Rest in Peace

My Homily from Wednesday evening's "Valley Vesper" service on the theme of rest.

I just got back from a week’s vacation. Peleg and I took a cruise down the West Coast of Mexico. 7 days of sun, and pool and catching up on reading, and sleeping in, and somebody else to make all our meals and keep the room tidy. Talk about rest and relxation. I suppose I could call my entire trip research for this homily and write it off my taxes as a business expense.

Well not exactly rest and relaxation. Not entirely. I’m not sure how much it was in the news here, but off the west coast of mexico we ran into a little weather event called Hurricane Rick.

When we left San Pedro a week ago Sunday, Hurricane Rick was a category 4 storm moving north up the coast of Mexico while we were headed south. By the time our boat and the storm met somewhere between Puerto Vallarta and Mazatlan, Hurricane Rick had a become a category 5 hurricane. That means winds greater than 155 miles per hour, and waves breaking well over 20 feet.

The cruise line dealt with the storm by skipping our stop in Cabo on Tuesday and firing up all 5 diseal engines to get us as quickly as possible all the way down to Puerto Vallarta. That allowed us, on Tuesday to position our boat hugging the main coast of Mexico while the storm passed us further west, out to sea. So although the storm was bad, we missed the worst part of it.

What we had on Tuesday was a day of heavy rain. And then we had a Tuesday night of even heavier rain, plus wildly rocky seas. The motion wasn’t just up and down but also side to side and back and forth. Kind of like a mild earthquake, but an earthquake that lasted all night long, and lots of crashing and creaking as the boat battled the waves. On Wednesday we pulled into Puerto Vallarta and had a gorgeous sunny day. And beside the one stormy day and night the only real consequence is that we had to skip going to Mazatlan, who had closed their port due to the storm, and spend an extra day in Puerto Vallarta. Boo hoo, right?

The gift of a extreme weather event like that is that it gives clear evidence of the power of nature, a non=human power that we so often do our best to deny or ignore, or compensate for. Last Tuesday night with the rain pounding against the cabin window and the sea rising and falling, and the huge boat rocked back and forth like a bath tub toy, there was no denying that while we were safe, we humans were very small, and the world is very large.

We humans are very powerful, so my theology firmly believes and my faith devoutly teaches. But we are not completely powerful. There are things we cannot do by and for ourselves. And we are not the only power in the world. There are other forces working hard and not always with our goals in mind. Sometimes there comes up in our lives waves that push us around, that we are not able to push back. Sometimes in our lives category 5 winds blow that can’t blow us right over. I know it’s true in your life, and it’s true in my life as well. Sometimes I’m just a small and frightened Reverend Ricky, standing against a fearsome Hurricane Rick.

Usually it’s good spiritual health to name on our power, affirm our power and to maximize our power to make change in the world. It takes our action to heal, to fight, to speak up, to protect, to comfort, to demand, to imagine, and to persuade. But sometimes, faced with a situation where we lack the ability to change the circumstances around us, it’s good spiritual health to name the limits of our power, and instead of striving in vain to assert ourselves, it’s good spiritual health to learn to submit.
What could I do against a category 5 hurricane? I didn’t curse the storm on Tuesday night. I didn’t stand at the bow of the cruise ship and yell. I went to bed. I didn’t tell myself how miserable I was and how our vacation was ruined. I told myself how interesting it was to have this experience and this story to tell. I didn’t scare myself with worries of what might happen. I went to bed, and as I went to sleep I told myself if the ship did get in danger surely they’d be an alarm that would wake me up, and someone with more power in the situation than me would tell me how to get off the boat and safely into a life boat.

I couldn’t change the world, last Tuesday. So I enjoyed what the world offered me. I couldn’t dominate, so I submitted. I couldn’t take meaningful action. So I choose the path of rest.

In the doxology in response to the offering we sang, “with resolve our purpose sing, for years of justice yet to be, when we a better world shall see.” But how do we get that better world? How do we get to those hopefully countless years of justice?

In Taoism we learn the principle of Wu-Wei, translated as inaction, or better “Actionless action.” It’s the principle of getting out of the way and letting the world take care of itself, with trust that because human beings are an element of the natural world nature tends to work on its own for the best. It’s the principle of not interfering in processes that are working themselves out, you’ll only make it worse. It’s not fussing around. Leave it alone. Don’t pick at it. Remove yourself from situations where your attendance adds nothing or only further aggravates a difficult situation.

Imagine trying to drink from a glass of water filled with swirling sand. You could painstakenly try to remove the sand from the water., and good luck with that. Or you could just let the glass stand by itself for a little while and the sand will naturally sink to the bottom of the glass.

