The Unitarian Fellowship of Peterborough

Music by Resonance

Personal freedom is central to our religious faith. But when it comes to guiding ethical decision-making in a complex society, which best serves the whole...individuality or individualism? We’ll also be celebrating International Women’s Day.

Religious Exploration: Be Fair

Opening Words

Erik Walker Wikstrom (adapted)

Each of the stars in the heavens is unique, an individual, yet together they form the night sky;

Each of us here is unique, an individual, yet together we are a community;

Each of the stars in the heavens is unique, an individual, yet together they provide beautiful star shine;

Each of us here is unique, an individual, yet together we spread the light of liberal religion. 

Welcome, star shine, one and all, to this constellation of individuals. 

Story for All Ages

Leonthe Chameleon     - Mélanie Watt

Reading

The Road Not Taken      - Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, 

And sorry I could not travel both 

And be one traveler, long I stood 

And looked down one as far as I could 

To where it bent in the undergrowth;        

Then took the other, as just as fair, 

And having perhaps the better claim, 

Because it was grassy and wanted wear; 

Though as for that the passing there 

Had worn them really about the same,       

And both that morning equally lay 

In leaves no step had trodden black. 

Oh, I kept the first for another day! 

Yet knowing how way leads on to way, 

I doubted if I should ever come back.        

I shall be telling this with a sigh 

Somewhere ages and ages hence: 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— 

I took the one less traveled by, 

And that has made all the difference.

Responsive Reading

The Oversoul     - Ralph Waldo Emerson   #531

Message

Hello, my name is Julie, and I’m American.  (Hi, Julie)  It’s even possible that I’m a recovering American.  Still, I know that I make assumptions bred by American egocentricity...that is to say, I don’t always pay attention to how Canada is different than the US of A.

I say this as a disclaimer.  Today we’re looking at the difference between individualism and individuality.  Clearly it is true that the United States suffers from individualism to a much greater degree than does Canada, and I fear that I may painting you with an American brush.  Still, I offer this disclaimer reluctantly, because I also know that Canada is NOT free from individualism.   I see it at work every day in this congregation and in Peterborough, and in myself.  So, while I suggest that you take my words with a grain of salt, I really do want you to take them and chew.

At bottom, this sermon is about ethics.  It is about the choices we make and the reasons we make them.  Do we make our choices more out of an ethic of individualism than an ethic of collectivism?  Are we more influenced by what will best serve ourselves, than by what is best for the community as a whole?  Do we consider what gifts are uniquely ours to offer to the whole? 

Ethics are subjective.  For example, there is an old saw that defines promiscuity as having had “one more lover than I’ve had.”  We tend to draw a line just beyond anything that we do, a line which justifies our personal choices and condemns anything beyond that line.  Today, I’m encouraging us to take a harder look at that line.  Because just as sure as you have drawn one, someone else has drawn a line in a different place.  I also hope that you find my comments provocative rather than judgemental.  I have no call to judge. 

In seminary, I was introduced to sociologist Robert Bellah through his book, The Good Society.  In that book, Bellah and his co-authors “observe that people are losing trust in their institutions--governmental, religious, business, educational, etc;  they maintain that a more active participation ... in institutional affairs is essential for the well-being ... of the world.”[1]  Civic involvement and responsibility...caring for the whole...are critical to societal well-being.  Looking back, I see that my infatuation with his work provides a telling marker in my personal growth. 

Years earlier, decades earlier really, I had a similar infatuation with the work of Ayn Rand.  Through her characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, she promotes the philosophy of objectivism, maintaining that the individual must be responsible, pretty much solely, for oneself. 

Objectivism holds that “the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or self-interest, and that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights...”[2]  Nothing wrong with individual rights, eh?  Our religious tradition is deeply grounded in individual rights...with religious freedom paramount and with the inherent worth and dignity of each person our first principle.   

Ayn Rand greatly contributed to my budding adolescent theology...one which was essentially humanist and altruistic (I wanted to save the world.)  At that time, I had little regard for the communal groups and institutions which might make such salvific work more possible.  Robert Bellah changed that. 

In 1998, before I was a UU, Robert Bellah spoke to the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association.[3]  Bellah is not UU, and he is not Canadian.  He writes and speaks very persuasively about individualism and civic involvement in the US context.  But what he said in that lecture was not about being American; rather it was about being Unitarian. 

