Training in Compassion 9: Turn All Mishaps into the Path

As we reflect on dignity this month, recall these words of the Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcu Aurelius:

“When anything tempts you to be bitter: think not, 'This is a misfortune' but instead: 'To bear this worthily is good fortune.'"

Mishaps happen. If we treat them as part of our spiritual path, then they are. Often, though, we don't want the mishaps to be there. We want them gone as soon as possible. We think they are certainly not the spiritual path toward wholeness.

But turn all mishaps into the path. When something difficult or terrible happens to us -- a loss, a setback, a frustration, an insult -- naturally we immediately feel dismay, anger, disappointment, or resentment. The training in compassion is to remind ourselves to turn all of this into the path! When we catch ourselves trying to run away from the things that make us feel bad, we can, instead, reverse course and turn toward our afflictive emotions, understanding that they are natural, under the circumstances.

Dismay, annoyance, anger, anxiety, resentment arise sometimes for all of us -- this is how the human heart works. Allow them all to be present with dignity. Forgive yourself for having the negative emotions. Forgive others -- whoever you might be blaming for your difficulties. With these forgivenesses come relief and even gratitude.

We can say to ourselves, for example:

"Oh, yes, I am angry and upset right now, but this is what animals feel under such conditions -- so of course I feel this way. And I am grateful to feel what anyone, under such circumstances, would feel. I am glad to stand in solidarity and understanding with other beings who may be, right now, also having these feelings.”

This is not far-fetched. It does, however, take training. Repeat the slogan, “turn all mishaps into the path,” to yourself at various points during your day. Write it in your journal, and reflect on how it is working in your life. Keep doing this until it is thoroughly internalized.

Each time you turn a mishap into the path it becomes easier than the last. Little by little you establish a new habit of turning toward rather than away from all of life, including the parts we don’t like. Eventually, you can even welcome mishaps, for it is when we face difficulties, not when things are going smoothly, that we learn the most.

* * *

For the full version of this post: SEE HERE.

Money, money, money

Here is what I have to say today. I'll say it now, and I'll say it again at the conclusion. It is this: Through the practice of generosity, we are connected, made whole, better able to be the people we want to be.

Generosity isn’t entirely about money, but it does include money. Money, money, money. If you are unusually self-aware, you might have noticed a very slight feeling of tightening or closing at just the mention of the word. If you're that self-aware and spiritually evolved, you may have allowed that reaction to pass on as quickly as it arose. If you didn’t notice it, that doesn’t mean it’s not in there pulling the strings your reactivity unconsciously.

Research suggests that simply having the idea of money planted in mind has a tendency sometimes to reduce inclinations toward generosity. So I’m taking a risk by just saying the word money. I’m hoping that knowing about human psychology around money will allow us to consciously override the usual reactivity.

The average income per person worldwide is less than $10,000 a year. Perhaps your income is a little above the world average. Our very wealth itself can make us less generous, if we let it – if we don’t intentionally counter-act the effects of wealth through the practice of generosity.

In one study, experimenters enlisted undergraduates to play monopoly, two players at a time, but with different rules. One randomly selected player started the game with $2,000 of monopoly money, got $200 for passing Go each time, and threw two dice for every move – which, you may recall, is the normal way monopoly is played. Let’s call this player Bob. The other player, let’s call him Bill, started with $1,000, got $100 for passing Go each time, and threw one die for every move. “The students play for 15 minutes under the watchful eye of two video cameras, while down the hall researchers huddle around a computer screen, later recording the subjects’ every facial twitch and hand gesture.” What happens? Initially Bob "reacted to the inequality between him and his opponent with a series of smirks, an acknowledgment, perhaps of the inherent awkwardness of the situation. 'Hey,' his expression seemed to say, 'This is weird and unfair, but whatever.' Soon, though, as he whizzes around the board, purchasing properties and collecting rent, whatever discomfort he feels seems to dissipate.... He balloons in size, spreading his limbs toward the far ends of the table. He smacks his playing piece as makes the circuit – smack, smack, smack – ending his turns with a board-shuddering bang!...As the game nears its finish, [Bob] moves his [piece] faster....He’s all efficiency. He refuses to meet [Bill’s] gaze. His expression is stone cold as he takes the loser’s cash."

Privilege can function to shut down compassion – if we don’t consciously decide not to let it. Another study “showed through quizzes, online games, questionnaires, in-lab manipulations, and field studies that living high on the socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people. It can make them less ethical, more selfish, more insular, and less compassionate than other people.” In one experiment, wealthier people were more likely to take candy from a bowl of sweets designated for children. If there is such a thing as entitlement culture, it is more often the wealthy who feel most entitled. As psychologist Paul Piff concludes, “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything, the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, [jerks]....People higher up on the socioeconomic ladder are about three times more likely to cheat than people on the lower rungs.”

The extent to which people with money behave as if the world revolves around them was further illustrated in another study. Paul Piff and this research team “spent three months hanging out at...a gritty, busy corner with a four-way stop....[They] would stake out the intersection at rush hour, crouching behind a bank of shrubs… and catalog the cars that came by, giving each vehicle a grade from one to five. (A new-model Mercedes would be five; an old, battered Honda would be one.) Then the researchers would observe drivers’ behavior. A third of people who drove grade-five cars, Piff found, rolled into the intersection without first coming to a compete stop....‘Upper-class drivers were the most likely to cut off other vehicles even when controlling for time of day, driver’s sex [as it appeared to be to the observers], and amount of traffic.’"

A similar experiment tested "drivers’ regard for pedestrians....A researcher would enter a zebra crossing as a car approached it. The results were more staggering....Fully half the grade-five cars cruised right into the crosswalk. ‘It’s like they didn’t even see them,' [said Piff]."

Timothy Judge (Notre Dame), Beth Livingston (Cornell), and Charlice Hurst (U of W. Ontario) published a study, "Do Nice Guys -- and Gals -- Really Finish Last?" “Subjects were asked to assess whether they had a forgiving nature or found fault with others, whether they were trusting, cold, considerate, or cooperative. Then they were given an agreeableness score. Men with the lowest agreeableness earned $42,113 in a given year; those with the highest agreeableness earned $31,259."

In another study researcher Kathleen Vohs merely planted the idea of money in subjects' minds. As the subjects filled out questionnaires, some of them were in a room with Monopoly money present (left over from a prior monopoly game), and some were not. "Vohs got her result only after the ¬subject believed the session was over. Heading for the door, he would bump into a person whose arms were piled ¬precariously high with books and office supplies. That person (who worked for Vohs) would drop 27 little yellow pencils, like those you get at a golf course. Every subject in the study bent down to pick up the mess. But the money-primed subjects picked up 15 percent fewer pencils than the control group." (Miller) That’s just from the thought of money planted by having Monopoly money nearby.

Vohs stressed that money-priming did not make her subjects malicious — just uninterested. She said: 'I don’t think they mean any harm, but picking up pencils just isn’t their problem.'

Over and over, Vohs has found that money can make people anti-social – less pro-social. She primes subjects by seating them near a screen-saver showing currency floating like fish in a tank or asking them to descramble sentences, some of which include words like bill, check, or cash. Then she tests their sensitivity to other people. In her Science article, Vohs showed that money-primed subjects gave less time to a colleague in need of assistance and less money to a hypothetical charity. When asked to pull up a chair so a stranger might join a meeting, money-primed subjects placed the chair at a greater distance from themselves than those in a control group. When asked how they’d prefer to spend their leisure time, money-primed people chose a personal cooking lesson over a catered group dinner. Given a choice between working collaboratively or alone, they opted to go solo.” (Miller)

In some ways, on some measures, there may be a plus side. Thinking about money makes people more oriented to efficiency and productivity – like Bob, the advantaged monopoly player who became all efficiency. Money-focus encourages thoughts of self-sufficiency: less willing to help, but also less interested in being helped. Research so far hazards no guess as to where the tipping point is after which personality transformation kicks in – and that point is surely highly variable from individual to individual.

There is a basic human tendency to protect what we have, and the more we have, the stronger the tendency to put our energy into the having. It requires intentionality to avoid being sucked into that pattern. So we come to the spiritual practice of generosity. Deliberate generosity counter-acts that self orientation. Warm-heartedness also reduces blood pressure, anxiety and stress and improves health.

You’ve got however much money you’ve got. How much of it can you give away and still meet your material needs? Give it away. We can make it into something that connects us to others, that connects us to the world’s suffering. Otherwise, it will be a force of disconnection, tending to makes us less social, less caring. Give it away as a regular practice – weekly if possible.

You will never meet a generous person who was bitter or a bitter person who is generous. That bears remembering. Generosity and bitterness are incompatible. It’s not entirely clear whether generosity causes reduction in bitterness, or reduction in bitterness causes generosity – just as it isn’t always clear whether wealth causes disagreeableness or disagreeableness facilitates wealth acquisition. Either way, they go together.

Generosity – also known as hospitality, kindnesss, largesse, benevolence, bounteousness, magnanimity, openhandedness, warmheartedness, compassion – life as overflow – enriches our lives. When we live from an awareness of abundance rather than in the grip of the delusion of scarcity, generosity becomes possible. And generosity grows through practice.

To develop in an area requires disciplined commitment. The skilled athletes are not the ones who exercise when they happen to be in the mood for it. The skilled poets or musicians do not just write poetry or rehearse when they feel like it. They show up for daily practice, whether they feel like it or not. Generosity develops in us through a disciplined commitment to develop it as a way of being.

