December 2005 Archives

FUERZA is a diversified group of artists led by community artist and activist Mario Torero. Based in San Diego, CA, Grupo FUERZA grew out of the Chicano Park Art Movement of the 70's, influencing the cultural landscape of the San Diego region.

After 33 years of struggle, and considering the 500 years of Latin/Indian evolution, FUERZA is moving forward with the concept of re-joining the Aztec/Mayan Cultures of the North with the Inca Culture of South America, through the Concept of Aztlan. Aztlan is an Aztec/Mayan spiritual belief that the representation of our creator, Quetzalcoatl, would return to earth around this time as he has done every 500 years.

The legend conceives that the liberating spirit of Quetzalcoatl would arrive in the Promised Land of Aztlan, presently, the Southwestern United States. From there he would spread throughout the original anscestral lands, reuniting all indigeneous peoples of the Americas.

FUERZA's contribution to this reunification is to rejoin the indigenous peoples through an arts and cultural exchange.

The discussion about theology that began over at Philocrites  has stimulated much thought in the weblogs of Unitarian Universalists. For a week I observed rather than jumping in, although the question of the "theological core" of religious liberalism is central to much of my writing here at People So Bold.

I thought I would write several small essays on this thread rather than one long one.  There are two basic reasons for choosing this strategy:  first, I have observed many disparate themes in the thread, and second, if I concentrate on one isolated aspect of what has become an expanding critique of our intellectual culture, I might contribute to finding a solution.

I have been politically unaffiliated  for a long time. It isn't that I don't believe in combining my efforts with others, but my political thinking means that I am critical of the Democratic Party, and I find most left organizations to be irrelevant to the current struggles.  Right now, the Democratic political organization is in disarray in state after state, and the congressional leadership has little relationship to the grass roots of the party.  But I came across the Progressive Democrats on the web, and it looks a good effort, with good leadership and a rational strategy.

The Progressive Democrats say this about themselves: "We believe that the greatest need of our nation is to redirect the resources of our government from destruction to creation, from war to peace, from military spending to social spending, from sickness to health, from selfish desires to universal needs. The future of humanity and our planet are at stake.

The question is, "What is the most effective strategy for wresting control of the government of the United States of America from the moneyed interests, the corporations, and the military industrial complex that now effectively control it?"

The answer is NOT leaving the country.
The answer is NOT the Republican Party.
And the answer is NOT the Democratic Party as it is now organized and controlled.
The answer is PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS of AMERICA.

Check them out.

The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people of the United States in order to create a more perfect union.  This is not a document for lawyers and for those who presume to govern us, the people form this union, and the politicians are accountable to the people and to the laws.  This fundamental republican understanding is foundational to maintaining our democracy.  In our time democracy is endanger, not from the tiny networks of Islamic extremists, but rather as a result of a corrosion of values.  For the people of the United States to maintain their democracy the people must hold those they elect accountable to the laws.  This is especially necessary in face of the growing lawlessness of the executive  branch.

The Imperial Presidency was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Presidential powers have been expanded by every administration since then, to the determent of democratic freedoms and the checks and balances envisioned by the founders of the federal republic.  But the practice of the late twentieth century Presidents has been to break the law covertly, cover up and maintain deniability.  Bush is openly asserting that he is above the law.

G. Pascal Zachary writes:  "The need for a balance between executive action and democratic accountability was crucial to the creators of the American republic in the late 18th century. Until then, the democratic movements in Europe had succeeded only in subjecting monarchs to certain limits, such as "the power of the purse" in England. In the U.S., the president would be circumscribed by law. This was the great invention of American political practice, even more so than the idea of federalism, which enabled different states of the union to manage their affairs differently.

Because rule of law is fundamental to the moral basis of the presidency, presidents must even uphold laws they don't agree with. Indeed, the willingness of presidents to do so is their defining trait. In this regard, presidents are unlike other citizens. They do not have the option to perform acts of civil disobedience. They cannot argue, in essence, that their conscience does not allow them to abide by the law."

Why then is President Bush insisting on his duty, and even his right, to disregard the laws covering domestic spying, laws that demand the government seek a judge's authority before spying on Americans on American soil?

Zachary argues this is not the work of a bungler, rather his lawlessness results from a calculated assault on the Constitution and American republican tradition.

The Constitution reads. Article I; Section 8. The Congress shall have power. . .

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The President is not given those powers. He commands the armed forces under the laws established by Congress

Tim Harper writes: "Vice-President Dick Cheney has upped the ante in a burgeoning scandal over the use of unauthorized wiretaps in the United States, touting the Bush administration's success in restoring presidential powers that were stripped during the Richard Nixon era.

Cheney said the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War wrongly eroded the executive power of the White House, something he and U.S. President George W. Bush have remedied during their war on terror.

The U.S. vice-president spoke on a day when some moderate Republicans joined Democratic calls for a congressional inquiry into whether Bush broke the law by authorizing wiretaps without court permission.
At least two Democrats suggested Bush could be impeached for his alleged crimes and the White House scrambled late in the day to try to counter the perception that Bush had deliberately misled the nation when he spoke about wiretaps in April 2004.