In order to understand us, Bellah had carefully researched the work of many Unitarian Universalists, including Conrad Wright in whose honour we lit our chalice this morning, and the UUA Commission on Appraisal’s significant work on Interdependence.  From his research, (and in the following summary I take many phrases and sentences directly from his lecture, which I encourage you to find and read), Bellah concluded that:

-          First, our fundamental tenet is the sacredness of the individual conscience, the individual person.  (Remember that one of our heroes is Emerson, who wrote “Self-Reliance.”)  He went on to warn that the mere affirmation of community or even the interdependent web of all existence are not in themselves enough to offset a fundamentally individualistic initial position.

-          Bellah also noted that our openness to difference and respect for others is a thin extension of our radical individualism.  Indeed, our emphasis on difference and respect for difference leaves us pretty well adrift when it comes to what could hold us together.

-          Still, he found that Unitarian Universalism seems to have an undercurrent of desire for an understanding of something that is fundamentally more social. 

(Remember that hero, Emerson?  He also wrote about the Oversoul.)

In our social witness, we often speak against ‘isms’...racism, ageism, ableism, classism, heterosexism, etc.   Bellah is speaking against individualism; that is, the attitude that we are out for ourselves, and that it doesn’t matter how or if we participate in or give back to community.  And painfully, as you have already heard, he sees individualism as a central feature of Unitarian Universalism. 

You see, Bellah believes that the pervasive notion, advanced by English philosopher John Locke, of the individual as fundamental and society as a derivative, is wrong.  Rather, we are born dependent and it is only through the love of others that we become autonomous selves; so our fundamental nature is social.   Further, Bellah argues that without good institutions there will not be good communities and without good communities there will not be good individuals.  And, the good news for us?  He contends that a religious community, and its supporting institution, have the potential to provide us with the notion that we are in this together, that we need one another, and that our precious and unique selves are not going to make it alone. 

In that lecture, now almost 13 years ago, Bellah asked us to give up our ontological individualism and affirm that human nature is fundamentally social...and one way to do that, he proposed, is to make “the interdependent web of all existence” our first principle, not the last.  Bellah believes that it is the relational aspects of our common life that have the potential to transform us.   

 (Here ends the gospel according to Bellah.) 

We heard in the children’s story today a tale about individuality, which is a much different thing than individualism.  Individuality states that “I am myself and my society is better for the unique voice that I bring to it.”  Leon was a unique chameleon, and in the story, it was his uniqueness which made him useful to the benefit of his community.

Individuality is a wonderful thing.  We embrace our uniqueness.  We love the fact that we have differences and quirks.   Patchwork quilts and mosaics are images we commonly choose to describe our communities.  We celebrate our often heretical choices to walk our own paths.  But check out the ‘de-motivational plaque” that is copied on the back of the order of service.  “Just because you are unique, does not mean that you are useful.” 

Certainly, one’s purpose in life is not simply utilitarian.  Yet, if we are, at our core, social beings, and if we do not exist outside of our relationships, how do we ‘live into’ this true nature?  It seems to me that being in relationship requires something of us, and if being ‘useful’ is not quite the right word for you, how about contributing your unique self?  How about offering who you are for the benefit of the whole?  Now that sounds pretty Canadian, doesn’t it?

I’m reminded of our book club’s reading of A Fair Country by John Ralston Saul.  In that book, Saul contends that the Canadian principles of “peace, order and good government” are a revision of the intention of the framers of the constitution.  Earlier versions apparently referred to “peace, welfare, and good government”.  It is outside of my purpose today to delve into the difference in implication between ‘order’ and ‘welfare’, but if we are to believe Saul, there exists, deep in the Canadian psyche and history, a concern for the ‘common good’, in part inspired by aboriginal values and styles of governance (and that’s a tiny plug for our workshop this afternoon...)

But let me return to the earlier image of the lines we draw...lines behind which we find acceptable choices and behaviour, and beyond which we don’t.  A similar line exists between that which we are willing to contribute to the common good, and what we feel is too much to give.  In either case, there is little question that we affirm each individual’s right to draw that line.  But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t debate and question the criteria that enter into each decision about exactly where to draw that line.  In other words, you have the right the draw your line where you will; as a member of your community, in relationship with you, I am obliged to challenge you in that decision.  And vice versa. 

Let me take this from the abstract to the tangible.  Several times a week, I take Tillie to Burnham Woods for a walk.  During the winter months, this park is closed, which practically means that, although many people and their dogs continue to use the trails, there is no garbage collection.  Now, along the trails, during the open season, Ontario Parks places pictographs that talk about the flora, fauna, and geological aspects of the area.  During the winter months, they remove these plaques and place canisters, upside down, over the metal pedestals, I suspect to protect them from the weather. 

