I have received multiple requests for copies of the homily that I presented at the UUA Pacific Southwest District Assembly this year, and instead of continuing to email it out, I thought I would publish it here at Celestial Lands.  The task was to reflect on what “Beyond Borders” meant to me and my ministry”.  It was an honor to be asked to preach, as one of the new ministers to the District. 

One of my first forays into District lay-leadership after I became a Unitarian Universalist was to an event celebrating the kickoff of a campaign of billboards and radio advertisements for Unitarian Universalism, being sponsored by the UU Congregations of the Greater Houston area.  The keynote speaker was Rev. Bill Sinkford, then the president of the UUA.  I had just been accepted to seminary, and had just begun to imagine what ministry might mean for me.

After the speech that Rev. Sinkford gave, the group formed a receiving line, so that everyone could get a chance to meet him.  When it came time to introduce myself, I told him that my name was David Pyle, and that I had just been accepted to seminary.

That was when one of my friends and fellow lay-leaders from our congregation on Galveston Island said “What he’s not telling you is that David is thinking about becoming a military chaplain.”

The crowd immediately around us became silent.

Then, Rev. Sinkford’s eyes began to tear up, and he took my hand.  He told me that only a few weeks before, his son had written him from where he was serving as a U.S. Army Ranger in Afghanistan.  His son had written him asking why it was that every other soldier he knew could find a chaplain from his or her faith tradition… everyone except young Billy Sinkford.

The letter said “I need a chaplain dad… and I don’t have one”.

As I walked back to my table, still in the intensity of that story a young woman stepped in front of me.  I do not remember much else about her, other than the large peace symbol that she wore around her neck.

She said, in a loud voice, “I don’t see how you can call yourself a UU and be willing to serve in the military”.

I was asked to reflect on what borders I have crossed in my life and in my ministry.  Traveling around the world for the military I’ve crossed a lot of borders.  I grew up an Army brat, and lived overseas before I was 8 years old.  I joined the Army at 18, and served in 5 foreign countries by the time I was 24.  I was one of the first members of my family from the Tennessee hills to earn a bachelor’s degree.  I left the world of National Security and Intelligence when my conscience would no longer allow me to do that work, and found my way from Intelligence Analyst to peace activist.  And yet, with all of that, I think the most difficult border I have crossed is one I now have to cross on a regular, sometimes daily basis… and that is the border between Unitarian Universalism and the young women and men and the families of the U.S. Military.

I am a reserve military chaplain, one of only 8 Unitarian Universalist Ministers serving as military chaplains in the Reserves, National Guard, or on Active Duty, including Chaplain Seanan Holland, a UU Minister of our District currently serving as a Chaplain with the Marines in Afghanistan.

At the moment, I am the only UU minister serving both in the military, and in full-time congregational ministry, as the Assistant minister for our congregation in Ventura, California.  I love our congregations… my first love in ministry was with lay-led fellowships.  I have met many military veterans in the over 40 congregations I’ve had the privilege to preach in, many of whom had never felt that it was safe to tell their congregations the stories of their military service, for fear that they would no longer be accepted within our faith.

“How can you be a UU and be willing to serve in the military”she asked me…

In my military ministry, with the 349^th Combat Support Hospital in Bell, California, I serve a far more young adult and multi-cultural ministry than I have found within Unitarian Universalism.  The majority of my soldiers are people of color.  My Hospital Commander is a Latina woman.  My Company Commander is an African American woman.  Many of my soldiers are Asian American, African American, Hispanic or Latino, European American, Indian American, and a few with Native American ancestry, such as myself.  A few are not yet Americans, as serving in the U.S. military is one way that people seek to earn U.S. Citizenship.

I minister with people who are Baptist, Evangelical, Buddhist, Spiritual but not religious, Jewish, Catholic… just about every religious faith you can imagine.  I even have one devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…

He loved that I knew what he was talking about, and showed me his dogtags that say “FSM” in the line for Religious Preference.

I have soldiers who are straight, and soldiers who are just now exploring how safe it is to be public about being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual.

When I am ending my ministerial career hopefully some 25 years from now, one of the things I will be most proud of is the minor role I was able to play in implementing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t tell, and being able to sign an official copy of the repeal “Chaplain David Pyle”.  Crossing borders will sometimes allow a person of our faith to be in the right place, at the right time, in order to make a difference in larger events.

And yet, when my soldiers ask me what faith, what denomination I am ordained by, I have to admit to you I am often hesitant to tell them.  Not because I’m worried about what they may think about Unitarian Universalism… quite frankly most of them have no idea who we are.  No, what worries me is that my soldiers, having built relationship with me, will then go and visit a Unitarian Universalist church that is not yet ready to welcome them… not yet ready step away from some of our own pre-conceptions and meet them not as their uniforms… but as the people within them.  Not yet ready to know how to welcome and be sensitive to their families.

Just as there are closeted veterans within our churches, there are closeted Unitarian Universalists within the military.  I meet them all the time, and in almost every case it is a story similar to mine.  On a Sunday morning when they were visiting one of our churches, during coffee hour, or in conversation before worship, someone finds out about their military service and challenges their right to be within our faith community.  I had the blessing of already being within a loving, welcoming community when it happened to me.  For these soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardians and marines and their families… they simply leave and never come back.

