These words still ring in my head almost four months after I heard them last June during the Service for the Living Tradition, a time when UU ministers who have died during the past year are remembered and newly fellowshipped ministers are welcomed. The preacher at that event, the Rev. Dr. Patrick T. O’Neill, Senior Minister of the First Unitarian Church of Wilmington, Delaware, had just finished a lengthy criticism of UUs who in recent decades have fled city living and its urban issues and concerns for the self-preoccupied tranquility of a usually wooded suburbia. He likened this urban flight to Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. However, he pointed out that, after having centered his spirit, refined his purpose, restored his courage and made clear his vision, Thoreau came out of Walden and challenged the inhumanities that humans inflict on one another.

And then Dr. O’Neill challenged the new generation of ministers to stand up for the principles we espouse, to speak up, speak out, act up and act out on behalf of the causes of righteousness in our culture -- to lead us out of the self-preoccupied safety of our modern Walden. He urged them to retrieve Thoreau’s unapologetic righteous indignation and to confront such modern issues as “equal opportunity, equal education, equal health care, decent housing for everyone, the equal right of every person to marry whomever they love, and the right of every woman to be the sole decider of what happens to her body….”

Dr. O’Neill was quite clear that the UU movement has been taking the easy, complacent, self serving way out of moral responsibilities. And, although I received my Preliminary and then my Final Fellowship certificates at such services in the 1960s, I knew he was talking not just to the new members of our ministry but also to every UU that has access to our pulpits. “What’s a pulpit for?” he asks. My response to him is that it is, as he suggests, not just to celebrate our more personal, quietistic liberal religious beliefs but also to call us to ethical and moral action. Given the state of the world -- and especially the state of our country -- every UU minister and every UU congregation has this obligation. Since I have been doing interim ministry I have had to give most of my attention to organizational and transitional issues and have not done much of this kind of sermonizing. Dr. O'Neill has called me back to one of the main things a pulpit is for.

This leads me to what I want to talk about today. My subject, as I expressed it in the Beacon, is whether an economic man or woman can be a moral man or woman. The title of my remarks, "The Invisible Hand and Avarice", may be a bit obscure to you -- perhaps as obscure as the front of today's Order of Service. I chose such a title because it couples one of the most insidious modern metaphors with one of the most insidious historic vices. I chose the image on the Order of Service cover not because it is an explicit image of a hand but because it is the impression of a hand. It suggests a hand is there, but one really isn't.

"The invisible hand" is a metaphor from the writings of Adam Smith; avarice has long been identified as one of the seven deadly sins. Both of these terms have much to do with the repressive, damaging, and inhumane ways things are going in our modern world where the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer, and there is an ever diminishing middle between them. Linking both of these terms explains to me much of why the so-called free-market tends toward more freedom for some, less freedom for others, and poverty for the rest.

The notion of the free-market was first advanced during our revolutionary year of 1776 by Adam Smith in his book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations." In one or two places, Smith wrote that individuals pursuing their own self-interest are "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of their intention." He believed that markets cause individuals to benefit others even though they intend only to benefit themselves -- as if an invisible hand were guiding outcomes. But he also believed markets occur in a larger context. What Smith actually said in The Wealth of Nations was "every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can." The individual is ultimately restrained by that which is good for everyone, not just himself/herself.

The notion of a free-market being guided by "an invisible hand" has been corrupted almost from the beginning. Although Adam Smith never said it, the free-market was taken by over-aggressive entrepreneurs to require unrestrained self-interest. That is, if the "invisible hand" was to work, there could be no external influences on economic behavior, i.e. no government interference or controls. Smith did believe that government should step out of the way as much as possible and limit itself to providing such things as police and courts, national defense and highways, education and welfare services for the poor. However, he also believed that, along with not engaging in most forms of regulation, government should not provide monopoly privileges to favored groups or individuals. He obviously left room for government to control aberrant, socially damaging commercial behavior.

Unrestrained self-interest, however, would have it otherwise. Since the idea of the free-market first came into being, (as large wealth has been concentrated in individual, and then in corporate, and now in mega-corporate hands), government has been used by those with wealth to restrict competition and monopolize markets in the interest of their own self-interests. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was coopted to a different aberrant purpose. Smith originally intended his metaphor only to signify that individuals working for their personal good ultimately can end by improving everyone's personal good. He never said that pursuing individual self-interest inevitably leads to the interest of the whole society.

