Sermon I gave last week and I had the sanctuary decked out like a politician. Enjoy.

First I’d like to address the presence we have today of so many American flags. The first reason is practicality. It’s the 4th of July and the theme of today’s service is “Fire in the Sky” so I wanted something that looked like fireworks for everyone to have in their
hands to wave. It turns out that the plastic metallic sparklers are $1.39 a piece. While the American flags are a dozen for a dollar. So, freedom is a bit cheaper than fireworks.

But the second reason has more to do with who we are as a church and country. Working with the youth this year and the invention of their holidays based on each of our seven principles, made me think that if there was one holiday we should celebrate as Unitarian Universalists religiously, it’s the 4th of
July. The pluralistic values of our society, that is, we are one great nation made by many diverse peoples, mirrors the pluralism of our tradition—we are one great religious movement made by many diverse faiths and philosophies. The religious convictions our forbearers celebrated religious difference and even protects atheists from coercion by believers. In the same tune, our church glorifies religious diversity. We are a community that lives out our country’s democratic principles religiously, right down to how we are organized and democratically elect our denomination’s leaders. But what about separation of Church and State? As anyone who has looked at the issue knows, it doesn’t mean that the church can’t get involved in the affairs of the state. Indeed, our brothers and sisters on the right know this all too well.

As Forrest Church once said: “Don’t give the Bible, flag, and family to the religious right,” he says. “We have to retrieve them and plant them on their original high ground.”

Do you hear what he’s saying? We have some pretty awesome family values right here that should be uplifted politically as having values. Our campaign, Standing on the Side of Love protects GLBT families and families of color. We value families that look different, families where the woman wears the pants in the household, and we don’t have to tear down any other kind of families to do it. Truly, these are family values. And we should proudly proclaim that we inherited the vision of our forbearers of a pluralistic society, and the people who say that there should be one state religion under god, or that gays can’t be families, or that immigrants don’t deserve the right to keep their family intact, or that women should be subservient to men, did not.

Now to get involved in supporting the nation we have to separate these ideas of nationalism and patriotism. If you are feeling a bit queasy about having so many flags and talking so passionately about your nation, I am right there with you. Because nationalism is dangerous. But what I’m talking about isn’t nationalism. It’s patriotism. There is a difference. The difference I draw between the two is that nationalism wants to preserve the nation as it is, and patriotism wants to lift the nation to where it should be. A great example is from the Olympia Brown story. Specifically, our documents say all MEN are created equal—nothing about women. But she knew that even though the document did not specifically reference her, she knew she was an equal. She was a patriot to help convince Kansans that women ought to vote. If you’ve ever been called un-American for trying to do something inherently democratic and good for our nation, the friction between being a patriot vs. being a nationalist is what you’re feeling. However, our forbearers do not want us to preserve the nation as it is. We are passionately directed to abolish tyrannical government and put up a better one to serve the people in the Declaration of Independence. That is our right granted to us: to change our government to suit everyone for the better. We should also draw this distinction in our church. We do not wish to preserve this church as it is forever at any cost. We want to make it as it should be, as our vision inspires us to be.

Another value that we in a pluralistic faith love is freedom. The Declaration of Independence also promises us this.

Forrest Church, in his book The American Creed, explains this. He says: The American creed has two themes. “One is the divine nature of our rights, as elaborated in the Preamble, the idea that they derive from natural law or from a higher authority. This is the Unum principle.” The other, liberty and justice for all, “is the pluribus principle,” he said. “These ideals go together [in “E pluribus Unum”] but have been in tension since the nation’s founding days.” Now, as I read Abraham Lincoln’s comments in the opening words*, we have brought this E Pluribus Unum to all peoples of the globe. This is the idea that everyone has divine rights inherent within them.

Here are some examples of the tension in E Pluribus Unum: this morning, I had to get clothes on my son, and convince him that church time is not naked time. We limited his personal freedom a bit to come to church. So there is friction there at the smallest level and it goes up to the global level. We are free, for example, to fill up the gas tanks of Hummers and to make such obnoxious cars. At what cost? Whose freedom are we limiting to take this liberty? It’s not just the freedom to have pristine waters in the Gulf Coast. There have been other tragic oil disasters all over the world that dwarf the Gulf Coast disaster. But they didn’t happen in our waters or on our land, so you may not have heard of pipelines bursting in the Gulf for 10 months at a time in near Mexican shores, or the oil spills in Africa. Their freedoms to have unpolluted land clashes with our freedom to use energy. At the same time that energy development brings wealth to their country.

