PeaceBang

Walter Bruegemann on Covenant As Subversive Paradigm

I feel more than a little bit stupid that I have never seen this article before. Here I am writing my doctoral dissertation on the relevance of covenant in the 21st century church and wondering why I should even bother now, given that Bruegemann has just said pretty much everything I want to say in eight pages.

I remember feeling this way about seventeen years ago when I was trying to articulate my personal theology and came across Emerson’s essay “The OverSoul.” After I read it I felt mighty dumb for having believed that I had ever had one original theological idea. I started divinity school and people would ask me for my Big Statement of Faith, you know, and I just wanted to hand out “The OverSoul” and say, “What he said.”

I still feel that much that way about my BFF Waldo’s essay although my theological ideas have been greatly influenced by becoming a Christian shortly after discovering it. You might wonder why. All I can say is that it was not a conversion experience so much as it was a response to my direct experience of God’s presence in my life and in the world.

I believe that creating a covenant is a way a community can respond to their shared experience of God’s reality and presence.

And I keep reading because frankly kids, I’m terrified to start the writing process!! But I’m presenting a chapter in class next week, so it’s time to put my fingers to the keyboard and produce some thoughts of my very own.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

The Sexed-Up M&M

I took a little break from reading, writing and researching tonight and kicked back to watch a bit of mindless telly. Granted, I was flipping through a few books in search of readings for Sunday’s service so I can’t say I was watching very closely, but I THINK I saw a commercial for M&M’s candy where the green M&M (remember? The one that we used to say made you –*snort, snort*- HORNY?) was wearing pantyhose, sexy high heels and lipstick. I think she was being leered at by the blue and brown and yellow and red M&Ms.

In my best Fred Craddock accent, I’d like to say “Nowwww, tha’s jes’ wrong. Tha’s jes’ wrong.”

I look up, I squint. The dog is flopped across my lap half asleep and I’ve got a book in my left hand and the remote control in my right. “Max, did you see that? Was that a sexed-up M & M?”
…
I’m reaching back in my memory for candy commercials that sexualized candy and I can think of the Starburst campaign of about 20 years ago and the famous “When I eat a York Peppermint Patty…” spots from the 1970’s, which were funny and tongue-in-cheek. I don’t think I’ve yet seen an advertising campaign that turns a piece of candy into a female character, puts lipstick and pantyhose on it, sticks it in high heels, and has it fling its leg in the air to be ogled by other, male, pieces of candy.

Way to go, whoever came up with this. Because we don’t have enough sexist objectification of actual women in advertising — now we have to turn inanimate objects into sexy babes so we can objectify them, too.

Pass the Skittles. And the remote control, while you’re at it.

[Update: I guess I forgot about this spot, which shows that Miss Green has been M&M’s “sexy” candy for a long time.

Wow, check this out. Miss Green is popular overseas, too. I doubt this is a legit commercial, but it’s interesting how the idea has traveled, no? ]

Testing a Podcast

PREACHER’S COMMENTARY

I don’t know how this will work, but since I’d like to include little podcasts on this blog while I’m on sabbatical I thought I’d make a trial run without any help from Scott or Dan (although I know you’re both out there and willing to help, bless your hearts). In the future the podcasts will be short, pithy interviews with people, or just little musings from the road.

This podcast is something I call “Preacher’s Commentary.” The rest is self-explanatory. You can read the actual sermon here if you’re interested, or listen to it here, especially if you want to hear me warble “Tomorrow” at the end of the sermon (when the congregation joins in, bet you’ll get a big ole lump in your throat).

Hearing these, I realize we could be doing a much better job with sound quality, but this is a learn-as-we-go process. I’m pretty pleased with how much we’ve been able to do with a $40 digital recorder, actually. I also recommend recording, and listening to yourself if you’re a preacher, ’cause it’s pretty humbling. In this one, for instance, I caught a couple of factual errors (e.g., TVUUC is in the Thomas Jefferson District, not the Southwest District), a few grammatical mistakes, and a head-smacking moment of regret that I failed to mention all of the Sources of our liberal religious wisdom in favor of focusing on our Christian and Humanist heritage. Well, we’re works in progress, people. We’re works in progress.