The baseball catcher and later manager and coach, Yogi Berra, once said, “You can’t think and hit at the same time.” He meant that we have to show up for the discipline of training our habit muscles, so that the habit muscles can be our guide when, as in most of what we do in the days of our lives, there isn’t the time or the inclination to think them through very much. For hitting, as for many actions, we must rely on habits, so the formation of the habits we'll need is crucial. For that matter, even when there is time for reflection, the way we think is governed by the feelings and values formed as habit.

Consider the story I’ve heard of a woman getting off a subway train. As she readies for climbing the steps into the cold outside air, she reaches into the pockets of her coat for her gloves. She finds only one glove. The other must have fallen out of her pocket. She turns around and looks back into the subway car, and she can see the seat where she had been sitting, and, sure enough, there’s her other glove on the seat. But now the doors are closing. She won’t have time to get back in and retrieve her glove. So she takes the glove she has, and throws into the subway onto the seat next to its mate – just as the doors close.

I love that story. One glove isn’t going to do her much good, but now somebody else can have the complete pair. That’s the reflex of a person who has cultivated generosity as a deep habit of being, a habit of the heart. It’s the reasonable thing to do, but if you rely on reason, the train will be long gone before you’ve worked it out. Random acts of kindness and senseless beauty flourish as the fruits of disciplined habit-formation that is not at all random or senseless.

I picked up this story from my colleague Rev. Terry Sweetser. Rev. Sweetser remarked:

"You know she must have lived a long life of generosity, a life of wild and creative generosity of spirit, to be able to think so quickly, to act so urgently and healthily, to know precisely in that moment what would bless the world right then and there. It happened in an instant, but that was planned giving through and through. Something in her past, or everything in her past, prepared her for her gesture -- habits of living and giving practiced and refined her whole life long."

As a piece of the happy discipline of generous giving, the piece that has to do with giving away our money, it will help to think in terms of percents. This gift comes from you. It is you, so place it in the context of your overall income. Are you giving away twenty percent? Ten percent? Five percent? I ask you to decide the percent first – what percent are you going to give away? Maybe this year it can be a higher percent than last year. After you’ve decided the percent, do the math and figure out what dollar amount that comes to. Don’t start by thinking about a dollar amount. Start by thinking about a percent.

Percent of what? The general guidelines would be AGI – adjusted gross income. Certain vital expenses are subtracted, but itemized or standard deductions are not. Adjusted Gross Income is the benchmark used by researchers into giving rates. And what percent of your AGI do you choose to give?

The traditional “tithe” for the church is 10 percent. The Torah, the central part of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), set forth law requiring that a tenth of all produce, flocks, and cattle be given to support the Levites, the priestly class in ancient Israel. The Torah also emphasized assistance to foreigners, orphans and widows, those in need, in addition to the tithe of support for the priestly class. The Christian Testament mentions no specific rules about tithing. Jesus is simply clear that we are obligated to be cheerfully generous to those in need.

The tithing rules in the Torah were based on the religious and social system of ancient Israel and on an agricultural economy. The Torah is not authoritative for us. Even it were, it does not address modern-day questions about what percentage we should give, how much to the church and how much to other charities. Still, I do find there’s something psychologically significant about 10 percent – just move the decimal over one place, and that’s what you give away. If you’re just starting out with generosity practice, giving away 10 percent is a good start. Those who have been at it longer, or are better established in life, can think about higher percentages.

Giving is a crucial part of your spiritual life, a necessary component of your spiritual growth, and growing ethically and spirituality is the mission of this congregation. It is our business – it is our mission -- collectively to encourage compassion in each other. It's really good for us to do this.

"Research from the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School shows that spending money on someone else — as little as $5 a day — can significantly boost your happiness. Students who practiced random acts of kindness were significantly happier than those who were not given this task. In another study, college students were given money and directed to either spend it on themselves or spend it pro-socially (on activities meant to benefit other people). Participants who spent it pro-socially were happier at the end of the day than those who spent it on themselves." (Mark Ewert, The Generosity Path, 2)

Part of your giving goes to charities. Charitable giving is an important spiritual practice. For this part, I encourage looking at website called givewell.org. They’ve put thousands of hours into researching which charities are most effective, dollar for dollar, and are underfunded. They search for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar. Right now, their charities include the Malaria Consortium, which dispenses malaria prevention medicine. The Against Malaria Foundation, which provides mosquito nets to reduce risk of exposure to malaria. Helen Keller International which provides supplements to counteract vitamin A deficiency in children under 5. And New Incentives, and organization that provides cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines. Those are some good charities to receive a portion of the percentage that you set aside for giving away. They are listed at givewell.org.

Other websites you might take a look at:
Giving What We Can http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/
80,000 Hours http://80000hours.org/
The Life You Can Save http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/
Effective Animal Activism http://www.effectiveanimalactivism.org/

Peter Singer mentions these websites in his TED talk where he makes the point that helping others is a requirement of an ethical life. Singer addresses the questions: How much of a difference can I make? Am I expected to abandon my career? Isn't charity bureaucratic and ineffective anyway? Isn't it a burden to give up so much?

Once you’ve decided the total percentage you’re going to give away – for the sake of the wellbeing of others, and for the sake of your own spiritual wellbeing – then there’s the question of how much of that goes to support your congregation and its programs. If you determine a percent first, then calculate what dollar amount that comes to, your pledge amount will probably not be a nice round number. But you’ll know it’s a nice round percent.

For your congregation's thriving, and for your thriving as a part of it, I suggest thinking in the range of three to five percent of adjusted gross income. Again, the more well-established you are in life, the higher the percentage can be. If you’re a young couple just starting out, two percent is a level of generosity you can feel really good about.

Pledging is a part of the meaning of membership, a part of what makes membership meaningful, and part of your spiritual practice and development. Through the practice of generosity, we are connected, made whole, better able to be the people we want to be.

May it be so. Amen.

Training in Compassion 8: Turn Things Around

Where there's confusion or pain in your life, make use of it instead of trying to get rid of it. Trying to get rid of it usually doesn't work anyway. It only makes things worse. Of course, if your painful situation can be resolved somehow, resolve it. Otherwise, try accepting it and looking for the lesson it contains.

Whatever comes into our consciousness will spur a reaction in us, and this reaction will be one of these three: we will either like, dislike, or be neutral to the object. Greed, hate, and delusion are the emotional activities we indulge in response to liking, disliking and feeling neutral. We are greedy for what attracts us; we hate what repels us; we are confused or indifferent about neutral objects.

Turn things around" means turning the three reactions and the emotions that go with them into seeds of virtue. Things constantly arise, and we are constantly trying to grab them and make them stay or push them away as soon as possible, depending on the style of our reactivity and emotion. The flow of these objects and emotions goes on constantly, usually below the level of conscious awareness. Three seeds of virtue appear when turn around our standard reactions.

We don't have control of much, but we do have control of whether to turn around the greed, hate, and delusion that appears in our lives. The basic human mess of likes and dislikes, in which we seem to be trapped and which seems to be so dangerous and troublesome, is actually wonderful, a real treasure. Our messes and our problems are our treasures! Our suffering, our troubles, our problems, the things that we really don't like and want to get rid of but can't, or the losses we feel, the things we wanted to keep and sadly cannot -- all of this is a treasure to us if we can understand it in the right way.

Everything painful and difficult has the potential to bring us great joy and deep spiritual riches. We can turn toward and appreciate our suffering, our problems, and the suffering and problems of others. Turn things around means recognizing that our very likes and dislikes and the suffering they bring us, can be the source of spiritual growth.

So: try writing down "turn things around." Try to fix it in memory. When you find yourself annoyed or upset by instances of liking and disliking that are causing you suffering think: turn things around. This practice might help you to let go a little in that moment. Even if you don't believe it and are only a little intrigued by it, it can be helpful to practice this slogan. It will have the effect of causing you to stop your lamentation for a moment and recall that it might just be possible that there is something potentially good and positive in this agony in which you are right now enmeshed.

* * *

For the full version of this post, SEE HERE.

Dignity

A. HOW THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY EMERGED
B. USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY
C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL AND ATTAINED DIGNITY
D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH

Our theme for March is “dignity.” Last spring, when Faith and I were discussing what themes to have for the upcoming year, we decided to include “dignity” because the new article II bylaws of our denomination, the Unitarian Universalst Association, speak of dignity under the “equity” value. The bylaws say,

“Equity: We declare that every person is inherently worthy and has the right to flourish with dignity, love, and compassion.”

This has clear echoes with the historic UU first principle:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: the inherent worth and dignity of every person (or every being).

So what is this dignity thing that our faith affirms?

Proto-Indo-European is the hypothetical original source language from which the 500 or so Indo-European language. Linguists think that the English word dignity derived from the Proto-Indo-European “dek,” which meant “to take, accept.” By the time it had become the Latin dignitas, it meant worthiness or merit -- suggesting something that is acknowledged or accepted as valuable. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Dignity is conferred by acknowledging worth.

A. HOW THE CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY EMERGED

Generally, up until modern times, it was understood that not everyone could be regarded as having worth. Stoic philosophers like Seneca (born 4 BCE), and Epictetus (born 50 CE), had a counterpoint. They maintained that all humans have an inner worth due to their rational nature, regardless of external status. But theirs was very much a minority viewpoint. For most of the Roman and on through the medieval world, dignity was reserved for the special, the noble. This meaning is still present in words like “dignitary,” or “dignified.”

