On Oct. 8, a self-styled spiritual leader named James Arthur Ray led participants through a two-hour sweat-lodge ceremony in Sedona, CA, a ceremony which was supposed to be a rebirthing exercise.  Many began vomiting or passing out during the ordeal, and by the end of the ceremony, twenty-one people had to be taken to hospitals by emergency crews, and three died. (NY Times, 10/22/09, pp. 1 and A4)

The sweat-lodge ceremony was part of a five-day “Spiritual Warrior” event. Participants were required to spend 36 hours in the desert without food or water, on a “vision quest,” followed by a light breakfast and then the sweat-lodge ceremony.  According to one participant, Ted Schmidt, some people left and others wanted to leave, but Ray “was very intimidating” and discouraged people from leaving.  Ray told participants, “Play full on, you have to go through this barrier.” 

Who is James Arthur Ray, anyway?  Based in Carlsbad, CA, Ray is a new-age guru with a company called James Ray International, which made $9.4 million in 2008 from various seminars, videos, and books.  Ray drew a lot of attention from his appearance in the popular film “The Secret,” which focused on reaching goals, both personal and financial.  The Spiritual Warrior event cost participants $9,695.

Seemingly undaunted by the deaths in Sedona, Ray continued to provide spiritual leadership at events.  At a seminar in Denver this past Tuesday, he was interrupted by two men who shouted, “Tell them the truth!” and “You control poeple!  You stood in front of the door and refused to let people leave!”  Ray responded by saying, “I, too, want answers and am cooperating with authorities.”  He then asked for a moment of silent prayer for those who had died.

That such an tragedy should have happened is reprehensible.  Ray is responsible for these deaths, and I feel certain that he will be charged with some variation or other of homicide.  But the larger question that remains with me is, why did so many people ever allow this travesty to occur?  To answer this question, we must explore the present state of the human psyche, and try to understand why so many people are rendered so vulnerable so much of the time. 

There is not space in this weekly reflection to go into the depth needed to properly explore the answer to my question, of course, but given such a restriction, I want to suggest some ways of thinking about this phenomenon that has occurred:

(1) People in contemporary time have lost their god, and they suffer from the fear and emptiness of that loss.  They have substituted bread and circuses, but have found these lacking, ultimately.

(2) Many people are desperately looking for answers to their emptiness and the lack of meaning in their lives, and they will follow almost anyone who promises to give them answers.  They fail to look for something as simple as credentials.

(3) People are social creatures who will “follow the crowd” in spite of the evidence of their own flesh to the contrary. (Contrary to Ray, vomiting and fainting are not signs of spiritual healing.)  And they will follow the authority figure.

(4) Many people believe that if you pay a lot of money for something, it will be worth a lot, failing to evaluate an experience for its intrinsic worth.  One of the first signs of corruption in a spiritual leader is the high price (money and sometimes sex, always strict obedience) they  require from their followers. 

(5) It is easier for people to project wisdom and goodness upon a leader than to find it within themselves. 

(6) It is easy for any spiritual leader who gains a following to begin to believe his own PR–and that is a spiritual dead-end.  It’s fine to seek help from a spiritual leader, but try to recognize one when you see one.  They should manifest the qualities of humility, peace, compassion, and justice-seeking instead of self-seeking.  They should be reality-based, living on this good, green earth and not in some imagined realm someplace else.

This incident makes me so sad for all of us, for our longing to be whole, for our wish to give ourselves to something greater than ourselves, for our genuine need for rebirth.  Makes me feel like the Catcher in the Rye.

Michael Graczyk, Associated Press Reporter, has a difficult job–he reports on executions for the wire service.  Mike has witnessed more executions than any other American, most likely, more than any warden or guard or chaplain–in fact, he has been present for so many that he has lost count, but it’s way over 300.
 

U.S. Catholic bishops are currently reviewing the draft of a pastoral letter entitled “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan,” which they will formally consider at their Nov. 16-19 national meeting.  The National Catholic Reporter quotes from this 57-page document, saying that the bishops decry the rise of same-sex marriage as “one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture.”  Same-sex marriage, they further say, “redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society.”

I must say that the Catholic Church is surprisingly able to up the ante on my outrage, over and over again–and now this appalling statement.  Their saying that same-sex marriage is “one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture” makes me wonder how much the bishops are troubled by, say, the current development of global warming?  Or job loss and foreclosure, leading to homelessness and hunger?  Or the nuclear threat? 

At any rate, I was moved to write the following letter to the church leaders charged with the formal review of the document.  I invite you to join me, if you wish. 

TO:

Cardinal Francis George, President, USCCB, 3211 Fourth St., NE, Washington, DC20017

Archbishop Francis E. Kurtz, Chair, USCCB Sub-Committee on Marriage and Family, 3211 Fourth St., NE, Washington, DC20017

Dear Cardinal George:

In regard to your review of the pastoral letter on same-sex marriage, may I comment in light of my experience.  I am the Minister Emerita of a large Unitarian Universalist congregation in Portland, OR, where I served for 17 years.  We have long been an open congregation, welcoming same-sex couples.  The Acting Senior Minister (formerly the Associate Minister for 14 years) is an openly gay man.

I have united in Holy Union many gay and lesbian couples, and also married some couples, for the brief period in which marriage was legal in Oregon.  I can assure you that love does not differ, whether in traditional couples or same-sex couples.  Love is love, and it is holy, and given of God.  Marriage simply allows the couple to formalize what is already given of God and of their own hearts and further allows them to declare their love to the community and to draw that community around them, in mutual support.  This is a healthful and nurturing act, for all.

The times are changing.  At one time, good people–many of them church people–argued for slavery, saying that blacks “could not handle freedom,” and that slavery “solved the unemployment problem.”  One day history will look upon the gay marriage question in the same manner–and people will be incredulous at the arguments against it.  How will you and your church be judged then?

The best way to understand the love and commitment of same-sex couples is to get to know some of these couples, as I have done over the years.  Some that I married had been together for 15 or 20 years or longer, and many same-sex couples are raising children together in happy, healthy families.

Experience rather than dogma will show the truth–people change when they see the evidence of loving relationship in their lives and in the lives of others.  I suggest that you go closer, and see for yourself.

Know that many of us are praying that your heart will be moved to include all in the church family, equally and without question as to their sexual identity and way of loving.  All love is given of God, without exception.

Prayerfully written,

(Rev. Dr.) Marilyn Sewell

I woke up this morning with the news that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Comments from previous recipients and from world leaders were pouring in.  Although some said the prize was “premature,” most respondents seem to receive the news as a harbinger of hope for our world.  I would agree.

It is true that Obama has been in office a scant 9 months, but he has not been given the Prize for what he has accomplished, so much as what he embodies.  With his election as our President, he became an iconic figure for the whole world, signifying a new day. 

–He says we need to work together in non-partisan ways to solve the enormous problems of our country.  (And he has tried to do so, in spite of no encouragement from the Republicans.)

–He says that everyone deserves to have health care.

–He says we should rid the world of nuclear weapons.

–He says it’s way past time for Israel and Palestine to work for a concrete solution to their ages-old conflict.

–He says that the United States can and should lead the way in the reduction of carbon emissions, but that we cannot solve this problem alone..

–He is not naive about defense, but will always hold out the olive branch for peace.

But it is more than what he says–it is what he is, that won the Nobel Prize.  He listens, respectfully.  He changes his mind sometimes, when the facts merit it.  His wish is to compromise, some say to a fault, but he keeps the vision of the good ever before him.  He is humble.  His life has never been his own, to gain riches or fame–he is a servant of the people.  He understands that the United States is not the only country, but one country among many.  He respects his wife as his peer and true partner–which says everything about his attitude towards women.  And he is a person of color in a world long dominated by white people, but a world that is mostly populated by people of color.  His very presence as head of state of our country says to the world, “This is a new day.  No longer will we do business as usual.”

So Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  What are the implications of his winning?  Undoubtedly, his voice will carry ever more authority when he speaks of peace.  His distractors–and they are many and they are shockingly effective–will have a tougher time convincing others that he is unworthy, for one reason or another.  His character will only become stronger as he grows into this new honor.

But Obama cannot bring peace to our world alone.  No one can.  What can each one of us do to make our world more peaceful?  I mean, personally, in addition to our political activities. 

I think peace has to be learned, like any other skill, and this skill is best learned by example.  It is learned first in the home.  Then in school and in the workplace.  It is learned in churches and universities and unions and non-profits.  What if wherever we have influence, we sought to bring caring and compassion to our words and actions?  What if we did not allow ourselves to be “hooked” by others’ anger or frustration?  What if we assumed the best of people?  What if resentment was released and forgiveness practiced?  I’m not arguing for Casper Milquetoast–it’s possible to be firm as well as kind.  

I have only one bumper sticker on my car–it’s a small one, on the left side of the back bumper, and it says “Nonjudgment Day Is Near.”  I’m trying to practice not judging–discernment, yes, but not judgment.  Just being present with what is.  I’ve begun noticing how much calmer I am when I can pull this off.  And how much more peaceful the world feels. 

Michelle Obama’s ancestry has been traced by genealogist Megan Smolenyak and the NY Times, and the study has revealed that Michelle’s great-great-great-grandparents were Melvinia Shields, a slave, and some unknown white man (NY Times 10/8/09, p. 1).  In 1850 as a little six-year-old slave girl, she was taken from her family and given as a bequest in a will to faraway relatives of the slave owner. She fathered four children, three of them mulattos, the first perhaps as early as 15.  The father of this child, this unknown white man, is the male ancestor of the woman who now resides in the White House as our First Lady. 

Who was he?  Was he the “master” of the household?  Was he one of the sons?  Was he one of the itinerant workers who passed through from time to time?  The surname the children were given was the name of the patriarch, but that was a common practice in those days, no matter who the father was. 

After freedom came, Melvinia stayed on an adjacent farm as a laborer.  One of her children was born four years after emancipation.  What does that fact suggest about the complexities of slavery and the difficulties of “freedom”?  Melvinia finally broke away when she was in her 30′s or 40′s, and was able to reunite with former slaves from her early childhood.  But so much remained unknown for Melvinia.  When she died in her 90′s, her 1938 death certificate, signed by a relative, states “don’t know” in the space where parents would be named. 

Melvinia’s first child was Dolphus T. Shields, who made his way to Birmingham, Alabama, and became a prosperous businessman and the co-founder of two churches, both of which later were active in the Civil Rights movement.  Dolphus’s carpentry shop was in the white section of town, a rarity for black businesses, and being of light color, he mixed easily with whites.  Dolphus died in 1950 at the age of 91.  On the very day that his obituary appeared on the front page of the Birmingham World, a black newspaper, the paper also ran a headline “U.S. Court Bans Segregation in Diners and Higher Education.”  Things change.

Things do change.  This is the truth I want to always keep before me when I despair of my country and the lack of progress we seem to make on so many crucial issues.  Things change.  They don’t change quickly or easily.  Things don’t change automatically, or just because time passes. Things change because it is right that they should change, and good people throughout time provide the leadership for those changes.  Things change because people keep at it, keep working for years, often with little success, but keeping the vision before them always. 

Michelle Obama, whose ancesters were slaves, is in the White House.  When we would become discouraged in our labor, let us remember: things change.