So we get to that better world and those years of justice through a combination of doing, and not doing. Of adding what we can to the progress toward our ideals. And also from keeping faith that there are other sources of power out there doing what they can do, that don’t need our help. Sometimes we can add a lot. Sometimes we can be very helpful. And sometimes the best help we can be is to do very little, to withdraw, to wait, to watch. To say a little prayer. To go to bed.

As we approach this holiday with all its demands for doing, and buying, and arranging, and planning, and fretting, and compromising, and attending and hosting; (talk about a category 5 storm!) remember that more doing is not always the best path, for you personally, or for the goal you’re trying to accomplish. As we face in our churches troubling situations of a minister suddenly resigning, or hiring a new RE Director, or debate over how to spend money, or brainstorming ideas about how to raise money, or worries that a program will die if we don’t volunteer to take over as the chair, remember that sometimes you need to do, and sometimes you need to don’t.

Sometimes you need to engage, and sometimes you need to say a blessing and withdraw. Sometimes you church needs you, and sometimes we really don’t. Sometimes you need to get yourself up and go, and sometimes we really need you to stay put. Sometimes there’s that one late night meeting you really need to attend. And sometimes the best thing for you and for the church is to make yourself a cup of hot chocolate and go to bed.

I wish there was a clear rule for knowing the difference between the time to act and the time to refrain from acting. There is no rule. Discerning which is called for is the essence of spirituality. Just know that in every situation there are two options. You can act, when acting is useful. And you can rest, when inaction is the better course. So rest when you should. Rest well. And Rest in Peace.

The Fun Theory

Love This:

The Fun Theory


Encourage people to do easy, good-for-them and good-for-the-world things (like taking the stairs, recycling, not littering) by making the activity fun.

Apparently good health and a clean sustainable environment isn't enough incentive. What does this imply for our churches? We preach about "bigger-than-you" values like justice, and equality, and saving the planet. We also preach about making choices that benefit in the long term like "seventh generation" thinking. Apparently what really gets people to change behavior is immediate, personal reward. No surprise there, but is there a way we can make use of that human selfishness and short-sightedness to still accomplish our goals?

federal hate crimes legislation passes

The Federal government has now added sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability to the categories of persons covered by hate crimes penalties. I have mixed feelings.

Hate crimes laws add additional penalties to crimes based on the motivation of the act. If I beat you up because I want to steal your wallet I get one sentence. If I beat you up because you're black or (now) gay, I get an additional sentence on top of the punishment for stealing. The motivation doesn't make the act more violent. The victim doesn't suffer any additional physical hurt. If the attacker is screaming "nigger" or "queer" during the act it may cause some additional mental suffering, but it is not, if fact, illegal, to yell "nigger" or "queer" (unless it's perceived as an actual threat to do violence). So the only act that hate crimes legislation actually punishes is not an act at all, but a thought: the mental state of the attacker, the contents of their mind.

The ability to think what I want to think is an essential freedom, even more important than the ability to say what I'm thinking (protected by the first amendment). So I cannot, and do not support the whole concept of hate crime laws.

However, hate crime laws have been around for decades, and there is zero chance, at least at present, that they will go away. So the practical question is: do I support adding sexual orientation, transgender and disability to the list?" Reluctantly I answer, "Yes." If there is a list of people who are subject to acts of violence merely because of belonging to a group, GLBT folks and disabled folks should be on the list. Hate crimes legislation is a means of recognizing that gay bashing occurs and that our government notices and objects. That's the only legitimate purpose I can see for hate crime laws.

But there are still two problems. Firstly, I don't like being added to a list of victims. If the Federal government really wanted to name GLBT oppression and move to end it I would rather they stop oppressing me - allow me to serve openly in the military, recognize my marriage - rather than permanently enshrining me as a person who needs special protection.

My final objection (another abstract objection that has zero chance of changing in the real world) has to do with the way we have learned to incrementally advance civil rights by creating lists. My legal protections and rights should not be contingent on whether my group has amassed the political power to get our name on a list. Governmental protections and rights should be based on general principles that apply to all people. Creating lists open up the perception that some group is getting "special rights" when all that's being done is affirming the same rights already existing be applied equally to all persons. It's always wrong to discriminate no matter what criteria you're using, except for the criteria directly relevant to the situation. We shouldn't have to wait for an ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to tell us that there's no legitimate reason to fire an otherwise competent employee just because they're gay. And there's no need to have hate crimes legislation to recognize that violent crimes, regardless of the motivation, are unacceptable and will be punished.

flu by any other name would leave me beat

It's been a bad couple of weeks for my physical health. First we had the local fires filling the air with smoke and ash. For a couple of days there at the end of August it was really thick. Public health officials encouraged folks to stay indoors with the air conditioning on. Then the fires mostly ended and/or moved east, but the Santa Ana wind pattern kicked in bringing hot dry winds from the east instead of the cooler moist air we get off the ocean. The change in winds meant breathing in a whole spectrum of desert pollens we hadn't had to deal with in several months. I got what I thought was an allergic reaction: itchy eyes and sinus congestion.