These are complicated issues. How do we know what do to with these freedoms? That is the where the Unum principle comes in. The liberty and justice for all. The “for all” is the common good. We need to rate our freedoms and see how it can benefit the common good. Sometimes the freedom of speech for one person to show the way benefits the common good. Other times it is limiting that freedom of speech so that we can get out of church on time and enjoy the rest of our Sunday that is better for the common good. This is how our forebears envisioned we figure out these clashing freedoms.

We put the value of the common good to work even as we worship. Let me tell you a story. I went to a conference where I visited with a black Unitarian Universalist minister. And I told her that I was uncomfortable signing a song in our hymnal. Go to hymn number 154. Someone tell me what the title is. Go on, look at it. “Ain’t Up On The Auction Block No More”. Can you see why I’d be uncomfortable singing this? Looking at my skin and referencing my history, I don’t think any of my ancestors experienced slavery. Why should I sing a song about redemption from something I’m pretty sure my family didn’t suffer? She turned to me and said, “You know, it isn’t always about
you.” That’s true. When I worship in a community with you all, it isn’t always about me. It’s about the common good. When I pick up a hymnal from now on, I solemnly vow to stop reading ahead to check to see if I really believe with all my heart and soul the next verse and if I should sing that or not. Because it may not be about me. It may be about the next person, who comes to this community to have support in his or her spiritual journey. For people who aren’t here anymore. It may be about them. And they need to hear me sing the song for them.

There are other elements of worship too that you enjoy that others don’t. However, as a community, they will still worship with you, and that is what makes our community great—having these differences, noticing them, and celebrating them. This is also what we do as a nation.

To close, I want to thank you all for being here today, and for perhaps feeling a little uncomfortable. To look at the flag may not be to your comfort; to have children around, or for kids to listen to adults for an entire service may not be to your comfort; to
talk about how our church could be different may not be to your comfort, but in that uncomfortable place, truly we grow. And this is a safe place for us to be uncomfortable in community. Please take these flags home with you, and remember your inheritance from our forbearers of a pluralistic society and religious tradition. There are many ways
in which we can act out our Unitarian Universalist values, and what better day to do so, than on the 4th of July.

Make it so.

*Opening Words:
“I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was
that kept this confederacy so long together. It was not the mere
matter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that
sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty not
alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for
all future time.”
- Abraham Lincoln, 1861

Now that I’m entering seminary I hear a lot of people tell me that clergy have high divorce rates. Wondering if this is an urban legend I looked up some statistics that say not only is this true, but it is particulary true for UU clergy: “The highest clergy divorce rate is found among the Unitarian Universalists (47% women, 44% men) with the other denominations in between.”

However, that’s a two year old post on a ten year old study; does anyone have anything more recent?

Leadership School

A few weeks ago I spent seven days in Beliot, Wisconsin for a Unitarian Universalist program called Midwest Leadership School. It’s a training program for lay leaders. My minister, Rev. Kate Rohde, suggested that since I have a passion for the ministry I ought to attend the school.

I did not think much of it. I’ve gone to a lot of leadership conferences. For non-profits, for young professionals in Omaha, for fundraising, for American Humanics and reaching further back debate, marching band, other academic activities. Most of the conferences, including the church ones, lacked the spiritual/philosophical emphasis that this one had. And it wasn’t purely introspective; a little over half of the time was spent in this area.

Before I went I knew I was going into ministry, but for extremely practical reasons. I am a good speaker. I have a background in non-profits. I enjoy serving people. I identify strongly with being a Unitarian Universalist. I knew somewhere, at some level that my religious movement could help many people. Where, how, and why were questions that I did not dwell on for too long.

Before I went, Unitarian Universalism seemed contradictory. It had to be, I supposed, to let people believe their individual faith as opposed to a dogmatic tradition. Yet the first and quite sane objection to this explanation is always ‘You let people believe in ANYTHING?!’ and the answer is no. We believe one has the _right_ to believe in what moves and inspires them, is what I’d reply. This answer was a bit shallow for me. It is difficult to save the world under the reasoning that I believe in your right to believe whatever you want. It did not hold true to the history of the movement - being on the cutting edge of progressive revolution. Fighting for religious tolerance seemed to correlate little with, for instance, the civil rights movement.