Augustine, born 354, did say that all humans have a divine essence, and Christian thinkers have often invoked the concept imago dei -- creation in the image of God -- but not until centuries later did it become popular to say that this meant that all humans have dignity.

In Islamic thought, there’s a passage in the Quran declaring that God has bestowed dignity upon all humans. Muslim scholars Al-Farabi (born 870), and Ibn Sina (born 980), emphasized rationality as central to human dignity. Along similar lines, Thomas Aquinas (born 1225), built on Aristotle, arguing that dignity comes from rationality and moral capacity, given by God.

Pico della Mirandola (born 1463), wrote Oration on the Dignity of Man, which emphasized human potential and freedom, and strengthened the idea of universal dignity. In England, John Locke (born 1632), argued that all humans are equal and possess natural rights. Immanuel Kant (born 1724), transformed dignity into a moral concept, saying that all rational beings have intrinsic worth and should be treated as ends, and not as a means only.

While these philosophers’ ideas were gradually seeping into the general populace, most people still thought of dignity as a property of the dignified dignitaries and not a property of the hoi polloi rabble. Before about 1830, writes Remy Debes,

“neither the English term ‘dignity,’ nor its Latin root dignitas, nor the French counterpart dignité, had any stable currency as meaning ‘the unearned status or worth of all persons’, let alone the grounds of universal rights or equality.”

So what changed around 1830? The abolition movement to end slavery. That, and early labor rights movements were driven by the idea that all humans have dignity regardless of race or class.

Finally, in 1948, in response to the atrocities of World War II, the new United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its article 1 declared: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

B. USES OF UNIVERSAL DIGNITY

The claim that dignity is universal -- an equal possession of every person -- implied a universal moral duty to recognize and respect that dignity. Thus the idea of universal dignity was important to the abolition movement, and the UN's move to protect groups subjected to atrocities in World War II. Indeed, dignity has been invoked in every 20th and 21st century social justice movement, including the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ rights movement, and workers’ rights movements. Policies that ensure access to healthcare, to education, or to social services are apt to be framed as affirmations of human dignity. Advocates of criminal justice reform invoke dignity. The argument that the death penalty is incompatible with the dignity of human life contributed to the European Union banning the death penalty.

These are examples of dignity used as a grounding for individual autonomy, human rights, personal freedoms and protections. On the other hand, conservative perspectives appeal to dignity in support of traditional values, social harmony, and respect for authority. Communitarian perspectives appeal to dignity as embedded in relationships and societal structures, arguing that dignity demands social policies that uphold communal well-being rather than just individual rights. Some non-Western societies critique Western conceptions of dignity for imposing individualistic values that do not always align with their cultural traditions.

You know the stone soup story, in which a stranger shows up in town and claims to have a magic stone that will produce nutritious soup merely by being placed in simmering water. The stranger then coaxes the villagers to make the soup even better by adding some cabbage, some carrots, maybe some beans, onions, et cetera. In the end, it’s all the other ingredients that do the work of making soup.

We may wonder whether dignity is like the stone in stone soup. We get one sort of soup if we add in human rights, another sort if we add in traditional values and respect for authority, yet another if we add in structures of relationships and communal well-being. Dignity may be claimed as the support for any of these, but maybe the human rights, or the traditional values, or whatever sort of soup we may be desiring, can stand on its own. We don’t need that stone thrown in the pot. Or do we?

The hungry villagers were unable to bring forth those other ingredients and produce a communal pot of soup until coaxed to do so by that stranger with his stone. So in some sense the stone is not superfluous – it’s necessary.

We have to think of ourselves as beings of worth -- bearers of dignity -- in order to get any other social or political project going. The expansion of dignity to apply to everyone thus reflects a relatively new tendency to want to involve everyone – or as many people as we can – in our social and political projects.

C. THREE DIGNITIES AND THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIVERSAL AND ATTAINED DIGNITY

We may identify three broad categories of meaning that dignity has signified across context and history.

First, dignity as status: noble or elevated social position or rank – dignity as what a dignitary has. This sort of dignity, like the word “nobility,” tends to conflate a standard of character or gravitas with the accident of birth class, though social status can, at least in principle, be attained by those not born to it.

Second, dignity as dignified behavior. This might be gravitas: a poise or grace associated with behavioral comportment. This might sometimes be particularly associated with the sophisticated manners or elegant speech in which the upper classes are typically trained, though it is not exclusive to class. Or it might indicate composure in the face of insult or duress – a dignified response to hardship that people of any class might display. Or dignified behavior might be living with integrity -- living up to personal or social standards of character and conduct, either in one’s own eyes or the eyes of others.

Third, dignity as universal: the unearned worth or status that all humans share equally.

With the first two, one might have dignity – or not. You either have a high social status or it’s somewhat less. You either retain composure under stress or you don’t, live with integrity, or don’t. But this third category of dignity applies to everyone equally. One’s dignity in this sense cannot be increased or diminished, it can only be recognized or not recognized. This universal dignity can be violated, as when we treat people as not having dignity, when we fail to recognize the worth, the value that a person has simply in virtue of being a person. But this is a sense of dignity as something everyone always has, whether it is respected, ignored, or violated. So we have these three dignities:

1. Dignity as high status, as being a dignitary.
2. Dignity as a standard to live up to – an aspiration to live in a dignified way, with composure and integrity, and a measure of poise. And,
3. dignity as universal – as something that everyone has, and has equally, and so cannot be achieved or aspired to and cannot be lost. The first one I’m not going to pay much attention to.

I'm not going to give further attention to the first meaning. I suppose unequal status will always be a thing among humans, and, yes, there is a lot to be said about how higher status is assigned, and how it functions, but a concern with dignity today doesn’t have much to do with who is a dignitary and who isn’t. Rather, it’s those other two that are the concern: acting and living with dignity, and recognition of universal dignity. And I think both of those are important and valuable.

There is something in the area of dignity for us to work on and develop in ourselves – composure and integrity -- and there is also something called dignity that is universal and equal and unearned. And both matter.

There is, though, this rather obvious tension between attained dignity and universal unearned dignity. If we seriously believe in human dignity – and maybe expand the circle beyond humans to a concept of primate dignity, or mammal dignity, or warm-blooded dignity, or vertebrate dignity, or beings dignity – this dignity can’t be gained or lost, and isn’t something to attain.

We might try to deal with this tension by distinguishing between ourselves and others. I might say: for myself, I will aspire to composure, poise, and integrity. I want to live in dignified way, and when I have behaved in an undignified manner, I want to learn from that and get better. At the same time, I will regard others as having inherent, equal universal dignity.

I’m not sure that approach will work. We might cut others more slack than we do ourselves, but if we’re paying attention to standards for ourselves, we can’t help but notice which other people are models for us to emulate and which ones seem to be exemplifying what we’re trying to avoid. Also, if there is a dignity that is universal, then I kinda have to allow that "universal" includes me, too. So I don’t think distinguishing between the way I approach myself and the way I approach others helps with this tension between attained dignity and universal dignity.

D. THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH

I think the idea that will help us here to either resolve the tension or live creatively in the tension is: capability. There is in the world of ideas a thing called the capabilities approach. The capabilities approach was first developed by Indian economist Amartya Sen in the 1980s. Sen argued that traditional measures of well-being, such as income or utility, are insufficient. Instead, well-being should be evaluated in terms of an individual's capabilities to function. Capabilities are influenced by a range of factors, including income, education, health, and social environment.

In the 1990s, American philosopher Martha Nussbaum picked up on Sen’s work and began collaborating with him to further develop and expand the capabilities approach. Her book, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, came out in 2000, and is a key work in the development of the approach. Nussbaum’s version of the approach particularly emphasizes human dignity and the opportunities individuals need to lead a flourishing life.

True well-being depends not, or not just, on GDP and wealth, but on whether people have real opportunities to live a meaningful life. A person with the legal right to vote but who lacks education or access to polling places does not truly have the capability to participate in democracy. Providing a wheelchair to a person with a disability is helpful, but real dignity comes from ensuring they have accessible environments to function independently. Thus, instead of just looking at what people have, Nussbaum focuses on what they can do and be.

Nussbaum identifies ten essential capabilities that societies should support to ensure human dignity:
1. Life – Being able to live a full life of normal length.
2. Bodily Health – Having good health, adequate nutrition, and shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity – Security from violence and bodily autonomy.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought – Access to education and intellectual development.
5. Emotions – The ability to love, grieve, and form meaningful relationships.
6. Practical Reason – Being able to exercise thought and conscience to make choices about one’s life.
7. Affiliation – The ability to engage in social relationships and be treated with respect.
8. Other Species – Living in a way that respects nature and other life forms.
9. Play – The ability to engage in recreation and leisure.
10. Control Over One’s Environment – Political participation and property rights.

A just society, per Nussbaum, ensures that every person has the capability to achieve these functions rather than merely providing formal rights without real access. A fair and just distribution of primary goods is important, but we must also consider how individuals can actually use these goods in their real circumstances. Can all their capabilities be exercised? Can their capabilities be developed and brought into full flower? Here we have a way to approach dignity that is both affirms the universal and leaves room for the attainable.