The corrupting factor, that which has led to a belief in a mythical free-market that does not actually exist, is a very human failing. This failing is rooted in a human virtue that promotes our well-being when used optimally, or as Aristotle might say, moderately. That virtue is the pursuit of interests that preserve and enhance the self -- self-interest, in the healthy sense. Any healthy group is comprised of persons who are comfortable with pursuing their own needs and interests in ways that also satisfy the group's needs and the group's interests. However, this balanced behavior is easily distorted. When an individual pursues self-interest at the expense of the group, it can lapse into lust, or pride, or sloth, or gluttony, or envy, or anger -- to mention six of the so-called seven deadly sins the lists of which we inherited from early church fathers. Actually, the notion of "sin" aside, all of these are aberrations of healthy behavior -- human impulses or needs gone rampant or become extreme.

In the area of free-market economics, a seventh deadly sin (the one I did not mention) is the one most at work. It goes by several names. Some call it covetousness; some call it greed. Some call it cupidity. Avarice is the term I use because, unlike greed, which comes from Old English, and covetousness, which comes from Old French, and cupidity, which seems more at home with lust than with money, avarice is from Latin and, therefore, has the more sinful sound to me. The word avarice actually covers more than the inordinate desire for material wealth. It can be used to point to the inordinate desire for anything -- influence, power, control -- anything in which the individual’s self-interest is paramount over all others.

So, what happens when the inordinate desire of unrestrained self-interest gets together with a metaphor that says some unseen hand is at work seeing to it that unrestrained self-interest gets its way? What happens is you have individuals surface who stifle the self-interest of others in favor of their own. You have corporations that believe their bottom lines are of more value than the welfare of persons, or societies, or the nation in which these corporations reside and do business. You have mega-corporations that determine their interests in the world should prevail over the security of the nations in which they do business. You have a world in which the “invisible hand” has moved from Adam Smith’s hand that guided individuals toward national prosperity (toward the welfare of the whole society) to becoming an invisible mailed fist that first demands cooperation and then submission. Barring cooperation and submission, this fist resorts to corruption.

Were it not for such corporate avariciousness arms dealers and munitions manufacturers would sell only for self defense and not presumptive war. Were it not for corporate avariciousness there could be real competition in the world’s -- and this nation’s -- media and marketing. Were it not for corporate avariciousness, politicians (both Republican and Democrat and maybe others) could not be so easily bought and sold, especially as they are by the 155,000 lobbyists who inhabit the backrooms of political power in Washington, D.C.

I don't know what you see when you look out on our world today, but I see a world filled with exploitive, repressive, vicious, avaricious behavior. I see issues that must be dealt with -- must be ameliorated or resolved -- if not just markets but human beings are to be free. What was Dr. O'Neill's list? Equal opportunity. Education. Health care. Decent housing for everyone. The right of every person to marry whomever they love. The right of every woman to be the sole decider of what happens to her body. I see opportunity being limited only to those with "means"; education being seriously offered only to those with "means"; and decent housing being less available to those without "means". I see great amounts of money being spent to limit the right of every person to marry whomever they love if that person doesn't fit a standard mold. I see enormous amounts of money being spent to promote legislation that would make a woman's body not her own but a state controlled incubator. I see a world in which injustice, inequity, prejudice, and repression are currently being funded so that someone’s unrestrained self-interest can have its way.

