Over the years of my ministry in Norwell I have offered what has become an annual
social concerns portfolio reflection on some of the important social and ethical issues of
the day which demand our attention and response. In this the last year of the 20th Century
I would like to highlight a few issues that I think are especially important as we
approach a new millennium.
It is interesting in looking back at the kinds of issues I have reflected upon in the past
how many of them have come up for consideration again and again because they are perennial
and never really solvable in any final sense--race relations, ethnic conflicts, abortion,
environmental ethics, capital punishment, hunger and homelessness, violence in the media,
etc. And so if what I offer for your consideration this morning sounds like something
you've heard before--well, you have--because there's not a social-ethical problem you can
think of that doesn't require constant effort and concern. If you're going to have a
social conscience and seek to act on it then you'd better be in the game for the long haul
because human nature hasn't fundamentally changed in 2,000 years and so many of our
problems have their source in human nature gone awry.
I would like to focus briefly upon three issues: (1) Homelessness, (2) Culture Wars, and
(3) Deep Ecology. When I was a youngster growing up in the City of Springfield
homelessness was not the problem that it has become in our day. Yes, there were slums in
the cities where the poor and ethnic minorities lived, and there were the down and out
alcoholics who lived in the Bowery in New York, but there were few poor folk and mentally
ill people who did not at least have a roof over their heads and some food to eat. Hunger
and homelessness in America grew into a nationwide problem during the Reagan, Bush and
Clinton eras. The irony is that the general prosperity that we have experienced during
this period has done little to alleviate the problem of homeless people living on the
streets and in over-crowded shelters in every major city in the nation. Why has this
happened?
The reasons are many and complex, but they boil down to a few simple facts. Housing costs
have skyrocketed while affordable housing units have virtually ceased to be developed or
made available. The chronically mentally ill used to be housed in state supported mental
hospitals and institutions. Now-a-days we give them minimal treatment and care and then
put them out on the street where they have no place to go or live. During this period of
prosperity we have made major to drastic cuts in our welfare system, gotten rid of many
who used to abuse the system, while others have been fortunate to find work or live with
relatives, and now we are at the point of refusing to support those who are truly needy,
including innocent children, because the law says that two years is the maximum welfare
aid that any person can ever receive in their entire lifetime. Where are these people
going to go when their support dries up? Many are already out on the streets.
Many people and politicians in America have reached the point where they are experiencing
compassion fatigue when it come to the homeless. We are tired of the homeless, we are
embarrassed by them, we've convinced ourselves that they must have brought it on
themselves, and we want them to go away. The mayor of Chicago recently instituted a policy
to get rid of homeless people living underneath the streets in cement underground
enclaves. It's just not good for Chicago's image as an upcoming and prosperous city to
have the homeless living under their streets. The solution? Banish them from the streets.
Arrest them for vagrancy. Do anything but provide them with the support and shelters and
affordable housing they need to live somewhere other than the streets.
The homeless are not going to go away anytime soon no matter how great our prosperity
until we are willing to address the social problems that have increased their numbers
among us. In the meantime we have to continue to do what we can to respond with compassion
and support and to not become weary in our well-doing or yield to the temptations of
compassion fatigue. That is why our First Parish Service Committee year after year after
year continues to support organizations such as Father Bill's Shelter in Quincy, South
Shore Habitat for Humanity, the Plymouth Coalition for the Homeless, the U.U. Service
Committee Promise the Children program, and other projects, because we know that our
response must be for the long haul, not just the short run. Each of us, singly and in
concert with others, needs to continue to do what we can to lessen the suffering of the
hungry and homeless in our midst and to urge our body politic to face up to its
responsibility to alleviate the social causes that contribute to its affects. And let us
remember that there but for the grace of heaven, of sheer luck and fortune, opportunity
and a job, go you and I. There is not one of us who could not lose our fortunes and be
numbered someday among the homeless.