I am saying this to you today, because I do not believe that this experience of our faith is one that relates to the military alone.  We have borders around the faith of Unitarian Universalism.  I’m not going to recite all of them… I believe most of you know what borders are around our faith just as well as I do.  In order to take down those borders, we have to do the work of understanding our own pre-conceptions and prejudices, and of learning the meaning of Radical Hospitality.  The kind of hospitality and welcoming that steps beyond our own fears and needs, if just for a moment, in order to welcome someone, anyone, in the fullness of who they are.

That is hard, hard work.  Let me tell you why it is important, at least in relationship to the military.  If there is anywhere in this world that I pray for more people who believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person it is in the military and on the battlefield.

If there is anywhere in this world that I pray for more people who believe in the right of conscience it is in the military, and on the battlefield.

If there is anywhere in this world that I pray for more people who see that we are all connected in an interdependent web… that every action that is taken affects everyone else and everything else around us… I pray for those people to be in the military, and on the battlefield.

If we are going to have soldiers, if we are going to give that kind of power and responsibility to anyone… then I would rather that as many of those people as possible be Unitarian Universalists.  Not because I want to grow our faith… but because I want to save the world.  And part of that is making sure that, as long as we have a military, that it be as in tune with the values and principles of Unitarian Universalism as I, as we, can make it.   So may it be… Amen.

In a book I just finished, the United States of America has become nearly irrelevant in world politics and society, even while holding to itself an image of American Exceptionalism.  The theory is this… that the more the U.S.A. clings to its concept of being an exceptional nation… a nation set above or better than other nations, the more it actually reduces its significance in the world.

The more we “rest on our laurels” of academic and technological achievement, the faster developing nations will pass us by, both academically and technologically.

The more we resort to military force (or the threat of military force) to achieve diplomatic aims, the more nations will view us more as a threat and not a benefit, and will isolate us.

The more wealth and economic power we move overseas, the less wealth and economic power will be identified as a part of the “exceptional” nature of the United States.

The “heavier” we are diplomatically, the more nations will realize that they are not as dependent upon the good-will of the U.S.A. as they once were.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.  Even we liberals get caught up in a brand of American Exceptionalism… a kind of smug paternalism that says that other nations will not thrive or grow unless we are there to “assist” them… and bring with us all of our preconceptions and often colonial attitudes to that “assistance”.

I’ve written about the dangers of American Exceptionalism before, but never in terms of generating our own irrelevance.  I’ve written about our hubris in believing that the meaning of all world events is found in the relationship of the U.S. to that event.  What I’ve been pondering of late is how this sense of American Exceptionalism is leading our nation to greater and greater irrelevance in the world.

Perhaps it is time for us, as a nation, to realize we are not as special, not as exceptional as we think we are.  Perhaps it is time for us to realize that other people in other nations around the world have as great, and often longer histories than we do.  Perhaps it is time to realize that people in other nations have dreams, ideals, and values that are of no less importance than our own.  Perhaps it is time for us to acknowledge that there is no inherent cultural superiority to the U.S.A.

Perhaps it is time for the United States of America to learn some humility.

Whenever I think of American Exceptionalism, I think of the speech given by Ronald Reagan where he talked about the “City on the Hill”, paraphrasing the Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (though second-hand, through John Winthrop).  Perhaps it is time we realize that Reagan got the scripture wrong.  He misunderstood what Jesus said.  The metaphor of the City on the Hill was not about that city being exceptional in its own right.  It was about the need for the city that all can see to behave in a way that inspires all of human kind.  What would make such a city exceptional was not what it was, or who founded it, or whatever ideals they might have…

It was how they behaved…

2 Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid.  (Matthew 5, NRSV)

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

Human beings have a problem with Truth.

Now, most times when someone says that someone has a problem with the truth, what they are meaning to say is that said someone does not tell the truth.  Either they are a blatant liar, or the speaker means to imply that the person lives in a fantasy land that only vaguely resembles reality.  With my statement, I’m meaning to imply the second of those two possible meanings.

The entire human race (including myself) lives in a fantasy land that only vaguely resembles reality.  And because of that, we are incapable of telling the Truth.

Let me state the thesis I am working through without some of my normal, literary hyperbolism.  Humanity is incapable of accessing objective truth, and yet has an inner yearning for objective truth, and within the tension between these two aspects of humanity lies much of the conflict and tension of the human race.

I believe this tension is the source of most human religion.  I believe that this tension is the source of most human conflict… from an argument between children to wars between nations.  I believe this tension is the source of most human internal emotional suffering.  I have seen this tension arise in individual pastoral care and in debates in the intelligence community.  I have seen this tension tear families apart.  It defines the widening gap in our politics, and it defines the widening gap between religious faiths.

It is perhaps important that I say why I believe that objective truth is forever unattainable by human beings.  I’ve written about this many times, but it is always good to begin at the foundation.  Simply put, objective truth is infinite, and the human ability to conceive of objective truth is finite.  Objective truth is always larger than our limited view allows us to see.  Objective truth is always more complex than our limited mental capacity can allow human beings to comprehend.

