Here's a puzzle: Which one doesn't belong? Polar Bears, Compact Fluorescent Lights, Education, Wind Turbines, Carbon Diets, Fuel Economy Standards, Tree Planting, Compost, Community.

Well - it's a trick question. The answer depends on your criteria. If you're talking "Things We Can Do" you get one answer. If you're talking "Environmental Issues and Concerns" you get another. If you're talking "Actions Taken by UUs" or "Topics in the News" you get something different. Really they all belong - at least they do this morning, because the topic is our Seventh Principle - the one that calls us to "respect the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part."

This last principle is the one that stands out as a departure from the Universalist, Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist statements that preceded it. The others - you know, worth & dignity, justice & equity, democratic process, searching for truth, spiritual growth and the rest - all of them appear in earlier statements. The idea of an interdependent web is new - and actually, quite radical. At first glance, of course, it's an environmental statement. In fact, early versions of this principle spoke of "our responsibility to protect (earth's) resources for future generations."

Environmental concern had become widespread in the 1970s, and protective legislation had begun to be enacted. We were getting the idea that our habits had significant effects on our surroundings; even on our world. We were struggling with the idea that oil and other resources might be limited, both because of world geopolitics and because the supply isn't infinite. Links between various kinds of pollution and health problems were coming to light. Lake Erie was unsafe, as were a number of Eastern rivers - including the Potomac. The recycling movement began to take hold. Photographs of the earth taken from spacecraft helped us realize how isolated in space we actually are and began to change our notions of boundaries and difference. We began to "get the picture" of a blue-green planet, moving through space with all of us humans & plants & animals along on the ride.

But our principle didn't stay the way it started. To my mind, the changed wording adopted for this Principle is inspired. First of all, we identified our connections and responsibility to the earth as a religious principle. This was new stuff - at least for Western religious traditions. Even more important - radical, really - by speaking of an "interdependent web of all existence" and specifying that we are a part of it, we changed our position in the scheme of things, our place in the cosmic/planetary system. A principle that says we have responsibilities for protecting earth's resources for future generations (our future generations) rests on the assumption that we're in control of those resources and that our future generations are our only real concern.

Saying that we're part of an interdependent web which involves all existence is quite a different picture. It introduces some humility. We're not in charge any more, not really in the center. We're part of the web. We have effects on the rest of existence, and its vast variety also affects us. The web includes humans, right along with plants, animals, waters, microbes, minerals, winds, earthquakes, ocean currents and myriads of others. These things have always been true: the variety, the effects and the interdependence. But we have been slow to acknowledge them.

And the idea of the interdependent web has implications both beyond our own kind and within our large, feuding human family. Part of our aim with this Principle is about increased respect, about somehow holding the diversity of humankind - parts of which we'll appreciate and parts we'll abhor. It's about seeing all those differences that so often divide us and still remembering that somehow we really are in this together. It relates to our other principles about worth & dignity, about justice, equity and world community. After all, it's not like there's anywhere else.

Sometimes people complain that the phrase "interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part" is awkward. Certainly, you have to take a breath first if you want to say it without pausing in the middle. But I know I am hard-pressed to find alternatives. Nothing else seems to capture the ideas and add a ring of poetry. I think this is due to the fact that our language has developed based on Western tradition's view that humans are fundamentally different and separate from the rest of "creation." We haven't seen ourselves as a related part all that long. And some are still resisting the whole idea.

So the words just don't flow easily. Think about familiar phrases - we are "the crown of creation," a man can be "lord of all he surveys." We "won" the West. "Only people have souls" or have the ability to . use language or tools, to be conscious of our actions, and so on. As we've learned more about other life forms, we find that we're not the only ones that can do these things - it's a matter of degree. And when you come right down to it, we wouldn't function at all without the colonies of friendly bacteria in our guts and the apparently colonized cell parts that guide our metabolism. But all these are relatively new understandings. They aren't in our proverbial sayings or even contemporary conversations. The "Activa" commercials are the closest I've heard. And could you imagine a schoolyard where the little kiddies sing about their friendly internal bacteria and how to keep them happy? I don't think so! But you get the idea - these understandings are new enough that comfortable language hasn't developed yet. Perhaps that very awkwardness means it's all the more important to talk about our interdependent web and describe what the idea might mean. Talking helps both the language and understandings develop.

Let's look at some possibilities - some to keep and some to discard. In the discard category, let's remind ourselves that a lot of environmentally friendly talk has devolved into cuteness. We may call nature "Mother" but she is not about stuffed animals and Shamu. I am dismayed to read that bears in our parks are injuring more people because the folks try to feed or even pet them! One of the fine things about our principle is that it advocates respect for the web. That means being realistic rather than sentimental!

The Rev. Barbara Merritt puts it this way in her essay on the seventh principle.

The web of existence in which we breathe, move, and have our being includes the often violent struggles for domination and survival, as well as breathtaking sunsets and the smile of a newborn baby. This web of existence is . comforting and terrible, a web of life, and a web of death. The seventh principle asks us to have a clear and affirming relationship with what is real. We must learn the spiritual discipline of living with respect; respectfully entering into relationship with the many conditions and challenges of this world.

To have respect for all (existence) does not mean that we understand all that goes on in this creation. It certainly does not mean that we approve of all behavior. Surely the interdependent web will break our hearts, as well as restore our souls. To have respect for life itself, for all of existence, is to recognize a relationship, a covenant, a connection. To attempt to be respectful is fundamentally a faith stance. The word respect comes from the root "to look back," to regard. In this faithful commitment we promise to pay attention. We offer our acknowledgement of reality. Oftentimes what begins as simply a respectful regard for what is true and real can expand into gratitude and reverence for what is true and real.

