Dear Readers,
A colleague of mine used to answer the question, "When do you finish your sermon?" with "Monday." So too, this sermon really didn't get finished until after it was delivered. There were several parts with which I did not feel absolutely comfortable until I had a bit more time to work on them. The following is that final (for now) version.
—Mark

There is a species of birds in Australia called bowerbirds. They have been given that name because the males build—bowers. These elaborate constructions built by birds of a very average size—smaller than your fist—can reach almost seven feet high by six feet wide. Some birds even construct twig lined walkways leading up to the entrance. Males stride up and down such walkways like carnival barkers, “Step right this way ladies for the thrill of your lifetime!” Males will weave flowers, colored grasses, shiny bits of human litter—anything that will make their bower seem unusually attractive. Attraction is in fact their purpose. Females pick the best bowers to pick the best mates. After mating in the bower a female then retreats to a far more ordinary nest in which she will lay her eggs.

Some people spend their entire lifetime studying bird construction behavior. There is an amazing variety of shape, building technique and materials. Golden eagles construct nests which typically weigh over one ton. Swiftlets in China make their nests entirely out of saliva, which nests are used by Chinese chefs to make birdnest soup. To be frank, that delicacy creeps me out. Bird spit?

I have not read everything there is to read about bird nests. But I have read quite a lot and I have not yet found in any article or book a claim that bowerbirds were engaging in a behavior that was wrong, some kind of error in judgment. Instead, scientists hope to understand bird behavior and the kinds of problems which birds seek to solve with such elaborate constructions. I do not imagine I will ever encounter a scientist claiming that bowerbirds are idiots for building these rather fanciful love shacks.

I mention this because there are scientists, and their allies, who do claim that certain kinds of human nest building are completely idiotic. I am referring here specifically to that nest of human thought which is often called “god.” Just as with nest building, there are a great many varieties in what seem to be some very common themes. And, I would claim, that just as with bowerbirds and their bowers, the things which human beings seek to accomplish by virtue of the god behavior are very important. So consider this: if bowerbirds were convinced to stop building their bowers they would perish. So too, I believe, our existence becomes very problematic when we give up on the god behavior.

We human beings tend to imagine that because our thinking can be quite malleable we can think away anything which appears problematic. We do not prefer to imagine that there are restraints upon us which are caused by our history, and particularly our evolutionary history. But there are such restraints. Our capacity is not absolutely unlimited. And we also are part of an ecosystem. Admittedly our part includes an extremely robust capacity to alter the ecosystem. But this larger context of life imposes its own restraints upon us as well. We can disregard our ecosystem for a time but in due course it will always have the last word. At the very least, considering the complexity of our history and the complexity of the world in which we can thrive, or not, it is imperative that we have a clear understanding of “god behavior.” It just may turn out that there is something about the “god behavior” which is at the very least important, if not central, to our survival.

It is clear that human’s doing god behavior exists. Is that the same thing as saying that god exists? That many people believe some god exists seems perfectly obvious while suggesting that god exists invites a great deal more controversy. Looking at human god behavior could in the end only point the role that god typically plays in human religious life. That analysis might not answer our questions about whether god exists or not. Indeed, we could learn that religion, at least as it is traditionally practiced, serves a vital function in human well being but is still based on pure fantasy.

It is important, however, to make a distinction between the idea of god as described by traditional religions and the fact that there is some kind of extremely potent force of life which is larger than any one individual life. You can call it whatever you want, but it’s there. There once was a time when the dry bones of this planet sprung to life. Now you might even believe that no one can know god in the ordinary sense of knowing. But “not knowing” is not the same thing as “not true.” No one has ever seen “four” or “seven” either but clearly they are real. Neither you nor I made life. Life made us—oh, and everything else

Being able to acknowledge that there is some larger reality, commonly called “god,” is quite likely very important. But almost all of our greatest problems regarding god’s reality are cloaked in our problems with the human behaviors that are derived from our beliefs about god’s identity. So before we can even begin to address who or what god may be, we first must sift through some of the details about the human behaviors, our nest building if you will, about god.

