Songs of Comfort

This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper at First Unitarian Church in New Bedford. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2006 Daniel Harper.

Readings

The first reading is a translation of the 65th Psalm from a book published by the American Unitarian Association in 1867, a translation of the book of Psalms by Unitarian minister George Noyes, which I have modernized and adapted slightly.

Happy are those whom you choose
to bring near to you, to dwell in your lands….

You make fast the mountains
with your great strength;
and still the roaring sea,
the roar of its waves.

You make the coming of the morning,
and the time of the evening to rejoice.

You visit the earth,
enrich it exceedingly,
with your river full of water.

You supply the earth with corn
when you have thus prepared the earth.

You water earth’s furrows
and break down its ridges
and make it soft with showers
and bless its increase.

You crown the year with goodness,
your footsteps make fruitful the wilderness;
the hills are covered with gladness.

The second reading comes as essay on the Psalms, written by Kathleen Farmer, from The Women’s Bible Commentary:

“As a category, the psalms of lament are remarkable for their use of abrasive, impetuous language. The psalmists refuse to mince words or to couch their demands in polite, euphemistic terms. Thus, for instance, the speakers in Psalms 35 and 44 bluntly tell God to wake up, pay attention, and get busy helping them before it is too late for them to be saved. The psalmists remind God that human beings have too limited a life span to wait for justice to come at God’s own convenience (Psalm 90). The psalmists also use remarkably vivid, picturesque, and exaggerated language to describe the unbearable situations in which they find themselves. Most remarkable of all is the consistency with which the psalmists seem to find themselves empowered by their prayers to move from their situations of grief and despair into situations of hope and confidence….

“Assurance does not come only to those who wait passively for their pain to be noticed or for their needs to be filled. The psalm shows that a renewal of faith can come through the articulation of rather than through the denial or repression of innermost thoughts, no matter how far those thoughts seem to go beyond the ‘accepted norms’ of society or organized religions.” [“Psalms,” Kathleen A. Farmer, in: Carol A. Newsome and Sharon H. Ringe, editors, The Women’s Bible Commentary, p. 141]

SERMON — “Songs of Comfort”

Half a dozen years ago, I spent the summer at Massachusetts General Hospital doing a chaplaincy internship. A hospital chaplain sees all kinds of extreme situations: people who have been told they will die in a few days, people suddenly struck down with debilitating illnesses, all the situations you’d expect to find in a hospital. But one of the most memorable incidents for me had nothing to do with one of these life or death situations.

I was making the rounds in one of my assigned units, and a woman who was in the hospital for a couple of days for minor surgery asked to talk with me. I sat down, and we talked about her illness; she was in quite a bit of pain. We talked further, and it came out that she was a good Bible-reading Christian of the old school. Then it came out that she would like to hear me read one of the Psalms. Which one? I asked, thinking that she would want to hear that old standby, Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” I thought that would be the sort of psalm you’d want to hear if you were in pain.

But the psalm this woman asked me to read was quite different: it was one where the poet who wrote it calls on God to strike down the poet’s enemies. I’m no longer quite sure which psalm the woman asked me to read, but to the best of my recollection it was Psalm 35, which begins:

Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
fight against those who fight against me.

Take up shield and buckler;
arise and come to my aid.

Brandish spear and javelin
against those who pursue me….

May those who seek my life
be disgraced and put to shame;
may those who plot my ruin
be turned back in dismay. [New Revised Standard Version]

Although I was a little surprised at her choice, I read the psalm to her. “Oh, that’s a good one,” she said, and leaned her head back against her pillow. She was quite satisfied with it, and took great comfort from hearing it.

Personally, I wouldn’t take any great comfort from that particular psalm, or from any of the psalms that call on God to strike down one’s enemies, to do vengeance. But later, as I thought about it, I realized that the 23rd Psalm, the one which is best known in our culture, and the one which many families request to have included when I do a memorial service, has its own call for vengeance. It begins with: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters”; which all sounds fairly comforting; but towards the end, we hear: “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.”

For some of the greatest pain that human beings can experience is the pain that comes when you are held down by someone who has power over you. Much of the poetry in the book of Psalms was written thousands of years ago by people in the ancient Jewish community who were being held down by a few wealthy people from their own community. In his book The Hebrew Bible, Bible scholar Norman Gottwald says this about the ancient Israelites who wrote the psalms some three thousand years ago: “…there can be little doubt that an enormous part of the suffering which psalmists protest is the pauperization of the populace through the manipulation of debt and confiscation procedures in such a way that even the traditional courts of Israel can be used to amass wealth in defiance of the explicit laws of the community.” [Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A socio-literary introduction, p. 539]

In other words, a few extremely wealthy people in ancient Israel managed to get even more wealth by manipulating the legal system by confiscating property and getting poor people even deeper into debt. These few wealthy people even flouted the laws of ancient Israel, laws which actually prohibited anyone from amassing too much wealth, for the ancient Israelites knew that it is not right for a very few people to have a very large amount of wealth.

