Opening Words from Truth Or Dare by Starhawk

Opening Words – from Truth or Dare by Starhawk:

The four directions help us understand that [different people offer different gifts]. From the North come “Dragons, those who care for the resources;” from the West come “Graces, those who share warmth and bring people together;” from the East, “Crows, who are far-seeing;” and from the south, “Snakes, those who bring up from below the things to be discussed that no one has wanted to address.” And there are also “Spiders, who know what is going on in the whole web." Many types are needed for a truly healthy system, and those who sometimes are considered uncomfortable types are absolutely essential.

Reading – from “The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People” byDavid Blankenhorn(fromThe American Interest 2/17/16):

In recent decades, we Americans have become highly practiced in the skills and mental habits of demonizing our political opponents. All our instruments agree that we currently do political polarization very well, and researchers tell us that we’re getting better at it all the time.For example, Stanford Professor ShantoIyengar and his colleagues recently found that (when it comes both to trusting other people with your money and evaluating the scholarship applications of high school seniors) Americans today are less friendly to people in the other political party than we are to people of a different race. The researchers conclude that “Americans increasingly dislike people and groups on the other side of the political divide and face no social repercussions for the open expression of these attitudes.” As a result, today “the level of [political polarization] in the American public exceeds racial [polarization].” That’s saying something!

Of all the mental habits that encourage polarization, the most dangerous is probably binary thinking—the tendency to divide everything into two mutually antagonistic categories. Sometimes an important phenomenon actually does divide naturally into two and only two parts or sides, between which one all-or-nothing choice must be made.

But in most cases, this way of thinking about the world is not only polarizing, it is highly simplistic and leads mainly to pseudo-disagreements as opposed to real ones. One may be the loneliest number, but in the area of social criticism and conflict, two…is probably the most harmful. [So,] in thinking through any challenge or conflict, the [first question] highly depolarizing [people ask themselves] is, “Can I count higher than two?”

Sermon: Our Multiple Identities

If someone were to walk into this church for the first time, what would be the first thing they would notice about people here?In other words, what would be the identity or identities that would be most obvious to them?Of course it might well be differentdepending on who they are, which tells us something about the multiple nature of identities right there. But consider: what identity would someone perceive or assume about youthe first time they met you?

Now, think for a minuteabout the identity that you value most, the primary way you would identify yourself as a person.Is it the same or different from the first thing someone else would notice about you?

I’m guessing that for most of us, the identity that we value mostand the identity that other people would perceive or assume aboutuswhen meeting us for the first timeare different.The first thing people probably notice about me is either that I’m male or that I’m white, or maybe that I have brown hair or wear glasses or am somewhat short, or possibly that I’m friendly but somewhat nervous and soft-spoken.Whereas the identity that’s most important to meis that of a father and a spouse.

There’s often a gap between our perceived identities—the identities others assume about or assign to us—and our claimed identities—the identities we claim for ourselves.And a respect of and appreciation for that gapis an important part of getting beyond the “categorical thinking” that we all fall into.

Perhaps you’ve heard of categorical thinking, a concept developed over 60 years ago by sociologist Gordon Allportin his book, The Nature of Prejudice.It’s the natural tendency to put similar things or ideas or peopleinto pre-existing categories.And to some extent, categorical thinking is an indispensible part of human thinking, because it’s impossible to go through life treating everyone and everythingas a discrete and separate phenomenon,unrelated to anything else.As I’ve said before, we look for patterns and categories in order to create meaningout of the chaos of everyday experience.

But our natural tendency to generalize on the basis of these categories—“men are like this, women are like this”—tends to run roughshod over the realities of individual differences.All categories are abstractions, and when we turn the healthy need to categorize into the sloppy habit of categorical thinking, applying abstract labels to everything and everyone on the grounds that we have accurately separated them into non-overlapping categories, the result is personally and socially harmful.