"Watergate and a lot of things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority ... the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney told reporters aboard the Air Force Two aircraft after a visit to Pakistan.

But the vice-president said he thought the Bush administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

He also said he believes that the U.S. War Powers Act, which gives the U.S. Congress the power to be fully engaged in a president's decision to go to war is unconstitutional.

"I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president," he said."

The constitution gives the President no authority except the authority provided by law. Congress needs to investigate the executive branch to see if the President and Vice President are faithfully executing the laws of the United States.

On December 23rd Senator Tom Daschle is quoted in the Washington Post:

"As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance."

Despite all evidence to the contrary "secular liberals" continue to assert that freedom, genuine participatory democracy, and justice can be achieved by means that contradict those ends.  Our the liberal religious tradition has taught that we can not coerce freedom, nor can we browbeat a people into conforming to "Western style procedural democracy,"  nor cab we establish justice while enriching multinational corporations.  Yet secular liberals persist in the discredited idea that society can be rearranged by enlightened elites acting for good purposes, and that institutional power can used to achieve such a rearrangement.  The debate between Democrats and Republicans is entirely within the logic of secular liberalism.

On the other hand, that religious movement which is our heritage has taught that freedom arises when we become the change we would achieve.  In order to achieve peace, we must work for non violent solutions to conflict.  In order to achieve freedom, we must give others the right to make decisions.  In order to achieve a democratic world, we must respect the right of others to control their own destinies.

Universalist minister Olympia Brown expressed our the idea well when she wrote: " We can never make the world safe by fighting.  Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children or God, and must share the wealth of the world."  Now those whose minds are held captive by the logic of secularism might object, this religious ideal is utopian!  But Brown responded "You may say this is impracticable, far away, can never be  accomplished, but it is the work we appointed to do." 

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote:  "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

You may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. You may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, nor establish love. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

I have done my share of child dedications, both as part of the Sunday service and as private ceremonies. Some have been in UU Christian congregations, some have been in pluralistic congregations. I have baptized an adult Unitarian Universalist who had become a Christian.
But this was a first for me, the baptism of a child. It was last night, Christmas eve, after the candlelight service. I celebrated this baptism at the request of Unitarian Universalist Christian parents, one who had been brought up Unitarian Universalist, and the other who had been brought up Roman Catholic and whose understanding of baptism was influenced by that Catholicism. Their daughter was two months old.
So what follows is Christian baptism as understood by this Unitarian Universalist of Christian humanist leanings.

Edmund Hamilton Sears, Unitarian minister and anti war activist helped define the meaning of the Christmas holiday with his carol "It came upon a Midnight Clear." The last verse has shaped generations of religious liberals understanding: "for lo! the days are hastening on by prophets long foretold, when the ever circling years comes round the age of gold: when peace shall over all the earth its ancient spendors fling, and the whole world give back the song which now the angels sing."

Sears wrote his carol as an anti war song. The United States had invaded Mexico as part of a premeditated plan to seize resources and extend the system of slavery. The United States had been engaged in a war of genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land, and its racist contempt for the people of Mexico was a logical extension of the exclusive covenant upon which the nation had been founded. Sears wrote his carol to protest the violence and imperial arrogance of his government. Sears was a Unitarian, and a real patriot.

This carol was his Christmas gift to his faith community and to other real patriots of his time. (Abraham Lincoln resigned from the Illinois legislature to protest the vote to call up the militia for the invasion of Mexico. Henry David Thoreau went to jail rather than pay his taxes to support this war. Sears had lost his pulpit due to the vicious criticism from jingoists within the Lancaster, Massachusetts congregation, but had been welcomed by the Wayland, Massachusetts congregation

My anti war commitment began in Unitarian Sunday School, and I have no problem asserting that while Unitarian Universalism may not be a pacifist church, we are a faith community that has a long, and consistent tradition of opposition to unjust war. Our present stance of opposition to the racist and murderous war on the Iraqi people is not because we have strayed from religion into politics as some who don't know our history would assert, on the contrary we are continuing a long tradition.

How do we discern a just war, from an unjust war? First, we need to understand that the political elite who runs our government has a long history of lying, rationalizing, and spinning their policies. What do I mean by long? I would go back to well before Independence was declared. My Cherokee ancestors had experience with the lies.

But what about now? How do we put an end to the "two thousand years of wrong" [Sears was referencing the betrayal of Jesus teaching by his followers.]

Let me suggest one resource that exposes the lies and spin of the modern war making elite. War Made Easy by Normon Solomon analyzes the deceptions of the government and media to mobilize the people of this nation into war after war.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clark and Goldberg wrote in their decision concerning the academic study of religion in public schools, "one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." Part of the liberal arts, religious studies employs critical analysis and methods from a variety of disciplines to understand religious traditions as well as to question the dogmas, stereotypes and prejudices that may surround those traditions. In addition to investigating religious symbols, texts, practices, and belief systems, the study of religion examines the relationship of religion to ethics, contemporary social issues, politics, history, psychology, science, literature, and the arts."

