The No-Rehearsal Christmas Pageant

The “No-Rehearsal Christmas Pageant” is borrowed from Rev. Jory Agate of First Parish in Cambridge, and she got it from someone else; to the best of our knowledge, it is in the public domain. This version is rewritten and modified by Rev. Dan Harper for use at First Unitarian in New Bedford. Stage directions are given in square brackets [ ].

[Dan Harper begins in pulpit.]

The Christmas story is rooted in old, old tales of the winter solstice. In ancient times in Europe, when the solstice came, our distant ancestors sometimes told stories of a miraculous child born to return us to the light. Throughout the world, people tell stories of a child born to a royal family, or to an important and rich family, who would grow up to lead humankind into a time of truth and justice.

The early Christians adapted these stories of miraculous births — but they added a twist to the old stories. Their miraculous child was not the son of a king, but was merely the son of a carpenter; he was not the son of a wealthy queen, but was instead the son of a woman whose only wealth was her moral purity. And that Christian story has been told and retold innumerable times since those early Christians first began telling it 18 or 19 hundred years ago.

We are going to recreate the old story of the miraculous birth of Jesus this morning, but we are going to give it our own slant. We’ll draw on two early Christian accounts of Jesus’s birth, from the books of Matthew and Luke. Since we take the story of Hannukah seriously, we are going to make this a story of freedom and liberation. And drawing on our own Universalist heritage, we are going to make this a story of hope for all people.

Instead of just listening to or watching the story of the birth of Jesus, we are going to get inside it. Try to forget that you’ve ever heard this story before: even though you recognize the familiar characters, even though you remember the familiar plot, try to hear this story as if this if the first time you’ve heard it. At various points in the story, I am going to ask if some of you would be willing to come up here with me, and play the parts of some of the characters in the story. Don’t worry, you won’t have to speak! When I pause and ask for volunteers to play parts in the story, if you want to be in the story raise your hand, and I will call on you to take a part. Then you will move over there (always walking slowly and calmly) where Karen and Paul will dress you in a simple costume. Emma Mitchell [Director of Religious Education] will then place you in the growing tableau.

Ready? Then let’s begin…

[Dan heads down to floor microphone]

If you wish, close your eyes for a moment. Transport yourself to another time and another place. Imagine that a story is going to unfold before your very eyes, a brand-new story you’ve never heard before.

Imagine that after years and years of hearing stories about women and men bowing down before powerful kings and emperors and dictators and tyrants, you finally hear a story in which three powerful wise people kneel down alongside some shepherds before one tiny, new-born child.

Imagine that after years of hearing story after story telling of terrible wars, you are at last hearing the friendly story of a baby: the story of a humble carpenter and his wife, the baby that is born to them in a stable, shepherds in a star-lit field who go to see the new-born child, and peaceful animals who gather round in the stable where the baby lies in the cow’s feeding trough. Imagine that at last you are going to hear a story in which everyone is longing for peace on earth and good will to all persons, everywhere.

Imagine that after years of hearing stories about the results of hatred and oppression and persecutions, you finally are hearing a story about the transforming power of love.

Now slowly open your eyes. Listen and watch carefully. Let the story begin!

To start the story, I need someone to be Caesar Augustus, Emperor of Rome.

[Karen puts gold laurel leaves on Caesar, Emma places Caesar at pulpit.]

In those days, long, long ago, a decree went out from the Emperor, Caesar Augustus, saying:

“All the world should be registered so they can pay taxes to me!”

[Emma moves Caesar to stand beside pulpit on ramp, arms crossed]

Now I need two people, one to be Joseph, a carpenter, and one to be Mary, who’s engaged to Joseph. [Karen puts blue robe on Mary, and red robe on Joe.] Mary and Joseph, once you have your robes on, could you please walk slowly (because you’re making a long journey) up these stairs right here [point to stairs near floor microphone], along the chancel stage past the pulpit, and back down those stairs. Oh, and this first scene is a starlit night, so could everyone else please hold up your hands like this [show], as if your hands are twinkling stars…

All the people were required to go to the town where they had been born to register. For some people, that meant a long journey. Joseph, a carpenter, had to go all the way from the town of Nazareth in Galilee [point to rear of auditorium], to Judea, to Bethlehem, the city of David. He went with Mary, the woman he was planning to marry, because she was expecting a child. They started on their long journey, traveling by day, and sometimes even by night, their road lit only by stars.

