make my life better.

That feeling of emptiness and disconnection might be why, according to a Harvard study released last year, just over half of millennials aged 18-29 say they don’t support capitalism. They aren’t sure about what the alternative is, but they realize the current state of affairs isn’t serving them, or their future and the future of our planet.

As Martin Kirk and Jason Hickel write in a recent article for FastCompany, entitled, Are You Ready to Consider that Capitalism is the Real Problem?, “It’s because they realize—either consciously or at some gut level—that there’s something fundamentally flawed about a system that has a prime directive to churn nature and humans into capital, and do it more and more each year, regardless of the costs to human well-being and to the environment we depend on. …
As Robert Kennedy famously said, Gross Domestic Product “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play . . . it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.””

One of our neighbors is kind of a crotchety old guy.  In a neighborhood that is gentrifying he holds out in his house, living on a very limited income, partly surviving on food pantries and scavenged items.  And yet, he occasionally will bring us things – most recently it was a bouquet of flowers he got at a local ministry, clearly donated by Trader Joe’s because they were a bit droopy and on the verge of their demise, and no longer could be sold.  “For the girls” he said, “make sure you let them put it in a vase!”  And so we did.  And they loved it, of course.

Now, I would never think to write a thank you note to Trader Joe’s after I spent money buying a bouquet of flowers there, but I feel gratitude to my neighbor, and I even feel some gratitude to Trader Joe’s for giving away some flowers.  Our neighbor received a gift and passed it on, and it made me more mindful—what gifts do I receive to pass on to him?

Charles Eisenstein writes in his article, “To Build Community, An Economy of Gifts,” :

“Community is woven from gifts. Unlike today's market system, whose built-in scarcity compels competition in which more for me is less for you, in a gift economy the opposite holds. Because people in gift culture pass on their surplus rather than accumulating it, your good fortune is my good fortune: more for you is more for me. Wealth circulates, gravitating toward the greatest need. In a gift community, people know that their gifts will eventually come back to them, albeit often in a new form. Such a community might be called a "circle of the gift."” 

There are increasingly all kinds of organized and informal ways people are trying to resist the commodification and upwards concentration of wealth in the marketplace and turn towards alternative gift economies, circles of the gift, structures that help meet people’s needs and build community at the same time.  “Think mutual aid, community organizing, self-help, and cooperatives of all kinds.”  http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/solidarity/capitalism-is-not-the-only-choice-20171114

In one model a small group of people meets on a regular basis, they each share one thing they need – say, help building a fence-- and they each share one thing they have to give—say, extra produce from the garden—and they figure out how to share and meet each other’s needs without buying anything or exchanging money.

There are lots of other examples too, including large cooperative, worker-owned businesses whose mission is not to make the most money but to meet a community need and sustain family-friendly, family-supporting jobs in the process.

These are not new and innovative ideas—in some ways it is simply returning to and expanding a well-known way of life. 

We ourselves as a congregation are our own gift economy.  We pool our resources—money, talents, food, care—we share them with each other and with those outside our walls with no expectation of equal exchange or “profit”.  When you give to this congregation, it is not a market transaction, but a gift of trust in community and reciprocity.  When you allow yourself to receive gifts through this congregation the circle is completed. 

Giving and receiving is both a reflection of the relationship that already exists, and a way to deepen that relationship. 

In the same way, when I give out of our Ministers Discretionary Fund, it is not a gift with strings attached, I do not ask for a detailed accounting of how the gift was used, nor a particular return on investment.  It is simply moving what has already been given as a gift along again, circulating the wealth towards the greatest need.

It is hard spiritual practice to be like the generous one-year-old in the poem that Autumn read—simply experiencing the joy of passing gifts back and forth, freely offered, freely relinquished, without grasping for self or security, without feeling owed to or in debt.

If only I could be so generous in my heart. 
If only we could be so generous in our nation.

We often hear talk about our country as a Christian nation, but we have long since replaced the God of Abraham with the God of the Marketplace. 
One only need to look at the last month in Congress to understand that.
The tax reform bills passed by the Senate this week and in the House previously do not follow Jesus’ admonition to “Love thy Neighbor as thyself” or any of the other hundreds of places in scripture that instructs believers to care for the vulnerable and poor.  Instead, they cater to the wealthy, Wall Street and large corporations, leaving the rest of us to carry the debt and figure out our own survival.

And here’s another thing that happened this week, getting less attention --  legislation was introduced in the House this week to repeal some of the already pretty weak consumer protections around a practice known as pay-day lending. Imagine: you have a job but not enough to have much of a buffer in your bank account.  You have an unexpected expense – a car repair, for instance, and you need that car to get to your job, to keep your job.  So, what do you do?  Often the only line of credit available to you, especially if you aren’t from a family with resources, which is so often the case for low wage workers, is to go down to the pay day lender.  To get a loan against your future paycheck.  And then to find yourself, when all is said and done, paying upwards of 300% interest on that loan, for years.