This approach has been adopted by public higher education institutions, but at not at the secondary school level. I continue to wonder why religious liberals adopt a defensive stance relative to the religious right's attempts to teach a sectarian form of religion in the schools. I believe that advocating the teaching the Bible, religious history and theories of creation from an academic and non sectarian point of view would be a more effective response.

Once upon a time the idea of the surveillance state seemed like science fiction, an exaggerated idea that one read in scary novels about the future.

Steve Connor writes: "Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyze any journey a driver has made over several years.

The network will incorporate thousands of existing CCTV cameras which are being converted to read number plates automatically night and day to provide 24/7 coverage of all motor ways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and petrol-stations."

Well they tell us driving is a privilege not a right, so how can one have a right to privacy when accessing the state's roads. Do away with that quaint notion that the state is a republic, which if I remember my Latin meant "the people's thing." Read the full article.

George Bush is not a Texan. Jim Hightower is a Texan, and he tells it like it is. Here he exposes the lie that Americans are conservative: Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction.
Americans might not call themselves progressive -- but there they are. On the populist, pocketbook issues that are rooted in our nation's core values of fairness and justice, there's a progressive super-majority. It flourishes in red states as well as blue, cutting through the establishment's false dichotomy of liberal/ conservative.

Read a real Texan.

One of my most memorable courses in college was the Bible as Literature. I found my knowledge of the Bible to be a foundation of my liberal education long before I choose to return to theological studies. I believe teaching the Bible as Literature and History would help to advance a culture of intelligent discussion about religious questions. Discussions about religious questions must advance beyond sectarianism and dogmatism, phenomena which are nurtured by the present policy of having no discussion about religion in the public arena. As I see it if we continue to pursue the present lets pretend to be secularists policy we will see our nation increasingly divided by sectarianism. We could move toward creating a common culture if we taught religion as part of the liberal arts.

Today in the New York Times Bruce Feiler writes that public schools should Teach, Don't Preach, the Bible: YESTERDAY'S ruling by a federal judge that "intelligent design" cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district has the potential to put the teaching of the Bible back where it belongs in our schools: not in the science laboratory, but in its proper historical and literary context. An elective, nonsectarian high school Bible class would allow students to explore one of the most influential books of all time and would do so in a manner that clearly falls within Supreme Court rulings.

For you who may not be on the Spiritual Progressives email list, I post this letter.


Rabbi Michael Lerner writes: Some leaders of the Christian Right have decided to make an issue of the secularization of Christmas. Objecting to the move by Macy's and some other retailers to wish their shoppers "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" instead of the traditional Merry Christmas, they have begun to accuse secularists in general, and, on some of the right-wing talk shows, Jews in particular, of undermining Christmas.

The term Sodomites which is often used as a pejorative in our homophobic culture has its origins in the account in Genesis of the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah.  So what was so sinful about the denizens of Sodom.  Read this post by The Prodigal Sheep which examines the distorted interpretation of the historical church as compared to the understanding of the Hebrews.  Original intent always trumps plain meaning of the text in my book.  The Prodigal Sheep writes: Traditional (i.e. post-medieval and modern) discussions tend to focus on a narrow interpretation of the violence intended by the men of Sodom against the two visiting angels, concluding that the violence had something to do with homosexual intercourse, and that for such an abomination God destroyed the city. But the biblical prophets themselves, up to and including Jesus, always understood the 'sin of Sodom' as something quite different.

Read the rest of this post.

Kari Lydersen writes: Last spring, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) won an unprecedented victory when their boycott and protests convinced Taco Bell and parent company, Yum Brands, to ensure companies from which it buys tomatoes will pay their field hands one cent more per pound and adhere to a relatively progressive workers' rights code. This fall, the CIW launched a campaign demanding McDonald's sign a comparable agreement, hoping that McDonald's, even more so than Taco Bell, could help raise wages and improve working conditions across the board.

Many Florida Unitarian Universalists had followed the struggles of the Immokalee Workers, and were elated with the agreement with Taco Bell.  But the tactics of MacDonald's is cause of great concern.

Read Kari Lydersen's article to appreciate this new tactic of corporations in their public relations war to appear to be "good citizens" while they seek to degrade the people who harvest the tomatoes, and other crops that make their business possible.

The  present occupant of the Oval Office has committed impeachable offenses, and moral lapses.  He has shown himself to be incompetent as a chief executive.  He is clueless as a commander in chief.  But as an long time teacher I find this unforgivable, he misquoted a hymn!  He distorted the clear intent of the text he was quoting, giving the impression that the hymn gave authority for his rationalizations.

Thanks to Tom Degan for coming to the defense of I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day

Tom writes:  The other night, as George W. Bush concluded his address from the oval office, he ended it by quoting the old civil war era Christmas carol, I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day:

The wrong will fail
And right prevail
With peace on earth
Good will toward men....

Yeah, beautiful. Leave it to these guys to take something as beautiful as that tune out of context. He wouldn't have dared to quote that song in its entirety. Had he done that he would have had to recite these timely words:

And in despair I bowed my head,
"There is no peace on earth", I said
For hate is strong
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth
Good will towards men.