If you see parallels between ancient Israel and America today, I think you’re absolutely correct. We read in the newspapers that the super-rich, the wealthiest one tenth of one percent of the American population, continue to amass more and more wealth; while the poor, the working people, the middle class, the upper middle class, and even the merely rich people in this country find themselves losing ground. We can’t pay for health care, we can’t pay for elder care, we can’t pay for housing; while the super-rich keep getting richer and richer.

Now if you think this is going to turn into a political sermon, you’re wrong. But from a religious point of view, the ancient Jewish poems in the book of Psalms confirm our feeling that such injustice is wrong; such injustice is not inevitable; and such injustice is not moral or ethical. Furthermore, according to Bible scholar Norman Gottwald, the psalm writers knew that even your personal physical illness could be related to things you may suffer at the hands of unjust society, for, as Gottwald writes, “it is well known that the incidence of some diseases is closely related to poor diet, harsh working conditions, ecological abuse,… and demoralization in the face of unrelenting injustice.”

And this may be why the 23rd psalm remains so popular in our society. Next time you hear people reciting the 23rd Psalm at a funeral or memorial service, and you hear, “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies,” think about what that might mean. Injustice can kill you; even if it doesn’t kill you outright, it can grind you down and hasten your death.

So thinking back to my experience with that woman in the hospital, it is entirely understandable why she asked me to read the 35th Psalm to her, and I can fully understand how it would comfort her to hear:

May those who seek my life
be disgraced and put to shame;
may those who plot my ruin
be turned back in dismay. [NRSV]

I personally do not believe in a God who would “Take up shield and buckler; brandish spear and javelin against those who pursue me.” Yet neither do I believe in religion that remains quiet in the face of obvious injustice; there is no comfort in such a religion.

In the second reading this morning, the reading by Kathleen Farmer from The Women’s Bible Commentary, tells us a little bit more about Psalm 35. Farmer tells us: “the speaker in Psalms 35 and 44 bluntly tell God to wake up, pay attention, and get busy helping them before it is too late for them to be saved.” Kathleen Farmer tells us that some of the comfort that comes from Psalm 35, and from any of the psalms, is an assurance that help doesn’t come to those who sit passively and wait. And so the ancient writers of the psalms cry out, in pain and in anger, they call upon their God to wake up and pay attention.

Along these lines, I am particularly moved by the words of the 69th psalm, which begins:

Save me, O God,
for the waters have come up to my neck.

I sink in deep mire,
where there is no foothold;

I have come into deep waters,
and the flood sweeps over me.

I am weary with my crying;
my throat is parched.

My eyes grow dim
with waiting for my God. [NRSV]

Who among us hasn’t felt at some point in life that we were neck-deep and the waters were rising? These ancient Israelite writers forthrightly said that their God didn’t always acknowledge human problems: “My eyes grow dim/ with waiting for my God.” Their God didn’t always acknowledge human problems, even when those problems were utterly overwhelming: “I sink in deep mire,/ where there is no foothold.”

Even if we do not believe in the God of the ancient Israelites, we can still appreciate these poems. As with any poetry, you do not need to take these poems literally. They can move you whether or not you believe in God. To hear their “abrasive, impetuous language” [Kathleen Farmer]; to hear poets who don’t mince words, who aren’t polite in the face of suffering and injustice; this alone can empower us, can help us find our own inner power. We do not need to remain passive sufferers; we can find strength within ourselves, strength in the ordinary stuff of daily living.

Lord knows we all could use some strength in our lives. We all have trials to face in our personal lives: health, money (or rather the lack of money), family problems, job; it may be different for each of us, but we each have a greater or lesser share of trials to face. Beyond our personal trials, we also have the big communal trials that we face together: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that grinds on year after year; injustice and hatred; continued inequality for women and people of color; violence on the streets and in the home; global climate change and looming environmental disaster.

Just listening to that list of problems is enough to bring me down, to make me feel as if “the waters are up to my neck…/ I have come into deep waters,/ and the flood sweeps over me.” Actually, when it comes to global climate change, we might quite literally see floods sweeping over us, what with the melting polar ice cap and rising sea levels.

I’ve been thinking about global climate change quite a bit this year. The scientific consensus is that global warming is happening right now, and the consensus also is that we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. Some scientists tell us to expect more and bigger hurricanes. Some scientists tell us to expect warmer winters, which is nice, but much hotter summers, which is not so nice. But mostly we don’t quite know what’s going on, or how bad global climate change could be. Not a comfortable situation for us to be in.

With all the bad news about global climate change, I’ve been longing for a little comfort. Archeological evidence shows us that the land of Israel had been forested and green thousands of years ago, but human development had turned it into a desert, perhaps during the time of the ancient Israelites. The writers of the Psalms may well have seen ecological disaster first-hand; and some of their poems can offer us a measure of comfort as we face our own ecological disaster. The 19th Psalm tells about the beauties of the natural world:

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;

yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.

Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and nothing is hidden from its heat. [NRSV 19.2-7]

So the ancient Israelite poet tells us about the glories and beauties of the natural world. The next part of the poem can be taken in at least two ways. You can understand it literally as telling you that the God of the ancient Israelites is perfect and must be obeyed; or you can understand it in a metaphorical, poetic way. Let me read you the next passage, and then tell you how I understand it as metaphor and poetry:

The teaching of the Lord is perfect,
renewing life;

the decrees of the Lord are enduring,
making the simple wise;

the precepts of the Lord are just,
rejoicing the heart;
the instruction of the Lord is lucid,
making the eyes light up…. [Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, Psalm 19.8-9]

If you wish to understand this as literally telling you to obey the laws of the God of the ancient Israelites, that’s fine with me. But you can also understand this metaphorically, where God’s teaching is the laws of Nature. The laws of the natural world are perfect, and Nature renews life and rejoices the heart; the laws of Nature are quite lucid, making our eyes light up when we finally understand them.

Perhaps this poem was written with reference to the desertification of the ancient Middle East; but we can read it in reference to global climate change. The laws of Nature, the instructions of God, are indeed quite lucid:– Don’t dump tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because it causes global warming! And this applies beyond global climate change:– Don’t dump toxic wastes into New Bedford harbor because the toxic waste will cause cancer! Don’t lead an unsustainable lifestyle, because it’s not sustainable! These teachings and instructions are clear, simple, and they should make anyone’s eyes light up.

And I take a certain amount of comfort from the fact that this is a religious poem, carrying with it all the moral and ethical force that religion can carry. Today’s environmental crisis has roots in religion; we seem to think that we have been divinely ordained to exploit the earth. But we can take comfort that this ancient religious poem, one of the religious writings that lies at the core of our Western culture, tells us with all the force of religion that we should not break the laws of Nature.

I take comfort as well from the 65th psalm, which tells of the beauties and wonders of Nature, which tells us how Nature cares for us, supports us, upholds us. To whom was this song addressed?– certainly not to the stereotypical vision of God as an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud somewhere. No, you could sing this song to the Goddess, you could address this song to Mother Nature. We heard one version of the 65th psalm as the first reading this morning, but let me read you another version, a different translation:

…you are the hope of all the ends of the earth
and of the farthest seas….

You visit the earth and water it,
you greatly enrich it;

the river of God is full of water;
you provide the people with grain,
for so you have prepared it.

You water its furrows abundantly,
settling its ridges,

softening it with showers,
and blessing its growth.

You crown the year with your bounty;
your wagon tracks overflow with richness.

The pastures of the wilderness overflow,
the hills gird themselves with joy,

the meadows clothe themselves with flocks,
the valleys deck themselves with grain,
they shout and sing together for joy. [NRSV 65.7,9-14]

This poem brings me comfort on several levels of meaning. It comforts me because it reminds me how beautiful Nature is, and it reminds me to appreciate what a beautiful world we live in. It comforts me to realize that the Jewish and Christian religions, which take this poem as part of their scriptures, that these powerful religions can be brought to bear to help people understand that we have a religious duty to protect the earth. And this poem comforts me on a very personal level:– personally, when I am feeling down, when I am feeling as if I’m neck deep and the water’s rising, I don’t take much comfort in rejoicing over my perceived enemies. But I have always taken great comfort in the natural world.

Our problems today are unique, of course. The problem of global climate change is of far greater magnitude than the localized ecological problems of the ancient Middle East. And each of us faces our own unique and individual problems. I cannot know exactly what you are going through; nor can you know exactly what I am going through; and neither you nor I cann know exactly what problems that woman in Massachusetts General Hospital was facing, the woman I told you about at the beginning of this sermon.

Yet although each person’s problems are unique to that person; although each generation’s problems are unique to that generation; even so, as human beings we all share something in common. Because of our common humanity, we can have some small insight into each other’s problems; because of our common humanity, we can comfort one another, even if we do not fully understand what another person is going through.

When I read the ancient poetry in the book of Psalms, written thousands of years ago by those ancient Jewish writers, there is much that I don’t understand about them or their poetry. We can’t know much about their lives; the God they worship may not be God as we understand it, and the manner of their worship in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem would probably be incomprehensible to us. Obviously, they can know next to nothing about us: they could not have understood global climate change; they could not have understood what it is like to be in a modern hospital; they could not have dreamed about many of our modern problems.

Yet there is a connection between us, across all those thousands of years. Their poetry describes human emotions that have not changed much at all. As ancient and alien as it might be in many ways, their poetry can offer us real comfort.

We do not have to fully understand one another to offer support and comfort to one another. We can reach out across whatever may divide us, extend a helping hand to each other, and know that there is comfort simply in extending our hands.

A Christmas Carol

This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2006 Daniel Harper.

The first half of the worship service consisted primarily of readings from Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, abridged and adapted by Dan Harper; this book is in the public domain.

Readings

The opening words come from the opening of “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens:

Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner; Scrooge signed it. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

Scrooge and he were partners for I don’t know how many years. And even Scrooge was not so dreadfully cut up by the sad event, but that he was an excellent man of business on the very day of the funeral, and solemnised it with an undoubted bargain.

Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shrivelled his cheek, stiffened his gait; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice. He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dog-days; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.

