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.

Ecotheology at the Pond

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 this morning comes from the book Walden by Henry David Thoreau:

“A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature. The fluviatile trees next the shore are the slender eyelashes which fringe it, and the wooded hills and cliffs around are its overhanging brows….”

SERMON — “Ecotheology at the Pond”

The story of Henry David Thoreau’s stay at Walden Pond has entered our common mythology. Even though not many people actually read the book Walden, probably most of us know the outlines of the story. I’ve begun to think that story is pointing us in the direction of a new theology, and ecological theology or eco-theology. The story as it’s written in the book goes something like this.

Henry Thoreau had grown frustrated by a society that drove the divinity out of human beings: it is bad enough to be a slave in the southern states, but, said Thoreau, it is “worst of all when you are the slavedriver of yourself.” Thoreau looked around and saw that his neighbors were enslaved by owning farms, and holding down jobs, and having to work, work, work without time for reflection, without time for oneself. So he decided to try an experiment: he would go off into the woods where he would build himself a little cabin, and grow some of his own food, and pick up work as a day laborer when he needed some cash. His experiment was designed to show that it was possible to live comfortably while working only a few hours a day, leaving plenty of time for reading, contemplation, and spiritual growth.

With that object in mind, Thoreau got permission to live on some land near Walden Pond. He borrowed an axe from a friend and set to work building himself a cabin, which appropriately enough he moved into on July 4th, Independence Day, thus celebrating his independence from the slavery his neighbors suffered under. He planted a couple of acres with beans and other vegetables (he was a vegetarian, so he didn’t need to keep any animals) and picked up the odd job here and there. But mostly, he was able to devote his time to long conversations with friends, reading and study, writing, and (most importantly) spending time in Nature.

And then at the end of two years, two months, and two days, Thoreau decided it was time once to again become what he ironically termed “a sojourner in civilized life.”

Using conventional theological terms, you could say that Walden is a book about salvation. But Thoreau does not offer a conventional salvation story of the kind we’re used to hearing in our culture. Thoreau isn’t saved by his belief, and he doesn’t have to make an altar call. No angels descend from some heaven to redeem him, nor is he saved by the influence of some other person. Instead, he is saved by profound encounters: he is saved by deep conversations, by reading and writing, and above all by transcendent encounters with Nature. I happen to think this unconventional salvation story has a lot to offer us as Unitarian Universalists, so I’d like to explore this a little further.

First and foremost, Thoreau’s story of salvation suggests to us Unitarian Universalists that we don’t need to work so hard. I suspect this is the hardest message for us to hear because we Unitarian Universalists like to take the weight of the world on our shoulders, thinking that we have to solve all the world’s problems by ourselves. We are obsessed with doing social justice work, to the point where we believe we are bad human beings if we are not working on at least five all-consuming issues. We are obsessed with social justice work sometimes to the point where our entire lives become consumed with social justice, where we have jobs doing social justice and where our leisure time is consumed with doing social justice and our families become laboratories for doing social justice work and where all our friendships are centered around social justice projects — or if we’re not living our lives that way, then we think we’re bad human beings. We judge each other by these high standards.

But in Walden, Thoreau challenges this notion of ours. If you read Walden carefully, you realize that Thoreau is in fact engaged in social justice work the whole time he lived at the pond. In the chapter titled “The Village,” Thoreau writes:

“One afternoon, near the end of the first summer, when I went to the village to get a shoe from the cobbler’s, I was seized and put into jail, because, as I have elsewhere related, I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the authority of, the State which buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle, at the door of its senate-house.”

In other words, Thoreau engaged in civil disobedience because of his opposition to governmental practices. Then in the chapter titled “Visitors,” Thoreau writes in his characteristic mix of levity and dead seriousness:

“Men of almost every degree of wit called on me in the migrating season. Some who had more wits than they knew what to do with; runaway slaves with plantation manners, who listened from time to time, like the fox in the fable, as if they heard the hounds a-baying on their track, and looked at me beseechingly, as much as to say, ‘O Christian, will you send me back?’ One real runaway slave, among the rest, whom I helped to forward toward the north star.”

In other words, Thoreau’s cabin functioned at least once as one of the stops on the Underground Railroad. We’re also pretty sure that he was involved in the Underground Railroad in other ways, beyond helping that one real runaway slave to freedom.

Thoreau was deeply involved in social justice work, but I feel his social justice work arose from his religious convictions, not the other way around. It’s tempting to believe that your duty to doing social justice work is more important than religious introspection and reflection. But I’ve seen what happens to a person who fills his or her whole life with such duty: his or her whole life fills up with social justice work and there is no more room for him or her; the self disappears leaving an empty husk enslaved to social justice work. It’s one thing to go to jail and lose your freedom because you know what you’re doing; it’s another thing to become enslaved to duty, to be a slave with the hounds baying on your track and you wishing for an Underground Railroad to save you from yourself. Equally troubled are the people who are enslaved by guilt, who think (rightly or wrongly) that they don’t do enough social justice work. Guilt can put you in chains stronger than any iron.

So it is that Thoreau warns us against enslaving ourselves, warns us against living lives of quiet desperation, and he gives his own story as one example of how we might escape from all kinds of such slavery.

Which brings us to something else Thoreau’s story of salvation offers us Unitarian Universalists. Once we clear some space in our lives by freeing ourselves from the quiet desperation of always having to do something, we have the time and the space to engage in deep conversations. Thoreau said that was one problem with his small cabin:

“One inconvenience I sometimes experienced in so small a house, the difficulty of getting to a sufficient distance from my guest when we began to utter the big thoughts in big words…. The bullet of your thought must have overcome its lateral and ricochet motion and fallen into its last and steady course before it reaches the ear of the hearer, else it may plough out again through the side of his head.”

