This page was updated 11/19/2007

Religion is the ancient call to come together in peace, to be neighborly.

O God of all peoples, all times, all places, great spirit that connects us

To family and friends, neighbors and strangers, all creatures and the universe,

Draw us together as we have never been before.

Ours is a world drawn closer by speedy travel and instant communication.

We travel as never before, and others come to visit us.

We are one planet, one great living system of people, creatures, and nature.

Let us begin to think as one great whole, which does not mean all alike.

Rather, let us live together, but not all the same, for it is our differences

That make us unique and individual, just as it is our common traits

That make us human, a part of the great universe which is our home.

We can be one if we will love; let us do that – let us love! AMEN.

Our mind is a junk shop! That little story just ran too true for me personally, so it hung around like an old, familiar song or other piece of junk. This is the problem with truth: our minds are so filled with biases, prejudices, incomplete truths, half-truths, old and familiar near truths, and things we fervently wish were true that finding the Truth seems an impossible goal.

You can imagine how impressed people were with science in the Age of Enlightenment. Here was an incontrovertible pathway to truth, whose proofs could be replicated anywhere by anyone. Different nations, different cultures, different ages could finally agree that these facts were True (capital T). There was now one community of scholars across the planet who agreed upon specific truths. Truth no longer depended upon one’s nationality, religion, culture, class, or any other category. There was only Truth.

Many people held back, of course. Religious leaders were among the first to complain, for their truth claims could not be verified by science. Many of their claims, however, could be invalidated, so all religions were in the uncom-fortable position of often being proven false while never finally being proven true. Soon, however, others began to find fault with science. There seemed to be new discoveries that proved old science false. This was a blow to all non-scientists, who like their truths permanent. Truth, however, is not permanent. Important truths appear to be only our best guess at any moment. Trivial truths are permanent (that car is red -- until it’s repainted), but that is a trivial truth. Facts and truths are not the same.

But without eternal truths, how could one be moral? Laws must be true or there could be no morality. This is the challenge of modernity.

Here is a much shorter version of my beginning in the first draft of this sermon. During the wars that followed the Norman conquest of England and lasting nearly 500 years, there were many changes of loyalty among the feudal lords, as most everyone tried to be on the winning side. This was also true in the Church, for Bishops were also feudal lords. Just as often as the lords changed their allegiance, the common folk remained loyal to their p;d relationships. This meant that some churches were served by priests who were traitors in the minds of the parishioners. All across the country some local churches became independent – or sought independence. When the Protestant Revolution came, so did real independence from church leaders.

This was the time of America’s discovery, and a great many (but not all) of those who came to America came with a sincere dedication to the independence of their churches. They were not always clear where the lines of authority lay, and it took centuries to develop fully a theory of independent churches, which we call congregational polity. The finishing touches were put on this theory in the 1740’s in Boston and its suburbs by Unitarian ministers. They clearly formulated a doctrine of freedom and democracy in religious terms. Religion was no longer about obedience; it was now about freedom.

Now all this is a lengthy setup to my goal this morning. Modern truth is not permanently fixed, as ancient truth claimed to be. There are cultural truths, religious truths, personal truths that are not fixed, yet are not false, either. The question is, are these only trivial truths (the car is now green but was once red), or does this impermanence affect all truth? How do we prove what is true for us in our time, especially the "clumsy truths": what is just, what is fair, what is compassionate, what is beautiful, what is important?

Rabbi Hillel died about the year Jesus was born. He spent years in the desert studying with the Essenes; he was the most respected rabbi of his time. This saying may have influenced Jesus, who said something very similar. Hillel’s most important point is that we should treat others as we like to be treated (Jesus’ point), but Hillel has a more subtle and radical point: first we must think of the others as like us, as neighbors. Before making choices, we must have reached the conclusion that moral actions are required.

The Jewish scholar Nahum Glazier wrote about the last sentence:

This studying Hillel and Glazier refer to is the life of personal self-discipline. The most important part of the saying is not "do not do something to others you would not like them to do to you" but rather the far more subtle and important need to identify neighbor as your equal – to become one with your neighbor. As much as ethics has to do with action, the most critical point is to abolish the distinction between one’s self and the other person.

Ethics is about joining the community of humankind (and all the world), else it is always biased. Ethics is not about obeying the law, not even about what we do; it is about who we see as neighbor, rather than stranger or enemy. Allow me to reinforce this idea. Before deciding how to treat another person or event – what to do – you must determine whether the person is a friend and ally or an enemy. The question in ethics is not about authority: are you obedient to certain rules when you do something that affects another person, or are they being obedient in how they treat you. This is why nonviolence works – it makes enemies into friends. First, make your enemy your neighbor, then deciding what is just, what is true, what is good, is easier.