Nobody ever stopped him in the street to say, with gladsome looks, “My dear Scrooge, how are you? When will you come to see me?” No beggars implored him to bestow a trifle, no man or woman ever once in all his life inquired the way to such and such a place, of Scrooge. Even the blind men’s dogs appeared to know him; and when they saw him coming on, would tug their owners into doorways and up courts; and then would wag their tails as though they said, “No eye at all is better than an evil eye!”

But what did Scrooge care! It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call “nuts” to Scrooge.

Words for lighting a flame in the chalice:

Once upon a time — of all the good days in the year, on Christmas Eve — old Scrooge sat busy in his counting-house. It was cold, bleak, biting weather: and he could hear the people in the court outside, go wheezing up and down, beating their hands, and stamping their feet upon the pavement stones to warm them. The fog came pouring in at every chink and keyhole, and was so dense without, that although the court was of the narrowest, the houses opposite were mere phantoms. The city clocks had only just gone three, but it was quite dark already — it had not been light all day — and candles were flaring in the windows of the neighbouring offices, like ruddy smears upon the palpable brown air.

Scrooge had a very small fire in his counting-house, but his clerk’s fire was so very much smaller that it looked like one coal. But he couldn’t replenish it, for Scrooge kept the coal-box in his own room. Wherefore the clerk put on his white comforter, and tried to warm himself at the candle; in which effort, not being a man of a strong imagination, he failed.

Responsive Reading

A cheerful voice cried out:

“A merry Christmas, uncle! God save you!” It was the voice of Scrooge’s nephew, who came upon him so quickly that this was the first intimation he had of his approach.

“Bah!” said Scrooge, “Humbug!” This nephew of Scrooge’s had so heated himself with rapid walking in the fog and frost, that he was all in a glow; his face was ruddy and handsome; his eyes sparkled, and his breath smoked again.

“Christmas a humbug, uncle!” said Scrooge’s nephew. “You don’t mean that, I am sure?”

“I do,” said Scrooge. “Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? What reason have you to be merry? You’re poor enough.”

“Come, then,” returned the nephew gaily. “What right have you to be dismal? You’re rich enough.”

Scrooge having no better answer ready on the spur of the moment, said, “Bah!” again; and followed it up with “Humbug.”

“Don’t be cross, uncle!” said the nephew.

“What else can I be,” said Scrooge indignantly, “when I live in such a world of fools as this? Merry Christmas! Out upon merry Christmas! What’s Christmas time to you but a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer? If I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart!”

“Uncle!” pleaded the nephew.

“Nephew!” returned the uncle sternly, “keep Christmas in your own way, and let me keep it in mine.”

“I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time,” returned the nephew, “when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!”

First reading

Scrooge took his melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern; and having beguiled the rest of the evening with his banker’s-book, went home to bed. The yard was so dark that even Scrooge, who knew its every stone, was fain to grope with his hands.

Now, it is a fact, that there was nothing at all particular about the knocker on the door, except that it was very large. And then let any man explain to me, if he can, how it happened that Scrooge, having his key in the lock of the door, saw in the knocker, without its undergoing any intermediate process of change — not a knocker, but Marley’s face.

Marley’s face. It was not in impenetrable shadow as the other objects in the yard were, but had a dismal light about it, like a bad lobster in a dark cellar. It was not angry or ferocious, but looked at Scrooge as Marley used to look: with ghostly spectacles turned up on its ghostly forehead. The hair was curiously stirred, as if by breath or hot air; and, though the eyes were wide open, they were perfectly motionless. That, and its livid colour, made it horrible; but its horror seemed to be in spite of the face and beyond its control, rather than a part of its own expression.

Up Scrooge went to his rooms, closed his door, and locked himself in; double-locked himself in, which was not his custom. Thus secured against surprise, he took off his cravat; put on his dressing-gown and slippers, and his nightcap; and sat down before the fire to take his gruel.

It was a very low fire indeed; nothing on such a bitter night. He was obliged to sit close to it, and brood over it, before he could extract the least sensation of warmth from such a handful of fuel.

His glance happened to rest upon a bell, a disused bell, that hung in the room. It was with great astonishment, and with a strange, inexplicable dread, that as he looked, he saw this bell begin to swing. It swung so softly; but soon it rang out loudly, and so did every bell in the house. The bells ceased as they had begun, together. They were succeeded by a clanking noise, deep down below; as if some person were dragging a heavy chain over the casks in the wine-merchant’s cellar. The cellar-door flew open with a booming sound, and then he heard the noise much louder, on the floors below; then coming up the stairs; then coming straight towards his door.

“It’s humbug still!” said Scrooge. “I won’t believe it.”
His colour changed though, when, without a pause, it came on through the heavy door, and passed into the room before his eyes. Upon its coming in, the dying flame leaped up, as though it cried, “I know him; Marley’s Ghost!” and fell again.

The same face: the very same. Marley in his pigtail, usual waistcoat, tights and boots; the tassels on the latter bristling, like his pigtail, and his coat-skirts, and the hair upon his head. The chain he drew was clasped about his middle. It was long, and wound about him like a tail; and it was made (for Scrooge observed it closely) of cash-boxes, keys, padlocks, ledgers, deeds, and heavy purses wrought in steel. His body was transparent; so that Scrooge, observing him, and looking through his waistcoat, could see the two buttons on his coat behind.

