Posted on

Second Naivete: The Mystical Way Of Faith

 Preached to the First Parish Church of Norwell, MA Dec 6, 2009

 It’s that magical, mythical time of year again. Virgin births and super novas shining directly over a little barn, angels crashing through walls to make shocking pronouncements, roly-poly men with white beards in red suits flying through the sky in a sleigh pulled by reindeer.

 

Said the little lamb to the shepherd boy,
“Do you hear what I hear?
Ringing through the sky, shepherd boy,
Do you hear what I hear?
A song, a song high above the trees
With a voice as big as the the sea,
With a voice as big as the the sea.”

 

Do you hear what I hear?

 

Well, sometimes the answer is just “no.”  The word from researchers lately is that some of us are genetically programmed to have a rational view of life, and others are born with a gene that makes them more prone to a mystical experiences of the transcendent. I hope this will come as good news to all of us, who join in a free religious tradition that is not invested in our believing the same things, but in seeking and creating together inner peace, higher consciousness, intellectual challenge, compassionate community and spiritual depth wherever we may find it, by whatever name we may give it.

In our religious tradition, we teach that the key to healthy community is not to get everyone theologically on the same page but to get on our own page in a healthy and mature way.  So if someone identifies as an atheist and someone calls himself a Christian and someone else says he is on a Buddhist spiritual path, we consider that a private matter, an expression of individual calling lived out in community. With this new research on the so-called God gene, it may prove true that not only is it emotionally  hurtful and even abusive to expect an entire population of people to all arrive at the same conclusion regarding the nature of the ultimate, but a violation of their actual biological composition!

The Dalai Lama has said that his religion is kindness. For those of us who dwell together in covenanted community in the bonds of fellowship and love holding a wide and delightful variety of beliefs and experiences, that definition of religion holds a lot of promise.  Our religion is kindness, we may choose to say. Our religion – and our aspiration — is service. Our religion is a push, a pull, a prophetic challenge, and an invitation to look at the world as it is and to love it anyway.

But here we are at a time of year that plops us plumb in the middle of all of that supernatural, unbelievable stuff that I just mentioned: those ancient stories and those song lyrics that we hear and we sing and that remind many of us of the kind of religion that we are not interested in practicing and that, in fact, many of us fled from.  That’s not true for everyone, of course – for some folks, all those stars and all that magic, the flying reindeer, the baby in the stable, the Wise Men trekking across the desert is a delight, a source of treasured memories, cherished tradition and spiritual nourishment.  For others, it’s dear and quaint and fine… just so long as we don’t have too much of it.  And there are those who endure this season of songs and stories with irritation and gritted teeth until it’s over.

 

There was a time in my own life that I was a teeth-gritter and endure-er of sacred stories, especially Christmas stories. I could not understand how otherwise intelligent people in a scientific age could so earnestly give over their rational minds to the ancient mythos of the holiday.  Every year, practically my entire town gathered near Christmas at a place called “God’s Acre,” which was much like our village green in Norwell, only if you put three more churches around it.  There was a Congregationalist church, a Methodist Church, and I think a Baptist church – all white, all with New England steeples – and in the center of God’s Acre there was always an enormous Christmas tree lit up by a thousand lights.  Beautiful. We would stand in the cold and sing all the old classics – “Angels We Have Heard On High” and “O Little Town of Bethelehem” and “Joy To the World.” I had very mixed feelings about the lyrics. In fact, some of them sent my blood to boiling – mostly the ones about “savior” and “King.”

It took a long time — a lot of thinking and studying and praying — and a lot of paying attention to the way that sacred stories operate in people’s lives for me to embrace those songs.  I now cherish them even as I smile affectionately at some of their theological excess.

In my spiritual journey from fundamentalist rationalist to the skeptical, reverent mystic that I am today, I was helped very much from by philosopher Paul Ricouer’s notion of “second naïveté.”  Before I explain what that is, let me introduce it with a story that will help lead us there.