And yet, we have a deep yearning for objective truth… a yearning that forever impels us to seek that which we can never obtain.  Humanity has been endlessly creative in seeking to address the yearning for objective truth.  All of modern science has arisen from the human yearning for objective truth… and the good scientist will understand that Truth is always larger than any scientific result, or even all the results of science combined.  Good science realizes that all of scientific knowledge can be challenged by the next result… and that each result must be challenged by all of scientific knowledge.  Science channels the human yearning for objective truth to serve a never ending (and ultimately impossible) quest for that objective truth.

Recognizing the limitation of humanity to perceive objective truth, religion has long sought to address the human yearning for such objective truth through divine inspiration… and humanity has on the whole benefited from this creative way to address the human tension with the truth.  I’m not going to argue whether this religious inspiration is true or that one is… I think that misses the point.  Where science tries to address the human tension with truth by getting as close to objective truth as possible, religion has long sought to address the other end of the Truth-Tension equation.  Religion has sought to allow people to ease the tension by naming truths that can be believed in without proof, so that human beings can live with our yearning without making it the central motivation of our lives.

At their best, human religions have defined truths that can be believed without proof that overall serve to better human communities.  Such religion has allowed individuals to live in the tension without the effort and costs of the “forever seeking” model of science.  Such religious truths have allowed many people to live their lives, and to do so believing in “truths” that are of overall benefit to the human community.  (Seeker religions have sought to address both ends of the truth-tension equation at the same time).

So of course science and religion have long been in conflict… they each promote different “technical” fixes to what is inherently an “adaptive” problem.  Different human beings are drawn to one or another (or both) of these two different technical fixes, for a myriad of reasons that it would be impossible to catalogue.

There are other “technical” fixes to addressing this tension.  There is the post-modern/nihilist answer that there is no such thing as objective truth, and therefore we live entirely in a relative universe… in other words saying “It’s an insoluble problem, so I’m going to Tahiti.”  There is also the “many truth’s” answer that is quite popular among many of my fellow liberal religionists.  This is the idea that there are many different truths, all of generally the same value.  Rather than denying that there is any such thing as truth (nihilist), the “many truths” model refuses to make any judgments at all between the many different things that people might believe.

Add to this the most common answer to this tension… simply deciding that whatever your perspective and beliefs are, they represent objective truth… the “I am right and everyone else is deluded” answer.  The most common answer, and perhaps the least helpful…

There are several other ways that people attempt to address this tension between our human inability to conceive objective truth, and our yearning for objective truth.  All of them attempt to address different aspects of this tension… and I perceive all of them to be attempts at providing a technical fix to an adaptive problem.

So, here’s the project I’ve had on my heart this spring… rather than simply trying to live with the tension of an unattainable objective truth and a human yearning for objective truth, is there any way to help humanity adapt so that we no longer are held captive by such a yearning for Truth with a capital T?  Can we change the equation?

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

Why is it impossible for us to not be prejudiced?  Because we are beings of infinite yearnings and finite knowledge.  We feel called to make decisions and judgments, even though it is impossible for us to have perfect knowledge of all that is around us.

At the base of my argument on this issue is a theme I’ve turned to many times here at the Celestial Lands, and that is that while objective reality and objective truth do indeed exist, it is impossible for human beings to ever comprehend, grasp, or access it.  Each time we seek to define any objective reality, or any objective or ultimate truth, we are prevented from doing so through our own limited perspective as a single human individual, and by our incapacity to grasp all knowledge that can be related to any given subject.

And yet, even with the incapacity to achieve objective reality or ultimate truth, many human beings inherently yearn for it.  I claim many human beings, because I have not met all human beings and cannot encompass all of their perspectives, so I cannot make a claim of ultimate knowledge.  Indeed, that is the point I’m arguing… that while objective reality and ultimate truth do indeed exist, we human beings do not have the capacity to discern or conceive it.  We spend our lives in our own masses of perceptions, preconceptions, prejudices, and assumptions.

Religions have long realized this tension between the human desire to encompass ultimate truth and objective reality, and our near complete incapacity to do so.  Some theologians have even proposed this tension as the ultimate source of all human religion… the attempt to address this tension by designating an ultimate truth and objective reality through reference to divine inspiration.  Yet, even accepting the truth of a divine inspiration, I would argue that from the moment of inspiration to the moment of reflection on such a divine inspiration, said objective reality and ultimate truth becomes limited by perceptions, prejudices, and preconceptions of each individual that encounters the divine inspiration or revelation.

So, to take Christianity as an example… perhaps the revelation was indeed one of ultimate truth and objective reality when it was presented by God, and depending on your Christology, perhaps it was ultimate truth and objective reality when it was conceived by Jesus… but every person who has encountered the revelation of Christian faith after that has done so through their own mass of preconceptions, prejudices, and personal perspective.

This is not necessarily bad… it is simply human.

Each of us lives each and every day in a world of our own making.  It is a world of our own perceptions, our own perspectives, and our own limited encounter with what surrounds us.  We wade through a mass of our own emotional reactions, our own ideas about what it is that surrounds us.  Often we join with other groups of humans that share some of the pre-conceptions, prejudices, and perceptions that we have, because this is comfortable for us.  Being in groups that share our prejudices and perceptions actually helps us to ease the feeling of tension between our desire for objective reality and ultimate truth and our inability to attain or comprehend those things.

