The Faces and Phases of Love
Sunday, February 14th, 2010Podcast: Play in new window | Download (5.3MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
February 14, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (5.3MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
February 14, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (6.1MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
February 7, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (5.9MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
January 31, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (7.6MB)
Rev. Stefan M Jonasson
UUA Director for larger congregations
January 24, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (7.0MB)
First UU Transition Team
Margaret Roberts, Sylvia Pope, Wendy Kuo, Sharon Moore, Nancy Bene, Jim Burson, Michael Kersey
January 17, 2010
Margaret Roberts
Some months ago, I worried that our church would become inactive and even lethargic during the two year transition period between settled ministers. Fortunately, I had no need for concern. We have remained a very busy and vibrant congregation. If you doubt me, I encourage you to check the bulletin boards in the hall adjacent to and across from the office. There you will see hundreds of photographs documenting many recent church activities. We have come together to worship, sing, celebrate, play, learn, share ideas, cook, eat, feed and shelter the homeless, and conduct church business.
The timeline exercise which we underwent in October and November confirmed what the photographs of our activities illustrate: we are a healthy and energetic congregation. Having read the comments posted by our church membership on the timeline, I believe the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin is experiencing an upswing in attitude and outlook.
Many church members expressed pride in First UU’s long history of participating in works of social justice. One commenter reminded us that as early as the 1950s, this congregation made efforts to racially integrate Barton Springs. First UU Church is a longtime supporter of the local chapter of Amnesty International. Our social action outreach continues today with our sack lunch for the homeless program, our regular assistance at the People’s Community Clinic, and our participation in Hands-on-Housing and Freeze Night sheltering programs. Did you know that six members of First UU donate 3 hours every week to assist Austin’s North Central Caregivers? And were you aware that our choir performs at an annual concert each December for the benefit of North Central Caregivers? In addition to addressing local social issues, our church is responsive to victims of world crises. We experienced this concern earlier in our service as the collection was taken to help the people of Haiti.
Many comments on the timeline expressed pride in our church community’s ability and willingness to take care of each other through the work of our Congregational Care Committee. This desire to help each other during times of personal difficulty was evidenced by the generous collections taken during our recent Christmas Eve services.
A number of members expressed pride in the progress of our healing since our minister’s departure 13 months ago. Almost immediately after Reverend Davidson Loehr’s dismissal, groups were established within the church for people who wished to share their feelings with others. Outside experts were consulted and workshops scheduled to help us process our grief and rebuild. Volunteers stepped forward and new leaders emerged to assure that our church life would continue.
Most of us agree that we need to learn to disagree with more civility. We need to develop methods of arguing with respect. As UUs, we like to think of ourselves and enlightened and accepting of others who differ from us; we need to practice this acceptance with each other and strive to be open-minded and kind in our interactions with our fellow congregants.
Despite the challenges we have faced during the past 13 months, our members still hold many hopes and dreams for our church. For example:
1) We dream of the re-establishment of our warm, loving church environment where members interact with honesty, fair-mindedness and respect, and where we collectively work to promote the interests of our posterity;
2) We dream of creating a hospitable church community that welcomes new-comers and guests and celebrates diversity of ideas, faith, culture and lifestyle;
3) We hope for renewed commitment of church members expressed in terms of increased participation in church activities, and increased financial pledges to assure support of our various programs, generous compensation for our staff, and payment of our “fair-share dues” to the Unitarian Universalist Association;
4) We dream of a super-successful capital campaign so we can remodel and expand our existing building to meet our active congregation’s needs now and in the future;
5) We dream of having a greater impact on the local, national and international community expressed through more educational outreach and more social action activities; and
6) We look forward to calling an excellent new minister who fits our church and our local community, and who welcomes a regular professional evaluation as an opportunity to communicate with the church membership.
Some may find this list of hopes and dreams daunting, but I find it encouraging. Because so many of us have the courage to nurture hopes and dreams for our church, I feel confident that we have a future. In fact, I believe we have a strong future, because I believe that this transition experience, as tough as it has been, will ultimately prove to strengthen the First UU Church of Austin.
Sylvia Pope
Many of the contributions to the timeline that resonated most for me were those that spoke about our congregation’s commitments to the environment. As embodiment of our belief in sustaining “the interconnected web of which we are all a part;” we have cultivated native plants on our campus, installed solar panels on our roof, changed to energy-efficient light bulbs and sought to recycle our paper, bottles and cans. These “green” steps may seem small but they convey our commitment, care and concern for our planet and each other.