What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities. We have the universal dignity that we are beings capable of living a lifespan that our genetics allow –
Capable of the bodily health that reasonable nutrition, exercise, sleep, and shelter allows –
Capable bodily autonomy and security from violence -
Capable of learning and intellectual development –
Capable of loving, grieving, and forming meaningful relationships --
Capable of reflecting on our values and how to live by them in the choices we make --
Capable of social relationships, friendships, and group affiliations within which we are treated with respect –
Capable of loving and respecting nature and other life forms –
Capable of play and recreation –
Capable of political participation and owning things and effectively using what we own.

What’s universal is that we all have these capabilities – and we have the inherent dignity that comes from having these capabilities.

The dignity that is left to be attained is the fuller development of the capability, the exercise of the capability. We don’t always get the chance to do what we are capable of. Of course, no one can do ALL that ze is capable of doing, but one can develop in all 10 of the basic capabilities. A world is possible in which all of us have some chance at all of the 10 basic capabilities.

An individual may attain a life of dignity, may be a dignified person who retains grace under pressure, composure under stress, integrity with poise. Collectively, we may aspire to ensure that everybody has the chance to develop their capability for a dignified life, however they may conceive of it. And both the individual and our collective attainments are grounded in recognition of the universal, equal, unearned dignity that we are beings with these capabilities.

I said at the beginning that the root of dignity was to take, accept. When we treat someone with dignity, we take or accept that they are worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. What Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum help us see more clearly is that it is their capabilities that make them so worthy of respect, honor, and esteem. Some of us haven’t had much chance to do and be what we are capable of doing and being – but the capability alone warrants our respect, our esteem, our honor. And by respecting, honoring, and esteeming every person’s capabilities, we encourage and assist the use and development of those capabilities – and make way for the greater flourishing of all life.

May it be so.
Blessed be.
Amen.

Training in Compassion 7: Send and Receive Compassion

Compassion literally means "to feel passion with." Passion means pain. Compassion is the willingness to feel pain with another, to feel another's pain as one's own.

It's impossible to take in the pain of another unless we are able to take in our own pain. Most of us are not so good at accepting our own pain. We prefer to deny it or distract ourselves from it. We are so intent on making our own pain go away that we don't allow ourselves to feel it. We can't take it in. Consequently we are incapable of feeling another's pain, so we are incapable of actual compassion, although we may think we are quite compassionate.

Real, full compassion requires training your heart to do what it usually does not want to do: to go toward, rather than away from, what's painful and difficult in your own life.

Second, it requires realizing that your own suffering and the suffering of others are not different. When you discover that this is so, you see that when you are willing to really take in your own suffering, you find, within that very suffering, the suffering of others. Also: when you are able to truly take in the suffering of another, you find within it your own human pain. Being willing to receive pain, we come to understand, is the only way to open our hearts to love.

To send and receive compassion, start by breathing in the openness of mind that you can feel in the clarity and strength of the inhale. And then exhale, letting go completely and merging with openness of mind, so that there is nothing else present but that. When you’re ready, breathe in your own suffering. Let compassion ride on your breath.

As you inhale, take in your own pain and the suffering. With practice, you can do it. Visualize the pain and suffering as a dark, sticky substance or smoke or some kind of goo that you are breathing in, taking into your body. This is receiving.

Then, breathe out. In exhaling we transform the goo, the suffering, the pain, into lightness, ease, peacefulness that comes out of our nostrils and all the pores of our body as a light sweet mist. This is sending.

You are sending healing light to yourself and to many others.

* * *

More detail about this practice is in the longer version here.

UU Uses of the Bible

Many of us, I know, have a conflicted relationship with The Bible – the anthology of 66 books in Protestant Bible or 73 in the Catholic Bible, or 76 in the Eastern Orthodox Bible. Yet this particular anthology of old writings (in any of its variants) is powerful, and hugely popular.

Bibles have always sold well in this country. You might think everyone in the US has long since had one by now. Yet sales have not only continued at a brisk clip with 9.7 million Bibles sold in the US in 2019, but sales climbed to 14.2 million in 2023. Then in the first 10 months of 2024, sales were up another 22% over the first 10 months of the year before. But buying Bibles doesn’t mean people know their Bible very well. Time magazine observed in a 2007 cover story that only half of U.S. adults could name one of the four Gospels. Fewer than half could identify Genesis as the Bible's first book. I like to think Unitarian Universalists could do better than that – but I don’t have data on that.

A Gallup and Castelli survey concluded: “Americans revere the Bible but by and large they don’t read it.” Christianity Today wagged: “Americans love their Bibles. So much so that they keep them in pristine, unopened condition."

For many, apparently, the Bible is a sort of talisman: an object to possess as a symbol of tribal loyalty, not a text to study, know, and wrestle with.

Or: and this may be part of what’s going on with the recent boom in sales, as more and more people are growing up unchurched, what they’ve heard of the Bible makes it seems like this mysterious source of truth, and in these deeply uncertain times, they get curious to take a look.

But without a community and tradition to provide a context of meaning, without background on how the texts came to be written, and how those particular texts and not others came to be canonized, they aren’t likely to get much from their attempts to read it.

But if we do engage the text, and also the context – engaging the various interpretive possibilities in open discussion, the stories and the poetry offer us touchstones and wisdom as we seek to make sense of our lives and our world. Two weeks ago, I talked about the Book of Ruth as offering us a helpful inspiration to cross borders and make connections. I’ve spoken of the Loaves and Fishes story from the Christian Testament. At Christmas, we look at the two different Christmas stories, and last Easter we looked at the four different Easter stories.

There’s a lot more to glean from this rich and influential anthology. In fact, I’ll be offering a class, starting next Saturday March 1 at 2:00. We’ll have four Saturday sessions: Mar 1st and 8th, and then April 5th and 12th. We’ll be reading and discussing the book “Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals,” by John Buehrens. Buehrens is a Unitarian Universalist minister, and was president of the UUA from 1993 to 2001. Let’s plunge in and expand our appreciation and understanding of how to use these resource for understanding our world. Get the book and join me for the class. First, though, where does the notion of God come from? There are lots of theories. Here’s mine.

Our brains do their best to cope with this world in which we find ourselves. They rely heavily on predicting what’s going to happen. Psychology researchers have been learning more and more clearly that the brain is not best understood as a stimulus-response mechanism – waiting for some stimulus, then responding. That would be way too inefficient – and often there wouldn’t be time to figure out much of a response. Rather, our brains anticipate events, and plan in advance. They are prediction machines. And as the infant grows into the toddler, it begins to form concepts of belief and desire. People believe things and people want things. This turns out to be tremendously useful in predicting how people – the most important features of our world -- will behave – which allows us to coordinate our behavior with theirs.

Apparently, conceiving of other people’s beliefs and desires comes first, and only later do we apply the process to ourselves and form a conception that we ourselves believe certain things, and desire certain things.

Beliefs and desires are a fiction. We might someday be able to make a complete map of someone’s brain – its 100 billion neurons firing across 100 trillion synapses, and know just what neurotransmitters are passing across which of those synapses, and at what rate. But nowhere in all of that will we find such a thing as a belief or a desire. Yet these are indispensable fictions for giving us a rough and ready way to predict and get along with other people and ourselves. There is no other practical way to understand each other.

We are made to relate to others as believing and wanting. We can’t avoid it. We can, with training, avoid relating to the universe as a whole as having beliefs and desires. Though we can’t get along without imagining that people have beliefs and desires, we can get along passably without imagining that the universe has beliefs and desires. We can do it, but I don’t recommend it.

If you’re a physicist at work, or if you’re reading an explanation of what physicists have concluded, you need to set aside any conception of the universe believing or desiring, but even the physicist gets off work at some point, and the exercise of imagining that the universe itself knows things and wants things is a helpful exercise for feeling at home in this universe.

We feel at home with people by relating to them as believing and desiring. Likewise, it helps us feel at home in this universe by relating to it as if it believed and desired. We explore our place in the order of things by asking ourselves what the universe seems to believe about us, what it seems to want from us. Imagining the universe as a person – an entity that knows things and wants things, that has feelings, like love and anger – is a construct that can be helpful for pulling in our whole humanity, not just the logical left-brain. By engaging with that construct, playing with it, wrestling with it, it can put us into a relationship with our world, with nature – or at least can help us cope with it.

And so we come to the God of the Hebrew Bible, the God of the Hebrew people. As probably every people have done, the Hebrews imagined the universe as having beliefs and desires – and the agents of these beliefs and desires are the gods, or, as Hebrews came to conceive, the one God. The Hebrew God has some powerful positives. In the Exodus story – a.k.a. “Yahweh and Moses’ Excellent Adventure” – Yahweh is liberation. He is sustenance; strength to rebel against oppression. Yahweh is covenant, the power of people to come together to be in community, to walk in a shared way of life aimed at transformation and healing and the realization of human potential to have and live in beloved community.

