Double Vision

October 1969
Croton (on-Hudson?)
Westfield

Double Vision

It is in the framework of the power and responsibility of man that I speak of double vision. Double vision is a handicap when driving an automobile or hitting a baseball. But double vision is the required perception in the structure of an adequate religion. I get about a good deal among the Unitarian Universalist Metro church/fellowship. I am aware that among many who profess our religious ideas and who give allegiance to a Unitarian Universalist society there is some ambiguity about what our religious movement is doing and saying. There is hunger for personal convictions deep enough to contain the storms of contradiction that arise so readily when we get talking candidly with another Unitarian Universalist who may violently disagree with the conviction that the church/fellowship as a gathered group should stand for justice in the community. I am not speaking about generalized principles of justice or peace – these are not difficult. But when an issue before a religious body which levels specific criticism, even condemnation, at social peers, or business associates or professional stance – what then? There are those among us who believe it much better and safer for other groups (NAA War Resis. Lg; CC C Co Clergy and Laymen come for V.N.) to be known for forthright positions and act specifically on issues. There are many persons whose sincerity cannot be doubted who believe that the social limits of an adequate religion are to teach the individual with the pure principles of religious law and prophecy, to comfort him with the beauty of worship, to remind him of reverent psalms or sermons sanctified by age, of human experience, to advise him with the time-tried wisdom of Biblical sages and Unitarian Universalist heroes. Thus to build a philosophical base and ethical fire, hoping that in our time he will go and do likewise in the community as an individual.

But the issue becomes bristly because many among us also believe that Unitarian Universalist inspiration and action cannot always be contained in an aggregation of separate vessels but must be blended frequently in one container – the church/fellowship. They believe merged convictions can create a chemistry of greater force, point direction, and achieve results of greater power when wrong is labeled “wrong” by the majority and consequently create the setting to bring about more specific justice in the social order.

I am attempting to put before you my belief in the Double Vision of religion. What religion should be to the individual as an inner experience opening a comprehensive vision encompassing one’s relationship to the wonder and mystery of the universe, relationship to the fears, angers, joys, and hopes one feels within himself and about himself, and a balance of self and selflessness that will lead to healthy relationships to other persons. Worship in its many forms – group services, art, music, drama, philosophy, meditation, self-searching, prayer – all can be productive contributors to the process of becoming a person with a total reverence for life – one’s own life, the life of others, and for the mysterious and powerful life force that seems an unquenchable characteristic of the universe which is our home. A religion that fails to provide the setting for an ever richer inner life is separated from the feelings that make us human.

But may I suggest to you that another vision can be perceived – not only what religion can be as my own individual inner experience but also what the organized religious group can be together and can do together. What is the religious fellowship; what ought it do?

You will remember, I hope, that in speaking from this pace, I am not a voice of any official directive or policy. The Unitarian Universalist groups are independent, forming their own policies, directing their own programs. As a staff person on the Met Dis I have neither the right nor intention to tell you what you should do. But as a convinced Unitarian Universalist I have the obligation imposed by my own beliefs to speak on this subject.

Both are necessary – the inner vision of what a religion of one’s own must be, and an outer vision of what we can do together to bring nearer a world of peace and order, where all infringements on human freedom, all insults to human dignity, and all disinheritance from human equality will become increasingly intolerable.

It is the outer vision that stirs some difficulties among us. We find little objection to the free pulpit today. But when a group wants to act on issues that may ruffle feelings in the community or take actions that may directly or indirectly touch feelings of hostility, or when we open our doors to give symbolic sanctuary to a war resister or provide a forum for dissidents and radicals, or deal corporately with the facts of open housing or equal opportunity employment, then it is that protests may increase and sometimes pledges decrease.

One historian (Bertram Wolfe) summed up the great classic Greek civilization as including a sense of limits and moderation and a rejection of excess. But the experience of many of the rejected and disinherited in our world today seems to indicate that if you want to make an impact on stopping war, or achieving racial justice and equal power, and gentleness and moderation fail, perhaps old limits must be transgressed, moderation become immoderate, and excess tried, not rejected out of hand. I am not an advocate of violence; I am appalled by brutality – whether mob brutality or police brutality. Yet the question remains – what must the oppressed and disinherited do to create the conditions where the powerful favored and affluent will hear their cries and know their conditions?

What can the religious society do to shape, form, and bring progress to the outer vision of a world ever more free and fair? I have been giving some thought lately and intend to learn a lot more about that which goes by the unpoetic description, General Systems Theory. Oversimplified, it is a recognition of the relationships of systems. The business system is related to government and labor; education is related to public and private research, as well as taxation; public transport is related to private automobiles. Organized religion is a system relating to them all. Almost anything considered a system is always part of a larger system. The relationships can be creative and effective if we apply certain ways of measuring. For your consideration today, I would speak of relevance, communication, and values, because these are essential components in the achieving of proper double vision in religion.

Relevance: this is an overworked word. The frequent criticism of the churches is that they are not relevant. The Gallup Poll discovered in 1957 that 69% of those surveyed believed that religion as a whole was increasing its influence on American life; 14% believed religion was losing its influence. In May, 1969, 14% believed that the influence was increasing, and 70% believed that religion was losing influence on American life. George Gallup said this was one of the most dramatic reversals in opinion in the history of polling. Most people seem to believe now that the church is losing influence – not relevant.

I read that relevancy is “the situation in which the behavior of the environment affects the system and the behavior of the system affects the environment.” Bringing that to my discussion today, religious relevancy is the recognition that social and political conditions that surround us near and far affect the church/fellowship. To be relevant the church/fellowship must affect the environment. I do not see how it is possible for us to be relevant unless we influence the environment. Surely there is no question that the environment affects us. Let me just make one reference: we are part of the NY metropolitan region. NYC is the center to which vast numbers of commuters are related directly, and all others indirectly. NYC faces a housing deficit and sub-standard housing situation of staggering proportions, with the future bleak because of rising population. 99% of the vacant land available for housing is outside NYC. Complicating the entire human situation is the growing apartheid of the whole region – a forced separation of Blacks and Puerto Ricans from the rest of the region’s population. Only 8% of the heads of households in the 30-34 age group could buy a house in Westchester, only 17% in Rockland, Putnam, and Orange counties. This ominous housing deficiency and separation affects the social stability of the whole region. Can the religious society affect this environment [and] be relevant? It can, if there is the will to do so.

The same relevant impact could be felt on other issues – pollution, education, employment, police attitudes. Many believe that our religious climate favors only [those] individuals [who] exert individual leverage. But if members by our democratic process believe that group stands [and] group efforts can exert more effective leverage, why should they hold back? Again and again, legislators have told me that official positions taken by a religious group are taken seriously because they feel that pro and con debate has taken place and the issue considered.

Communication: Another requisite component is communication. I mean more than the daily batch of mimeographed announcements, although nothing I have experienced leads me to discount the power of the printed word, in spite of frequently being snowed in by paper blizzards. When a religious society feels tension, discovers serious disagreements, this is communication just as the sensation of physical pain is a communication to the brain. When an issue, whether external or internal, is placed before a church/fellowship body the response is a communication. If there is lack of response, inertia, this is communication, too. When there is a heated, aroused response, this is communication. Expressed feelings are a communication. When persons of different faiths and varying attitudes turn out in large numbers for a controversial program, this is communication of the common hopes and fears that transcend usual internal programs or parochial concerns.

When we are at our best in religious affairs, we try to interpret, understand, and clarify such communications. When persons communicate, that is, hear and respond to ideas and actions, we can recognize that they too are seeking relevancy – they may believe, they may only hope that the larger environment can be helpfully influenced by the smaller unites within it – the Unitarian Universalist church/fellowship is a particular example.

This is not to say that we must respond with a knee jerk reflex to every hammer that bangs from all directions in our multi-problem culture. We must accept the reality that we are all limited, not only by time and energy, but also by our interests.

This brings me to the third component, values. I have not found better words than some of those contained in the corporate purpose of the Unitarian Universalist:

A free and disciplined search for truth.
To affirm, defend, and promote the supreme worth of every human personality, the dignity of man, and the use of the democratic method in human relationships.
To implement our vision of one world by striving for a world community founded on ideals of brotherhood, justice, and peace.

These are values which inevitably develop in each of us when we seek to develop the inner vision of deepening personal religion. But in the harried and hectic affairs of the human venture, they are generalities. The evils of our time are damnably specific. Generalized affirmations of good are simply not enough. They must be applied with relevance and with the character of communication which leads to the quality of actions which come in like the tide – irresistible and on the level.

Appendix A

In Greek mythology, Prometheus (whose name also signified “forethought”) was the great benefactor of men because he stole fire from the gods, bringing fire, warmth, and light to the family of man. Thus was the family of man able to be more than a match for all other animals. Man could then fashion tools and weapons, build housing, illuminate the darkness, and develop agriculture. Prometheus, some myths have it, taught man all the useful arts. For such presumption, Zeus chained Prometheus on a mountain top. There, Prometheus was chained to a rock and suffered the agony of his liver being eaten each day by an eagle, the liver being restored each morning so that there could be another day of suffering.

Byron:

“Thy godlike crime was to be kind
To render with they precepts less
The sum of human wretchedness,
And strengthen man with his own mind.”

In the course of a talk a year or so ago, I interjected a remark rather spontaneously, “If God is dead, who are the executors of the estate?” Whether the gods resented Prometheus’ brash courage helping the human family, or whether God is dead, may not be a relevant point.