Some Unitarian Universalists zero in on what seems like particularly obnoxious behavior regarding god and wish we could dispense with the entire god behavior. Others imagine the god behavior can be reformed. I myself am a reformer. I am so because I take our evolutionary history very seriously, and, considering the very thoughtful analysis of god behavior as outlined in Scott Atran’s In Gods We Trust, feel it is probably not wise to imagine that we can simply dispense with many millennia of evolutionarily ingrained patterns of conscious behavior. So to begin, let’s call this behavior “goddiness.”

“Goddiness,” following Atran’s analysis, can be defined as the mutual assumption that everyone with whom one has some relation is beholden to the same larger and ultimately commanding reality. In the simplest sense human beings have always recognized that it is simply smarter to conform one’s thoughts and actions to what that larger reality makes available to us and requires of us. You might imagine that you are a bird—but don’t jump off a cliff. Gravity, comma, rocks. Of course, successfully navigating our way through the physical demands of our environment is one thing. The really tricky part for human beings has always been our social environment—what we imagine about and how we act with each other. It is in this arena of human social existence that goddiness is crucial. When there is no goddiness life is exhausting because no one can be trusted and one must always be on ones guard. When there is goddiness we can relax a bit because we believe that others will not always take advantage of our good nature.

How does goddiness create that sense of trust? You will notice that there are three parts to this formula and each is necessary for its utility. There has to be mutual assumption, (not solitary opinion), there has to be an identification of a commanding ultimate reality, and there has to be a sincere willingness to be beholden to that reality. When all three parts are in place goddiness works like a well oiled machine. Correspondingly, when a part is broken, the machine becomes ineffective—and sometimes quite dangerous.

Goddiness is very important to us for one very simple reason. It is this—have you ever tried to get someone else to do what you wanted them to do? It is close to impossible to pull this off. Everyone only does something when they want to, when they feel that there is something in it for them. Our evolutionary heritage, which we share with all other creatures, includes a profound interest in our individual well being. The well being of others is always secondary. Sometimes people feel it is to their advantage to please someone else. Other times people can be resistant to doing what you want them to do- just on account of because. “Junior—eat your vegetables.” “No!” “I said, eat your vegetables!” “No!” And so forth. The difficulty of getting others to go along with what you want extends from the simple chores of life to larger complex actions of businesses, governments, and I would add, churches.

Cooperation leading to collective action is hard. The centrifugal forces of individual feelings and opinions always threaten to pull any consensus apart. Sometimes all it takes is one very serious iconoclast to dissolve the resolve of everyone else. This wouldn’t be so problematic except that human beings cannot survive without cooperation. Churches, for instance, are established to accomplish some change through collective effort. A church exists to change isolation into companionship, to change anxiety into affection, to change abuse into justice, to change addiction into discipline, to change mindlessness into thoughtfulness. Anyone who thinks they can pull off these close to impossible changes alone is delusional. So people gather together as a congregation and collectively decide to spend time and treasure for staff, buildings and programs. We all need each other’s help—but how do we get people to cooperate enough to pull off these difficult changes against the terrific forces of inertia and narcissism?

Okay, so it is not that easy to get human beings to cooperate. It is not impossible—but it is hard. It is very important to understand that goddiness works, not by force or bribery (the default modes of gaining cooperation), but by individuals’ willingly imagining it is safe to trust others because those others agree to help achieve the same sorts of things. The sense of agreement about the things to be achieved is derived from observations about a commanding reality. Most often these desired achievements are things which we prefer to take for granted. When we imagine the people with whom we associate are governed by the same commanding reality we believe others will not routinely challenge our preferences because all seek the same sorts of things. Think of something as simple as hymn selection for a worship service. Some prefer the old standards, “That’s what real worship is like!” When you talk with someone who shares your preference you feel relaxed, supported. But when you mention this preference to someone who hates hymns comfort is replaced with anxiety, annoyance, or anger. Whenever any one of us says, “That what real ... is like.” we are invoking an assumed commanding reality.

