Thu, 11 September 2008
|
Where do we begin? For me, it began in anger - in fury. When I heard of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and a section of the Pentagon on Tuesday, I wanted loud, bloody revenge. I thought "Kill the bastards!" I didn't know just who the bastards were, but I wanted them dead.
Now, five days later, I see that bloody and angry theme is on the verge of becoming our country's battle cry, as we masses are being cranked up for a long and costly war against an invisible enemy - an enemy defined not by a country but by an ideology.
I can sympathize with the bloody anger because I felt it too. These mass murders were reprehensible by any moral code. Civilized Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and all the rest condemn these actions as contemptible and against all of our highest values....
...The hardest part of trying to understand these attackers is in understanding that they didn't see this attack the way we do, just as they don't see us as we do.
The first thing we must understand is that this was not an attack on freedom or on democracy! The attackers made it crystal clear through their choice of targets what they were attacking. This was an attack arising from a deep hatred of our country's military and economic actions and policies, which they see as selfish, bloody and evil....
Originally delivered by Rev. Davidson Loehr on 16 September 2001
The text for this sermon can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
27:38
© Davidson Loehr 2001
|
|
|
Tue, 9 September 2008
|
A sermon title like "Spiritual Aeronautics" is such an ambitious name. It could almost cover a year's worth of classes in religion. I was thinking what a very small part of that I'm really trying to work with in these two weeks, and thought that maybe borrowing some concepts from Hinduism might clarify what I can and can't hope to do here.
Hinduism has four different paths, or disciplines, or yogas, to fit four very different kinds of people, because we have different styles of being spiritual. Jnana yoga is salvation or wholeness through understanding, insight. That's closest to our Western intellectual religious traditions, including Unitarians. Bhakti yoga is the path of devotion and love, and we have tried to include a bit of that path with the many candles in the windows. Karma yoga is the path of action or works, like the people here who are more interested in social action than sermons. And Raja yoga is the meditative path of insights into your own soul's divine nature, which we don't really do here as a group.
But of the four paths, the first one is the one most characteristic of Unitarians. Salvation, wholeness, through understanding, through a more complete kind of knowledge. What do we think we believe and what kind of coherence do those beliefs have in our life and the world we're living in? Those are the kinds of questions behind what I'm trying to do with you this morning.
Originally delivered by Rev. Davidson Loehr on 28 March 2004
The text for this and other sermons can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
34:57
© Davidson Loehr 2004
|
|
|
Mon, 8 September 2008
|
It is not unusual for me to find in life that what causes religious reflection for me often comes from very unexpected sources. And this time, the main catalyst came from the television comedy, Scrubs. In one scene, the main character, J.D., is daydreaming about a visit to a friend's church. I don't remember too much about the scene, except that in ending the worship service, the very charismatic minister turns to the gathered congregation and says, "I love you, and there's nothing you can do about it."
In our modern expression of Unitarian Universalism, I often hear us talk about some things as if they were inevitable - unavoidable. We talk about the inevitability of truth or sometimes the fact of an ever growing complexity and diversity in life. We speak of inevitable knowledge and understanding that comes with experience. But what I don't often hear described as unavoidable, what I don't often hear is talk of this type of irresistible love, one that would say, "I love you, and there's nothing you can do about it."
However, running through the core of our tradition, deep within the DNA of our religious heritage, is the understanding that a profound, mature love has the power to break so many barriers. In 1568, the first (and only) Unitarian king in history, John Sigismund of Transylvania, enacted the first recorded law of religious toleration in a nation's history. While this law included all varieties of the Christian religion only, it was a radical move at the time. He was counseled by his Unitarian court minister, Francis David, who is famously quoted as saying, "We need not think alike to love alike." But what is it that we love?
...Our misplaced love can make gods out of money or power, can have us chasing after status or esteem; our highest loyalty and love can easily be paid to the shabby deities of a flag or tribe. Like Emerson and so many before him, he knew that as humans, we will worship something, but that our ultimate love should be directed toward the most ultimate things possible. What/whom is it that we love?
