Dan Harper | Sermons

  • White Poverty

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The text below has not been proofread. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation.

    Story: How To Feed Five Thousand People

    Once upon a time, Jesus and his disciples (that is, his closest followers) were trying to take a day off. Jesus had become very popular, and people just wouldn’t leave him alone. Jesus and the disciples wanted a little time away from the crowds that followed them everywhere, so they rented a boat and went to a lonely place, far from any village.

    But his fans figured out where they were going. By the time Jesus and his friends landed the boat, there were five thousand people waiting there for them. So Jesus started to teach them, and he talked to them for hours.

    It started getting late, and the disciples of Jesus pulled him aside and said, “We need to send these people to one of the nearby villages to get some food.”

    “No,” said Jesus. “The villages around here are too small to feed five thousand people. You will have to get them something to eat.”

    “What do you mean?” his disciples said. “We don’t have enough money to go buy enough bread for all these people, and even if we did, how would we bring it all back here?”

    “No, no,” said Jesus. “I don’t want you to go buy bread. Look, how many loaves of bread have we got right here?”

    The disciples looked at the food they had brought with them. “We’ve got five loaves of bread, and a couple of fried fish. That’s it.”

    “That’ll be enough,” said Jesus.

    His disciples looked at him as if he were crazy. There was no way that would be enough food for five thousand people!

    Now, Jesus had spent the whole day teaching people about the Kingdom of God, teaching them that everyone is dependent on someone else. And while he was sitting up in front of the crowd teaching, he looked out and saw that many of the five thousand people had brought their own food with them. He watched them as they surreptitiously nibbled away at their own food, ignoring the fact that many of the people around them had no food at all.

    Jesus brought out the five loaves of bread. Being a good Jew, he blessed the bread using the traditional Jewish blessing: “Blessed are you, O Holy One, Creator of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” Then he broke the bread, cut up the fish, and gave it to the disciples so they could hand it around.

    Everyone saw that even though Jesus and his disciples had barely enough food for themselves, they were going to share it with everyone. The truth began dawning in people’s eyes. All day long, Jesus had been teaching them that the Kingdom of Heaven existed here and now, if only people would recognize it. Now Jesus was giving them a chance to show they understood, and to act as if the Kingdom of Heaven truly existed.

    The disciples began to pass around the bread and the fried fish, shaking their heads because they knew there wasn’t going to be enough food for everyone. Yet, miracle of miracles, there was plenty of food to go around. People who had brought their own food put some of theat food into the baskets so it could be shared. People who hadn’t brought food with them took some food from the baskets. By the time the followers of Jesus had passed the baskets to all five thousand people, everyone had gotten enough to eat, and there was so much food left over that it filled twelve baskets.

    Today, many people tell this story differently. They believe that Jesus performed some kind of magic when he blessed the bread and fish, so that somehow Jesus and/or God turned a dozen loaves of bread and two fish into thousands of loaves of bread and thousands of fried fish. To my mind, that’s easier to believe than to believe that humans could perform the same miracle by simply sharing. Why is it easier to believe? Because if humans could perform this miracle back then, we could do the same thing today: to share with those who need it, and to live as if the Kingdom of Heaven existed here and now. (1)

    Readings

    The first reading was from an essay by Andrew Tait titled “Living in the Shadow of the American Dream,” published on August 1 on DailyYonder.com. The author is White.

    I live in Shenandoah County, Virginia. I’m a factory worker. A farmer. A father of two girls, one still in diapers. I get up before the sun, and most days I don’t sit down until after it’s gone. My partner Hannah and I raise our girls on a small farm in the Valley. She works full-time too — though nobody calls it that. She’s a caregiver, a homemaker, a livestock handler, and a mother. She doesn’t get a paycheck….

    …We heat with firewood I cut myself. We raise animals for milk, eggs, and meat because the grocery bill outpaces my paycheck. We’ve stayed unmarried — not because we don’t love each other, but because getting married would kick my partner and our daughters off the Medicaid that keeps them healthy. My employer offers insurance, sure — but only if I pay nearly as much as our mortgage. I can’t, so we stay as we are; in love but locked out.

    I’m not ashamed of our life. It’s honest work, and it’s full of love. However, I am ashamed that in a country as wealthy as ours, people like us are left out in the cold….

    I’m not writing this as a Democrat or a Republican. I’m writing this as a man watching families like mine wear themselves thin; working hard, doing the right things, and still falling behind. This isn’t about Red or Blue. It’s about the fact that we’re being divided against each other while both sides forget that real Americans bleed the same when the cost of insulin triples or the cost of groceries goes up again.

    The second reading was one of the most famous scenes in the book “Oliver Twist” by Charles Dickens.

    The evening arrived; the boys took their places. The master, in his cook’s uniform, stationed himself at the copper; his pauper assistants ranged themselves behind him; the gruel was served out; and a long grace was said over the short commons. The gruel disappeared; the boys whispered each other, and winked at Oliver; while his next neighbours nudged him. Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:

    “Please, sir, I want some more.”

    The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupefied astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.

    “What!” said the master at length, in a faint voice.