PeaceBang Hearts “The Week”

I absolutely love this publication.
I cheer when it arrives in my mailbox and read it cover to cover as soon as I find the free time — and I always find the free time, because it’s that good.

Newman’s Own

I just learned that Paul Newman died yesterday.
My feelings for him have always been mixed up with my feelings for my Uncle Marvin — they were the same age, both total studs, and even remind me of each other physically.

Newman was a class act. He was one of the only celebrities to brand himself beyond the silver screen and not make an oaf of himself doing it. His products are great, he got on the organic bandwagon early, and made buckets and buckets of money for charity.

His long marriage to Joanne Woodward, herself a total class act, was admirable.

Newman lived for a time in the same neighborhood as my Uncle Marvin in Connecticut, and they played tennis together. Legend has it that I visited as a toddler, was swept onto Newman’s lap by the great actor, and promptly soaked my diaper on his knee.

Sorry, Mr. Newman.
We sure will miss you.

Friday Max Blogging

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I put him in day care twice this week.

A Sane Economic Proposal For a Change

Senator Bernie Sanders of VT has a bail-out idea that I like. I signed the petition and you can too, or disagree with his proposal in the comments.

Where ya all at lately, anyhows?

My Patriotic Sentiments of the Day, and Possibly the Year

Clay Comes Out

It’s hard for me to believe that one “Claymate” — as “American Idol” star Clay Aiken’s fans are known — felt that she had to stay home from work to deal with the emotional fall-out from his recent confession of homosexuality (through the pages of People, no less). Comedian Kathy Griffin has always mercilessly teased Aiken in her shows, calling him “Gayken,” and has received a tremendous amount of hate mail from the Claymates over the years for doing so. It’s not the teasing they minded — she is a comedian, after all — it was her incredulity that any woman could fail to see that this particular object of her swooning affection was never going to reciprocate. I can’t wait to see what Griffin will do with this news; I hope she considers being supportive and gracious rather than shrill and crass about it. I think she will. I think she’s a good kid under all that plastic surgery, Botox and red hair dye.

I am not a fan of Clay Aiken and I’ve never heard him sing, but he has a huge following in Red State America, so I appreciate and applaud his courage in coming out of the closet. No doubt some will criticize him for making this announcement so publicly, but given his tremendous popularity and the fact that his entire career has been conducted within a culturally schizophrenic environment (the show biz element rolling their eyes at his insistence of heterosexuality, the fans’ earnest adoption of him as a hetero heartthrob), I think the guy did what he had to do. He’s a dad now and says that the birth of his son was the catalyst for his honesty.

Good on ya, Clay. Maybe you’ll give others the courage to do the same, and maybe you’ll convert a few homophobic fans who now “know” a gay person and are going to confront for the first time what it means to irrationally hate someone you love, for loving whom they love.

(yes, we knew)

The Basic Human Covenant - A Sermon

Given at First Parish Unitarian Church in Norwell, MA
September 14, 2008

READING from “Our Covenant” Alice Blair Wesley

We human beings are promising creatures, in the sense that we can only do great and worth things – indeed we can only survive – when we make and keep promises of loyalty and faithfulness to the ways of love with others. For distinct and different as we are as individuals, we are also thoroughly social creatures. The options and choices we have as individuals are effected and affected by those of others; our decisions and actions and inactions effect and affect many others. None of us can fulfill our promise as individuals without the faithfulness and loyalty of many others. Therefore, the aim of our worship services is a renewal of our sense of gratitude for and loyalty to the spirit of love which summons and creates and re-creates right loyalties within us.

The mutual spirit of love is alone worthy of our greatest, our ultimate loyalty. For when we kill it, life loses its savor and we open ourselves to destructive, deadly evil, unworthy doing.