Well that may have been true, but over last weekend I moved on to something other than allergies. Whether it's a cold, or flu, and which flu, only a lab could tell me. But I do know my "allergies" got worse over Friday and Saturday and Sunday. I did a wedding Saturday evening and felt pretty well, but on Sunday after preaching in the morning followed by two back to back meetings in the afternoon, I came home completely exhausted and collapsed into a deep sleep at about 9 PM. Monday I did some housework in the morning and then drove off for a three-day minister's gathering, our annual fall retreat and UUMA Chapter meeting. I lasted through the afternoon "check-in" and then retired to my hotel room for a bath and some over the counter medication and a long sleep

Tuesday I got myself out of bed for some scheduled events I needed to participate in at the minister's meeting then came back to the hotel and slept and watched TV all afternoon and night. The sinus congestion started to ease but I was feeling feverish and weak and achey so it looked like I had the flu. Wednesday morning I felt a little better. I attended the last of the minister's meeting and then drove home, and then spent all that afternoon and evening in bed at home.

Today I'm definitely through the worst, and grateful that I have a day where the only work I need to do is some writing.

language for a proposed CA Constitutional amendment

I really wish they would have waited, but here's the language submitted to the California Attorney General by Love, Honor, Cherish, (and a coalition of other groups) seeking to over turn Proposition 8 on the 2010 November ballot.

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in italics type. Language proposed to be added is printed in bold type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

Whether the proposition actually gets on the ballot in November next year depends on the ability to gather the required signatures. The group has plans to start signature gathering in November. They appear to have sufficient financial resources to succeed with that step.

Of course I'll vote for the proposition if it appears on the ballot, but I won't sign a petition to place it there. I don't have the energy, or the time, or the money, to contribute to a political campaign on this issue next year. And like me, I don't think many of the folks who worked on the No on 8 campaign last year are eager to do it again. Marriage equality is important but it's not the only issue competing for my dollars and time. Nor do I think our chances of being successful are much improved from last year. It's more difficult to ask people to change existing law (our task now) than it is to affirm an existing law (our task last year - which we lost). The people who voted Yes on 8 haven't changed their minds since a year ago, and the midst of a political campaign where they receive conflicting sound byte messages is not a great place to persuade them to change their minds. Furthermore, every time people are asked to confirm their opposition to marriage equality (by casting a vote or responding to a poll) it gets that much harder to get them to change their minds in the future.

And finally there's that ballot language itself. Section 1 is obviously designed to counter the argument that conservative churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. But that argument was never valid in the first place. Does raising the issue, even to deny it, not also give the argument validity? Was this language sufficiently focused-group to make sure it isn't counter-productive? And section 2 is a land mine waiting to explode. Does "persons" include children? If it only means adults why doesn't it say so? Does "sexual orientation" protect pedophiles? Does not discriminating against "ancestry" mean that the State can't forbid a brother and sister to marry?

Please don't let this get on the ballot.

public transportation commuter

I rode the bus to work today. I walked down the hill from my house to West Silver Lake Drive. waited 25 minutes at the bus stop. Then paid $1.25 and rode the bus for less than 15 minutes to the corner of Wilshire and Vermont. I bought a small coffee and a chocolate croissant at the Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, and then walked down Vermont three blocks to the church.

Later this morning I'm going to walk back up to the same intersection and board the Red Line subway for a trip downtown to join a healthcare rally. Then I'll subway back to the church, work a little more, then take the bus back home.

Except for the long wait at the bus stop the commute was easy. It did make a trip that takes less than 20 minutes in my car last nearly an hour. But that inconvenience would be ameliorated if I had a better notion of the bus schedules. The real problem with the bus though is that I hardly ever have a day when I only need to go to work and then back home. I almost always have to be in several places around town during the course of the day. Or I have an evening meeting and I don't really want to be waiting for the bus at 9:30 at night.

But it did feel good to do it today. And I'll do it again as often as I can.

Maine ballot language

I just saw the actual ballot language that voters in Maine will see in their voting booths on November 3. Consider your response carefully:

"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

"Hmm... If I want to allow my priest to refuse same-sex marriages, then I should approve the law by voting to reject the ballot measure which would... wait, what?"

iLove my iPhone

I love the way it syncs with my laptop computer address book and calendar. I love the built-in GPS. Three times already (I got it about 6 weeks ago) I've been in the car with an address but no directions and the phone gave me a turn by turn route. I love my NY Times app. I can sit in a restaurant and catch up on the latest news as I eat my lunch without having to buy a paper. I love the voicemail menu that allows me to go directly to the message I want to hear, and fast forward or go back in the message - like to recheck a phone number. I love the voice control command. And so on and on and on. Genius.