Now I am at the point where this post has gone on too long but I feel that I must provide context for the revelation that I experienced at the school. I would like to go more into the kind of religious culture I have so far experienced, but perhaps it is a  tangent that wouldn’t contribute much. Just know that spirituality or supernatural godliness held little value for me until a few months ago. It is damn difficult to be an athiest when God has a little chat with you. Although it wasn’t for lack of trying.

I arrived in Beliot with henna designs on my arms, a muddled mind on my personal beliefs in Unitarian Universalism and in what I believed. I didn’t know but three other people there, and they were purposely not scheduled with me in any activities. I needed to form bonds with other lay leaders not from my area so I could call upon an impartial third party in the future.

I won’t delve into the details of the school or the scheduling. The overall experience was almost completely new to me. Due to the designs on my arms everyone assumed I was some sort of hippie artist. They were very surprised to hear my degree in political science and not in fine art, admired my doodles and my ‘free spirit’. I was amused by these assumptions that the henna designs gave me. Where I am from any creativity I had was not useful. I had forced practicality and rigidity into my thoughts and processes. Any ‘creative’ interests I had were hobbies and quickly dismissed. I had no talent in them, according by my upbringing. Being in a military family and military myself made the compliments seem surreal. That they were genuine was almost embarrassing to me. I felt that this completely different persona developed at the school was closer to a truer identity of myself than I had felt in a long time, perhaps ever.

It could seem absurd to you, with creativity bursting from the seams at times. I suppose that is why introspection is so important. Until you sit down and think about it the quite obvious never appears.

Back to the school. It has been six days where I am no longer ‘just the facts, please’ Shawna to ‘please, can we sing another song’ Shawna. The last day of the school is a half day. There was a conflict in one of my groups and we did not read our Haikus. There is one more lecture that morning, so I ask the lecturer, Ian Evison, if we could read our Haikus before or after his lecture. I had no idea what his lecture would be about, but assumed it would be like the days before. He was, as one of my friends calls it, ‘running the railroad’ sort of lecturer. He had covered church growth, membership, dealing with conflict, and a number of other practicalities in church life. He paused, but gave permission for my group to read the Haikus.

I do enjoy speaking in front of people, or performing in front of them. However, I had never done so creatively. I did speeches in Debate and Forensics. Despite the fact that I am six foot tall and 230 lbs I do my best to shrink my appearance. I stoop. I hunch my shoulders, and sometimes I look at the floor rather than look at the people I am talking to. Eye contact is uncomfortable for me when I am nervous. Usually speaking in front of people does not make me nervous. I was now because I was the leader of the fiasco that happened in my group and felt rather sheepish the day after of it. Generally I stoop anyway. I have always been aware of it, and many have told me to stand up straight and look others in the eye. I can do it when I have to; to win competitions. Most of the time I do not.

I introduce the group, apologize for not completing the task and read my Haiku

A henna tattoo/

At Midwest Leadership School/

You, Me, Together

The others read their Haiku and we sat. As useful as ‘running the railroad’ lectures are, it is difficult for me to pay attention to them. I’d rather actually run the railroad or process it in a different way. To help me pay attention I had been creating the ornate designs out of the play-doh they’d given for this purpose for the past few days. And then Ian started to talk about what was really the heart of our movement, and I had to put the play-doh away. April sat next to me, with a star-gazer lily I had given her woven into her hair. Noel and Leslie sat behind me, they were also entering the ministry.

And Ian talked about one of his ancestors that were distantly related to him, how she had a hard life but found redemption in immigrants. She worked with them though no one thought anyone should. He talked of how she actually believed in people.

Then he told a story about a woman whose house was used in the creation of the Unitarian Universalist Hymnal. She was older in years and purchased a fridge that was a lemon. Ian was certain he knew what happened. That appliance salesman had preyed upon this old lady and purposefully given her junk. But she insisted that ‘He would never do that!’ and called the salesman. The next sunday, on the salesman’s day off, he came and replace her refrigerator. And this is where Ian cried a bit. And then he said that she actually believed in people.

He went onto say that when he talked with his fundamentalist peers, (I am not quite sure if I have captured Ian’s eloquence here) that they said the problem Unitarian Universalists was not that they did not have a gospel, but that they did not believe in their own gospel. That we had lost what it meant to believe in humanity. That we did not believe in our own personal gospel.

Then he went on to call out the five of us who were entering the ministry - Heather, Maria, Noel, Leslie and myself. He said something to the effect that he strongly believed and was comforted by the fact that we would be there in his place years from now. He believed in us.