Joseph and Mary knew it was not going to be easy, what with Mary almost ready to have her baby. At least they had a donkey that Mary could ride on. And at least the twinkling stars made the road seem friendly.

[Emma guides Joseph and Mary to chairs on platform, places Joseph and Mary on chairs]

Thank you for the stars — now that Joseph and Mary are in Bethlehem, you can put your hands down.

When Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem, they discovered that there was no room at the inn. But the inn was the only place in town with comfortable beds. The only place Mary and Joseph could find place to take shelter was in a stable cut into the side of a hill. So they settled in to sleep there among the animals.

Now I need some animals: a cow; a pig; two chickens; I’m sure there was a mouse; and since this was the middle east, let’s add a camel.

[Karen places animal noses on people, and send them up to Emma at the platform…]
[Emma places animals on steps next to Joseph and Mary]

The gentle animals welcomed Joseph and Mary into their stable. And that very night, the time came for Mary to give birth. It was a stable, so when the baby was born of course there was no cradle for Mary to lay her baby in. But one of the cows was kind enough to lend her feeding trough for a cradle, and Joseph and Mary laid their new baby there among the hay in the feeding trough.

Now I’m going to need two Shepherds. Of course, I will also need Sheep for the Shepherds to watch! And I need one person who is willing to be a Messenger from the God of the Israelites, also known as an Angel of the Lord.

[Karen puts robes over the two Shepherds. Four Sheep get Sheep masks from Paul, to hold in front of faces. Emma places the Sheep and Shepherds in the center just in front of the pews. Karen and Paul then get the Angel’s wings and halo on.]

In that region, there were shepherds who lived for months at a time out in the fields, watching over their flocks of sheep by night. They had to watch over their sheep because there were wolves in the hills that would gladly eat a sheep, if they could get one.

[Karen and Paul finish with Angel, Emma directs the Angel into pulpit, places step stool as necessary.]

On this night, as the shepherds stood watch in their fields, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and this angel was truly magnificent, and the glory of the God of the Israelites shone around the shepherds. Not surprisingly, the shepherds were terrified. But the angel spoke gently, saying to them:

“Do not be afraid, for I have appeared to bring you good news of great joy for all the people of Israel. To you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is the messiah. This will be a sign to you: you will find a child wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a cow’s feeding trough.”

Ah — I see we’re going to need lots more angels all of a sudden. Perhaps I could prevail on everyone in the congregation to stand for a moment, as you’re willing and able, face the Shepherds and Sheep, and act as a host of angels?

Then the angel who had spoken went on to say:

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth let there be peace and goodwill among all people everywhere.”

And there was a whole host of angels singing and praising God, and the shepherds were amazed.

Upon hearing the message from their God, and hearing the songs of the angel choir, the shepherds said to one another, “This is amazing! Let’s go up to Bethlehem and actually see the baby the first angel told us about!” Being good shepherds who cared about their sheep, they brought the sheep along.

[Emma directs shepherds and sheep to stand in front of Mary and Joseph]
[In preparation for the next part, Karen gets the three crowns for the three Magi and moves to the back of the church.]

So the shepherds went to Bethlehem with their sheep, and there they found Mary and Joseph and the new baby, just as that angel had told them. Afterwards, the shepherds would tell everyone what the angel had said to them about Mary and Joseph’s new baby, and everyone who heard their story was amazed.

As for Mary, she already knew her baby was wonderful. But she listened carefully to what the shepherds said, and treasured all she heard in her heart.

