Concluding a Summer Sermon Series
for the First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans
The Rev. Melanie Morel-Ensminger
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Let me remind you at the start of this sermon that next Sunday will be our annual Question Box sermon, which will also serve as your introduction to the Greater new Orleans UU cluster's shared intern, Mr. Charlie Deiterich. Please fill the Question Box provided on the table at the entrance with your interesting and provocative queries for Charlie and me to tackle next Sunday.
The other Sundays of this month, we’ve been looking deeply into the topic of diversity within Unitarian Universalism and in this church. While diversity is generally acknowledged among religious liberals as a good – some UU congregations have even put the goal of inclusiveness and diversity in their Mission Statements – there is no doubt that differences can be uncomfortable and can cause conflict. This is a conundrum that begs to be solved.
To work our way through this dilemma, during the month of August we have examined some particular kinds of difference that tend to cause problems both large and small in UU congregations – differences of theology and spirituality and differences of political stance. But we know that conflicts that might arise over difference would not be limited to the differences we’ve talked about, but would also include such differences as gender, race, age, economic class, occupation, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and military background, differences that we hope that this series has also been helpful with. Our purpose in the series has been to learn to build bridges across the seeming canyons of diversity that tend to keep us divided and separate and alienated.
My feeling is that if we UUs can develop these bridges here in our congregations, then we can apply these new skills in the wider world, and make alliances with people of different faiths and different backgrounds and different cultures, and thus vastly increase our circle of influence in the world. In a world torn apart by difference, where diversity can be deadly, learning how to be welcoming and inclusive in an increasingly pluralistic global village might turn out to be a world-saving talent.
In each sermon, we’ve talked about ways to cope with our feelings of discomfort around difference, developing ways of relating to each other that are more welcoming and more sensitive to the feelings and concerns of those around us. The sermons might have sounded a little repetitious, since the warning signs are the same for each difference we looked at. For example, for the past 2 Sundays, we’ve been reminded about avoiding generalizations about any group or category, since they are inevitably false and misleading, just as generalizations about “all UUs” would be. We’ve been asked to be more aware when we are using insulting terms when we do disagree. And we’ve been repeatedly asked us to remember that our personal situation is not the measure of the world – that what is normal and right for us is not necessarily normal and right for others.
Some of you have asked me this month about alternate methods of communication. One person cried out plaintively, “Tell me things to say!” The first part of bridge-building is what not to say, and some examples are easy. Almost all of us realize that the question, “How old are you?” is rude and intrusive for anyone over 10, but few of us have gotten to the point where we know we shouldn’t ask, “What do you do?” – a question that can be painful and embarrassing for a person recently fired, or who has been looking fruitlessly for work for months. “Are you married?” can be insulting to a heterosexual single woman of a certain age, but it is downright excruciating to a lesbian who’s been partnered for decades and is unable legally to wed. “How long have you been here?” is a good question to ask if you mean how long has someone been coming to church, but it is a bad question if you mean that the person seems foreign and you want to know how long they’ve been in the United States. “Tell me how you came to think that” is a good conversation opener; “How can any sensible/compassionate person believe that??” is a conversation killer.
Second, know your own motives and be honest about your goals when engaging with another person. Ask yourself, “What do I truly want from this interaction? What do I want for this relationship?” and if you want friendship and increased understanding on both sides, act accordingly. (Of course, if your desired end result is a burned bridge, then go ahead and act any way you want, without regard for the other person’s feelings.)
The third and very important plank in bridge-building is remembering that we all need each other – yet another thing said before in this series. As Unitarian Universalists, we come from a religious tradition that has always insisted that human knowledge is perforce partial, that, as St. Paul wrote, “Now we see as through a dark mirror.” In humbly acknowledging that we don’t know everything, we open ourselves to needing the insights and perspectives of others who know things that we don’t know, who have had experiences we haven’t had. And yet it is so tempting to treat each other with disrespect on the grounds that we have differing points of view. In Sojourners magazine several years ago, Brian McLaren wrote:
I don’t agree with the tone of the conservative author who offers advice on how to talk to a liberal “if you must,” suggesting that it’s an odious task that one must do while pinching her nose. Nor do I agree with any liberal mirror image who sees all conservatives as equally stinky conversation partners.
The next plank in our bridge over diversity is to hold conversations with the solitary goal of understanding another person, of knowing them more deeply and more truly. If our secret agenda in speaking with someone who is different is to convince them how wrong they are and how right we are, then we are doomed to perpetual failure and disappointment. If every time I talked politics with my spouse Eric I really expected him to have a epiphany and become a liberal Democrat, we’d have to quit having political conversations altogether. The atheists in our congregation are not going to convince the theists that there is no God; the folks who are pacifist are not going to sway those who believe that war is sometimes regrettably necessary. Pagans are not going to convert Christians, nor vice versa. Let’s accept right now that we are not going to convert each other, not going to change each other’s minds, and that's perfectly OK. Let's try instead to strive to understand and accept each other.
The fifth plank in our span is seeking common ground. Instead of constantly butting heads on the things we disagree on, let us dig deeper and find our areas of agreement and accord. In almost every case, we share common values and common concerns; every human being treasures their close relationships, wants to feel safe, desires to be cared for, needs stimulation of mind and body, appreciates beauty as they see it, and looks for spiritual satisfaction, however they define it. Let’s talk about what we share, those things we agree on, and let’s seek to find the parts of another person’s position that we can affirm, instead of looking for the flaws to attack.
A good way to look for those commonalities is to tell stories instead of debating. (This is something that New Orleanians do well!) Once we know how a person came to be who they are and think the way they do, we are much less likely to go on the attack. In a strong community committed to pluralism, the why and how of a person become much more vital and important than the what. We begin to phrase our questions differently, less accusingly. “Tell me why that’s so important to you” or “What experience did you have that brought you to that belief?”
Speaking of stories, the final plank in our bridge across diversities is the stories we tell ourselves about other people and their motivations. When we are calm and relatively happy, we tell ourselves stories that explain the other person we’re disagreeing with as good-hearted, intelligent, sensitive, and caring – just at the moment maybe rushed or stressed or in error. But when our own stress buttons get pushed, when we feel threatened or at risk, the stories we tell ourselves about what is happening go in another direction. Then the other person has bad intentions, lacks compassion, is stupid, unfeeling, even evil. When building bridges, we must be careful not to assume that we are the only ones who are good and smart and caring.
This final sermon in the Building Bridges series is entitled “Crossing Over & Meeting Halfway,” because any bridge is useless unless people are willing to use it, to take those first hesitant steps to cross to the other side. I hope that we are committed to the idea of being not only bridge-builders, but bridge crossers. A recent GA study resolution is entitled “Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society.” We would be hypocritical in the extreme to be concerned with how pluralism will work in the world if we are not also concerned with how well we deal with pluralism internally.
The Commission on Appraisal of the UUA issued a final challenge at the close of its report. Let it serve as a coda to this sermon series:
What could our UU faith be life if our congregations truly became the safe and welcoming place we aspire to create? If we truly did honor and celebrate both our diversity and our sources of unity? If we were willing to commit to spiritual discipline as deeply as to spiritual freedom?
What indeed. AMEN – ASHE – SHALOM – SALAAM – NAMASTE – BLESSED BE!