The source is a comment in a much longer article detailing Bush's Impeachable offense of wiretapping.

Many argue that people of color are more likely to be executed than white folk, and there is some statistics that confirm that observation.  Others argue that the racial differences that are evident in conviction rate for capital crime might be a function of class, rather than race.  The argument goes that white folk have more access to lawyers, and that is what makes the difference.

But lets look at it differently,  what if Tookie Williams had killed four African Americans?  Michelle Kroll writes that in California no one has been executed for killing an African American.  He goes on: "the fact that not a single person has been executed in this state for killing an African-American is consistent with studies across the country that show the death penalty is reserved primarily for those who kill white people. The California study, 'The Impact of Legally Inappropriate Factors on Death Sentencing for California Homicides, 1990-'99,' found that 80 percent of executions in California were for killers of whites, though non-Hispanic whites make up just 47 percent of all Californians, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Those who kill whites are more than four times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Latinos, and over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill African-Americans."

The United States as a society places more values on the life of some people than it does on the life of others.  Most white people are not even aware of this reality and coach their arguments about the death penalty without reference to that the justice system is not, and never has been "color blind." Many African Americans support the death penalty because they are terrorized by gangsters and drug users, but "Black on Black" crime is not a priority for the police and the prosecutors.

Inherent worth and dignity of every person!  That is an idea that not a part of the calculus of the District Attorneys of this country.  The death penalty can not be applied in a way that compatible with the first principle of Unitarian Universalism in a society that is racist.

Unitarian Universalists are open to the wisdom of all the world's religions, so I thought I would share some Christian wisdom. One of the myths of Christianity is the anti Christ, which I am a Christian Too! links to the the Biblical archetype of the False Prophet. Extending this metaphor with all its associated connotations as a tool for social analysis allows us to see how false prophecy is a part of our contemporary experience. So arise ye soldiers of righteousness, let us rally to defeat the anti Christ.

I am a Christian Too writes: But let's just look at the Anti-Christ/False Prophet imagery for a second. The Anti-Christ is supposed to be a leader that deludes us into thinking that bad is good and good is bad.

He would charm us into following him into doing unspeakable acts, say, torture, kidnapping, false imprisonment, ghost detainees, or murder. The Anti-Christ would be supported by the False Prophet, who would create a false religion to pervert God's will. This false religion would make us hate instead of love, applaud war instead of peace. It would paint its enemies, say, homosexuals, Muslims and liberals, as undeserving of God's love, nor ours. This religion would wreak death (the death penalty, war, poverty, disease) instead of life (peace, compassion for the imprisoned, food for the hungry, health care for the sick).

The religion of the False Prophet would become intertwined with the governmental power of the Anti-Christ, quite the opposite of the historic separation of Church and State in the U.S. Government leaders would be qualified for their roles by virtue of their religion (Harriet Myers anyone?). The false religion would defend the immoral actions of the government, while the government would enforce the false morality of the false religion.

Thanks to The Prodigal Sheep for link.

Every religious communities has its high holidays,
those special days when the institution is busiest,
when the faithful are most involved in community rituals,
when the children are most excited.

The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) periodically updates the classifications for disabling mental disorders, Shanker Vedantum writes in The Washington Post that "Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis." One set of proposed guidelines written for discussion by California psychologist Edward Dunbar would classify those people whose functioning is paralyzed by persistent fears and worries about other groups as a form of psychosis.

Not all mental health clinicians agree. "I think it's absurd," commented psychiatrist Sally Satel. She objects that such a classification would allow hate-crime perpetrators to evade responsibility by claiming they suffered from a mental illness. "You could use it as a defense." But Gary Belkin, deputy chief of psychiatry at New York's Bellevue Hospital pointed out that pedophilia is considered a disorder by psychiatrists, but that does not keep child molesters from being prosecuted.

The word psyche is the Greek word for soul, and so with all due respect to the psychologists and psychiatrists, I have some observations as a theologian. The psychiatrists seem treat all mental disorders with medications. Would including bigots in the DSM mean that mental health workers would treat racism, misogyny, and homophobia with talk therapy or would we simply medicate bigots and pretend that the ideational systems and their institutional structures have been solved by treating the designated patients? In traditional theological terminology are the haters of others individual sinners, or are they participating in a culture of sin?

The Prodigal Sheep comments on this move to classify bigotry in the DSM: Maybe medication might make sense for some violent and extremely dysfunctional individuals who consent to treatment. But it also makes me wonder whether the treatment isn't worse than the disease. Pathological bias is a manifestation of a mind and soul not at peace with God and the world. Whether triggered or not by a neurophysiological disorder, it would seem that the most effective treatment for bias is not a prescription, but repentance. We are called by Jesus to turn away from our old thinking, to pour new wine into new wineskins, to love God with all our hearts and our fellow human being as ourselves, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

It's interesting to observe how society's view of homophobia and homosexuality are following opposite trajectories. Homosexuality has moved from sin to sickness to natural variation. Homophobia has moved in the other direction from acceptance as normal and even healthy, to a sickness. In my view we simply haven't gone far enough. Let's name patholigical hatred for what it is -- sin -- and develop an appropriate spiritual response.