Next I would like to comment briefly upon what has come to be called culture wars between
those of a so-called conservative point of view and those of a more liberal or progressive
point of view in our society. The tragedy of this phenomenon is that civil discourse is
being threatened and replaced by partisan fanatical zeal and extremism which cuts across
political parties and undermines the art of political compromise and the capacity for
personal tolerance and mutual respect. It used to be that there were liberals,
conservatives and moderates in both political parties though there were more or less
distinctive emphases within each party. Now-a-days there's an attempt to force people into
one political or social or moral camp or another based on what they believe about
particular issues. Name any political, social, moral or religious issue you can think of
and it will be associated with one camp or the other and you will be forced to choose
sides and come out fighting.
Civil rights, abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights, welfare rights, racial justice,
gun control, progressive taxation, raising the minimum wage, opposition to capital
punishment, protecting the environment, protecting social security and Medicare, social
responsibility--all these tend to be associated with liberal, progressive and democratic
views. Right to life, right to bear arms, a strong defense, the flat tax, cutting taxes,
promoting business and economic growth, unfettered free markets, getting rid of government
regulations, limiting the size of government, eliminating welfare, family values, personal
morality, individual responsibility, prayer in the schools--all these tend to be
associated with conservative, reactionary, and republican points of view. What is more
important, personal and sexual morality (conservative) or social ethics (liberal)?
I think you get the picture. What happens if you're a fiscal conservative and a social
liberal? Where are you supposed to go and which political party should you support? Is it
possible to be a religious liberal and a social conservative, or a social liberal and a
religious conservative? How did it happen that the religious right has practically taken
over one political party and the religious left by default the other? How can we have
honest dialogue with one another when the culture wars force us into polarized positions?
It is not a healthy state of affairs.
The recent impeachment proceedings and trial in the House and Senate are example of the
culture wars at work in the two political parties. No matter how often we were told that
the impeachment trial was not about sex, but about the right of law and lying under oath,
we knew it was really about sex, or to be more precise, lying about sex. To say that there
is no difference between lying about sex, or lying about murder or treason, is to make a
venial sin into a mortal sin and to say there is no difference. Two thirds of the American
people said they believed there was a difference and that impeachment and conviction was
disproportionate to the supposed offense. The debate in the House was bitter and partisan,
the debate in the Senate a bit more civil and a little less partisan. The debate was in
truth a reflection of the culture wars at work in American society.
Unfortunately, culture wars are escalating around the globe. Religious and ethnic
conflicts are at the root of the tensions and wars in the Balkan states, Northern Ireland,
the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Islamic nations and the west, Tibet and China, even
Africa. Culture wars are the most serious issue we face as a nation and a global
community. We have to learn to recover the art of civil discourse and tolerance of
differences or we can lose it all. One of the things we try to teach our children in our
religious education courses is tolerance and respect of other religious traditions in
addition to our own. That is why our children learn not only about the Judeo-Christian
tradition and Unitarian Universalism, but about the best in other world religions, and
being accepting of racial and cultural differences. Tolerance and respect begins at home
and in one's own religious tradition and heritage. We can't do anything about what
children are taught in other churches and traditions, but we can do something about what
we teach our own children.
Finally, I come to the issue of deep ecology. What I mean by deep ecology is not any one
environmental issue or cause, but the interconnection of all living things and the
environment that nourishes and sustains us all on a global scale. Deep ecology is the
realization that the vegetation and rainforests, the oceans and water ways, the envelope
of air, the mountains and valleys, the fish and birds and mammals, the insects and
plankton and microbes--are all part of one living system--and that what we do to one
species of life or another we ultimately do to ourselves. Deep ecology is really the whole
ball game and the truth be told we are losing it at an alarming rate.
I find it curious that being concerned about ecology and the environment has been made
into a liberal/conservative issue. After all, conservation is about conserving what we
have and preserving it for future generations. If that isn't a conservative issue I don't
know what is. Yet political conservatives seem to be more concerned about tapping the
economic resources of the environment without government interference and regulation than
they do about conserving the environment for future generations. It was former President
Reagan who coined the term "environmental extremists" and once suggested that
trees may be a major cause of air pollution. Former President Bush made the mistake of
getting caught up in the conflict between northwestern loggers and those who wanted to
preserve the habitat of the spotted owls.