The shepherds and sheep gathered around the feeding trough admiring the baby. They praised their God for this wonder of new birth, and they prayed and hoped that what the angel said would come true — that there would be peace on earth and goodwill for all people, even for lowly shepherds.

Now I’m going to need three Wise People, who are also royalty. After you get your crowns at the back of the church, please begin walking slowly up the aisle, and stop at the first pews.

[Karen crowns the three Wise People, sends them down the aisle to Emma.]

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem, three wise persons, who were kings and queens from the Far East, came to Jerusalem.

As these three wise persons journeyed their long, slow journey to Bethlehem (actually, it took them 12 days to get there, which is why we talk about the twelve days of Christmas), they noticed that their way was lit by a large and bright star.

It looks like I’m going to need someone to be the Star….

[Paul gives the large Star, and sends the Star to stand by Dan.]

First the wise persons went to visit King Herod.

I’ll need someone to be King Herod, and you can stay seated right where you are.

[Karen will choose someone near the front to be Herod, by putting a crown on him/her.]

And these wise persons went to Herod and asked, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star in the skies and we have come to praise him and bring him gifts.”

The three wise persons learned from King Herod about a prophecy which had been spoken long ago, that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So the wise persons set out for Bethlehem, and as they walked, they saw ahead of them the star as they first had seen it in the Far East.

The wise persons followed the star until it stopped over the stable where the newborn child was lying in the cow’s feeding trough.

[Emma places three Wise People on the platform, just to one side of Mary and Joseph — wherever they fit.]

When the wise persons entered the stable and saw the new baby, they were overwhelmed with joy at this new life. They knelt down to worship him, and they opened their bags and brought out gifts of gold (because the crowns of kings were made of gold) and frankincense and myrrh (myrrh was what was put in the oil used to anoint kings).

Now we are done. Let us pause for a moment. Look at this scene. It is a special night, with stars and angels and shepherds and wise persons and animals. And they are all admiring a special baby that has just been born.

Why would all these people stand around for such a long time to admire a tiny new baby? There is only one reason I can think of — because the birth of a child always brings hope for the future. And for a people who lived under oppressive Roman rule, all the while longing for liberation, the birth of a child must have been fraught with extra meaning. Will this be the child who leads us to freedom? Will this be the child who breaks our bonds of slavery and establishes a reign of peace and righteousness?

So it is in our world today. In a world that sometimes seems hopeless, we still look with hope to the future. Every time a baby is born, we hope that this child will be one of the ones who leads us to a world of righteousness. And every time we tell this Christmas story, it reminds us that we must go out and work for liberation and justice. We — you and I — are the ones who are responsible for making sure the world is a better place for all the babies that are born.

As our cast of characters hold their places, let’s all sing together — both those sitting in the pews, and those up here with me — let us sing together hymn number 251, “Silent Night.” If you don’t have a hymnal, you can just sing the first verse over three times, or you can just hum the familiar tune. At the beginning of the second verse, I will signal to everyone up here to walk (quietly and calmly) back to where you were sitting.

The Teacher of Nazareth

This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2005 Daniel Harper.

Readings

The first reading this morning is from the Christian scriptures, the gospel attributed to Matthew, chapter 5, verses 38-42:

“38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. [NRSV]

[Additional readings, not included here due to copyright restrictions, were two poems by Derek Walcott titled “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen” and “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen, Part II.”]

SERMON — “The Teacher of Nazareth”

When I was about four years old, I remember asking my mother who Jesus was. Who knows what had started me thinking about Jesus. In my generation, most Unitarian Universalist four year olds didn’t hear about Jesus in Sunday school, because the educational theory current at the time held that four year olds really couldn’t understand Jesus except as some kind of mythical figure like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Maybe I had heard about Jesus from one of the other kids in preschool.