The death of God debate has subsided even among the Christian theologians. Among Unitarian Universalists the debate never reached an excited point because our days of God/no-God, [or] the Humanist/Theist controversy had reached a high point and diminished in importance a generation ago. most of us were aware that the essential question was not whether or not God was dead or whether or not he ever existed (or now exists); rather, [it is] how we should live and behave in the light of serious belief about the nature and responsibilities of man in the gigantic, creating Universe.

But when I pose the rhetorical question, “If God is dead, who are the executors of the estate”, I meant of course that we are. That is, we have acquired control over forest, animal, fish of the sea, and birds of the air. It is one thing to take power – be a God – [but] quite another to be a responsible steward of the resources we command. In my view, never before has it been so essential that man bears the burden of being a God – and recognize and accept the awful responsibility of many decisions, where wrong ones may mean the destruction of our little space-ship Earth, degrading living space to dead void.

Untitled (Concerning Religious Education)

Undated (found in 1968 papers)
Unspecified (possibly Plainfield)

Untitled Fragment, starting on p. 13

... architects described the needs of the educational program of the church by referring to the “Perambulator Revolution.” There are forty-million children crowding the church schools of the nation. Universalists and Unitarians know that the strongest magnet in attracting thoughtful young families is the program of religious education being developed in the liberal churches. In spite of the need to communicate better both the religious basis and the educational methods we attempt to promote, unquestionably our loyalty to a constantly improving liberal religious education program will determine the kind of people who will be attracted. Many persons who can “take” an orthodox adult worship service, or “leave it alone,” so to speak, revolt against subjecting their children to a dogmatic, tradition-centered Sunday school.

When Marie Antoinette was a child, her mother, Queen Maria of Austria, because of numerous duties only saw her children once every week or ten days. The children were left in the care of governesses and teachers who, because of fear of royal rage, were more anxious that the children should make a good impression than they were that the children should learn. As the historian tells it, “the copies which were presented to the Queen in evidence of the progress of the children were all traced over the original drawings of the teachers. The children just followed with pen over the penciled lines.” The beautiful (but copied) product was then exhibited to Queen Maria for approval. The young princess was also taught to address strangers of distinction in short Latin phrases, when she did not understand the meaning of a single word.”

Unless we liberals do a catastrophic turn-about, we will not be interested in our children making tracings of our religious lines, or chattering religious phrases they do not understand. As J.P. Corbett, a philosopher, said over the B.B.C.: “We should be teaching young people to think about the world, not talk themselves out of it; to work through concrete problems of nature and society, not to drop a verbal curtain between those problems and themselves.”

This method of education requires space for activity. If we believe in it, we should provide opportunity for the growth and expansion of the liberal spirit in education.

There is a fine summary of educational goals in the words of George Counts: “(Education) must assure mastery on the part of the younger generation of the essential practical skills and knowledge of the social heritage. Second, it must promote with unflagging zeal an understanding of the world as it is and as it is becoming. Third, it must strive without apology to inculcate in the young loyalty to the great values of a society of free men. Fourth, it must stress the universal in the total human heritage, stimulate the creative faculties of man, and contribute to the advancement of all the humane arts and sciences.”

Similar to the feeling General Bradley expressed in his recent speech, these affirmations I advance about fellowship, worship, and education are not self-proving propositions. They are articles of faith more than expressions of reason, but I believe they will be true to experience of Universalists who assume the burdens and share the inspiration of a a new and growing church.

Beginning of Universalism in America

c. 1950-55 (undated)
Gloucester, MA (assumed)

Beginning of Universalism in America (Ed. - the sermon was actually untitled)

In 1770 Gloucester, Massachusetts was a seaport In touch with all the world. Before the advent of railways, seaports were always centers of liberal thought, the first places to receive the new ideas. In 1769 a man named Gregory, whether officer, sailor, or passenger on one of the Gloucester merchant ships (no one knows), had brought to the town a book written by Rev. James Relly of London, entitled, "Union, or a Treatise on the Consanguinity Between Christ and His Church." The arrival of this book in Gloucester was the beginning of Universalism in America. The printed page preceded the spoken word. This book had been read, and made converts at least three years before Murray came to the city. Murray's Preaching for the first three years was itinerant. Welcomed at first as a popular preacher, it was before long discovered that he was a heretic. In Boston the Rev. Andrew Croswell denounced him in the papers as a disciple of Relly. This was true. After some years of friendship with John Wesley and Whitefield, he had some months before coming to America come under the influence of Rev. James Relly and had been converted to his ideas. The Gloucester converts to Relly read Croswell's accusation in the paper and were very much interested. They asked the most influential member of the group, Mr. Winthrop Sargent, to go to Boston and invite Murray to Gloucester. Mr. Sargent was undoubtedly at this time the leading citizen in the city. In response to Mr. Sargent's invitation, Mr. Murray came to the city and preached nine times on nine successive days. For the first time in his three years in America he here found a group of influential people already in sympathy with his ideas.

From this time on for twenty years, with the exception of eight months, when he was a chaplain in the Army of the Revolution, and part of one year when persecution drove him to England, and when away on missionary journeys, Gloucester was his home. Here he found the support made his career possible.

At first he was given the use of First Parish Church. Shortly after coming here the second time this privilege was denied him and thereafter services were held in the homes of his converts, on Sundays, usually in the spacious parlors of Winthrop Sargent's hospitable mansion.

Congregations grew, converts increased, and opposition became more bitter and determined....

Shortly after he (John Murray) resumed preaching, after his return from the army, his followers ceased to attend the services in the First Parish Church. Then the storm broke – a mob assembled before the house of Winthrop Sargent, where Murray was living, determined to ride him out of town, and on being dissuaded from their purpose, warned him to leave on the threat of violence if he remained. An effort was also made to have him expelled from town as a vagrant, anyone not a land-owner having no legal status in any place at that time. This danger was avoided by one of his supporters making him a gift of some land, this constituting him a free holder....

He was summoned before the committee of safety and ordered to leave town within five days (read p. 107 – Universalism in Gloucester). The town at its annual meeting, by a vote of 54 for and 8 against, approved the action of the committee of safety. Curses followed him and stones were thrown at him as he walked the streets. Through it all Murray and his company of brave supporters (Gen. Greene – Eddy I – p. 150) stood firm and unwavering. In spite of all this, perhaps because of this, the number of Murray's followers increased, and little by little threats and dangers of physical violence ceased. The difficulty of his followers, however, in establishing their right to a faith and form of worship as they desired was only beginning.

On February 1 [ed. - or 11?], 1777 fifteen people (read p. 112), five of them members of the Sargent family, absented themselves from worship in First Parish Church. In these people we find the beginnings of what is now the Independent Christian Church (Universalist) in Gloucester and the Universalist Church of America.

There was, however, no legal organization. They simply agreed to meet together for religious worship and to "appoint Mr. Murray their religious teacher so long as he preaches the gospel as we now understand it." Shortly after they drew up what are known as the "Articles of Association" in which they call themselves the Independent Christian Church in Gloucester, declaring it to be their purpose "in so far as possible to live peaceably with all men." The Articles were signed by thirty-one men and thirty women, or if, Murray's name be omitted, by thirty men and thirty women.

A year later the society built a meeting house in one corner of Winthrop Sargent's garden, near where the Bradford Block now stands on Main St. Gloucester. It was 32½ x 48 feet with 30 box pews and was the first church building erected by Universalists in the United States, or, for that matter, in the world.

The members of the First Parish held that by law members of the Independent Christian Church were still obligated to pay taxes for the support of the established order. The Universalists refused to pay, basing their refusal on the Bill of Rights, which they held guaranteed to each person liberty to choose his own religious teacher. The First Parish claimed the Independent Church "was not a religious organization, or if so, was not incorporated, and that Murray was not a religious teacher, or if so, was not ordained."

The easiest thing would have been for the members of the Independent Church to apply to the Legislature for an Act of Incorporation. They felt, however, that they were being denied rights secured them by the Constitution and that in fighting for their rights they were fighting for the rights of all others.

For this public-spirited reason they refused to pay and they refused to incorporate. The First Parish in 1782 in an attempt to enforce its demands seized and sold at auction the goods of three prominent members of the Independent Church. It was found that in order to establish their rights, Murray as their religious teacher must bring action against the First Parish for the recovery of money which had been wrongfully diverted from his use. This Murray refused to do for some time as he had never taken any salary for preaching. In time, however, he came to see that by refusing be was doing an injustice to friends who had loyally stood by him, and so suit was brought.

Both in the importance of the issues and the eminence of the legal lights engaged in the case, this was one of the great legal battles of America. Murray's counsel was Hon. Rufus King, who, however, removed to New York before the case came to trial, and Judge James Sullivan, nearly, if not quite his equal in legal lore, took his place; while the First Parish of Gloucester was represented by Theophilus Parsons. The judges instructed the Jury to bring in a verdict adverse to those bringing suit. This the Jury refused to do. This meant a second trial. This took place a year later, and this time the judges reversed their earlier opinion, in part perhaps influenced by public opinion, in part, perhaps convinced by a very able pamphlet written by Mr. Epes Sargent (p. 133) entitled, "An appeal to the impartial public by the Society of Christian Independents, congregating in Gloucester". Any way, this time the verdict was in favor of the Independent Church, judges and jury concurring. This long trial, in which the ablest lawyers in the United States were employed, must have been very expensive for the little group who realized well that they were fighting not only for themselves alone, but for the right of all to freedom of worship. Before this decision, Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, nor other heretics had any right to a church of their own faith.