The regulations that this legislation want to roll back simply say, you can’t do this too often with the same person.  There’s not a cap on interest.

The reason I’m raising this today is because there’s a group right here, through the Blount County Ecumenical Action Council, that is considering what alternatives we might set up.  How might we create a pool of money that could be loaned at very low or no interest to people who need it?  What if instead of going down to the pay day lender, people had an option to talk with a person in their community whose highest regard was for their health and dignity and not the bottom line of shareholders or banking regulations?  What if we based a system on trust and reciprocity and compassion instead?  What if instead of telling ourselves a story of scarcity and competition, we told ourselves a story of abundant gifts, that we already have what we need to meet every need, if we would share?  What if?

Robin Wall Kammerer writes,
“We are showered every day with gifts, but they are not meant for us to keep.  Their life is in their movement, the inhale and the exhale of our shared breath.  Our work and our joy is to pass along the gift and trust that what we put out into the universe will always come back.” (p.104)

We need each other, and in the years ahead that may become more and more clear to more and more of us as social safety nets get sacrificed.

May we, even in these days when we might despair that the decisions people are making in Washington are all too big and too mean for us to do anything about – may we remember that we still yet have the ability to ask “What if?” What if we just did it differently?

In this season of gift-giving and gift-receiving, may we be mindful of the gifts of earth and each other which we already have received.  May we look for ways in the coming year to more often share and pass those gifts along, so that we might all live more abundantly and free.

Amen.

Friday, December 1, 2017

2017.11.29 Finding Blessings on the Gender Spectrum

2017.11.19      “Finding Blessings on the Gender Spectrum”
Rev. Laura Bogle

Time for All Ages:  “Red: A Crayon’s Story”  https://youtu.be/ytZ2fhuj6kA

Earlier this year I was at a family gathering at the beach. 
Picture this:  6 kids under the age of 8!  Three were mine, two were my sisters kids, one a family friend.
Picture this: in the warm weather they are splashing in the water, running on the sand. 
Picture this:  they are so full of themselves, un-self-conscious.  Free.  Happy. Strong.  Comfortable in their bodies.  Curious about everything.  Totally fine getting *very* dirty.  Most of them still fine to run around shirtless without a care.
They are all girls – at least so far as we know at this time in their lives.

And I worry and think about:
When and how will they lose that kind of abandon? 
What can I do to help them hold on to that kind of freedom?  To move how they want to move?  To play however they want to play?

Of course, I know that by age 5, when most kids in the US enter the public school system, the policing of gender norms has already started—what girls are supposed to do and be, what boys are supposed to do and be.  It probably started the moment their parents announced their birth, and the first question is so often – a boy? Or a girl?

Part of the answer, for me, is to talk about gender with our children, and affirm gender as a wide spectrum—one which has lots of options and possible expressions, so far beyond the segregated aisles at Toys R Us.

And Part of the answer, for me, for all of us who want to raise healthy and free children who grow up into healthy and free adults, is for all of us to learn about, talk about, and practice getting comfortable with a gender spectrum.  To look for ways ourselves to move around a bit more on that spectrum, and to make sure our kids get to experience adults in their lives who don’t fit neatly into our cultural gender roles.

My hunch is that the more we can expand our imagination around gender, the more healthy and free we might *all* be. 
In our culture lately there’s been increased attention to transgender people and their lives and concerns—in part due to high profile celebrities transitioning from one gender to another, as well as more transgender children and their parents fighting for equal and safe treatment at school.

While our congregation held workshops back in 2013 for us to learn together about gender as part of our Welcoming Congregation process, it is always useful to go back to the basics—even in 4 years things change and develop.

So: I want you to picture a gingerbread person—except this will be our Gender Bread person.

Holding this image in your mind will help us disentangle a few terms.
We’ll start up at the head, the brain—where Gender Identity resides.  Gender identity is the internal feeling you have about your gender.  Do you identify internally as a Man?  As a Woman?  As neither?  As both? 

One term that is increasingly used is “genderqueer” or “gender fluid.”  Terms used by people who identify as being between and/or other than man or woman. They may feel they are neither, a little bit of both, or they may simply feel restricted by gender labels.  Some people choose to use pronouns that are not gendered.  For instance, the use of the term “they” as a gender neutral pronoun is more and more in accepted use.  Or some folks may use terms like ze and hir instead of he or her.
Remember: Gender Identity itself can exist on a spectrum and change over time. 

Gender Identity is separate from Gender Expression. Think about the outline of our genderbread person– the ways a person acts, dresses, and presents their gender on the outside.  Is it more masculine or butch?  Is it more feminine or femme?  Do you present more androgynous? Or gender neutral?  Does it change depending on the day and where you are, who you are with?  How many of us feel like we have to dress in drag to go to work or to our family’s Thanksgiving table? 
Gender expression is the place where very early policing and control of gender norms happens with kids.  