The spiritual discipline of offering our respectful attention to the interdependent web . will automatically lead those who wish to advance the seventh principle into the most fundamental of religious practices; acknowledging the consequences of our actions and choices.

Speaking of consequences and choices leads us to - among other things - economics. Partly because our society has become so specialized, almost any of our choices or actions is going to involve money. We may wish it were otherwise, but "Oh, well!" One problem is that people have found ways to displace part of the costs of making a product, marketing a crop or delivering a service and shift them away from the eventual buyer. Sometimes the practices developed before the problems - and costs - were identified or understood. Sometimes the system is pretty clear, but seems worth the competitive edge. That's a round-about way of explaining that the cheapest alternative may mean a "savings" to the buyer because of a cost elsewhere - maybe in pollution, or lack of energy efficiency. A different cost issue could involve an environmentally responsible choice that's new and still uncommon, so that there's little or no economy of scale. Or a substantial up-front investment may be required, with a promise of long-term savings. In all these cases, the buyer makes a choice about costs. Our choices effect the interdependent web: us, other people, parts of the living and non-living environment.

We make decisions. Sometimes it's an individual or family matter - will we get standard or compact fluorescent light bulbs? What kind of fuel economy will we require in our next car? Will we sign up for MID's green power program? In each case, the environmentally friendly option may well cost more, though some of that cost may be made up with time and use. Sometimes the choice is made by a group or organization. Fresno's UU congregation made a commitment to green building practices, and their new sanctuary is the first church in California to achieve LEED certification. (That's recognition of a high level of environmental building standards.) The choice involved significantly increased costs - and some payback along with the environmental benefits. We will face some similar choices as we work out the specifications for our own new facilities. In a larger context, we sometimes advocate municipal policies or legislation to guide public choices, say for CNG buses or light rail systems.

Sometimes cost differences result from direct effects on other people. Is a low price possible because of poor wages and benefits? What kinds of working conditions or health risks might be involved? There's been a lot of talk about WalMart over the past few years. More recently working conditions in China and other countries have received a lot of attention. Friday's paper had another letter to the editor advocating a boycott of Hershey's products because of their move to Mexican production. This list only scratches the surface. What will we do? It's not always easy to know what's behind any product or service. And again, decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and institutions. What will be buy? What will we pay? How will we decide? I have no intention of giving you answers to these questions. But we are connected and interdependent. I do mean to remind you not to deny or ignore the issues.

Our seventh principle calls for respecting the interdependent web. I am committed to that principle, that goal. But I have to say that Kermit was right. "It ain't easy being green!" This interdependent web stuff is complicated! As an example, I remind you that even though compact fluorescent bulbs are being widely promoted - some UU congregations, along with churches of other faiths are even giving them to food banks and thrift outlets - these bulbs do need some special treatment. They need good ventilation, but not much outside exposure. They shouldn't be used with dimmers. They need responsible disposal. With other products or services, information about the environmental impact or about human costs and conditions isn't necessarily available. We may not be financially able to consistently buy the most responsible products. Things get complicated!

Still, that doesn't mean we can't make good decisions, that we can't make a difference. Even small actions add up, especially when many people are involved. Recycling and improved energy efficiency are like that and they have an impact. And we can go further. The UU Ministry for Earth has a certification program and a number of other suggestions - including the Ten Tree Challenge and the Carbon Diet. I'm pretty sure you'll be hearing more about them. Right here at the Fellowship, we have a composting program and do what we can to encourage recycling. Many other organizations have their own activities. No one of them is a complete answer. Every one of them makes a difference.

And let me go back to that part of Barbara Merritt's piece that talked about respect as regard, as paying attention; and especially about paying attention to what is real. That means the feel-good parts and the feel-bad parts; the comfort and the pain of the web in all its varieties of living and connecting, of destruction and dying. It means knowing that we can't see the whole picture, trace all the effects as they travel through the web. It means acknowledging elements of mystery in all this. Near the end of her essay, Merritt quotes Herman Melville, novelist, a Unitarian and well ahead of his time in this area. "We cannot live only for ourselves," he wrote. "A thousand fibers connect us . And among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects. On a daily basis, we affect the web of all existence, just as we are affected by it."

Our seventh principle calls us to pay respectful attention to complexity and to nurture our awareness of connectedness and interdependence. A different essay on this principle reminds us that sociologist Robert Bellah once addressed a UU General Assembly. He urged us to "come to see that the sacredness of the individual depends ultimately on our solidarity with all being, not on the vicissitudes of our private selves." He went on to challenge us to make respect for the interdependent web of all existence the first of our principles and not the last.

His challenge reminds me of an image I've long entertained and often mulled. I see our Principles as a sort of chain, a string or garland of ideals and guidelines, each connected and flashing in the light like brilliant jewels. The first and last seem like clasps, connecting the whole sequence to make a circle. Thus there's no real beginning or end, but ways of going on or going back, of understanding one in the light of the other, of connecting them all. I like the image. It reminds me to look at our seven principles again and again, to explore their meanings and let them guide my way. I like the image. Perhaps it will work for you, too.

October 21, 2007

This is one of our Minister's Sermons. We also have a brief biography of Rev. Simons, and the latest edition of Grace Notes, a column she writes for our newsletter.
We have another sermon collection, from our Guests.