Blessed Be. Who Are You?

Who am I? Ever since I was a kid it has seemed a very strange thing to be me, whatever that was. Could I have had different parents? Or would that have been a different kid, not me at all, born to different parents? And if I would still be me, even if born to different parents, then doesn't that make every kid, born to any parents whatsoever, me? That's the kind of thing I wondered about as a kid. Did you? Or was that you wondering it when I was wondering it?

I read recently a column by Cognitive Ethologist Marc Bekoff on whether nonhuman animals know who they are. He begins:

“Did David Greybeard, the chimpanzee who Jane Goodall notably was the first to observe using a tool, have any idea of who he was? Do elephants, dolphins, cats, magpies, mice, salmon, ants or bees know who they are?” (LiveScience, 2013 Sep 19)

I read this, and I’m thinking: Heck, do I know who I am? Maybe elephants and magpies have one up on me.

There's a little exercise you can do -- I've done this. It takes two people. You sit facing each other, looking into each other's faces. Person A simply asks, "Who are you?" For five minutes, whatever Person B says, Person A responds the same way: a phrase of acceptance, and then a repeat of the question. "Blessed be. Who are you?"

Here’s how my turn began:

“Who are you?”

"I'm Meredith Garmon."

"Blessed be. Who are you?"

"I'm the minister at the Community Unitarian Church."

"Blessed be. Who are you?"

"I'm the first born child of Gerald and Lucille."

"Blessed be. Who are you?"

"The father of Morgen and John, and more-or-less of Yency."

"Blessed be. Who are you?"

And so on and on. After five minutes, stop, switch places, with Person B asking "Who are you?" and Person A answering. Try this with somebody. It does something to you. I can't tell you what. There's no substitute for the experience itself. But a kind of insight that can't be put in words begins to emerge as you see the inadequacy of one word after another to identify who you are.

I was doing this exercise and reached a point at which I had exhausted everything I could think of about my family or job, my passions, my hobbies, my commitments, my hopes, fears, abilities, disabilities, gifts, shadows. And each time my partner had said: "Blessed be. Who are you?"

Finally I said, "Exactly right."

Who am I? "Who am I?" is who I am. I am the question itself. I am a walking, continuous, "who am I?" And that felt like a good insight -- for about two seconds.

Then my partner patiently said, "Blessed be. Who are you?"

Then I said: "I don't know." It felt freeing to have no conception to stick to -- no word or phrase or definition to package me -- the liberation of not knowing -- for just a moment.

Then, again, "Blessed be, Who are you?"

And so on, and on.

Try it sometime. Find another person. Take 10 minutes – 5 minutes for each of you. You’ll be interested to see what you find coming up.

* * *
This is part 3 of 5 of "Vocation: Who Are You?"
Next: Part 4: "Joining Self and Service"
Previous: Part 2: "Linji Speaks: Nothing To Do"
Beginning: Part 1: "Proverbial Vision"

Linji Speaks: Nothing To Do

Linji Yixuan (ca 812? - 867), a.k.a. Rinzai Gigen, as he is called in Japanese, was a Chinese Chan master.

We don't know much about what he taught, but he was the founder of a line of Chan (Zen) that revered him. Two hundred and fifty years after his death, the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of Linji's disciples created the Linji Yu Lu (The Record of Linji). The book thus reflects the Chan teachings of the Linji school at the beginning of the Song dynasty.

Presumably some of the flavor and style of Linji himself is preserved. Linji's reputation is of an iconoclastic teacher who lead students to awakening with sudden shouts and hitting his students. According the The Record of Linji:

Addressing the assembly, Linji said:

Once there is beholding of reality as it truly is, birth and death can no longer touch you. At that point, whether you stay or go, you do so as a free person. You do not need to go in search of the transcendent, but the transcendent will seek you out.

Because you do not have self-confidence, you are always preoccupied, in a hurry to run after myriad kind of objects outside yourselves, and then you are turned around in circles by these objects and lose all your freedom. If you are able to put an end to the thinking that chases after external objects, you will see that there is no difference between you yourselves and our teacher, the Buddha. Do you want to know who our teacher, the Buddha, is? The Buddha is you yourselves who are before me, listening to me teach the Dharma.

The practitioner who does not have enough self-confidence will always direct his attention to what is external and wander around looking for something. Even if he does find something, that object is just a beautiful form of writing and words. It is not the living mind of the master.

