It has been over a month since Trayvon Martin’s death. There has been no arrest although we know who the shooter is. I do not presume to judge the evidence and convict the shooter – our courts should be the place for that. But I do presume to point to the fact that it was a young black man who was shot, a young man carrying ice tea and candy home – that is right – home in a racially mixed, gated community. In any universe in which we would want to live, this type of event would not, could not occur. No one would be chasing a young black man because of the color of his skin which made him suspicious; no one would be carrying a gun.

Neither do I presume that my words here or at public gatherings will evoke justice. Injustice is imbedded in our society. But, that does not mean that we do not have a moral responsibility to speak out and to stand up for justice. Yes, I believe it is a religious responsibility as much as paying tithing or going to church on Sunday or Friday. It is a responsibility based in the theology of every faith. It is such a simple tenet – to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Yes, the golden rule. And, it is one that we do not live well, in particular, in terms of those who are different from us.

I do not understand why the color of someone’s skin diminishes the humanity of that individual in some people’s eyes. I never have. It does not mean that I do not or have not participated in racism. I do not do so consciously, but as part of the dominant white culture, I have some complicity in perpetuating racism.

I feel right now that I can have little impact on the situation at hand. I can not move the judiciary or the civil authorities to do justice. What I can do, however, is raise our level of awareness of our society’s ongoing injustice to those of color. As we raise awareness, as we point out our own acceptance of injustice because of our seemingly ineffective actions, we can begin to call attention to those in power about the unfairness, the inequities in our systems. It is not just Trayvon, but hundreds of black men who are killed each year, some of which carry the tone of lynchings of old, which need to have their visibility raised. They call for justice as well.

In beating my chest, in crying for this visibility, I do so knowing full well that many of us just simply want the issue to go away. We’ve heard enough about this. But, can we in all good conscience, say that to all of those black mothers who fear, and fear rightly so, for the lives of their children?

My heart aches. It does. I want to ease that ache and the only way I know of is to speak my truth to power. Let us speak our truth about the implicit as well as explicit racism in our society. Let us live into a world where justice is the rule, not the exception.

I was once asked that when I was a chaplain in an emergency room. My answer – I don’t know.

Do you personally know where God is in all the pain, the suffering, the killing, the war, in domestic abuse, in politics, in our lives? If you think you do, you probably don’t really know. For, if there is one thing that most theologians recognized is that the more you think you know about God, the more you realize how very little you know.

This question recently came to me from a congregant of mine. He parsed it as a question from a friend. As with most of these kinds of questions, I think the congregant found that friend’s question resonating with him so much so that he decided he needed to ask me. I fear that I failed in my response. Again, I said that I did not know.

This may seem an odd response from a minister – after all, am I not a representative of the divine? Yes, and no…Yes, I am trained in matters of the spirit, in theologies, in church administration, in public speaking/preaching. I know how to listen pretty well…and the best listening I do is to hear the divine within each of us. And, the ‘no’ comes from the fact that each of us is a representative of the divine. We are all equals before the Holy.

In some ways, my response to the question of where is God, should be – Here, in you, in me. But, that is not the response people are seeking. The question really is, not where is God, but why. Why is the Mystery; why is the Divine allowing this to happen? Does God want it this way?

Inevitably, one wishes to assign responsibility for what is happening in our human world to God. After all, when things go right, we can say with glee – see, God is on our side. But, that misses a broader perspective…God loves everyone equally; I personally do not believe that God takes sides.

Ultimately, what happens here on earth, in this altogether too flawed human community, is the responsibility, the fault, of us humans.

What is your image of God? That image, your metaphor for that beyond our understanding, guides you in the answer to the question: Where is God in all of this? If you believe that God controls everything like a jealous ruler, that God has the limited qualities of humankind, then perhaps you might hold God responsible. As for me, I do not know. I am incapable of articulating my image of God – that image is limited by my human perspective. I know what I feel about the Mystery, I know that God is love, first and foremost, love. I know that we have been granted free will and within that free will we do both good and ill. If God were a father figure looking down on me, I have a sense that he would be saddened by what we have done with our innate abilities and our innate worth. But God is not responsible for what we humans do…He / She does not take sides.