While the suit in court was pending, a number of Universalist congregations which had been gathered together in different parts of the state planned to meet in Oxford, Mass., for encouragement, counsel and instruction. In anticipation of this event the Universalists in Gloucester adopted a Charter of Compact to provide for carrying on of religious societies by voluntary subscriptions.

This Charter of Compact is notable for its absence of any theological or doctrinal creed, statement, or requirement. It is still more challenging by virtue of several articles:

Second Article: "That funds shall be provided, by voluntary subscription for the purposes of supporting a teacher or teachers, of piety, religion and morality; the repairing of the public edifice, and the relief of poor and distressed brethren."

Ninth Article: Whereas the privilege of choosing and professing one's own religion is inestimable: And in order to maintain that privilege unimpaired, in case any person associating with is should suffer persecution from the undue exercise of power, we do agree and resolve to afford him all legal means of extricating him from difficulty, and of enjoying that freedom which is held forth by the Constitution."

Concluding sentence "AND BE IT KNOWN UNIVERSALLY, That we who have signed our names to this CHARTER OF COMPACT for the purposes heretofore cited, compose and do belong to the Independent Christian Society, Gloucester, Sept. 6, 1785.

One of the signers was Gloster Dalton, a Negro. Upon the occasion of his death and church funeral, April 11, 1813, the then minister, "Father" Jones, made this notation: "April 11, 1813, Gloster Dalton, an African. In this country from a youth. Supposed to be 90 years old. They said Gloster Dalton was an honest, industrious man. He had been Infirm about two or three years ... belonged to the Independent Christian Society for many years. He was a native of Africa, and brought away as a slave (so-called). For there are no slaves! All men are born free! T. Jones."

Memorial Service for Robert F. Kennedy

June 9, 1968
Plainfield

Memorial Service for Robert F. Kennedy

Robert F. Kennedy is dead at the age of 42 years. The bloody wave of senseless violence has once again shocked our sensibilities, ravaged our stability and stunned our hopes. Another famous American has been killed by the assassin's bullet. The public servant once again was the target for the gun of a killer. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was murdered in the course of the American political process we call “seeking the presidential nomination.”

Conjecture tumbles over speculation. Why did it happen? Why is ours a land of violence? Is there spreading decay in the human civilities? Is there something about our partisan frenzies, political build-up and election contests that precipitate latent and suppressed hostilities into overt and destructive acts? Is some contagion of violence infecting the vulnerable? Has the American dream become a nightmare?

Why does a killer kill? Why did the man cautiously called “the prime suspect” pull the trigger ? We ask this question far too frequently in this land of ours. President John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are revered martyrs who were known for their conviction of human brotherhood and their public acts to bring more justice to the social order. Now Robert Kennedy, a man with the same inner conviction and public courage has joined their tragic company. Brave lives, but brief lives.

James Meredith was shot, but survived. Many other lesser-known persons, civil rights advocates and workers have been murdered. Too soon we forget, not only their names and deeds but also we lose a sense of the urgency of the causes for which they died: Megdar Evers, James Reeb, Viola Liuzzo, Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner, many others. Even a hate-monger, George Lincoln Rockwell, was not exempt from the violent death of the assassin's bullet.

A senseless and immoral war in Asia
Strife and misery in our cities
Racism in our land
Poverty and hunger affecting thousands of poor people in the rural areas of barren land or enormous farms where the machine has replaced the man.
Pollution in the skies and streams
Hate in the hearts of too many persons.
Is this our culture?

Many books and articles occupy space on library shelves to attempt to explain human irrational violence. Pick and choose a theory. Consider our violence a primeval remnant from the days of fang and claw if you wish; or maybe you would defend the theory that human beings who are overcrowded and compressed into insufficient living space respond with violence. This has been demonstrated in experiments with rats. Too little space creates frustration, rage and a striking-out in violence. But whatever the theory, can we limit, curtail, restrain violence to the end that young men who have conviction, ambition, energy, opportunity and desire to be leaders in the public order will not be murdered because they had this will to serve their fellow-citizens?

It is not enough to dismiss the matter sorrowfully in the grounds that the assassins are isolated psychotics, maddened by emotional derangements and therefore unrepresentative of American society.

The formidable fact is that we have ignored some of the controls that might have made it difficult for the unfit person to purchase guns. On April 29, 1968, Senator Dodd, a consistent fighter for gun control laws, had a sermon by Dr. Duncan Howlett printed in the Congressional Record. Duncan Howlett is minister of All Souls Unitarian Church, Washington, D. C. A gun control law has been consistently and effectively opposed by the powerful lobby of the National Rifleman's Association. Duncan Howlett urged the passage of a gun control without loopholes. Chief Campbell of the Plainfield Police Dept said to the clergy the other day that a tight Federal gun-control law would be one means of reducing violence.

A year ago, Senator Edward Kennedy confronted 75 members of the Board of the National Rifleman's Association and attacked their opposition to gun controls. He exposed their false publicity, reminding them that gun control legislation would not interfere with the recreation of the real sportsman.

The NRA did not pay any attention to him. Perhaps gun control would not have made a difference. Perhaps Senator Edward Kennedy’s brother, John, an assassinated President would still be buried these four years in Arlington National Cemetery. Perhaps Senator Robert Kennedy would still be interred these few hours near his older brother in Arlington National Cemetery. Perhaps the assassins of Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers would still have been able to procure the weapons used for murder. No one can say with certainty.

But it can be asserted that stricter gun controls might have reduced the 7000 murders by gunfire, the yearly average now in our country. Probably it would reduce the ghastly statistic of 18,000 deaths caused by the accidental discharge of a gun.

Can we face up to the figures for our violent land? (1963, quoted by Duncan Howlett): Switzerland had 1/25 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S. Great Britain had 1/50 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S. The Netherlands had 1/90 of the number of murders by gunfire as the U.S.

Effective gun control would reduce that disproportionate number of murders. Under the impact of this latest assassination, Congress passed Thursday the gun control law which had been much weakened by amendments. But much stronger legislation is needed.

Gunnar Myrdal, the perceptive Swedish social scientist, believes the tradition of violence and political assassination is growing in our country. Who among you can argue the evidence? The President has appointed a special commission to study the causes of violence and to suggest possible remedies. One can only hope that more attention will be given to the results of this study than to the recent President's Commission on Civil Disorders. That is a remarkable document – surprising in its candid appraisal of the real problems and astonishing in the degree that it has been ignored.

Poverty, injustice, hunger, ill-health are breeders of violence as well as the cause of much apathy. We can never entirely solve the problem of the individual psychotic who suddenly goes berserk and kills. But if we can come to grips with the environmental problems, then there is much that can be changed for the better.

For most persons, in America, this is a day of penitence and national sorrow. Many persons will be torn by vague but disturbing guilt. Our task is not to indulge in formless feelings of guilt in mourning the death of Robert F. Kennedy. Our proper attitude is to mourn his death as a brave, out-spoken public servant; AND to resolve that we shall be among those who strive to determine the priorities of our national life.

In that lonesome airplane that bore the body of Robert F. Kennedy to New York, Thursday, among others on board were Mrs. John F. Kennedy, widow of the assassinated President, Mrs. Martin Luther King, Jr., widow of the assassinated Dr. King, Charles Evers (who has spoken from this pulpit), brother of the assassinated Medgar Evers, and the newest member of the grieving circle, Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy.

Who can measure tragedy? Who can perceive the depth of the fellowship of grief which must have prevailed in that airplane? Who can feel truly the agonies of their sorrow?

There was common ground on which the martyrs had stood. They had established priorities for which they gave more than dedicated, impassioned leadership. They gave life itself because they had determined the national priorities for which they gladly and tirelessly labored. All of them were aware of the constant peril in which their lives were lived. They sought a larger life for all and each had to pay for the effort with a tragically shortened life for himself.

What can one say about our debt to those who have died for human brotherhood, economic opportunity and political freedom and power for those who have been deprived of these rights? We can look at ourselves, Americans, New Jerseyans. Are our priorities related to peace, freedom, human dignity? Let's look at our political parties and add whatever ounces of weight our influence may represent to bring about a closer balance on the scales of justice.

Working for such achievement is the lasting memorial for those who risked and gave their lives.

May such a spirit of faithfulness to the best goals we know and persistence in making some part of the ideal become real be our authentic labor as an enduring memorial to all the heroes and martyrs who died for their dreams. Because their dreams were of a fairer, better social order for everyone, they died for all of us.

Can We Indoctrinate To Set Free?

June 2, 1968
Plainfield

Can We Indoctrinate To Set Free?

Every person should be free to grow in mind and personality towards greater development and fulfillment of the self. Every person should be growing toward more freedom, wiser understanding, and ever-deepening relationships with other persons. How can we teach children, particularly, but actually all persons, to be free? Can we indoctrinate to set free? Are there experiences which can be the stimulus to self-growth?

This is a hard question because we tend to want others to be like ourselves. We get anxious when our children's ways depart from our ways. We get annoyed or hostile when other persons hold to ideas or behavior which we believe to be either trivial or wrong. At the same time we know that living situations continuously change. Perhaps the attitudes we hold may no longer be vitally related to new situations. How can we indoctrinate not only to set children free, but to free ourselves as well?

In the fine book of some years ago, LET US PRAISE FAMOUS MEN, [authors James Agee and Walker Evans told the story of Southern sharecroppers:] "In every child who is born, under no matter what circumstances, and no matter what parents, the potentiality of the human race is born again; and in him, too, once more and each of us our terrific responsibility toward human life; towards the utmost idea of goodness of the horror of error, and of God."