That’s one of the blessings of our huge old building: we have the space for our big ideas to ricochet around a little bit before we hear them. And it’s not just this big old grand room, but the other rooms, too. I’m always glad when I go into Social Hour that the ceilings are so high and the rooms so broad, notwithstanding the fact that we can’t afford to heat them adequately this winter, because I feel the need for all that room; I love Social Hour best when I hear big thoughts uttered in big words, in those big old rooms.

Nor need we limit our conversation to each other. One of the most remarkable things about Thoreau’s Walden no longer seems so remarkable: he wrote the book just a few short years after the first English translations of such classic religious scriptures as the Bhagavad Gita, the Confucian Analects, and the Koran; and in those few short years, Thoreau had already started deep conversations with all those texts. We forget how radical he was, having a religious and spiritual conversation that went beyond the Bible, and the Greeks and Romans, to include all the great scriptures of the world. No wonder he needed so much space for his conversations.

That’s two reasons why we need lots of space in our own lives. It requires lots of space to have a real conversation with another human being; we can’t have those conversations in a cramped space, because our thoughts will just plough through each other’s heads. And it requires lots of space to have conversations with the wisdom of the ages, with the great religious scriptures of all ages and all cultures. Lacking both these kinds of conversations, we become less than human. Lacking these deep conversations, we become automatons who thoughtlessly carry out tasks with which we have enslaved ourselves.

Which brings us to yet something else Thoreau’s story of salvation suggests to us Unitarian Universalists. In traditional Western culture, we have two most important types of relationships. First, there’s the relationship we have with each other; second, there’s the relationship we have with God. (These two types of relationships apply to atheists, too, because for Western atheists it’s critically important to show that humanity has a null relationship with God because there is not God.) These two types of relationships are summed up by Jesus, a figure of central importance in Western culture, when he says that we only have to worry about two commandments: we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to love God with all our hearts and minds.

Thoreau adds a third type of relationship: the relationship of humanity to Nature, to the natural world; and he puts this third type of relationship at the center of his book. In Thoreau’s story of salvation, our relationship with Nature is a saving relationship. In our reading this morning, Thoreau almost anthropomorphizes the Natural world, making a pond seem like an eye:

“A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature. The fluviatile trees next the shore are the slender eyelashes which fringe it, and the wooded hills and cliffs around are its overhanging brows….”

Yet Thoreau says it looks like an eye because in it we measure the depth of our own nature. So it is with any deep and abiding relationship: we become more human and more who we are through that relationship. To say this is to link our personal salvation with the salvation of Nature. With the Arctic ice cap melting and rain forest disappearing and species after species of animal slipping into extinction, we’re not just talking about some kind of abstract salvation, we’re talking about literally saving endangered species and whole ecosystems — we’re talking about literally saving ourselves.

The dominant theology in our Western culture is quite explicit: we human beings have dominion over the natural world, and we are told by God to go out and subdue that natural world. But Thoreau says we don’t have to dominate Nature in this way; instead, we relate to Nature as a source of wisdom, as a place for healing and reflection.

I am captivated by Thoreau’s story of Walden. He lives by a pond for two years. There he finds that a satisfying life does not require him to work constantly. There he finds that a life where he’s not constantly working allows him time for deep conversations with other people, and with the wisdom of the ages. There he finds that instead of having to fight against the natural world and subdue it, we can live in Nature, that we can as it were engage in deep conversations with Nature.

At the end of the book, Thoreau leaves Walden Pond and goes back to take up his life in Concord village. He ends the book by saying, “Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a morning star.” The end of the book is but the beginning.

I started off this sermon by saying that Henry Thoreau had grown frustrated by a society that drove the divinity out of human beings. I, too, have grown frustrated with a societey that drives the divinity out of us human beings. Our society drives the divinity out of us by keeping us constantly busy, and constantly working. Even when we retire, we are expected to keep busy by immersing ourselves in innumerable projects. This constant busy-ness distracts us from our true natures, from our true humanity; we enslave ourselves with our busy-ness; and the result is that we constantly complain that we have no time. We don’t have any time, enslaved as we are, because our time does not belong to us any more.

Because we have no time, we can no longer take the time to engage in deep conversations. Nor do we have time to cultivate three kinds of relationships: relationships with each other, relationships with whatever it is that is divine in this world, and relationships with Nature. When we don’t cultivate these relationships, we become less than human; we are lost, not saved.

In order to reclaim our humanity, eco-theology calls on us to save ourselves, to liberate ourselves from being slaves to busy-ness. If we lose our basic humanity, we will continue to be enslaved; and we will continue to enslave other people because we can no longer know their basic humanity; we will either lose our connection with the divine or become enslaved by a warped notion of divinity; and we will continue to enslave and exploit Nature.

Thoreau offers us just the beginnings of an ecological theology, just a glimmer, as when the first light of the sun begins to light up the sky behind the morning star. A hundred and fifty years after he wrote his book, we can still glimpse that beginning; we haven’t done much more than glimpse that beginning; and while we have managed to end the legalized slavery of African Americans, we still are far from liberation.

A path of ecological theology seems to open before us. It appears to be a path of liberation. I believe ecological theology may help us understand better the links between the destruction caused by racism, and the destruction caused by exploiting Nature, and the destruction of our very souls by dehumanization. I believe this kind of theological exploration will be the most important conversation we have together as Unitarian Universalists — but there’s still a lot of exploring to do. You can be a part of this exploration — all you have to do to start is to clear a little time in your life to call your own, time when you can come here and be a part of this conversation.