In preparing for
the sermon this morning I gathered and studied the writings of Ralph
Waldo Emerson’s writings, his sermons, his lectures, and his
journals he faithfully kept from the early to mid-19th Century. My
intention was to select five and offer reflections this morning. As
I began reflecting on Emerson’s writings I was reminded of current
global humanitarian crises.
I decided that we are entitled to more.
Our minds, our hearts, and our souls require more than mere
reflections this morning. The three we will reflect on this morning
are three that that I called me back again and again. And so, let me
offer this first passage.
This is an excerpt of a letter Emerson
wrote to an unknown admirer in July of 1841 questioning his creed and
his ultimate reality: “I
am very much moved by the earnestness of your appeal, but very much
humbled by it; for attributing to me the attainment and that rest
which I well know are not mine, it accuses my shortcomings. I am,
like you, a seeker of the perfect and admirable Good. My creed is
very simple; that Goodness is the only Reality; that to Goodness
alone can we trust: to that we may trust all and always: beautiful
and blessed… Beyond this, I have no knowledge, no intelligence of
methods; I know no steps, no degrees, no favorite means, no detached
rules. Itself [Goodness] is a gate and road and leader and march.
Only trust it; be of it; be it -- and it shall be well with us
forever.”
Emerson
names his creed, his ultimate reality as Goodness. In fact he uses a
capital G in goodness which tells us that Emerson is aligning
Goodness with the authority of a deity. He is naming his faith, his
faith in Goodness. He writes that we can trust Goodness. He advises
us to be of Goodness, to be Goodness. Later in this particular
writing Emerson asks the question, “shall we not look at every
object and empty it of its meanness?” Emerson was a
transcendentalist. Transcendentalism centered on the divinity of each
individual; but this divinity could be self-discovered only if the
person had the independence of mind to do so.
Emerson
believed in the inherent good in both people and nature. He refuted
evil by insisting it was not an entity in itself but rather simply
the absence of good. If good was allowed, evil dissipated. But what
is goodness? It is hard to declare what is good in general, since
people have different backgrounds and mindsets. Something is good if
it has importance or value. People, actions, and ideas can be good.
Emerson writes, “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to
be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some
difference that you have lived and lived well.” In his view we all
have goodness and meanness inside of us. We are self-reliant and
make a decision as to which we will share with the world. We have a
choice. The choice between Goodness and meanness.
I
hold up these particular words from Emerson because they help us
understand the choices we as humans, as a global community, as
Unitarian Universalists have when we consider the actions we will
impose on one another. My task today is to use Emerson’s words
from nearly 200 years ago and offer an understanding of true
Goodness.
I’d like to do this by considering the Israeli and
Palestinian crisis, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and the
humanitarian crisis with immigrant families and children crossing our
borders in the context of Emerson’s idea of Goodness. You will not
hear my opinions. I will share that I believe all involved on either
side of these crisis have the innate ability to choose Goodness. That
is, all have ethical responsibility. You may think this is naïve,
optimistic, and oversimplifying the issues.
That’s okay. So did
the Anti-transcendentalists of the 19th century. Regardless
of how others respond to us, our families, our congregations, or our
countries we are not granted a free pass from first considering
ethical responsibility. Paul Waldman, contributing editor of the
American Prospect writes, “As common as the claim is, we
can't judge one side's actions by what the other side does. In this
as in so many conflicts, both sides — and those who defend each —
try to justify their own abdication of human morality with a plea
that what the other side has done or is doing is worse.” Waldman
is basically saying what Ghandi tells us about our role in conflict,
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Waldman paints
with a broad brush. Depending on our social, cultural, and economic
situation ethical responsibility may look different to each of us.
The idea that we might believe we are acting ethically responsible
while others would disagree is common. However, if goodness or
ethical responsibility is our concern, Ghandi hit the nail on the
head. Ethical responsibility must be considered long before a
conflict arises or escalates. It is to be the first effort.
We
mustn’t relinquish our responsibility to goodness, especially as
retaliation.
Let
us look at the examples I named. Remember this is not commentary on
who is right and who is wrong. We are exploring ethical
responsibility and our responses in relationships with people,
countries, races, and so on in the context of Emerson’s writings.
First, let us think about the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
In his July 2014 commentary in the Palm Beach Post Ghassan
Rubeiz writes, “Attitude is one root of the problem: expressing
sorrow over all the dead, Arab and Jew, without accusing a single
perpetrator is considered 'betrayal' by the majority on either side
of the conflict.” He later makes three predictions for needed
changes in the Middle East and writes: “These predictions may sound
like political science fiction. Well, at this miserable time fiction
is needed. The severity of the situation requires imagination, hope
and drastic change in conflict resolution.” Rubeiz leads us to the
complexities of ethical responsibility but also suggests a change in
how we confront conflict.
In
this conflict both sides believe they are acting ethically
responsible. We agree that this belief is about the varying
definitions of ethics. Ethical responsibility or goodness could or
should have come into play long before the instigation of the present
conflict. What if a decision based on goodness were made long ago by
both sides on how to coexist. “Attitude is the root problem.” If
in the beginning, before any conflict, both Israel and Palestine had
the attitude of goodness, as Emerson describes it, I wonder what form
the potential for conflict would have taken. All have innate goodness
and all have ethical responsibility for their responses.