Two words stand out when we think of indoctrinating to set free: "potentiality," "responsibility". There is a type of desert lizard, which, when food is abundant, stores surplus in his large, colorful tail. When food becomes scarce, the lizard draws upon the reservoir of this large, swollen tall to sustain him through the crises of his lizard life. Analogies are never fully accurate, but the lizard is suggestive of the capacity of human reserves – spiritual reserves if you will. From our growth potentialities and the wise interpretation of experience there can come reserve deposits of strength which can help in the inevitable and recurring crises of life.

One becomes religious by experience. One becomes religious by experience appropriate to the age-level and growth stage. A five-year-old has not developed a sense of historical time. A three-year-old is not always ready for cooperative behavior in the group. A ten-year-old may not yet be equipped for theological discourse.

The readiness of a child for religious guidance; the moment of religious growth for an adult for that matter, is frequently indicated by the questions asked. The questioning person, child or adult, may given a lift on the road developing potentiality and increasing responsibility when he is answered by adults who are neither fearful of the questions nor afraid that the answers might be wrong. The old cliche that children should be seen and not heard is one of the most erroneous proverbs ever coined. The experience of serious answers to serious questions is one of the prime ways religious stature develops. Consider one of the elementary and necessary instructions a worker receives beginning a new job, "Don't be afraid to ask questions ... We'd rather have too many questions than costly mistakes." This is even more true in the situations where one can grow in self-hood and social responsibility.

There is another way of indoctrinating to set free – encouraging one to do. What a child, or adult, does – working with paint, clay, paper-mache and working with others in play and worship is part of an attitude that can set free. John Dewey's famous educational phrase, "learning by doing," has sometimes been too harshly criticized. Whether one
feels the sun on his back on the trail, the wind in his face on the hilltop, the wonder of an unexpected bulb breaking the crust of the earth in Spring, the crunch of autumn leaves on an October walk, one is doing. If one seeks to interpret such experiences wisely, he will apprehend that there is a one-to-one relationship to the Universe; that one can embrace with awe and ardor some of the seemingly impersonal ways of the Universe that swirls about us and provides the setting for our living.

To put it slightly differently, one "becomes religious by developing inner resources. The kind of personal growth which best sets us free comes from such experience which leads us to trust ourselves.

many strokes and thoughts shimmer
the soft color of innocence
young creating patterns
splash in self-expression
finding the sunshine of their colors
in a place for discovering life

- Wendy Stafford

But of course the solitary person confronting the Universe is not nearly enough, even though Whitehead defined religion as what one is in his solitariness. Growth and character are not achieved in a vacuum. One must grow toward freedom in a complex and interdependent series of societies. A couple hundred years ago when Rousseau exuberantly sung praises of freedom, he was sure that man was born free in nature. Rousseau argued that it was society that put chains on natural freedom. Now we know that this was a naive and rosy misunderstanding of human growth. One is not born free; one learns to be free.

The story is told that in the 17th Century a slave-trading vessel had loaded 200 slaves between decks, raised anchor and took a westward course. Somehow the slaves broke free, overpowered the crew and tossed them overboard. But although they had liberated themselves from the slave-traders, not one of the freed slaves could either handle sail or rudder or read a compass. They had freed themselves "from", but not freed themselves "for".

This seems a parable for man in community. Man must develop his own inner strength, must find his own convictions about himself, his fellow-man and his God. At the same time he must assume the social responsibilities and develop the community skills without which freedom is as directionless as the slave-ship. John Dewey phrased this need fully for inner resources this way, "Men have never fully used the powers they possess to advance the good life, because they waited on something external to themselves to do the work they are responsible for doing."

While the debates and decisions of the Cleveland General Assembly will be presented in greater detail and better form by the Denominational Affairs Committee, one of the most exciting as well as controversial matters is in point here. The Black Affairs Council will be recognized by the Board of Trustees and will be funded. The delegates by a strong majority of 836 to 327 clearly indicated that they believed that time had come for Black self-determination within the framework of our continental U.U.A.; that there was sufficient confidence in their understanding of needs and ability to meet needs; no strings have been tied to the appropriations. This says to the Black Affairs Council "you need not wait on something external to yourselves to begin to make things right." Use your inner resources as these have been developed through centuries of struggle and suffering. Out of your own experience guide us in ways that may make some difference in this most sharp problem and struggle of our nation. Unconsciously, as well as deliberately, we Whites may have been paternalistic. At Cleveland, those who voted [in the 836] say, we have failed to extend to you the same encouragement to self-growth; the same right to interpret experience that we have proclaimed is our central approach to religious learning and coming to religious conviction.

This is freedom for self-growth, self-determination, not a regression to a separatism. There are those thoughtful and sincere people who disagree. I believe I can understand their point of view; but I believe that our times demand this opportunity for growth, not only for the children in our church school, but for adults in our movement who have not had their opportunity to interpret the pressing problems in the domestic social order and to offer ways to overcome the problems.

One of the prime feelings in learning is a sense of quickening relationships. A child may feel this quickening relationship to his class and the methods and materials in it. At Cleveland, most of the adults, all I know of anyway in that majority, felt a quickening relationship, not only to the Black culture which set our shoulders moving and our feet tapping, not only to the Black worship service which had Unitarians singing "Precious Lord take my hand," and other spirituals, but also a quickening relationship to the possibilities that our church, our movement may have crossed a time-line of newness and relevance.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must develop wider and more effective ideas and programs in the social order. Perhaps our new vision will help. In addition, quite apart from what may or may not happen in the social order, the pressure of social problems on us at Cleveland deepened the sense of personal religion (for many at least). There are those who felt disillusion, those who said,"this isn't my church, anymore." But the tides of feeling, commitment, call, did deepen our sense of personal fulfillment, or solitary religion, or whatever one might want to call it.

The problems are formidable, particularly the financial problem, with so many places where our dollars can be will spent. Varying priorities will be sifted to assign importance. Nevertheless, in a spirit of group decision, personal involvement and personal commitment, we were being freed from the burden of issues we now know to be of lesser importance.

Consider what Albert Schweitzer said, long before the development of the nuclear bombs (INDIAN THOUGHT AND DEVELOPMENT, Beacon Press, 1954): "I believe there must arise a philosophy profounder and more living than than our own, one possessed of greater spiritual and ethical power. In the terrible age through which mankind is passing, all of us, both in the East and the West, must watch for the coming of a more perfect and healthier form of thought which will conquer men's hearts and compel all people to acknowledge its sway. And it must be our aim to bring this philosophy into existence."

Room for the self to grow, response with real answers, a quickening of relationships both solitary and social, a linkage between conviction and commitment, these are ways to set us free.

In Walden, Thoreau wrote, "We must learn to re-awaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn...."

To re-awaken and keep ourselves awake by the methods of growth and freedom, this is the way we can be free and I covet for myself and for my Unitarian Universalist denomination, the courage and stamina to persist until the way is clearer and fulfillment nearer.

Lakefront Decision

May 19, 1968
Plainfield

Lakefront Decision

Some of you may groan audibly or silently because I am devoting this sermon to the Black Affairs Council of the Unitarian Universalist Association (U.U.A.). Some may feel they have heard enough already about Black Power, the President's Commission on Civil Disorders and the prospects before us, but the delegates to the U.U.A. meetings next week in Cleveland will find the issues so intense and difficult that they may face tough tests of conscience and principle in choosing where to vote "aye" and where to vote "no." Furthermore, here at home you will read news releases which may represent neither full facts nor undistorted opinion or may simple be utterly inadequate reporting.

There will be many issues at Cleveland but the most crucial will be whether or not to recognize the Black Affairs Council (B.A.C.), and if recognized, how it will be financed. The considerations involved are formidable issues within our Unitarian Universalist family. In addition, the debate and decisions are symbolic of the crisis in Black and White which so thoroughly penetrates all levels of American society. In Cleveland there will be sharp differences among delegates. These differences will not represent a division of the concerned versus the unconcerned. Opponents will be equally concerned, but divided on such central principles as the application of the historic decision-making process of the U.U.A.; and whether or not Black separatism should be accepted and approved as a present necessity.

The best factual reporting on this whole matter of a Black Affairs Council is contained in THE BRIDGE, Summer issue, 1966. Those who have studied that article may find my remarks repetitious. In this talk, I'll review the history and attempt to state the issues and changing attitudes toward the issues, and give my own present views.

In reviewing the history, first there is a preface; then there is the development of the Black Caucus, which led to the Black Steering Committee and the proposed B.A.C. In addition, there are the policies of the U.U.A. Board, policies which have been somewhat fluid. A U.U.A. Board meeting scheduled just prior to the Cleveland meetings may result in modified policies on the part of the Board.

The preface is twofold: Black rebellions in the U.S. Black people discovered that Supreme Court decisions (anniversary of Brown) and civil rights legislation did not create social change quickly enough; rising expectations were woefully short-changed; they have realized that the dominant White culture would not act promptly in the fields of employment, housing, police relations, education, and governmental service. Overarching all of these was the rightful feeling that their human dignity was either
ignored or violated.

Out of this social ferment came disorder in the cities, aptly summarized in the President's Commission on Civil Disorders: "White racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of WWII .... Race prejudice has shaped our history decisively; it now threatens to affect our future."

