Love the Earth, Respect the Earth
by: Nancy Vedder-Shults on March 3rd, 2010 | 10 Comments »
Growing up I believed that you could get either love OR respect in life, but not both. This was my mother’s understanding of the way the world worked — one she taught me from day one — and maybe it was true for her or even for women of her generation. But over the years, I’ve discovered that without respect, love is a hollow sweetness, and that without love, respect can result in a distance that undoes its best intentions.
These insights came back to me Sunday at First Unitarian Society in Madison as I listened to our associate minister Karen Gustavson offer one of her best sermons ever. It was well-crafted, contained great stories and great intelligence, but I disagreed completely with what she had to say. The sermon was also about a topic that I care about with every cell in my body — about our need to love and care for the Earth. And so I feel compelled to present a different viewpoint.
We in the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) are considering changes in the language of our “Principles and Purposes,” the statements that guide our work together as an association of free, but interdependent congregations. Karen was responding on Sunday to the rewording of the seventh principle, a change that would substitute the word reverence for the word respect in the phrase “we covenant to honor and uphold … respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” She made an effective appeal for retaining the original language –respect — because she believes that to revere something implies a certain passivity — true for our fundamentalist brethren, but not for me and other people on the left hand of God — while respect indicates an active response. Obviously, this is not my experience.
What all Unitarian Universalists want in this rewrite of the seventh principle is language that reflects care for the Earth as a religious imperative, not an optional activity. And for me it’s even more important, because as a Wiccan UU, the seventh principle encapsulates some of the most significant aspects of my combined religion. Karen is a psychologically savvy, smart woman, who knows how to enjoy life, and she’s a good friend of mine. I love her dearly. But in this case, I think she’s had a very different experience of life than mine. As a teenager, Karen’s father primed her to understand the word respect as an active response to powerful energies, emotions, and natural forces when he left her a message about the pitfalls of sexual attraction. But to my mind respect implies a hands-off approach to whatever we’re dealing with. To respect someone or something is to show consideration for them, have regard for them, appreciate them, but not necessarily to embrace them or even shake their hand. Some of the synonyms for the noun form of this word reinforce this disengaged perspective: deference, admiration, esteem, and reverence.
This last synonym is different for me, because what is sacred — that for which we have reverence — absolutely calls out to me to protect it. But I know that within the UUA, the language of reverence has been controversial. For many of our secular humanists, atheists, and “come-outers” (those who have been wounded by other religious traditions and then found Unitarian Universalism instead), the sacred is taboo, a language they can’t embrace. So I’ve been thinking a lot in the last few days about what words will energize all of us to action for the Earth. Our biosphere is our larger body without which we cannot survive. But I know that fear doesn’t motivate most people, and love certainly does. I agree with Diane Ackerman when she talks about her strategy for environmentalism. She says,
My strategy is to celebrate. I believe that if you can cause someone to fall in love with an animal or a landscape, they won’t want to lose it. They’ll fight to protect it.
I also agree with the new president of the UUA, Peter Morales. Peter’s most recent editorial in the UU World (our monthly magazine) talks about our religion in terms of what we love, of
…what we truly care about, what we want to preserve, embrace, and create….When you and I focus on what we love and what we long to create, something almost miraculous happens. We are energized. We form lasting bonds. We become eager to commit ourselves and to work together. We become more generous. We come to care more about “us” and less about “me.”
So what language reflects these strategies of love? The words I’ve been playing with are: LOVE, CARE, and RESPONSIBILITY. I just read an article in New Scientist that stated — without equivocation — that we have moved into a new geologic era. Until recently we were in the Holocene Epoch (“entirely new”), but now we’ve begun the Anthropocene, an era when human effects can be seen on the Earth through its climate and ecosystems. As a result, we humans need to take responsibility for what we’re doing to the Earth, to care for the Earth in both senses of the word — to love it and to take care of it. I also think that simple words activate us better than words with four or five syllables. So maybe the down-to-earth words I’m looking for would combine all of these connotations (with the word need implying responsibility). Then our seventh principle would read: “we covenant to honor and uphold … our need to love and care for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”
I’ve realized in the past that Tikkun Daily readers are sensitive to language, so I ask you: What do you think? What words would you use to activate us all to greater environmental responsbility?



Humanist and other post-theistic UUs would have a problem with “reverence.” (As a UU Pagan I have none.) This would result in alienating some people who accept the core idea from the language used to express it — not a good idea when writing for a polyglot theological crowd like the UUA.
Dave,
I agree with you completely as I said in paragraph five. But I think we need to go further, not just retaining “respect,” but really thinking about the language that will ignite us to action. I believe that we are metaphorically on the Titanic and that most of us don’t see the iceberg. Most UUs see the iceberg, but seem to be stuck in fear. What we need is wording that will help us move past that fear to the action that is urgently needed.
I find your use of the word “post-theistic” odd, given the fact that you’re a UU Pagan. To me it implies that some people actually have gotten past “God/dess,” while the rest of us are still mired in a theology/theaology of divinity.
It is a difficult question. If I weren’t called to Judaism, I’d be a member of a UU congregation and, this being the case, I consider myself something of an honorary UU…even though I realize that’s presumptuous (and inaccurate) of me!