 

When I was in Romania last spring, I traveled to a small city near the village where my grandfather was born. I had one day to find his village, and because I had been robbed in Bucharest and was having bureaucratic trouble with Western Union , I had only a tiny bit of money.  The hotel staff in Fagaras helped me write out a little script in Romanian that would help me explain to a taxi driver where I wanted to go and how much money I had.  They then hailed me a taxi.  As luck would have it, I wound up getting picked up by the only English-speaking taxi driver in the entire city. His name was Gabriel Gulu, and he was very excited to have the opportunity to practice his language skills.  I wondered right away about the coincidence of finding an English-speaking taxi driver who happened to share a name with the most famous angel in the gospels.  I learned that Gabriel was born on Christmas Day.

Part of the story is that Gabriel found my grandfather’s village and spent the day chauffeuring me around the region, took me to his home for lunch, introduced me to his mother, his daughter and his wife, picked me up for dinner that night, and insisted on driving me almost four hours the next day to Sighisoara, where I would be rendezvousing with Rosalie Vida, our minister in Kadacs.

He was an angel.  As we drove to Sighisoara, Gabriel told me the story of his daughter Amalia’s birth.

In 1992, Gabriel and Donna married on Christmas Day, which is also Gabriel’s birthday.  The priest was unhappy with them because in the orthodox calendar, December 25 is a fast day, and it is inappropriate to have a feast or celebration on that day.  Gabriel and Donna, being modern people but with no desire to insult the church, decided not to have a church wedding and were married at City Hall instead.  They thought it a good compromise: they would have the Christmas anniversary they wanted and the priest would be appeased.

Several years after they married, Donna and Gabriel wanted to start a family but they had fertility problems. They saw every doctor in their town and then traveled to Bucharest to see expensive specialists (“More expensive than expensive,” Gabriel told me).  When Donna finally got pregnant, they were elated, and then cast into complete despair when she miscarried four months into the pregnancy. They visited the Bucharest doctor again who told them, “I have done everything I can do, and so have you. We have reached the limits of medicine. It is time to seek God’s help.”

Given that Romania has been under Communist rule for so long, this amazes me, but that is a direct quote.  Their doctor told them to seek God’s help.

Gabriel went to visit with a priest who is also a good friend.  His friend told Gabriel that he should search his soul for any offenses he may have committed against God.  Gabriel, a good and hard-working and honest man, could not think of anything at first. And then he began to consider his Christmas marriage in City Hall. He is not a superstitious man, he told me, but a faithful man. He and Donna re-considered what they had done. They didn’t feel that their marriage was anything but a blessing, but they decided no harm could come of being married again in the church, and so they were, thirteen years after their original union – this time in October.

Within the year, Donna was pregnant.  Amalia was born the following March.  She is a beautiful little girl and their pride and joy.

And so what does one say to this, or think about it? Coincidence? Good luck? Psychosomatic infertility?  Thanks for the nice story?

We certainly could think all of those things. One of the stages of faith development, whatever our genetic predisposition to the mystical or rationalist stance, is to critically reject all the articles of doctrine we learned and naively believed as children.  This is an important stage of faith, which leads us from mindless acceptance of harmful beliefs and doctrine to a more mature and considered evaluation of what the truth is for ourselves; according to the dictates of conscience and the knowledge earned through study, reflection and experience. From this place of maturity, I could have said to Gabriel, “Listen, I am so glad that you have Amalia, but I really don’t think God had anything to do with it (because God doesn’t punish people by withholding pregnancy from them).” Or I could have said, “Well Gabriel, you and Donna obviously had some sort of unconscious stress about your original Christmas Day wedding that prevented your conceiving a child, and it’s a good thing you engaged in a superstitious ritual so that you could release that stress and have your beautiful daughter. I’m so happy for you.”