I believe the danger of preconceptions, perspective, and prejudice lies not in having them (for they are inherently part of humanity), but rather in not realizing you have them.  The danger for humanity lies not in the prejudice itself, but in believing and acting as if one’s own prejudices are actually objective reality and ultimate truth.  In a sense, this danger is in elevating one’s own limited human perceptions to the level of the ultimate, of the divine, of God.

To have made judgments about another human being because of their race is human.  To believe such judgments represent ultimate truth or objective reality is racism.  To have made judgments about a religion is human.  To believe that such judgments represent objective reality about that religion is hubris.  To have made judgments about someone’s sexual orientation is human.  To believe that said judgment encompasses all of that person objectively is fallacy.

Human beings cannot eliminate all prejudice, limited and false perceptions, and unjustified beliefs from our lives.  To do so would require perfect knowledge, and we human beings are simply not capable of that.  We all make judgments on limited knowledge every day of our lives, and need to do so in order to function.

No, what we are called to do is to constantly remember that all of our judgments are limited.  All of our perceptions are imperfect.  We are called to remember that human beings can never achieve objective reality or ultimate truth.  Instead, we are called to constantly test what we think we know, to accept our own fallibility, and to encounter every other person we meet with a spirit that allows us to change our preconceptions, perspectives, and prejudices.

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

I remember one day, perhaps 8 months into my residency, when I was giving one of my colleagues, a pastor from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, a ride to the train station.  We were continuing our theological discussions on the trip, when she turned to me and shared with me one of the most amazing and transformative comments that I have ever had anyone share.

“David”, she said “I’m surprised I’m saying this, but your theology… it all hangs together.”

When I asked her what she meant, she shared that while she had not necessarily been looking for the “weaknesses” in my developing theology, what she had instead perceived in it was a remarkable consistency.  While she did not agree with much of what I had come to believe, she realized that she could not easily argue with it without turning to some inherently unprovable faith statements.  She even sensed some significant commonalities within our theological systems.

I’ve always had ideas about theology… and some of those ideas have even turned into beliefs.  I’ve come to hold some tentative beliefs about the nature of God, about how God and humans relate to one another, about the role of Good and Evil, about the meaning of Salvation, about human purpose, and about spiritual practice.  Many of these ideas have been shared here at Celestial Lands, in different articles over the years.  Celestial Lands has actually been the location where I’ve worked out some of those ideas, and developed them into continually shifting beliefs (a process similar to going from a hypothesis to a theory in scientific research).

And yet, this last month my personal theological work has appeared to drop off.  Sermons I have been preaching have mostly arisen from previously covered ground.  I have not been using Celestial Lands to explore new topics.  I have been far more focused on the ecclesiological aspects of running a medium sized church than I have the theological aspects of being human.  Over the past few weeks, I have been exploring why my normally theologically prolific nature seems to have shifted.  And I’ve come to a hypothesis…

I think I’ve reached the point in my theological development where I need to systematize my theology.  Where I need to take the many theoretical beliefs about God, about Jesus, about Buddha, about Good and Evil, about Justice, about Compassion, about Faith, and about so much more, and not only lay them out in a sharable form, but have them in a form where I can see and develop the connections between them.  I need to see the relationship between my understanding of God and my concept of Good and Evil.  I need to allow my personal spiritual practice to inform how I see the teachings and ministry of such axial teachers as Jesus and Buddha.  I need to explore intentionally how my theology of compassion enhances and limits my understanding of justice.

And so much more.

I need to systematize my theology because I believe I’ve reached the limit of my theological development without doing so.  I need to see not only that my theology “hangs together” but to understand why.  I need to build those connections in such a way as to allow others to understand them… because as a minister I do not do theology as an academic exercise, but as the primary tool of informing my ministry.

So, seeing that a systemic theology is the next step in my spiritual and religious development, I’ve been pondering how… and no matter how much I rebel against it I keep coming around to a book.  I thought about making it a series of essays here on Celestial Lands, but in truth I’ve already done that.  I’ve also realized the inherent silliness of trying to create a cohesive whole out of disconnected articles.  The same would be true of a sermon series, adding also the complication that my ministry next year will not be primarily a preaching ministry, and just because I need to do this systemic work does not mean the congregation I serve needs to do it with me.

And so, I keep coming around to a book.  I’m reminded of Ethan Allen, in his forward to his book “Reason: The Only Oracle of Man”, saying that he had written the book because he needed to write it, not because anyone else needed to read it.  And he was right… almost no one else ever read it.  I did, and I found it one of the most profound explorations of reasoned theology about general revelation ever written.  Some parts of it are over-dense, because he was writing for his over-dense self, not for anyone else.

This summer, I will be taking my first vacation in almost 10 years.  For six weeks, I will not be engaging in ministry.  I will not preach, I will not teach, I will not conduct pastoral care.  I will not fill the time with military chaplain training courses.  I will not obsess over plans for the coming church year.  The Ministerial Fellowship Committee has been clear with me on this… “Thou Shalt Not…”

And yet, I know me.  I need to do something creative, something productive, or I will lose my mind.  I’m just not designed to do nothing… when I move into territory of “doing nothing”, I usually find something counterproductive to do.  So, I need a plan for my first ever “ministerial vacation”.

I think I’m going to make it a spiritual retreat to build the foundation for a book systematizing my theology.  I’m going to take my camping equipment and find a campground where I can be in nature… and write.  I’m going to sit on the beach under an umbrella… and write.  I’m going to light a fire in the fireplace on my patio… and write.  I’m going to sleep in, so I can stay up late… and write.