Here are some of the thoughts shared on the timeline:
“I am so proud of our church’s environmental efforts – gardens, solar panels, etc.”
Another Proud Moment: “Garden’s Wildlife Habitat designation and proud of all who worked to make it so.”
Did you know that our landscaping has been certified a Backyard Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation? Thanks for the efforts of Dale and Pat Bulla, Barbara Denny and many others who affectionately toiled to transform a humdrum landscape into something wild, beautiful and beneficial to nature.
The All Ages Playground; a welcoming, nurturing place for youth and adults; is a native landscape showpiece that was conceptualized and brought to life by Elizabeth Gray and Earl ??? and many volunteers. If you haven’t had the time to sit on one of the benches and enjoy the cool breezes on a sunny afternoon, I highly recommend it!
In the Hopes and Dreams portion of the timeline, our environmental commitment was mentioned directly but I believe that is a part of our collective desire to be a community of vibrancy, inclusion and inspiration!
===================================================================================
A second theme mentioned in the Proud section is the strength of our religious education program. I share a strong interest in RE and I believe that our collective support of this program and our children has kept us together at times when we felt like falling apart. Does any church have as dedicated and enthusiastic staff and volunteer corps as we do? I doubt it! Examples of their energy and creativity are: the UU Summer Hogwarts School (a fun, unique and free week of community building for our children), co-hosting YRUU rallies, the Halloween Haunted hallway and the Christmas pageant. New members and visitors bring their children to our church because of the warm, welcoming atmosphere.
Sharon Moore
In your notes you talked about 2 of my big passions regarding our church life. One is the quality of the leadership of our senior staff and one is the importance of small group ministry in our church.
You said we should call no more one trick ponies for minister and that we have looked to ministers to make us whole – to save us.
My experience in 3 UU churches tells me that our ministers generally come with 1 of 3 major talents.
All 3 types bring a different set of skills to keep the church strong. Almost never will 1 person have all 3 gifts in abundance. That would be the perfect person, and no one is perfect.
With our new settled minister, we must pool all of our resources, dream our dreams, and work hard to make them a reality.
Many of your notes dealt with wanting us to strengthen community here.
You said, The covenant groups started and are still part of our community. Yes! You said, In Evensong I formed lasting relationships here.
You talked of the positive impact that groups such as sharing suppers, men’s breakfast, adult ed. Classes, Voyagers, Paradox Players, Circle of Friends, Couples Club, and many more groups and committees have had on your lives.
I believe small groups are the key to really getting to know one another. We all yearn for heart to heart contact, to be listened to, validated, and challenged to grow. We can’t go it alone.
You will have several opportunities in the coming weeks to participate in group discussions, working on our church’s core values, covenant, purpose and mission statements that will all help get our church ready to sail on a wonderful new voyage with all of us buying in to where we are going and how best to get there.
Nancy Bene
We are a community. We are a network. A web of interconnectedness. What we do and don’t do effects all around us. On the positive side, we are a safe haven where what we do is respected and encouraged. Our community has existed for over 50 years here in Austin. Through good times and not- so- good times – just like a family. We’ve talked together, dreamed together, argued, laughed, joked, created, destroyed and cried together.
I’m sure you know that the seeds of our present not-so-good times were sown several years ago. We lost our way toward the principles we value most. Instead of growing into the workings of a large congregation, we continued doing what we had always done.
Each step taken to break the old ways was difficult and we are in for a few more difficult steps before we can reach out to a spiritual leader and ask him or her to join with us. We must step back and take an objective look at where we are and where we want to go and then express in writing – for everyone to see- what it is that we collectively hold sacred.
Many of you who posted sticky notes on the time line were proud of this church. Many thought we could do better. Now is the time for you to actively influence the direction this congregation will take in the future. Tell us how we can heal and become the safe haven for spiritual growth translated into action in our community. There is and always has been a tremendous creative energy in this church. We can work together to encourage ourselves and others to become the best we can be. I look forward to working with you, all of you, in discovering what this church, as a whole, finds precious. And then sharing our uniqueness, our preciousness within our community – here and everywhere.