Sometimes this happens overtly. 
Tony Porter is the author of “Breaking Out of the Man Box” and co-founder of the organization “A Call to Men.”  He talks about the moment he realized how deeply differently he was treating his son and daughter, who were very close in age. At the time they were 4 and 5. His daughter would come crying to him and he immediately would cuddle and console her; call her sweet names and let her cry it out.
His son would come crying to him and he’d give him a few seconds before he told him to shape up and stop crying.  No hug.  No consolation.
This is a kind of enforcement of gender expression – what’s OK and not OK.

Many times this enforcement happens subconsciously or implicitly—like what kinds of toys or activities or clothes are offered or available for boys vs. girls; men vs. women. 
Did you know that it’s kind of hard to find women’s dress pants that have deep pockets and enough room to carry a wallet?  I’m just saying.  Sometimes, it’s the little things.

So, we’ve been to the brain and to the outside expression. Let’s move down a little further on our genderbread person and talk about Biological Sex
Biological sex is the physical characteristics you are born with and develop that may include anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, body shape.  While we don’t acknowledge it much, even biological sex exists on a spectrum.  There are some people who are born with a combination of male and female biological markers—the generally accepted term for this is Intersex.  There are some people who are born with generally male biological markers, and who later decide to make changes—through surgery and hormones—to shift their biology towards femaleness.  Or vice versa. 

What gender non-conforming people of all kinds have helped us to do is to de-link biology from culture, identity, and expression.
So, when we think about Gender Identity, separate from Gender Expression, separate from Biological Sex—and recognize that all of these exist on a spectrum – the permutations are endless!

You could have a Genderbread person who Identifies as a Woman, who expresses a more masculine gender, and who has female biology.  A butch woman.

You could have a Genderbread person who Identifies as a Woman, who expresses a Feminine gender, and who has or had mostly male biology.  A Male to Female transgender person.

You could have a Genderbread person who Identifies as Gender queer, who some days expresses a more masculine gender and some days expresses a more feminine gender and has male biology.

And on and on….

Then there are those of us who are Cisgender.  Cisgender is the term used to describe someone whose gender identity, gender expression, and biological sex generally match up based on the cultural gender binary. 

I am Cisgender.  I feel myself to be a woman, I generally express myself in more feminine ways (though to be sure, I don’t fall to the extreme of that spectrum), and I was born biologically female.  Cis means “on the same side” and is used in contrast to “trans” which means crossing over.

What very often gets tangled up in this conversation about gender is sexual and romantic orientation—who you are attracted to.  I almost didn’t even want to talk about it today, but I think it’s important because there is often so much confusion about it.  And I invite you now to envision the heart of our Genderbread person.  Imagine that sexual orientation and romantic orientation – who you are attracted to—resides in the heart.  It can be separate from what gender you feel yourself to be, how you express your gender, and what your biological sex is.

For so long in our culture the options have been two boxes:
The Man Box:  Male = Masculine = Man = attracted to women
OR
The Woman Box: Female = Feminine = Woman = attracted to men
And there’s a host of qualities, and characteristics, and behaviors associated which each of the boxes.

What we know is that while that equation might work for some people, there are very many of us for whom that equation doesn’t equal our own experience.  We change the variables into so many different kinds of patterns, creating all kinds of beautiful expressions of being human.

We also know that it is dangerous—emotionally and sometimes physically—to transgress these two boxes, or to dare to make different combinations.
Kids get punished.
People get told they are in the wrong bathroom, or refused service at a restaurant, or turned away at a church door, or from a family gathering.
Some people are assaulted and killed. 

Later today we can show up for the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance vigil, and help memorialize all the transgender and gender non-conforming people who have lost their very lives in the last year, because of who they are, who they dare to be.  We can hear the names of the ones we know about, and remember that they represent even more loss and names we don’t know.  We can understand that most trans people who are assaulted or killed are Transwomen of Color.  We can reflect on how that represents a deep, deep fear of gender transgression in our culture; and a deeply ingrained toxic kind of masculinity that teaches boys and men to fear and suppress and exorcise their femininity. 

And I have to name here—if we didn’t enforce this kind of masculinity on men and boys, we wouldn’t be seeing the endless revelations of sexual harassment and assault on women, the stream of #MeToo stories that is filling our social media and news stories.  As we memorialize lives lost to violence against trans people, we can also memorialize the lives damaged by a kind of masculinity that equates being male with being dominating, aggressive.