    “Please, sir,” replied Oliver, “I want some more.”

    The master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.

    The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Mr. Bumble rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,

    “Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!”

    There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.

    “For more!” said Mr. Limbkins. “Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?”

    “He did, sir,” replied Bumble.

    “That boy will be hung,” said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. “I know that boy will be hung.”

    Sermon

    I’d like to speak with you this morning about White poverty; that is, about poor people who happen to be White. This may sound like a political topic, but there’s a spiritual reason behind this. I’ve borrowed the phrase “White poverty” from another minister, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, who used this phrase in the title of a book he wrote last year: “White Poverty: How Exposing the Myths about Race and Class and Reconstruct American Democracy.”

    Barber is a minister, but he is probably best known for his “Moral Mondays,” which he started in his home state of North Carolina. Now we have to touch upon politics for just a moment. The state of North Carolina is dominated by Republican politicians, and because William Barber’s Moral Mondays were protests aimed at state government, it would be easy to assume that Barber is a Democrat. I know I assumed he was a Democrat. But reading his book, I realized that he is motivated not by partisan politics, but by religion and spirituality. I’ve come to feel that both the Democrats and the Republicans have lost their religion and spirituality, so while I may not agree with everything Barber says, I feel he is well worth listening to as we try to find a way out of the mess that partisan politics has gotten us into.

    Barber in fact claims that the battles between the two parties hide a basic fact that we should not ignore. He says: “While these same [political] fights are regularly recycled for our public consumption, nearly half of Americans — people of every race, creed, and region — are united by the experience of being poor. They share the hardship, but they do not share a name because our formal definition of poverty has left tens of millions of Americans in the shadows. Even when we hear reports about poverty, they are based on numbers that severely undercount Americans who are living with their backs against the wall, unsure of how they are going to make it.” So writes William Barber.

    We heard the story of one of those people in the first reading this morning, a White man named Andrew Tait living in the South. Tait and his family just about manage to keep their heads above water. But you can hear in his story that just one crisis — unforeseen medical expenses, for example, or getting laid off — could put his family over the edge.

    There are many families in this same situation right here on the South Shore. A year or so ago, the town social worker here in Cohasset asked to meet with the Cohasset clergy. The town social worker wanted to talk with us, because she kept encountering situations where people in crisis who needed immediate financial assistance. She was adept at finding sources of assistance for Cohasset residents with long term needs — home heating assistance, food assistance, and so on. But she had no source for immediate one-time crises — such as a landlord who doubled the rent for a family who just couldn’t move before the end of the month. We clergy had been helping such people in an ad hoc manner with one-time gifts; we tried to help out the town social worker when we could, but sometimes that involved one of us writing a personal check to the town social worker and getting reimbursed later. But there was no other source for these kinds of one-time grants here in Cohasset. There are groups that can provide grants to organizations, but not to individuals. The town social worker urged us to get together and start a fund similar to Scituate’s “Christmas Fund” (which actually has nothing to do with Christmas, it’s just the name of a fund that provides one-time financial assistance). So began the Cohasset Community Assistance Fund, a fund which grew out of the needs of a town that’s 96% White. Poverty exists in towns like Cohasset, it’s mostly White poverty, and it’s mostly invisible.

    To return to partisan politics for just a moment: Neither of the two major political parties is very good at addressing White poverty. The Democrats, for some very good reasons, have focused on the financial needs of historically marginalized groups, such as African Americans, Native Americans, and so on. The Republicans, for some very good reasons, have focused on fostering a pro-business environment that will in the long term create jobs. But what if you’re White and poor right now? Then it can feel as though both political parties have abandoned you, as Andrew Tait said in the first reading.

    We don’t have to go as far away as Andrew Tait in ?Virginia to find example of how White poverty I’m going to cite four figures on the Cohasset Community Assistance Fund website. One: 21% of Cohasset households are considered low income, because they earn less that 80% of the area’s median income of $187,060. Two: 34% of Cohasset households experience what’s known as housing cost burden, where the housing cost is too high for income; 15% of Cohasset households are severely cost burdened. Three: Nearly 1 in 5 town residents use public health insurance (Medicare and Medicaid). Four: 142 people in town get Snap benefits, or food stamps; and the Cohasset Food Pantry gives crucial support to 80 Cohasset families. These figures are for Cohasset, but nearby towns like Scituate and Hull and Hanover and Pembroke and Hingham all have similar figuresw.

    These are community portraits showing people, mostly White, who are more financially vulnerable than they should be. Most of these people would not be poor by standard political definitions of poverty. But as William Barber and others have pointed out, the political definition of poverty may be too restrictive. A better definition of poverty might be something like this — If your household had a sudden expense of $1200, such as a major car repair, could you pay it without a problem? Or would you have to choose between paying the rent, or buying food, and fixing the car? By this latter definition of poverty, nearly half of all Americans are poor or on the edge of being poor. If nearly half of all Americans are poor, we cannot avoid the issue of poverty. This also puts the lie to the myth that poverty just a Black issue; it’s an issue that all of us, no matter what race or political party, need to face head on.