In any case, I have this vivid memory of standing in the kitchen asking my mother who Jesus was, and she gave me what I now realize was the quintessential Unitarian Universalist answer to that question, for that generation. She said, Jesus was a great teacher, perhaps the greatest teacher who had ever lived. I remember finding that answer quite satisfying. Being a Unitarian Universalist kid, I had absorbed the fact that Jesus wasn’t God, but I needed to know what kind of human he was. And since I knew my mother had been a teacher for a dozen years before she married, and her sister had also been a teacher, I felt comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a human beings somehow like my mother and my aunt.

I still think of Jesus primarily as a teacher; but my views are not widely shared in American culture today. Many Americans claim he was a part of God, and while some of those people might admit that Jesus was a teacher, they understand him to be an authoritarian teacher who was teaching us how to worship him as a part of God. Many Americans dismiss Jesus out of hand, and while they might admit that Jesus was a teacher of sorts, they would say that he was too authoritarian and his teachings are no longer relevant to us here and now. I believe it would be very helpful in today’s America for us religious liberals to reclaim Jesus as a human teacher whose teachings were not authoritarian but were designed to make us think for ourselves; that might be one of the biggest contributions

And what better place to start than some of the best-known of Jesus’s sayings, the ones we heard in this morning’s readings. Supposedly, these sayings came from a longer sermon called “The Sermon on the Mount.” The story goes like this:

When Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been arrested, he left Nazareth, his home town, and went to live by the Sea of Galilee. There, he began to attract followers, fishermen at first. He traveled around teaching in synagogues, and performing faith healing. Crowds began to follow him, although perhaps most of them were following him because of the rumors that he was a faith healer. In any case, at one point the crowds became so large, Jesus went up on a mountain and sat down, and those following him came up and sat down, too. And, so the story goes, he began to speak at length, giving what later became known as “The Sermon on the Mount.”

Did it really take place in exactly this way? Probably not. Scholars think the Sermon on the Mount is more likely to be a collection of material — some sayings of Jesus that were passed down by word of mouth, along with other material that later writers added in. Therefore, when we read what purports to be the Sermon on the Mount, we are probably getting a few things Jesus said, along with lots of others things that later people thought he should have said, or even things that later people wished he had said or wanted him to have said. But of all the things he was reported to have said in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, there are a few things that he probably actually did say; and what we heard in the reading today is quite likely to have been things Jesus actually said [according to the Jesus Seminar and others].

So let’s look at this morning’s reading, bit by bit, and see what kind of teacher Jesus was.

First of all, in this passage Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer.” What a crazy thing to say! What on earth does Jesus mean, “Do not resist an evildoer”? Of course we are going to resist evildoers! Evil is, well, evil, and we have to resist evil if we’re not going to let it get the upper hand. In fact, that’s one of the things I like best about the whole Jewish tradition. Unlike, say, Buddhism, which has a millennia-long tradition of ignoring tyrants and despots and such-like evildoers, the greatest figures in the Jewish tradition all resist evildoers: Moses stood up to Pharoah, all the prophets stood up to the injustices of their times. What is Jesus saying here? Is he saying that Moses was wrong? This is crazy talk.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s see what he says next: “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…” Sounds like more crazy talk, doesn’t it? Imagine if someone came up to you and struck you on your right cheek: you are not going to stand there and make your left cheek available to your assailant; you are either going to fight back, or run away. But Jesus is saying, do neither of those things. Do not run away. Do not strike back. Stand your ground, and present your left cheek for your assailant to strike. It’s really a pretty provocative act. An utterly crazy thing to do, and I’d never do it. But maybe one way to deal with violence is not to turn away, not to hit back, but to witness it with open eyes, because violence thrives on secrecy and deception.

Let’s look at what crazy thing Jesus says next. He says: “If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well.” Think about this for just a minute. Most of the people Jesus was speaking to would be wearing two pieces of clothing: a coat over a cloak. If Jesus were living here today, he would have said something like this: “If anyone wants to take your shirt and trousers, give him your underclothing as well.” In other words, Jesus is saying, don’t just give one article of clothing, give all your clothing so you are standing there naked.