Jim Burson
Talk To Me About Our Church
G – O – O – D MORNING –
My name is Jim –
Today I want to ask you to TALK to ME –
The comments that were posted on the Time Line that stood out most to me were of two types —
One type asked for more TRANSPARENCY by our church board –
The other type asked us to be more FRIENDLY to visitors and
new members – people that we do not know –
These messages tell me that THE biggest challenge that our church faces is -
Not enough communication –
Y’all need to talk to each other –
Y’all need to talk to me –
The members of this congregation need to talk to each other –
And not only to the friends we know –
But, more importantly, — talk to people we do not know –
Talk to me –
Each of you –
Must talk to our minister, —- Janet Newman —
You must talk to the board members –
And, — the board members must talk to you –
And, – of course – the board must talk to the minister –
And, –
y’all, — must talk to me –
I am personally going to seek out people that I do not know –
To talk to them –
And to listen to them –
We must have dialogue –
Not just talking –
But, – talking AND listening –
And – you must listen more than you talk –
Y’all listen to me.—
If we had been talking and listening to each other for the last ten years –
We would not be in the situation we are in now –
We would have fewer complaints about TRANSPARENCY ––
Fewer complaints that we are AN UNFRIENDLY people –
Y’all stop to talk –
Stop to listen to each other –
I’ll listen to you –
My name is Jim –
Y’all talk to me —-
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (6.2MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
January 10, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (4.9MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
January 3, 2010
Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.
2010 Sermons
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (8.3MB)
| William Jennings Bryant and the Social Darwinists
Gary Bennett Listen to the sermon by clicking the play button. Reading BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN, BRYAN – Vachel Lindsay In a nation of one hundred fine, mob-hearted, lynching, relenting, repenting, millions, There are plenty of sweeping, swinging, stinging, gorgeous things to shout about, And knock your old blue devils out. I brag and chant of Bryan, Bryan, Bryan There were truths eternal in the gab and tittle-tattle. It was eighteen ninety-six, and I was just sixteen Oh, the longhorns from Texas, These creatures were defending things Mark Hanna never dreamed: And all these in their helpless days And these children and their sons Headlong, dazed and blinking in the weird green light, II When Bryan came to Springfield, and Altgeld gave him greeting, The State House loomed afar, We roamed, we boys from High School, The long parade rolled on. I stood by my best girl. She wore in her hair a brave prairie rose. The earth rocked like the ocean, the sidewalk was a deck. III Then we stood where we could see And everybody heard him- IV July, August, suspense. Then Hanna to the rescue, V Election night at midnight: VI Where is McKinley, that respectable McKinley, The desperately wicked, and their victims on the rack, Where is McKinley, Mark Hanna’s McKinley, Where is Cleveland whom the Democratic platform Where is Hanna, bulldog Hanna. Where is Roosevelt, the young dude cowboy, Where is Altgeld, brave as the truth, Where is that boy, that Heaven-born Bryan, The scene is frozen in our consciousness, one of the defining moments of Modern America: Clarence Darrow heroically defending Science and Intellectual Freedom by placing the champion of the forces of darkness and ignorance on the stand, forcing William Jennings Bryan to show to all the world that he believes absurdities, defends the indefensible, and uses his power to force others to do the same. You’ve seen the play: this yokel believes Adam and Eve were the first human pair, doesn’t know or care where Cain got a wife; believes some sort of whale or fish swallowed Jonah; in short the whole enchilada, whatever the Bible says, however absurd, however much in contradiction of science or even of itself; coming soon to your local school district to punish teachers for teaching biology, geology, physics or history. The Dragon, having been metaphorically slain by St. Clarence, obliges by dying on the Spot, presumably from shame at having been publicly exposed as a charlatan. I’m afraid I’m going to make several demands on you today, and the first is to suggest that things are not always what they seem, that we have in fact merely caught a man of great and noble character at a bad moment. One of the rarities of Bryan’s career was that, before the Scopes Trial, he had in thirty years lost many political races and crusades, but had steadily gained in esteem through them all. More than almost any other American politician, Bryan had the knack of losing the battles, but winning the war. His causes were adopted, one by one, by people who had originally seen him as a dangerous radical. But in Dayton, Tennessee, he as prosecutor technically won the case, while in the great court of public opinion, in the major newspapers of his day and in the play Inherit the Wind a generation later, he lost the reputation he had gained over a lifetime. A biographer suggests mitigating factors in Bryan’s behavior after 1920. The diabetes that claimed his life shortly after the Monkey Trial may have been diminishing his mental faculties and clouding his judgment. And we know that he disapproved of laws of the Tennessee model which included punishment for disobedience; he believed strongly in the power of moral persuasion and disapproved of the use of force in most cases. Bryan was not after publicity; rather, as the most revered Christian statesman in America, he was steadily pushed by others, first into a position of national leadership in the fundamentalist movement, and then into helping prosecute a violator of a law to which he had objected. In the end Bryan saw his faith on trial, and he could not back down. But this is not all there was to