Scrooge had often heard it said that Marley had no bowels, but he had never believed it until now….

Second reading

“How now!” said Scrooge, caustic and cold as ever. “What do you want with me?”

“Much!” — Marley’s voice, no doubt about it.

“Who are you?”

“Ask me who I was.”

“Who were you then?” said Scrooge, raising his voice. “You’re particular, for a shade.”

“In life I was your partner, Jacob Marley.”

“You don’t believe in me,” observed the Ghost.

“I don’t,” said Scrooge.

“Why do you doubt your senses?”

“Because,” said Scrooge, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are! Humbug, I tell you! humbug!”

At this the spirit raised a frightful cry, and shook its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself from falling in a swoon. But how much greater was his horror, when the phantom taking off the bandage round its head, as if it were too warm to wear indoors, its lower jaw dropped down upon its breast!

Scrooge fell upon his knees, and clasped his hands before his face.

“Man of the worldly mind!” replied the Ghost, “do you believe in me or not?”

“I do,” said Scrooge. “I must. But why do spirits walk the earth, and why do they come to me?”

“It is required of every man,” the Ghost returned, “that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world — oh, woe is me! — and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!”

SERMON — A Christmas Carol

“It is required of every one of us,” says the Ghost to old Scrooge, that our spirits within ourselves should walk abroad among humanity, and travel far and wide. To travel far and wide does not mean that you must immediately head off to a far continent. However, sitting in your counting house counting all your money does not count towards such travel. What the Ghost is telling Scrooge (and us) is that our spirits must rove beyond the narrow limits of making money; or for that matter, spending it.

You all know this as well as I do. We hear this all the time during the Christmas season. We are reminded over and over that the importance of Christmas lies, not in the toys and gifts, not in how much money you spend, but in human contact, human relationships. The advertisements tell us this, and tell us that the gifts we buy are what will cement those human relationships. And I believe the advertisements.

Yes, our spirits must rove beyond the narrow limits of the counting house, the office, and the mall. And if we don’t let our spirits rove during our lives, says the Ghost, why then we’re condemned to do it after death. As an ultra-Universalist, I say there is no punishment after death; but I’m willing to accept the Ghost’s admonition as a good metaphor. When Scrooge first sees the Ghost of Marley, he notices the chain Marley wears about his middle: “It was long, and wound about him like a tail; and it was made (for Scrooge observed it closely) of cash-boxes, keys, padlocks, ledgers, deeds, and heavy purses wrought in steel.” When Scrooge asks the Ghost about this chain, the Ghost replies: “I wear the chain I forged in life…. I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you? Or would you know the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself?” At which Scrooge trembles, for he knows full well that he, too, is wound about with chains: chains which bind him to his cold, cheerless, circumscribed world. And even though we chuckle at Scrooge’s stubbornness, we who hear this story are left with an uncomfortable feeling as if perhaps there are chains bound about our own waists — terrible thought! — no wonder the doctor tells us we need to lose weight!

The Ghost of Marley gives Scrooge hope that he might be saved from the Ghost’s fate. Three Spirits will come and haunt Scrooge: one to show him the past, one to show him the present, and one to show him the future.

Scrooge falls asleep; the bell chimes the hour, and Scrooge awakens. The first of the three spirits comes, saying: “I am the Ghost of Christmas Past.” Scrooge is whisked off to see to see how he spent past Christmasses. The Ghost takes him to see his boyhood home: “They went, the Ghost and Scrooge, across the hall, to a door at the back of the house. It opened before them, and disclosed a long, bare, melancholy room, made barer still by lines of plain deal forms and desks. At one of these a lonely boy was reading near a feeble fire; and Scrooge sat down upon a form, and wept to see his poor forgotten self as he used to be.” Like so many of us, Scrooge had had sadness and loneliness in his life, which he had conveniently forgotten. And the Ghost of Christmas Past brings him to see him at his first job, where his boss kept the fires burning brightly and warmly for Scrooge and the other workers, and stopped all work on Christmas Eve so that all might celebrate together. In those days, Scrooge had heartily celebrated Christmas; but then his thoughts had turned increasingly to money; and because money had meant so much to him, he had ended his engagement to a young woman: and so it was that he found himself old and alone, alone except for his money, alone except for his possessions.

You know how the story goes. The Ghost of Christmas Past departs; Scrooge falls asleep again, and is awakened by the Ghost of Christmas Present, a hearty, likable sort of Ghost, who takes Scrooge off on a journey to see how the rest of the world celebrates Christmas: not grouchily sitting alone, saying “Humbug!”; but celebrating in the company of others, and relishing the human contact. The Ghost of Christmas Present takes old Scrooge to see how his clerk, Bob Cratchit, celebrates Christmas; you wouldn’t think that a man so poor as Bob Cratchit could be merry at Christmas time, but he is, with his family gathered around him. Even Tiny Tim, Bob’s son who can’t walk without crutches, is merry at Christmas. And then off to see Scrooge’s nephew celebrating Christmas, and to hear the nephew’s assessment of his miserly old uncle: ” ‘He’s a comical old fellow,’ said Scrooge’s nephew, ‘that’s the truth: and not so pleasant as he might be. His wealth is of no use to him. He don’t do any good with it. He don’t make himself comfortable with it. However, his offences carry their own punishment, and I have nothing to say against him.'” Indeed, Scrooge’s offences do carry their own punishment, here and now, in this life: for he is miserable, even though he doesn’t quite know it himself. Although the visits of the Ghost of Christmas are beginning to show himself how miserable he truly is.