Write about the nature of God, and how that affects my understanding of humanity.  Write about how my theologies of covenant and of hope inform my understanding of vision and mission in a theological movement.  Write about how I believe that faith is sacred trust, and that Good and Evil have no metaphysical reality, and the dynamics of principle based human ethics… and so much more.

I don’t know if anyone will ever read it… because I’m not doing this for anyone else but myself.  In fact, whenever I think about sharing my theology with anyone, a little part of me wells up inside to say “This is My Theology… Go Find Your Own!”  And yet, so much of my preaching arises from my personal theology, as does my relationship with just about everyone I encounter (even if they don’t realize it).  And, though Celestial Lands has always existed primarily as a tool for myself, it has also been amazing to have people engage with me through the website and in person about what I write here.  So, I will have to do some thinking about what I might do with such a book when it is finished.

But, for now, it is enough to know that I need it… and that without it I think I am stuck in my own spiritual development.  And, I can think of no more important way to use my first ever “ministerial vacation”.

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

These thoughts have resurfaced through the recent “Congregations and Beyond” discussion that has begun in response to Rev. Peter Morales’ white paper of that title.  In my initial response to that paper, I mentioned that one of the ways that Unitarian Universalists might engage with one another and with our religious tradition and movement outside of congregations would be through involvement in something like a religious or monastic order.

There is a history of this… sortof.  In the 1940’s and 50’s, a group of Universalist Ministers formed a group that was patterned on a “fraters” style religious order, known as the Humiliati.  They focused on theological depth and on revitalizing the Universalist Church of America.  There also was another group, known as the Congregation of Abraxas, which formed in 1975 as a group of both clergy and lay UU’s focused on revitalizing worship within our tradition.  I have had the honor and privilege to have met with and spoken with some of the last members of each of these groups about their experiences, for which I am deeply grateful.

There is more history… you could make the case that the Ministerial Sisterhood Unitarian Universalist, founded by Rev. Marjorie Leaming also played a similar role in our tradition, with its focus on supporting the growing number of women enter the (at the time) male dominated UU Ministry.  I’m sure there are many other examples, including the many UU Minister’s Study Groups that are out there, that have some similarities to what I am envisioning.

What I am dreaming of is this… a Unitarian Universalist Religious Order, dedicated to deepening individual spirituality and spiritual practice within Unitarian Universalism.  The Order would develop some shared rituals and spiritual practices.  The Order would make some shared commitments, to ourselves, to each other, to the broader movement of Unitarian Universalism, and to the world.  The Order would develop something akin to a “Rule” for daily practice and living, that could be practiced both in an institutional setting, in a retreat setting, and in daily life.  The Order would be open to both UU clergy and lay-members, and open to Unitarian Universalists of all gender identities, all sexual orientations, and all racial and cultural backgrounds.  Such a commitment to diversity would be a part of the rule of the Order.  The Order would be open to those who have made congregational commitments and those who have not.  It might even be that part of the commitments that members of the Order make could be to be in service to our congregations and movement.  They could also make commitments to be in service to the world.  The Order would include some standards of conduct, as well as a commitment to some kind of spiritual supervision within the order.

Now, as soon as I say “Religious Order” or “Monastic Order”, many people’s minds turn to issues of sex and relationship.  I would not see a UU Religious Order ever making celibacy a part of their spiritual rule.  I would however see a commitment to experiencing human sexuality in a healthy, moderated, and possibly even monogamous way a part of the rule.

I envision an Order that has both an opportunity for people to be “in residence” within the order (perhaps not initially, as that would take some time and funding to make possible) and a way for people to practice the spiritual rule and live the commitments of the order in their local communities and lives.  I would see the Order having regular spiritual retreats, and setting up patterns of responsibility and spiritual supervision.  I would see a progressive form of commitment and deepening as a part of the Order.

All an interesting dream, right?  Everywhere I turn, I see such a desire for a way to deepen our spiritual lives as Unitarian Universalists.  Now, I’m a parish minister, and I certainly know that our congregations do indeed help people to deepen their spirituality… but many people want to make a deeper commitment to their faith and to our religious movement than is required by membership in a congregation.  Often these individuals begin the path toward ministry, as that is one of the few ways we offer for people to deepen their commitment… and then realize in the first year of seminary that serving as a minister is not what they are called to.  Or rather, they are lucky if they realize it in the first year… and not three years into their first settled ministry.

I was lucky… I think I began seminary looking for a way to deepen my own faith, and in seminary found my calling to serve as a minister.

So, how would such a thing as a UU Religious Order come into being?  Would Rev. David Pyle draft the entire rule, shared spiritual practice, and vows, and then wait for people to come?  Hardly.  I’m not envisioning the “Order of Davidians”… first because that is not what I am yearning for and secondly because that name already has a lot of baggage… sigh.

In my dreams I imagine a long retreat somewhere isolated , perhaps even a month, where a group of lay and ordained Unitarian Universalists who are looking to make such a commitment come together, and explore what such a rule and Order might look like.  Where we together share our spirituality and spiritual practices, and find commonalities among us.  Where, through worship and life together, we begin to develop rituals that have meaning for our faith and our practice.  A month where we live in common our shared faith, and from that grow a religious order.