    The prevalence of poverty in America today reminds me of the story I told this morning, about Jesus feeding the five thousand. This story comes from the Christian scriptures, the book of Mark, chapter 6, verses 32 through 44. This story is usually interpreted as recounting a miracle performed by Jesus with the help of God: after seeing the five loaves of bread and two pieces of fish that his disciples have, Jesus increases this meager store of food by supernatural means until there’s enough to feed everyone. However, from a religious perspective, I would say that this usual interpretation of the story completely underestimates divine power, turning a major miracle into a very meager miracle. If you magically produce enough bread and fish for everyone, that really doesn’t change anything, does it? A major miracle would be to actually change human hearts from selfishness to sharing. I interpret this as a story of a major miracle, not a meager miracle.

    On a smaller scale, by the way, this is a miracle that preschool teachers perform on a regular basis: they teach children how to share. Alas, by the time most Americans reach adulthood, they seem to have forgotten what they learned in preschool. As a result, we have the Democrats saying that there’s nothing to worry about, because they passed a big infrastructure bill that’s going to provide jobs five years from now; and yet Andrew Tait struggles to make ends meet right now. Then we have the Republicans saying that there’s nothing to worry about, because they’re going to get rid of immigrants and slap tariffs on overseas manufacturers which will produce jobs five years from now; and yet Andrew Tait struggles to make ends meet right now.

    In the current political environment, it appears that divisive American politics have made our political leaders powerless to help people like Andrew Tait. But this was the same situation faced by Jesus in the Roman empire of two thousand years ago. Things were much worse in the ancient Roman empire than they are in America today, with even less political will to address the problem. Yet Jesus pointed out that the problem of poverty could be solved. A partial solution could come from a spiritual change emerging in the hearts of ordinary people. Of course that spiritual change would require a reduction in selfishness, and an increase in generosity; that is, it was a spiritual change which would require individual human beings to understand that they were connected to all other human beings.

    In my interpretation of the story, this is the real miracle of Jesus feeding the five thousand. When those five thousand people were gathered in front of him, listening to him teach, he was teaching about how we are all interconnected. Yet he saw that some people had no food while others had brought their own food. So he performed a miracle: he helped people understand that because of their essential interconnectedness, sharing was the normal, natural thing to do. He was teaching them: do not separate yourself from community, and one way that you separate yourself from community was by not sharing. What a great miracle this was! — such a great miracle that we really cannot believe it happened. We would prefer to believe that God somehow magicked enough food for all five thousand people. If it was just magic, then we don’t have to change our hearts. But if it was not magic, then we ourselves must change.

    And in fact the early Christian community did change their hearts. One of the earliest Christian liturgies we have record of says that during communion services, the communion table would have on it not just bread and wine, but cheese and fruit and enough food to make a full meal. Thus the earliest Christian communion services provided not just some kind of spiritual food, but actual literal food so that if you were poor and hungry, you were fed; and if you were rich, you could give of what you had and thus grow spiritually. No wonder the early Christian church spread so quickly, across racial and national and class divisions: the earliest church fed body and soul, erasing divisions and hatred.

    I want to be clear that this same spiritual impulse appears in all the great religious traditions. One of my favorite ethical thinkers, Rabbi Hillel, gave voice to the same spiritual impulse from within the Jewish tradition. Hillel taught that we cannot blind ourselves to the suffering of others, saying, “Do not separate yourself from the community” [Avot 2:4]; that is, in your over-confidence, do not think that you can live your life solely on your own, without needing the wider human community. And this same spiritual impulse is present in the Sikh tradition. When American Sikh communities build a gurdwara, or temple, they include a commercial kitchen capable of cooking meals for dozens or hundreds of people; then each week they offer a free meal to all want to join them.

    Sadly, this spiritual impulse seems to have mostly disappeared among our allegedly Christian political leaders. Too many American Christians believe that Jesus said that we’d get pie in the sky when we die; that we’ll all have enough to eat, not now, but in the sweet bye-and-bye. These political leaders seem to have forgotten that Jesus was talking about the here and now when he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.” Jesus united the spiritual with the physical: when there are people who are poor, then the Kingdom of God is not truly present; when if there are people who are hungry, then none of us can be spiritually filled.

    This ancient spiritual impulse does live on in many of today’s Christians, people like Rev. William Barber. And this ancient spiritual impulse lives on in many of today’s Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Sikhs and atheists — anyone who understands that true spirituality means recognizing that all human beings are interconnected. This deep knowledge of human interconnectedness is a kind of Enlightenment, arising from our hearts when we realize we can never be an isolated individual; the spiritual promptings of our hearts teach us that we are always connected to all other human beings. Then we can begin to see how artificial divisions keep us from working together to create a world where there is no hunger or poverty.

    We can let go of those artificial divisions, like the myth that poverty is a Black problem; and we can recognize that half of us in America, including a great many White people, are either in poverty or close to poverty. While we have come to think of this as a political problem, it is also a spiritual problem, and to solve that spiritual problem we have to remember how to work together in harmony; beginning in our immediate neighborhoods, then extending out into our towns and the South Shore region and maybe eventually through the rest of our country, and even the rest of the world. The more we can work together across borders and across divisions, the easier it will be to ignore those who promote division and hatred and violence; and if we persist, this spiritual revolution could wind up changing the world.