Another social consequence was the emergence of Black Power. Black Power is the effort of many Black people to achieve self-determination, to meet their own needs themselves, to recognize and be proud of their Black identity and traditions. They seek political power to achieve change because they simply do not believe Whites care enough to make the effort required to produce an equal opportunity society.

It is out of this scene that we can narrow the focus to specific events in our Unitarian Universalist movement.

Out of the Summer disorders came the call of the U.U.A. Department of Social Responsibility for an "Emergency Conference on the Unitarian Universalist Response to the Black Rebellion," held in October last year in New York. Several members of our Society attended all or some of these sessions. We have discussed this Emergency Conference at length and a sentence or two should be a sufficient review.

About 37 Black Unitarian Universalists formed a Black Caucus under the leadership of a California group, BURR – Black Unitarian Universalists for Radical Reform. Most Black Unitarian Universalists attended a separate meeting limited to Blacks. Returning to the final sessions, the members of the Black Caucus presented a series of proposals. There was an insistence that these proposals be parsed without discussion and transmitted directly to the U.U.A. Board.

In November the Steering Committee elected by the Black Caucus met with the U.U.A. Board. But before presenting their proposals, the Black Steering Committee insisted that the U.U.A. Board commit itself in advance to saying "yes" that very day. This was discussed for two hours, with the majority of the U.U.A. Board declining to commit itself before hearing the proposals. The Black Steering Committee then did present its proposals: 1) To establish a Black Affairs Council instead of the Committee on Religion and Race, with Blacks in a clear majority. The Purpose of the B.A.C. would be to mobilize talents of Black and White Unitarian Universalists for service and action in the ghettos under Black leadership and control. It was proposed that the B.A.C. be financed by the U.U.A. at $250M per year for four years. The Board was also asked to encourage Black Caucuses in Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships and to support other demands made in New York.

After much discussion, the U.U.A. Board passed a resolution which stated in effect that the problem can be solved only by "Blacks and Whites together" not by separatism, Black or White. The U.U.A. Board also voted to re-organize the Commission on Religion and Race with a substantial participation in the re-organization by the Steering Committee of the Black Caucus. This re-organized Commission on Religion and Race would be given the responsibility of carrying out the most important recommendations of the Emergency Conference in New York.

The Black Caucus was thoroughly and heatedly in disagreement with these findings by the U.U.A. Board, asked that churches withhold support of the U.U.A. and give instead to the Black Caucus Fund.

In late November the U.U.A. Committee on Religion and Race made a grant of $4,100 to the Black Caucus to help finance a continental meeting in February of the Black Caucus in Chicago.

In these Chicago meetings attended by about 200 Black Unitarian Universalists, the following positions were adopted: 1) That the U.U.A. General Assembly would be asked to commission the B.A.C. as an affiliate of the U.U.A. to replace the Committee on Religion and Race. This B.A.C. would have 6 Black and 3 Non-Black members. All members of the B.A.C. would be appointed by the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus. Members of B.U.U.C. individual caucuses in churches and fellowships would be limited to Blacks, but membership in the Unitarian Universalist Church would not be required.

The B.A.C. would seek financing for its program at $250M per year for four years from the U.U.A., using capital funds if necessary.

The U.U.A. Board also has been dealing with the same issues. Following the Chicago meetings of the Black Unitarian Universalist Caucus, the B.A.C. was invited apply for affiliate or associate membership in the U.U.A. At the same time, the U.U.A. Board announced that the Committee for Action on Race would replace the Committee on Religion and Race. The members would be appointed by the U.U.A. Board but would include representation from the B.A.C., the Unitarian Universalist [Service] Committee and other appropriate associated or affiliated members of the U.U.A. This Committee would be financed by a fund to be called the Unitarian Universalist Fund for Racial Justice Now, with a goal of $300M; and would be an appeal to all Unitarian Universalist societies to impose on themselves an annual, per capita, voluntary assessment.

The forgoing represents the events that had occurred up to last Monday evening when four of your delegates attended a meeting in NYC planned to inform those who would be representing their Societies at Cleveland, beginning next Friday. We had known that the issues involved in the Black Caucus were difficult because contradictory principles are involved. We know now more than ever that the intensity of feeling is considerable and that the Cleveland meetings may bristle with passion on several sides of several issues.

We were reminded of the existence now of two alphabetical organizations: FULLBAC and BAWA. FULLBAC stands for Full Recognition and Funding of the Black Affairs Council and is comprised of White Unitarian Universalists who support the Black Caucus. FULLBAC’s purpose is to recruit support and votes for recognition of the B.A.C. as an independent, continuing agency of Unitarian Universalists. Furthermore, that recognition or membership is not enough, adequate financing must be made available by the U.U.A. There is an impressive list of ministers and laymen supporting FULLBAC. They believe that to recognize Black leadership, named and controlled by the B.A.C. is a necessary step in a long-range goal of an "inclusive, effective U.U.A." In essence FULLBAC believes the demands made by the Black Caucus are just, proper, and must be adopted or the U.U.A. will have flunked its most important test in its history.

In strong opposition both to the Black Caucus and its supporters is a newer organization, BAWA - Unitarian Universalists for a Black and White Alternative. Dr. Donald Harrington, nationally-famous minister of Community Church is co-chairman of BAWA. A recent statement of his outlines the reasons why BAWA opposes the recognition and financing of the Black Caucus:

1) Because UU should maintain the "principle of an inclusive community of mankind, undivided by considerations of race, color, creed or class. Therefore, because the Black Caucus is a racially segregated organization it will impede progress toward the achievement of the goal of an inclusive community of mankind.

2) BAWA questions whether the Black Caucus has demonstrated that it speaks for most Unitarian Universalists, that such claims by a few individuals undermine the democratic process.

3) That the proposed proportion in the B.A.C. of 2/3 Black and 1/3 White represents a quotaed arrangement which should not be acceptable by a church which has outlawed segregation.

4) That the demand of the Black Caucus for large sums of money for un-designated programs is bad financial practice and an unrealistic demand to be treated as no other Unitarian Universalist denominational organ has ever been treated.

BAWA outlines a number of specific programs that are commendable, although the main point at the moment is the development of this organized effort of an integrated group to oppose the recognition and financing of the B.A.C.

The recommendations made by the U.U.A. Board are unacceptable to the Black Caucus. They believe even a re-organized Committee for Racial Justice Now will not do because power will still reside in the U.U.A. which would make the appointments and allocate the money. By the Black Caucus view this is paternalism and offensive. The B.A.C. insists on full control of organization or Committee which will plan programs and action in the ghettos and other areas involving the issues of the struggle for equality and power in this country.

As a ministerial delegate to Cleveland, I am planning to keep my options open. But my present views are these:

I, too, believe in the overall goal, or strategy, of an inclusive religious body with no walls between us of caste or color. As a tactic however, given the circumstances of our time, I support the Black Caucus in urging the recognition of the B.A.C. as an affiliate or auxiliary organization of the U.U.A. The status of the B.A.C. would be that of the U.U.W.F. and the Laymen's League. I also believe the Black Caucus should have full power to make the appointments to the B.A.C.

Given the state of our feeble efforts in this country to make equality real, we need to adopt all varieties of innovative steps to try to break through the vicious circle of discrimination and inequality in education, housing, employment, governmental service and other sore areas. The B.A.C. should have the recognized organizational base to lead the U.U.A. and its churches and fellowships in programs and actions that may make some positive differences.

We who are White simply do not understand either the ghastly neglect of rights or the callous indifference to human suffering that prevails so widely. Just the other day, an attorney from Mississippi told an audience that she was sick of watching people starve in that State; no longer able to tolerate such facts as that 65% to 75% of the children registered in a Head Start Program were suffering from anemia due to malnutrition; that 78% of the Black people of that State lived below the poverty level; and that unemployment has reached epidemic proportions due to the large scale mechanization of farms ending jobs for thousands.

I believe we should encourage the Black Caucus to exert leadership; to prize their identify as Black People; to applaud their commendable evaluation that Black is beautiful. This identity and self-determination is a present tactic which may in the long run create a more significant authentic inclusiveness and sharing than we have ever experienced or even glimpsed in our dreams of human brotherhood.

One aspect of Black Caucus demands I cannot vote for without qualifications. This is the demand for $250M per year for four years. One agenda item at Cleveland calls for $150M to be turned over to the B.A.C. by July 1, 1968. My reluctance to endorse this demand is based on two considerations. First of all, the amount of free capital funds in the possession of the U.U.A. is so limited that, almost every other operation would have to be drastically limited, many programs terminated. The U.U.A. has been going through the agonies of strenuous budget-cutting in order to end deficit budgets. Perhaps the program of the Black Caucus is relevant, important and necessary to a degree that we should toss out most other programs we have believed necessary. But such a decision would have to be based, in my view, on a knowledge of what the alternatives are. So far the Black Caucus has given little indication of what programs would be financed by this $250M per year. Their case is that one, we should show our confidence in their judgment by allocating millions [of] dollars with no questions asked. Maybe it's a hang-up on my part, but I cannot function organizationally in this manner. Financial decisions using U.U.A. funds must be made on a judgment of the value of proposed programs. So I do not plan to vote for this aspect of the demands of the Black Caucus.

However, if we are asked to "bet on them" [the Black Caucus] by supplying substantial appropriations with no prior knowledge of how the appropriations were to be used, I could support following alternative:

Already fund-raising proposals are in preparation if the [General Assembly] should recognize the B.A.C. This will be a voluntary campaign, separate from the Annual Fund. I would presently favor turning the proceeds of this campaign over to the B.A.C. with no prior requirements to enable the development of programs. This would be understood by all who gave to the fund. At the end of a year, the B.A.C. would report on the ways it has used this voluntary money, and ask for continuing support on a program basis. This alternative would enable the B.A.C. to get its action priorities established and initial programs off the ground.