I can dare to dream, right?

Yours in faith,

Rev. David

Perhaps someday….

Rev. Brother David.

“In the United States Army, We Defend Democracy… WE DO NOT PRACTICE IT!!!  Now all of you, do some pushups!”

As I did those pushups, and in the years that have come since, this realization stayed with me… being in the military means you do not get to exercise all of the rights that you have sworn to uphold and defend.  Part of the sacrifice of military service is voluntarily accepting a limitation of some of your rights in order for the military to function and perform its mission.  You either accept that, or you leave the military.  We call it “failure to adapt to military life”.

One of the classes that we held last weekend, while drilling with my reserve unit, was a class on what soldiers can and cannot do in the political process.  This is important coming up on an election year.  Soldiers are encouraged to refrain from electioneering.  They cannot speak negatively about those who hold or seek federal office.  It is inappropriate for them to have electioneering material (such as bumper stickers and tee-shirts) on base.  They may not go to political events in uniform, and are encouraged not to be too public in their political positions.  Violating these policies (and more) can be cause of “negative action” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  They can attend events out of uniform, and participate in ways that do not draw attention to their military service.  And soldiers are encouraged to vote.  But much of what makes up regular political involvement is denied them.  Their freedoms of speech and political participation are curtailed by their choice to serve in the United States Military.

So, to protect the Freedom of Speech, members of the military are required to sacrifice some of their own individual and corporate ability to exercise that Freedom of Speech.

The same is true of the right to privacy.  You have less right to privacy in the U.S. Military than you do in civilian life.  Just ask anyone who has ever been through a Security Clearance investigation… or a barracks inspection, for that matter.  In order to defend the Right to Privacy, military members voluntarily sacrifice some of their own right to privacy.

In the U.S. Military, it is the military chaplains who are tasked with the protection of the Free Exercise of Religion.  No military chaplain is drafted to serve… we are all volunteers.  In truth, any military chaplain could choose to leave the military rather quickly, simply by asking their endorser to either not renew their endorsement, or to even pull that endorsement.  Since they are officers, a military chaplain could even choose to resign their commission (so long as they are not about to deploy).  So, military chaplains are even more “voluntarily” in the military than almost anyone else.

As all members of the U.S. Military voluntarily sacrifice some of their rights to free speech, political activity, and privacy in order to defend those rights for the rest of us… Military Chaplains are required to voluntarily sacrifice some of the rights to their own Religious Freedom in order to defend that religious freedom for the Soldiers they serve.  The purpose of the military chaplaincy is to maximize the religious freedom of the soldiers that they serve, not to maximize their own.

I live this voluntary sacrifice every day.  As a Unitarian Universalist Minister serving as a Reserve Military Chaplain, I have had to voluntarily sacrifice quite a bit of my religious freedom.  My religion says that I should provide the Ceremony of Marriage to any two people who love one another and wish to make that commitment, regardless of what gender they happen to be… something the military does not allow me to do.  My religion says that, like Jesus, I am called to speak out loud and publically about hypocrisy that I see in the world around me, including in politics and in military leadership… a tendency I have to regularly rein in so that I do not fall afoul of military policy (a line I’m dancing even in writing this article. Notice I do not mention anyone by name, nor do I use any military title, and my website says at the top that I am speaking only for myself, and not for any official institution).  And probably most importantly, my religious faith calls me to a theological stance that is very close to Pacifism, something that I struggle with in seeking to not make my ministry about my faith, but about the religious faith and needs of those that I serve.

So, when I read articles like this one from the Alliance Defense Fund and the Chaplain’s Alliance for Religious Liberty, it makes my blood boil.  They have forgotten that the mission of the Chaplain Corps is to protect the freedom of religion for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardians, and Marines we serve… and like the rest of the military, protecting the rights of others often requires the voluntary sacrifice of some of our own rights.

Either accept that, or go be a civilian pastor.

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

I also know that my own pre-conceptions are wrapped up in this.  I despise Carver Style Policy Governance.  I think it is a travesty when it is applied in any kind of religious setting.  I think it is antithetical to the purposes of a religious faith.  As every congregation I have ever served has heard me say, the purpose of religious faith is not efficiency, it is spiritual growth.  I am, however, a fan of the work that Dan Hotchkiss has done, to adapt the best parts of Carver to match the purposes and needs of religious life.  I also have expectations that the President of the UUA be a prophet and a visionary, not an administrator.  I also have long thought that if we make Congregational Polity Purity the center of what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist, then we deserve to be the declining religion we are thought to be.

There is a tension that is inherent in “Organized Religion”, and that is a tension between “organized” and “religion”.  I often begin my work with a board around Governance transition with a reading from the first page of Dan Hotchkiss’ book Governance and Ministry.  He says it better than I ever could.

“Religion transforms people; no one touches holy ground and stays the same. Religious leaders stir the pot by pointing to the contrast between life as it is and life as it should be, and urging us to close the gap. Religious insights provide the handhold that people need to criticize injustice, rise above self-interest, and take risks to achieve healing in a wounded world. Religion at its best is no friend to the status quo.

No wonder “organized religion” is so difficult! Congregations create sanctuaries where people can nurture and inspire each other – with results no one can predict. The stability of a religious institution is a necessary precondition to the instability religious transformation brings. The need to balance both sides of this paradox – the transforming power of religion and the stabilizing power of organization – makes leading congregations a unique challenge.”