 

Said the night wind to the little lamb,
“Do you see what I see?
Way up in the sky, little lamb,
Do you see what I see?
A star, a star, dancing in the night
With a tail as big as a kite,
With a tail as big as a kite.”

 

We need not think alike to love alike, said the 16th century Unitarian, Ferenc David.  And we need not see alike to love alike.  When kindness is our religion and our aspiration, what is required of us is not so much critical engagement but sympathetic engagement, curiosity, a willingness to share the wonder of another’s experience even when it is not our own, and even when we might not interpret its meaning in the same way.  Remember what Hamlet said to his friend? “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dream’t of in your philosophy.” In Paul Ricouer’s philosophy of second naïveté, we enter into the mystery of sacred stories not with the naïveté of one who can’t think for themselves, but by choosing to engage the poetic sensibility rather than leading with our critical, intellectual faculties.  More simply put, when we have reached the maturity of second naïveté – a kind of chosen innocence — we make a decision to abide together in wonder rather than to dismantle sacred narratives in an insistent search for rational facts.

In that taxi, from a place of second naïveté with my new friend, I could hear the story of Gabriel and his miracle child and simply be glad for his and Donna’s happiness. There are many more things in heaven and earth that I could possibly comprehend.  Why not a miracle?

There is a time, a place, and a way to analyze religious narratives for their literal truths, and a time not to.  The time to take a scalpel to religious claims is when they are made with the intention or the result of excluding, harming, dominating, or humiliating people, or any part of creation. The time not to is when a person or persons is cheered, uplifted, inspired to do good and brought to a place of deep gratitude and love by a story that may not be based in fact at all, but is nevertheless quite true.  We call those myths. We call them stories sacred stories. And as we grow older and wiser, we learn to hear them through the ears of the child; the child who is curious, the child who wants to be a good friend, the child who wonders. We do so in the name of the kindness we want to practice as our religion.

Posted on

Everyone Dies Alone

I seem to have had my first semi-viral Tweet with a response to the wonderful funny lady Leslie Jones, who is one of my Twitter (s)heroes after dealing with a universe of unbelievable hatred and abuse for daring to be a black woman starring in a remake of “Ghostbusters.” The spewing to which she was subjected was incredibly disturbing, and she left Twitter for a time. She’s back — she didn’t owe anyone that, but I’m glad she returned — and recently posted  a gym selfie with the caption,

Ok back to cardio. But confession I feel like I’m doing it for nothing. I know it not I’m healthy and look good but I really feel like “what’s it all for” if the people you want to notice don’t. I just feel like I might die alone. Sorry that’s pretty heavy today!!

That gave my heart a pang when I read it and I Tweeted back to her,

Leslie. I’m a minister + I can tell you that everyone dies alone. Be healthy for you. Don’t give so much power to men or objects of desire. Be your own romance. Get your own power back. I’m rooting for you.

BuzzFeed picked up the outpouring of support for the indomitable, delightful Miss Jones and featured my tweet at the top of the article, and right now my tweet has been “liked” around 1,400 times.

I’m glad. If anything I’ve ever said was going to get that much attention, I’m glad it’s my for one of my signature beliefs and messages:  being alone is the human condition and it’s not a punishment or a failure. Embrace it.

I speak as a convert. All the adult years I spent in the quest for a significant other were characterized by frustration, insecurity, fear and a sense of being untrue to my authentic self. I have always had a melancholic temperament but debilitating depression went away when I stopped seeking a mate.

This does not mean that I am without male companionship and it does not mean that I have chosen a celibate life. It means that my esssential assumptions and expectations have changed. Men, dating and relationships have a tiny portion of the power in my life to distract or distress me that they once did. My orientation has almost completely flipped: I very rarely care if men approve of me. I  care to know whether or not I am interested in them, if I approve of them, if I am attracted to them, and whether or not I want to remain in relationships with them.

Why this should be so radical well into the 21st century (and especially for a fat woman– we are assumed to have no self-esteem) is a sad mystery, but patirarchy is tenacious.

