A sermon by Jaco B. ten Hove —
Paint Branch UU Church, Adelphi, MD —
October 16, 2005 —
(Follows two songs: “Standing on the Side of Love” and “Give Light”
Yes, we dearly desire to “teach peace” and “stand together” on the side of love, so we work and sing to improve the odds for this momentum. It matters a lot in the scheme of things. People will find a way. And we may understandably despair when faced with the reality of our own inhumanity to each other, which is certainly painful to behold. Our hearts cringe and shrink to know the damage done in so many quarters.
When conditions of nature—fierce but non-judgmental—are made worse by our poverty, mismanagement or sheer numbers, that is bad enough. But when we see people do harm to each other, or know we are part of a system that is destructive of human lives, it can encourage even deeper despair.
We might go limp or numb in the shadow of heart-rending cruelty, especially as seen in personal or societal violence, which has plagued our kind for many a moon. But we know we must stand on the side of love. There may be no more important liberal religious statement to make in our time.
It is, I think, particularly important not to give away what power we have to transform despair into hope, so that we may actively challenge injustice and courageously model a better way. We can harness our inner energy and not give up. Every single little or big way we counter violence matters. But this doesn’t just happen; sometimes standing up to violence requires an aggressive attitude—the application of aggression.
Ooooo, “aggression”—which often shows up as be the partner of violence, and so we might shy away from it. But this is also one way we give away our power, by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. We jettison aggressiveness to avoid being perceived as violent, but this can weaken our resolve and the results of our good intentions.
Aggression is not all its stereotype or traditional definition projects. Check your assumptions. Take another look past the purely hostile associations. Therein lies a significant resource with which to address the violent tendencies of our species, our culture, ourselves. I would enroll aggression against violence.
READING
Aggression, while ambiguous in our society, has usually been viewed as evil or sinful. If repaired, aggression can be seen in its healthy light, neither as passivity nor hostility. (It) can incite us to fight social ills and make the globe safer and more just…
“I am sure that few things in the world are more irresistible than gentle strength and strong gentleness. Perhaps aggression—reckoned with, re-braided with love, and well cared for—will yield them both—(gentle strength and strong gentleness).”
…“Aggression is significant energy, vigor, agency, enterprise, boldness and resilience; whereas violence is force against persons, objects, or principles that intentionally or unintentionally injures, damages, or destroys.
“…Is it possible to find or create among us a power finely tuned enough to destroy what needs to be destroyed—the structures of violence and other evils—without destroying each other?”
Quoted passages from Reckoning with Aggression, by Kathleen J. Greider. Put in context by Tom Owen-Towle in Saving the Males, pg. 108-9
What will enable (us) to transform our internal, interpersonal, and international strife is precisely an abundant supply of vital, aggressive energy. Violence spawns violence; it’s a futile route strewn with devastation. But quiescence and apathy are damaging as well. Hence, mature (people) need to pursue the third way of passionate, forceful nonviolence.
The two most dramatic and best-known 20th Century advocates of “passionate, forceful non- violence” were, of course, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. These very human leaders taught by precept and by example—both of which were very aggressive. Most of us here know—some firsthand—the effect of King’s attack on prejudice and injustice as he nonviolently protested on behalf of civil rights.
But how many of you have realized that this year, 2005, last spring to be exact, was the 75th anniversary of Gandhi’s momentous Salt March, a very intentionally non-violent protest that later inspired King as it did so many others in 1930. In late January of that year, a defiant Indian Congress had decided to move toward total independence from England, and Gandhi was a leader, insisting that their effort be non-violent.
Just over a month later, after conceiving and organizing a plan that would aid their cause, the 61 year-old Gandhi and about six dozen hand-picked and well-trained associates walked over 200 miles in less than a month to a beach on the Arabian Sea, where they picked up and made salt, in defiance of British laws, which severely controlled salt production.