We human beings, especially in a culture so complex as ours, are part of many communities. We need one – our freely covenanted church community – in which our purpose is to be reminded of, and to take account of the promising character of human beings in the widest possible sense, that we may answer the summons, the call of all that is holy, to live with authenticity and integrity and joy and resolve.

THE SERMON “The Basic Human Covenant” Rev. Victoria Weinstein

I’m going to start in a strange place, with some thoughts about capital punishment. I was having a conversation with a friend about ten years ago, and we were talking about serial killers. I said that most of the time I really can’t support capital punishment – but when someone totally violates the basic human covenant so egregiously, they deserve to die.

This isn’t a sermon on capital punishment (which I do not support… on most days). It’s about that word covenant, and what it means, and what it demands of us. I think that conversation with my friend was one of the first times I had ever used the word “covenant” in casual conversation. It isn’t the kind of word that comes up in typical chit-chat. I don’t know how or why it came out of my mouth – this was long before I came to this church and engaged in our covenant revision process with you. I remember feeling a bit startled as I heard myself say the words “violate the basic human covenant.” What did I mean by that? What is the basic human covenant?

Covenant is a serious word. It is weightier and more serious than the words agreement or promise, or even law or vow or oath. It is a weighty word and a solemn idea that, in the Western world, has its origins in ancient biblical history. Although all societies and cultures honor the concept of covenant, the idea of covenant as we know it in the West originated as a kind of legal agreement between God and his people as recorded in the books of Genesis and Exodus. The idea of covenant evolved over time to refer to a spiritual commitment voluntarily held between members of a community, and with the entire community and their God. There is therefore a horizontal dimension to covenant – between equals – and there is a vertical dimension – between a people )or a person) and Ultimate Moral Being, however one defines that.

That was the understanding of covenant which the men and women who founded this congregation had in 1642 when they covenanted to walk in the ways of faith and to do God’s will as best as they could understand and discern it together.

And so we do to this day. We have a congregational covenant that we revised in 2002, and we’re clear on what it asks of us. We affirm it every Sunday in our worship service, and I think it’s a beautiful statement that guides our sense of purpose as a community. There’s a lot more to our covenant than meets the eye, too. For instance, cultivating reverence is a simple phrase but it is not a simple task. You don’t look around you once, say “Wow, this is an awesome creation,” and be done with it. Cultivating reverence is the inner work of a lifetime. If we commit to an attitude of reverence, we see the world as an “ensouled” place – not just a playground for our happiness but a garden to tend with care and a sense of responsibility and stewardship. Sacred ground.

The rest of our covenantal promises are just as demanding and just as deep. If we all posted our covenant on our fridge or bathroom mirror and referred to it every day to guide our thoughts, words and deeds, we’d be making a beautiful commitment with lasting benefits to ourselves, our families and our world.

With this in mind, let me share with you these beautiful words from the Book of Deuteronomy: “Therefore inscribe these words upon your heart: bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead, and teach them to your children-reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.”

But returning to the comment I made to my friend all those years ago: what did I mean when I said that someone violated the basic human covenant? I was so sure back then — but I’ll tell you something: I’m confused about that question today. I’m really confused about it. It seems that every time I look up lately, what I might intuit as the basic human covenant is being egregiously violated somewhere – and greed and nationalist zeal are almost always the cause, although sometimes it happens out of good intentions gone wrong.

Something that benefits one group of people has a detrimental or even destructive effect on another. Protect my freedoms and safety and totally violate someone else’s. Try to protect an endangered species and destroy the livelihood of an entire human community. Come to the rescue of one suffering region and use resources that therefore can’t be used to alleviate suffering somewhere else. Globalization has made the question of how to define the basic human covenant a monumentally difficult one to answer.

Is there a basic human covenant that transcends any group, any class, any race or creed, that is truly universal and universally agreed-upon? If so, please tell me what it is. Where is it written? Who got to write it, who signed onto it, and how do we all, globally, hold each other accountable to it?
Could we find a workable basic human covenant in a United Nations document? Is it best articulated in the Constitution of the United States, or the Declaration of Independence? How about the Ten Commandments, or perhaps in something Buddha or Mohammed or Jesus said?