This year perhaps as many as two billion people will celebrate at Christmas.  Not only in affluent North America and Western Europe, where we may think we own the holiday and have our special notions of how it should be celebrated.  It also will be celebrated in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America and among the poor Europe and North America.  In poor villages, in refugee camps, in soup kitchens, in homeless shelters, in prisons, in city slums, in the homes of financially strapped single parents in affluent suburbs people will hear the story,  sing the story,  and rejoice

Pearlbear writes about the Tookie Williams execution. The death penalty is wrong. Christians say it is wrong. Buddhists say it is wrong. So Unitarian Universalists can say it is wrong without be scolded for being liberals.

He might have been a gangster. He might actually have committed the crimes for which he was convicted. He might have protested his innocence to the end of his life because he was lacking in true repentance. He might have not have been "redeemed" even though he did lots of social constructive things. But Pearlbear is right, those things are extraneous arguments meant to convince people who have no qualms about their own government engaging in revenge murder. Violence begets violence, and the only way to break the escalating spiral of violence is to work toward an ethical preference for non-violent means. Religious liberals lose their moral authority when they engage in the rationalizations of secular liberalism.

Can we overcome crime in our cities without the death penalty? Of course we can, in fact it is the state's use of violence that legitimizes its use As Pearlbear writes "We used to know that, a while back, but we lost our way. It's time to find our way back."

This is one of several Christmas poem that I cherish.  I know that I can't read it to the same congregation every year, but I try to find a way to hold it up to those who may not have heard it during this season.  So one year it on Christmas eve, on another it is during on the Advent Sundays  This Sunday I will preach on the enduring power  of the nativity story (merging both Luke and Matthew since most people have both stories in their heads.)  It is laid out for me to read, which is probably different from the way Weems constructed the stanzas.  Enjoy.
€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“€“

Into the wild and painful cold of the starless winter night
came the refugees,
slowly making their way to the border.

The man, stooped from age or anxiety,
hurried his small family through the wind.
Bearded and dark, his skin rough and cracked from the cold,
his frame looming large in spite of the slumped shoulders;

He looked like a man who could take care of whatever
came at them. . .
from the dark.

Unless of course there were too many of them,
One man he could handle,  two, even. . . .but a border patrol, . . .
they wouldn't have a chance.

His eyes, black and alert,
darted from side to side, then over his shoulder,
then back again forward.

Had they been seen?
Had they been heard?

Every rustle of the wind, every sigh from the child,
sent terror though his chest.

Was this the way?
Even the stars had been unkind-
had hidden themselves in the ink of night
so that the man could not read their way,

Only the wind. . . . was it enough?
Only the wind and his innate sense of direction. . .
What kind of cruel judgement that would be,
to wander in circles through the night?
Or to safely make their way to the border,
only to find the authorities waiting for them?

He glanced at the young woman, his bride.
No more than a child herself,
she nuzzled the newborn, kissing his neck.
she looked up caught his eye and smiled.

Oh how the homelessness had taken its toll on her!
Her eyes were red, Her young face was lined,
her lovely hair matted from inattention.
her clothes stained from milk and baby,
her hands chapped from the raw wind of winter.

She'd hardly had time to recover from childbirth
when word had come that they were hunted,
and they fled with only a little bread,
and the remaining wine,
and a very small portion of cheese.

Suddenly, the child began to make small noises,
the man drew his bread in sharply:
the woman quietly put the child to breast.

Fear . . . .long dread-filled moments . . . .

Huddled the family stood still in the long silence.
                     
At last the man breathed deeply again,
reassured they had not been heard.
and into the night continued
Mary, Joseph and the Babe.

We honor the tradition of congregational polity, but the congregations that exist today are quite different from the congregations that existed several hundred years ago.  During the Protestant reformation,  there were two different ways of being Protestant.  In some places the local prince, or king asserted power over the church in favor of the Reformation, and Protestant ministers simply took over the function of the Catholic clergy.  The liturgy changed, the church was redecorated in puritan simplicity, but the way the church related to people was not radically different from the pre-reformed church

The other way of being Protestant was for people to form a covenant group usually based on the study of the Bible,  these groups were almost always illegal and politically in opposition to the establishment of church and state.  We call the way of being Protestant that derived its authority from the political rulers the Magesterial Reformation.  We call the way of being Protestant that derived its authority from the gathered members the Radical Reformation.

In some peoples minds, the world Radical implies an impatient attitude toward change and extreme tactics.  But the word meant "to go to the roots."  A radical was not impressed with tradition, which they perceived as corrupt and antithetical to the original purity of institutions, they wanted to return to that original purity,  Thus the radical Protestants advocated pacifism, common property, and non-cooperation with the state,  seeing these things as the way of the early Christian church.  Bishops, and non-elected clergy were also corrupt and they argued for the power of the congregation who called and covenanted with a religious teacher and leader.

