MINISTRY

OUR MINISTER

INTERN MINISTERS

LAY CHAPLAINS

SERMON ARCHIVE

A Foolish Consistency: A Sermon on the Iraq Question

Folks, I have a little bit of a rant to get off my chest today. Something happened a few weeks ago in another church, and it's still bothering me. And something vaguely related in the world is bothering me, too, so I thought I would share them with you.

It is not my habit to criticize other faith groups. As a matter of principle, I hold that religious beliefs are personal matters. And since all matters of faith are equally unproveable in a scientific sense, it is impossible to claim the correctness of one over another. It is therefore necessary and civil to be respectful of differing beliefs, unless those beliefs lead to intentionally abusive or destructive action. If I expect you to respect my beliefs, then I am morally bound to respect yours.

I found this conviction sorely tested a few weeks ago when I attended a funeral in a conservative Christian fellowship. The deceased was a 15 year old girl, dead from a drug overdose. It was a tragic affair. The eulogy offered by the mother was deeply moving and was sufficient to have formed the whole service.

But the preacher, seeing so many non-members in his pews - so many of the "unsaved"- felt called upon to preach an entire additional sermon. Now in and of itself, that wasn't such a bad thing. Using the event to promote the church and its faith is not a choice I would have made, but that's a judgment call. The problem was the content. It was only my respect for the grieving family that kept me from walking out.

This pastor insulted anyone who thought differently from himself. I asked a couple of non-UU friends after and they confirmed my reaction. From the first words he spoke it was evident that his theology was the only acceptable way of approaching God. Every hymn that day sang of the exclusivity of his faith's relationship to the divine. Every Biblical illustration of course supported this exclusivity, but the twisting of the illustrations flew in the face of scholarly Biblical interpretation. No other idea counted, no other approach was to be considered, even if only to be rejected. I, and everything for which I stand and every belief I have formulated in a lifetime of looking for religious answers counted for naught. In this pastor's black and white world, I was deeply mired in the black.

Now please understand the core of my upset. It was not about his deep love of Christianity nor equally deep belief in his personal salvation. Those are valid religious beliefs for which I have nothing but respect. They are beliefs that have served billions of people well over the centuries. They are not beliefs I share, but I would never presume to mock them or denigrate them.

What upset me was the man's arrogance and intolerance. He appeared to be unwilling to give to others the respect he demanded from them. He did not affirm the inherent worth and dignity of his listeners, nor was he willing to even consider the possibility that our various experiences of the transcending mystery and wonder of the universe might have something valuable to say to the human experience.

Whatever brought this man to his particular form of Christianity, whether it was 1, 10 or 30 years ago, had long ago lost its living quality and had become petrified into a set of lifeless platitudes. The man had lots of religion, but he had no soul.

What he did have was a consistency in his beliefs. I'm sure he could have passed any test of faith with flying colours, having memorized all the answers long ago. But I did not see him demonstrate Christian love that day. Nor did I hear him express the kind of loving tolerance for which his Master, Jesus was famous.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," wrote Emerson 160 years ago. He wouldn't have known this particular preacher, but he surely knew people like him.

The quote comes from an essay entitled Self-Reliance, written when Waldo was 38 years old and about 9 years retired from the Unitarian ministry.

Self-Reliance was part of a series of essays on the idea of human culture. Now here, as biographer David Robinson notes, Emerson did not mean 'culture' as in theatre and art, but rather as in 'horticulture'. The best traits in humanity had to be cultivated, grown and trained like a flower or a vine.

In Self-reliance he held that one of the critical nutrients needed for attaining this fullest flowering of the human spirit was teaching people to trust themselves. A person, "Should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across the mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages... Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string." He wanted us to never settle for formed opinions, especially the opinions of others, but to continue to study and change and challenge our own beliefs.

Indeed, he despised the social order that seeks conformity from its members. "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the (person)hood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of ... bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs... For noncomformity the world whips you with its displeasure."

In Emerson's view, the demand for consistency was one of society's chief tools. This expectation of consistency, he wrote, "scares us from self-trust." To him the requirement to be consistent in word and thought requires us to always look over our shoulders at where we have been rather than ahead to where we are going. Now, I don't think Emerson was opposed to the study of history or the views of others, but he resisted bitterly the expectation that we should be restrained by received doctrine, be it religious, political or philosophical.