Thousands who had joined them en-route watched as they arrived and conducted their civil disobedience on the salty sand, only to be brutally attacked by British police. One observer [English journalist, Webb Miller] described the scene thusly:
None of the protesters raised so much as an arm to protect themselves against the barrage of blows. They fell to the ground like pins in a bowling alley. From where I was standing I could hear the nauseating sound of truncheons impacting against unprotected skulls… They advanced in a uniform manner with heads raised—without encouragement through music or battle cries and without being given the opportunity to avoid serious injury or even death. The police attacked repeatedly and the second group were also beaten to the ground. There was no fight, no violence; the marchers simply advanced until they themselves were knocked down.
The eyes of the world were riveted on this strategically contrived Salt March, which shook the powerful British Empire to its core. In an era without the kind of media access we take for granted, Gandhi didn’t just drive over to the beach to do this. No, he spent almost a month walking there, talking all the way, to allow coverage to catch up with him, which it decidedly did.
The political results were not immediate, but the moral message reverberated across the vast Indian subcontinent. People were electrified and began making their own salt, for which they were often sent to jail, as was Gandhi. A few years later, the British granted limited home rule, and Gandhi continued his nonviolent protests to truly unite a free India.
He especially pleaded and fasted for an end to the violence between Hindus and Muslims within India. But a fanatic Hindu assassinated him in January, 1948, at age 78, only months after his country finally achieved full independence.
Gandhi inspired his followers with what he called “satyagraha,”—“satya” meaning truth or soul and “graha” meaning obstinacy or force, as in “the force of truth,” or “soul force.” His band of protesters on the Salt March (including Paint Brancher Raman Pathik’s father!) were called “Satyagrahi.” They were decidedly aggressive but committed to non-violence.
The notable Indian statesman, Jawaharlal Nehru, a compatriot of Gandhi’s who was instrumental in carrying forward the drive for independence, reflected on the impact of the Mahatma (which is an honorary title, meaning “great soul”). Nehru wrote of Gandhi:
“…the fire of a great resolve is in him and surpassing love of his miserable countrymen. And love of truth that scorches and love of freedom that inspires.
[from <www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/Dandi>]
Gandhi, with this scorching fire of resolve, this embodiment of “soul force,” is a notable example of the way aggression applied nonviolently can be a “gentle strength,” with “significant energy, vigor, agency, enterprise, boldness and resilience.”
Certainly, few of us might possess such a focused flame and capture an era in time as powerfully as did this Mahatma. But through his story we can see what’s possible when one harnesses aggression to non-violence.
This alternative path may seem idealistic, but the more common path—use of violent means to accomplish an end—is at once increasingly abhorrent (can you “hear the nauseating sound of truncheons impacting against unprotected skulls…”?) and increasingly tolerated, even sanctioned. (Can you feel the Geneva Conventions on torture slipping out of sight, minimized by our own government?)
We live in a time when leaders resort to violent action with only a token and often condescending glance toward diplomacy, when those with power often don’t hesitate to use it in destructive fashion, intentionally or unintentionally, and then run from or try to hide the consequences of their actions.
We must aggressively hold those who perpetrate violence accountable, because we know “violence spawns violence; it’s a futile route strewn with devastation.” Violence obscures other possibilities and erodes moral authority. But it’s also a very dominant paradigm. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech some years ago, named it this way:
“Violence, less and less embarrassed by the limits imposed by centuries of lawfulness, is brazenly and victoriously striding across the whole world.”
We might feel more intensely the increasing reach of violence in our time because it is really only in recent memory that a deeper and broader understanding of just what constitutes violence has taken hold and instructed us about the real impact of what might have been previously accepted behavior.
In the classic, very powerful treatise on “Religion and Violence,” author Robert McAfee Brown explains how…
“…Whatever ‘violates’ another, in the sense of infringing upon or disregarding or abusing or denying that other, whether physical harm is involved or not, can be understood as an act of violence. The basic overall definition of violence would then become violation of personhood.”