More than that, it would demonstrate the authentic concern of Unitarian Universalists in the churches and fellowships for the peaceful resolution of the crisis in Black and White. It would be a grass-roots expression more than action by delegates at Cleveland or votes by the U.U.A. Board, "whatever support resulted would be the proof of the feelings of Unitarian Universalists about the issues.

One closing point I believe essential: I've been disturbed by good people who say, "If the B.A.C. is not recognized and funded at Cleveland, I'm cutting off support and will quit the Unitarian Universalist movement. The executive director of the LL has already announced his speech in Cleveland as "Why I'm Leaving the Unitarian Universalist Denomination." Others are saying, I'll leave the Unitarian Universalist movement if the B.A.C. is recognized.

To me it is important to go on record that I'm not going to leave the movement, no matter what minority position I may find myself in. We engage in dialogue, debate, and decision-making. In Cleveland these will be sharp, probably hostile and the losers will be very much tempted to be sorely aggrieved and resentful and be tempted to walk out.

It is my hope that the B.A.C. will be recognized and that it will supply fresh leadership in these extremely critical times of rebellion. It is my hope that Unitarian Universalists will respond heartily with voluntary financial support. But no matter how the issues are resolved on the lakefront, the search for an adequate faith, the quest for effective action and the growth of deeper fellowship and friendship can best be pursued within the framework of the Unitarian Universalist religion.

What Can We Learn From Flower People, Power People, And Other Rebels

May 12, 1968
Plainfield

What Can We Learn From Flower People, Power People, And Other Rebels

In our culture, one of the most difficult tasks is to look below the surface characteristics of rebels in order to discover if there are valuable under-currents beneath the waves of belligerence, bohemianism, and blunt rejection of what we believe to be true and good. My belief is that we can learn from the acts and attitudes of persons and groups whose ways irritate us, whose behavior alarms us and who act profanely toward patterns of living we may consider sacred. Properly understood, those who rebel against all or some of the ways of our society may be reaching for enduring values. In speaking of what we can learn from flower people, power people, and other rebels, I am also asking each of us to ask himself, Why do rebels irritate me? Why am I alarmed? How sacred are some of the cows which I believe the rebels have profaned?

One important qualification should be made. When discussing characteristics of flower people [and] power people, one should be aware that individual differences prevail in every group. As Russell Baker pointed out by exaggeration, pre-packaged personalities are a myth. There may be prevailing climates of attitude and behavior among groups, but we should be just as wary of stereotyping flower people and power people as we should be wary of stereotyping people by race, religion, occupation, and national background.

When I speak of Flower People, I refer to those well-publicized young people who crowd New York’s East Village, San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury, and similar gathering places. They have rejected the prevailing culture of white suburban, de-odorized, middle-class America. They wear flowers in their uncut hair; they wear clothes distinctively different from Madison Avenue garb; their Mexican shawls or vests and tight dungarees or bell-bottomed trousers may be unwashed and paint-smeared; some flower people may be strumming stringed instruments; a goodly percentage may have experimented with “pot” and have taken “trips” with LSD or other chemicals; nearly all have rebelled against the authority and beliefs of their parents; many live openly in varieties of sexual freedom.

The Power People are those who seek salvation by acquiring political power in order to achieve economic justice, human equality, and peace in the world. They may be Black Power people seeking to weld together the Black people as a political force because of the reality that when one is poor and not numbered among the socially privileged, then political power is not given but must be seized by united numbers who hold together to force concessions from the traditional holders of political and economic strength in this nation.

Or, Power People may be members of Students for Democratic Society or similar organizations sometimes classified as the “New Left.” Their focus too is on tactics which will shift political control in some effective measure to themselves. Or, at least they may shake up and stir anxieties in the usual seats of political power. The lens of Power People’s effort is focused on tactics: resist the draft (“Hell no, we won’t go”). They seek to force a confrontation with power; for example, the events at Columbia University of the last few days or the Berkeley campus of some months ago. They condemn the Vietnam War, particularly, as the immediate reason for resisting the draft; they rebel against the administration of Universities much more than rejecting the faculties. The rebels are fearful that the Government will dominate educational institutions through publicized grants for defense research/development; they fear even more surreptitious subsidies by the C.I.A. The power people of the New Left, on the whole, are not doctrinaire in their political and economic theories. Most of them are not convinced socialists, communists, or capitalists in any of the accepted definitions. They believe that all such ideological distinctions are 19th century antiquities, exhausted of meaning or irrelevant to the human needs of our times.

A significant majority of Flower people and Power people are young. They were born toward the end of WW2 or after that. They are the first generation reared in front of that most influential of educators, the TV tube. That hypnotic eye exposed them to years of fictitious violence: the Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, Zorro, and other blood and bullet re-creations of the old frontiers. They learned about tommy-guns and gangsters from Eliot Ness and Sergeant Friday. Some years ago, Kenyon Scudder, then a delegate to the U.N Congress on the prevention of crime, quoted this little verse:

Sing a song of TV
For the little ones
4 and 20 jailbirds
Facing tommy-guns

When the scene is finished
The blood is ankle deep
Wasn’t that a pretty dish
To send the kids to sleep.

From the same omnipresent screen there emanated the “situation comedy.” “I Love Lucy” - the family situation, or “Our Miss Brooks,” the educational situation – neither of which could possibly have done much for either family life or education, even though the humor was believed to be uproarious.

You will recall other instances wherein the lowest common denominator was emphasized in order to secure the largest possible viewing audience to the end that detergents, aluminum siding, cigarettes, and all other manner or precious goods could be skillfully marketed. As many young people became saturated and surfeited with the banality of such mass entertainment, they could hardly escape the conviction that the American culture not only placed its major emphasis on minor pursuits, but also that it was dreary and boring.

Then there are those of this young generation of rebels whose deep impression of our culture can be described as a tale of three cities: Auschwitz – Hiroshima – and Nuremberg (see Kenneth Keniston, p. 242, article, “Youth, Change, and Violence” in The American Scholar, Spring 1968). As Kenneth Keniston wrote, “Auschwitz points to the possibility of a ‘civilized’ nation embarking on a systematized, well-organized, and scientific plan of exterminating an entire people. Hiroshima demonstrated how ‘clean,’ easy, and impersonal cataclysm could be to those who perpetrate it, and how demonic, sadistic, and brutal to those who experience it. And Nuremberg summarizes the principle that men have an accountability above obedience to national policy, a responsibility to conscience more primary even than fidelity to national law.” There are many young persons who have seen clearly, or at least felt inwardly, the brutal and destructive potential of so-called civilized nations and are placing individual conscience above unprotesting obedience.

What can we learn from the Flower People and the Power People who have grown up in the setting described? They are minorities among youth. Many, probably most of them, will move on into suburban, middle-class, affluent settings as they become weary of the struggle – and others will take their places.

We need not adopt their mistakes in order to learn from them. Many Flower People fool with dangerous drugs, even though it is probable that some compounds and weeds may one day be as acceptable as tobacco, liquor, and tranquilizers are today. We need not condone all the acts of student rebels on campus. But we ought to become aware that when social change does not happen fast enough, the consequence is not static acquiescence but revolt. Of course it was wrong to vandalize Dr. Kirk’s office at Columbia and steal his private papers. It was both breaking of law and an invasion of his privacy which none of us would tolerate if it happened to us. Similarly, acts of violence cannot be approved. If anything is clear now, it is that violence breeds violence. This is no less true of heedless and senseless police actions as it is of rioters. The principles of due process of law and order have been evolving and becoming more valued for thousands of years. The bullet is no substitute for the ballot. Our salvation will come not from more deadly bullets but from more effective ballots. And this can come only when those who value human dignity, freedom, and equality learn the lessons of how political power is achieved and used to establish progress.

What can we learn from the radical Flower People and Power People?

We can remember what “radical” means – radical means fundamental, having roots, reaching for the center, going to the source.

The Flower People remind us of a radical continuity in our society that is as old as the Hebrew ethical prophets and as new as a candid, unsparing view of our culture and values. By “radical continuity” I mean that there are moral currents springing from the source which can be known in any period if one examines protest and reform movements. The Hebrew prophets looked at their prevailing culture and did not like what they saw – hypocrisy, narrowness, injustice: “I hate, I despise your feasts,” said Amos, “but let righteousness pour down like a mighty stream.”

The Flower People remind us of the ancient radical values of personal fulfillment and inclusiveness.

By taking one’s own mind and person seriously, the Flower Person may be reaching for the ancient and profound experience of wonder and awe. They seek sensitivity and openness to colors, tastes, sounds, and touch. That they are in error in using harmful drugs to achieve mind-expanding experiences does not indicate that we should be insensitive to the potential growth experience of expanding consciousness. Personal religion in all cultures has been characterized by mind-expansion and self-growth. Buddha sat under the tree and opened himself to experiences from which he had been protected by his family’s wealth and status. He became conscious of human suffering and human need. His mind and soul expanded and one of the great religions of the world was precipitated.

So it has been with the founders of great religions and great institutions. They sought to expand their interior horizons with new ideas, more sensitive consciousness. The human hind has the capacity to expand if we are open to its opportunities. As Mark Twain said, “Take out your mind and stomp on it; it’s getting all caked up.” This we can learn from Flower People.