William Jennings Bryan. He was one of the greatest men of his time, and it is doubtful that any other American has ever made such a great positive impact upon our public life and then been so thoroughly forgotten. For the rest of the story, we go back to the year 1896, a turning point in American political history. After the Civil War, American cities and industries and railroads had blossomed, but the wealth created was concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Prices were jacked up by high protective tariffs and the spread of monopolies; labor conditions were abominable, with extremely long work weeks, widespread child labor, unsanitary and dehumanizing sweatshops; company towns that sucked workers’ wages away faster than they could earn them; wages depressed by seemingly endless stream of immigrants fleeing even worse conditions abroad. Attempts by workers to better themselves were bludgeoned to death by management-hired private thugs as well as regiments of public thugs called up by governors beholden to the rich. One of the grandest of these grand larcenies was the adoption of the Gold Standard in 1873. By removing silver as currency while withdrawing paper money from circulation, the plutocrats who ran the government systematically shrank money supply over the course of two decades, even as the population and real wealth of the country exploded. The result was one of the greatest deflations in world history. Debts incurred in the 1860s and ’70s became far larger and harder to repay as time went on. The massive deflation in the US housing market over the last two years, where houses are in many cases worth far less than what is still owed on their mortgages, may give us a sense of what it was like to live in that time, especially for Western farmers. Since prices of monopoly-controlled goods did not share in the price reductions, farm prices fell all the faster. Both major political parties were owned body and soul by the rich. We think of Democrats as the Party of the Left, more or less, but for half a century before 1896 that had not been the case. The Democrat Grover Cleveland cleaned up some governmental corruption by creating the Civil Service, but had nothing to say about the growing economic inequities, and fittingly lost control of his own party after doing nothing about the suffering engendered by the Depression of 1893. With the deepening poverty and despair, radical movements began to flourish, particularly in the West and South. The Populist Party grew in the 1880s, but like all American third parties, it was ultimately doomed to irrelevance and extinction. By the way, regardless of what the media might proclaim, there are not now nor were there ever “conservative populists” any more than there are “conservative progressives” or “conservative liberals.” The Populists were angry, but they were also as intelligent, well-read and principled as were the radicals who had made the American Revolution; they even managed to bring Southern blacks and whites together in a party of common interest, something demagogues have not tried to do in any era. In the Democratic Convention of ’96, radicals of this stripe were in control; they nailed together a platform calling for a progressive income tax, control of monopolies, and a return to silver coinage as a way of halting deflation. Then they waited for a candidate. Bryan, the final speaker on platform issues, became man of the hour by delivering a speech for the ages. Once this was a treasured statement of progressive American principles in much the same way as the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address; perhaps it should be again. These are his concluding remarks: I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty – the cause of humanity …. Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between “the idle holders of idle capital” and “the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country”; and my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side are we, “the idle holders of idle capital”or upon the side of “the struggling masses”? This is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class that rests upon them. You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country …. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor the crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. The campaign was far and away the most scandalous in American history. Republicans owned most of the newspapers then as now, and they painted Bryan in the most pejorative terms imaginable. A Jacobin, an Anarchist, a Socialist (there were no Communists yet, or he would have been one of those too), a demagogue. Mark Hanna extorted from frightened businessmen a war chest which in real terms was in the range of $200-$500 million, in a nation far smaller and poorer than our own; Standard Oil’s contribution alone almost matched the entire Democratic campaign fund. Teddy Roosevelt made plans for a last military stand if the “Reds” won, and John Hay made plans to rendezvous with other emigrŽs in Paris. A number of bosses told their employees not to bother to show up the next day, should Bryan win. That all this should be the reaction to a candidate who brought back the words and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, illustrates better than anything else the death grip which wealth had gained on America in 1896. In the end the popular vote was close, the electoral vote less so, but Bryan lost. A pattern had been formed for Bryan’s career. In 1900, new and massive gold strikes in the Klondike and South Africa temporarily eased the vice grip of deflation. But in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, we had become an imperial power in a world mad with colonialism; Bryan dared to campaign against imperialism, saying it was unworthy of America’s ideals and suggesting that we should begin preparing our new colonies for self-government. He lost again, but in 1901 accidental president Teddy Roosevelt became the first of Bryan’s former political enemies to begin adopting his policies, now