That penetrating lens illuminates even more dimensions of violence in our world. And so, yes, we might fall prey to despair about the human condition. Will violence carry the day? Is the American culture now so accustomed and resigned to violence that our destructive momentum will carry us to a disastrous end—blow by blow, abuse by abuse, weapon by weapon—until the latest so-called “just” war is allowed to reek ultimate havoc? Shall we write off leaders like Gandhi and King as idealistic anomalies and offer only a shrug when faced with the destructive tendencies of our own generation?
No, no and no, of course not. But we have some significant work to do, if we are to offer more than lip service. We have a paradigm to shift, minds to change, examples to provide of how to build a peaceful world—moment by moment, hand in hand, piece by peace. For me this is a religious quest, absolutely, for it pivots on my central values, my understanding of humanity, and my worldview, all of which render my religion and shape my religious identity.
I believe we are what we believe; we embody our beliefs. Whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, what we believe about the universe determines what we value. Our belief system limits or expands our capacities and informs our daily behavior. Every person may not claim a religion, per se, but they are nonetheless religiously living out their worldview. All our actions belie our faith, upholding whatever it is we have faith in. In other words, your religious identity matters—and it shows!
So if I don’t at least believe in the importance of non-violence, then I at least tacitly accept violence, which is not where I want to be, especially religiously. One theologian [Reinhold Niebuhr] put it this way: “Neutrality…means alliance with the entrenched position.” So even though the issue of non-violence is complex, with lots of grey area, passivity is still a poor option.
This doesn’t mean we have to climb to the sacrificial heights of a Gandhi or a King, or embrace total pacifism. But we do have some accountability for our postures, day to day, and our priorities, as evidenced by our allegiances, including—perhaps especially—our religion.
The simple but evocative title of this book, “Religion and Violence,” reminds us, of course, that history—ancient and modern—is replete with horrible testimony of how religious fervor can and will sanction violence, personal and structural. I will not rehearse for you all the examples of self-righteous crusaders bringing various weapons to bear on the alleged heathenry of the planet, let alone trusted clergy who abuse their charges, or televangelists calling for political assassinations, or all the other severities of various violent religionists. You know the litany.
But religion can also be a countervailing influence, and definitely a factor for peace and harmony. For instance, one of the most ancient world religions, Taoism, long ago articulated how the ultimate balance of Yin and Yang works in this respect [#30]:
Whoever relies on the Tao in governing doesn't try to force issues or defeat enemies by arms. For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself.
This is certainly not what we’re taught by our wider Western culture, but such a balanced awareness often comes from deep meditation on the nature of life and on what matters most. The testimony of the Society of Friends is also instructive. You may know that Quakers are one of the most visible “peace churches,” adhering to a strict principle of non-violence. They listen closely to their inner light, which has shown them a pacifist path of integrity, even in the face of harsh judgment.
What you may not have been taught in your American History class is how much the colonial Friends suffered for their allegiance to the non-violence ideal. They were mistreated dreadfully—hounded, reviled for their unwillingness to fight in the Revolution. That culture then was clearly not ready to accept the posture of non-violence, and I’m afraid not a lot of progress has been made since.
I grew up in a suburban New Jersey town where my Unitarian Society and the nearby Society of Friends were, well, friendly. About the same size, our two congregations often collaborated on witness actions for progressive efforts, such as fair housing, civil rights and anti-war causes. I came to know and admire the Quakers as aggressively committed to their non-violent values, and deeply grounded in this faith.
On the UU side, however, I did not detect the same degree of groundedness, even in myself. Yes, we were willing to join in and help the cause, but we were less able to express any religious conviction about why this mattered. Plenty of political conviction, sure, but I think most UUs are still weak in our religious identity.
Let me suggest or remind you that the issues of our day are increasingly aligned along a religious axis and I see no signs of this tendency abating. Theocratic forces—which would rule America from a single religious orientation—are quite aggressively pursuing a very dubious agenda, and making headway, despite steady scandals that slow down individual proponents. Others will just rise up to carry on. They frequently do see themselves as an “army,” and are not shy about employing militaristic metaphors.