Many Tweeteurs liked and affirmed my message to Leslie Jones, but I became fascinated by one negative response by an odd stranger who accused me of “preying on” Jones with “religious talk” when she was down.  Apparently my cheerleading seemed to this person to be peddling of some kind of salvation scheme. I can’t for the life of me imagine what. But this weird accusation led me to consider the question of how much my religious commitments and experiences inform my positive perspective about solo life?

A lot, as it turns out.

First, community. My experience of church life has been interesting, exciting, fulfilling, emotionally challenging and satisfying, spiritually deep, and characterized by loyalty, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. It has been encouraging and outward-focused in a way that I always craved feeling with an intimate partner.

Although the mainline Protestant church has declined in numbers and availabiity of volunteer commitment in recent decades, it is now a truly voluntary community of those who really want to be there. This is a cultural shift from the days when affiliation with a house of worship was fairly de rigeur, just part of respectable citizenship. Church-going and religious participation were rote. I love that the people who are now part of church life are almost outlaw, especially in secular, liberal New England where I live and serve. They want to be in community. They take relationship seriously. They mostly really want to learn and grow.

The sense of vitality, energy, and intensity I feel in the religious communities is something I have almost never felt in a romantic relationship. I am glad that many people have, but it hasn’t been my experience. My experience has always been that partnered life constricted me. Community life makes my horizons larger, not smaller.

There is also the matter of Jesus, who is a moral exemplar and more to me. Jesus was not partnered to one person and explicitly challenged kinship models of family, expanding its definition to include all those who are in fellowship in a common spiritual purpose and ministry.

Kinship loyalty for the sake of contrived familial loyalty is  tribal and often harmful. I remember years of trying to drum up affection for a boyfriend’s parents, whom I found to be vapid at best and close-minded bigots at worst.  Free from trying to make myself appealing to a man’s parents or siblings, I prefer to make my family among a wider circle of intimates: friends, church folk, the theatre community. I gravitated at a young age to the LGBTQ community for its “We Are Family” ethos, and I still feel far more at home in the queer community than in heterosexist spaces where I am disapproved of or looked at with pity or suspicion for being solo, never married and intentionally and gratefully childless (I remain forever grateful to both of my parents for never assuming that married life and motherhood was my destiny).

So it turns out that my advice really did have a bit of a proseletyizing in it, just not the way that person accusing me of that assumed!

In 2018, the #MeToo movement is not only about the endless daily harassment to which women have been subjected, it is a take-down of a phony partnered love salvation scheme that breaks just as many spirits as does bad, excluding, judging theology.

I have my days like Leslie Jones does, but not often and the feeling of being bereft of love passes quickly. It doesn’t last because I have overcome the impoverished definition of love that I inherited from our sad, lonely society.  Erotic, romantic energy has been defined solely as something that two people experience that leads them into the bedroom.  I’m not knocking that kind of erotic energy — it’s fun while it lasts! But I want to promote a broader appreciation of the erotic that has to do with energy, intensity, full engagement of body, mind and soul that occurs whenever we connect with others in ways that fosters trust, happy memories, shared goals, and emotional closeness.

Americans are over-fed on stories, shows, songs and movies about the lover who makes a gargantuan and sometimes foolish effort to convince the one perfect love interest that he is worthy — think John Cusack as Lloyd Dobler holding the boombox over his head in “Say Anything.” Please see me! Please love me! Please complete me!  Why give so much power to one person? How do you know for sure they’re worthy of that trust?

Also, Lloyd, if you wake me up playing Peter Gabriel outside my window I’m going to be hella mad. I have work in the morning and it matters to me that I get a good night’s sleep. You want to be make a grand gesture? Offer to walk my dog while I officiate at a funeral for a young man. Make me dinner. Listen while I vent. Don’t harass me and irritate the neighbors.