This I consider to be an example of a joke told by Jesus. Bible scholars call this kind of joke a “case parody.” It’s a parody of a familiar scenario leading to a ridiculous conclusion. It’s exactly the kind of thing that really good teachers use all the time. It’s funny, and it makes you think. It breaks through your regular categories of understanding, and helps you to see the world in an entirely new way. Of course, it’s also ridiculous, like something out of a Woody Allen movie. It’s crazy-talk.

The talk doesn’t get any less crazy as Jesus continues: “And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” In those days, the Roman soldiers could force you to carry their gear for a mile, when they needed a break. It was a kind of political oppression that made people hate the Roman Empire. Jesus is saying, when you are forced to go one mile by one of the hated Roman soldiers, don’t stop at one mile. Keep walking, until you have gone two miles. More crazy-talk; crazy, that is, until you start thinking about it. If you go that extra mile with that Roman soldier, maybe he will begin to see you as a person with volition of your own, instead of just a faceless person to be ordered around. And if you walk that extra mile with the Roman soldier, maybe you’d start to see him as another person instead of as the embodiment of an oppressive government. Maybe it’s a kind of joke, but maybe the joke shows you that you can take charge of your own destiny, maybe even when you feel disempowered and humiliated.

Next Jesus says, “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” We lived outside Chicago last year, and I’d head in to the city once a week to go to museums or just get a shot of culture. There were homeless people everywhere, and Chicago being Chicago they weren’t at all shy about asking for money. I’d see homeless people on every block. No way could I have given them all some money, there were just too many of them. Well, I mean, yes, I suppose I could have given them all money, but as it was I limited myself to giving at least a dollar to one person every time I went in to Chicago.

Crazy-talk. Obviously, Jesus was making a joke. Only this time, maybe the joke doesn’t sound so funny, because you know what, I should have given something to every person who begged from me when I went in to Chicago. I should do the same thing whenever someone begs from me here in downtown New Bedford. It makes me realize that no one should have to beg for money, ever.

We could give money to everyone who asks for it. We could cooperate with the Roman soldier — or, in our time when fractious hate-filled partisan politics fill the air, we could think of our political opponents as people just like us, instead of demonizing them. We could parody unreasonable requests, turning them into a joke by stripping down to the buff. We could stand in unblinking witness of violence, refusing to let it escalate or to let it be hidden away.

We could do all those things, but we’re not going to. I especially want to say that if someone is indeed hitting you, please get help — call the cops, talk to a doctor or a minister, call a hotline — remember, Jesus did not know about domestic violence or rape hotlines, and remember that Jesus was a fallible human being who was probably not aware of domestic violence as he should have been. Nor are we going to do any of the things that Jesus tells us to do. However, while we are not going to turn the other cheek, just by saying that Jesus has made us think.

Dr. Martin Luther King was one of the people who got to thinking about Jesus’s teachings. He re-interpreted the idea of turning the other cheek so that it became non-violent action. It wouldn’t be such a bad world if everyone thought more like Dr. King. And that’s kind of the way Derek Walcott thinks in the two poems by him we heard this morning [“God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen” and “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen, Part II”]. Calling Newark, New Jersey, a holy place, as Derek Walcott does, that’s crazy-talk; but it makes you think, and maybe you wind up thinking that it’s true. That down-and-out guy on Sixth St., wearing the black overcoat and carrying methylated spirits? — he’s one of the Magi, he’s one of the sacred people. Not literally true, but poetically true.

Jesus taught by using some crazy examples, but he did not necessarily mean for us to take his examples literally. He didn’t give us literal precise answers to cover every eventuality. If we let him, Jesus can lead us to some deep understandings about the world, about what it means to be fully human.

The problem in today’s world is that people try to take Jesus literally. They try to reduce the teachings of Jesus to the lowest, simplest, easiest-to-understand set of rules and regulations. I am speaking here of fundamentalism in all its guises: the fundamentalism of the religious right that allows hate back into the religion of Jesus; the fundamentalism of a pope who claims that Jesus was against abortion even though abortion is never mentioned in the Bible; the fundamentalism of those who would dismiss the significance of Jesus’s teachings because they don’t approve of the teachings of fundamentalist Christians.