Because of the way our minds have been shaped by evolution human beings have tended to be happier when we could give that commanding reality a name—be it Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah; and imagine that we each learn what is important to do by having some kind of communication with that identical commanding reality. Goddiness works when we think we are all in communication with the same commanding reality. We each believe that we all get roughly the same sets of instructions. Even when there are differences of opinion we believe some kind of resolution is theoretically possible if, and only if, we all accept the same source for these instructions.

For the past two thousand years these goddiness communications in the West have been with and about holy books such as the Bible or the Koran rather than the commanding reality itself. Books have proven to be indispensable for maintaining a presumption of similarity among widely scattered people. In some ways the holy books can be thought of as policy manuals, which, since everyone has the same one, means everyone is theoretically on the same page—or at least that’s the idea.

Unitarian Universalists are the sort of people who have made a habit of turning a critical eye when reading such texts. Of course, our definition of “religious text” goes far beyond the officially sanctioned readings of traditional faiths. Any text is a potential source of insight into the true workings of commanding reality. We believe we can learn what we are really supposed to do when we get a better understanding derived from our scholarly approach. And certainly there are real gems to be mined in any text. Being most familiar with Old and New Testament, we tend to focus on those books, but easily admit that there are gems to be found in the texts of all religions, social opinion and science. Because we can experience some success in this research we believe we are thereby doing religion, doing—goddiness. But here’s the problem. We may come to know through our study what religion should look like—but is knowing some things about religion the same thing as being religious, doing goddiness? I don’t think so. In fact I believe that we, and I don’t mean just Unitarian Universalists, but “we” in general are increasingly removed from the era when real goddiness was routine. Why do I suspect that?

There was a time, perhaps as late as a hundred years ago, when human beings in our culture were quite certain that deadly consequences followed from defective readings of scripture. Of course, some people’s thinking is safely sequestered in that nineteenth century consciousness, but for the vast majority of people who are not so sequestered, most only say there are deadly consequences. What I truly believe is that most everyone in fact has their fingers crossed behind their back, keeping their options open. I think this reduced level of sincerity holds true, not just for Christianity, but also Judaism and Islam. And when sincerity is questionable our capacity for true goddiness is greatly reduced. I don’t believe this purely as a result of personal observation but because it seem apparent to me that at least one of the necessary components of the goddiness machine is very broken.

That clearly broken component of goddiness is our troubled identification of commanding reality. Throughout most of human history relations between competing faith traditions took the form of open hostility. There was no lack of clarity; it was considered an accepted fact: those who prayed to a different God were “godless.” Up until recently there were never large numbers of people who thought the hostility itself was ridiculous. Our attempt to tolerate people of a different faith tradition is a fairly recent phenomenon. Instead of the customary arrogant dismissal of “godless” or “primitive” heathens we now have routine, sustained and reasonably successful contact with people who believe all manner of things and practice all manner of different rituals. This routine contact in turn creates a vague disquiet about the implausibility of mutually exclusive and competing versions of commanding reality. It is impossible not to ask, “Is one more commanding than another—and how could that be?” We can learn to be polite to each other, particularly as long as there is not much at stake. But as for the partisans of Jesus, Yahweh, Shiva, or Allah, most know deep down in their hearts that the only place you can have that many supremes is in Motown.