Seriously, though? Everyone: take your metaphorical boombox everyplace and play your songs wherever you are.  Just play your song and see who shows up to dance. It might be a stray cat. It might be an elderly woman who has the time to chat, and needs to.  I know this sounds corny but I promise you that it is eminently worth the effort to dismantle the romance myth that the culture installed in all of us like software at our birth. Not all of us were meant to live out that story.  There are thousands of other ways to live fully and with plenty of love and sexiness, if you don’t define sexiness as sleeping with the same partner every night (and reports from the front lines of that aspect of partnered relationships aren’t great!).

Ultimately, as I said to Miss Jones, we go into our caskets one at a time. Even the rare birds who mate for life (and I have known many in my years of ministry) wind up with one at bedside and one taking their last breath, and one is left to rely on their own strength and community relationships to see them through what comes next.  The fact of this matter is why I always bristle when I hear the expression, “You’re going to die alone,” as a kind of threat or insult. It’s no insult. It’s no threat. It is just reality.

We die alone. We may have a spouse at our sides when we do, or that person may be in a nursing home lost to Alzheimer’s. That person may have predeceased us. We may be divorced  and have children by our side. We may be divorced and be estranged from children, or have children who are busy with their own children and in-laws across the country, or have jobs that prevent them from being with us. I have seen all of these things in my ministry. They are exceedingly common, not unusual or tragic. They are the way life works out.

There is no need to keep relying on the appearance of a hypothetical Wonderful Significant Other on our life stage to get on with a thrilling, fulfilling production.

 In Terrence McNally’s play, “Lips Together, Teeth Apart,” one woman character, who is a mother, tells another woman, who is not a mother but wants to be, how to deal with children.  Chloe says, “Don’t be intimidated by them, like they were something special. They’re just little people. That’s all you have to remember about them.”

It’s the same thing about objects of desire: they’re just people. Whether an actual person you’re fantasizing about or an idea partner you’ve concocted in your imagination, we are all  just people.  No one can — or should want to — save anyone else from what John Keats called “the vale of soul-making,” or the path of individuation that, done well and with an openness to many sources of love, leads to no regrets at the end of life or bitterness in the midst of it.

There are many significant others for all of us. Some of them drop into our lives for one beautiful hour, some for decades. Please don’t miss the beauty and romance of this experience by pining for that one fantasy partner who may or may not ever manifest in your life.

Much love to you, Leslie, and everyone else.

 

Posted on

Dear Unitarian Universalist Search Committees

‘Tis the season for search! And since I am not in search, haven’t been for five years and do not intend to be for the forseeable future, let me spill some tea for those of you dedicated laypeople who are serving on your congregation’s search committees.

I am going to be blunt because that’s my style and because we are in a religious tradition that practices WASP emotional culture, which means that we often communicate in vague or excessively “nice” terms unless we’re outright arguing about something.  It is a communication style that privileges the highly emotionally controlled  and poker faced, and creates subtle power jousting in place of open and forthright conversation. I have always hated it (see Waking Up White By Debby Irving for an engaging personal analysis of white New England emotional culture).

If you don’t know what your team or your congregation’s emotional culture is or how it is informed by your congregation’s ethnic, racial, economic, geographic and historical context, I highly recommend working with Essential Partners, whose Executive Director, the Rev. Parisa Parsa is a UU minister and fantastic facilitator.

When it comes to ministerial search, UUs are pretty thoroughly grounded in 19th century mentality and archetypal consciousness. I know this because I have been studying the evolution of American liberal religious clergy archetype for decades (with particular focus on New England Congregationalist traditions, of which we are part) and I can confidently say that while UUs are catching up to the 21st century in some ways, we are very far behind that in terms of ministerial search and call: both the process and the way we evaluate ministers. We know intellectually that ministers have a very different job now than they did at the end of the 19th century, but our hearts and imaginations are still attached to the expectations of yesteryear.