For the magesterial reformers, the clergy were functionaries of Law and Order,  but for the Radical Reformers the clergy were teachers chosen to lead the covenant community.
Congregationalism,  the covenanted community that called and ordained its own clergy was an expression of radicalism.

Most but not all of the New England settlers had experiences with such radical, oppositional congregations in England before they came across the sea.  Some had been part of churches established by Calvinist gentry who functioned as little princes on their own estates.  So the English Puritan experience exhibit both radical congregational and more elitist magesterial experiences.    Moreover many of the Puritans clergy who came to Massachusetts read  John Calvin, who was a magesterial reformer.  Calvin's Geneva was Presbyterian in church governance, power rested in "elders" who were chosen for their orthodoxy.

Thus the church system that evolved in New England contained both a magesterial tendency and a populist radical tendency.  Officially, they established a congregational system out of deference to strong feeling of many Puritans, but one that recognized order and clerical privilege.  The legislature required each town to raise a meeting house, and to support a teacher.  The congregational church met in  the meeting house, and its called teacher was the teacher of the town.  This merging of the two tendencies of the Reformation created a conflicted dynamic.  New England Puritans produced many disputes, break away congregations and finally the baptists and universalist dissenters that challenged the standing order itself.

Congregations as covenant communities, that relate to each other as a community of covenant communities.  I don't think we have heard the last of this form of human organization.

I don't think the corporate megachurch is the product of the natural evolution of those house churches that met to study the Bible, and to hold each other accountable for renewing the church.  Rather I think the megachurch is "Geneva in the suburbs," another reincarnation of Calvin's magesterial vision of the church, and just as theocratic and clerical as the original.

Sometimes the ideas for sermons seem to come easily, at other times I feel that I have preached all I have to say.  What to do?  What to do?

Asking crazy questions about God,  about the divine/human connection often stirs the imagination.  When the imagination is stirred all sorts of interesting ideas result, sometimes far afield from the original sermon starter (the "crazy question" that started me thinking. 

What time was it before the world began?  Einstein tells us time is dimension related to the spacial dimensions, and thus before the coming into being of the world with its space, there was no time.  Hmmmm.  What do we make of the passage in Genesis that reads the "sons of God saw that daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."  Is this like the divine/human encounters that happened more frequently in the Greek myths.  Is this the source of the Nephilim that dwelt in the land?  And what about that flood narrative that begins verses later.  A final solution to Naphilim?  Were they the evil in the world.  Were they like the race of Heros in the Greek myths?  Now before we get too involved we say firmly three times, "this is a myth."  What do such myths mean?  Sons of God seem to have different meanings in different ages.

I have found a web site full of interesting and thought provoking "starters."  The reflection that results may or may not result in an affirmation of theistic solutions.  The sermons that are written and given may be quite sane.  But checking in with a little craziness is a good thing.  Check it out.

Sharon Welch quotes Vine Deloria, Jr. "We are in the process of establishing a new kind of American identity, apart from the Pilgrim tradition and it is a very painful process of sorting out our values. We must not take any easy or superficial answers."

I was stuck with this formulation. What is the Pilgrim tradition that Deloria argues is the source of the "old American identity?" It was a racialist identity. It was based on voluntary association with a covenant community, and by extension to society (Mayflower Compact was the Pilgrim's attempt to bring the non-convicted majority of Mayflower passengers into a covenant with the faithful who spearheading the venture. They had hired skilled workers, servants, and soldiers to support their colonizing effort.)

The limits of the traditional American understanding of democracy and who is part of the community is contained in the Pilgrim identity. And that identity is very much a part of the historic Unitarian identity. It is not uncommon for a Unitarian Universalist minister to talk of the Pilgrim's and Puritans as "our spiritual ancestors." And while we may be selecting only the covenant congregation, and the tradition of a learned clergy as worthwhile for our own time, there is a shadow side to that claim. The founders of New England believed that God had privileged them with a destiny, and they believed that the community that they were founding was a "City on a Hill." Much mischief has been done by Americans to this world as a result of those illusions.

Welch is arguing for an inclusive democracy, which she argues requires a move beyond "speaking for others." Liberation theologians assert that the spokespeople of the dominant culture assume that their values, and ideas are universal and apply to everyone. Men can speak for women. White people can speak for humanity. Americans can speak for the world.

I have seen communities transformed when participants begin to grapple with the question of identity, to see the limits of their old way of thinking of themselves, and begin to stretch themselves toward a new more authentic self. A new American identity? A new way of being a nation in the world? Beyond grandiosity and racialism? That is a vision that stretches the mind and the heart.

Check out:

"After Empire: The Art and Ethos of Enduring Peace" (Sharon D. Welch)

Yesterday I wrote about congregational polity in response to a comment by Steve Caldwell. He wondered whether the UUA's web site lacked a good interface for seekers because of congregational polity. He alluded to what he called "congregational polity purists" who seemed to be saying that any approach to seekers that did not come through a congregation was inappropriate.

Peacebang commented on that entry "Clyde, I'd love it if you'd tackle Steve's remarks even more directly. He isn't talking about congregations gathering, he's talking about complaints against UU folks who don't attend (or don't much attend) the local congregation but who consider themselves UU from their involvement with camps, conferences, etc."