Inclusiveness is a value of which we need to be reminded frequently. It is one of the radical continuities. In ancient times, Malachi cried, “Have we not one father? Has not one God created us?” Most of the Flower People would reject this ancient religious language, but would endorse the idea of one human family, including all persons. And the relationship between all persons should be direct, open, accepting; the contrived and artificial boundaries of nation, class, race, and Puritan rigidity are not tolerated by the Flower People. However scandalous older generations may believe the conduct of some Flower People to be, their slogan, “Make love, not war” is a symbol of inclusiveness. It is a slogan of a superior society than that of war-makers and racists.

Furthermore, some of their rebellion is based on a rather discerning appraisal that the older generations display a considerable inconsistency between principle and practice. Have not we elders frequently communicated, “Do as I say, not as I do?” If with all their faults, the Flower People can spur us to look at the hypocrisy gap in our culture, then we can learn from them. We may squirm when the young rebels accuse us of hypocrisy in our culture – but what is the evidence? Everyone who believes in open housing, but not on his street, supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who believes in equal job opportunity but not in his trade, supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who criticizes the young for open behavior which is indulged by the old furtively supplies evidence for the hypocrisy gap. Everyone who casually and unthinkingly supports war while professing to be part of a peace-loving nation supports and deepens the hypocrisy gap. Every parent who believes his child should develop an autonomous self in wisdom, stature, and creative self-direction but at the same time tries to dominate his child’s choices, is adding to the hypocrisy gap. If the Flower People can help us see ourselves with our failures and rationalizations they are providing us with the opportunity to learn.

The Power People too are making a radical criticism in our society. They remind us of root values that we may have forgotten in our insecurities and complacencies. When issues are vital and timely, confrontation is a moral force. This is the purpose of the non-violent demonstration. When issues are plain, confrontation has moral power to effect change. The Power People are reminders that we may have relied too heavily on the printed word to influence change. The Power People teach us that one must confront the institutions that are failing to make social changes quickly enough. This is what the Poor People’s March on Washington is all about. The great teachers of religion have always relied on such confrontation ... peaceful but unequivocal confrontation. The conviction that confrontation has moral force is another radical continuity. You can find one example among many in a man from Nazareth who turned his face toward Jerusalem and went there.

There is some additional support that confrontation can change people as well as events. One of the methods by which human relations can be improved in business, government, religious institutions, or any other kind, is that process sometimes called sensitivity training, T groups, or group dynamics. Essentially the people learn to get along with themselves better and others better by confrontation. One is candid with others about his real feelings. If one is angry at someone else, he expresses this anger. Blunt openness, rather than furtive politeness, is the rule; and it is [a] healthy process inducing personal and social growth.

The Power Person is honest in expressing strong desire and need for change now. If he can’t influence by his wealth or prestige, he can by his numbers. To recognize this legitimate use of power does not condone those practices which are violent or illegal. One may practice civil disobedience because of strong, moral conviction that the law is wrong in a given instance. But part of the moral force comes from accepting the penalties for such disobedience. If you want scripture for this, the death of Socrates or Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” are morally eloquent.

Every member of the Daughters of the American Revolution is descended from a rebel. Everyone who finds moral persuasiveness in the great prophets of all religions relies on the vision of a rebel. We can learn from rebels by seeking out the radical continuities that may be actual or potential in their acts and attitudes.

It was said of the great French architect, Le Corbusier, that in 1927 he prepared one of his greatest designs for the League of Nations competition. But his plans were rejected by the judges on a technicality. He had failed to use India Ink in his drawings. Allen Tamko, a city planner with vision, commented, “Instead of Corbusier’s design, a preposterous Beaux Arts Palace was put up instead. If the League had had the courage and decency to put up Le Corbusier’s buildings and supplied the politics to match it, maybe we would not be in such a mess today.” (Pamphlet, “The City”, p. 22)

To summarize: we do need to expand our minds and recapture the sense of wonder and awe at our human experience in this marvelous creating universe of which we are a part.

We need to be reminded that there must be a fuller recognition of the inclusiveness of the human family and to love the entire human family, not make war on certain parts of it which may at a given moment be an obstacle to plans in high places.

We can learn to be more honest with ourselves and recognize when there is a hypocrisy gap between our principles and our practice.

We may remember that serious criticism of the social structure may require confrontation to achieve needed social change – change that is essential if a worthwhile culture is to emerge from our present conflicts and injustice.

Let me close with a dictionary reference: if you look up the word, radical, you will read that its opposite, its antonym, is not conservative, but superficial, cursory. Anyone should feel free to argue against the radical celebrations and the radical criticisms of Flower People and Power People, but let such criticism be thoughtful, engaging the real issues, not merely [as] a superficial expression of irritation or alarm.

Religion and Taxes

April 21, 1968
Plainfield

Religion and Taxes

“In view of their favored tax position, with reasonably good management, America’s churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation, within the predictable future.” This was said almost seven years ago by Eugene Carson Blake, a former president of the National Council of Churches and now the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches.

With April 15 less than a week in the past, hardly one of us are free from the knowledge of the substantial portion of our income which goes for taxation; furthermore, what a massive segment of our national economy is represented by the Federal Income Tax.

You may or may not feel strongly about the favored tax position enjoyed by religious institutions. But as it does cost you money, you might consider some of the facts. Therefore I would speak to you of some of the tax privileges enjoyed by churches and religious orders in the framework of the historic constitutional principle of the wall of separation between Church and State.

Last year many of us opposed the passage of the New Jersey legislation to provide free bus transportation to private school students. Among the arguments were not only those of the historic separation principle, but also the unfairness of such a tax levy for non-public bus transportation. Various costs were mentioned, but I know of no summary of costs for the State. But certain instances can be cited which cost the taxpayer money:

A Watchung mother is being paid $4800 a year to transport her children and two other children to private schools in Summit and Morristown.

In Franklin Township, one child is driven by car to Edison at a cost of $1800 per year. There are numerous similar cases. The Plainfield Board of Education provides for transportation of more than 700 students to parochial or other private schools.

However this N.J. busing law is but a small part of an issue that becomes increasingly formidable – religion and taxes.

The public responsibilities made necessary by our chaotic social conditions require much larger revenues be obtained for taxation; religious institutions, almost entirely free from tax burdens create a disproportionate burden which must be carried by individuals and profit-making corporations.

The war in Vietnam requires public money which is becoming an intolerable burden. But even with negotiations beginning to be a possibility, the 70 billions yearly required to keep our military-industrial complex fat and happy is unlikely to be substantially or quickly reduced. I wish that it could, but realistically it is unlikely.

The problems of poverty, trouble in the cities, housing, jobs, education, demand a substantially larger investment of public funds than ever has been so appropriated. But there is not a readiness to vote the needed monies. It is commonly said that the reason the President does not appear before the Congress pleading for large grants for immediate impact in the cities is because he is sure that Congress will not vote such funds.

Even at present levels of spending, a tax increase is generally believed to be essential to preserving the stability of the economy. Governor Hughes this week told a conference of mayors that large increases in state taxation would be needed to fund essential programs in the cities.

By using a few of many statistics available, I would like to make the point that the tax-exempt property and income of religious institutions are becoming increasingly important factors in the taxation systems because they represent such large portions of property and income.

Many of the facts to be mentioned are drawn from this little book, CHURCH WEALTH AND BUSINESS INCOME, by Marin Larson. Published a couple of years ago, the chances are strong that religious wealth is more today because of natural growth and inflation.

If one considers the visible national wealth, the approximate assessed valuation among the three major faiths are:



There are of course other types of tax-exempt land than religious charities, foundations, etc. But religious corporations hold the majority of such tax-exempt wealth.

LAST TWO PP, p. 51

IN part of his book, the author takes four American cities, Buffalo, Baltimore, Washington D.C and Denver, and analyzes the property held by religious institutions.

Consider Buffalo – Buffalo is a large industrial city, decaying at the core and with the urban problems and disorders which are becoming alarmingly typical. In 25 years, the White population has declined by more than 100 M and the Black population has grown 70 M.

Buffalo faces a double tax squeeze – the taxable real estate is deteriorating – age, lack of repair, neglect, while at the same time more and more property is being removed from the tax rolls. For example, in 1930, taxable property was assessed at one billion, 65 million and the exempt at 195 million. By 1963-64, the taxable had declined to one billion 36 million but the exempt had risen to 458 million. This included government property as well as the private exempt property. There is a denominational breakdown which should be of interest

Quote p. 13

The large amounts of religious property exempt from local property taxes is only a part of the picture because there are many extraordinary benefits granted to religious institutions by the Internal Revenue Service.

No one knows how many tax-exempt organizations there are in the U.S., but there are hundreds of thousands. “Any organization which can qualify for exemption from local property taxes ... is exempt from taxation on income derived from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, or capital gains.” (p. 68)

Further, churches “occupy a special position under Internal Revenue Service, ...”

Quote, p. 61
Quote, p. 63

What can be done? Perhaps the reason to maintain the special privileges is compelling enough so that we should not be concerned that exemptions may represent an annual amount of billions of dollars lost to the public order.

The strongest argument to maintain tax-exemption privileges for religious institutions is that such exemptions are necessary in order to maintain the historic wall of separation between church and state. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The government could effectively render any religious enterprise impotent through the use of taxing powers. One of the famous cases of the 1950s was that of a Unitarian church in California[; it] was threatened with a loss of tax exemption because it refused to sign a loyalty oath.