I am in the habit of hanging several large trash bags near the entrance to the park.  When they are full, I take them home to put out for trash collection.  And still, some people insist on leaving their trash on top, or worse, stuffed inside, the canisters that cover the pictograph pedestals.  These are very clearly not garbage cans.  In what universe is it acceptable to so intentionally leave your trash, especially in such a beautiful natural setting, for someone else to pick up?  And don’t get me started on people who don’t pick up after their dogs.  The line that I draw regarding appropriate relational societal behaviour and responsibility is clear.  Others apparently draw that line elsewhere. 

But here’s another more complex example.  On Wednesday evening, I attended the neighbourhood conversation regarding Our Space and their potential purchase and use of the Knox United Church building.  The evening was intended to introduce neighbours and Our Space clients to one another...and in so doing, to help reduce any tension or fear about Our Space coming to the neighbourhood.

Some of you probably read in the paper that there were actually two meetings that night....one for those who wanted to voice their concerns directly to the Our Space Executive Director and Board...the other for those who were willing to enter a ‘getting to know you’ conversation.  I was part of the latter...as a note-taker.  But even in this room, a couple of loud opponents (not anyone that I know) made it clear that they don’t want Our Space in their backyard.  They drew a clear line between their personal interests and the interests of a wider community, a clear line between us and them. 

There are members of this Fellowship who live very close to Knox and who have a vested interest in this outcome.  They have a right, and an obligation, to determine for themselves, exactly where they stand on this, for or against.  I simply want to use this as an illustration, a case study (and a difficult one) as we look at how we might expand our ethic of self-concern into one that embraces the interdependent-web-reality that whatever we do unto others, we also do unto ourselves. 

I’ve tried to put myself in the shoes of the neighbours.  I think I can empathize.  I too would have some anxiety about safety and property values.  I too might feel that I haven’t been given enough information or been respectfully consulted.  And I admit, in my imperfection, that my initial reaction would be a negative one.  At first blush, it would not be my choice to live next door to Our Space. 

Perhaps it’s unfair for me to hypothesize about this because I am not personally impacted.  But still, I want to believe that upon reflection, I would look to my values for guidance, and that I would find there the sincere belief that what’s good for the whole is also good for me.  I hope I would find there the reassurance that my life, my uniqueness, is of little value unless I can contribute to a more perfect union in the community.  What about you?  How would you decide where you stand? 

I would hope that we would not be guided by an individualism which can only lead to a future of separation.  But, in order to move toward more connection, we need not give up our individuality.  In fact, we would do so at our peril and at the peril of our communities.  Our individuality strengthens society...offering a rich blend of strengths and weaknesses, gifts and challenges.  Even the dissenting voices at that community meeting contributed their individuality, self-serving though it seems. 

We are Unitarians.  Theoretically, we uphold the truth of our One-ness with all that is, and yet we are steeped in individualism.  I believe we would be well-served by more intentionally, and with greater commitment, worshipping the value of community. 
Worshipping, you say?  Indeed.  This is something else that Bellah spoke of...that in order to move away from our individualism, we need to engage in common worship of something that transcends the individual.  Some call this God.  But we can also call it wholeness, or community, or relationship, or interdependence, or in Emerson’s words, the oversoul.  Can we choose to put these values of one-ness first? 

One famous American, Martin Luther King, Jr., in a chapter entitled “The World House”, wrote: 

“...we cannot preserve self without being concerned about preserving other selves. The universe is so structured that things go awry if [we] are not diligent in [our] cultivation of the other-regarding dimension. "I" cannot reach fulfillment without "thou." The self cannot be self without other selves. Self-concern without other-concern is like a tributary that has no outward flow to the ocean. Stagnant, still and stale, it lacks both life and freshness.”

The reverse, then, must also be true... other-concern alongside our self-concern creates a tributary that flows through the landscape of our relationships and our communities, bringing fresh vitality and life, flowing outward and into the ocean of all that is.  Self-concern and other-concern...in symbiotic relationship.

So many it be.

Amen. 

Closing Words

Bets Wienecke

May we learn to recognize and affirm

     the pieces of possibility --

     the bits of good -- we bring.

May we encourage rather than control;

     love rather than possess;

     enable rather than envy.

Allowing our individual gifts to weave a patchwork of peace:

     the soft deep blue of sensitivity and understanding;

     the red energy of creativity;

     the white heat of convictions;

     the risky, fragile green of new growth;

     the golden flashes of gratitude;

     the warm rose of love.

Each of us is indispensable if we are to minister to a broken and wounded world.

Together, in our gathered diversity, we form the whole...and together, bringing our individual gifts, may we act for the good of the whole. 

So be it.