Ambiguity - Slippery, Sometimes Confusing Stuff

Well, it's not too often that I offer a sermon with a one- word topic. But that's what I'm doing this morning - thanks to Gene Conrotto, who bought this year's auction sermon. What's an auction sermon? Well, every year at our spring auction - and the forms for the auction coming up on May 3rd are available now - every year, I offer a sermon on the topic of the successful bidder's choice. If you've got a topic you wish I'd hurry up and talk about, or you like the idea of telling the minister what to do, this is probably your best option. At any rate, Gene was the high bidder last spring and he picked this morning's topic: Ambiguity.

So let's start with the dictionary. My unabridged isn't the most current, but I doubt there's been much change on this. It says that ambiguity is: "having two or more possible meanings; being of uncertain signification; susceptible of different interpretations; hence, obscure; not clear; not definite; uncertain or vague." It notes that the roots that gave rise to our word mean "wandering around." Well, that gives us plenty of room, doesn't it?

Now, philosophers and theologians hold that being human is a fundamentally ambiguous condition. Through a variety of arguments, they have tried to deal with the reality that we are animals and somehow think we're more than "just" animals and that we are alive but know we have to die. They claim the most basic questions we humans have to struggle with are rooted right there. What can we say about our complex nature? How can we bear to live with the knowledge that we have to die? Over the ages, some thinkers have emphasized one half of these realities and downplayed or ignored the other - think of the light-dark and body-spirit dualities or the question of whether this world is real or illusory. Some have recognized both, but given one precedence as the more essential. Some have tried to integrate or reconcile the two. If you've taken an interest in philosophy, you can probably identify more threads, and their proponents, than I can.

Most of us, I think, stay closer to the dictionary's description. When we hear the terms ambiguous or ambiguity, we think of more specific incidents and cases rather than the underlying - or maybe overarching - nature of being human. We think of times we didn't really understand what was happening around us, times when the message we got turned out to be different than the speaker or writer intended. In the New Mexico town where I lived before coming here, there was a recurring source of confusion for newcomers. It was almost a rite of passage. The problem came the first time they were invited to carpool to some event out of town. "I'll meet you at the 'Y', and we can drive together from there." They would agree. And at the appointed time, the long term resident would be ready at the junction where two roads split. But the newcomer would be wondering why there seemed to be no one at all at the YMCA.

We may also remember times when we suspect we've been faced with an ambiguity that was actually a sort of cloud, deliberately put out so that any meaning would be hard to discern. We've developed terms for that - "plausible deniability" comes to mind, and the exact nature of "sexual relationship." Lately we've heard lots of discussion about what is or is not considered "torture."

But let's keep our focus closer to our own communities this morning. Gene pointed out the frequency of ambiguity which arises from the choice between literal interpretation and figurative or symbolic meaning. It's a common point of difference in American religion today, and very much alive in our community, particularly in regard to Scripture. When using the Bible as resource, guide or authority, should we give it a literal meaning or should we understand it in other ways?

For nearly 200 years, Unitarians have been arguing for symbolic interpretation. We have taken the various types of Biblical analysis seriously and used them when we look for wisdom or guidance in the Bible. The Rev. William Ellery Channing, probably the first to articulate the positions of American Unitarianism wrote about 1820, "the Bible is a book written for men (sic), in the language of men, and . . . its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books . . .. All books require in the reader or hearer the constant exercise of reason. . . . Human language, you well know, admits various interpretations; and every word and every sentence must be modified and explained according to the subject which is discussed . . ." He continued, ". . . (the Bible) expects us to restrain and modify its language by the known truths, which observation and experience furnish on these topics."

Writing twenty some years later, Theodore Parker wrote a sermon called "The Transient and Permanent in Christianity" which said some pretty radical stuff. "An undue place has often been assigned to forms and doctrines, while too little stress has been laid on the divine life of the soul, love to God, and love to man. (sic)" He claimed that many, if not most of the teachings associated with Christianity were not at all essential, and was especially averse to the stories of miracles. Parker believed that most of the doctrines and many stories were additions and theological explorations. In time, they would change or fall away.

He wrote, "To turn away from the disputes (of various doctrines) . . . and come to the plain word of Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity is a simple thing; very simple. It is absolute pure Morality; absolute, pure Religion; the love of man; the love of God acting without let or hindrance." Parker argued that, "The only form it demands is a divine life; doing the best thing in the best way, from the highest motives . . ." and later he continued, "and so keep the law of God by living a life of truth and love." I might agree with Parker that holding on to ideals of truth and love is far simpler than parsing all the layers of theology, but putting them into practice - well, I imagine that was no simpler in Parker's day than it is in our own.

I'm not entirely sure I can go along with him about the stories of Christianity, either. Not that I think they are all true! I don't. But ideals of love and truth are abstractions, they can be easily overlooked in the press of everyday life. The stories are more concrete and memorable. And they carry layers of meaning that reveal themselves in telling and retelling. Who has not heard a story on the third or tenth or twentieth time and thought, "Oh, I never saw it that way before!" I know that's happened to me, even with simple nursery rhymes and proverbs. It wasn't until I lived in Nigeria - which was on an English money system - that I understood that "Penny wise and pound foolish" referred to spending habits! All those years, I thought it was just big things and little things! How much deeper and more important are the stories like the prodigal son or the bit of leaven that makes the bread expand far beyond its original size. How many times they have been told and retold! And how valuable they can be if we see the stories as richly symbolic for different aspects of our living!