One of Jesus’s basic, fundamental, and most important teachings was, I believe, quite simple: and that was that nothing he had to teach was simple; that you can’t reduce truth to a few easy sentences, or to a short creedal statement. Jesus was teaching us that we have to think more deeply, feel more deeply, we have to become more fully human. He was a teacher who used poetic truth to make us think. That’s what we tell our four-year-old Unitarian Universalist kids about Jesus. Let’s tell the rest of the world, too.

All Kinds of Patriots

This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2005 Daniel Harper.

Readings

The reading, a poem about the horrors of war, is not included here due to copyright restrictions.

SERMON — “All Kinds of Patriots”

Today is the Sunday closest to November 11, Veteran’s Day, the holiday when we honor all those men and women who served in the armed forces of this country; November 11 is also Armistice Day, the day when we commemorate the signing of the 1918 armistice which put an end to “the war to end all wars.” But war is one of those topics we Unitarian Universalists struggle with. Some of us oppose all war; others of us believe war is sometimes necessary. So on this weekend when we honor veterans and commemorate the end to World War I, let’s explore what, if anything, we hold in common about war and warfare. Not that we’ll come up with a final answer this morning, but it’s the beginning of a conversation, the beginning of an exploration.

As Unitarian Universalists, we are firmly within the tradition of Western religion, and while individually we may find inspiration in other, non-Western, religious traditions, we are nonetheless each embedded in a society with deep roots in the Jewish and Christian religions. Thus it is that when a man like Martin Luther King asked us to consider who was our neighbor, we know he meant to refer to the teachings of Jesus, who is reported to have said, treat your neighbor as you yourself would like to be treated. Thus it is that we are all familiar with the teachings of the book of Exodus, which tells the story of how Moses led his people out of slavery and into the freedom of the desert; and the story tells how in the desert God appears to Moses and gives Moses a series of moral precepts, or commandments, including the commandment, “You shall not murder” [NRSV]; or, as this commandment is more familiarly (though perhaps less accurately) translated, “Thou shalt not kill.” [KJV] Therefore, as people of the Western religious tradition, we have gut-level knowledge of these two ethical teachings: treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated, and thou shall not kill.

Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the High Middle Ages and who was one of the greatest philosophers of the Western tradition, realized that these two moral precepts seemed to indicate that all war must be immoral. But in his book the Summa Theologica, he argued that in fact some wars can be considered just wars. And Thomas Aquinas offers three criteria to help us judge whether a given war is actually a just war or not. Let’s look at those three classic criteria for determining if a war is just.

For one of his three criteria, Thomas Aquinas writes that a just war must have a just cause:

“…[A] just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says: ‘A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.’ ”

In the ongoing discussion about the Iraq war, we have been hearing both pro-war and anti-war people repeatedly referring to this criterion. But this is a criterion we religious liberals are wary of using. As Universalists we are certain that love that will transform the world, not violence or vengeance. Therefore, while we might be able to condone warfare as a short-term necessity, it seems difficult for us to justify it in terms of vengeance or punishment.

Another criterion for just war, according to Thomas Aquinas, goes like this:

“…[I]t is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil…. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): ‘The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.’ ”

Again, this criterion for war remains current, and we’ve heard supporters and opponents of the Iraq war using it. We religious liberals like to use this criterion. With our strong emphasis on the dictates of conscience, we spend a lot of time thinking about intentions, and we well know that the best actions can be sullied by wicked intentions. But we are most likely to use this criterion at a personal level, for those who serve or have served in the armed forces: if your overall intention is honorable and good, by the dictates of your conscience, then your own military service is justified and justifiable. But while necessary on a personal level, this criterion does not seem to us to be a sufficient reason for going to war.

Which brings us to Thomas Aquinas’s third criterion for a just war, which requires:

“…the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior…. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers… so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies….”