Originally delivered by Aaron White on August 17, 2008
The text for this sermon can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
© Aaron White 2008
20:08
|
Direct download: 2008-08-17_To_Love_Alike_copy.mp3 Category: Aaron White -- posted at: 1:40 PM |
|
Fri, 5 September 2008
|
It isn't easy writing a statement of what you believe. Then when you've written one, then look at how you're living, it seems to leave out so much of what really drives you. It isn't easy.
And one reason it isn't easy, as ironic as this sounds, is because we have already inherited the words and the styles in which we're supposed to be thinking of our beliefs. In our culture, beliefs are supposed to involve God, sin, and salvation, even if we don't think of our lives that way. And not any god, either. Just that one taken from the religious scriptures of Jews and Christians.
If we say "Well, I don't think God is a useful concept, I think in terms of trying to be awake rather than living in illusions" - if we say that, we'll be made to feel that we haven't done it right, that we didn't use the right materials, even though it would be a perfectly good Buddhist statement.
We've inherited this set of religious luggage we're supposed to use. One suitcase says "God" and is filled with over 25 centuries of traditions, poetry, fantasy, feeling, wisdom and nonsense, all packed in that suitcase under the word "God."
Another suitcase may be called Sin, and it too is loaded with centuries' worth of stories, a lifetime of personal experiences, the teachings of our childhood church, our classmates, and the low-level religion we see in the media. It isn't a neutral word; it comes to us already packed with other peoples' meanings.
Originally delivered by Rev. Davidson Loehr on 21 March 2004
The text for this and other sermons can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
34:54
© Davidson Loehr 2004
|
|
|
Thu, 4 September 2008
|
This morning I want to take an insight from those great seldom recognized philosophers of our society. Those in the world of professional wrestling. They have a distinction that I think might be useful and helpful in thinking about balderdash.
In the world of professinal wrestling they divide the whole world into two categories which they call "The Smarts" and "The Marks". The Marks are those who actually think that professional wrestling is an athletic contest and wonder who will win. The smarts know that what they are seeing is a loosly scripted, highly choreographed physical art form like a sweaty soap opera. Both the smarts and the marks can enjoy the wrestling, but they are enjoying fundamentally different shows...
Originally delivered by Dr. Davidson Loehr on July 15, 2001
31:58
© Davidson Loehr 2001
|
|
|
Wed, 3 September 2008
|
One of religion's oldest pronouncements is "The Love of Money is the root of all evil." I think that is too simple....
Originally I was going to talk today about economics in a kind of sequel to my last fall's sermon on "The Dark God of Capitalism", but I got sidetracked by Bill Moyers two-hour special "Trade Secrets". It was about the secret rules that have governed the chemical industry for a long time.
Originally delivered by Rev. Davidson Loehr on 1 April 2001
The text for this sermon can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
29:12
© Davidson Loehr 2001
|
|
|
Tue, 2 September 2008
|
The voices are everywhere. They are the priests and priestesses of the religion of salvation, American style. I want to convince you this morning that it really is a religion, that it's a very bad religion, and that the alternatives are not hard to find.
Now you're a very bright group, and I doubt that any of you are convinced yet. You think I'm exagerrating for effect, or to set up something in a few minutes. You don't think I really mean that commercials represent a real religion in America. But I do. And by the end of the morning, you may too.
I'm not just picking on television programs, though most of them are silly, too full of sex, violence and vacuousness. But picking on sit-coms is too easy. I want to argue that all of television exists primarily to serve The Voices that are selling us this religion of salvation, American style. I even want to argue that news programs aren't really about news that matters, or that we need to know for any reason. Instead, they are entertainment shows, and their primary purpose is to attract an audience through their sensationalist stories of blood, violence, sex and gossip, so The Voices can make their pitch to this crowd. I want to argue that television programs, and television news, both exist almost entirely to serve the real God behind the television industry. And that God's name is Our Sponsor, Who Art in Heaven.
Why are there so many news programs on? Thirty years ago, there was only about fifteen minutes of national news a night, and it seemed to be enough. Why is there now an entire CNN network with news 24 hours a day? Is there that much that we need to know, or about which our knowledge could make any difference at all?
Originally delivered by Rev. Davidson Loehr 17 September 2000
The text for this sermon can be viewed online at
http://austinuu.org/sermons/
32:54
© Davidson Loehr 2000
|
|
|
|