It is from this anger that springs his famous quote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." He continues, "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow. Speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. -- 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood' -- Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

Emerson found this fault of sticking to a foolish consistency in the Unitarianism of Boston in the 1820's. Tired of colleagues whose thinking was stuck in an earlier century he resigned his pulpit at Second Church in frustration. I claim no kinship to Emerson. The quality of his mind was such that I can only admire it from afar, but two weeks ago I shared with him the disgust at listening to a colleague in ministry preach old dead and exclusive ideas and threatening all who dared disagree with him.

Now to transfer this petty and personal concern of mine to a larger stage, it seems to me that the pitfalls of this 'foolish consistency' are the hallmark of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Friends, nothing good can come from this adventurism planned for Iraq. George W. Bush is a small minded man who has surrounded himself with a team of mostly small minded advisors. The result is a small minded policy built on old resentments, justified with deceptions, half truths and fueled with the exploitation of last year's tragedy in New York.

The American people are hurt and angry, and the war in Afghanistan with its frustrating and failed attempts to arrest bin Laden have left a loud section of America wanting blood. In walks Mr. Bush who simply substitutes his father's old enemy for his own and bingo we're on the eve of war again.

Now I have no great affection for Saddam, and would be entirely too happy to see him out of office. I doubt if I would lose much sleep if it took his death to accomplish that change of regime. But the American army stomping in unilaterally is not the way it should happen.

Mr. Bush claims to have evidence of nuclear and chemical weapons research and production in Iraq, but has shared it with no one. He is asking us to trust him. But one can't help wonder if the Bush Administration is just practicing the policy of the 'big lie'. As Joseph Goebbels noted in Nazi Germany, to get the big lie across one only needs to intensify the publicity campaign. Facts don't matter nearly as much as headlines do.

I can't help but be reminded of the exaggerated claims of Balkan genocide promoted by the Clinton Administration, or the exaggerations Mr. Bush senior's government spread about the Kuwait war, or the phony war in Grenada created by the Reagan administration. The American government is well acquainted with the use of the big lie. The only thing I trust the American government to do is what's in its own best political interest. Like the boy that cried wolf, I find myself unable to believe any claim Mr. Bush jr. makes about any world government he dislikes.

Mr. Bush wants to manage a regime change in Iraq. On the surface that might be a noble thing, but consider the record. In Afghanistan liberation brought women back into the streets and workplaces for awhile. Now just a few months later, the religious fundamentalists in government are reasserting the old ways. The Taliban are not in power, but their ideas still hold sway and the warlords still battle and the repression of women's rights is nearly as great as it was a year ago. How much has changed under the new regime?

In Iraq, Saddam was brought to power by an earlier American government trying to create a strong ally against revolutionary Iran in the 1980's. In Panama, President Manuel Noriega was installed by one American government and set up in the drug trade. He was later dethroned and arrested illegally by another American government.

The fact is, friends, that in most places where the American governments have intervened with military might, they have made a hash of it. They have walked in, effected a few cosmetic changes, grabbed a few headlines and walked out again leaving no meaningful change and no support for that change. The net result is usually zero abroad and re-election at home.

Ah, but there is consistency in this foreign policy, a foolish consistency adored by little statesmen. Friends, Mr. Bush is a little statesman.

Now in these past few weeks, Mr. Bush has gone to the United Nations and given the governments of the world an ultimatum: support us in this military adventure or lose American economic support and friendship. It's not far from extortion.

It's a bullying tactic and it's just plain wrong. The only hope for moral progress and long term peace in the world is through empowerment of the United Nations. Mr. Bush trying to bully that fragile institution into being his lapdog is reprehensible.

I have admired our own Prime Minister of late for insisting that there be a strong U.N. resolution before military action is taken. Now I only pray that the nations of the world refuse to issue such a resolution. It's not that I think Saddam is a nice guy, nor that we should quit trying to inspect for weapons or reduce sanctions against Iraq. I oppose this resolution because the United States government should not be allowed to become the sole arbiter of who is right and who is wrong and what the economic and political shape of the world should be. The bullying should not be rewarded.

I have carefully chosen my words in this sermon. I have been explicitly referring to the actions of the American government of George W. Bush and not to the American people. I think there are substantial numbers of American citizens who dislike this policy as much or more than I do. I am not anti-American. I am, however, not prepared to bow before Mr. Bush's unfortunate onslaughts.

Mr. Bush wants to start a war. Is it because he actually what cares what goes on in Asia Minor? No. Is it because he really feels America is threatened by Saddam? Possibly, but not likely. Mr. Bush wants to start a war because he holds to a foolish consistency in an outdated, short-sighted and self-serving foreign policy, and because he is possessed of a venal desire to be re-elected. That's not presidential. It's pathetic.

Back to Sermon Archive