Now, in this week long experience, perhaps you’d think that he’d been grilling us to be sure that we could replace someone like him - a man with 2 PhDs, and having a decade as a consultant and dean of Meadville Lombard. It wasn’t the case. I think the only times I talked to him was about how I had almost named my son Ian and when someone irritated me on facebook. This man didn’t know me at all. Yet there he was, crying, saying he truly believed in us. And that is what our movement is all about. We have faith in people.

For me, it was truly prophetic and personal. Personally, I doubt anyone had ever said they really believed in me. Sure, in debate my coach said I could probably win and my parents said I should do whatever makes me happy. But those are not the same thing as someone saying that they believe in you. Most often in my life I had heard that I would not be able to accomplish much of anything. Even after I have completed my military service or attained my degree I was not impressive. And yes my husband believes in me but it’s quite a different relationship and I don’t think he’s ever said that he believed in me. And I take it to mean the belief that a person will always do their best and become the person they were meant to be.

Check it out: liberals use the word ‘complicated’ to ignore unforgivable issues they have in their own past. For example, take this great story:

Sisters immortalized in stained glass at First Unitarian Universalist church have complicated past

Normally, I wouldn’t read this story. I didn’t know about this code word and care little about stained glass. However, this was on twitter a few times. I have a search filter up for the word ‘Unitarian’ and was intrigued. Unitarian Universalists hardly make the news for honorifics of their forebears.

The article starts off about how the movement traditionally dislikes stained glass; harking back to the ideal of being able to see the outside as it is and the outside seeing the people inside worshipping. Then the article goes onto say how the Gordon sisters honor the first principle in our movement, the inherent worth and dignity of every person. (Nevermind that this principle wasn’t around when the Gordon sisters were alive. Who decided that they represent the first principle? I hope it was the author of the article and not this church or there is going to be a lot more anger as you’ll see explained below)

Then the R-word: ”I won’t say, ‘They were racists!’ ” said the Rev. Melanie Morel-Ensminger, waving her arms in mock alarm. “But I won’t lie about that in my teaching about them.”

I’m sorry, what is it called when someone advocated Eugenics - the belief that other people are ‘undesirables’ and should be killed - for blacks?

What is it called when a Gordon sister would not attend a banquet at the White House because a notable black person would be there?

What is it called when the Kate Gordon wanted white women to vote in order to neutralize the black vote?

What is it called when an expert on the subject calls the Gordon sisters ‘white supremacists’?

I think, particularly from the vantage point of our religion and that church, we should affirm them for exactly who they were. Racist. The Gordon sisters were racist Unitarians. Yes, they fought and did worthy things. The article takes careful note of all their achievements. But what the article does - and what it sounds like the church does not do - is acknowledge them for exactly what they were, detailing their immoral positions in society.

I am certain they did great things. I am also certain that many Ku Klux Klan members or Hitler did a lot of good amongst the horrors they committed. The point is that as members of the privileged class in power we acknowledge what our forebears did in painful detail. Saying things like ‘complicated past’, ‘common attitudes of the time’, and ‘I won’t say, ‘They were racists!’, hides white privilege. It hides the history and whitewashes the past to our liking.

The article also lists how many schools and other public buildings have had name changes from oppressive white heros to civil rights heros. Perhaps suggesting that the time for honoring racists is in the past, and this liberal church is taking a step backwards?

For Unitarian Universalists, this denial is particularly troubling. Our movement is the most educated and 95% white. What a contradiction for this church to uplift these two sisters as embodiment of the first principle when they clearly did not believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. What a difference one word in a principle makes.

Reading the minister’s words, you can see the denial at work from the first sentence. Their ‘dark history’ is not exactly hidden but not pondered upon either. She is right, when towards the end she says there is no such thing as perfection. If she truly believed this, then she’d refuse to have this article have such an apologetic tone: ‘that’s what others during the time thought too!’.

She’d come right out from the get-go and say “Yes, they were racist. We acknowledge this terrible part of our history, that we did believe in eugenics. That we did shun people with different skin colors, and that we did not follow our own principle. That is part of this, a remembrance to those oppressed peoples that we were privileged and took a part in oppression. We recognize this because today, we strive to acknowledge our power and that it should be shared. Today, unlike the past, we do believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

And here’s the further rub: nothing in the blogosphere, UUA, or UU world about this at all. What does that say about our movement and racism? Well, I guess we won’t exactly hide it.