We want a scholar who can wax eloquent on literature, the Bible, theology, and the latest Bill McKibbon piece. We want a warm pastor who knows everyone and makes a lot of personal visits (even though people are not home these days and if they are, an unscheduled guest is an unwelcome intrusion). We want our minister to attend all leadership meetings, all programs, all social justice actions, community interfaith organizations, and local events we’d like to see them at. We want a fabulous preacher and a creative liturgist. We want a whizbang financial expert and fundraiser. We want someone who is strong but not so strong that they can’t be controlled or managed by disapproval, we want someone visionary but not so much that they move us beyond our comfort zone, someone challenging but not too demanding, and someone spiritual but not too religious.

We want someone who is available 24/7 to respond to “my” e-mails but who faithfully observes their day off to model healthy self-care. Winking face emoji here.

The question, “How many evenings a week do you feel it is wise and fair to expect a minister to be out doing church business, and what do you consider church business” should be at the top of your interview questions. It will generate a crucial conversation, I promise you. I also promise you that this question will not have been part of the congregation’s survey, which asks the congregation what they want, and says not a word about what they intend to do to manage their own expectations or to contribute to the next minister’s effectiveness. Here’s a fun fact: when I was ordained in 1997, we got in touch with people in person and on the phone. Very occasionally, paper note or letter. Today, I respond to messages by phone on three phone lines and voice mail accounts, by e-mail, text message and Facebook messenger. Sometimes by letter. The resulting stress around keeping communications organized is profound and unprecedented in history.

Search Committees and church leaders need to know that ministry has changed radically since Ferguson for most Unitarian Universalist ministers. Please make room to have that conversation. Many of us have been engaged in anti-racism and social justice work and learning for a long time, but community organizing and engagement has become exponentially more intense and demanding since the election of Trump.

If I may make a side rant (and I am going to) I would opine that the Congregational Survey that accompanies the great Ministerial Search is actually a fairly appalling document, as it encourage individualistic, consumeristic notions about what a ministerial search really is and what it should accomplish. It leads each individual person who fills out the survey into a spirit of entitlement: “What would YOU like? What do YOU want to see?” and should be jettisoned in favor of congregational discernment led by leaders or facilitators over a series of community meetings so as to determine the congregation’s vision of ministry, mission and priorities. The outcomes and consensus from these meetings should be shared with the candidates, who then have a far more accurate sense of the job they’d be signing on to do than is provided by a collection of personal, individual opinions.

All that said, my love and respect and gratitude go out to you, Search Committee members! I am of the opinion that you are working way too hard and for far too long on finding your next minister, and that upsets me for you. You are sacrificing endless nights and weekends to a ridiculously overwrought and prolonged process that was designed during an era when ministerial tenures were far longer than they are today, when the church enjoyed a place of prominence in society that it no longer has, and when reasonable expectations for volunteer engagement were completely different than they are now.

I am not sure what the average tenure is for Unitarian Universalist parish ministry but I believe it’s around six to eight years. This means that congregations are responsible around every five or so years for recruiting a Search Committee that will labor for one to two years to settle a minister who serves for only three or four times that long. Something’s gotta give, and I am looking forward to seeing what UUA Settlement Director, the Rev. Keith Kron, and others, figure out.

Dear Search Committees, the internet has changed everything about the way we do search. Much of it is positive development, allowing ministers and lay people to know more about each other, to explore the wider communities each one comes from, and to share materials extremely easily. I think this is a wonderful thing, and I remember with gratitude and fondness how often the Search Committee Chair of my current congregation and I checked in about small details relating to pre-candidating and also larger questions about each other. I was able to ask her questions for the entire committee that she was able to respond to within 24 hours. This rapidity was a help in our discernment process.

And yet the internet has also opened the door to many legitimate questions regarding public ministry, use of social media and published materials on websites. Please leave room in your interview process to explore these topics. Some questions you might consider are: Continue reading “Dear Unitarian Universalist Search Committees”