My friends, as far as the insight of this mountain monk goes, there is no difference between you and Shakyamuni Buddha. This very day – the venue of all your varied daily activities – what could possibly be lacking? Is there any moment when the six miraculous beams of light do not shine out? Anyone who has that insight will be a person who has nothing to do throughout his life. If you want to walk, you walk. If you want to sit, you sit – that is, you wade through the day in a bold and unconstrained manner. There is not a single moment of hoping for the fruit of Buddhahood. (ch. 11)

Who are you? Master Linji says you are the awakened one.

It’s just that sometimes we forget that.

This very day, what could possibly be lacking? “Anyone who has this insight will be a person who has nothing to do.” Linji is saying, it isn’t about your doing. It’s about your being. He’s not saying to cease all activity. But let your activity flow from who you are rather than from . . . from what? What’s the alternative about which Linji and countless other spiritual guides and wisdom writers have sought to caution us?

What can sometimes happen is that we’re caught up in our unhappiness with the way things are. We can be driven by a desire for ourselves and our world to be different. We’re driven by the energy of rejection.

Suppose instead, you are at peace with yourself, who you are, your world, and your action flows instead from a grounding in acceptance: accepting what is, even as you engage with it to change it.

* * *
This is part 2 of 5 of "Vocation: Who Are You?"
Next: Part 3: "Blessed Be. Who Are You?"
Beginning: Part 1: "Proverbial Vision"

Proverbial Vision

Vision is the September theme. There are many stories that would seem to illustrate the follies of limited vision.

In 1859, Edwin Drake tried to enlist well drillers for a project to drill for oil. They said, “Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground and try and find oil? You’re crazy.”

In 1876, a Western Union internal memo declared: “This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."

In 1899, Charles H. Duell resigned from his post as Commissioner of the US Patent Office because, he said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

In the 1920s, certain investors declined urgings to invest in radio. They said, "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"

In the 1950s, supposedly, the head of IBM refused a proposal to explore making copy machines. "I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself."

It’s fun to hold up these tales as great examples of failure of vision.

Well maybe.

The point to make about vision is not, as the above examples might seem to imply, Dare to think Big.

After all, f you had said that the Ford Edsel, the Sony Betamax, or Apple’s Newton would never take off, you’d have been right. The dot.com bubble that burst in 2000, the housing market collapse that began in 2007, the big bank failures, and various other economic consequences of over-reaching are all negative consequences of thinking too big.

Sometimes we think too big, and sometimes we don’t think big enough. That’s life.

So when we think about vision, there’s a different angle to take. It’s not about knowing what will pan out and what won’t. It's not about daring to be bold versus being wise enough to be cautious. It’s about knowing who you are.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish,” 

says the Book of Proverbs.

As I mentioned last week, the next clause gives it a spin I wasn’t expecting.

“But he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” (KJV)

We usually think of “vision” as meaning a big-picture goal for the future.” But here “vision” is the opposite of something called, “keeping the law” That’s the King James Version.

The New Revised Standard Version is:

“Where there is no prophecy the people cast off restraint. But happy are those that keep the law.”

The New Living Translation is:

"When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild. But whoever obeys the law is joyful."

The New International Version is:

“Where there is no revelation, people cast off restraint. But blessed is the one who heeds wisdom’s instruction."

For “Proverbs,” what goes by the name of vision is also known as prophecy, divine guidance, revelation. It’s what makes us able to keep the law, which is to say, heed wisdom’s instruction.

To say it less metaphorically, I’d say “vision” is, indeed, about seeing. It’s about seeing who we truly are. When we don’t know who we are, we are undefined, and scattered. That’s how I read “casting off restraint,” “running wild.” It’s the dissolute, dissipated life of not being true to ourselves: jumping from persona to persona without the anchor of a core vision of who we are. That’s no kind of life. It is, indeed, to perish.

By contrast, to keep the law, as I read it, is to keep your own law: to be true to the vision of yourself. It is to heed wisdom’s instruction, recognizing that the best wisdom is in yourself.

It’s there, though we don’t always listen to it. Do we know who we are? Do we listen to our deepest selves?

* * *
This is Part 1 of 5 of "Vocation: Who Are You?"
Next: Part 2: "Linji Speaks: Nothing To Do"

The Gym and the Infirmary

A serviceable mission:

• is neither trite, on the one hand, nor incomprehensible, on the other;
• is short and memorable;
• captures the core of what the congregation is all about yet provides meaningful guidance as it goes forward.

The project of articulating such a mission requires that we think about "mission" in some ways to which we may be unaccustomed.

1. Not the consumer’s mindset. The relationship of a member to a congregation is not primarily the relation of a consumer to a product. The question isn't "what do I want the congregation to provide to me?" Though there are definite benefits of congregational life, that's not the main question in thinking about mission.

2. Not a strictly service orientation. Nor is the relationship of a member to a congregation primarily the relation of a servant to a cause. The question isn't "what can I give to the congregation?" Though the gifts of your time, talents, and treasures are necessary for the life of the congregation, that's also not the main question in thinking about mission.

To paraphrase JFK: Ask neither what your congregation can do for you, nor what you can do for your congregation.

Instead, think about the ways you'd like to grow, learn, deepen, and develop that congregational life might, conceivably, help with. This will involve some service to you from the congregation, and it will involve some contribution from you to the congregation, but not in a way that the receiving and the giving can be easily or neatly separated. It will also involve you doing your own work: much of it on your own, while guided by your congregational connection.

When we ask how you'd like to grow, learn, deepen, and develop, we aren't implying that you aren't good enough already. You're plenty good enough. You are, in fact, perfect -- exactly the way you are. So now what? What are you going to do next with your wonderful, perfect self? What's next for you in your ongoing growth?

Unitarian Universalist minister, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, has written:

"If I go to the gym and people are sprawled out napping on the floor of the aerobics studio, I will think the gym management is not just remiss, but nuts. It’s no different in church. We’re all there for heart strengthening of a different kind. Leaders should be empowered to be able to say: “Get off the aerobics floor, please. You can nap at home.” This isn’t about not loving people. It’s about being clear what church is for. “Napping on the floor of the aerobics studio is not part of our mission, so we won’t be addressing your complaints about the pillows.” (See the full blog post here.)

Let us really listen to our own hearts and see if we can articulate what sort of direction our perfect beings are urging us to move in now – which muscles we’re out to strengthen at the faith gym called church. Who would you like to be more like, that your congregation might help with?

To say that a church is a spiritual gym is not to forget that often the church is also a spiritual infirmary. There are times in life when we come to church sick at heart, soul weary, broken-spirited. Before we can think about the exercises and disciplines which cultivate and strengthen our wisdom, compassion, and equanimity, we just need to be cared for. We need replenishing rest. Yes, the church has that pastoral function in addition to its prophetic task. Yes, the church is there to comfort the afflicted as well as afflict (encourage in the spiritual disciplines) the complacently comfortable.

So: Who would you like to be more like, that your congregation might help with?

One UU told me that his aim was to “remain just as I am now.” I resonate with this poignant yearning. There is a part of my heart that would like to stop time, make everything permanent. The heart knows that desire. But, alas. There are a lot of things a faith community can help you with, but stopping time is not one of them. We could choose a mission that was focused on maintenance of physical and mental health -- we could orient our programming toward exercise and diet classes, and programs to help us keep our minds sharp. Such programs would help us remain healthier for longer -- but no matter how hard we work at it, individually and collectively, we won't remain exactly as we are.

A good mission statement will, in about three phrases, capture the yearnings that are most alive in us. Here’s one pretty good mission that one Unitarian Universalist congregation came up with:

“Healing spiritual disconnection by helping each other Listen to our deepest selves, open to life’s gifts, and serve needs greater than our own.”

That’s short enough to remember. It has an even shorter way to remember it:

Listen, Open, Serve.

If you can remember "listen, open, serve," then with just a little practice, you can remember the rest: Listen (to our deepest selves), Open (to life’s gifts), and Serve (needs greater than our own). Then you only need to remember the lead-in: "Healing spiritual disconnection by helping each other . . . "

This mission statement meets the criteria:

• It is brief and memorable.
• It identifies the work each member is there to do.
• It says how the members of that congregation want to be changed.

The congregation that adopted this mission statement (the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rochester, NY) used their mission to organize every program and every policy toward being a place where people are transformed, where people learn to listen (to the deepest self), open (to life’s gifts), and serve (needs greater than our own).

A congregation’s effort to articulate its mission is likely to yield a result which, even if supported by a consensus, is one to which a few of the members just don’t feel called. And that's OK. Even if there are members who aren't interested in the congregation's mission -- even if there are folks who don't want to be intentional about the changes that are coming anyway, those folks will always be welcome. They’ll be able to continue enjoying what they have always enjoyed about congregational life.

It’s just that those who yearn to move forward should not be held back back those are comfortable not moving at all. The world needs – cries out for -- those who do choose to accept a mission of embodying a spiritually deepening liberal religion.

* * *
This is part 5 of 5 of "Mission: Possible"
Previous: Part 4: "Becoming Partly Intentional"
Beginning: Part 1: "The Vision Thing"

Becoming Partly Intentional

What kind of person would you like to be more like -- and that an ideal congregation would be able to help you be? For Unitarian Universalists, the seven principles are important – yet the principles are pretty general. If we could say how we wanted to be changed by affirming and promoting the inherent worth and dignity of every person; how we would hope to be transformed by affirming and promoting justice, equity, and compassion; what we thought it would do to us to affirm and promote acceptance of one another, or the free and responsible search for truth, or respect for the interdependent web of existence; then we would know two really cool things.

First, we would know we were serious about those principles. If I expect my commitment -- to the goal of world community, to the rights of conscience, to encouragement to spiritual growth -- to change me, that’s a meaningful commitment. If I don’t expect it to change me – if I don’t expect it to make a difference to who I am -- then I’m just paying lip service to those ideals. I’m just saying, “Yeah, that sounds good,” but I’m not expecting it to change my life, which means I’m not expecting it to really mean much to me.

Second, if we could say how we expected the work of upholding our principles to change us, then we would have a much better idea of how to specifically embody those rather abstract and general principles and ideals. We don’t need to spell out details of the meanings of the terms of our principles. If we know what kind of people we are resolved to be on a path toward being, that will tell us what we need to know about how we’re going to affirm and promote inherent worth and dignity; peace, liberty, and justice; respect for the interdependent web.
To what will you commit? Who is the person you hope your congregation and your commitment will help you become? What kind of work -- inner and outer -- are you ready to do, and which your congregation can guide?

I need to be clear: this is not about what’s wrong with you that needs to be fixed. You are not broken and you don’t need fixing. You are perfect exactly the way you are.
I learned about human perfection almost 32 years ago on the day my first child was born. I held her in my arms, and she was perfect. And she grew, and she was challenging, and she became a teenager, and that was sometimes difficult. But if I stopped to ask myself the question, where along the line of her years did she stop being perfect, I would have to answer she never did. Her unfolding, her growing and changing, her challenge and difficulty, were a part of her perfection. Even when it was appropriate to identify a particular behavior as a mistake, it was a perfect mistake. It was exactly the mistake she needed to make to learn what she needed to learn in the ongoing unfolding of her perfection. If she never stopped being perfect, then, I realized, neither did I. If I never stopped being perfect, then neither did you.

I believe in your perfection. I also believe that perfection is not static. It is a dynamic blossoming and unfolding. We can let that unfolding happen accidentally. It is inevitable, in any case, that accident will play a large role. Or we can bring a measure of intentionality to our growth and unfolding.

It is the function of prayer to give voice to the yearnings of our own becoming. In prayer, then – and in journaling and meditating and soul-searching and conversation with other earnest seekers -- let us seek the articulation of a mission which is ours, the articulation which will marshal our resources to unfold our perfection in a partly intentional -- rather than wholly accidental -- direction.

* * *
This is part 4 of 5 of "Mission: Possible"
Next: Part 5: "The Gym and the Infirmary"
Previous: Part 3: "Name the Change"
Beginning: Part 1: "The Vision Thing"

Name the Change

Sometimes a congregation could use more clarity about why it gathers, maintains a building, pays a staff. Not that there aren't already some good words about what the congregation is all about. It's very rare for a congregation to have to start from scratch on this. Most are off to a good start.

Unitarian Universalist congregations have the seven principles. These say quite a lot about what the congregation exists for. The seven principles – the principles for all Unitarian Universalists -- are a covenant to affirm and promote:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth;
• The free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process in our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part.

What does any UU congregation exist for? It exists to affirm and promote those seven principles, that's what. Even so, a little more clarity could help.