rechristened the “Square Deal.” A third principled defeat followed in 1908, but after Woodrow Wilson won in 1912 in a close three-way election, Bryan was appointed Secretary of State. Wilson was another former enemy, but he now called for a New Freedom, also straight from Bryan’s platforms. Aside from his foreign policy responsibilities, Bryan was instrumental in shaping several of the key domestic reforms, most importantly the creation of a new way of banking called the Federal Reserve System. On most foreign policy issues, the President and Secretary of State thought alike. Their guiding principles were distaste for imperialism, respect for the autonomy of other countries, a desire to spread American values of democracy and human rights, and the attempt to create an international structure of law to curb war and other primitive national atavisms. As is the case today, some of these principles came into conflict with one another; as a result, the level of intervention in the Caribbean and Central America was almost as great as in the “We stole it fair and square” days of Teddy Roosevelt. Still they laid a foundation for a future Good Neighbor Policy to the south and for supra-national organizations to mediate disputes elsewhere. Only in one area did Bryan and Wilson disagree, and that finally led to the Secretary’s resignation: he was a pacifist who rightly believed that Wilson’s policies toward Germany would lead us into war. Who was right? Without American intervention, Germany would have won, and the result would have been an unpleasantly authoritarian Europe. But given the way events actually played out, the imposition of a draconian peace treaty on Germany, which enraged its people while keeping their economy weak and its democratic government unpopular and the withdrawal from European affairs of the only state capable of controlling it or resolving its grievances peacefully, all of which pretty much guaranteed some variant of Hitler and World War II, it would probably have been better for America to stay out of World War I. Finally, at the end of the war, Bryan’s last failed political crusade was attempting to persuade Americans to join the League of Nations. While he despaired of his failures, meanwhile, items from Bryan’s agenda continued to be adopted: direct election of senators; progressive income tax; women’s suffrage; prohibition; moving colonies to self-government. And a number of states were adopting Populist reforms such as initiative, referendum and recall. Franklin Roosevelt, coming to power after the Nebraskan’s death, abolished the gold standard, established a principled foreign policy in Latin America, and helped create the United Nations as what Bryan hoped the League of Nations would be. In short, much of the decent middle-class, internationally respected America he campaigned for had come into being by the time some of us were coming of age in the mid-twentieth century. But we are back to that strange period of his life, starting in 1921, when Bryan abandoned the world of politics and began to champion the teaching of bad science in the schools. It mystified his contemporaries among liberal reformers and has continued to baffle those who know enough about him not to be satisfied with Elmer Gantry / Pat Robertson-type caricatures. We mentioned his illness and pressure from followers as possible reasons. But we also know that he had come to believe that the evils he had been fighting his whole political life had been caused or exacerbated by the influence of one man. For the malefactors of great wealth, the monopoly-seeking capitalists, the gold standard purists, the imperial expansionists continued to expound a world view in which what they were doing was natural and right and inevitable, as they invoked the name of Charles Darwin. Darwin was a scientist and his theory of evolution through natural selection, first explained in Origin of Species 150 years ago last month, is one of the great documents in the history of science; but his achievement did not exist in a vacuum. The 19th century, particularly in England, America and a few other countries, was a time of rapid change without parallel in world history. The development of industrial capitalism, huge corporations and what seemed a widening distance between wealth and poverty, resonated with the notion that progress in the world came through savage competition; the very phrase “survival of the fittest,” though appropriated by Darwin, was actually coined by the English political philosopher Herbert Spencer and meant to apply to human culture. His basic premise was that government should stay out of the way and let human beings compete for survival as the only path to evolutionary improvement of the species; if the strong survived and the weak failed, then that was what nature intended. It was a very popular idea among the new industrial barons, and both Darwin’s and Spencer’s ideas were pushed and funded by them. Spencer’s ideas did not survive him long in England or Europe, but lived on in the United States and were later pushed by intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. In Europe, Darwin’s name was invoked to push other ideas, such as that of German Premier Otto von Bismarck, that affairs among nations are ultimately settled by “blood and iron;” Marxists saw competition as between economic classes. And everywhere Darwin was used to push racism. The economic and military supremacy of the West was seen as proof that its peoples were more highly evolved and were natural masters of the world; all other races were natural selection’s losers, destined to be slaves. We can group these assorted ideologies under the banner of “Social Darwinism.” Though some were ideological support for actions that would have taken place in any case, others were the direct result of popular beliefs about evolutionary biology. There was the pseudo-science of eugenics: legislators, judges and juries were persuaded to disregard their natural sentiments and authorize sterilization of the unfit. Many of the frightened Republicans who