But I want us to do more than show up to memorialize.  I want us to think about what further steps we can take to support resilience and health for all of us on the gender spectrum.
Our congregation states that part of our mission is to celebrate diversity.  It is central to our faith to recognize that beauty and worth and dignity and goodness shows up in many ways and forms.  It is central to our faith to remember that when some are not free, none of us are free.
How might we all, especially those of us who are cisgender, work towards making gender diversity visible, accepted, celebrated—not just tolerated?  So that we might all find more freedom?

One small option that can make a difference is for all of us to take on some of the risk and the burden of communicating about our gender identity. 
Some of you might have noticed that on my e-mail signature under my name it now says “Preferred pronouns: she/her”  This is my way of making explicit what is often just an assumption other people make about me. 

People look at me and put me in a particular gender box: woman.  There was a time when I was around 10 or 11 and had very short hair, when people repeatedly assumed I was a boy.

So rather than make assumptions about someone’s gender when they walk through the door here, let’s try to practice  not gendering people until they let us know what gender, pronouns, name they want to be called.  And we can signal a welcome by communicating our own preferences.  At the greeters table there are stickers available for you to indicate on your name tag what your preferred gender pronouns are.  And there are blank ones – so you can really decide what works for you.  An invitation, not a requirement.

We are not always going to get it right.  We are going to mess up sometimes,  We are going to misgender or misname each other sometimes.  When that happens, may we be strong enough to acknowledge it, to apologize, to try again, to extend grace to one another.

Transgender activist Patrick Califia asks:  “Who would you be if you had never been punished for gender inappropriate behavior?  …. What would happen if we all helped each other to manifest our most beautiful, sexy, intelligent, creative, and adventurous inner selves, instead of cooperating to suppress them?”

I want to invite us to all, especially those of us who are cisgender, and especially the cisgender men among us, to think about ways, comfortable to you, that you might transgress the Man Box.  I know a father, for instance.  You could say looking at him that he usually presents very butch.  He is married to a woman.  He works on a construction crew.  He has two daughters, one of whom is transgender.  Recently I saw him and noticed his fingernails were painted.  A small thing; and yet, a hugely rare thing. Imagine the message that sends to his children.  Imagine the conversations it opens up with other men.  Imagine the level of internal security of self it takes to transgress that gender norm.  Imagine the ripples of possibility and freedom it creates.

Tony Porter says he remembers asking a 9-year-old boy “What would life be like for you if you didn’t have to adhere to the man box?”  And all he said was, “I would be free.”

May we create ever more ways to find that kind of freedom from boxes, for ourselves, for our children, for us all.

Amen.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

2017.11.5 "A House for Hope"

2017.11.5        “Blessing the World with a House for Hope”                      Rev. Laura Bogle

Reading
From “A House for Hope: the Promise of Progressive Religion for the 21st Century”
by Rebecca Parker and John Beuhrens, published 2010
“We write in a time of hope – hope that the tragedies of torture and war might be eased, that threats to the earth’s environment might be turned around, that economic systems might be converted to better support all earth’s peoples and cultures. We also write with the awareness that hope began before we were born. It began with generations of people who lived before us and devoted their lives to what they hoped for their children and grandchildren. We have benefited from their labors, and we take up the tasks of our own time indebted to them for what has been accomplished and mindful of new challenges, as well as perennial ones that remain.
Hope will go on after us, through those who will continue the struggles for justice, equity, and compassion, and will form and reform communities that embody love for life.
Rebecca [Parker] developed the metaphor [of] theology as a habitation. …[The] image conveys that “theology” – whatever else it may connote – is about the structures of meaning that shelter and shape our way of living. The image counters the common notion among liberals that every person must build his or her own theology from scratch – as if religion were only a private matter of personal belief, without history or community. In fact, liberal and progressive people of faith inherit a communal theological house, built by those who lived, labored, and loved before us.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Rebecca Parker and John Beuhrens published these words in 2010, during a time when the state of our country and the direction we felt we were going did feel more hopeful for some.
Perhaps we feel less hopeful this morning, this Sunday before election day 2017.

Nonetheless, they wrote this book knowing that the tides of history ebb and flow.
And knowing that what we believe as religious people, and how we articulate what we believe, shapes how we live our lives, and shapes our common life together.

They wrote this book with the hope that we religious liberals would no longer separate our dearly held faith commitments from our commitments in the public square.  That we might start bringing the language of faith to our engagement with the important social and political issues of our land. 
Can you imagine more and more of us saying, “A Muslim Ban is against my religion.” 
“Discrimination against transgender people is against my religion.”
“Paying people poverty wages is against my religion.”

And they wrote the book with the hope that we might remember that we don’t have to start from the ground up—that we already have important frameworks in place.
Today, one year after the Presidential election, I thought it a good time to review.  We need all the resources our faith tradition has to offer us for these times.