But the Hebrew God is rather bipolar. Life itself is rather bipolar. The God of the Hebrew Bible swings between dishing out unearned grace and unearned wrath – and life does include a lot of pleasantness and unpleasantness that we didn’t earn or deserve. The Bible is A LOT – and there are so many fascinating stories in it and about how it came to be, and what it might mean. I’m not going to try today to articulate overall the message of Buehrens’ Understanding the Bible – we’ll do that in the class starting Saturday. Nor will I make a general point about UU uses of the Bible. Instead I’m going to take just one example of the way God is characterized – God at God’s very worst – the abusive God who appears most harshly in some of the books of the prophets. We’ll see if even the parts of the Bible that are most likely to turn you off of the Bible entirely – if even those parts might have some use for us today. It will be difficult. And if, in the end, you decide that’s a bridge too far for you to find any use for, I won’t blame you. But let’s give it a try and see. The God of the Hebrew Bible is sometimes angry and punitive toward his people. Sometimes in life it does feel like the world is punishing you. The God of the Hebrew Bible is sometimes abusive. It’s the prophets that express this abuse – Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah. These imaginative street preachers described for their listeners a universe that fits the profile of what we know about how abusers behave, casting Yahweh as the abusive boyfriend or husband, with Israel as the girlfriend or wife. This description so resonated with the people of Israel that they made these descriptions scripture.

My first semester of divinity school, every week, on Thursday, I was in Old Testament class for three hours in the morning, then had Pastoral Care class for three hours in the afternoon. In the pastoral care class we got to a unit on battering and abuse: how to recognize the signs of an abuse relationship, how that abusive dynamic works. In the Old Testament class we kept talking about this Yahweh character who fit the profile of an abuser that I was learning about in Pastoral Care.

Here are some of the aspects of the profile we learned:
Smashing things. (like maybe Sodom and Gomorrah).
Destroying her property.
Harming pets (like demanding animal sacrifices, or perhaps the Flood).
Acting invincible (Yeah).
Putting her down.
Calling her names.
Humiliating her.
Making her feel guilty. (Yahweh does all those things to Israel.)
Unreasonable demands or expectations. (Hmm. “Thou shalt not covet” seems a rather unreasonable demand.)
Limiting her outside involvement (like when Yahweh commands “have no relations with the other people in the land”).
Embarrassing her in front of others.
Using the children to relay messages.
Threatening to take the children away (as in Ezekiel, “Your survivors shall fall by the sword”).
Here’s one: Using religion to control her.
Degrading her about her relationships.
Abusing the children.
Treating her like a servant (that fits, doesn’t it?)
Making all of the rules. (like pretty much the entire book of Leviticus)

This Yahweh has serious power and control issues. Our pastoral care text said, "extreme jealously and accusations of infidelity characterize most men who batter." Yahweh is famously jealous, proclaiming in Exodus, "I the Lord your God am a jealous God.”

And in such books as Hosea, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, Yahweh repeatedly levels accusations of infidelity at Israel. Israel’s unfaithfulness is described as sexual unfaithfulness and promiscuity. The accusations, the threats of public shaming in Hosea, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah are in the Bible, and those parts of the Bible are more graphic than I feel comfortable sharing with you out loud in a worship service.

The abuse cycle, as counselors now recognize, includes episodes of tender seduction – “honeymooning her” -- periodically recurring between episodes of violence. Both phases – manipulating tenderness and dominating humiliation – are designed to assert and reinforce the abuser's power and control. Here, too, Yahweh fits the profile. Hosea describes how Yahweh will humiliate Israel, and then Hosea continues, in passage I will share:

"Therefore, I will now allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. From there I will give her her vineyards, and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she shall respond as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt." (Hosea 2:14-15, NRSV)

“Honeymooning,” it’s called, and it’s a tactic of abusers. For a long time the official Christian line on all of this was that God’s acts were fair punishment for Israel’s sins. As our understanding of the nature of abusive relationships grows, and we use that understanding to help us interpret the Bible, more and more people – including more and more Christians – are now saying: there’s not enough sin in the world to justify that much punishment.

Jewish scholar David Blumenthal, in a book titled, Facing the Abusing God, writes:

Abusive behavior is abusive; it is inexcusable, in all circumstances. What is true of abusive behavior by humans is true of abusive behavior by God. When God acts abusively, we are the victims, we are innocent. When God acts abusively, we are the hurt party and we are not responsible for God’s abuse. Our sins – and we are always sinful – are in no proportion whatsoever to the punishment meted out to us. Furthermore, the reasons for God’s actions are irrelevant. God’s motives are not the issue. Abuse is unjustified, in God as well as human beings."

So what is the point of these awful stories? Yeah, this world, which we viscerally respond to as person-like, it does abuse us sometimes. And it abuses some of us more than others. How do we, today, make use of those stories? The answer, I suggest, is that we are called to Social justice.

Last week, we talked about the work for social justice that we do. We do direct service. We attend and sometimes may lead classes to educate ourselves and others about the issues. We organize, we advocate, we witness. Last week those in attendance were asked to write on sticky notes what they have been doing, or want to do in the coming year, in any of these five areas of justice work: service, education, organizing, advocacy, and witness. We put those sticky notes on the map that’s at the back there. If you weren’t here last week, I want to invite you to peruse that display and add your own sticky note – or two or three. And if you were here, but you’ve thought of an additional area you have or would like to contribute in, then please add another sticky note to our map.

One way that we can relate to those old stories of an abusive God is to move ourselves out of the role of the abused partner, and into a role of ministering to the abuser. The call to social justice is the call to minister to God. In that Pastoral Care class I mentioned, we talked about some ways to minister to victims of abuse. And we also talked about appropriate responses for a minister when the abuser himself comes to see you, or you see him.

How do you minister to an abuser? Our Pastoral Care textbook stressed accountability: holding the abuser accountable. In our social justice work, we seek to hold accountable the sources or injustice.

“The appropriate frame," our textbook said, "is that the abuser has committed a criminal act, and he should not be allowed to evade the consequences of his behavior."

He may be asking for forgiveness, but forgiveness is not appropriate if it allows him to elude accountability for his violence and his mania for power and control. Abusive men can be truly anguished – but the reality of the anguish is not always accompanied by readiness to engage with counselors or clergy to change their behavior and assumptions. "The minister's task," said our text, “is 'to become an ally of that part of the man that gravitates toward change.'"

An ally of the part that gravitates toward change. They won't change overnight – though they might swear they have. But they can gravitate toward change if enough sources are making clear that they cannot get away with their old ways. That’s the take-home phrase I offer to you today: be ye “allies of the part that gravitates toward change.”

There is a place for us in the framework of the picture that Hosea, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah put before us. We can take on the role of ministering to the victims, yes, and of ministering to the abuser, too. What would it be like to imagine ourselves as God’s pastor – to imagine ministering to the world that batters its poor with starvation, disease, violence, denial of education, economic hopelessness? How do we carry out such a ministry?

We minister to an abusive God as we would minister to an abusive human. We hold accountable. We avoid easy forgiveness that allows the abuse to continue. We are allies of the part that gravitates toward change. We find the thread of value there and work to weave with it a new cloth. We befriend the aspect that can transform.

Ministry for justice and security means alliance with that part of reality-as-a-whole that gravitates toward change, toward justice, toward a true and healthy love, toward freedom and the relinquishing of dominating power and control. This means standing up to Yahweh, staring him in the eye and naming his abuse – naming and confronting the hurt – facing directly the sources of power, whether they be governments or corporations or natural disasters. It won’t get better if we don’t hold it accountable.

As a minister would say to an abusive husband – “I am judging your behavior, not your humanity” – so we, as befrienders of a world our souls want to treat as a person, can say, in effect, “I am judging your behavior, not your divinity. I am not going to desert you, but I am not going to excuse you either. This is not betrayal. Speaking the truth is the best way I can help you.”

Here, then, is a new psalm – a poem, prayer, and promise.

You are my shepherd.
You provide for me in so many ways.
In you, I have the still waters of peace.
From you, security and love, beauty and abundance.
My cup truly overfloweth.
You also hurt so many humans and other animals and ecosystems.
There is such cruelty in you.
As you are my shepherd, so I will be yours.
I will stand with you, and I will not enable your harming.
I will hold you accountable.
I will stand with you as an ally of that in you which gravitates toward change.
This change will not be easy.
The change is too fundamental to be possible without anguish.
Universal peace and justice will take a long time.
They will not be attained in my lifetime -- they will in yours.
I will be with you, as you have been with me; I commit my life to that.
Together, we will take the next step.
I insist.
Amen.

Training in Compassion 6: Be a Child of Illusion

Spiritual practice requires a certain degree of childlike innocence -- of accepting what seem to be "illusions." Here are some attitudes, hopes, and beliefs that many people regard as illusions:

• Radical transformation is possible.
• The world can be suffused with love.
• One can enjoy a measure of happiness and peace in the crazy world we live in.

Be a child of such "illusion"!

Being a child of illusion doesn't mean that you ignore the more difficult side of life and of humanity. It just means that you don't have to let that side completely colonize your mind and heart.

Why not have, along with our appropriate adult perspective, a child's-eye view of the world? After all, we have been practicing seeing everything as a dream, examining unborn awareness, and resting in the openness of mind.

To be a child of illusion is to take those practices into everyday life and introduce an element of childlike delight. You can stop every now and then and look out the window. Whatever you see, take it in for a moment with wonder. That person in your life who has been giving you a hard time: as you are talking to her and looking at her, notice her eyes and ears and nose and marvel at them.

Conventional reality is not the only reality. It is an important reality, and we have to deal with it. But it is not the only reality, and thinking it is only hems us in, imprisons and confines us. Being a child of illusion -- together with "see everything as a dream," "examine the nature of awareness," "don't get stuck on peace," and "rest in the openness of mind" -- expands and smooths the space we are living in, breaking down the walls we've been putting up for so long.