The most radical idea in ethics is not this or that law or belief: abortion, immigration, war or their opposite. The most radical idea in ethics is that all human beings are your neighbor, that is, someone you regard with special care and attention. This is the great insight of congregationalism: it becomes our religion to treat one another as neighbors. Needleman wrote:

Professor Needleman makes the subtle point that almost all other ethical discussions misses. This is absolutely critical to all modern discussion of ethics, which are often denigrated as relativistic. Old ethics was dominated by authorities and rules (Ten Commandments). In modern life we notice two inescapable realities: (1) many cultures and religions have similar rules but different reasons for them, causing us to question their authority, and (2) modern science and technology made many old rules obsolete and created vast new situations where old rules simply do not apply. All ancient ethics, no matter how inspired or inspiring, are limited by these two observations.

There is a way around this conundrum: do not focus on rules but on the neighbor. I love Needleman’s phrase thinking together. It reminds me of congregational polity (and that long history lesson that began this sermon); he understands that we live in communities, and these communities are sources of ethical and religious authority in themselves, needing no bishops or sacred scriptures. We must practice thinking together if we are to live ethical lives. Congregations are where we deliberately practice this thinking together.

What if truth was both universal and communal? In the ancient world, obedience is morality. Way too many people were identified as foes to give everyone the freedom to decide what to do in a situation. It was too confusing and chaotic. People wanted simple lists of how to treat other people – and many still do. In the modern world, freedom is morality. We each get to choose (freedom), but it seems that we are left with little guidance in making this choice. After all, even the Ten Commandments do not address all moral quandaries, and the advice of Hillel and Jesus even fewer -- powerful and pithy, but not terribly helpful when we must finally decide.

Unless… unless one comes to have faith in a larger structure of humanity and society that allows individuals to work in cooperation rather than in competition and warfare. This is the age-old goal of humanity; it is the reason humans came to create religion and all its various organizations. We want to live together in peace, with the freedom to live our lives without undue interference and pressure, but not without the connections and relationships with other people that bring obligations and duties.

Ethics is the discussion of how we treat other people (and all other things and situations). However, the ethics is not about various rules that will apply for all time (like gravity or two plus two equals four). The first and most profound ethical decision is: do I treat this other person as my neighbor, that is, someone to whom I have an moral obligation, or do I treat this person as an enemy or perhaps a nobody.

After this decision, all the next decisions are complicated by how much I can actually do in the situation, my skills, power, influence, etc. These may vary with my situation or the problem itself. Further, I may choose correctly but put little effort into the choice, or misunderstand the issues and make a silly or tragically inappropriate decision. Yet, if I have good intentions toward others, treating them as neighbors not enemies, I have the greatest chance of making a moral choice that benefits everyone. [repeat]

Modern morals are not relativistic because they find flaws in the old authoritarian rule of laws. For old laws, even the best of them, can become outdated, inflexible, and representative of bias. It is seldom the law applied that is at fault; it is the intention behind our actions. If that intention is to treat the other person as enemy, then no ethical choices become possible.

Well, this was a lengthy and complicated topic, and I thank you for sitting through it this morning. I have tried to sketch out the reason modern morality appears so different from ancient morality, with its absolute laws – commandments – and its absolute authority. We live in a world where we have come to know many other people and cultures. Although their laws and cultures differ, we find much to admire in them, and many things that are similar, if not exactly like, our own beliefs. We have become uncomfortable with absolute pronouncements from our own religion and culture that ignore or denigrate these other people and their lives.

It appears that our own religion and morality are built on shaky ground if they claim to find nothing of value in other cultures and religions. Worse, science often makes all these values and cultures seem a house of cards where little is as it seems. Who can we trust and why?

The answer is simple: we must be wary settling for truths that claim to never change and is the property of one religion or political ideology. Rather, we must now have a new kind of faith, a faith in integral nature of truth and life and human community. This faith can be summarized as a trust in the laws of nature and in the good will of human beings – not a naïve and unrealistic belief that all people are good, but a faith that we can be good if we practice our best intentions.

We practice treating all people as neighbors rather than strangers or enemies. We gather with other folks who want to practice this approach to ethics, placing some faith in their good will as we think together. This is our church and our ethics: not laws but good will toward our neighbor, an open heart, and a great, loving tolerance of others.

Home