The question that has been on my heart is whether the “Organized” can ever fully encircle the “Religion” without ending that which makes it religious?  I wonder if in trying to define what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist through the means of our congregational life, if we have been trying to exert control over that which is ultimately uncontrollable?

The art of religious governance is not creating a perfectly controlled institution.  The art of religious governance and organization is knowing how to bring just enough order into  the beautiful complexity of religious faith so that we can walk in religious life together… and not so much order as to stifle the creativity of and complexity of the human religious spirit.

In congregational life we do define who is a member of a particular church.  That is a necessary and good aspect of religious organization for a congregation.  But membership in a particular congregation does not and should not be what defines an individual’s religious identity.  What is true at the micro level does not necessarily translate to the macro level.  When we move to trying to link membership in a congregation to a person’s religious identity, then we have gone too far toward organization, and are stifling the human religious impulse.

Now, here’s where I think I part with Rev. Morales… I’m not yet sold that the current Unitarian Universalist Association can be the center for a wider Unitarian Universalist Movement.  I have not seen in the UUA the necessary ability at the art of balancing the paradox between the creative impulse of religion and the organization of institutionalism.  I wonder if the best we can hope for from the UUA is a recognition that they do not own the brand of Unitarian Universalism, that the movement of Unitarian Universalism is larger than our congregations… and then have the UUA focus on the strength and well-being of our congregations.

I wonder if perhaps we need another center for the wider movement…

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David

Where people grow, forgiven and forgiving,

Break not that circle, make it wider still,

Till it includes, embraces all the living.

–Hymn 323, Singing the Living Tradition

Recently, the conversation has begun again about what makes a Unitarian Universalist.  Are you only a Unitarian Universalist if you are a member of one of our congregations, or can you be a member of a larger religious movement that includes but extends beyond the walls of our bricks and mortar congregations?

This conversation has begun again in part because of a position paper that has been put forth by the Rev. Peter Morales, the current UUA President, titled “Congregations and Beyond”.  In this paper Rev. Morales makes several arguments, such as how an expanded understanding of UU identity and connection would be beneficial to congregations, in that it would “lower the walls between our congregations and the larger world”.  The case is also made in the article that some of the largest gatherings of people who identify as UU’s occur outside of the congregational environment.  The article also implies, though I do not believe it directly says, that for many the traditional structure of a congregation is a barrier to their commitment to Unitarian Universalism as a religious movement.

I was somewhat disappointed in this article.  Not because I do not agree with its intent… I certainly do.  I have long said that to be a Unitarian Universalist should mean identifying with the movement, the values, and the principles of our faith… not congregational membership.  I love and serve a UU congregation, and understand myself primarily as a Parish Minister… and I also serve as a military chaplain, and have regularly had to tell soldiers that the only way they can really be UU’s is if they join a church.  I believe that strong churches are essential to the success of our movement… but the churches should serve the movement, not the other way around.  Church strength is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

I agree with Rev. Morales on the idea that we should open up UU identity to many different ways of connection and relationship.  I would love to see a formal structure of UU identity and membership arise out of the UU Youth and Young Adult Con movement.  I would love to see a UU lay and ordained monastic order come into being.  Perhaps several such monastic orders, each arising out of several UU centered spiritual practices and commitments.  I would love to see a way for Social Justice Advocates and Activists to engage with UU Identity.  I would love to see actual congregational identity and membership for the UU Churches on Second Life, and other such virtual ways of connection.

And so, so much more.

I was disappointed in Rev. Morales’ article because I believe he did not highlight any good reason why we should reach out to include the hundreds of thousands of people who identify as UU’s but are not members of our congregations.  Much less, I saw no argument at all for why we should be concerned for the millions out there who are not even aware that Unitarian Universalism exists.  He seemed to hint that there was an “opportunity” for growth, almost as if there were untapped resources that we were choosing not to engage.

Now, I know what I’m going to say will not come as a surprise to Rev. Morales.  I’ve heard him say similar things.  I know that what I’m going to say is already in his heart.  I’m not ashamed to say that, knowing he felt as I do on this is why I supported him for President in the first place.  And yet, his argument in this article was reminiscent of all too many conversations I have had with lay-leaders in congregations across 9 states who have told me that they were interested in “growth” to “meet a budget” or “be able to hire a minister”, or “build a building”, or for some other practical, if often nebulous, expectation that growth is something we are supposed to do.

Our world is desperately in need of the saving message of Unitarian Universalism.  We are living in a society where people often are torn up inside because they have no understanding of their personal worth as a human being.  Religious traditions abound around us that tell people that without divine intervention, they are worth only eternal damnation.  Religious warfare and demonization continues unabated across the world.  We have a culture and a politics built on denigrating others to try and raise one’s own sense of worth.  We have built an economic system that is destroying lives, cultures, and the earth, because it is based on greed… and greed is anathema to understanding the interdependence of all things.  We are killing each other because we cannot see our own worth is inextricably linked to the worth of another.  Fiscal value has surpassed human value as our touchstone.