* * *

For more detail on this spiritual practice, see this longer version here.

You, UU, and Social Justice

Doing justice as you is great. Doing justice as UU is even better.

Take heart, friends. The opposition is forming. In an article two days ago, Quinta Jurecic noted that the administration “is encountering persistent and growing opposition, both from courts and from other pockets of civic life.” There may be an attempt to defy court orders, but Jurecic notes,

“there is significance to the fact that the administration already has a hefty stack of court orders it might want to defy. Litigants have sued the administration over the seemingly unlawful freezing of federal funds, the deferred-resignation program for civil servants, the destruction of USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the handling of sensitive government data by Musk’s aides, the removal of scientific data from government websites, the attempt to write birthright citizenship out of the Constitution, the barring of transgender people from military service, the transfer of undocumented immigrants to Guantánamo Bay, and more.”

Court orders already in have prevented the administration

“from dismissing a government watchdog without explanation, and granted restraining orders barring the administration from slashing funds for crucial scientific research. They have prevented [DOGE] from meddling with Treasury Department systems and insisted that the government halt its transfer of an incarcerated transgender woman to a men’s prison. Four separate judges have issued orders requiring the government to stand down on its effort to dismantle birthright citizenship. The deferred resignation program for federal employees was closed on Wednesday as a number of government employees had expressed defiance. Posted one: 'Before the "buyout" memo, I was ready to go job hunting, but then a revelation hit. I took an oath under this position to the American people.'”

As the Office of Personnel Management

“had called the program a ‘fork in the road,’ some federal employees adopted the spoon as a symbol of their opposition. Earlier this week, federal workers rallied at a protest outside the Capitol holding signs that read Public Service is a Badge of Honor!”

During a visit by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to a U.S. military installation in Germany, an eighth grader organized a walkout at her middle school to protest Hegseth’s attacks on diversity efforts within the military.

And Unitarian Universalists are in on the resistance. We are numerically small, but we are mighty. A number of folks have observed that we UUs punch above our weight when it comes to making a difference for social justice. This week my inbox has brought me notice that our national Unitarian Universalist Association

“has joined with a multifaith coalition and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection to bring a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s “sensitive locations policy. Churches, as well as schools and hospitals, had previously been protected from ICE enforcement actions, but a Department of Homeland Security memo rescinded that protection on January 20.”

Our UUA is standing strong for the principle

“that subjecting places of worship to ICE enforcement actions without a judicial warrant substantially burdens our religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Our UUA President, Sofia Betancourt, said,

“We know that many of our congregations include members who are immigrants, both documented and undocumented, and many of you carry out important ministries that serve immigrant communities in church spaces. The UUA is committed to supporting and protecting your ability to continue this vital and life-saving work.”

Our Unitarian Universalist Service Committee has been working for human rights around the globe, with projects, for instance, in Haiti, supporting civil groups on the forefront of resistance and rebuilding. UUSC has been working with partners and allies around the world to end Israel’s human rights violations in the Occupied Territories. UUSC is part of coalition calling for the temporary ceasefire to be permanent, and for a ban on arms transfers to Israel.

If you go to the UUA.org website, the first thing you’ll see at the top of the page is a tool to find a congregation near you. Then there are three prominent links: “Meet your region” which will show you a map of the US divided into the 5 UU regions. (Iowa is in the Mid-America region.) And the second link is “Act for Justice.” That’s such a prominent part of who we are. If you click on that, you’ll read:

“Justice is at the core of our faith. Our congregations are called to make a positive difference in our wider communities. We work to serve, to raise awareness, and to support and partner with people who face injustice. We advocate, organize, and act for justice to live out the values of our faith.”

Unitarians and Universalists haven’t always been so big on social justice. Yes, our denomination was the faith home of a number of prominent abolitionists before the Civil War – but, sad to say, we also had a number of members whose wealth came from enslavement and who quietly (usually), or vociferously (if necessary), snuffed out any fledgling congregational effort to take a stand for abolition.

The Unitarian minister Rev. John Haynes Holmes prominently opposed World War I, but he was roundly denounced by pretty much all the rest of the Unitarian establishment.

In those days, Unitarianism was basically “Christianity Lite.” The story is told that in those times a woman was asked why she was Unitarian, and she answered, “Everybody’s got to be something and Unitarian is the least you can be.”

In the 1920s and 30s we see the beginnings of the shift that would lead to the way we see ourselves today. This was when the humanist movement got going within Unitarianism and, to a lesser extent, within Universalism. Humanism dropped God out of the picture altogether and emphasized the scientific method. Religious concepts were redefined “into human, non-magical, understandings." We started to sing hymns such as:

"Where is our holy church?
Where people unite in the search for beauty, truth and right.
Where is our holy land?
Within the human soul, wherever free minds truly seek with character the goal.”

By the middle of the 20th century, in most Unitarian and Universalist congregations, the crosses had been taken down and the communion silver stashed in a basement closet. Now we were becoming the resistors. We weren’t just a lower-demand version of the prevailing Christianity.

In the 1950s, business interests were combining with mainstream Protestantism to emphasize pro-business values and fight the Cold War. Prayer breakfasts swept the country, bringing together business leaders and church leaders to praise God and denounce communism. The 1950s so thoroughly conflated patriotism and religion that in 1954 Congress added the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance. It was no longer enough to be “one nation, indivisible.” We had to be “one nation, under God, indivisible” – because the enemy of both the business establishment and the religious establishment was Godless communism.

US church attendance was at its peak in 1959. Just about everybody was in church on Sunday morning, and what was preached there was a theology of God, country, and General Motors -- albeit rather less so in Unitarian and Universalist congregations. We were beginning to find ourselves in a counter-cultural place.

The American Unitarian Association (this was before Unitarians had consolidated with the Universalists) objected to putting “under God” into the pledge of allegiance and argued that the new version violated the separation of church and state. When a plan was advanced to let kids out of public schools on Wednesday afternoon so they could attend religious instruction in their churches, it was a coalition of Unitarians and Jews that resisted.

Through the 19th-century Unitarians had been the epitomize of the well-heeled establishment. Amid the prevailing buttoned-down “God and country” anti-communism of the 1950s, Unitarians shifted to resistance. We weren’t even the slightly more skeptical wing of the respectable elite. We had evolved into centers of resistance to the prevailing conventional opinion.

Yes, the Unitarians and the Universalists go back 200 years in this country – and 400 years in Europe – but we were formed into what we are today during this 1950s phase of massive cultural conformity. The humanism that we moved into in the 30s put us in a position of cultural resistance in the 50s. Our humanism shifted us from insiders to outsiders.

When this congregation’s own Edna Griffin took on Katz drug store in 1948, she did so without overt involvement of her congregation – but also without the kind of objection from her chosen church she would have gotten at many other churches. The way was being paved. The idea that involvement in social and political issues was what it means to live Unitarian faith was catching on. By the mid-1950s we were, tentatively at first, getting involved in Civil Rights issues. In this congregation, we gradually moved from ignoring Edna Griffin’s activism to organizing support of it. By 1965, large numbers of Unitarian Universalists went to Selma to march with Dr. King.

When I was a youth in the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Atlanta in the early ‘70s, I saw a lot of anti-Vietnam-war activism going on, and I joined in in what ways I could as a kid. So, yes, Justice is at the core of our faith. It’s what we do. It wasn’t always. It is now, and has been for about 3 generations. On our UUA web page, just below the paragraph I quoted earlier, you’ll read:

“Our intersectional justice priorities are:
Climate Justice (inclusive of Indigenous sovereignty and Climate Resilience)
Decriminalization (inclusive of Racial Justice and Immigration Justice)
Democracy and Electoral Justice (inclusive of Voting Rights and electoral participation)
LGBTQIA+ and Gender Justice (inclusive of reproductive justice and abortion access).”

Our justice work is carried out in five ways:

• Service,
• Education,
• Organizing,
• Advocacy, and
• Witness.

Service means direct helping for people materially suffering: things like soup kitchens and clothing drives.

Education involves organizing classes and forums to learn and teach about justice issues.

Organizing refers to forming partnerships and coalitions to amplify our voice for justice.

Advocacy means speaking and writing publicly in support of justice, including lobbying legislators.

And witness refers to using the media effectively to get our message out – whether through paid advertising or news coverage.

Here at First Unitarian of Des Moines, we have a range of social justice initiatives. Our Faith in Action Coordinating Team selects two nonprofit organizations each year to which to particularly encourage our members to contribute. This year, we’re supporting Al Exito! and the Young Women’s Resource Center.

For Environmental Justice, we have our Green Sanctuary initiative. We have been accredited by the UUA as a Green Sanctuary since 2015. Our ongoing Green Sanctuary team focuses on engaging church members on energy efficiency, recycling, composting for our building and grounds. The team also promotes outside activities that our members can get involved with to improve the greater Des Moines community.

We have a FEDS task force. FEDS stands for Feed Every Deserving Soul – or every deserving stomach – although it seems to me that “deserving” is redundant. There’s no such thing as an undeserving stomach or soul. Our FEDS task force facilitates projects to alleviate hunger in central Iowa. This task force prepares and serves dinner monthly for Des Moines’ unhoused population.