When you enter a place of worship you are not just entering into a physical building, a physical house of worship.
You are entering into a metaphorical house too.  A whole framework of meaning is present, whether you are aware of it or not, whether it is explicitly spelled out or not.
This is true for us as Unitarian Universalists, too.  It is as true for us as it is for the Baptists or the Muslims or the Presbyterians.
We Unitarian Universalists inherit a rich legacy of liberal theology which we often take for granted, or sometimes ignore, or sometimes aren’t even aware of.
Today I want to take us on a tour of our Unitarian Universalist house and share a bit about what it contains. All of this reflection is based especially on the work of Rebecca Parker, who served as President of our UU seminary Starr King School for the Ministry. Each part of the house corresponds to a classic category of systematic theology.  This will be a very quick and necessarily basic tour. 

Foundation: (theology)
What do we say about God or the ultimate source of Life?
Who/what do we most deeply trust?  Who/what upholds us?
When I was a kid I questioned why I needed to bow my head in church--
One thing we understand is that our conceptions of who or what God is reflects more about humanity than about some external knowable Truth.  What we believe and say about God has real-world implications.  If we believe in an angry, judging, violent, distant, male God, chances are we will live that out in our earthly lives.
Much of our theological heritage comes from people and communities who rejected and built a different way.  Joke/nutshell:  Unitarians believed humans too good to be damned by God and Universalists believed God too good to damn people.
In Unitarian Universalism we have inherited a rich theological tradition that includes these ideas:
--humanity and the divine/the ultimate source of Life are co-creators; God is relational, is relationship.
--If there is a God, it is all goodness, Love, creativity -- Universalism
--there is little separation between the divine and the human – we are part of a continuum—God is both within us and beyond us.
--our ideas of God, and perhaps even Godself, changes; continuing revelation;  God and the Universe is always in process and so are we.  Our ancestor’s ideas about God changed with, for instance, the way biblical criticism was done in the 17 and 1800s.  They changed again with scientific advancement, with dialogue with other religious traditions, and with the increase of theological voices from the margins—women and people of color.

“In liberal theology, at the core of the struggle with God is a restless awareness that human conclusions about God are always provisional, and any way of speaking about God may become an idol….The nineteenth century Unitarian Theodore Parker put it well: the goodness of God is manifest in that God has given humanity the power to judge God.” (94, 95)
“The fundamental question then is an existential question, not merely an intellectual exercise.  Do you believe in God? Is a relatively meaningless question, compared to the inquiry of the heart: is there reason to trust that there is any help available?”
Now I will bow my head to the unknowable mystery, to remember that I can’t know it all or do it all by myself.


Walls: (ecclesiology)  ekklesia=assembly, gathering, congregation
nature and purpose of religion
from religare=to bind together

The root of the word religion is religare – to bind together.  What binds us together?  What holds us in?  What is the purpose of church and how do we gather?
The walls of our UU house are the covenants we make with one another.  To be religious for us means to be in covenanted community, not to subscribe to a creedal statement of believe.
We choose to be in covenant with one another—to make promises to one another. 
We affirm that the purpose of our Fellowship is to help one another, to live not as isolated individuals but in an interdependence with one another.
When we break those promises, which we all always do at some point, we choose a path to try to stay in relationship and renew those promises.
We are a freely chosen and democratic community – where we pay attention to whether everyone has a voice.  Where the biggest decisions about our community are not made somewhere else, but made right here, by you.
We are place of the priesthood and prophethood of all believers, where I as professional clergy work in shared partnership with you to live out our mission and our ministries.


Roof: (soteriology) soteria=salvation, preservation
What saves us?  What protects us?  What “delivers us from evil?”
Next March our monthly worship theme is Evil – and we’ll be able to get deeper into these questions.  Today I’ll just say:
Unitarian Universalism has been one expression of an alternative theology of salvation that “emphasizes that human beings need to be saved from the consequences of human sin – not from God’s punishing wrath; and that salvation comes through the powers of life and goodness, present within and around us.” (63)
Both Sin and Salvation are in human hands.
In our Christian Unitarian and Universalist heritage, Jesus saves through the example of his life which we are able to follow, not through his death.
Our Universalist forebears said that all would be saved by a loving God.  Period.
Salvation is not an individual, personal experience, but a collective one. 
We will all be saved together. It is our ability to live in Love and Connection which will save us.