And if there are no aggressively non-violent voices to counter this momentum, well, guess what? It will not, however, do any good to just get mad and rage against this machine. We have to present a positive vision and be staunchly grounded in our own religious identity. This must happen at all levels, including wherever you encounter attempts to infringe religious freedom, or attitudes that support such efforts.
George Lakoff’s small primer called “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” is as good as its reviews say it is at helping liberals, including religious liberals, understand how to more effectively frame issues of our time. You can hardly do anything easier or more productive than absorbing this very readable work. “Don’t Think of an Elephant” certainly encourages an aggressive approach from the progressive angle.
Remember, “Neutrality…means alliance with the entrenched position,” which now has a great deal of violence mixed in with it. Name the violence you see, and aggressively offer an alternative, especially a religious alternative. Like it or not, the marketplace of ideas and ideals is very religious right now.
But most people still have no idea what Unitarian Universalism stands for. Nonetheless, our belief in the inherent worth and dignity of all people and the interconnectedness of all life provide us with significantly non-violent perspectives, if we’re able to give them voice. And if we don’t, who will?
Historically, our Unitarian ancestors were complicit with their share of violence, even as they advocated for progressive reforms of their day, but Universalism has always stressed a loving God, without original sin or hell. (In fact, I’ll be focusing my Dec. 4 sermon on a notable anniversary in Universalism.)
Ours is a deep, dual tradition that rewards any personal investigations with insight and sustenance, and I will happily direct your further inquiry upon request. It is hard to feel well- versed without some study of rhyme and reason, so I encourage you to strengthen your own understanding of and facility with our liberal religious heritage and philosophy.
And there is, you may or may not know, a very vibrant community of non-violent practitioners, writers and trainers, well-grounded in the philosophies and techniques of both Gandhi and Dr. King. I have produced a number of hand-outs that explain the basics of non-violence, with references to further material. [They follow below this sermon.] Nonviolence is a rich subject that has captured many people and hopefully many more, perhaps you.
Cesar Chavez, the noted union organizer, had a very helpful observation. “Non-violence,” he said, “forces one to be creative. When people are involved in something constructive, trying to bring about change, they tend to be less violent than those who are not engaged in rebuilding or in anything creative.”
Recall that Gandhi invented the Salt March protest. His commitment to non-violence forced him to be aggressively creative and creatively aggressive. He couldn’t in good conscience advocate armed rebellion against the oppressing British. So he found another way, as we must.
I still occasionally see a yard sign left from the pre-Iraq war protests, suggesting that “War is not the answer.” This remains an astute and compelling declaration, but can our culture and the rest of the world learn this lesson soon enough? Maybe not without demonstrated, articulated alternatives. So we must be creatively aggressive. “Teach peace, and people will find a way.”
We who would urge a “turning of the world” toward non-violent solutions are called to stand up for that vision, in our families, our neighborhoods, our congregations, our communities. It is not and will not be easy, so we need each other. Thank you for your commitment, your good energy, your creativity, your modeling of peace as we stand together on the side of love.
And we can never have too much inspirational music, such as this next song, a favorite of mine, by Ruth Pelham:
Let us sing this song for the TURNING of the world, That we may TURN as one. With every voice, with every song, we will move this world along, And our lives will feel the echo of our TURNING. ...LOVING... ...HEALING...
Hand-outs follow…
From The Gandhi Institute (www.gandhiinstitute.org)
Blunders of the World: Passive Violence
By Arun Gandhi
Mohandas K. Gandhi was convinced much of the violence in society and in our personal lives stems from the passive violence that we commit against each other. He described these acts of passive violence as the “Seven Blunders.” Grandfather gave me the list in 1947 just before we left India to return to South Africa where my father, Manilal, Gandhi’s second son, and my mother, Sushila, worked for nonviolent change. In the Indian tradition of adding one’s knowledge to the ancient wisdom being passed on, and in keeping with what Grandfather said and wrote about responsibility, I have added an eighth item to the list of blunders.