Scrooge receives one more visitor, a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, the grimmest and silentest and most frightening of all the Ghosts. Most frightening, because this ghost shows Scrooge how he will die, unmourned by all, dismissed with the phrase: “Old Scratch has got his own at last, hey?” Scrooge will die, and his house be plundered by common thieves as he lies dead on his deathbed, for he will have no one to look after him and care about him. Scrooge will die, and the only people who feel any emotion at his death are a young couple who rejoice because they owed Scrooge money and his death will buy them a little more time to pay off that debt.

You know the rest of the story. Scrooge awakens in the morning to find that it is Christmas Day — imagine that, all those visits by all those Ghosts had occurred in one short night! — and of course Scrooge has thoroughly reformed. He sends a giant Christmas turkey to Bob Cratchit, his clerk; he gives money to charity; he dines with his nephew; and the day after Christmas, he increases Bob Cratchit’s salary. And as the years go by, he becomes like a second father to little Tiny Tim.

Yet the funny thing is that we best remember Scrooge as he is before he reforms. We remember him as the mean, penurious, cranky old man who says, “Bah!” and “Humbug!” We remember Scrooge as the man who won’t let his clerk add even one tiny piece of coal to the fire in the office, even though it is frightfully cold. We remember Scrooge as the man who won’t give money to charity to help the poor, for after all that’s what the prisons and poor houses are for. We remember Scrooge as the man whom even loveable, forgiving Tiny Tim doesn’t like.

We get a delicious sense of enjoyment watching Scrooge in action, before he’s reformed. I think we feel that enjoyment because we have a sense that he’s in each of us. Oh yes, he is indeed. I myself take pride in being a “Scrooge,” and I enjoy saying “Bah! Humbug!” in the weeks leading up to Christmas, and I like to say that there is so much humbug in Christmas these days that it is easy to be a Scrooge. It’s fun being a Scrooge.

But there’s a deeper reason why we remember Scrooge best before he reforms. The reason is quite simply this: just like Scrooge, we all do like money. We would all like a comfortable life. Perhaps the only thing we despise in the unreformed Scrooge is his unwillingness to enjoy a little bit more of his money; although when you come right down to it, he gets plenty of enjoyment: he eats out at a restaurant every night of his life and he has a big huge house. Really, the unreformed Scrooge is no different than the typical American worker today: we work long hours, we take pride in working so hard that we can’t find time to do anything but eat, sleep, and work — and we do love our money. Yes we do. We are the wealthiest society on earth, and we like it that way, even if it means we have to put aside some of our humanity.

It might not be a bad idea to face up to our own ghosts: the ghosts of our past, both our individual pasts, and our shared past as the wealthiest country in the world; to face up to the true reality of our present; and to look ahead at what the future might hold for us if we keep on going on the way we’ve been going on. As a society, we are becoming more like the unreformed Scrooge every day: unforgiving, uncharitable, unpleasant, and even unkind. Let us not forget that we are at war on this holiday that supposedly proclaims peace on earth. Let us not forget that the numbers of the poor in our country, our wealthy country, have been growing by leaps and bounds. Let us not forget that money is worshipped above all else in our society.

I think Dickens’s story is best summed up when Scrooge’s nephew tells what Christmas should be: “a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!”

To say this is to say, more simply, that at Christmas-time we really should try to remember the golden rule:– to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. How fitting that we try to live out this great ethical teaching on the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth, who presented this wisdom of the ages to humanity once again. It was Jesus who put this great moral teaching into such a memorable form that we still quote his words. Except that while we quote his words, we also seem to need to be constantly reminded of them again and again — by people like Charles Dickens — and, well, by each other.

So here I stand on this day before Christmas, reminding us all of this again. Love the people around you; love all creation; allow yourself to be loved by others. That is the essence of Christmas; that is what lies at the core of our religious faith: Love humanity; love the people around you; love all creation; allow yourself to be loved.

Do this until it becomes a habit that continues beyond Christmas-time. Keep on doing that all the year ’round.

New Religious Movements

This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained ad libs, interjections, and other improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2006 Daniel Harper.