The Welcoming Rooms: (theological anthropology, pneumatology)
What does it mean to be human and how to we relate to one another? How do we understand the fact that every human civilization across time and geography has created and expressed some kind of religious framework?
Theological anthropology
At the core of our UU theology is an affirmation of the goodness of the diversity of human life – all of it.  We carry the legacy that each one of us is made in the image of God.  That our human powers of “reason, feeling, imagination, language, memory, creativity, conscience” are fundamentally good, not depraved or sinful.  And that our very bodies, and our capacity for pleasure in and through our bodies, including sexual intimacy, is a good gift.
Now, all of these good gifts can be and are deformed into something unethical, sinful. (see: soteriology) But that is not our starting point.
Our conclusion from the starting point of the goodness of humanity is that no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your gender identity or expression, where you were born or how old you are – you are sacred and worthy, and deserve access to the gifts of life, to flourish and live in safety and well-being.
Rebecca Parker says these rooms are where Love lives.  Love that is “the gift of gracious, transforming, unexpected invitation into greater life through increased connection and engagement with others, especially those that the dominating society deems Other.” (125)
We experience this Love in relationship.  And we can experience it when we encounter a Spirit which feels greater than our human existence, which beckons us to more beauty and more mystery, which calls forth a response of awe and praise.

Pneumatology  Pneuma = breath or wind 
In classical theology it is the doctrine of the Spirit.
Many people today will say “I am Spiritual but not Religious.”  There is a hunger for a deeply felt connection, an experienced sense of Spirit within our human existence.
How do we create a room within this House for spirit to live?  Is our congregation a place where Spirit comes and settles down among us, or sometimes knocks us out of our expectations?  As we are silent, as we sing, as we create – are we acknowledging the mysterious spirit of life that is present in all and that connects us?
Unitarian Universalists can be Spiritual and Religious.  The Spirit shows up in the religious community that worships and sings and creates and engages spiritual practice together.

Door/Threshold: (missiology)  mission=missive, message
How do we relate to others who are not in our theological house?
When and how do we leave our own house to connect with others?  How we are neighbors to those people?
How do we invite others into our house?

Our UU theological framework tells us a few things about this:
--There is truth to be found in all religions, and we accept many ways of seeing, understanding, and believing.  We don’t have a corner on the market.
--It is possible to work respectfully with those of other religious belief towards the flourishing of all life.
--Our respect for a diversity of belief can sometimes make us timid in proclaiming what our good news is.  I never want to be coercive or seen as proselytizing, do you?  At the same time, I know stories of people whose lives have been literally saved because they found our community of faith—a place for head and heart; service and spirit.  A place where people at the margins may be brought into the center.  A place where how we live out our values says so much more about who we are than any statement of belief.
If there’s one challenge I want to leave you with today:  think about when and how you share your UU faith with others. 

Garden/Paradise/Earth: (eschatology)  eschaton=last, final
the end times – or the ultimate point of our existence – where do we hope to be going?

The main thing to know about progressive eschatologies is that they point not heavenward, but bring us back down to earth.  There are some variations on this theme.
One variation was expressed through Universalist Christianity and also through the Social Gospel Movement in the 1800’s. It focuses on the human ability and responsibility to build the Kingdom of God or Beloved Community right here on earth.  We are the ones who create heaven or hell.  Our purpose is not to do good so that we can reach a faraway Paradise after we die, but to use the life we have to work for a communal expression of that Paradise here and now.
In this perspective we are always, always working towards something better in the future, a progressive path.
Another variation encourages us to understand that where we stand right now, right here is already holy.  Jesus said “Today you will be with me in paradise.”  To focus only on some future better time or better place means that we will constantly critique and might neglect what is already here right now.  The better is already here, right here on this incredible planet earth, and we can awaken to it, choose to participate in it, and do all we can to protect and love it.
In this view, in every single moment we have the ability to experience heaven, what we ultimately, fervently hope for.

For me, this (the framework house) and this (our congregation) is the House where Hope lives.  What about for you?  Where does Hope live?


May we be ones who continue looking to both our past and our current life together, taking care of and renewing this House.  May it be so.  Amen.

2017.10.22 "Taking a Knee" sermon

2017.10.22      “Taking a Knee”                     Rev. Laura Bogle
A couple of things I want to tell you first today --
With this worship service today we are taking part, with many other UU congregations across the country, in Part 2 of a White Supremacy Teach-in – conversations that leaders of color in our movement, especially black Unitarian Universalists, have asked us to engage.  You may remember, we participated in Part 1 last spring.

Today when I use the term white supremacy I am not usually referring to the outright racist ideology that explicitly states white people are superior to others—the neo-nazi kind of white supremacy.  Instead, I am referring to the historical reality in our country that our systems and structures – from education to health care to business to media to our own UU congregations—are built in such a way that gives advantages and privilege to white people over people of color.
So, this sermon today is really speaking to my fellow white folks—which is most but not all of us in the room.
Also, a caveat:  I never watch NFL games, except the occasional SuperBowl.  So please forgive me if I mess up a name or a team or some terminology. 
I’ve taken a bit of a deep dive the last few days reading back about how it was that Colin Kaepernik formerly of the San Francisco 49’ers, began to kneel last year during the national anthem before games. 
Let’s take a few moments to remember the timeline of events…
August 2016 – Kaepernick first sat during the anthem during the pre-season games;  wasn’t even noticed for a couple of games.
Sept. 1 – Kaepernick and Eric Reid kneel at pre-season game
The very next day Kaepernick announces that he will donate $1million plus all the profits from his merchandise to grassroots organizations fighting for racial justice and equality.