As religious liberals, this particular criterion for just war is most problematic for us. Thomas Aquinas assumes here that society is based upon a hierarchy and authority that begins with God, who is the ruler of us all. From God, power flows down to ecclesiastical and governmental authorities, who rule masses of people, and finally trickles down to individuals. We religious liberals have a different vision of society that begins with the connections that bind us each to each; these connections lead us to develop covenants, explicit statements of how we are bound together, and the promises we make to each other; and ends with the possibility that any or all of us can have direct experience of the transcending mystery of the universe, from which experience we might be able to draw new moral and ethical insights to share with all those to whom we are connected, and with whom we are bound together by covenant. Therefore, we find that we religious liberals cannot really use this criterion to determine whether a war is just.

Indeed, we are not entirely comfortable with any of these three classic criteria for what constitutes a just war. As Unitarian Universalists, we have two ultimate authorities: first, our individual consciences; second, the communities to which we are bound by covenant. So our determination of a just war is made not because someone in authority over us says that a given war is just, nor because we wish to punish someone else; and while we require good intentions, good intentions alone are not enough of a reason to go to war. Rather, we look to our individual consciences, and to our abiding understanding of the transforming power of love.

Because we recognize the authority of individual conscience, we are going to find Unitarian Universalists with a wide range of understandings about what constitutes a just war. Among our ranks, we have many veterans who have served in the armed forces and who are proud of what they have accomplished through their service. We also have conscientious objectors who have refused to serve in the military on moral and religious grounds, and who are proud of their adherence to principle. I have talked with both veterans and conscientious objectors who say that their Unitarian Universalist faith gave them strength as they lived out their very different choices.

Therefore, as a religious lbieral I don’t think it’s possible to describe a war as just, any more than I can describe a war as purple, or fuzzy. If I describe a war as just, what do I say to the conscientious objector who feels all wars are unjust? If I describe a war as unjust, what do I say to the veteran who served honorably in that war? As a religious liberal, I find that I am not inclined to make some straightforward, abstract judgment about whether a given war is just or unjust. There is no easy determination; which is so often the case for us religious liberals — there’s no one easy answer.

Wars are big, messy. A soldier has a very different experience of war than does a child. As we heard in today’s reading, a child in Belfast in 1940 could be fascinated by the pieces of shrapnel she found; she must have had a very different experience from the pilot of the plane that dropped the bombs on Belfast. It’s impossible to reduce war’s bigness and messiness to the point where we can all them unequivocally just or unequivocally unjust. There are moral consequences of going to war; or of not going to war; and whatever action we take, we are bound to face up to those moral consequences. Any action we take is going to have good consequences and bad consequences. We make the best choices we can, but we can never make perfect choices, and so we often have to deal with the unintended consequences of our choices; and we have to deal with the consequences of the choices made by people we are in relationship to.

Nor can we pass off blame for unintended consequences onto someone else, but because of our understanding of relationships and of covenant we should not do that. I have opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and it would be easy for me to say that, because of my opposition, I am not responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib prison; but I have to accept responsibility for what happened there, because of my deep connections to this country. It’s easier to say, “Don’t blame me, I voted for John Kerry,” or to say, “People who oppose the war are destroying this country.” It’s easier to point your finger at someone else and say, “I didn’t do it — it’s them.” But if we’re going to get serious about the transforming power of love, we cannot divide the world up into “us” and “them.”

In our Western religious tradition, Jesus of Nazareth remains one of our most influential teachers and prophets. Jesus offered some cogent advice for healing human relationships. He said, treat your neighbor as you yourself would like to be treated. Herein lies the true core of our Western tradition. Treat your neighbor as yourself; and remember that every other person is, in some sense, your neighbor. When war happens, it gets in the way of us treating others as neighbors; and therefore we do all we can to bring war to a close and to achieve a just and lasting peace.

In the love for all human beings, therein lies healing for us all. In that direction lies the path to a just and lasting peace. We come to this place of sanctuary each week in order draw strength in these troubled times. May we use our strength to go out and heal the world, one human relationship at a time.