In any case, I like the change from “respect” to “reverence.” I feel that it would do some UUs good to wrestle with a more challenging UU language, to confront a more apparently “religious” identity. One of my favorite contemporary UU ministers, Reverend Galen Guengerich, of All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City, often discusses the benefit of UUs doing just that. While “reverence” may put some UUs off, a little subservience can do the soul good…even if one is subservient to an amorphous Integrity, the beauty of Nature, or what have you. Simply put, G-d is awesome wonder, and that’s present in the Sphinx moth, the carbon cycle, your friend’s lit-up eyes. It’s everywhere and everything. Atheist, secular humanist, devout Christian, whatever…it’s difficult to see how one could have a problem with that notion.
Why can’t it be both? Why not have the wording be “respect AND revere”? Some people are moved to action, as indicated by the word reverence, but form some people the word respect is more likely to prompt action. It seems to me that the issue is not so much the “academic” meaning of these words, but how they are used and understood in the daily vernacular of the average person. To ensure that you hit the mark, it seems like using both words would be the most accurate.
On another note–WOW! I am so impressed (and a little jealous) that you are part of a UUA Wicca. I am in TN, where there is little opportunity for meaingful religious congregation outside the “standard” Christian religious sects. I wish so much I had access to a Wicca group. As a single mother of a 10-yr. old son, I so want him to have a broader, more inclusive, gender-neutral, earth-based perspective. I hope you enjoy being part of such a wonderful group! If you know about any such group around Chattanooga, TN, please let me know. Thanks! (aubergineaura@gmail.com)
Here here Aubergine! I totally agree that there needs to be more earth based, gender neutral spiritual options in communities. I feel that a lot of people have turned away from any form of religion because of the polarization that many of them create. I hope that in the near future more and more people come to realize that the most important principles on our planet are is reverance and care, and the realization that we all need to come together as inhabitants of our planet to support each other and to be caretakers and nurturers of its fragile systems.
Perhaps the word could be “honoring” the interdependent web – it seems to be sort of in between “respecting” and “revering” . . .
Casuistry among UUs? Gosh: “respect” and “reverence” are synonyms, and yet UU professional leadership can find distinctions that merit making them the subject of a sermon and provoking an elaborate online post? Jesuits beware. UUs will be arguing over angels on the head of a pin any day now.
Fortunately the discussion is over a few paragraphs in the bylaws of a denominational organization where the next paragraph in those same bylaws states something to the effect that nothing here is binding on members. So how is it that something that is not binding on its membership deserves such passionate devotion?
William Ellery Channing resigned his pulpit when the governing board of his church established a requirement of affirmation to a statement of belief in order to become members of that congregation. One might think that the audaciousness of statements of belief among UUs was thereby dealt a death blow by history. Channing earned a statue in the Boston Common in honor of his eminence. I wonder if any member of that governing board is remembered by anyone except with scorn.
Statements of belief are like vampires; except the desire for them cannot be killed even with a bronze statue’s rebuke. Channing may have recognized, as we can see in Congress daily, that anything aspiring to inspiration written by a committee is destined for the ash bins of history. Not even political loyalty oaths survive in the U.S. today. That does not mean some people will stop trying.
Once again, thanks for all the good comments.
Aubergine, I agree with you that UUs need to wrestle with the language of the sacred, even though it will cause a great deal of contention. If you use a Buddhist analogy, whatever is important to us becomes sacred in a sense, and so even secular humanists need to grapple with what is “sacred” to them. It’s also important to our interfaith work with religions that only see themselves in terms of the sacred. And as I’ve said before, most UU congregations have pagan groups, so look up your local UU church and see if they can connect you with one.
Grant, I, too, believe that Earth-based, gender-inclusive religion is the religion we all need to embrace, since to do so would be implicitly to acknowledge our debt to the Earth and act to defend Her.
And January, my dictionary defines casuistry as
1. the application of general rules and principles to questions of ethics and morals in order to resolve them
2. the use of sophisticated and subtle argument and reasoning, especially on moral issues, in order to justify something or mislead somebody (disapproving).
I assume you refer to the second definition, since you end your first paragraph with “angels on the head of a pin.”
In general I shy away from linguistic debates, because they usually amount to a tempest in a teapot. But as I said in my post, protecting Planet Earth is an issue that I care about with every cell in my body. Our Unitarian Universalist principles and purposes are NOT STATEMENTS OF BELIEF — we have so many different faiths that we say if two UUs get together, they usually have three different opinions, and I wouldn’t be a UU if they were — and the language of our principles is non-binding, as you state. But these principles guide our action as a federation of congregations. And I want the language we use to guide us towards actively caring for the Earth before it’s too late. This is not casuistry or sophistry, but a passionate appeal at the 11th hour.
The national General Assembly will meet in Minneapolis, in June…. One of the items on the agenda is a proposed business resolution called “The Green Revolution in Religion.” This proposal calls for less talk and more action as Unitarian Universalists become involved with environmental concerns.
(Copies of “Green Revolution” appear witth the General Assembly agenda.)
Thanks, Robert, for alerting me to the “Green Revolution in Religion” resolution. I’ll be there in June — although I’m not sure I will be a delegate.