The real problem is not spotted owls versus the economic interests of the logging
industry, but the practice of clear cutting and decimating entire forests. It is supposed
to be quick and easier and more economical, but it is in truth a form of environmental
rape which in the long run will put the logging industry out of business and destroy our
fast shrinking forests in a couple of generations. How can we criticize the slash and burn
tactics of third world nations in South America for destroying their rain forests when
we've been doing the same with ours for generations? I was struck by the story of the
conservationist, Aldo Leopold, who had a change of heart and mind after seeing a dying
wolf that he had shot. He watched "a fierce green fire dying in her eyes" and
realized that it represented something in the mountain and in himself that could never be
recaptured if he followed through on his wish to kill all the wolves and make the
environment into a hunter's paradise for shooting deer. After "seeing the green fire
die," he sensed "that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a
view." Leopold went on to become the father of wildlife conservation in America.
I am reminded of the 1933 movie, "King Kong", which we went to see during a 50th
anniversary showing of the film during Dennis Festival Days on the Cape Cod. We took all
the kids to see it. I recalled going to see that movie in 1943 with my sister and cousins.
I remember being struck by King Kong's eyes--wild and angry and bewildered. King Kong had
a soft spot in his heart for the lovely Fay Wray, a love that was his undoing. "'Twas
beauty killed the beast" was the message of the film at its climax and ending. But
what really killed the beast, the giant ape, was the violation of the natural order of
things by human interference. Torn from his natural habitat on a prehistoric island King
Kong is brought to New York and put on display. He escapes his captors and wreaks havoc on
the city. He climbs the Empire State Building and is shot down by fighter planes, falling
ignobly to his death. I felt sorry for King Kong in 1943. I still felt sorry for him in
1983.
"King Kong Died For Your Sins" was a bumper sticker that I came across a number
of years ago. I wonder how many whales or eagles or spotted owls or timber wolves or
countless species now extinct have died for our sins because we felt they were a nuisance
or we put greed ahead of need, or making money for the moment ahead of forethought and
planning for the future? Hollywood recently did a remake of another movie about a giant
gorilla--"Mighty Joe Young." Like King Kong, Mighty Joe Young is taken from his
natural habitat in the jungle and brought to an American city. His female trainer keeps
him calm by playing his favorite song on the piano, "Beautiful Dreamer."
Eventually Mighty Joe Young escapes from his urban prison and is pursued by those who
would kill him if they could. But (at least in the original film) Mighty Joe Young redeems
himself and his human pursuers by rescuing children in a burning orphanage. His reward is
the right to return to his natural habitat and home in the jungle. The fire in his eyes
does not die but is rekindled and born again in the world of nature. The beautiful dreamer
lives on and a piece of the human soul is redeemed in the process.
The question for us living today is will Mighty Joe Young or the timber wolf have a
mountain or a forest or a jungle to return to if we should decide that they have a right
to live no less than ourselves? Or will it be another instance of King Kong died for our
sins? Too many species of animal life have become extinct because of human
thoughtlessness, greed or ignorance about the interconnectedness of all living things.
Will the cod and haddock disappear from Georges Bank someday because we could not set
limits to those who fished her waters? The green fire of life may disappear from yet
another species or two in the ocean of life because we were careless or forgetful or
thoughtless of the needs of future generations of humans and fish.
Speaking for all living beings, we need one another, whether we know it or not, for the
life force to continue in all of its amazing shapes and forms and variations. In response
we need to support the efforts of environmental agencies and organizations like The Nature
Conservancy, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Audubon Society, the North and South River
Watershed Association, and do our bit to plant trees, feed the birds, stock fish, and
reverence the gift of life wherever we find it. It may yet be that the green fire of life
may not die but live again in us and through us. Let our prayer be that it shall continue
and that we may become stewards and agents of life abundant and thriving throughout the
earth and the universe.
"May it continue. May it continue." Amen.