The world I see still faces one of the most nagging and basic of religious issues. Jesus touched on it several times when he talked about where to "lay up your treasures", "serving two masters", the Golden Rule, and the rich entering the kingdom of heaven. Jesus may have picked up his convictions on these matters from the earlier Hebrew prophets -- Amos, for instance, who predicted death and wailing for those who trampled upon the needy, bought and sold the poor for silver. And there was Isaiah, who declared that the true religious expression was to "loose the bonds of injustice," "share bread with the hungry," and "bring the homeless poor into our house"! Jesus, Isaiah, Amos and the other Hebrew prophets are not alone in placing material wealth in a subordinate place in human life. Buddha included right livelihood in his Eightfold Path, right livelihood being sustaining oneself without misusing others. Mohammed included giving to the poor as one of the five pillars of his religion. These great religious leaders and others through history have tried to call their followers to a self-understanding that the avidity with which they pursued their personal self-interest must be modified by the self-interests of others. Boundaries. They tried to set ethical boundaries within which each person could be fulfilled without depleting the fulfillment of others. But Jesus, the Prophets, Buddha, and Mohammed to the contrary notwithstanding, we still have a world in which the more avaricious among us control much of the opportunity open to the individual.

In this situation, as it has ever been for human beings with disparate motives and powers, the foremost thing I believe we must do is to acknowledge the reality within which we are living. You would think it to be easy to do that, but complacency has a strong hold in our lives. How many of us sitting here actually want to acknowledge that the quality of our lives and our democracy is largely controlled by the most avaricious in our society? And, if we do sincerely acknowledge such a thing, how many of us feel in our heart and gut that our responsibility to ourselves and those who succeed us is to work to set boundaries on those who misuse our system and, consequently, misuse us? How many of us are not so comfortable in our private Walden fantasy that we are willing to work to elect political representatives who will not succumb to the blandishments of Big Money? Who will, themselves, be such elected ethical politicians?

On a more subjective level, how many of us will recognize, or can recognize, how it is our own latent avarice that prevents us from challenging those whose avarice is more manifest in their actions? After all, most of us do pursue our own self-interest most of the time, although, as we tell ourselves, we do try to do it in ways that are not interpersonally damaging. But what kind of self-interest are we pursuing when, as examples, we shop at WalMart, knowing that its marketing policies are lowering the standard of living of those who work there and those businesses who cannot compete; or we sit idly, uncomplainingly, by while political, ideological, and corporate special interests cash in their political chips, receive exemptions from minimum wage laws, and make exorbitant profits off the backs of low paid labor in the restoration of the Gulf Coast? What kind of self-interest keeps us quiet as credit card companies and big pharmaceutical companies lobby for (and even write) new laws that make it ever harder for persons of limited means to pay their bills or deal with catastrophic medical expenses and the high cost of prescription medicines? Or, what kind of self interest drives us to drive vehicles that most contaminate the environment when we could drive less contaminating ones?

To bring it even closer to home, what kind of self interest are we pursuing when we vote on a budget for this congregation that is weighted toward our desires in such fashion that the desires of others are ignored or rejected? Do we actually know what best will fulfill our self-interests and the group’s self-interests at the same time? At what point do we tip over from responsible pursuit of self-interest to unrestrained pursuit? Do we think that, if left to our own devices, some moral invisible hand will straighten it all out and nobody will be misused? As economic persons ourselves, whether we are moral or not depends on how we answer such questions.

The reason I raise such questions is that dealing with them and others like them is where we have to start if we sincerely intend to make this a fairer, more humane world. I encourage you to think more deeply about the effects of avarice in our world and how we may individually and in combined effort actually do something about it. In my forty years of ministry, I have learned that perfection in anything is not a rational goal. Doing things a little better each day is. Doing them earnestly enough that you can reduce the number of days it takes to reach your goal, also, is rational. But, it is also my experience that UUs are usually adept at doing well whatever they decide to do. It is in their self-interest to do so.

This morning I urge you to give thought to why things are the way they are. Knowing the boundaries you impose on your own self-interested pursuits will give you stronger moral grounds for calling into question the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest by others. That is where being a moral economic man or woman begins.

Meditation

Let us take a few moments to reflect on that world that has so much in it that hinders the full expression of our humaneness. Some words from Isaiah (chapter 8 may help. In Isaiah it was written:

Is not this the (religion to follow):
to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share our bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into our house;
when we see them naked, to cover them,
and not to hide ourselves from (those for whom we are responsible)?
(When we follow such religion,)
then shall not our light break forth like the dawn,
and our healing shall spring up quickly --
if we remove the yoke from among us,
the pointing of the finger,
the speaking of evil,
if we offer our food to the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the afflicted,
hall not we be like a watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail. (Isaiah 58, adapted)