So, when we speak of the war – any war – it is to humans we must look for the answer of who is responsible and how we can achieve peace. God may give us the will, but we humans are the ones responsible.

When I was in my early 20’s it was not an issue of whether I could get contraceptives. My insurance covered it. It allowed me to plan for when I wished to have a family. Later, I used contraceptives to prevent pregnancy because I was told that another pregnancy would be fatal to me. I did not question the pills availability to me. It never occurred to me that it could be taken away as an affordable option. For many of us, we could not have afforded the full cost of our monthly prescription because of our financial status. In my case, we were on the edge financially and thus it was so very important that it be an option for us.

The language and the posturing of men during this debate regarding a woman’s right to plan her life and have some semblance of control in her life, is filled with the bluster of men who simply do not understand the consequences of their point of view.

It appears to me that for many men, their decision is based on the biblical point of view – that women are property, are meant to be breeders, and are servants. While Genesis says that Eve was to be a companion to Adam, there are those who interpret that as ‘less than.’ Why would the Bible so clearly relegate women to positions of inferiority?

It was 2500 years ago. The Bible was redacted or compiled during a time when the identity of a tribe was truly at risk. The Babylonians had conquered the people of Israel and had transported any who were leaders and their families to Babylon. It was the way many conquerors integrated the conquered…by creating a melting pot diffusing any unique tribal identity. In the case of Babylonia they even promoted Israelites into the power structure of their communities. But the Israelites didn’t want their tribal identity diminished, so they decided to formalize or concretize the oral history of their people into a set of books that would then define who they were and the values they held.

And, as those in power write the history, frame the history in their own personal context, the Hebrew Bible was written by the patriarchs – men. As a result, instead of viewing their history holistically, it was written from the perspective of the importance of the maintenance of the male dominant tribe. Women were not at the forefront of their consciousness. As a result, women were considered accessories after the fact, not the primary focus.

We can not consider the current situation without trying to understand the foundations for how women are treated in our Judeo-Christian ethically based culture. We are constrained by those ethics. We need to progress out of those ethics if we are to progress as a human race. Until we recognize the power of women as individuals, until we grant them not only a place at the table but an equal place at the table, the human race remains at risk – for if we only address the issues of half of the race, the other half is diminished and, therefore, puts our humanity as a whole at risk.

This is liberal or if you will progressive politics. It is not about partisan politics, but it is about power and the path to power in our society. Women do have power, just not necessarily the equivalent power of men. Women have always had power, but that kind of power has been minimized by men. I do not believe that all men withhold power from women; there are many men, men of conscience, who support women and their equality. That said, the level of participation in high levels of government, as CEOs of major companies, and even as ministers of large congregations, while greater than it used to be is still largely symbolic.

I could give many examples of women’s diminishment in the Bible. Sarah comes to mind being asked to play Abraham’s sister, hence concubine to the king, so that Abraham would be safe. Dinah being raped and then somehow being the reason for honor killings in her name and then never being mentioned again. Then there was Ester who had to prostitute herself in order to save her people.

I am concerned in our current political dialog that religion is being used as the excuse for some of the limitations placed on women – that women should be subservient to men, that women’s role is to bear children or if they don’t want children, to hold an aspirin between their knees, that women do not have a right in their own right…that women in so many ways are second class citizens. The religion being used is often based on a literalistic, conservative, concretized view of the Hebrew Bible. And, that is a shame…it is a missing of the mark of the potential value in the archetypal stories in the Bible.

The women of the Bible are as essential to the Hebrew story as the men’s stories…it is just sad that they have not been included in more detail. Eve, our sister, who has been so maligned is our metaphorical mother…a woman of great curiosity and willingness to try something outside the box. Think of Noah’s wife…how much she had to put up with. There is Sarah who had to give her husband her handmaid in order to provide a son, and then when she was 100 had to give birth to a child…now that is strength. There is Miriam – a prophetess who as Moses’ sister saved him and then preached and sang after their release from captivity. There is Deborah – a great warrior prophetess; there is Bathsheba, Jezebel, and Delilah. Then there are Naomi and Ruth who show the depth of love possible between a mother and daughter in law. These are just a few of those women…strong, courageous, and well hidden in the text…but not in the subtext.

I would ask that we abandon our literalistic view of women in the Bible and instead take a look at their strength, their wisdom, their fortitude, and their abilities. If we do that, if those literalist biblical adherants can move beyond the words to the spirit of the text, they will see in it an equality of power, of rights, and of wisdom for men and women. And, in doing so we can stop the regression of women’s rights, for then there will be no question as to the equality of all humans…regardless of gender.

I fear that for some this is an untenable premise. The question is how can one be devoted to a faith and then not govern from that perspective. And, the answer lies in the word ‘perspective.’ No one can govern or represent him/her-self outside of her/his own value system.

It is perfectly valid to try to understand what a person’s values are when considering them for public office. And, often, one’s religious beliefs frame one’s values. If a candidate’s values resonate with your own, then you are more likely to vote for that candidate. One concludes that decisions will be made that would reflect how you might decide an issue.

That said, our country was founded on freedom of religion. There will be no state imposed religion. It is not acceptable for me to assume that if I am elected that my Unitarian Universalist faith could be, would be, should be imposed on the country.

I currently have real concerns relating to at least one candidate for president and his stance on the separation of church and state. This individual has indicated that it is okay to take direction from the leader of his faith in how decisions should be made for our government. I have no issues with the fact that we all come from a faith perspective – be it Christian, Muslim, UU, Atheist – and that who we are and our values that we hold are a reflection of that faith. Just do not tell me that I will be governed by the ‘rules’ of faith other than my own.

Again, the premise behind our country is that all people are created equal. Concurrent with that tenet is that all religions are equal in the eyes of the law. Most of us accept the fact that the laws of this country are not meant to constrain the practice of religion; rather, they are meant to encourage the practice of your faith.

I do not doubt the values are closely and faithfully held by the candidate about whom I am concerned. The issue is whether he would wish to overlay his belief system on the laws of this country. While his faith determines that contraception is wrong, my belief system (my personal faith based belief system) believes a woman has a right to choose how her body is used. While some in this candidate’s faith believe that woman are ‘less-than’ a man, my faith values men and women equally.

I do not expect that any candidate or elected official will only hold my values, nor would I expect that any elected official would try to impose his faith based values on me. Do not limit my freedom of religion by constraining my system of government based on your faith’s beliefs.

This is not a simple question. Things like this never are. If one governs from one’s values, and enacts legislation based on one’s values, then faith may enter into it, but it is not an imposition, rather it is based on shared values of those elected not from a religious perspective, but from a perspective of the common good.

I respect others beliefs, I just don’t want to be required to live those other beliefs particularly if they are at odds with my beliefs. One of the reasons this country has survived and become an increasingly diverse nation is because we have a separation of church and state.

This posting is not intended to take a partisan political stance, rather it is an attempt at an exposition regarding why the separation of church and state, while difficult, is essential to the freedom and foundation of the United States.

Individuals who say that the marriage enshrined in the Bible MUST be continued in fact want a reversion to the days when women were chattel. I know of no women (there may be a few) who want to be owned with no right to vote or to own their own property or to make choices in conjunction with a partner. In the United States today, women are not property. When they marry they do not lose their selfhood or perhaps I should say personhood.

Needless to say, most of us also would not support a return to multiple wives and/or consorts. To use the Hebrew Bible as the context for marriage would, however, require us to return there.

Just this morning while watching a political talk show I was reminded that as late as 1976 prior to a Supreme Court decision stating that individuals of different races could marry, a black person could not marry a white person in many states. The court decision was based on personhood – that race did not define personhood.

Ten years ago I dated and almost married a black man. We were quite the couple – this very pale, white woman and this incredible ebony man. We stood out. But, we met no resistance as a couple. It was our acknowledged right to be a couple.

My point here is that the restrictions to civil marriage have been diverse. Many of those restrictions have been overturned because of the reality of human rights. Some objected on theological grounds to changing the status of women as property or of race in relationship to our human rights. The interpretation of scripture and of our constitution has changed culturally. And, I believe that our view of marriage needs to continue its revision.

The dialog around marriage and marriage equality is one largely based in fear of the unknown. If we do not understand something or it is beyond our experience, then we fear it. Men have now recognized the benefits of equality of the sexes. We as a society no longer fear interracial relationships. It is time to end the fear associated with marriage of same sex partners.

Part of the reason we can end this fear somewhat easily is because there are couples who live in our neighborhoods who are in essence married – just not in a recognized, authorized way. They are families of all sorts – with children, without children, lasting 50 years, breaking up after five years, with or without familial support. These families are just like ours – some dysfunctional, most filled with love and respect with hopes and dreams. You know them. And, in part, they are us.

One of the premises of my religion is the worth and dignity of every person. That is coupled with another principle of the interconnectedness of all life. Why, when we who love our partners and happen to be heterosexual, do we deny our connection and similarity to those of the same sex who love each other and have families together with all of the associated headaches and benefits?

There is nothing to fear from offering equal rights for marriage. I don’t say this from a theological perspective particularly, but rather from an experiential perspective. That is, I have known many same-sex couples who are productive, loving, capable, caring benefactors for the community. They have contributed greatly.

Love knows no boundaries, but historically there have been walls raised to limit loving relationships. Initially they were restricted by the concept of women as property. And, it was restricted by race. Those barriers are now gone. Let us remove one more barrier to loving partnerships – let us remove sexual orientation as a consideration in the question of who can marry.

I am an introvert by nature although many would not think that when they meet me. As you get to know me, it is more apparent. I have adapted during my life becoming less introverted on the Meyers Briggs scale of introversion / extroversion. This has been largely a functional adaptation. I still find that I must have time alone, time for solitude. There have been many judgmental people in my life who told me that I was maladjusted because I seemed to prefer time alone to partying. I truly love people – just in small batches. I also like to have fun, just not in huge, loud, confusing groups. I become enervated when I spend time in groups where there is no individual interchange.

I am not alone in being introverted and having the need for quiet solitude. Believe it or not, even the most extroverted of us also need time to slow down and center ourselves. In a culture that values extroversion, we need some balance; we need time to disconnect and become ourselves again versus what others believe we are or should be. I think this is essential to a spiritual life. If we are always external in our approach, we never can find our soulful self, nor for that matter can we become our soulful self.

How do we find solitude in our oh-so-busy lives? How do we disconnect from our laptops, smart phones, social media? How do we feel comfortable being by ourselves when we rationalize our busyness with the resulting productivity and the essentiality of that productivity and activity? For so many of us, being busy is our reason for being.

I think back to a couple of leaders – busy leaders – in my faith tradition: Moses and Jesus. Both spent time alone in the desert or on mountain tops finding their core strengths and message. In both of their cases they found their strength in God and their message in him as well. They prayed, they questioned, they argued, they dealt with doubts, and ultimately took 40 days or more in solitude with no other human beings. They resumed their lives stronger, more committed, and more centered on who they were and what they were meant to do.

Obviously I am not proposing that we each spend 40 days in solitude although if we could it would probably be beneficial. Instead, I suggest that we seek some solitude in our lives knowing that we can all use more spiritual centering. I have spoken in my pulpit about the need for a spiritual practice – something that centers us. Not all spiritual practices are solitary, but some are. Often meditation and prayer are done in the silence and peace of our homes – alone. Create a space, a small getaway, for prayer or meditation. There are many ways to meditate or pray. There is only one right way – the one that works for you. For some meditation requires emptying the mind; for others it requires filling it with the Spirit. For some prayer is an off-the cuff dialog with God or the Mystery; for some prayer is a set of words that are always the same, repetition being a part of the process of prayer. It honestly does not matter what form you use – just use one. Take the time each day or each week to be alone with the holy in your life. In doing so you not only allow the holy into your life, you become more focused on what is good and right in your life. You can not stay in the negative while meditating or praying – because both require you by definition to move into ‘that which is greater’ which by definition, at least mine, is good and light and loving.

And, while prayer or meditation can be done in groups and done well and beneficially, I also think that prayer in solitude does it somewhat differently and augments the public / group process.

There are many ways of being alone and centering oneself. It need not be prayer or meditation. For years I drew mandalas as a practice of solitude in silence or with calming music. For years I wrote in journals the result being a shelf filled with thoughts – some ‘profound’, most mundane. For years I walked the paths in forests or even public walkways, but alone, chanting under my breath. Whatever you choose to create your solitude, I truly believe that it is essential to your soul, to your spiritual self. Consider what you might do to decrease your connection with virtual reality, and instead increase your connection with Reality.

To me, Martin Luther King Jr. is a mythic figure…larger than life, albeit flawed, but a principled, dedicated martyr. He was the visible, coalescing figure for a diverse movement seeking to end the oppression of a group of people defined by the color of their skin and their history of subjugation. When I celebrate his birthday, I, in fact, am celebrating the movement of which he was the visible head. He was the first to recognize that the movement was greater than he, but he also recognized that a symbol can be uniting and extremely powerful in getting the message out.

Each year as I prepare for this service, I always am surprised…I am surprised at the youth of the man who led this movement…he died when he was just 39 years old. What might he have accomplished had he lived to a ripe old age? So I am surprised at what he accomplished in his short life and the depth and wisdom he brought to the movement…the sheer volume of writing is phenomenal. Each year as I read material I find new gems, one of which I will share today.

Another surprise is the depth of my feeling about the movement…in some ways it, along with Vietnam, defined my belief in justice and peace and gave me a sense they are possible…it enlivens my hope, yet again, my belief that we can actually create a world ourselves that is just and fair. It hasn’t happened yet, but if we join together in common cause, it is possible…because you see…Martin Luther King, Jr. made a dent in oppression…it is possible for us to have an impact.

Some might say that racism has been eliminated. My response is – WRONG…there is racism. It may not be as overt as it once was, it may be difficult to see it in our daily lives in Maine because there are so few people of color in our lives, but racism is alive and well.

Race and our system of justice seem to have a direct correlation – that is when white, we tend to receive more justice. When black, the tables are turned. Just last Sunday in the NY Times, an article about capital punishment in the state of Connecticut explained that given the same crime committed in equivalent fashion, blacks are much more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants. This continues to be true as it has been for the past 40 years since the death penalty was reinstated in the US. The article was not specifically about race, but rather the capricious nature of how the death penalty is applied and the article was advocating abolishing the death penalty. That said, it is clear that racial justice is part of the dynamic – that color as well as economic status play a huge role in meting out punishment.

I looked at some of the statistics related to economic status and to education that came from the 2010 Census. It paints an interesting picture. As of 2010 15.1% of the people in the US live in poverty. The rate for non-hispanic whites is 9.9%. And, I would never say that is an acceptable level. But the rate of poverty for black Americans is 27.4% – almost three times that of whites. That to me is scandalous particularly in a country that purportedly is not racist.

We have heard the unemployment numbers – in December that rate for white folk was 7.5%, for blacks over 20 years of age, the rate is more than double – 15.8%. By the way, the rate for unemployment for blacks has always been higher than for whites, but the disparity between the two is the highest since the early nineties. What is even worse, for black young people ages 16-19, the unemployment rate is 42.1%. Our non-racist, capitalist system seems to be failing young people of color.
We often speak of education as a great equalizer and it can be if the other elements of the playing field are level. Looking at education the percentages of blacks graduating from high school compared to whites is improving – the gap is now down to 3 percentage points…while in 1970 only 31% of blacks graduated from high school, now 84% graduate. That is a great accomplishment on the part of our educational system. This should somehow equate to jobs and a rise above poverty. Or perhaps, we now need a college education for that to happen. We have not done so well for college education – in 1970 only 4.4% of blacks graduated from college, now it is almost 20%. That increase is good. But, the gap between black and white has increased…in 1970 11% of white students graduated from college and it is now 30%. So the gap has increased from 7 points to 11. There still has been an improvement in graduation rates, but the gap still exists and the impact on the population as a whole does not appear to have been as substantive as we might have hoped.
All this is heady stuff…facts that appeal to my head, but do they touch the heart? Probably not. And, that is where I must go this morning – to your hearts, to your sense of justice, to your hope for a more fair world.
As a parent I never doubted that my son would go to college, that he would be able to choose a profession that he would like, that he would live where he wished, that he would be able to have a relationship with anyone he wished, that he would be treated with equity by a legal system designed to protect his rights…I never doubted those things…but … if I had been a black mother – would I have those same expectations…could I have hoped for those things? Yes, we now have a president of color, we see celebrities who are black; we have press representatives, but are they token? As a percentage of the whole, blacks are underrepresented in government, in entertainment, in law, in medicine, in basic wealth. According to some statistics it should be the expectation of the sons of black mothers that fully one third of those sons will spend time in jail or prison. Somehow this wrenches my heart – this is not fair.
We continue to live in an unequal society – racially, educationally, economically, socially. Martin Luther King, Jr. was well aware that it would take time to make the changes, but he also understood that it also took will. I ask what Martin would say today if he were alive, would he feel that progress had been made? I am not sure, but here is some of what he said in an essay that he had written prior to his death but which was published after his death. It is entitled “A Testament of Hope.” It says:
These words may have an unexpectedly optimistic ring at a time when pessimism is the prevailing mood. People are often surprised to learn that I am an optimist. They know how often I have been jailed, how frequently the days and nights have been filled with frustration and sorrow, how bitter and dangerous are my adversaries. They expect these experiences to harden me into a grim and desperate man. They fail, however, to perceive the sense of affirmation generated by the challenge of embracing struggle and surmounting obstacles….it is possible for me to falter, but I am profoundly secure in my knowledge that God loves us; he has not worked out a design for our failure. Man has the capacity to do right as well as wrong, and his history is a path upward, not downward. …While it is a bitter fact that in America in 1968 I am denied equality solely because I am black, yet I am not a chattle slave. Millions of people have fought thousands of battles to enlarge my freedom; restricted as it still is, progress has been made. …Why is the issue of equality still so far from solution in America, a nation that professes itself to be democrative, inventive, hospitable to new ideas, rich, productive and awesomely powerful? America is deeply racist and its democracy is flawed both economically and socially. All too many Americans believe justice will unfold painlessly…(1)

As you listened to these words, don’t you think they apply today as much as they did in 1968?

He goes on to say some words that I fear are uncomfortable for most of us to hear. He says:
Justice for black people will not flow into society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. Nor will a few token changes quell all the tempestuous yearnings of millions of disadvantaged black people. White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure to our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo.

When millions of people have been cheated for centuries, restitution is a costly process. Inferior education, poor housing, unemployment, inadequate health care – each is a bitter component of the oppression that has been our heritage. Each will require billions of dollars to correct. Justice so long deferred has accumulated interest and its cost for this society will be substantial in financial as well as human terms. This fact has not been fully grasped, because most of the gains of the past decade were obtained at bargain prices. (1)

I believe that Rev. King would be saying the same thing today as he wrote in 1968. We have made some progress, there is no doubt about that, but underneath it all lays a system, a culture that supports racism and inequality. Our systems are structure in such a way that we who are white are privileged and we first need to recognize that and then work to dismantle our privilege in favor of equal rights for all. It is not simple, nor is it easy; it means sacrifice of some of our privilege so that others may share in that privilege.

To me this is a soulful issue. I should have no more rights that any other person, but I do have rights…we all do, but our system eviscerates those rights for some – and some of those some are people of color. I am not saying, by the way, that racism is the sole issue in our society – but we are all affected by racism because we are all interconnected.

What might Martin Luther King have us say on this day? Perhaps it might be something like this: Brothers and Sisters in our struggle, do not give up hope for progress is being made; do not give up your dreams because some dreams have been actualized; do not stand aside and wait for others, stand up for yourself – work the system, test is limits, use non-violent communication, develop relationships, help make change happen; do not lose hope for love is at the core of what we do, love your neighbor and know that together all things are possible…it may just cost a few billion dollars.

As we celebrate the birth of a modern mythic man, let us remember that he was an optimist as well as a realist. Know that we can continue his work, he would want us to.

(1)Source: “A Testament of Hope.” Playboy, January 1969, pp. 175ff. ( From: The Essential Writing and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., Edited by James M. Washington)

I understand that some people believe that we were founded as a Christian nation. While I disagree (and the reason for that disagreement can be a future blog post), let us for the sake of argument go along with that proposition. What does that mean – to be a Christian nation? My somewhat logical answer would be that the nation agrees to adhere to Christian principles. What might those be? Love God, love your neighbor.