Inasmuch as churches and their spokesmen must in the nature of things take stands sometimes severely critical of the government, then government should not have the power to squelch or retaliate through the tax system.

Then there are those who say the Church should pay taxes. The enormous growth of church property and wealth creates a situation of financial hardship for citizens who do not have such exemptions. Furthermore, in a nation such as ours where approximately 1/3rd of the population has no particular religious commitment, why should they pay equally in support of religious institutions?

I began this with a quote from Eugene Carson Blake. He also said, “When one remembers that churches pay no inheritance tax ... that churches may own and operate business and be exempt from the 52% corporate income tax, and that real property used for church purposes is tax-exempt, it is not unreasonable ... that the churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation within the predictable future.”

A third position would be that the churches should retain tax-exempt positions for its worship halls but should reimburse communities for some portion of services received, such as police and fire protection, roads, sidewalks, etc. Last year one neighborhood Unitarian church, Montclair, voted a voluntary contribution of $1,000 to reimburse the community for some of the essential services received.

I believe one of our Cleveland churches took similar action. I also believe church properties such as parsonages and other residential properties should be placed on tax rolls.

Furthermore, there would seem to be a real injustice in [a] church-operated business operating tax-free. Such enterprises are in competition with private companies. Consider this from Mr. Larson’s book:

Quote, p. 66
Quote, p. 73

Therefore when the function of a religious group is clearly that of a business enterprise, the business should be subjected to the same tax burdens as must be carried by all others.

What can we do? We can be aware of this problem which constantly increases in magnitude. For example, someone with a sharp pencil could do a study of Plainfield. How much tax revenue would be received if some or all tax-exempt property should be on the tax rolls? What is the value of church property?

Then too, perhaps all religious institutions should be required to disclose their wealth – not only real estate, but other holdings – cash, stocks, bonds, etc.

There is no expectation of any sweeping changes occurring in the tax-exempt religious structures, but certainly the trend of increasing wealth for religious institutions in a time when there is crying need for more money to rebuild the cities, provide real opportunities and training, and a staggering additional list of community and national needs, should make us all think through again the matter of the tax-free ride for religious institutions.

The Geography of Hope

April 14, 1968 (Easter)
Plainfield

The Geography of Hope

"We must drive into the heads of men the full consciousness of moral responsibility that comes with the knowledge that there will never be a God unless we make him." George Bernard Shaw wrote these words (quoted by Christian Century, 10/16/63) and he would certainly be astounded to discover that a new trend in Christian theology is remarkably like Shaw's challenge. I would like to speak of this theological trend, "the theology of hope" which derives from the Death of God theology; discuss whether or not there are grounds for hope; and consider whether or not the Christian theology of hope has significance for Unitarians and Universalists.

Easter is a season of hope, whether accepted as ancient pagan celebration of the renewal of life or Christian rituals of the resurrection of the crucified Christ. But hope has a geographical meaning. Is the map of hope drawn of this world or another world? Hope can be worldly or other-worldly.

Historically, Christian hope, based on the old story of salvation, has been other-worldly. The true believers were convinced that Christ died for their sins on the cross, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead. Furthermore, he would one day come again and by his supernatural powers overcome the forces of evil and redeem those chosen to be saved. Heaven was their destination – an other-worldly salvation hope. Such a hope relied not at all on any on any power or strength available in human resources. As one representative Christian theologian put it, "Christian hope does not rest on an idea but on the living person of Jesus Christ, risen from the dead. He alone can guarantee an inheritance which is imperishable. By his resurrection, Christ laid the foundations of hope in eternal life and delivers us from the calamity of hopes which are for this life alone."

But in our age, a new theology of hope may be emerging in Christian theological thought which should be of interest to us. The new theology of hope seems to be a consequence of the "Death of God" theology which, like a wave, rolled and has now somewhat receded in avant-garde Christian circles.

The death of God theology has various expressions and its advocates differ somewhat from each other in their interpretations. But generally, [because of] the displacement of values from the sacred to the secular world, the philosophy of existentialism which proposed that the only assurance we have is our present existence with no authentic basis for any supposed purpose, individually or corporate in the universe, the problem of how to discover any goodness in God when the problem of human suffering has been so vast and unexplainable, in the face of assigning positive meaning to the word "God," some Christian thinkers proclaimed that God was dead.

The theology of hope seems to be accumulating some force as another wave. The movement originated in Europe among some young theologians both Catholic and Protestant. Although there are variations in the thinking, generally they hold that God is one who does not exist but is coming to man, God is not yet, but is to be. One cannot speak of God existing in an age when evil is so widespread and when the world is known in scientific and technological ways rather than in religious terms.

Think how much kinship there is in holding that god is "He who is to be" with Shaw’s statement that "there will never be a God unless we make him."

Central to this theology of hope is the geography of hope. Man is to be redeemed in this world, not another world. More than that, it is a religious task to change the world, not just to interpret it.

Now whether this new theology of hope will be more than a discussion among theologians remains to be seen. Many times so-called advanced thinking does not seem to reach the millions who sit in pews. I am not concerned today with talking again about the causes for belief or disbelief in God. My feelings and thoughts that lead me to affirm the creative process in the Universe are not dependent on any variety of Christian dogmatics.

But in such a time as this, do we have grounds for hope in the human venture? Although there may be a glimmer of light in the murky shadows of the Vietnam War, the process of peace negotiations will be neither brief nor easy, but prolonged and difficult. The renewal of fierce hostilities and re-escalation of bombing is undoubtedly geared to a hair-trigger sensitivity. Not only devious intentions but human blunders on either or both sides could again escalate the war, perhaps hopelessly.

The cities seethed in blood and fire as some persons in the ghettos struck back in anger at the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Is there any hope that the U.S. can be redeemed from racial conflict which not only will be fatal to our cities but also kill our dreams?

Yet there is hope, and the geographical charts of hope are maps of this world. Hope is more than yearning for what is not. Hope is desire for what is not yet real, accompanied by the expectation that one day hope can be fulfilled. Hope is belief that goals can be achieved. Hope is conviction that though the goal may shine afar, it can be reached by following maps in this world, not in some other-worldly heaven entirely dependent upon a Christ crucified, risen, and coming again.

The obstacles are formidable. No one conscious of our world in disarray, our nation in torment, can assume an air of easy optimism. The events of the past 10 days are grim confirmations of the findings of the President's Commission on Civil Disorders, which is seemingly ignored by most persons who have the political power or influence to initiate the massive, immediate steps to begin to put an end to the underlying causes – despair, defeat, indignity, discrimination, injustice.

Any hopes must be conditioned by an awareness of the reality of violence at home and abroad. But also hopes may be buttressed by the knowledge that most unrest is caused by the "revolution of rising expectations." Our world has a potential of abundance never before possible for the human family. Even more than the potential abundance of food and fiber for all is the potential for individual fulfillment through the freedom to chart one’s way. In spite of the constraints of modern mass culture, the prospect for such individual power can be glimpsed not only by the favored and affluent few, but also by the unfavored and poor.

So there is hope. There can always be hope – and I remind you of James Thurber’s exquisite parable which you heard, The Last Flower.

Now many Unitarians and Universalists may yawn when they hear of the theology of hope in Christian thought. "We’ve always had maps of this world, we’ve never had an other-worldly slant," – this would be generally agreed. Universalist theology, in its early days at least, had an other-worldly direction. All souls would be saved. But more than 100 years ago, Universalist churches organized reform societies within their churches, and Unitarian salvation has always been concerned with character and progress on this earth.

Our Service Committees have been concerned not with missionary conversions but human need without reference to whatever religious belief's those in need may hold. We asserted the goodness or the potential growth towards goodness of every human being.

These characteristics of our Unitarian Universalist heritage are not recited complacently. We fall short of our pronouncements. This heritage of ours is a most difficult goal to live up to. We are not immune from inertia. We are not exempt from the stymie caused by strong differences about how our beliefs in character, reform, progress, should be applied.

There are grounds for hope in the human venture. It is idle to speculate the degree of significant involvement we will have individually or as a group in the promotion of the social changes which must occur if disaster is to be prevented. The great scriptures of mankind were not written to inspire men to courageous, creative acts which would help the human venture. Rather, the courageous, creative acts of persons were the inspiration for great scripture.

So it will be with old and new teachings of hope for the people of the world. Amid the troubles of the past week when people died in the cities, I remembered the story told by Sam Levenson, the stand-up comedian whose humor sometimes reflects serious social thought. It's a parable – or a fantasy – but I believe it to be poetic expression of hope for the human family.

The story has the setting of Heaven. At the gate there appears a young Black boy, beaten unto death in the city. And as Sam Levenson tells it, Heaven has a computerized system to provide St. Peter at the gate with the names and I.D. numbers of all persons who are expected to enter the Gates of Heaven each day. But there are no admission credentials for this Black boy. His name is not on the list. So the gatekeeper phones the next higher level of administration in the bureaucracy of heaven. But no record seems to exist for this boy's admission. So Peter phones various levels of policy. No information. Finally the gatekeeper phones the top – the Lord himself, [and] tells the story of the fatally beaten Black boy who is at the gate. The voice thunders to Peter, "Send him back to Earth – he’ll recover in the hospital. He's not due here for years and years – not until after he has found that cure for cancer."

So amid all the frailties of our existence the inadequacies of our performance of what we ought to be doing and the weaknesses of our will, there are grounds for hope if we accept the obligation to add our weight to the scales of justice and our expectations are undespairing that new creations and renewed life can come to the human family as well as to the ever-renewing Earth.