So who is a Unitarian Universalist? In our polity the Unitarian Universalist Association consists of member congregations. While there are Associated and Affiliated organizations, the only members of the UUA are the member congregations. In addition to the member congregations there are about a number of gatherings of Unitarian Universalists that are covenanted, have regular programs and provide a means for participation of their members, but because they are too new, or too small are not officially recognized as member congregations.

Each of the congregations defines its own membership, and while there are no written standards for congregations to follow, the membership requirements are similar from congregation to congregation.

So from a polity point of view, the Association consists of recognized congregations, and the membership in the congregations consists of recognized members. So, does that mean that the only people who are Unitarian Universalists are those recognized members of recognized congregations? What about children? Should the minister instruct her youngest congregants that while they are beloved by the community they are not Unitarian Universalists? What about the staff who can not join the congregation because that congregation has a rule that staff can not be members? What about youth and young adults who grew up Unitarian Universalist and have not yet become a recognized member of a recognized congregation?

I suspect we are confusing two different things. On the one hand we have polity; our association consists of congregations and our congregations consists of members. And on the other hand we have the elusive question of identity within a religious community. There are members of the congregation that I serve who do not identify as Unitarian Universalists, but they do identify and participate in our local congregation. And there are folks who for one reason or another have come to think of themselves as Unitarian Universalists, but do not identify with a local congregation.

Thinking back on my youth and young adult years, I joined my first member congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Association when I was twenty five. I had identified as Unitarian and then a Unitarian Universalist since I was 12 or 13. I had participated in my parents home congregation, and was considered one of the flock, I had been a regular attendee at five other congregations before finding one I wanted to join. I had gone to Liberal Religious Youth conferences. I had been an officer in the Student Religious Liberals. I was in theological school!!!! I had a strong self identity as a Unitarian Universalist and apparently the Unitarian Universalist community thought of me as a Unitarian Universalist because they asked me to preach, teach, and serve on committees. But I was not a recognized member of a recognized congregation until I joined that congregation.

Not too many years later, I like many other young adults considered the actions of the UUA administration against the Black empowerment movement to be racist and a betrayal of Unitarian Universalism. Being young and strong in my convictions, I ceased to identify myself with Unitarian Universalism for several years. I continued to be a recognized member of a recognized congregation, albeit a congregation that agreed with my anger against the UUA.

Identity is a complicated and intense religious commitment. Polity is the theological rational of how we associate with one another to govern our community. They are not two different things. They are not the same thing either.

Is someone who identifies with Unitarian Universalism through his or her participation in a camp a Unitarian Universalist? That is for them to define. Are they participating in our polity? No.

Dogma is a word Unitarian Universalists don't use often. But the word dogma means the authorative teaching of a religious community. Our by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Association enshrine congregational policy as the guiding principle of the Association. No other theological idea is mentioned, outside of the By-laws statement of the "Principles and Purposes." The Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association asks ministers to uphold congregational polity as part of the Code of Conduct along with taking care of oneself and being honest with congregants. Unitarian Universalists are known for their theological diversity, and their non dogmatic attitudes but one would be hard pressed to find a Unitarian Universalist leader who would express doubts about congregational polity. Congregational polity is our dogma.

On the other hand a dogmatist is person who is fanatic or inflexible in how they apply dogmas. I wonder if that is what Steve Caldwell was witnessing when he commented: Maybe the abundance of congregational leadership resources and the paucity of seeker resources on the main uua.org page simply reflects our congregational polity? I've heard some congregational purists suggest that the only appropriate outlet for Unitarian Universalism is the local congregation.

In the eyes of these congregational purists, any expression of Unitarian Universalism directed towards individuals that doesn't come from a UU congregation is inappropriate within our tradition. For example, I've heard some ministers in my region complain about "camp and conference Unitarian Universalists" who have some spiritual needs met outside congregations and district YRUU youth who also have some spiritual needs met outside congregations as forms of Unitarian Universalism as two examples that are incompatible with our traditions. Perhaps this relative lack of "seeker" resources directed towards individuals (and not congregational leaders) on the uua.org main page reflects that view of our polity?

First of all congregational polity means that each "congregation" is a self governing religious gathering and does not require an external theological authority to authorize its religious functions. Second, each congregation will determine its own membership and its own leadership, including calling and authorizing ordained ministry. Third, congregational polity means that each religious community is a covenant relationship with other religious communities working for mutual support and accountability. The theology of congregational polity is that the church is a body of covenanting believers, in contrast to top down polities which congregationalist assert infantalize the believer, and corrupt the community of the faith.

Nothing in our polity prevents a community of congregational churches from associating for any purpose. Congregationalists have long formed mission societies for outreach to people outside the local area of congregations. They established colleges, created publishing companies, and institutionalized charities all without bishops or presbyterian oversight. So creating an Association and authorizing it to advertise to seekers is not outside congregational polity. Congregational polity may be our dogma. But let us apply it with wisdom and a vision that moves beyond dogmatism.

