All-encompassing God, may the words of my mouth, and the meditations or our hearts be acceptable in your eyes. Amen.  

A few years ago, I attended a meeting of the education committee to discuss our adult forums. I remember the meeting well, because it was the first time I shared more than “small talk” with a number of folks who have since become very stimulating conversation partners and friends. (And if you think there’s is a subtext here about the benefits of involvement in church committees, you’re right.) To be honest, I don’t think I knew any of them by name at the time. They weren’t choir folks, I’m not even sure how I got invited. I think Susan Ingmire invited me. Judy Lindblad was there, and John Hancock, Lynn Hailey, Brit Harwood, Steve Wade I think.

Anyway, I mentioned a book I’d recently stumbled across at a second-hand sale that had made an enormous impression. It’s a textbook actually, written by Professor Gordon Fellman of Brandeis University. I was hooked into buying it by its title: “Rambo and the Dalai Lama.”  Lynn was interested in my capsule review of it that day, and asked if I’d conduct discussions of it in an adult forum series, and I did, about 2 years ago. As coincidence would have it, the scheduled time for that series coincided with a two-week bedside death watch for my mother. I’m afraid I was ill prepared, and probably did a pretty sloppy job with the forums. To be honest, those weeks were, and still are pretty much a fog. But anyway, I’m glad to have a chance to talk to you today, in part about Dr. Fellman’s work.

About six months before then, I’d heard the Dalai Lama speak in Bloomington, Indiana. He makes fairly frequent trips there, where his brother has lived for many years. I was waiting in line at a Ticket Master outlet  to  get  tickets, and happened to strike up a conversation with some young, alternative-looking folks ahead of me. “We’re here for Nirvana,” they said. I think it’s the name of a heavy metal band. “Me too.” I said.  Really?!” I guess I didn’t look the type.

The Dalai Lama was in Bloomington again just last week. Have of you have ever heard him speak? In a conversation I had with Camilla Warrick a number of years ago, before the recurrence of her cancer, she mentioned a theory she’d run across that there was always one embodied Christ on the planet, and if that were true, she’d have to think it was the Dalai Lama. If any of you have the chance to see him or hear him, you should do so.

He started his address that evening to a crowd of about 12,000 people with an apology. He had been chanting that morning, and in particularly good voice, and had not stopped as soon as he should have, in order to save his voice for the talk he was about to give. For that reason, he was going to limit his thoughts, and talk only about four little specific things: The essential nature of humanity, the purpose of life, the role of humans on earth, and how to best fulfill that role.

The nature of humans, he said, was compassion. Other things are learned, but watch the interplay between a first-time mother and newborn infant for a peek into essential nature. Or ask Shannon Bromenshenkel—her memory is fresh.

The purpose of life? To be happy.  And on this item, he spent some time on two clarifications—first, that sense-gratification may be a lesser happiness than inner fulfillment, and second, that with a life of inner turmoil, access to experiencing happiness was severely limited. So, achieving inner peace was something of a prerequisite to experiencing happiness. Now either of these clarifications warrants  a  sermon  or  two of its own, but I’ve other fish to fry this morning, and I don’t want folks to start looking at their watches.

The proper role of humans, as sentient beings, was to do what they could to increase happiness and relieve suffering.

And how to do it? Little by little, step by step, to reorder our habits and attitudes so that we think less about our own narrow concerns, and more about the concerns of others. There’s a golden rule in there, isn’t there.

OK, but here we are in a Christian church, not a Buddhist monastery. There may be heresy police in the room.  So, our second reading this morning is from the Gospel of Mark, 9:38-50. Page 45 in the pew Bibles, for those of you who may want to read along.

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

 If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with  one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where the worm dies, and the fire is never quenched.

For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.

What’s going on here? Try this on for size.

John has learned of somebody emulating the work of Jesus, and has problems with his credentials. He’s not following us. How do we know he has it right?

And Jesus has a two-part response: First, with instructions on the specific question. Don’t stop him. If he’s doing it in my name, he’s on the right track. He will get the picture. And if he’s not against us, he’s for us. Who brings a cup of water will not lose the reward. Look at the deeds, not at pedigree, not the credentials. There’s something very ecumenical going on here, but then that’s not new to Jesus. 

But then he launches into the second part of his response, often interpreted as a dire warning about temptations to sin. This is a recurring scriptural theme, how much there is to lose if the kingdom of heaven is lost. But what is interesting here is that it is directed to his disciples directly in response to their challenge to the credentials of an outsider. The enormous damage that can arise from “I’m right, you’re wrong” relationships was apparent to Jesus, and perhaps there was an insight into the evils that would be done in his name to those “not exactly right” in the millennia to follow.

The salt of sin is inescapable, and indeed is good, because it fires the will, and tempers it in the struggle against temptation. But if it loses its saltiness, no longer awakens the will to struggle, but instead is projected onto the supposed sins of others, it no longer works as seasoning. 

Have salt in yourselves—be wary of temptations you yourself face—but be at peace with one another.

In Rambo and the Dalai Lama, Gordon Fellman suggests that the assumption that human life is based on conflicts of interest, wars, and the opposition of people to each other and to nature exists as a paradigm that supplies meaning and orientation to the world. Think of it as the default setting for human interactions. An alternative paradigm sees cooperation, caring, nurturing, and loving as equally viable ways of organizing relationships of humans to each other and to nature. Fellman sees the shifting of emphasis from adversarialism to mutuality as essential to the survival of our species.

In the ten minutes or so I will devote to this book, I can only scratch small areas of the surface. Two things are of particular note. Nothing I’ve ever read has had such universal application to all varieties of social injustice on our planet. And, if anyone wants to really come to an understanding of the dynamics that have unfolded in this church over the past two years, this book provides a framework that will make many mysteries clear.

The evolution of an adversarial paradigm as the norm took place as men, over the past 10,000 to 15,000 years, came to dominate women, nature, and other men. Understand that it is not that adversarialism itself is bad, but rather the domination forms and the compulsive behavior that arise from an overbalance of it.

Compulsive behavior is behavior beyond conscious control. The adversarial compulsion is addiction to victory, a drivenness to win. For a compulsive adversary, prevailing is not a rational, thought-out decision. Winning isn’t the first thing, it’s the only thing. That’s the Gospel according to Vince Lombardi. (You know, football is a great model of American culture: recurring rituals of dominance and violence   separated   by   committee   meetings.)    For   the compulsive adversary, there is no emotional access to win-win logic, let alone the pleasures of mutuality. The idea of caring, understanding relationships is either a puzzlement, or a treasure to be limited to family and close friends. Those who feel adversarialism most deeply drive themselves into elite positions and then define their view as universal. (Since I’m so successful, I must be right!) Societies and institutions appear to be run, for the most part, by compulsive adversaries.

Even to suggest virtue in a collaborative mode of relating is to set up a contest. Kindness, empathy, and sharing resources are identified by “winners” as characteristics of “losers.”  Nice guys finish last. Those who propose mutuality values defy the adversary commitment and must be staved off by argument, attack, even assassination or murder.

Consider non-adversarial values such as savoring good health, feeling comfortable in the environment, exploring sensuality, experiencing beauty, caring for others, finding pleasure in a great range of people. Why is it that in public life, battle and tough-mindedness are considered more real or fundamental than friendship and serenity?

Columnist William Raspberry, writing about the abortion debate in 1995, put his finger on a particularly destructive aspect:

So much of our public debate—from elective politics to welfare to educational reform to race relations—is unnecessarily bitter because we insist on treating those who disagree with us as enemies. We deliberately ignore points of agreement for fear that acknowledging that the other side has a point will weaken our own position. Then we complain about the mean-spiritedness and intolerance that are sweeping the land.

A number of folks with whom I’ve discussed these ideas, especially those who’ve been touched by feminist theory at one time or another, point out that these realizations are nothing new to women. Fellman concurs wholeheartedly, and talks about the huge impact on his insights that came with the new feminist movement of the 1970’s.

“I am not alone,” he says, “in having experienced feminism as the most revealing, insightful new system of analysis available to people who worry about human suffering and planetary survival.”