Let
us focus on the humanitarian crisis on Mount Sinjar in Northern Iraq.
A small Iraqi religious minority, the Yazidis, desperately tried to
escape the efforts by militants to carry out a genocide against them.
There are tens of thousands who remain on the mountain who are under
conditions of extreme heat, lack of food, water, unmet basic needs,
and threat of attack. Many have died. The Yazidis are an ancient
people. They are neither Christian nor Muslim, and are called
heretics. There are many levels of the lack of goodness or ethical
responsibility in that crisis. Religious persecution and genocide are
among them.
Emerson tells us that goodness is within each of us and
it is our choice to claim it. In a world that lives by this truth,
people choosing goodness, none are at risk of being killed because
they believe God is the creator of the world who has placed the world
under the care of seven holy beings. This is what the Yazidis believe
and because of this they risk extermination.
All gathered here this
morning have varying theologies. None of us are killing to create a
dominant or one true theology. We aren’t chasing people from their
homes and watching them scurry with a few significant possessions
only die, suffer, or watch their children die. We are making a choice
of goodness. Our ethical responsibility is to respect the inherent
worth and dignity of the other including our beliefs. We exist
because our ancestors and martyrs believed in freedom. We’ve
inherited goodness.
Thousands
of immigrant children are fleeing Central America and are unwelcome
in the United States. Reporter Halimad Abdullah writes, “The
children, many of them arriving unaccompanied from El Salvador,
Honduras and Guatemala, have traveled up to 3,000 miles across
deserts and rivers, clinging to the tops of trains. They sometimes
face rape and beatings at the hands of "coyotes," smugglers
who are paid thousands of dollars to sneak them across the southern
border with Mexico.” Earlier this month busloads of babies in
their mothers' laps, and toddlers were turned back. They were met by
screaming protesters waving and wearing American flags and bearing
signs that read such things as "Illegals have no rights. They
are criminals.” Just to show a tiny bit of my meanness you should
know that “illegals” was spelled incorrectly. Children are piled
on top of another and kept in cages while they are detained. Some
ask, “Why are these children not already declared refugee status?”
or “Where is the goodness or ethical responsibility in the human
response to this crisis?” Would you agree that ethical
responsibility is being dodged? Kathleen McQuillen the director of a
Quaker-based organization, questions how the country could spend
trillions on war and not have the pennies on those dollars to spend
to take care of children in dire need. She said, "It's a simple
thing to begin to say, what's important in this world?" People
in this movement are pleased that President Obama is showing his
inherent goodness and responding by considering an executive order to
protect the children.
Let
me remind you that at the end of the Emerson passage I shared he asks
the question, “shall we not look at every object and empty it of
its meanness?” This is our work. Shall we not tip the barrel of
humanity and empty it of desire to control leading to war and death,
genocide, persecution, and racism. Empty it of its meanness, choose
goodness, return to ethical responsibility as the first choice of
response.
Goodness
is in each of us. What does it require to uncover our innate
goodness? What keeps us from goodness? Emerson tells us how to live
with goodness — practice being honorable and compassionate. In
Spiritual Laws Emerson writes, “A little consideration of
what takes place around us every day would show us that a higher law
than that of our will regulates events; that our painful labors are
unnecessary…. Belief and love — a believing love will relieve us
of a vast load of care. O my brothers, There is a soul at the center
of nature and over the will of every man, so that none of us can
wrong the universe. There is guidance for each of us, and by lowly
listening we shall hear the right word.”
The
word that is most dear to me in Emerson’s list is compassion. You
may know Krista Tippet who hosts the NPR program On Being.
While listening to Tippet’s TED talk about linguistic resurrection
and reclaiming the word compassion, I remembered how essential
compassion is to our goodness and how it informs our ethical
responsibility. Tippet says, “When we see compassion it changes for
us what we think is possible.”
Many are the stories we hear and
read where compassion triumphs, surprises us, or reminds us of the
immensity of the human spirit. Compassion eliminates the dark side.
Compassion is a choice of goodness and informs our response to the
complex ethical decisions we make.
Discovering
our goodness or having insight into our meanness is not an overnight
process. We are fools if we think that after this sermon we will be
perfectly good. We are imperfect. So was Mother Theresa, Ghandi,
and Martin Luther King Jr. Again, our work is not to live perfectly.
It is to practice, model, and expect goodness to prevail. It is to
embrace our ethical responsibilities to one another and the world
holding them tight while we decide what our responses will be.
Our
pluralistic congregations include diverse beliefs, backgrounds, and
personal stories. We do not agree on many issues and we sometimes
stand on different sides of conflict given our understanding of the
issue. Yet we unite in striving to live out the values and principles
that call us to work for compassionate possibilities. With open
minds, helping hands, and loving hearts, we work to affirm the worth
and dignity of every person and to replace meanness with compassion,
fear with acceptance, judgment with love, and insecurity with safety.
May
it be so.
Reflections
on Emerson, a sermon delivered by the Rev. CJ McGregor at 1stUUPB on
Aug 17, 2014.