Readings

The first reading this morning comes from the book New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects, and Alternative Spiritualities, by Christopher Partridge:

“While Christianity has gone into decline in the West, other religions — including smaller movements such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints — and many alternative spiritualities, such as Paganism, are experiencing growth, often substantial growth. Indeed, Paganism is regularly reported as being Britain’s fastest-growing religious tradition. J. Gordon Melton, a leading scholar and chronicler of new religious movements, has noted [quote] ‘during the 20th century, the West experienced a phenomenon it has not encountered since the reign of Constantine: the growth of and significant visible presence of non-Christian and non-Orthodox Christian bodies competing for the religious allegiance of the public. This growth of so many alternatives religiously is forcing a new situation on the West in which the still-dominant Christian religion must share its centuries-old hegemony in a new pluralistic religious environment.’ [close quote] With very few exceptions, if you were to carry out a survey of the beliefs of people living within a five-mile radius of where you are now, you would come across a multitude of religious beliefs and practices, many of which will be new and eclectic. As well as the alternative religious groups, which can trace their origins directly back to one of the major world religions, there has been a proliferation of groups and movements that draw inspiration from a variety of sources.”

The second reading this morning comes from an article in Rolling Stone magazine by journalist Janet Reitman, titled “Inside Scientology”:

“…Scientology charges for virtually all of its religious services. Auditing is purchased in 12.5 hour blocks, known as “intensives.” Each intensive can cost anywhere from $750 for an introductory session to between $8,000 and $9,000 for advanced sessions. When asked about money, church officials can become defensive. “Do you want to know the real answer? If we could offer everything for free, we would do it,” says [Mark] Rinder [,director of Church of Scientology International’s Office of Special Affairs.] Another official offers, “We don’t have 2,000 years of acquired wealth to fall back on.” But Scientology isn’t alone, church leaders insist. Mormons, for example, expect members to tithe a tenth of their earnings.

“…Clearing the stages [of Scientology] along the Bridge to Total Freedom is a process that can take years and cost tens and often hundreds of thousands of dollars — one veteran Scientologist told me she “donated” $250,000 in a twenty-year period. Other Scientologists can wind up spending family inheritances and mortgaging homes to pay the fees….”

SERMON — “New Religious Movements”

I have become fascinated with new religious movements. As someone who a part of a distinctly non-orthodox, post-Christian, religious tradition, I am fascinated with the idea that, for the first time since the time of the Roman emperor Constantine, we here in the West are living in a society that is seeing “the growth of and significant visible presence of non-Christian and non-Orthodox Christian bodies competing for the religious allegiance of the public.” In a way, we Unitarian Universalists are a part of this explosion of new religious movements.

At times, however, my fascination is a horrified fascination. A number of the new religious movements that are now part of our religious landscape combine charismatic leadership, authoritarianism, power, and lots of money — a potent combination. Needless to say, the money becomes very important — but I’ll get to that later.

My fascination has led me to spend some time exploring this emerging new world of new religious movements — and I believe my explorations have led me to better understand who we Unitarian Universalists are. That’s why I thought I’d share with you some of my explorations of new religious movements.

The first step is to try to define a new religious movement. First of all, we’re not talking about “cults.” Religious scholars have a very precise definition of what “cult” means, and while some new religious movements are cults by this definition, most are not. In popular parlance, “cult” is a word merely a pejorative word used to describe religious movements you happen to despise — for example, in the Bible Belt Unitarian Universalism is sometimes called a “cult,” whereas some Unitarian Universalists have been known to call fundamentalist Christian groups “cults.” So I use the term “new religious movements,” which allows me to like some of them and not like others.

How new is a new religious movement? Definitions vary. Some scholars say “new” means that the movement has come into prominence wince 1945; others say since 1960; still others are willing to include the past hundred years.

Some new religious movements fall into a category called “alternative spiritualities.” Let me give you an example. Feminist spirituality cannot be defined as a religious movement; you don’t “belong” to feminist spirituality; it’s an alternative spirituality that you might happen to follow. Christopher Partridge in his book New Religions: A Guide puts it this way: “Arguably, one of the more significant developments in particularly Western religious adherence is the emergence of private, non-institutional forms of belief and practice…. There is a move away from a ‘religion’ that focuses on things that are considered external to the self… to ‘spirituality’ — that which focuses on ‘the self’ and is personal and interior.” However, some alternative spiritualities — feminist and eco-feminist spiritualities, for example — don’t focus so much on the self, and are often practiced within an established religious movement.

All right, we’ve got the definitions out of the way. And at this point, an obvious question comes up: is Unitarian Universalism a new religious movement? And the answer is no, but maybe yes.

No, we are not a new religious movement, because we’re not new. In North America, there have been people calling themselves Universalists since at least 1770. There have been Unitarians in North America since 1785, and in Europe since about 1550. And no, we’re not a new religious movement, because we’re better defined as a traditional denomination.

Or maybe yes, we are a new religious movement. The most important element of Unitarian Universalism in the past forty years has been feminist and eco-feminist spiritualities. For some people, Unitarian Universalism today is defined by the so-called “seven principles,” and those seven principles are the result of the feminist movement within Unitarian Universalism. And Unitarian Universalism represents the merger of two denominations, the Unitarians and the Universalists, in 1961, which may make us a new religion. So maybe we are a kind of new religious movement ourselves. Maybe.

Most new religious movements are pretty innocuous, but a few others combine charismatic leadership, authoritarianism, power, and money in ways that can seem a little troubling. Let’s take a look at one such new religious movement, the Church of Scientology. I pick them only because they’ve been in the news recently.