You may have noticed, the language of the principles is all rather general. How exactly shall we, for instance, affirm and promote the free and responsible search for truth and meaning? How exactly are we to work compassionately for peace, liberty, and justice. And how can we tell if we’re doing it?

If those are the things we’re here for, are we doing them? Are we doing what we say we’re here to do? If I had to answer that question, I'd have say, “Well, kinda.”

It’s not that more details are needed. I don’t think that would help. Details are subject to endless quibbling over and too easy to ignore in any case, too hard to remember. Details don’t capture the heart and fire the imagination.

What we've got is language that's general and abstract. Yet adding specific details isn't the way to go. So what would help?

Here's what I think would help. Each member asks herself/himself this question:

"How would I like to be changed?"

A congregation can get some clarity on what it's here for if it can identify how the members would like to be changed. What kind of people would they like to become? Our seven principles don't answer that. They don't say how the people living by that covenant will be, or would hope to be, transformed by adhering to the principles.

The central question for each of us is this: On what path would I like to see myself? In what direction is that path headed?

Naming the change we seek -- not adding more specific detail to our abstract and general principles -- is how Unitarian Universalists can get clearer on what they're about.

* * *
This is part 3 of 5 of "Mission: Possible"
Next: Part 4: "Becoming Partly Intentional"
Previous: Part 2: "Atone = At One"
Beginning: Part 1: "The Vision Thing"

Am I an Atheist?

In the May 22 post on this blog, "The Class Atheist," I wrote:

“It goes back to when I was in fourth grade, and I first heard the word ‘atheist’ – and asked what it meant. Shortly afterward, I decided I was one.”

That May 22 post went on to describe how I have, since fourth grade, slowly come to appreciate spirituality – as have a number of atheists. While these “spiritual atheists” maintain an identity as atheists as well as spiritual people, I wasn’t clear, in that post or subsequently, about my own self-identifications. Certainly, in fourth-grade, and pretty much on through middle school and high school, I was atheist-identified. But am I now? No. Neither do I identify as theist.

Am I a Marxist? I don’t know how to answer that question in a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ This is not a matter of not knowing what I believe, not a matter of being "agnostic" on the issue. It's a matter of not wanting to identify my beliefs with a word that has so much baggage that it will obscure whatever I might be trying to say. Marx had some insightful analysis. There were also areas where I think his approach is not helpful. I guess I’m a Marxist in some senses of the term and an Amarxist in some senses of that term. Better just to say that I identify myself neither as Marxist nor Amarxist, but as someone who sometimes invokes Marxist language and sometimes invokes Amarxist language.

Similarly, when I (now) decline to self-identify as either atheist or theist, it isn’t because I'm agnostic. This isn't about not knowing what I believe. It’s because the baggage of those words will obscure whatever I might be trying to say. Those words, "atheist" and "theist," in the present cultural context, are inescapably tribal – i.e., the words are used to signal tribal identification in an ongoing culture war. I don’t care to be a warrior in either tribe. That’s just not a fight that I want to be a part of. My calling is to minister alike to members of the atheist tribe, members of the theist tribe, and those who, like me, prefer not to choose sides in that fight. (Though there are plenty of other fights in which I do choose sides.)

The word “God,” has a very long history of referring to a source of mystery and meaning, an origin, a basis for values and commitment, an ultimate the contemplation of which cultivates well-being, humility, peace, and an ethical vision. Sometimes I want to refer to those things. I’m comfortable saying “God” to make that reference, and I will often talk about God for that reason from the pulpit on Sunday morning. “God,” better than any other word, clearly and directly specifies that what I’m talking about is indeed an ultimate ground of both concrete values and commitments and at the same time incomprehensible, mysterious, full of powers we can but dimly apprehend (e.g., dark matter, 128 dimensions, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, reproduction, immunological response, consciousness): a reason for living, and a beauty beyond reason.

I also need to reach people for whom the word “God” is nothing but a distraction. I want to reach them with a spiritual message, and while “God” would be a helpful way to convey that message with many UUs, it’s also a stumbling block for others. So sometimes I avoid the word when I'd have been comfortable using it.

UUs are a diverse lot. I try to make sure that over the course of a number of Sundays everybody gets their turn. I also ask my congregants to stretch themselves a bit and hear the message as it would be in their language even when I’m speaking it, for that Sunday, in “the other side’s” language.