Our further tendency towards binary thinking—you’re either like this or like that, you’re either male or female—oversimplifies and distorts reality to an even greater extent. And our further tendencies, first to absolutize these categories—all women are like that, if you’re a man, you must be like this—and then set them in opposition to each other, is how we end up getting caught up in polarization, in which somebody is good and somebody is bad, somebody is right and somebody is wrong.

David Blankenhornsuggests ways of breaking down these mental habitsof categorical and binary thinking, of generalization, absolutization(if that’s a word), and polarizationthrough what he calls “the seven habits of highly depolarizing people.”These include:appreciating the positive values on various sides, recognizing that you may not always be 100% rightand qualifying your own assertions (in most cases), getting specific rather than generalizing, and my focus today: counting higher than two.

To me, one of the most helpful things to do when confronted with a conflict between two ideas or two sides of somethingis to look for more possibilities than just two.We are almost always dealing with things on a multi-dimensional spectrumrather than a strictly either/or spectrum.Just as there are more possibilities than being only male or only femaleor only gay or only straight, there are virtually unlimited possibilities amongvarious skin colors and ethnicitiesor various political persuasions.And of course we all carry within us some mixtureof truth and untruth, love and unlove, “good” and “bad.”None of us fits entirely into any single category, and there’s usually more than one or two ways of looking at something.

What I’d like to explore with you todayhas to do with spiritual styles.I’ve heard a fair amount of conversation about spirituality lately, or actually two different conversations (something of a binary right there!).One conversation is about how we need to be a spiritual community and get spiritually fed firstbefore we go out and put our values into action. The other conversation is about howwhat it means to be spiritual (if it means anything at all) is to take a stand andput our values into actionand not just discuss them forever, that we need to stop talking about things and just start doing them.

To get beyond the binary thinking of either/orand the polarized thinking of right/wrong, it might be helpful to look at different ways of finding meaning and living meaningful lives, which is the definition of spirituality I’ll use today.And it also might be helpful to count higher than two.

Professor of spiritualityCorinne Ware suggests counting to four. She talks about four primary ways human beings tend to find or make meaning.

For some of us, the path to making meaning is through our heads – the intellectual/rational path.We’re interested in clear thinking and studying and discussing things to learn more about them.People with this orientation are fed by learning about things or figuring them outand tend to gravitate towards discussing ideas in books or articles.The natural realm for people with this style is in the world of ideas.Their favorite part of church might be the sermon – at least when it’s got some intellectual heft – and maybe discussions about theology or politics.

For others of us, the path is through our hearts, which for many of us means being focused on relationships and community.How we are with each other and how we feel when we’re togetheris primary for people on this path.People on this path are fed by conversation and music and laughter and even tears.The natural realmfor people with this style is the world of relationships.Their favorite part of church may be music, or joys and sorrows, or greeting each other.

For others of us, the path is more inward;we find and create meaning through silence and meditation, perhaps even ritual.People on this path are fed by a deeper sense of union with the greater all that is, a sense of our interconnectedness, or they may be drawn to a sense of mystery about life.The natural realm for people on this path is the inner world.Their favorite part of church might be the prelude before the service, or the time for meditation, or the candles.

And for others of us, the path is outward;it's about being in action in the world.People on this path are (spiritually) fed by living a life in alignment with their values, and expressing their commitment to making the world a better place.The natural realm for people on this path is the world of action.Their favorite part of church might be sermons about taking social action, but even more, it’s actually going out and doing stuff.

One thing to recognize is that none of these paths is “better” than any others;they are simply different ways of being.And none of these paths is complete by itself.In fact, each path has its own dangers when it becomes too narrowly focused.The intellectual/head-oriented path can turn into mere rationalism, overlooking the importance of feelings and relationshipsor the need for commitment to action.The emotional/heart-oriented path can lapse into emotionalism, with feelings as the only real authority, and can fall into a feel-good complacency of just going along to get along.The path of mysticism can lapse into quietism and passivity, with such a focus on the interior world that it retreats from engagement with the exterior world.The path of action can turn into a single-minded crusadism for causes, with a tunnel-vision about anything else and a tendency to judge those who don’t share their enthusiasm.

Another thing to recognize is how easy is it to notice the faults of another pathrather than have a self-aware sense of perspective about one’s own. For all of us, whenever another path starts to get a significant amount of attention, it can start to feel like things are out of balance, thatthat other path is the only path that’s getting any attentionand our path is being ignored. Whereas when our own path is getting attention, we tend not to notice itbecause it’s natural and comfortable to us; it doesn’t come to our awareness.

So what to do with all this?One thing is just to develop our awareness of the different paths we are on, which is also to become more aware of each other and of our differences, and to learn to appreciate those differencesand not just be frustrated by them (not that we won’t find them frustrating from time to time).Another thing would be to develop greater awareness of our own path, who we are and what our tendencies/preferences are, and to claim the strengths of our own patheven as we become aware of the potential pitfalls.Perhaps we can also learn from the other pathsand even try them out from time to time, both so that we don’t get stuck in our ownand so we can develop some empathy and understandingabout where others are coming from.

And where do all of these paths come from?“Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?”There is perhaps a sense in which, at least for us, these different paths come from different strands of Unitarian Universalism.Unitarianism has a strong history of being very head-oriented, while Universalism has been characterized historically as being more heart-oriented.There are strains of mysticism in our history of Transcendentalismand in the growing presence and influence of Buddhism among us.And there has long been a strong orientation towards actionin our historical concern for social justice.

To some extent the tensions in this or any other UU congregationsimply reflect the historical tensions which have long been present inUUism (and in other religions, for that matter).Rather than arguing which path is best or vying to be the dominant path of this congregation, we will do better to accept and appreciate the different paths that we areall on.

One way to do that is to get to know each other’s storiesas well as the histories of this congregation and of UUism, which is the focus of this month of discernmentaround “where do we come from, what are we, where are we going.”Because who are is not immediately obvious to each other and perhaps not even to ourselves. Who we are and where we come from and how we got to be who we areis ultimately a mystery.

Each of us is to some extent a mystery, and we need to acknowledge and appreciate that mysteryin order to accept and appreciate each other.There are differences among us, differences rooted in story and historybut also in mystery.We need toacknowledge and accept and affirm and embrace this mysteryso that we can acknowledge and accept and affirm and embraceeach other.

I’d like to close with a parable by UU theologian Forrest Church from his book, Lifecraft:

We all start out in the middle of a circle, the circumference of which contains all the possibilities of life. God (or Ultimate Reality) is outside the circle shining in from all directions.

Two people journey, one to the right and the other to the left. They each travel the same distance during their lifetimes, and although they search for meaning in opposite directions, they each end up equally close to the light. Yet one ends up more enlightened than the other. How can this be?

The reason is simple. One of these two pilgrims, knowing that he is approaching the light, believes that the light lies only in his direction, shining on his face and no one else’s. Since belief affects reality, his light casts a long, dark shadow. He lacks empathetic imagination, and blocks out the light shining from any direction other than the one he is facing. So the closer he gets to the edge of the circle, and therefore to the light, the longer and darker is the shadow he casts.

But the other pilgrim, approaching the light while going in the other direction, knows (or senses) that the light shines from every point outside the circle—from behind her as well as in front of her. This belief permits the light shining on other people’s faces to reduce her shadow. She is no closer to the light, but is she not more enlightened than the one who cast the shadow?

We each have our own paths to follow, and we can find light and truth in any direction.Let us respect both the truths we each bringand the mysteries we each areas we journey togetheron our various paths.

Blessed be.

Closing Words – from Forrest Church:

Whichever path you followin your search for God ([or Truth or Ultimate Reality], you will never finally discover what you seek.God [and Truth and Ultimate Reality are] far too mysterious and multi-faceted for any of us to comprehend.Ultimate goals will always prove elusive.On the other hand,on the road to God [or Truth or Ultimate Reality], we may find ourselves.

Blessed be.