It seems apparent to me at any rate that the goddiness machine is broken. A great many people cannot stand the thought of it and so act instead like it’s still fine. After all, it is very important to us that it be, just fine. Without goddiness life becomes much harder because sincere cooperation recedes in the face of an ever growing narcissism. But here’s where our deep trouble arises: when the machine is broken and we only pretend it is fine the machine can too easily produce the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to accomplish. When we act like it works; but secretly sense that it is broken, our willingness to be beholden to it is not sincere—it is faked. The inevitable result is that we end up with lots of fakery. Ultimate goddiness machinists such as some priests, rabbis and mullahs, molest little boys, self-righteous ministers have affairs- both straight and gay, Bernie Madoffs bilk billions, governments cook their financial books, police protect criminal enterprises, etc. etc. or what we have otherwise come to regard as modernity. In some ways, we kind of prefer this state of affairs because we all get to have our cake and eat it to. That is, we can appear that we all are beholden to a commanding reality that will bust our chops if we misbehave (and even more comforting, bust someone else’s chops when they misbehave) but all along we have our fingers crossed behind our backs knowing that given the opportunity we each will do exactly as we please.

The final consequence of the degradation of the capacity to believe in some potent commanding reality is the burgeoning number of people who do not know what it means to be attentive to any commanding reality. As religion has been responsible for the maintenance on the machine, and there is general suspicion that it is broken, an increasing number of people aren’t buying any of it. They are staying home from churches, they are increasingly narcissistic; not out of any great desire to be so, but because there is no apparent larger commanding reality to which they would gladly, or perhaps at least grudgingly, give their loyalty.

Here’s the thing which makes me nuts. There is a larger and commanding reality. While we are focused on whether or not Christianity is true, or Buddhism is true, or Islam is true, the world is going, “H’mm, h’mm, h’mm—hot enough for you yet?” The simple truth is that there is a larger and compelling reality which is the real source of who we are and ever could be. It is the earth from which everything that we are and know about life has arisen. We are indeed made from the clay of the earth, admittedly with several million steps in between, but do not doubt that it rules and always has the final say. Lest you think otherwise, try living on some other planet and see how that works.

And whether we like it or not, we will have to meet its requirements—it really does command. As I said earlier we are part of an ecosystem. Admittedly our part includes an extremely robust capacity to alter the ecosystem. But this larger context of life imposes its own restraints upon us. We can disregard our ecosystem for a time, but in due course it will always, emphasis upon the word “always” have the last word. We are smart, but never smarter than the earth from whose very bones we have sprung.

My sense of urgency about our sense of commanding reality is not the least bit academic. If you have read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, you know that human beings have messed up, and got it right, although by accident, before. There is both warning and hope in his book. Consider the difference between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Both occupy the same island, one half is liveable and the other is a living hell. Our problem is that collectively, as a species, there is no other island to which we can re-locate. So we have to learn to work with what we have here on our Earth island and find sufficiently robust means of cooperation. And if we don’t—the likelihood of our world becoming like Haiti is quite high. I would suggest we choose the Dominican Republic option.

The important thing to keep in mind, we can do this. It is hard, yes, but it is not the least bit impossible. We have to use all the positive resources from all sources: religious texts; scientific texts; poetry; to the end that we learn to love this Earth our home enough so that we cherish it as the source of all that we are and can be. We must learn to love the earth enough that we willingly and mutually find the ways of restraint that will save us from our worst narcissistic ways. And yes, just as is the case with any truly commanding reality, we have to fear the consequences of our misbehavior. You see, I have this recurring nightmare about the beloved children in our congregations. Fifty years from now I wonder what kind of world they will inherit from us. Will they look back at this year, 2009 and in their misery say of us, “You know, they, meaning ‘you and I,’ should have tried harder.” Or will they be grateful for the wisdom and courage that we showed in learning how to be the sort of people who found the ways to cooperatively live on this lovely Earth, found the ways to sustain it, found the ways to return the favor of life with life abundant. I tell you good people, commanding reality is not first found in some book. God is in the dirt beneath our feet, the air through the trees, the flight of birds. Every day it supports us in a thousand ways so many of which we are entirely unaware. Become aware, know it like a lover, feel the lines of its skin, see how it breathes in you, lives in you. Sing praises to it, do not hold back, it needs you, and this should be abundantly clear, we need the Earth.