Only three days later -- Sept. 4, 2016—first white pro athlete to kneel during the anthem after Kaepernick -- Megan Rapinoe of the Seattle Reign – National Women’s Soccer League--  
She expressed solidarity with Kaepernick, saying that, as a gay American, she knows "what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties," and that "it’s important to have white people stand in support of people of color on this."   
At her next game the opposing team rescheduled the playing of the anthem so it would occur when teams in the locker room.
Sept. 9 – Denver Broncos Brandon Marshall kneels during regular season game.  The first to do so.
Subsequently and swiftly he lost two sponsorship agreements.
Sept. 16 – in Seattle, entire Garfield HS football team and coaches kneel

Subsequently more NFL players, more high school teams, WNBA teams, etc.
            Some high school students kicked off teams
A high school in Louisiana sent a letter to all student-athletes saying they would be punished if they don’t stand for the anthem.
March 2017—Kaepernick becomes free agent – he still hasn’t been signed by any NFL team. 
Trump tweets: “NFL owners don’t want to pick (Kaepernick) up because they don’t want to get nasty tweet from Donald Trump.”

REMEMBER: it was July 5 and July 6, 2016 when Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were shot and killed at the hands of police – and videos of their deaths were seen across the country.  The next month is when Kaepernick began his protest. 
If we look at the protests without remembering the reason why, saying the names of those who have died and will never come back, then we miss the point:
Trayvon Martin
Eric Garner
Michael Brown
Laquan McDonald
Tamir Rice
Eric Harris
Walter Scott
Freddie Gray
Sandra Bland
Alton Sterling
Philando Castile
And so many others… It is a feature of white supremacy that I do not have to recall these names every day, that I move around my neighborhood and my communities without constant vigilance and remembrance of what has happened to them.

According to Mother Jones magazine using data from the Census Bureau and the Washington Post database of police shooting: ( http://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/03/police-shootings-black-lives-matter-history-timeline-1/ )
[In 2015]-black men between the ages of 18 and 44 were 3.2 times as likely as white men the same age to be killed by a police officer. And while black men make up only about 6 percent of the US population, [in 2016] they accounted for one-third of the unarmed people killed by police.
Why did they have to rely on a Washington Post database?  Because it wasn’t until October of 2016 that the Department of Justice decided to begin keeping national track of police use of force.
Eric Reid, Colin Kaepernick’s teammate, wrote in his recent Op-Ed in the NYTimes:
“In early 2016, I began paying attention to reports about the incredible number of unarmed black people being killed by the police. The posts on social media deeply disturbed me, but one in particular brought me to tears: the killing of Alton Sterling in my hometown Baton Rouge, La. This could have happened to any of my family members who still live in the area. I felt furious, hurt and hopeless. I wanted to do something, but didn’t know what or how to do it. All I knew for sure is that I wanted it to be as respectful as possible. …
…my faith moved me to take action. I looked to James 2:17, which states, ‘Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.’ I knew I needed to stand up for what is right.”

One question I searched for – have any white NFL players been kneeling?  Not until almost a full year after Kaepernick’s initial action – August 2017-- does the first white NFL player, Seth Devalve of the Cleveland Browns kneel during the national anthem.  He happens to be married to an African American woman, and motivated in part by the fact that his children don’t look like him.  He also says he was motivated to take action after the violence in Charlottesville that killed white anti-racist activist Heather Heyer.

Of course, in the last couple of months, we’ve seen entire NFL teams link arms or stay in the locker room during the anthem. All of a sudden the conversation is about unity.  And players – while making what I consider huge sums of money – are not the ones holding the power in the conversation.  I will no longer engage in conversation about how much NFL players make unless we are also talking about the wealth of NFL owners.  According to Forbes, the top 10 wealthiest NFL owners are worth over $60 BILLION.  Players hold power to the extent to which they are willing to play the game. 
So, yes, Colin Kaepernick is privileged in some ways, yet still vulnerable as a black man in America.  And yet he found one place where he could risk his privilege and power for greater freedom.  He may never get to play football in the NFL again.
How can we white folks learn from that example?

Two ways white folks can pay attention to and use our own vulnerabilities to join in the struggle for racial justice.
1—Cultivate our own strength in the face of our own vulnerable feelings.
Pay attention to when and where we feel fragile or vulnerable when people are talking about racism,
or perhaps noting something you have done or not done and you are feeling complicit,
or perhaps when you see protestors on the TV screen or in your community, and you think “I’m with them!  But I’m not sure about the words they are using or the tactics they are using.”
You know that moment when you feel like you want to critique or to run away?  I invite you to breathe and stay in the room.