Friends of Faith, and dear President Rev. Peter Morales, I beg of you.  It is time we stopped being ashamed of who we are, and started sharing our Radical Gospel, our Good News of Interdependence and Inherent Worth with the world.  It is time we move away from the circles that are closing us in, and open up our religious movement so that we can transform and engage with as many lives as we possibly can, in any way that we can.  It is time we stop preaching to our own choirs, and to train, empower, and send our choirs out to sing the message of love, inclusion, and hope to the rest of the world.

Let us open up membership and identity as a Unitarian Universalist to any and all who can connect with us.  Let us join with them not how we are used to, or how we are comfortable joining with others, but however the hundreds of thousands out there need us to join with them.  Let us accept that they will transform who we are, as our radical faith calls us to accept such transforming power and grace.  Let us find any way we can to bring people to the point where they can say, in their hearts and with their voices, “I am a Unitarian Universalist”… and to know what that means.

But let us do this for the right reason… not because of what we might expect to gain, but because of what we have to give to this wounded, broken, hurting world.  What we have to give is our saving, transforming, and healing message…

To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Lisa Presley, let us “Get off the franchise” of Unitarian Universalism, and share our faith with the world… because the world desperately needs us.

Yours in faith,

Rev. David

And, the drumbeat began for the incident to be blamed on those young Marines seen in the video.  It was an aberration… another case of just a few bad apples in the United States Military.  Just like the incident with the Abu Ghraib photos, right?

There is a lesson I learned when I became a Sergeant in the United States Army.  I had a soldier who was a bit of a screw-up.  One morning I was in my First Sergeant’s office getting yelled at for something my soldier had done over the weekend, and I made the mistake of saying “Top, Specialist So and So is just a bad soldier.”

The First Sergeant gave me a look that could have shattered steel, and said “there’s no such thing as a bad soldier, Sergeant Pyle… there are only bad leaders.  Either accept that, or give me back your Sergeant’s stripes.”

Those young Marines desecrating the corpses of the enemy, and then putting the video of that desecration on the internet was a failure of military leadership.  It was a failure of military leadership to instill in those Marines the necessary and required ethics, morality, and professionalism that we must have as an operating military in today’s world, strategic paradigm, and combat environment.  It was a failure of leadership to not recognize the potential for such behavior in these Marines, and train it out of them.  It was a failure of leadership in that said Marines were obviously not properly supervised.  It was a failure of military leadership that said Marines violated operational security, even after having committed the desecration, by posting the video on a public server.  It was a failure of military leadership that the bodies of a fallen enemy were not being properly searched, marked, tagged, and recovered.

What we saw in that video was the end result of a long series of failures of military leadership.  Though those Marines are indeed responsible for their action, that responsibility is proportional to the failure of said military leadership… and the greater proportion of that responsibility must always go to the Non-Commissioned and Commissioned Officers lawfully appointed over those young Marines.

And, the responsibility does not stop there, for our military is not a force unto itself.  We as a nation are responsible for the actions of our military.  We are responsible for how professional it is, how ethical and moral it behaves.  We, the politicians we elect, and the civilian authorities they appoint are responsible for the actions of even a young 19 year old kid in Afghanistan, peeing on a dead Taliban insurgent on Youtube.

And, as my First Sergeant told me once, those civilian authorities need to either accept that, or give back their stripes.

The military knows we have a problem with Professionalism.  Ten years of fighting several wars without the necessary resources and support to do it right have led to many compromises.  Too many compromises.  We have worn our soldiers into the ground with repeated deployments.  Recruiting standards were lowered to levels that never would have been accepted before.  The focus on the mission we had to accomplish led to corners being cut that should not have been cut.  The reliance on military contractors (mercenaries) for many tasks has shifted the meaning of what it means to be a soldier.  Regular regimes of inspections and preparations were set aside to meet the ever increasing operational tempo of multiple wars.

The military leadership, seeing this problem, has begun to address the standards of professionalism in the military.  As always, the training begins at higher levels, and must filter through the ranks.  This is the way it has always worked… you train the trainer, who trains the trainer, who trains the trainer, who trains the troops.  But this time, we have an additional problem we have not had before.  Two really.

First, we are operating in smaller military elements than we ever have before.  In WWII we fought as companies, or several hundred soldiers with maybe 8-10 officers and dozens of sergents.  Each of those officers had training in ethics, professionalism, and moral decision making, and led from that base and center.  They were in place to both teach and moderate the behavior of the young kids we put in uniform and give weapons to.  In that there were several officers in each company, they also held each other to the proper military standards of ethics and professionalism.

In Vietnam, the basic unit size engaged in combat operations was smaller, now a platoon of 50 or so soldiers, with one, maybe two officers and maybe five sergeants.  With this shrinkage of officers and non-coms at the point of the spear, we saw a marked decrease in the professionalism and moral decision making of those combat forces.

Skip ahead to today.  We now operate often in squad or team level combat elements.  The person called upon to exercise good moral judgment in the moment is likely not a college grad officer with training in ethics, morality, and professionalism.  It is more likely a 20 year old kid from either an inner city of a rural farming community, who has been exposed to the abyss of war without the proper mental and spiritual preparation to face such hell and chaos.

Frankly, I’m surprised, and even somewhat gratified, that all those young Marines were doing was peeing on those deal Taliban insurgents.  And that all they did was post the video on Youtube… and that is our second problem.  There is nothing the military does will not eventually end up on Youtube, it seems.

Yours in Faith,

Rev. David