Yet another question. What does love your neighbor mean? Are neighbors only those who think like you, make as much money as you, are as healthy as you, are as educated as you, and are the same religion, the same nationality, the same ethnic background? If you read the New Testament, the answers to the above conditions are no. It unconditionally says love your neighbor whomever your neighbor is. And, when you love someone you want that person to live a life free from hunger, free from illness, free from worry about where they will sleep. A Christian nation should take care of its people. A Christian nation would understand that when much is given, much is expected. A Christian nation would do what is necessary to be sure that no child goes without…without an education, without food or clothing or warmth.

Admittedly this Christianity is not based on a specific denominational theology with a set of rules about other-worldly salvation. No, this Christianity is based on the here and now and caring for the common good. Christianity would promote the miracle of common cause understanding that God loves us all…universally. Our value is not based on our economic status; our value is based on our humanity.

Hence, my rant. My rant is about the fact that we do not seem to love our neighbor. Our political culture at least seems to favor those who have much and wish to share little. There seems to be an idea that there is never enough wealth to truly share. I know there are exceptions, some incredibly generous, kind individuals giving much as a way of paying back for all they have received. BUT, we have a system that says – because we can not ask for the wealthy to share in their wealth, we must ask those without to suffer more than they already are. How can we ask disabled individuals to do without health care? How can we ask ill people to do without their medications? How can we ask people to not have heat and hot water because there is no money for fuel? How can we not help those who have no place to live or will soon be forced out because there are no meaningful jobs to be had (currently there is one job opening for every four who are looking).

Because one is wealthy does not mean that they are by definition bad people. And, I honestly don’t want to ‘bring down’ the rich. I am just asking them to share – fairly share in what they have.

I also feel basically helpless. I have a somewhat public voice, but still do not feel that my impact against the all-mighty-dollar is great…it is miniscule. I want to raise my volume, I want to raise my effectiveness, I want my words, my thoughts, my heart to matter. I sincerely want this nation to live the values upon which it was purportedly founded – to love – to care – to share. Is that asking too much?

Forest Church in A Chosen Faith says that ‘religion is our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die…” Life itself raises questions that have no clear answers. Where do we come from? Who or what are we? Where are we going? Why am I alive? How do I fit into this world? Where do I belong? What can I do? Why do I have to die? What does life mean? What does death mean?

Is religion just a response to life’s fundamental questions? Yes and no. I would say that religion relates to spiritual things and the cause and effect of things deemed outside of our human understanding. Some Unitarian Universalists believe in God; others do not, but all admit to having questions whose answers are not included in science or reason. To me religion is a response to life itself – the wonder, the marvels, the relationships – all of life. Since humans have existed there have been communities of religious intent. We don’t necessarily know whether it is because we humans have an innate sense of religiosity or if it is a reasonable human response to the unknown that we have religions and religious communities.

Religion is often called ‘a faith.’ In the book Spiritual Literacy: Reading the Sacred in Everyday Life by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat faith is defined as the ability to recognize and accept that there is another dimension to life than what is obvious to us. It means living with obstacles, doubt, and paradox knowing that God (Mystery) is always present in the world.

Sam Harris in the book The End of Faith , a book that received considerable press, suggests that Faith with a capital F should be considered incompatible with reason and that a belief in God while having some benign characteristics has done far more harm than good. This may be hard to disagree with as one can look at all of the major religions and know that a zealous belief in the ONE right way to believe has led to incredible wars and intolerance of those who believe differently. Harris says “we have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man’s inhumanity to man….that any concordance between faith and reason is delusional.” But then he says: “There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.”

What differentiates the sacred dimension from faith is that in Harris’ definition faith must assume a belief in God which excludes different beliefs about God, that faith assumes a ‘knowledge’ based in ignorance.

I specifically want to counter Harris’ definition particularly for Unitarian Universalists. Unitarian Universalism is a faith based upon experience, reason, human capacity, hope, risk, questions, inquiry and a perspective that faith does not mean unequivocal knowledge of the one right way. Our faith accepts that each of us has the capacity to deal with life and we each do so through our experiential perspectives.

Religious communities are chosen. Religious communities, be they ashrams, sangas, churches, monasteries, congregations, societies, mosques, or covens offer a container in which we can deal with the realities of existence – of living and dying. When I say church it is beyond the place or location of a building or physical community, it is a way of being, a way of relating to each other, a way of belonging to something beyond ourselves, yet reflective of ourselves.