  • What Do You Do with Grief?

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The text below has not been proofread. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation.

    Reading

    The first reading was the poem “Forty” by Hoang Trinh, trans. Huynh Sanh Trong, from the book An Anthology of Vietnamese Poems: From the Eleventh through the Twentieth Centuries Hardcover, ed. Huynh Sanh Thong (Yale Univ. Press, 1996). (The poem is not reproduced here out of respect for copyright.)

    The second reading is a short poem by Lew Welch, number 2 from “The Hermit Songs.” (The poem is not reproduced here out of respect for copyright.)

    The third reading was a short poem by Nanao Sakaki titled “Why climb a mountain?” from the book How To Live on the Planet Earth: Collected Poems. (The poem is not reproduced here out of respect for copyright.)

    Sermon

    I wanted to talk with you this morning about grief solely because so many of you have spoken to me about your own grief. So this is a topic chosen, as it were, by the congregation.

    When speaking about grief, it’s easy to adopt a solemn and sad demeanor. However, I prefer a different approach. I’ll begin with some strictly pragmatic remarks about grief, and I’ll conclude with some thoughts about spiritual paths for handling grief.

    Here begin the pragmatic remarks.

    To begin with, we should recognize that grief is a normal part of life. Grief may not be fun, or pleasant, but it is not the same as trauma. Grief is normal, trauma is excessive. Grief can be associated with trauma, but trauma is when something happens to you that takes more than ordinary resources to cope with. If you’re dealing with trauma, I hope you’re able to get outside help; but what I’m going to talk about this morning is ordinary everyday grief.

    It sometimes seems that we only think of grief as something that happens when a person you love has died. However, there are many other things that can cause grief. In fact, grief isn’t necessarily sad — during weddings, people often cry from grief, but it’s happy grief, not sad grief. Most often, grief happens when suddenly life isn’t the same any more; or to put it more precisely, we tend to experience grief when we experience loss. Since things are constantly changing, guess what — that makes grief a frequent occurrence, and a normal part of life.

    Let me give you some examples of grief that does not involve someone dying.

    Many people experience grief in midlife, often in the late thirties or early forties. The first reading this morning, the poem titled “Forty,” expresses this kind of grief very well. I remember being in a group of older people and one younger man; the younger man was feeling downhearted because he had just turned thirty-six. Most of the older people dismissed his grief, laughing and saying, “Oh you’re not old yet.” But to himself, he was old compared to someone in their late teens. He was, in fact, experiencing the loss of his youth. It was good he was aware of his grief, and could talk about it; maybe it wasn’t so good that older people laughed at his sense of loss and grief.

    Next, here’s an example of what we might call good grief. When people leave a job they dislike and find a better job, they often experience grief. Even though you hated the old job that you left, there were probably a one or two things you liked about it — perhaps one or two co-workers you liked, or a place you went to lunch. Thus, even if you hated the job, you might experience some grief due to the change in you daily habits. It might be good grief — you now have a better job — but it’s still grief.

    Another example of good grief: I already mentioned people crying at weddings. People experience grief at a happy occasion like a wedding for the simple reason that a wedding represents a moment of huge change; familes change, habits change, social status changes. I have a vivid memory of one wedding at which I officiated. Both people in the couple cried the whole wedding service — not just looking a little weepy, I’m talking about tears streaming down their cheeks. Of course they were happy, but they were also aware enough to know that their wedding meant big changes; changes not just in their relationship, but in the relationship of everyone connected with them. So they cried, because they were aware of the loss. Their grief was good grief, but it was still grief.

    Grief can also arise from what’s going in in wider society. We live in a time in our country when an old order is being dismantled, and a new order is being constructed. The changes include everything from LGBTQIA rights, to the Department of Government Efficiency. As a result of all these changes, we have lost sight of old norms, and everything feels unfamiliar. We may support some of these changes, we may oppose some of these changes, but everyone is feeling grief, because the old order is passing away.

    Now, the funny thing about grief is that it’s additive. For example, if you feel good grief from a recent wedding, and sad grief from the passing of the old order in the United States, and good grief from losing a job that you disliked, and sad grief from the death of a pet — all that grief adds up. If, in addition to all that, someone close to you dies: well, you’ve got a whole lot of grief in your life. You may not be aware of all the grief in your life — you may only be aware of the big moments of grief, such as the death of a loved one — but all that background grief is also there. Thus if you experience a major loss on top of a lot of background grief, you can find yourself immersed in a large amount of grief.

    Because grief is additive, it’s not a bad idea to become more aware of all grief in your life. This is why I’m giving so many examples of what cause grief, and let me give a few more. The birth of a child can cause grief — it’s usually good grief, but it’s still a major change. Moving out of childhood into your teen years can cause grief; similarly, aging can lead to grief. Leaving home to go to college or the military can result in grief — usually good grief, but grief nonetheless. When children leave home and you become an an empty nester, it may be good grief or sad grief (depending on your relationship with your children), but it’s still a loss, which can cause grief. Retirement often results in major grief. You get the idea, and I’m sure you can think of other examples in your own life.