Although it is tempting to identify adversarialism with men and mutuality with women, it is more accurate to recognize that women as well as men operate in both adversary and mutuality modes. However, it is an inescapable fact that friendship, nurturance, and compassion are more central to most females’ training in most societies than to that of most males. 

Speaking to the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi said,

“For millennia women have dedicated themselves almost exclusively to the task of nurturing, protecting and caring for the young and the old, striving for the conditions of peace that favor life as a whole. It is time to apply in the arena of the world the wisdom and experience that women have gained.”

Writing for children, poet Shel Silverstein makes a similar point.

Long-Leg Lou and Short-Leg Sue
Went for a walk down the avenue,
Laughin’ and jokin’ like good friends do,
Long-Leg Lou and Short-Leg Sue.

Says Long-Leg Lou to Short-Leg Sue,
“Can’t you walk faster than you do?
It really drives me out of my mind
That I’m always in front, and you’re always behind.”

Says  Short-Leg Sue to Long-Leg Lou,
“I walk as fast as I’m meant to do.”
“Then I’ll go walkin’  with someone new.”
Says Long-Leg Lou to Short-Leg Sue.

Now Long-Leg Lou, he walks alone,
Looking for someone with legs like his own,
And sometimes he thinks of those warm afternoons
Back when he went walkin’  with Short-Leg Sue.

And Short-Leg Sue strolls down the street
Hand in hand with Slow-Foot Pete,
And they take small steps and they do just fine,
And no one’s in front, and no one’s behind. 

A Jewish proverb goes: If your wife is too short, bend over and listen to her.

As feminists have looked at patriarchy, liberal economists and political theorists have pointed at unbridled capitalism as a root cause of adversarial behavior, and indeed it is a major dimension of domination that has evolved. But patriarchy and capitalism are not sources. They were preceded by slavery, feudalism, tribalism, nationalism, racism, combative religions, homophobia, forms of domination that all reside in the adversarial paradigm.

Gordon Fellman entered college in the ‘50’s, an Eisenhower Republican. Then in college at Antioch, became a liberal. Then, passionately anti-war in the ‘60’s became, more or less, a radical. Now, he says,

“I see all these visions, including the ones I find most attractive, as being limited by their violation and denial of what is true about the others. Our society is framed almost entirely in the adversarial paradigm, and that is what is most fully the matter with it.”

Fellman goes on:

“Although a paradigm shift is desirable, it is not inevitable. Yet it is essential if humans are to survive the dangers posed by the nuclear threat, environmental crises, rapid population growth, massive renewals of militant nationalism and fundamentalist religion, and a host of other perils that are logical outgrowths of the adversary paradigm. Having lived for millennia in a paradigm that mandates brutality and war, we can choose to move to one that renounces them.”

The Dalai Lama says:

“Let go your desire to triumph over others. Instead, try to benefit them. With kindness, with courage, and confident that in doing so you are sure to meet success, welcome others with a smile. Treat everyone as though they were a close friend.”

Jesus says:

“Be at peace with one another.”

And finally, a contemporary Presbyterian saint, recently departed, said, in the closing words of a profound, and deeply spiritual song:

So let’s make the most of this beautiful day
Since we’re together, we might as well say
Would you be mine? Could you be mine?
Won’t you please, won’t you please,
Please won’t you be my neighbor?

Charge and Benediction, from “Ethics for the New Millenium” by His Holiness the Dalai Lama

May I become at all times, both now and forever
A protector for those without protection
A guide for those who have lost their way
A ship for those  with oceans to cross
A bridge for those with rivers to cross
A sanctuary for those in danger
A lamp for those without light
A place of refuge for those who lack shelter
And a servant to all in need.

Please note:  Significant portions of the second half of this sermon are taken directly or in paraphrase, from Gordon Fellman’s book, with his kind permission.  The book is in print, available in some area and Ohio Link libraries, and through various online vendors.  “Rambo and the Dalai Lama:  The Compulsion to Win and its Threat to Human Survival” – State University of New York Press, Albany.  ISBM 0-7914-37884-1.

     Elder Bucky Ignatius

     Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church
Cincinnati, Ohio

     September 28, 2003