Bishop Sprong writes in his December 7th newsletter.

"I think that we have in recent years entered a "New Dark Age" in the Western world. It is marked by the rise of religious systems that seek to build security by encouraging prejudice against a designated victim. Both evangelical fundamentalism and the kind of ultra-conservative Roman Catholicism that is at present installed in the Vatican are publicly defined by their visceral and uninformed hostility toward homosexual persons. What the heretic was in the Middle Ages, the black in the days of slavery and segregation, and the Jew in Nazi Germany, the homosexual has become in the religious hysteria of our day. This kind of behavior is always a response to fear and to a rapidly changing world. Security-providing religion, which always requires a victim, is like a drug that carries us over the rough places of life. It is certainly not the wave of the Christian future.

Dark Ages do not last forever. . . ."

In fact Spong argues that the majority of religious people are already beginning to reject this fear based theology. As I see it reactionaries in the Religious Right are desperately trying to reassert power as the United States becomes increasingly more pluralistic and detached from old forms of social control. The majority of our fellow citizens will support progressive options if these are presented to them, in a way that respects their spiritual convictions. Religious liberals have a role to play in articulating a vision of our country that is both deeply inclusive of all people, and progressive in finding ways to overcome racism, cultural domination, classism, sexism and heterosexism.

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find
that money cannot be eaten...


The ones that matter most are the children. They are the true human beings.

LAKOTA

According the MacWorld:

"The editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary have selected "podcast" as the Word of the Year for 2005. The word beat out such runners-up as "bird flu" and "IED" (improvised explosive device).

Other tech-related runners-up included "ICE" (an entry stored in one's cellular phone that provides emergency contact information), "lifehack" (a more efficient or effective way of completing an everyday task), and "rootkit" (software installed on a computer by someone other than the owner, intended to conceal other programs or processes, files or system data.)

Podcast, which is to be defined as "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for downloading to a personal audio player," will be added to the next online update of the dictionary, due in early 2006.

The word was chosen based on its phenomenal rapid growth in 2005, which saw it grow from relative obscurity to one of the hottest trends in media. Erin McKean, the dictionary's editor-in-chief, noted that the word was considered for inclusion in the dictionary last year, but ultimately rejected as it was not in wide-enough usage.

"This year it's a completely different story," McKean said in a statement. "The word has finally caught up with the rest of the iPod phenomenon."

I was pondering the structure of the UUA in yesterdays post.  I was prompted to think about this by something Philocrites wrote about in the comments section of his post of November 29.  He writes of "young people who discover Unitarian Universalism through Beliefnet's "Belief-o-Matic," but then don't find materials -- by which I mean Web sites -- directed to them as curious young adults.  He refers to Joseph Santos-Lyons who compares the seeker resources of the UUA web site and the web site of the Episcopal Church. 

The UUA web site is an example of centralization and vertical integration,  there is main site and there are departments and links to congregations and affiliate organizations.  With the Episcopal site, the seeker information is a separate site easily found from the main page.  It is not clear from the UUA site whether the site is intended to give information to the general public about what the UUA executive leadership is doing,  or is supposed to give information to Unitarian Universalists about services provided by the association (rules for credentialing as a Religious Educator for example) or help seekers find a spiritual home.  Perhaps these functions could be done by separate web sites.  Given the present staff organization of the UUA the web site reflects how the staff thinks about their public. 

If different working groups built different web sites for the different functions merged in the present web site,  we might have a very good seeker web sites, user friendly UU community resource web site, and a super conduit for public witness press release web site.  None of these functions are done well on the present web site.

In the world of the web,  multiple outlets of information each with with a focused mission would produce highly quality results than the present hierarchal approach.

Early in the last century, the model of efficiency was the the corporation with a central headquarters and subordinate operating departments.  The corporation had a Board of Governance and a chief executive officer who oversaw the subordinate operations.  The model was recommended because of "integration" of diverse operations and economies of scale.

It is not surprising that the American Unitarian Association adopted a corporate model, and that the merged Unitarian Univeralist Association presented itself as a hierarchal, departmentalized corporate culture.  Congregational polity presumably was not affected, because the UUA provided services to autonomous congregations who function as the "owners" of the U.U.A.  Some have argued that this model undermines congregational governance by conditioning the congregational leaders to see their association as an instrument to deliver services rather than involving them in associational governance.  The argument asserts that this turns lay leaders into passive recipients of expertise, that they would be more responsible for the Association and its mission if they were involved in making the decisions that will shape the movement.

Whether or not this is the case,  I think that it is time to question whether the vertically integrated corporation continues to be an effective form of organization.  In an age of the internet can we produce educational materials, credential ministers, publish books and magazines, provide training in skills, advocate for justice and peace through a network of working groups rather than a hierarchy of departments?

The Association of Congregations would continue, and we could devolve some of department structures into a network of project oriented working groups.  The most innovative corporations have embarked on this journey toward less centralized learning organizations, while those corporations that have chosen to continue hierarchy and centralization are having difficulties.  Can we utilize the emerging technologies with old forms of organization?