    Now the question becomes: what are we going to do with all that grief? In our culture, the usual approach is to ignore all the grief and loss in your life. This strategy can be quite effective for quite a long time, maybe for your whole life. But ignoring grief exposes you to the risk that some big grief will come along and put you over the edge, grief-wise. The opposite approach is to wallow in your grief. This seems to be an effective strategy for some people, but I can’t recommend it, because wallowing in grief can be really hard on the people around you. Thus, the best approach is probably to find some middle way between ignoring grief and wallowing in grief.

    As we consider how to find a middle way for managing the grief in our lives, we have to consider the fact that grief may never quite disappear. The most obvious example is when someone close to you dies: you grieve because you love them, and they’re no longer alive; the only way to stop grieving would be to tell yourself that you never loved them. Another obvious example is the grief that can happen when you’re no longer a child: obviously it’s good to grow up, but if you have even a partially happy childhood, growing up means losing a sense of magic, what we might call unicorns and rainbows. To not feel real grief at the end of childhood would be (in a sense) to betray the unicorns and rainbows and anything that was good about childhood. Yet while grief may not ever go away completely, the day usually comes when your feelings are no longer so raw. Or to put it another way, the day usually comes when you’ve gained whatever wisdom and self-knowledge has grown out of that grief. This is why a middle way is so important. If you wallow in your grief, it’s really hard to attain that wisdom and self-knowledge. And if you ignore your grief, again it’s almost impossible to attain that wisdom and knowledge.

    So to be practical for a moment, how can we get to that point of wisdom and self-knowledge, the point where grief is no longer so raw? I’m going to suggest two spiritual paths that may help get you to that point. Mind you, there are a great many paths and techniques that can help deal with grief, including: simply waiting it out; distracting yourself; thinking about others worse off than you; doing psychotherapy; joining grief support groups; and so on. Use whatever paths and techniques that work for you. I’m just going to mention two spiritual paths that may also help.

    The first spiritual path is hinted at in the poem by by Nanao Sakaki, the third reading this morning. Sakaki was a Buddhist, and his poem tells us how the individual self is a kind of illusion.

    This poem describes a classic spiritual path that can be found in different forms in many religious traditions. This is the spiritual path that helps us understand that none of us is an individual self that’s somehow separate from the universe; what I think of as my “self” is nothing more nor less than a tiny but integral part of the entire universe.

    This spiritual path has proved helpful to some people who are grieving: while not diminishing your individual grief, it puts your individual grief into a much wider perspective. A lovely example of this spiritual path from our own religious tradition is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s long poem “Threnody.” Emerson wrote this poem about his eldest child Waldo, who died at just five years old. Not surprisingly, Emerson experienced an enormous sense of grief upon Waldo’s death. In the first half of “Threnody,” Emerson expresses his great grief; but in the second half of the poem, a mysterious voice Emerson calls “the deep Heart” speaks:

    The deep Heart answered, Weepest thou?…
    Taught he not thee, — the man of eld,
    Whose eyes within his eyes beheld
    Heaven’s numerous hierarchy span
    The mystic gulf from God to man?…

    In this second half of the poem, the voice of the Deep Heart makes the poet realize how little he knows, and how little he understands the death of his child. It’s a sort of a Transcendentalist version of the Bible story of Job. In the first half of the Bible story, Job loses all his wealth, loses his family, loses his health, loses almost everything. In the second half of the Bible story, Job encounters God (who is similar to the Deep heart in Emerson’s poem), and God shows Job how much larger the universe is than his tiny human self. Both the book of Job and Emerson’s “Threnody” say much the same thing that the Buddhist Nanao Sakaki says in his poem about the mountain: our individual selves are actually quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet they are also an integral part of the gran scheme of things. Indeed, the Buddhist spiritual practice of meditation can be used to achieve that same understanding. So can the Christian and Jewish practices of prayer, which can make us apprehend something that is far, far greater than our tiny mortal selves.

    For the right person, this spiritual path can really help deal with grief. However, like any spiritual path, this spiritual path is not for everyone. If it works for you, use it! Speaking personally, it doesn’t work for me.

    A different spiritual path that may help some people deal with grief is hinted at in the second reading this morning, the short poem by Lew Welch. In our own religious tradition, this is the spiritual path followed by Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau is best known for going to live in a cabin at Walden Pond. Part of the reason Thoreau went to Walden Pond was to write a book commemorating time spent with his brother John; John had died suddenly from lockjaw a couple of years before Thoreau went to Walden. Thoreau experienced great grief at the sudden death of his older brother. At times he managed his grief much the way Emerson did, looking towards some vast reality that transcended his self. But he also paid close attention to what was immediately in front of him. So he did things like measuring the water temperature of various wells and springs in town, comparing them with the water temperature of Walden Pond (the pond water was colder than the wells and springs). He liked to name many of the plants and animals with their scientific names — Lepus americanus, Apios tuberosa, Hirundo bicolor; and where Emerson’s poem refers only to generic sparrows, Thoreau’s book distinguishes between different species, like the song sparrow and the field sparrow.

    This is the spiritual path that Lew Welch describes in his poem. If you step outside and look closely, there might be three hundred things nobody understands, and how many can you find? Unfortunately, this spiritual path is often dismissed as not being spiritual; it is merely science and inquiry. Yet for some people, it is a true spiritual path. Robin Wall Kimmerer writes about this spiritual path in her book “Gathering Moss” when she describes spending an entire summer figuring out how one obscure species of moss manages to spread its spores; she discovered that the spores stuck to chipmunk feet, and that’s how they spread. To paraphrase Lew Welch, she managed to understand something that nobody understood before. Or I think about a scientific paper I once read on a small flowering plant called narrowleaf cow wheat (Melampyrum lineare). Botanist Martin Piehl spent three field seasons in the late 1950s carefully excavating the root systems of narrowleaf cow wheat, and, he reported, “after repeated attempts involving careful brushing away of sand, a thread-like rootlet was found attached to a host by a near-microscopic, hemispherical enlargement.” (1)

    Thoreau, Robin Wall Kimmerer, and Lew Welch would each fully understand that what they were doing was a kind of spiritual practice. Neither prayer meditation and prayer works for me, but the older I get, the more I find this spiritual path helps me handle grief. Unlike Martin Piehl or Robin Wall Kimmerer, I’ve never found something nobody’s ever seen; but the simple act of looking closely and finding things that I don’t understand helps me learn my place in the universe; and over time, this has helped me to move through grief to a place of greater wisdom and self-awareness.

    I don’t expect many people will want to bother with this last spiritual path, nor am I telling you about it so that you will try to follow it. But there are people who try the major spiritual practices — meditation, prayer, and so on — and when those spiritual paths don’t work, they think they have to either compromise their spiritual selves, or give up on spirituality altogether. If you’re one of those people, I wanted you to know that there are other spiritual paths. Not only that, but you might already be following a spiritual path — some kind of practice or discipline that gives you comfort in hard times, something that helps you understand your place in the universe, something that puts your life into a greater perspective.

    Often — not always, but often — we actually have the spiritual tools we need close to hand. And a major purpose of our free and open religious tradition is to allow people to come together in community to share their experiences of spiritual paths, and to affirm the diversity of spiritual paths that exist in the world.

    Note

    (1) Martin A. Piehl, “The Parasitic Behavior of Melampyrum lineare,” Rhodora Vol. 64, No. 757 (January-March, 1962), p. 17.

    A small woodland flower.
    Melampyrum lineare (photo copyright (c) Dan Harper 2024).

  • What about Assisted Dying?

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The text below has not been proofread. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation.

    Sermon

    This is a sermon that grew out of the concerns and interests of people in First Parish. It began with questions a couple of you have asked me about assisted dying. And then after I announced this topic, quite a few of you sent me articles and other material about assisted dying. Thank you to everyone who sent me those materials, and to everyone who talked with me about the topic.

    My goal this morning is not to give you an exhaustive overview of the topic of assisted dying. Instead, what I’d like to do is to consider what it means to make personal choices around assisted dying. As usual, I’m not going to try to give you any final answer; I’m merely going to try to lay out some of the main ethical issues. It will then be up to you to figure out how to address these ethical questions in your own life.

    When talking about ethical issues, it often helps to have a concrete case study to consider. For a case study about assisted dying, I’m going to give you the story of the death of Scott Nearing, as told by his wife Helen Nearing. Soctt Nearing was a well-known figure in the twentieth century, though he is mostly forgotten today. He first came to prominence during the First World War, when he was fired from his position as college professor because of his public support of pacifism during that war. (Pacifism was essentially illegal during the First World War; the First Amendment was ignored, and anyone who spoke publicly in favor of pacifism risked job loss, imprisonment, and officially sanctioned harassment.) After the First World War, Nearing became a Socialist, and then during the Great Depression a Communist. Then he and his wife Helen decided that they wanted to live by the efforts of their own hands, first moving to a farm in Vermont. When a ski resort opened next to their farm, they felt they had to move, but rather than sell their land to the ski resort, which would have made them millions of dollars in profit, they gave it to the town as conservation land. They then moved to Maine, where they wrote a book “Living the Good Life” describing how they lived off the land, and how they followed what we would now call a vegan diet. This book became a sort of Bible for the 1960s “Back to the Land” movement, and the Nearings had many visitors who came to their farm to learn how they, too, might live off the land.

    I tell you all these details of Scott Nearing’s life to help you understand that he was an independent thinker who was not bound by a conventional religious worldview; he was a freethinker. This will become important later. Now I’ll give you the story of his death, as it was told by Helen Nearing:

    “A month or two before Scott died, he was sitting at table with us at a meal. Watching us eat he said, ‘I think I won’t eat anymore.’ ‘All right,’ said I. ‘I understand. I think I would do that too. Animals know when to stop. They go off in a corner and leave off food.’

    “So I put Scott on juices: carrot juice, apple juice, banana juice, pineapple, grape — any kind. I kept him full of liquids as often as he was thirsty. He got weaker, of course, and he was as gaunt and thin as Gandhi.

    “Came a day he said, ‘I think I’ll go on water. Nothing more.’ From then on, for about ten days, he only had water. He was bed-ridden and had little strength but spoke with me daily. In the morning of August 24, 1983, two weeks after his 100th birthday, when it seemed he was slipping away, I sat beside him on his bed.

    “We were quiet together; no interruptions, no doctors or hospitals. I said ‘It’s all right, Scott. Go right along. You’ve lived a good life and are finished with things here. Go on and up — up into the light. We love you and let you go. It’s all right.’

    “In a soft voice, with no quiver or pain or disturbance he said ‘All … right,’ and breathed slower and slower and slower till there was no movement anymore and he was gone out of his body as easily as a leaf drops from the tree in autumn, slowly twisting and falling to the ground.

    “So he returned to his Maker after a long life, well-lived and devoted to the general welfare. He was principled and dedicated all through. He lived at peace with himself and the world because he was in tune: he practiced what he preached. He lived his beliefs. He could die with a good conscience.” (1)

    Thus ends Helen Nearing’s story of how Scott Nearing died. Now let’s consider this story as an ethical case study that might shed some light on assisted dying.

    First, let’s ask: Was Scott Nearing’s death suicide? I would say: yes, it was. He starved himself to death. Think about it this way: if Helen Nearing had called 9-1-1, when the EMTs came they would have given him intravenous feeding; that is, a third party would see that Scott Nearing was dying, and they would have done what they could to stop him from dying.

    Second, let’s ask: Was this assisted dying? Again, in my opinion the answer is fairly clear: yes, it was. Helen Nearing helped Scott Nearing to die. She assisted him in reducing his food intake, first to juices, then to only water. When Scott Nearing was bed-ridden, she had to care for him, but she did not force him to eat, nor did she take him to the hospital. She assisted him in dying.

    This is not the usual way we think about assisted dying, of course. We usually think about assisted dying as a patient asking for the assistance of a doctor or other health care professional in finding a way to end their life. And certainly when a health care professional is involved, that raises other ethical questions for the professional. But assisted dying can also take place at home, without medical supervision or assistance.

    Now that we’ve determined that this was assisted dying, let’s consider some of the ethical issues that arise in this case study. And the first issue that has to be considered when considering any form of assisted dying is whether the person dying has given their full consent. When it comes to assisted dying, this is perhaps the trickiest of all ethical considerations. Often, we try to dodge this question, as when we say that assisted dying is acceptable if a doctor determines that the person who wishes to die has only a few months left to live. In such a situation, more people are inclined to say that assisted dying is acceptable; even if someone is unable to give their full consent, perhaps we don’t worry so much about consent because after all the person is going to die soon anyway; and in such cases perhaps assisted dying allows the person to die in dignity, without unbearable suffering and pain.

    But Scott Nearing did not have a terminal diagnosis, so in this case study we cannot dodge the issue of consent. I would say in Scott Nearing’s case that yes, he was able to give full consent. Not only that, but he gave consent repeatedly over a period of time: he gave consent every time he chose not to eat. Furthermore, by putting him on a juice diet at first, Helen Nearing gave him the option to revise his decision; he got terribly thin on that juice diet, but he could still have changed his mind and begun eating once again. So in this case, by choosing this method of dying, Scott Nearing gave the fullest possible consent.

    Consent is very important for at least two reasons. First, obviously we should be concerned about the possibility of family members pushing someone to commit suicide for reasons of their own — they want the person’s money or property, or whatever less-than-savory motivation that might exist. Second, it turns out that many people change their minds during or after a suicide attempt. Back in 1981, Art Kleiner wrote an article titled “How Not To Commit Suicide.” In that article, he documented how when suicide attempts fail (and they often fail), those who attempted suicide decide afterwards that they really wanted to live. (2) Thus consent cannot arise from a momentary impulse; consent can only arise from a carefully considered decision.

    It’s both critically important and quite difficult to determine whether consent has been freely given. Was the person forced into the decision by others? Would the person change their mind if you gave them time to think about it? These are two key questions. In the Scott Nearing case study, we can be about as certain as it’s possible to be that consent was freely given.

    Next we have to consider how a decision to die affects all those around the person who is dying. I assume that we are isolated individuals, but rather that each one of us is a part of the interdependent web of existence, and what we do with our lives will have distinct and definite effects on other people. We especially have an effect on those who are closest to us, but when a person dies by suicide they also have an effect on the wider society, especially those who are required by law and custom to investigate such deaths.