Our Immigration Justice task force heads up our congregation’s is involvement in immigration and sanctuary issues in Central Iowa. We are a part of the Iowa Sanctuary Movement. In 2017, we became a Sanctuary Church for people facing the threat of immediate deportation. Subsequently, our immigration task force has been involved in various efforts, including assisting asylum seekers and other issues as they arise.

QTAG is our Queer and Transgender Action Group. This group increases awareness of queer and transgender lives and issues within the church community, and provides a safe haven and resources for queer and transgender people in need. The group educates the congregation on gender identity is, the difference from sexual orientation, and how to support queer and the transgender folk in our community.

We have a relatively new task force called Peace, Justice, and Democracy that has been organized for education and advocacy on this broad range of issues.

You should know the acronym CBCO – it’s Congregation-Based Community Organizing. It’s a thing. Our congregation is a part of a couple CBCO efforts. One of them is AMOS – which evokes the Biblical prophet Amos, who cried out “let justice roll down like water and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” – and which is also an acronym for A MidIowa Organizing Strategy. AMOS members include about 30 churches and other community organizations that work together to plan and carry out projects to move the needle toward justice in central Iowa.

There’s also a statewide CBCO of just UU congregations called IUUWAN: Iowa UUWitness Advocacy Network. IUUWAN brings UUs together to effect state-level actions for justice.

Justice is at the core of our faith, and the need during these times is great. What can you do? There’s an awful Unitarian Universalists are doing. You can add your efforts to one of our Social Justice initiatives at this congregation, or you can form a new initiative. Our policy declares that if three members of this congregation get together for a social justice initiative, they will be recognized as a social justice group of this congregation – meaning you can get space in our Intercom newsletter, use the building for meetings, and get spotlight segments in the Sunday service.

I know that many of you do social justice outside of the congregation. On your own, you might be a part of Habitat for Humanity, or be in the Sierra club for environmental justice, or be in the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) or Planned Parenthood or write checks contributing to various justice efforts. Thank you for that. That, too, is living your faith, and it’s so important. I will just note that it is helpful to have a religious grounding for your social justice work.

We are here to nurture our spirits and help heal our world – and those are not two separate things. We help heal our world by nurturing our spirits. Yes, the world becomes more whole when any person – including you – nurtures their spirit, becomes more grounded in a spiritual awareness that everything is connected. And we nurture our spirits by helping heal our world. The work of justice expands and deepens our spirits.

You’ve heard the saying: comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But those, also, are not two separate things. Let yourself be afflicted out of comfortable complacency, and you will discover that the action you are goaded to take ends up for you a comfort against all that afflicts you. Being afflicted in your comfort functions in fact to comfort you in your affliction. So your justice work is not a separate thing from your spiritual path – it’s a crucial part of your spiritual path. And your spiritual path – the meditation, your prayer life, your jounaling, the fostering of friendships with other UUs – strengthens and supports you for justice work. It’s a helpful thing to bring them together – to weave together your religion and your social values rather than practicing them separately.

So if you’re ardent in your support of the ACLU, or Planned Parenthood, or the Sierra Club, maybe get together with some other members of these congregation who share that commitment and form a support task force for the organization you love. Doing justice as you is great. Doing justice as UU is even better. It helps to think together about how the work is a reflection of your theology, your faith.

Clarify and articulate the UU values that impel your justice work. We have to be the change you wish to see. As I mentioned last week, to promote a world that is less cruel, we do need to attend to reducing our own penchants for cruelty, even if unintentional. Model being centered, passionate, open-minded, and welcoming. That’s bringing your spirituality to the justice task.

And when you’re talking to people outside this congregation about the justice issue you are working for, identify yourself as a person of faith – a Unitarian Universalist. Make references to your congregation and couch your advocacy in terms of your UU values. Also: include rituals in your activities: start with a chalice lighting, reading, and/or meditation. End with a closing reading or brief sharing. Always plan time for reflection and discussion following significant activities or events. And ask the others in your social action group about their personal and spiritual motivations.

We Unitarian Universalists are doing and have done a lot. We’d like to make a visual display of that, and that’s where the sticky note comes in. Please write social justice initiative that you have been a part of in the last year – or that you want to be a part of in the next year. Add your sticky to our map in the back – put it in the sea of service, the education estuary, the cove of community organizing, the advocacy alps, or the woods of public witness. We’ll make an inspiring visual representation of all that we are doing, have done, will do.

May it be so. Blessed be. Amen.

Training in Compassion 5: Rest in Openness of Mind

Rest in the openness of mind. There's no need to figure everything out. We can just be alive. We can breathe in and breathe out and let go and just trust our life, trust our body. Our body and our life know what to do. Let them.

Of course, life is complicated and we have many things to work out in our material and psychological lives. But also we can find a place of refuge sometimes. We can just return right now to ourselves -- to our actual concrete presence, in the body, in the breath, in the mind and heart.

If we had the confidence that this were possible at any moment, then we would feel much more at ease with our lives and it would be easier and happier to take care of all our complicated problems. We could do it without anxiety or stress. We would trust our life.

Rest in the openness of mind. Getting used to this phrase and its meaning, it can be an inspiration for you. Ability to bring it up at any time during the day, is a powerful advantage.

Maybe the easiest way to rest in the openness of mind is: just stop and take a breath. One breath, maybe two or three. You could do this now. Take a breath and return to the openness of mind. Breathing in, breathing out, and in the feeling of the breath noticing whatever is there and letting go of it, easily, gently.

If you are bored, or disturbing things are going on, it is still possible in this precise moment to notice breathing, notice the body, notice the feeling of being present in this moment. This will relax you. This is what it feels like to rest in the openness of mind.

* * *

For more detail about this spiritual practice, see this longer version here.

Borders and Belonging

Back in 2018, during our first go-round with this president, Adam Serwer wrote an analysis for Atlantic magazine that seemed the only explanation for the inexplicable. The title was: "The Cruelty is the Point." (Serwer later expanded his article into a book of the same title.) I read a lot of articles and forget most of them, but that stuck with me. Serwer said, “The president and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.”

Oh, gosh.

Now, a liberal, according to Judith Shklar’s famous definition, is a person for whom cruelty is the worst thing they do. This doesn’t mean liberals are always less cruel than others, but it does mean that when we see we have been cruel, we regret it. We recognize that humans are prone to be cruel, and, for liberals, that's the worst in us. Nonliberals have a different idea of what is worst: such as dishonor -- and a particular conception of "weakness" is usually involved in the idea of what is dishonorable. On that view, it's better to be cruel than dishonorable. It's a fundamentally different orientation to life.

Now a new level of harsh and cruel anti-immigrant policies are being implemented – and we face the reality that a lot of our neighbors support those policies – and don’t regard cruel as a criticism. Indications are: they rejoice in it.

Next week’s sermon will be “You, UU, and Social Justice.” I’ll talk about the ways that we do resist and can resist. Today, I want to talk instead about how we open our hearts to make ourselves more compassionate, more ready to reach across borders and walk across borders. Today our question is: What can I do to commit myself to loving-kindness across borders? The first step in standing up against cruelty is making ourselves less cruel.

I’ll look to the Book of Ruth for an instructive parable for us. Before I get to that, let’s take a moment to be clear about what exactly borders are – and what they’re for.

Two things: you need a border, and it needs to be porous. A cell has to have a cell wall to hold it together – but it has to be a porous wall. We have to have skin to hold us together. And the skin needs to be porous. It needs a flow coming in and out. We die if we don’t have skin holding us together, defining us and making us a definite thing. We also die if we are sealed off and nothing goes in or out. We need to let in, and let out, air and nutrients.

The average human adult has 7 million pores on their skin: 5 million hair follicle pores that secrete oils, plus 2 million sweat gland pores. Your pores secrete and also take in – which is how, for example, nicotine patches work. You have to have boundaries – definition. And there has to be a flow through those boundaries – just to be biologically alive.

But we humans are also social animals– in fact, hypersocial animals, as I have often said. We need communication, connection flowing in, out, and through. We need ideas and love to flow in, to flow out, and flow through us – or we perish. Through our connections, we form ourselves into groups, and the group also needs a definition, a boundary – some way to identify itself and be identified as a group. We need to belong, and our belonging requires a sense of US. So borders, boundaries, and belonging are wrapped up in each other. You don’t know who you are if you don’t know whose you are.

But the group’s border also needs to be porous: to take in and to give out. Whether the group is a nation, or a congregation – a trade union, sports team, or a gender or ethnic identity -- its definition of itself cannot be rigid or static, but must be somewhat ambiguous, vague, and evolving -- without being too much so.

For the last three years now, Ukraine has been trying its darndest to defend its borders – to fight off and push out an incursion that threatens its existence. But fending off a very real organized hostile takeover attempt is one thing. Delusions of takeover from imagined dangerous others are quite different.

Fear – for our individual person, or for the group which is our belonging – heightens focus on our border, on protecting ourselves by shoring up that border however we can. Fear morphs from a useful tool, blaring a warning when needed, to a pervasive condition: consuming and debilitating. Here in the U.S., division and polarization tears us apart. There is fear of the other in anti-immigrant attitudes, and in the cruelty of our policies toward people who live in different, poorer neighborhoods. There’s fear of the other driving every form of white supremacy, misogyny, and colonialism.