Maybe the basic human covenant for the 21st century could come from the treaties of the Geneva Conventions. Or … our own Unitarian Universalist Seven Principles. If we beamed them up into space and they could be read or heard in every language by every person on this little blue planet, could we agree that they’d be the basic human covenant? Here they are, as a reminder. They are promises to affirm and promote:
• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I could certainly sign onto that with a drop of blood from my finger, and I know you could too. That’s why you’re here. But I’m afraid that not everyone sees things the way this community does. We’d have to endure a lot of revisions and deletions before we got a working document. When I think of how long that would take, how many hours of debate, how many translators working diligently, how many squabbles and how many angry walk-outs by various delegates of the human community (with no representation whatsoever by delegates from any other species), I get very sad.

Is it our destiny that some members of our species will always be alienated from some others?

This is a question-asking sermon, and we’re going to leave here this morning with more questions than we have answers. That’s not any more comfortable for me any more than it is for you, but some questions are just that big. I started to write this sermon on September 11, 2008 — a day heavy with horrible memories and with implications for what it means to affirm anything like a “basic human covenant.” I thought that I was clear on at least my own nation’s sense of basic human covenant before 9/11, but since that terrible event that plunged us into moral chaos, I have watched it erode like a sand castle as the tide comes in.

Was it just a castle built on sand in the first place?

“These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote Thomas Paine at the beginning of the American Revolution. He might have written, “These are the times that try men’s covenants.”
We live in such times.

Two things have become clear to me since 9/11. First, no matter what noble and carefully-crafted covenants humans make with each other, abject terror can and very likely will lead them to renounce them or to interpret them in “creative” ways that undermine their integrity. When that happens, it is of utmost importance for people in power to take responsibility for what has happened and to re-covenant together, humbly and in the spirit of reconciliation. When those in power model this moral leadership, the people can follow.

The second clarity I have about covenants since 9/11 is related to the first. It is simply this: covenants call us to live out the best of our natures, and will therefore necessarily be violated when people cannot or will not live into their best, whether for legitimate or for immoral reasons.

James Luther Adams, our great Unitarian theologian, reminds us that because we are not perfect beings, our covenants will not be perfect. He wrote that “[humans] are the only animal that makes promises. We are the “promise-making, promise keeping, promise-breaking, promise-renewing creatures.”

As I think about the myriad evils perpetrated by corrupt and contemptible individuals and institutions in the past century, my head spins. There is not a continent upon which we cannot find terrible oppression and devastation of people, of landscapes, of cultures, of human rights. I admit that I am complicit in some of it. Is this just the ancient story of human nature continuing as it has always been, and we just know more about it now thanks to mass communication? I don’t think so, but to make my argument would require another sermon.

I will argue this, though. As people of faith, we have an important choice to make and an important stance to take. I think it is this: in spite of evidence to the contrary, we must believe in the power of mutual promises, human covenants, to call forth something basically decent and honorable in the soul of a man, woman and child. We must believe, affirm and witness to the essential usefulness and goodness of making promises and crafting covenants and then earnestly trying to live by them.
Our covenants will not be perfect and neither will our living of them be, but if there is to be a center that holds in the madness of the modern world, it can only be found in the promise-making center in the soul of the human being.

Just words, you say? Not muscle-y enough?
I don’t think so.
I don’t think so.
There was a time when a solemn oath meant more than it does today.

I believe that there is a primordial desire in most men and women
to be regarded with respect and to be included in the honor roll of humanity.
Let’s keep faith with that. And let’s do more. Let’s bring that desire forth, let’s treat it as the greatest natural resource we have going for us, and let’s dare to build a vision of the future on the promise-making, promise-keeping form of life we call humanity.

(Note: This sermon was inspired in large part by Dennis McCarty’s article, “The Tyger & The Lamb,” UU World, Fall 2008.)