But I've had a problem with the phone itself. I could barely hear anyone calling even with the volume turned all the way up. If I used the earbuds, OK, but not possible to use the phone with the thing pressed against my ear. I thought about taking it back to the store but hadn't gotten around to it. Then a friend suggested it might be a problem with the clear plastic screen I had bought to protect the phone. The screen has a cut out for the speaker but my friend suggested that even if the plastic was covering the speaker a tiny bit it might be causing the problem. That sounded plausible but on the other hand I'd been really careful putting the screen on in the first place and it didn't look misaligned.

Finally yesterday I got around to peeling the screen off and taking a look. Surprise surprise. the little piece of plastic that is supposed to be cut out wasn't actually cut out. It was still attached to the screen, and perfectly covering the speaker. I popped the plastic piece out, put the screen back in place - now with an actual hole over the screen - and now it works perfectly.

a moral obligation to care for the sick.

In my previous post on the healthcare debate I was reacting not to any proposed policy but rather the tone and tactics of the discussion. (How I wish it actually were a discussion.) I was very pleased in Obama's speech last night that he addressed that issue as well as specific policies. He named the lies for what they were. He accurately characterized some of the arguments as designed to kill reform to score a political "win" rather than seeking to improve a bill or offer alternative ideas. And he reiterated his conviction that it is still possible to have a reasonable discussion that doesn't descend into acrimony and name calling. (During the speech he was named-called on the House floor, "You lie!" so I'm less optimistic about this point but I hope it's true.)

But what about the policy itself?

Universal health care.
We have a moral obligation to care for the sick. This is not a situation where people must take personal responsibility or suffer the consequences. Few of us are willing to simply let the sick among us suffer because of lack of money or because of a bad decision they made some time earlier. Healthcare is a community responsibility. We have already adopted this principle through our policy of allowing the indigent to use emergency rooms. The reform movement only wants to build on this principle in a way that is more efficient and less expensive.

Portable, secure, healthcare
Healthcare should not be dependent on life circumstances that are transitory. Employment is transitory; no one should lose healthcare because they lose a job, or change jobs. Good health is transitory; no one should lose healthcare because they get sick. Place of residence is transitory; no one should lose healthcare because they move from one city to another or from one state to another. Family situations are transitory; no one should lose healthcare because they get divorced, or their spouse dies. Age is transitory; no one should lose healthcare because they age-out of a covered age bracket. All of this simply points back to the first principle: healthcare should be universal. We have a moral obligation to care for the sick. Anyone who is a citizen of the United States should be guaranteed healthcare by the US government.

Private insurance is incompatible with universal healthcare
The benefit of health insurance is that by buying into the system when I'm healthy, if I get sick I know I will receive the care I need regardless of my ability to pay. But if health care without regard to ability to pay is required by law (and moral obligation) than the insurance company no longer adds any benefit. Private insurance companies can only add an expensive drain on a universal health care system, adding costs of redundant staff and paperwork and advertising and so on. A single-payer system could provide the same administrative function much more efficiently and inexpensively.

rationed healthcare
Not to avoid the elephant in the room, healthcare is not an infinite resource. There are limited numbers of hospital beds, doctors, MRI machines, transplantable organs, and so on in every area of healthcare. A universal healthcare policy must have some means of guaranteeing a basic amount of coverage to all persons before it agrees to fund higher levels of care for some few people. People seeking care beyond the basic level would then have the option of paying out of pocket or entering into something like the current private healthcare insurance system.

If I'd only twitter'd

My cleaning lady showed up at the house this morning and told me she had seen a great crowd of cyclists in Griffith Park this morning. She wondered if I had been among them and had looked for me, but of course I wasn't there. She said there had been traffic control officers and everything was quite orderly but a lot of people.

I was curious because I hadn't been aware of any big cycling event planned for today.

Later in my car I heard on the news that Lance Armstrong had decided on a whim to twitter the fact that he was going to go for a ride this morning and invited anybody who wanted to come along to meet him at the LA Zoo. Damn! And the thing is, Lance Armstrong is the only person I actually follow on Twitter, only I had come home from a late church meeting last night, had a snack and went to bed without checking my feed.

People apparently drove for hours to get a chance to meet him. I would only have had to hop on my bike - the LA zoo is 10 minutes from my house and I pass it regularly on my standard park ride. And so many people turned up that even for a spontaneous event they had to call in crowd control forces. Amazing.