A few years ago, for the 2021-22 church year, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Common Read that year was Zach Norris’ Defund Fear – or, as it was originally titled, We Keep Us Safe. Zach Norris points out that what really keeps us safe is – or would be – good schools, good jobs, effective affordable health care, clean and safe drinking water and air, safe roads and bridges. Funding for what really keeps us safe has been eroding for decades. Instead, we’ve been erecting a more and more pervasive framework of fear, the four key elements of which are deprivation, suspicion, punishment, and isolation.

We’ve been erecting and fortifying borders to keep THEM away from US. This has only reduced our safety. Our fears grow and grow, fueling counterproductive reactions that further reduce our safety in a vicious cycle. Instead we need to cross borders, reach out to whoever is, or has been perceived as, OTHER. WE keep us safe – as the book’s original title says – and we can do so only if we embrace a larger WE instead of fearfully shrinking our WE.

So what do we do about that? Well, Unitarian Universalists are doing a lot – there’s a lot of ways to join in – and I’ll be more specific about that next week. Today, I want us to pause a moment and look behind that question. Sometimes when we ask “what do I do about it?” – or “what does our congregation do about it?” – the question behind the question is: "How do I make other people agree with me? How do I change THEM?" We think: “I see the problem; I am not the problem. It’s those other people, people who watch the TV news of that reprehensible network, and who voted in these reprehensible leaders."

Thus the war between relatively privileged red America and relatively privileged blue America upstages the needs of the more-often-politically-disengaged poorer communities most at risk. The challenge for us is to find ways to cross two different borders – to open our hearts across the red/blue divide and across the class divide.

“How do we change the system?” is a good and important question, but we must always also be asking: how do we change ourselves? To help us think about that question, let’s recall together an old, old story – possibly familiar to you – about a woman who did cross a border, and the difference it made. Perhaps it will inspire you to creatively imagine a way that you might reach, and step, across a border that you have for too long treated as impermeable.

The story is that of Ruth, the Moabite, who crossed borders to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi as she returned to Bethlehem in Judah. I’m inspired to bring that story to our attention this morning because of the work of Padraig O Tuama and Glenn Jordan, two Irishmen who a few years ago began leading workshops bringing together people across the divisions of the Brexit issue. In the face of the deep and wide social and political divisions, O Tuama and Jordan led people through an exploration of the Book of Ruth. The story of her border crossing helped participants cross the borders that separated them from others. O Tuama and Jordan were looking for

“a story that might lead us to say things other than the things we are shouting at each other in the letters section of newspapers, comments sections of websites and social media, shouty parts of shout programs on radio and television” (Borders and Belonging: The Book of Ruth: A Story for Our Times xii).

In these polarized times, O Tuama and Jordan asked:

“Can we be held in some kind of narrative creativity by a story whose origins we do not know?”

The Book of Ruth, they found, offered just such a container of narrative creativity. The book of Ruth is short -- just four chapters – a drama in four acts.

Act 1. It’s the time of the judges. A famine comes to Judah. Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and their sons Mahlon and Chilion cross borders and go to Moab. Elimelech dies. The two sons marry Moabite women, but then, after about 10 years, the sons also both die. Naomi packs up to return to Bethlehem. Her two daughters-in-law expect to go with her, but she tells them to return to their own mothers and remarry. One of them, Orpah, reluctantly does so. But the other, Ruth, pleads: “Do not press me to leave you or turn back from following you. Where you go, I will go. Where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die – there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you.” So Naomi and Ruth cross the border and return to Bethlehem, and arrive at the beginning of the barley harvest.

Act 2. Word gets around Bethlehem of Ruth’s remarkable loyalty and devotion to Naomi. To support her mother-in-law and herself, Ruth goes to the fields to glean. As it happened, the field she goes to belongs to a man named Boaz, who, impressed by what he’s heard of the young woman’s devotion to her mother-in-law, is kind to Ruth. Ruth tells Naomi of Boaz's kindness, and Ruth continues to glean in his field through the remainder of barley and wheat harvest.

Act 3. Boaz, being a close relative of Naomi's husband's family, is therefore obliged by the levirate law (or may feel obligated by the spirit of that law) to marry Ruth to carry on his family's inheritance. Naomi sends Ruth to the threshing floor at night where Boaz slept, telling Ruth to "uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what you are to do." Ruth does so. Boaz awakes and asks her who she is. She answers, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your cloak over your servant, for you are a redeeming kinsman.” Boaz tells her there is a closer male relative. In the morning, Boaz sends Ruth home with six measures of barley, then he goes into the city.

Act 4. Boaz meets with the unnamed closer male relative whom he had mentioned. Boaz says, “Naomi is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our kinsman Elimilech. As the closest male relative, you have first shot at redeeming it if you want it.”
The relative says, “I will redeem it.”
Boaz says, “You will also be acquiring Ruth to maintain her dead husband’s name on his inheritance.”
Then the relative says, “I cannot redeem it for myself without damaging my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself.”
So Boaz redeems the property, and Ruth. Ruth and Boaz marry. They have a son named Obed. We are told Obed will become the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David.

To understand what this story is doing in the Hebrew Bible, first we need to understand what Moab means to the Israelites. Moabites are despised. As Glenn Jordan explains:

“In Hebrew folklore Moab was stereotyped as a place lacking in hospitality, and with some justification. There is a memory preserved in the words of the Torah from another time of hunger and distress. In Numbers 22, the Israelites, recently freed from Egypt, are travelling through the wilderness on the way to the land of promise and they camp in the land of Moab. There is a reference in Deuteronomy 23:4 to a request made by the people to the Moabites for bread and water. The king of the Moabites, Balak, terrified by the number of people he would be required to supply… refuses their request for aid and shelter. Balak even hires a man to pronounce curses on them as he expels them from his land.” (27)

So, the Israelites do not like Moabites. They despise them with a special vigor beyond their general distrust of foreigners. The sentiment is codified in Deuteronomy 23:3:

“No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”

And Ruth is a Moabite, as the text continually emphasizes. Hardly does the text ever say “Ruth,” without saying “Ruth the Moabite.” At one point, Boaz's fieldhand even describes her as, “Ruth the Moabite,...from Moab” --just to emphasize that her country of origin is not to be overlooked.

Yet Ruth’s devotion, her lovingkindness to Naomi, is clear. She declares: "your people will be my people." When they get to Bethlehem, Ruth takes the initiative in providing for them, saying, “let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain.”

And, the story tells us, Ruth ends up the great-grandmother of King David, Israel’s greatest ruler. She makes a big contribution to Israelite history.

But does the Hebrew Bible really need this story illustrating that foreigners can be decent people who make a positive contribution so we shouldn’t be hostile toward them? The admonitions were already in Exodus:

“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” (22:21)

And in Leviticus:

“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” (19:33)

Evidently that was not enough, and to see why, we need to look back to what was going on in Judah around the time when the Hebrew Bible was taking its form.

By about 601 BCE, the kingdom of Judah was a vassal state paying tribute to Babylonia. Judah made a series of attempts to escape Babylonian dominance. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia laid siege to Jerusalem in 597, and again, 10 years later, in 587. He razed the city, destroyed the walls, demolished Solomon’s temple, and exiled the Jews to Babylonia. About 50 years later, Persia conquered Babylon, and Cyrus, King of Persia, decreed that the Jewish people return to Jerusalem. It was during the period of Babylonian captivity, that the Hebrew Bible began to form as various oral and written traditions were brought together.

Just after the exile, further writings were added – in particular the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra the priest and Nehemiah the governor were the two best-known leaders of the Jewish community in the years just after the return to Jerusalem. In the books for which they are named, we read that Ezra insists on obedience to the Mosaic law’s separation from non-Jews, and that Nehemiah encloses Jerusalem with a wall and purges the community from all things foreign in order to build a distinctive Jewish identity.

It's in that context that this little story of Ruth, which had probably been a part of the oral tradition for a couple of centuries, got written down and emphasized, so much so that it became scripture. I’m saying maybe the Book of Ruth is in the Hebrew Bible specifically to push back against the rather xenophobic outlook of Ezra and Nehemiah. As Glenn Jordan writes, there may be

“occasions in history when the proper response to the times is not another war or new legislation, not even an election, but a work of art. In this case, the process of gathering an oral account and committing it to writing stands in front of the juggernaut of history in an attempt to divert the hearts of people towards some lasting values, and to remind them of their better selves.” (47)

So maybe that’s why this story is there: to address a felt need to counterbalance Ezra-Nehemiah. In the face of the insularity and division and the border-enforcing of Ezra and Nehemiah, we needed Ruth, the Moabite, the immigrant, the border-crosser, to call us back to our better selves.

There’s Nehemiah proclaiming, “We will not give our daughters to the peoples of the land or take their daughters for our sons” (10:30), but a few books away there’s Ruth the Moabite standing before us to say, “Excuse me?” While Deuteronomy had said, no Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord even to the tenth generation, the Book of Ruth tells us that the great King David was just three generations down from a Moabite.

So if you're asking, "What can I do about divisions all around us, and the mistreatment of people on the wrong sides of those divides?" and what you mean is, "What can I do to change those other people who are so foolish and pigheaded as to disagree with me?" then I don't know if that can be done. But if you're asking, "What can I do to commit myself to the open-hearted devotion and loving-kindness across borders that Ruth exemplified?" that is a more promising question.

And if that's your question, let me turn it back to you: What can you do? You yourself can best answer that -- if you set your mind to answering it. May that question, and not our fears, command our attention -- that question: What can I do to commit myself to loving-kindness across borders? May this question be our guide. Amen.