Unitarian Universalists have taken some pride in questioning both doctrine and story in traditional Christianity. We haven't been as thorough about mining the meaning that resides in the symbolic stories. We know that a person's real religion is slowly pieced together from different sources, each gradually tested for lasting value, for the ring of truth. Sometimes we pick up something that looks interesting only to find that it doesn't hold up well. Other truths grow deeper and richer in the light of new experience. Some possibilities that we've rejected may have value in part or when held in a new way. Meaning sometimes resides in unexpected places. Our spiritual growth is an ongoing process. If that growth stops, we become rigid, ossified.

Moving away from religious texts, we know that many times ambiguity involves more than the choice between literal and figurative interpretations. Multiple possibilities arise from our varied life experiences. It happens in all sorts of situations, all sorts of relationships. Most couples find areas where their understandings and assumptions don't match pretty early on. Sometimes they are fairly easy to figure out - but not necessarily easy to resolve. My mother used to talk about how her father had expected dinner to be ready for the table if not on the table when he came home from work. As a young wife, she thought she was showing her devotion when she had the evening meal all ready for her new husband when he came home. . The man she married, however, wanted some time to unwind before the evening meal. He felt pressured and rushed if dinner was ready right away. Now, both my parents had European-American backgrounds. Both their fathers were employed and both mothers were homemakers. Yet their patterns about what happened at the end of the workday just didn't match and their feelings about the timing of dinner were quite different.

Now that example is one that seems pretty obvious, but my mother still talked about it years later. What happens when backgrounds are quite dissimilar? When the different interpretations result in stronger feelings? When those involved don't have loving, or even friendly, connections established? What happens when some aspect of a person's identity is involved; perhaps race or sexual orientation, religion or culture, or maybe a disability or addiction? Things can get very complicated and a lot of emotions become involved. We can't always know about these factors or avoid misunderstandings. Sometimes we'll be offended and sometimes we'll offend, whether we mean it, whether we like it, or not.

Let's take an example. Suppose that it's Sunday morning and you are going to attend services at the UU Fellowship of East Cupcake. (That's located in a galaxy far, far away.) On this particular morning, a teenaged girl of Asian descent has come with her parent for the first time. [Now I know that when I go to a church for the first time, I feel a little tentative, a little nervous and uncertain. I'm aware that I don't know about the norms of this place or just what's likely to happen. Maybe I'm a little self- conscious. So I am guessing that this teenager feels somewhat like that - maybe more so, given the insecurities of adolescence. And of course, she might not have had a lot of choice about whether to come or not.] As they make their way into the sanctuary, one of the men of the congregation comes up and says, "And who is this exotic beauty?"

We'll stop right there. What has just happened? Well, it depends. Or does it? Maybe the man just paid the young woman a compliment. Maybe he called attention to her presence and prevented her from having a low-key entrance and the chance to get a feel for the place. Maybe he was attempting an introduction. Maybe he wanted to be sure that she noticed him. Maybe his words pointed out her differences from most people in the congregation. Maybe he was saying something with macho overtones. Maybe her parent felt a threat in those words and worried that the church wasn't really a safe place. Maybe there are more possibilities.

What happened? Perhaps one, or some, of those descriptions seems obvious to you. Whether or not that is the case, someone else's different understanding is just as significant and meaningful. And you can see that some of the choices I offered would involve a good deal of emotional content. I would say the comment is inappropriate, but I'm not raising the example to judge among the meanings. I am asking you to be aware of these and other possibilities.

This awareness can then lead us to be more discerning about what we say and how we say it. And when it turns out that we've given offence, we can make some apology or amends rather than denying the hurt we've caused. "Just joking!" isn't necessarily all that convincing. I think this is different than being "politically correct." I think it's about caring for other people. I think it's about respect for the worth and dignity of every person. I think it's related to the "inescapable network of mutuality" that Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about and the interdependent web of all existence we name in our seventh principle. I think this is spiritual work.

The "Thought for the Day" in your program refers to modern life as a course in dealing with ambiguity. I guess we're all enrolled. The part of the quote I left out says that it's a course that gives you no credit. I read that with a flash of recognition, but I guess it's ambiguous too. In thinking of these ongoing challenges, I'm reminded of a story you may have heard before.

It takes place in medieval times, in a large open space where great slabs of granite and marble are being worked. As a slab is cut into blocks, they are hauled away and another slab is brought in to be shaped. Stonemasons and their helpers are hard at work on a particular day when a traveler begins to walk around the busy yard. He stops to talk with one worker after another, always asking the same question: "What are you doing?"

The first man turns on the traveler in anger and says, "Idiot, use your eyes! I am cutting stones into blocks. The chips fly out and cut me and the air fills with dust. When I finish one they bring me another. I have been doing this since I was old enough to work and I will do it until the day I die." Taken aback, the traveler moves off. He asks a second worker, who responds, "Huh! I'm killing time until I get off work. Don't draw anyone's attention to me!"

But the answer from the third, a woman, is quite different. She smiles and says, "I am earning a living for my beloved family. With my wages we have built a warm little house, we have food on the table every day, the children are growing strong. I am building a safe place for those I love."

Going on to yet another worker the traveler repeats his question. This man stops his work and turns, his face radiant. "I am building a great cathedral," he says. "It will offer comfort to those in pain and sanctuary to those who are lost and alone. And it will stand for a thousand years!"

So it is as we deal with ambiguity. We can see it as a terrible chore; a burden; a no-win situation. We can kill time until we can get away to something clearer. We can see the work as helping our families to be safe and grow strong. Or we can see it as piecing together a religion of truth and meaning, as building a Beloved Community that can transform our lives and extend further, spreading far beyond our walls. Indeed, may that be so.