WEALTH WITHOUT WORK
PLEASURE WITHOUT CONSCIENCE
KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT CHARACTER
COMMERCE WITHOUT MORALITY
SCIENCE WITHOUT HUMANITY
WORSHIP WITHOUT SACRIFICE
POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLES
RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES
What did M. K. Gandhi mean?
See more at: www.gandhiinstitute.org/Library/LibraryItem.cfm?LibraryID=780
See also:
“Non-Violence: The Greatest Force” by M. K. Gandhi www.forusa.org/nonviolence/07gandhi.html
From The King Center (www.thekingcenter.org)
| Six Principles of Nonviolence | Six Principles of the Peaceful Community (Reworded for children) |
| (1) Nonviolence is not passive, but requires courage; (2) Nonviolence seeks reconciliation, not defeat of an adversary; (3) Nonviolent action is directed at eliminating evil, not destroying an evil-doer; (4) A willingness to accept suffering for the cause, if necessary, but never to inflict it; (5) A rejection of hatred, animosity or violence of the spirit, as well as refusal to commit physical violence; (6) Faith that justice will prevail. www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/6principles | 1. Nonviolence is a way of life for brave people. 2. The Peaceful Community is the goal for the future. 3. Attack problems, not people. 4. Know and do what is right, even if it is difficult. 5. Avoid hurting the spirit and body of yourself and others. 6. The world is on the side of justice. www.skschools.net/wa/non_violence /principles.php |
Six Steps for Nonviolent Social Change…
…based on Dr. King’s nonviolent campaigns and teachings which emphasize love in action. Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence works hand in hand with these steps for social and interpersonal change.
Step One: InformationGathering
Step Two: Education
Step Three: Personal Commitment
Step Four: Negotiations
Step Five: DirectAction
Step Six: Reconciliation
Derived from Dr. King’s essay “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
in Why We Can’t Wait New York: Penguin Books, 1963.
See more at: www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/6steps.html
See also: Glossary of Non-Violence: www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/glossary
Adapted from Fellowship of Reconciliation: www.forusa.org/programs/decade
Join Peacemakers around the World
in Building a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence!
On November 10, 1998, the UNITED NATIONS responded to an appeal from every living Nobel Peace Prize Laureate by proclaiming the years 2001-2010 to be the
“International Decade for a Culture of Peace
and Nonviolence for the Children of the World.”
We live in a culture of violence. From the tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado to the US bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq to the fact that one out of every five US children lives in poverty while we spend billions upgrading our nuclear arsenal – violence surrounds us.
It is time to stop the violence and start building a culture of nonviolence.
A culture of nonviolence values love, compassion, and justice. It rejects violence as a means of solving problems. Instead, it embraces communication, cooperative decision-making, and nonviolent conflict resolution. It ensures freedom, security, and equitable relationships. It promotes inner peace, personal transformation, and disarmament.
What YOU can do to help build a culture of peace and nonviolence:
BE CREATIVE… Think of ideas that will awaken the imagination of your community. Here are just a few things that YOU can do:
AS A STUDENT… Connect with other students interested in social justice. Discuss a video. Research and do a presentation in your class about a specific case of nonviolence in history such as the 1980s People Power revolution in the Philippines, the Lavalas movement in Haiti, or student protests in China’s Tiananmen Square. Request that your teachers teach conflict resolution and nonviolence principles. Start a peace studies program on your campus.
AS A PARENT… Learn constructive ways to deal with anger and pass this gift on to your kids. Make a family pledge to express feelings and resolve conflict creatively. Use the Family Pledge of Nonviolence. Urge your school to teach nonviolence and conflict resolution at every level.