Take a moment and think about the physical vulnerability of black men and women in many, many communities in this nation.
Cultivate the vulnerable strength of a learner. 
Know that you are strong enough to be in a learner posture—like Nate Boyer, the Green Beret and former Seattle Seahawks player that Kaepernick consulted.  He said to Kaepernick, “Even though my initial reaction to your protest was one of anger, I’m trying to listen to what you’re saying and why you’re doing it. …So I’m just going to keep listening, with an open mind.  I look forward to the day you’re inspired to once again stand during our national anthem.”

I like to think that when Kaepernick and Boyer met they created something called “brave space.”  A space for the honest exchange of experiences, even across disagreement.  A space where we don’t necessarily have to stay locked in our own ideas of the way things are.
Rather than seeking safe space – where what you think and how you think is simply re-affirmed, seek out brave space. 
We don’t know what we don’t know. 

For white folks, taking a knee could mean a posture of humility, a posture of listening, a posture of “deliberately restraining the impulse to answer, or presuming to know the answer” as Aana Marie Vigen writes.
In our Opening Words today, Karen Maezen Miller’s poem:  “Abandon your authority and entitlements/Release your self-image/Status, power, whatever you think gives you clout/It doesn’t, not really…/See where you are. Observe what is needed./Do good. Quietly.”

2) The second way white people can work to dismantle white supremacy: Choosing vulnerability when we don’t have to– to risk the places where we have privilege and power and choose to be vulnerable in order to be in solidarity with those who have no choice about their vulnerability and often aren’t able to exercise their voice.
Examples:
--Heather Heyer chose vulnerability when she as a white woman showed up physically to protest the white supremacists in Charlottesville.
--Country music star Megan Linsey chose vulnerability when she as a white woman chose to kneel *while she sang the national anthem* before the Titans game in Nashville last month.  She says, “The easiest thing to do would be to walk out, smile real pretty and sing an anthem and get off the field. I think that’s what everybody expected me to do. But, in that moment, I don’t think that was what was right for me. I knew that I wanted to make a stand.”
And she has since received numerous death threats.
--Just this weekend, Laura Ellis, white music professor at University of Florida, chose vulnerability when she climbed up the bell tower on campus and chose to ring the carrillion bells in the tune of the African American national anthem “Lift Every Voice and Sing” – all while white supremacist Richard Spencer held his rally on campus.
--UU Congregations around the country right now are voting to become sanctuary congregations—to place their physical places of worship in the service of protecting immigrants – overwhelmingly people of color—who are facing deportation.  This is choosing a kind of vulnerability in order to be in solidarity whose very freedom is under attack.
--Last October the UUA Board pledged $300,000 immediately to support the Black Lives of UU organizing collective and also made a $5 million long-term commitment to the organization which seeks to provide support, information & resources for Black Unitarian Universalists, and to expand the role & visibility of Black UUs within our faith.
One of the ways we as white people can risk our power is to give away our wealth and resources, without having to control it.  In the coming weeks and months, we all will have an opportunity to give towards a fund to fulfill the $5million pledge to BLUU.  One UU donor has already pledged a $1million match.
{By the way—this was the guiding approach that our very own Community Outreach Project team used when we decided to give $1,000 of our budget to support a conference next month at Maryville College for youth of color.  Moving resources to those most affected by oppression for them to use as they see fit.}

Our late UUA moderator Jim Key, who was at that Board meeting said, “To me, doing nothing—or doing something more timid—was a greater risk to our movement and the values we say we have and the way we live in the world. It would put our overall mission at risk not to deal with society’s most pressing issues now.”  https://www.uuworld.org/articles/board-commits-5-million-bluu
For white folks it is a delicate balance – figuring out when to simply listen and “do good, quietly.”  And when to do something bold that is risky, that might draw attention to ourselves.
I believe we collectively figure it out, as we stayed rooted in a spiritual practice of Love for self and Love for others, listening to and being in relationship with those who have less racial privilege than we do.

Do you remember that at the 1968 Olympics, track stars John Carlos and Tommie Smith famously raised their fists in the black power salute during their medal ceremony.  Who was the third person on the podium that night?  Peter Norman, a white Australian.  Norman has gotten less recognition but he too made his stand that night – he wore a button for the Olympic Project for Human Rights.
In 2006 when Carlos and Smith were pallbearers at Norman’s funeral, Carlos was reflecting on how Normal stood with them.  He said he “expected to see fear in Peter Norman’s eyes before the medal ceremony, when there was no turning back from what they were about to do.  But he didn’t see fear.
‘I saw love,’ he said.”
May we remember always that Love is stronger than our fear. 
May that love guide us to build new ways of being until all people are free.

May it be so.  Amen.