    In the story of Scott Nearing’s death, he did take into account those around him. In particular, he had to take into account his spouse, Helen Nearing. What would Helen think if Scott decided to die? Helen Nearing tells us that several years before he died, Scott Nearing told an interviewer: “‘I look forward to the possibility of living until I’m 99.’ His blue eyes twinkled. ‘It is a precarious outlook, I assure you. … I have almost nothing left but time. But if I can be of service, I would like to go on living.’” Helen then said that Scott “did more than his share of mental and physical work up to his last years.” Helen implies that it was only when Scott felt unable to contribute as much as he felt he should to their partnership that he decided to die; and that, while she may not have fully agreed with him, she understood and supported his decision; supported it to the point that she was willing to care for him in his last couple of weeks when he was bed-ridden. When we consider how a person’s death affects those around them, this helps us understand the difference between assisted dying and other types of suicide. Assisted dying is a decision made in partnership with others, with full awareness of the emotional toll on others, full awareness of the help that will be needed from others, and full awareness of all the impacts on others.

    One should also consider carefully how the means of death will affect others. One brief example: I was on a train once that someone used to die by suicide. When that happens, the train becomes a crime scene, and all of had to stay in the train for a couple of hours. I have a vivid memory of watching the train crew as they walked down the train to talk with the police, of seeing their expressions of pain and shock. You simply do not want to do that to anyone. Then too, there is the impact on the first responders, and all those who will have to investigate. By contrast, Scott Nearing chose a means of assisted dying that was not going to traumatize other people.

    In addition, there are other impacts beyond the emotional impacts. For example, there may be financial impacts. Consider the way assisted dying happens in Switzerland. The legal situation around assisted dying in Switzerland is complex — I don’t pretend to understand all the ins and outs — but from a practical standpoint, while assisted dying is allowed, every unnatural death has to be fully investigated. Those organizations that provide assisted dying in Switzerland charge their clients a fee that covers not only the assisted death, but also the investigation that has to happen afterwards. That way, Swiss taxpayers don’t have to pay every time an assisted death is investigated.

    And then there are the legal implications of assisted dying. But I don’t have time to go into the complicated question of the subtle differences in assisted dying laws in different jurisdictions. Here in the United States, assisted dying is legal in California, Colorado, Hawai’i, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia; yet each jurisdiction has slightly different laws. In other ocuntries, assisted dying is available in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland; in all Australian states except the Northern Territory; and in the United Kingdom in England, Wales, and Scotland. (3) Each of these jurisdictions has significantly different laws for assisted dying, and each set of laws results in different ethical issues, and I don’t have the time or the expertise to talk about these differences. Beyond the legal questions of assisted dying, there are many other ethical issue that arise. We don’t have the time to cover them all, so I’m going to stick to my purpose: trying to consider the personal choices around assisted dying.

    Thinking about personal choices raises one last question, and that’s the question of religious ethics. In our case study, Scott Nearing did not have a conventional religious perspective, which may have allowed him to perceive options that would not have been apparent to a more conventional religious worldview. So what religious stand do Unitarian Universalists take on assisted dying? There is no simple answer. Ours is a religion that does not have a creed or dogma to which we all must assent. Instead, we leave ethical matters to a person’s individual conscience, while also acknowledging that a person’s individual conscience only exists as a part of a larger community.

    By contrast, many Christians are able to fall back on a simple and straightforward dogma or belief system regarding assisted dying — they would say assisted dying is a sin. Many Buddhists would also feel that assisted dying is unacceptable, since it could affect a person’s next birth. Many Hindus and Jains feel that assisted dying is wrong because it can be seen as a form of violence directed against the self, which goes against the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence. In other words, some religious traditions have firm teachings on assisted dying that are easy to understand and follow.

    In some ways, it would be easier if we Unitarian Universalists had a simple and straightforward perspective on assisted dying. But we don’t. From our religious perspective, we can imagine situations in which assisted dying is quite acceptable — when someone is suffering too much, when life has become a burden, and so on. We can also imagine situations in which assisted dying gets ugly — when it looks too much like eugenics, or when it looks too much like an excuse to get rid of people who are old or disabled, and so on.

    I would say that most of us Unitarian Universalists feel that some kind of assisted dying should be available to those who want it. And most of us probably agree that there should be some limitations to assisted dying and some protections — and I suspect many of us have known someone who died by suicide when that was probably the wrong thing to do. So we want the possibility of assisted suicide, with appropriate protections in place — protections like ensuring consent, and considering the impact on other people.

    Thus we Unitarian Universalists do not have a single straightforward teaching or doctrine that covers assisted dying. Our religious worldview doesn’t force us to find one simple, final answer to every question. Instead, we try to think carefully about difficult ethical questions, to understand our feelings about those difficult questions, and to understand the feelings of those around us. Then we do our best to live out our beliefs, living lives that are in tune with our highest principles, at one with the interdependent web of all existence.

    Notes

    (1) Helen Nearing, “At the End of a Good Life,” In Context, summer, 1990, p. 20. https://www.context.org/iclib/ic26/nearing/
    (2) Art Kleiner, “How Not To Commit Suicide,” CoEvolution Quarterly, summer 1981, pp. 88-109. https://archive.org/details/coevolutionquart00unse_26/page/88/mode/2up
    (3) See, e.g., Fergus Walsh, “How assisted dying has spread across the world and how laws differ,” BBC News website, 29 November 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dpwg1lq9yo — N.B.: since this article was written, assisted dying has been legalized in England, Scotland, and Wales.