The Church of Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer who was, by all accounts, a pretty charismatic guy. Hubbard decided to found his own religion back in the 1950’s, which he wound up calling Scientology; and to increase the charisma of his group, he started wooing celebrities. This deliberate policy has brought charismatic celebrities like John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Chick Corea, Isaac Hayes, and, most famously, Tom Cruise, into Scientology. So there we have charisma.

Then there’s the authoritarianism. According to a recent article by Janet Reitman in Rolling Stone magazine, the Church of Scientology maintains a quasi-military organization called “Sea Org,” complete with uniforms, boot-camp-style training, and regimentation. When members leave Scientology, under Church rules their family and friends who are Scientologists sever all contact with them. And Scientology lashes out at critics: famously, founder L. Ron Hubbard said anyone who criticized Scientology could be “tricked, sued, or lied to and destroyed”; and the Church continues to lash out at critics, as the recent fuss over the “South Park” television show demonstrates.

Scientology also has lots of money. The Church owns 500 acres in southern California where they entertain celebrities, a big part of Clearwater, Florida, and lots more real estate besides. They get their money through by charging for religious services. “Rolling Stone” reporter Janet Reitman went to a Scientology church in Manhattan. A woman sat down with her, asked about her personal problems, and said that Reitman could use an introductory seminar for $50 and a starter kit for $100. Rietman went back a few days later for a free “auditing” session, which revealed that she could benefit from an auditing “intensive” for $2,000, and a purification cleanse for another $2,000. That’s $4,150 for the first few months as a Scientologist! In her article published March 9, Reitman reports that one long-term Scientologist said that she had paid $250,000 to the church over twenty years — and that’s not uncommon.

Charisma, authoritarianism, and money — when these exist in a new religious movement, they can be a potent force. Of course, these do not exist in all new religious movements. I’ve already spoken of my own affinity for eco-feminist spirituality, another new religious movement. Eco-feminist spirituality does not have a charismatic leader; indeed, it is critical of central charismatic leaders. Eco-feminist spirituality is decentralized, and the exact opposite of authoritarian. Nor is there much money to be gained from eco-feminist spirituality. You’ll find many of the same characteristics in neo-Paganism: no central charismatic leader; decentralization rather than authoritarianism; and not much money. If Unitarian Universalism is a new religious movement, as some claim we are, we are this latter kind of new religious movement: decentralized, non-authoritarian, relying on individual conscience rather than a central leader.

Reading about and examining new religious movements has helped me better understand Unitarian Universalism; it’s like looking into a mirror to see how others might perceive us. When I look at Scientology, when I look at how they get money and how they run their church, it helps me to see, to better understand, who we are as a Unitarian Universalists.

I believe we Unitarian Universalists look pretty good compared to a new religious movement like Scientology. We don’t charge huge fees to come to worship services; we ask for voluntary contributions from members and friends, but if you can’t give this church any money, that’s OK. If you do give money to this church, the amount is set by you, not by the church. Finally, the operating budget for this church is determined through democratic process; the budget is not set in some secretive central organization.

On the other hand, when I read about how much money Scientology has, it does make me wonder. Unitarian Universalism has been starved for money for years. Our church keeps drawing down its endowment because we can’t meet operating expenses through voluntary contributions. When I was called as your minister last spring, you told me that one of the things you hoped for was that this church would become a voice for liberal religion in the South Coast region; that’s still our goal; but the reality is that we’re going to have a hard time paying our heating bills next winter, let alone be organized enough to stand up for liberal religion.

Turning from money to authoritarianism, on the one hand we Unitarian Universalists look pretty good compared to a group like the Scientologists. We insist on the right of individual conscience, and we have developed this great system of decentralized democracy that allows individual conscience to flourish while still maintaining a strong organization. On the other hand, I believe that our fear of becoming authoritarian has resulted in us starving our church and our denomination for money. After all, if we don’t give our church any money, our church can’t do anything bad, right? — but that also means that our church can’t do much good, either.

Some people are beginning to worry that if we keep our voluntary contributions so low, we’re going to put ourselves right out of business. I’ve heard various doomsday scenarios predicting that Unitarian Universalism is going to fade out in another generation. While I feel that prediction is too extreme, it’s hard for me to accept the fact that we have a fraction of the power and money of the Scientologists, even though they’re the same size as us.

As I said before, looking at new religious movements proves to be a sort of mirror in which we can see ourselves better. Right now, the authoritarian religions appear quite wealthy and quite powerful, while decentralized democratic religions appear poor and less powerful. Even though Unitarian Universalists and neo-Pagans and other similar groups attract more newcomers, we lack the power and influence of some of the authoritarian groups. It’s almost as if we religious liberals are bent on proving that unhealthy charisma and authoritarianism are the way to go. It would seem to make more sense to fund ourselves adequately, and do the work required to maintain our decentralized democracy.

Personally, I still believe that decentralized, democratic, liberal religion can and does work better than any other kind of religious approach. And I still believe liberal religion should be a powerful voice in our community, in this country, and in the world. Because of these beliefs, my individual conscience tells me to voluntarily give five percent of my gross income to Unitarian Universalism. Because I believe that where you put your money tells a lot about what you believe.

What do you believe?