After thinking a great deal about the question of why there are religious communities I have drawn the conclusion that organized religion exists because we are communal — that when push comes to shove we may want to be individuals, yet we also want community – we want to belong.

It goes back to the reason humans have religions. It is because we have questions and in searching for the answers we find a community that resonates with our questions. At least that is what I think about Unitarian Universalists. Our central premise is that questions are good, that they are a part of the search for one’s personal truth, one which resonates. It follows then, that our churches or our congregations should also resonate. I am saying that because we believe that our questions are fundamental, and because our questions are based on that which we can not KNOW, our church has to feel right – the tenor must find that inner core and strike a chord – a resonating chord.

Why church? Because we need that community where we can be accepted as ourselves knowing that we all could be better, but are loved for who we are. It is an environment where we can trust that we will be allowed to search for the answers to life’s questions and where we can openly discuss those questions. Unitarian Universalism offers more than a building, more than a Sunday service each week – it offers a beloved community of caring hearts and open minds. Why church – because we need each other. Why church? Because of our common humanity and our universal questions.

The days are short here inMaine.  As I write there are less than nine hours of light during a day.   It is the beginning of the season which leads up to the celebration of the birth of Jesus who was born in humble circumstances.  And while I do not necessarily believe that Jesus was born in December, but rather nearer Passover, it is the darkest time of year (in the Northern Hemisphere…we must remember others in the Southern Hemisphere who celebrate Christmas do so in the lightest of seasons) which provides for a great metaphor – the light of the world being born in the darkest of times. 

We rest after our summer and fall when we grew, harvested, and preserved our food.  Now we spend most of our time indoors, bundled against the snow and cold.  It is a time that could be hopeless, but it is not…we share in the fire, we share in what limited light there is. 

Candles are something we take for granted…Do you realize that candles or oil for lamps were the province of the wealthy until just about a hundred years ago?  So, when we speak of light when Jesus was born and in the early centuries following his life, light was incredibly precious – a limited commodity.  So, waiting for the light, anticipating the sun, anticipating brightness in one’s life at this time of year is again a metaphor well-used for Advent.

I am not a patient person, so the process of waiting is not an easy one for me.  Waiting for the birth of my son was agonizing…eight months of waiting (after all I did not know I was expecting that first month).  The miracle of his birth was worth the wait, was worth the necessary patience and care.  Can you imagine the joy at the birth of the child Jesus – in the dark, in the stable, in such humble circumstances?  The fact that there was a new light in the evening sky was an added gift, but no how was it as great as the gift of life. 

During this time of year we await the holiday of Christmas.  It could be a time where we open our hearts to the spirit of love, seeing the holy in everyone.  More often it is a time of hectic shopping, wrapping, decorating, parties with little focus on the event we celebrate.  This day honors the birth of a child who became a great teacher and prophet, who showed us the way, who spoke of love and care and our responsibilities to each other.   You need not believe in his divinity in order to celebrate his birth although most who truly celebrate Christmas believe that Jesus was something more than human. 

I also know that we often use the concept of waiting and patience to a fault.  If there is an injustice in our world, we often wait until we feel empowered (and we seldom feel empowered) or we say:  “Patience – we don’t know the solution yet- it will come in time.”  We wait too long until suffering becomes overwhelming.  We might act then, but more often we have learned that we are helpless against the system.  So, we wait and have patience some more.

I am therefore torn perhaps justifying my impatient nature.  I believe that Jesus taught that we are to take care of each other, to love each other, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to harbor the homeless.  Instead most of us wait…wait until we are done with our Christmas shopping or our parties.

I am not particularly fond of using the phrase “what would Jesus do”, but I think I will use it now.  What would Jesus think of our waiting and patience in relationship to those who suffer economic injustice and oppression?  What would he do about our current economic miasma?  And, obviously, I can’t be sure, but I think he would ask us to give of our time, of our energies, of our treasures to help those in need. And, he wouldn’t think of it as just a holiday thing either…he would ask that we be impatient with injustice year round…that we no longer wait to change the systems of oppression and inequality.

 Advent is the season where we can open our hearts to love and light if we take the time to do so.  One way of letting in that light is by helping others.  What will you do to help…not just tomorrow, but for the future?