AS A TEACHER… Teach nonviolence in your classes through studying the Nobel Laureates’ lives, a book on Gandhi, King, or Dorothy Day, or an interactive workshop on conflict resolution. Meet with other teachers who have the same interests and share your resources.
AS A SCHOOL… Organize a Month of Nonviolence to learn about alternatives to violence, to address recent violent events in the community, to brainstorm nonviolent solutions, and to celebrate positive efforts that have succeeded. Schedule a series of videos on social justice issues such as militarism, racism, hate crimes, economic justice, youth empowerment, women’s rights, and indigenous people’s rights.
AS A CONGREGATION… Start a study circle in your congregation to explore nonviolence, racism, youth empowerment, the growing economic disparity, or homophobia. Join a Religious Peace Fellowship. Explore the spiritual dimensions of nonviolence in your tradition. Sponsor interfaith gatherings so congregations of differing faiths can learn about each other. Sponsor conflict resolution trainings for the congregation. Be an active voice against injustices.
AS A LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBER… Form a coalition of local
leaders from schools, religious institutions, local businesses, police departments, and interest groups to learn about nonviolence through workshops, videos, forums, nonviolence trainings, speakers. Meet with the town council to organize a town meeting to discuss problems relating to violence in schools and neighborhoods, and possible nonviolent solutions. Be sure to include individuals who represent the diversity of your community in planning, implementing, participating, and evaluating the event.
AS A PEACEMAKER… Urge your groups to endorse the Decade of Nonviolence. Join the Abolition 2000 campaign to promote total nuclear disarmament. Join the Jubilee 2000 campaign and call for the cancellation of the Third World debt. Join Moratorium 2000, the movement to abolish the death penalty.
WHOEVER YOU ARE… Read works by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Cesar Chavez, Muriel Lester, and others.
Imagine what the world would look like without weapons.
The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World (2001 – 2010)
The United Nations (www.un.org) urges societies toward initiatives promoting reconciliation. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (www.unesco.org) is the lead UN agency promoting the International Decade (www3.unesco.org/iycp), the mandate for which stresses principles of non-violence but focuses increasingly upon the plight of millions of children worldwide, and the need to create and implement non-violent strategies to alleviate that plight.
An indispensable component is the Manifesto 2000, written by a coalition of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Manifesto ensures that the principles are both continued and rejuvenated in a coherent manner for the purposes of the Decade.
Through the action of signing, signatories commit themselves to a personal peaceful mentality and to progressive contributions towards the goals enunciated in the Manifesto.
Adapted from: www.unac.org/peacecp/decade/background
Manifesto 2000
for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence
(Complete version below)
The 6 key points of the Manifesto
Respect all life
Reject violence
Share with others
Listen to understand
Preserve the planet
Rediscover solidarity
www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/uk/uk_6points.htm
Manifesto 2000
for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence
www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/uk/uk_manifeste
Because the year 2000 must be a new beginning, an opportunity to transform—all together—the culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and non-violence;
Because this transformation demands the participation of each and every one of us, and must offer young people and future generations the values that can inspire them to shape a world based on justice, solidarity, liberty, dignity, harmony and prosperity for all;
Because the culture of peace can underpin sustainable development, environmental protection and the well-being of each person;
Because I am aware of my share of responsibility for the future of humanity, in particular to the children of today and tomorrow;
I PLEDGE* in my daily life, in my family, my work, my community, my country and my region, to:
RESPECT the life and dignity of each human being without discrimination or prejudice;
PRACTICE active non-violence, rejecting violence in all its forms: physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social, in particular towards the most deprived and vulnerable, such as children and adolescents;
SHARE my time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic oppression;
DEFEND freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving preference always to dialogue and listening without engaging in fanaticism, defamation and the rejection of others;
PROMOTE consumer behavior that is responsible and development practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of nature on the planet; and
CONTRIBUTE to the development of my community, with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order to create together new forms of solidarity
*Sign the Manifesto at: www3.unesco.org/manifesto2000/uk/uk_f_masign.asp