were terrified of Bryan considered his followers to be subhuman; the Darwinist H. L. Mencken was only a particularly skillful writer among the many who habitually used images of apes and subhumans to describe Bryan’s followers and most other liberal politicians and political groups. Thus it was that Bryan, who as a young man had been open-minded about the origins of humanity, came to be convinced that Darwin’s theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. “The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate,” Bryan said, “Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak.” He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with “the law of love.” It was not any principle of Biblical inerrancy that motivated him, but a desire to cut off a poisonous political philosophy at its root, to promote a national myth that would motivate the young to high ideals. He prepared himself as a prosecutor not to defend the stories of Genesis, but to present to the court and world the image of Jesus as “Prince of Peace.” He completely misunderstood his political adversaries, of course. In a Monkey’s Paw sense, his wish for the defeat of Darwin in the political arena came true, in that challengers to the teaching of evolution are strong in much of the United States. But I’m not sure he would appreciate the victory. We might say Social Darwinism has simply evolved, adopted protective camouflage, or mutated. Much of modern fundamentalism shares the same policies at home and abroad as did the Social Darwinists, but uses the language of evangelical Christianity, though there are usually very few teachings of Jesus himself in their dogma. Those Christian groups which preached social justice and were open to the findings of modern science, on the other hand, have declined in numbers and influence. Secular culture in the West has also changed. The horror of Social Darwinist moralities finally climaxed in the 1930s and ’40s when perhaps 100 million human beings were murdered in Nazi and Communist atrocities and in the battles of World War II. There has been a massive reaction in the West since then; for much of the second half of the last century, it was impolite in intellectual circles to imply that any human characteristics beyond eye, hair and skin color might be due to genetics. In general, secular culture in both Europe and America has promoted policies far more progressive than have today’s fundamentalist Christians. At the same time, the popular understanding of evolutionary biology is better grounded. Natural selection never involved “survival of the fittest” within hunter/gatherer tribes, but pushed trust and cooperation to form cohesive groups that could protect and educate children. Since individuals never had to survive on their own, they were able to carry a much wider variety of genetic traits, and this in turn has given the human species much more flexibility in adapting to different environments; genetic variation has been one of the greatest strengths of humanity, not as eugenicists asserted a weakness. And until recent times, there was very little or no competition for survival between tribes, which were scattered too thinly to interact at all; nationalism and racism could never have been factors in human selection. Thus the major tenets of Social Darwinism have no basis in actual human evolution; it was an ideology that emerged from a particular culture and economic system, not from any insight into the reality of human nature. Bryan too was a product of his time, but one worthy of our highest respect. I would like to end with these words of historian Henry Steele Commager: . . defeated candidates are usually forgotten and lost causes relegated to historical oblivion, but Bryan was not forgotten and the causes which seemed lost triumphed in the end. He refused to acknowledge defeat, not out of vanity or ambition, but because he was sure the causes which he championed were right, and sure that right would triumph in the end. And, right or not, most of them did. Few statesmen have ever been more fully vindicated by history. ltem by item the program which Bryan had consistently espoused, from the early nineties on into the new century, was written onto the statute books – written into law by those who had denounced and ridiculed it. Call the list of the reforms: government control of currency and banking, government regulation of railroads, telegraph and telephone, trust regulation, the eight-hour day, labor reforms, the_ prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes, the income tax, tariff reform, anti-imperialism, the initiative, the referendum, woman suffrage, temperance, international arbitration. These were not all original with Bryan, but it was Bryan who championed them in season and out, who kept them steadily in the political forefront, who held his party firmly ‘to their advocacy …. For Bryan was the last great spokesman of the America of the nineteenth century – of the America of the Middle West and the South, the America of the farm and the country town, the America that read the Bible and went to Chautauqua, distrusted the big city and Wall Street, believed in God and the Declaration of Independence. He was himself one of these people. He thought their thoughts, and he spoke the words that they were too inarticulate to speak. Above all, he fought their battles. He never failed to raise his voice against injustice, he never failed to believe that in the end justice would be done. Others of his generation served special interests or special groups – the bankers, the railroads, the manufacturers, the officeholders; he looked upon the whole population as his constituency. Others were concerned with the getting of office or of gain; he was zealous to advance human welfare. And when the [rest] . . . are relegated to deserved oblivion, the memory of Bryan will be cherished by the people in whom he had unfaltering faith. |
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (6.1MB)
Rev. Janet Newman
December 20, 2009
Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen.