|
UUCGT Home | UUCGT Member Portal | Return to Sermon Index |
|
The Delicate
Imperative of Diversity |
|
There was a movie made way back in counter culture days in which Donald Sutherland played the role of a hip clergyman performing a marriage ceremony for a hip couple. Part of what he told the two was: "You are accepted no matter who you are, what you are, where your station in life is, or how you conduct yourself. Whoever your are, God loves you! Without reservation, God loves you!" In spiritual terms, this means that nothing a human being does stands in the way of the person's relation to God. It makes some sense if God is seen only as love and not also as some kind of boundary setter. Too often Sutherland’s words are boiled down to: “All things are all right so long as a human being does them.” This is neither good Christian ethics nor good humanism. It leaves out that whole dark dimension of the human being which produces behavior clearly not acceptable -- at least not to other human beings. This other end of the spectrum, the bleak, repressive puritanical end, has long been with us in the guise of “raging moralists” who see a threat in any innovative human behavior. We see so much of this in today’s social and political struggles! In this regard, an incident happened years ago when I was in Kansas City. A minister of a fundamentalist bible church was fighting a movement to repeal Missouri’s Blue Laws -- you know, the laws that made commercial establishments close on Sunday in order to promote only spiritual occupations on that “day of rest.” This minister was absolutely certain that to repeal those laws would bring about the moral collapse of the nation. The quote that put him in best perspective for me was, "If you allow your children to go fishing on the Sabbath they will come back home and curse you to your face. I have never seen it fail." Again, this is neither good Christian ethics and most assuredly not any kind of humanist thinking. In opposition to Sutherland's preacher's "cheap grace", it assumes almost everything human beings do will be bad, except for a very narrow range of approved behavior. Besides, it contradicts an earlier prophet who proclaimed that human beings were not made for the Sabbath; the Sabbath was made for human beings. Actually, I am glad we have such a variety of points of view as is represented by these two extremes and the multitude of differing positions that lie between them. I would rather be around Sutherland's preacher and the Blue Law preacher blithering away at each other than be in a sterile setting where nobody cares what anyone else believes. I realize there are people who find this kind of debate too trying and prefer nothing to "rock the boat" of their convictions. Somehow I doubt that many such persons last very long in UU settings or help create truly UU settings where, if you don't revel in strong verbal exchange, you at least must respect and endure the process. Living, after all, requires a strong perception of what is the proper model for human life, else there is neither direction nor energy for life. As UUs we have our fun or our trouble -- depending on our perspective -- because we do feel strongly about values over which we often differ and often express our feelings. Whose values should prevail? Holding moral values deeply and firmly can be a divisive thing. By divisiveness I mean differences that attack rather than befriend one another. I’m not about to give you a formula for determining whose values should prevail. But I do hope to reassure you that it's okay for them to be different and strong and that, except in extreme instances, this need not be divisive and can even lead to unity. However, this reassurance is not easy to impart because there are at least three ways we can arrive at our own value structure and these ways seem incompatible. First, we can start with the belief that value is rooted in "a moral universe" that permeates and yet transcends human culture, history, and human will. This has been called the idealist view. Here, our task is to discover and act on the principles, laws, and rules that this moral universe contains and reveals to the discerning moral conscience. Or, second, we can start with the view that moral values are the creation of society. This has been called the conventionalist view. This calls on us to affirm norms established by society for the sake of social order, social responsibility, and the advancement of the interests of individuals who identify with those norms. Or, third, we can start with the view that there is no justification of morality other than one's own desires or feelings. This has been called the relativist view. This permits the individual to affirm just about any kind of goal imaginable -- pleasure, power, wealth, prestige, even violent activism for social betterment. These three ways start in different places; they lead in different directions. And yet, in the hands of sensitive, caring people, any of these three ways produces high moral behavior. The relativist can be an effective advocate of personal autonomy that respects the personal autonomy of others. The conventionalist can be a protector of that good in our traditions which protects the integrity of its individual members as well as its collective integrity. The idealist can remind us that, unless we acknowledge a moral reality that transcends both individuals and societies, no moral appeal can be made except on grounds of exceedingly transitory group consent or personal tastes. There are differences inherent in these three ways but divisiveness doesn't have to occur. They don't have to attack one another unless their adherents become intransigent, as happens when relativists become wanton anarchists, conventionalists uphold the establishment out of blind habit, and idealists become "rigid legalists" if they are conservative and "starry-eyed idealists" if they are liberal. When even the positive aspects of these separate ways of going about understanding moral values produce differences, it is no surprise that the negative aspects should create divisiveness. And yet, if these different ways are openly and honestly pursued, they inform and complement one another. In fact, they need each other. Another cause of differences is the uniqueness and particularity of each individual and the parallel uniqueness and particularity of the groups to which individuals belong. Individually, we simply have our own experience. Our values are imperatives in our lives and we are disloyal to ourselves if we do not try to live by them. Groups are quite like individuals. They grow out of shared experience and develop agreed-upon norms and values. Bible Baptists, university professors, hard-hats, sales people, soldiers and sailors are all enmeshed in group identity and group behavior. Their continued membership requires them to act within limits set by the group. However, even here there is much room for disagreement since, although individual experience may lead one to identify with one group or another, that same individual experience can lead one to disagree with the group. Thus, Roman Catholics can differ amongst themselves over abortion, civil libertarians can disagree on degrees of censorship, Democrats can hold incompatible views on the use of military force, Republicans can take different positions on welfare and the ecology, and Unitarian Universalists can differ on almost anything. Within the same group you often find idealists, conventionalists, and relativists. At times, even in the most seemingly cohesive group, clear differences in matters of substance and method may divide people -- differences that cannot be washed away by either good wishes or rationalization. Not only that, an individual person can be at odds within himself or herself over which values deserve priority. Other differences that cannot be washed away, although we try hard to do so much of the time, are the historic categories described by four yogas (or four ways of spirituality) of Hinduism: jnana yoga (knowledge), bhakti yoga (devotion to god), karma yoga (selfless action), and raja yoga (harmony with the whole). In recent years work with the Meyers-Briggs personality types has led to the identification of four basic temperaments (or four basic approaches to spirituality) within which people fall with varying degrees of emphasis. These personality categories follow the Hindu yogas somewhat. Here are some shorthand descriptions of these four categories. There are the artisans who say what is and do what works, the guardians who say what is and do what’s right; the rationals who say what’s possible and do what works, and the idealists who say what’s possible and do what’s right. The point of going into all this is simply to point out that we are not all alike. We tend to divide up into at least four different understandings about what is and what’s possible and what to do about it. This simply means that one person’s spirituality is not necessarily the same as another person’s spirituality -- something that is clear when we compare notes on what in a Sunday service truly speaks to us individually. So, differences in moral values and spirituality are always with us -- even in our own religious group. Our main distinction as UUs, however, is that we glory in this situation -- or we say we do. Pluralism is a fact of life that we celebrate and encourage. Each person here cannot truly be herself or himself if someone else or the group is breathing down their necks insisting that this is the way and that is not or assuming agreement when there is no agreement. Only if we take one another with large doses of toleration can openness, honesty, and sincerity truly exist and do their work of identifying and purifying what is truth for both the individual and the group. This means that the quicker we take offense, the sooner do we destroy the integrity of our pluralism. This means that the more intransigent we are in the way we do things, the more likely it is we will exclude at least three other ways of doing things. And, this means excluding persons. In past years we have been wont to epitomize the pluralistic aspect of our religion with the phrase "unity in diversity," affirming the belief that, in a truly open context, unity will grow because truth is, in and of itself, persuasive and truth will prevail. And yet, it is hard to keep our wits about us so that we don't descend into a kind of moral and intellectual guerrilla warfare -- that kind of ideological attack that would damage persons rather than modify ideas. This practice is completely out of place in a free religious society that depends on mutual respect to maintain itself. Sometimes, our desire that the other fellow see matters our way is just too strong. And, we try to rewrite one of Frank Sinatra's most popular songs to read, "They did it my way!" What I want to suggest this morning is that our diversity of values calls on us to do more than proclaim the merits of diversity. It calls on us not to hide our heads in the sand or to try to steamroll over one another. Rather it calls on us to aim for a delicate sense of balance-- a creative equilibrium-- as we bring our personal convictions and our innate tendencies to bear on one another while, at the same time, trying to establish a social cohesiveness that binds us into one group without compromising our individual singularity. It calls on us to do this while recognizing and affirming that we have idealists, conventionalists, and relativists among us; that we have rationals, guardians, artisans, and idealists among us; that we have theists, atheists, pagans, natural religionists, humanists, democrats, socialists, republicans, and libertarians among us. We can attain this creative equilibrium -- and keep it -- if we understand that what seems to be a conflict of demands (i.e. personal integrity vs. the group demand on us to change) is really a dialogue. It's a dialogue that requires differences in order to take place. Without differences, relationships become static and bland and people are of no help to one another. This concept is not hard to understand; it’s just hard to stick to, especially where individualism tends to be so thoroughgoing and stringent that anything that seems to take away from it is viewed as a threat. But, in a truly democratic society or free religion, as the community dialogue grows and common moral values are progressively identified, individual conscience does not have to suffer. Rather it can be stimulated, even goaded, to greater heights of self development, self expression, and personal integrity. Where people honestly and openly encounter one another (without trying to domineer or manipulate) both the person and the group are improved. Individuals may never agree but they can come to respect one another's integrity and maintain a creative encounter that builds both their conscience and their community. However, intrinsic to this “building” is that delicate sense of balance which creates a non-coercive, creative tension between the integrity of the person and the integrity of the group. This creative tension is possible only if we truly respect the right of one another to think our own thoughts, have our own convictions, and act according to our own values and beliefs. I'll go even further and say this creative tension requires us to be disappointed if other people fail to act on their own values because we bring pressure on them. The last thing we should want is for either a Democrat or a Republican to feel squelched in our congregation, or for a theist or a humanist or a pagan to feel excluded. Not only should we be disappointed that the other has failed to feel empowered to be honest with us but we should be disappointed in ourselves if we have pressed them into silence at the expense of both their-- and our -- integrity. Adding the sword to religious evangelism is how Roman Christianity converted so many European tribes. We need to ask ourselves, "How can there be a free and open encounter for ourselves if we hinder or suppress it for others?" It is possible to maintain this creative tension only if we are convinced of the power of truth and right eventually to show themselves, only if we intend the integrity of all persons, and only if we respect one another even when differences appear unresolvable and irreducible. If we are to achieve our liberal religious goal of both unity and diversity, each of us must live strongly and surely according to our own values and deepest beliefs and do it in a way that does not violate other people's right to do the same. Even more, we must genuinely help others to do the same. Of course, this requires that we not use stereotypes to categorize one another nor direct anger at persons or groups instead of speaking to the issues. Being together in a diverse setting really does require enough emotional and intellectual maturity that we can act together if not caringly, at least civilly. Let me close with words written some years back by one of my UU colleagues, Rev. Robert F. Kauffman. In one of our meditation manuals he wrote something that, for me, goes a long way to describe the delicate imperative I am talking about: “You do me an honor when you disagree with what I have said. For what you are really saying is that you heard me. I thank you for that. Now, there is only one thing to determine, either it is I who do not understand you or you, who do not understand me. It does not matter. We are talking to each other, and our thoughts will soon accommodate each other’s. We may never agree on this one subject. Then we will change the subject until we find one on which we do agree. Then we will become friends. Once we are friends, we will again explore this disagreement, and perhaps agree, and perhaps not. It does not matter. What matters is that you listened to me. I know how to thank you for that. I will now listen to you. I trust you will find that agreeable.” As a final thought, I would add: the creative dialogue that I suggest does not stop with merely affirming one another’s right to one’s own view. Ultimately, it aims for cooperation. And what is cooperation, really? “Cooperation is the thorough conviction that nobody can get there, unless everybody gets there." [Attributed to Virginia Burden, author of The Process of Intuition.] |