“A NEW WORLD BECKONS”

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

United Nations Sunday

October 24, 2004

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

There are two very different ways to assess the nature and destiny of human society. On one hand there are those who see society as condemned to live with its innate human flaws and imperfections throughout the generations. In the words of Thomas Hobbes’ famous and succinct observation, “life is nasty, brutish, and short.” I’ll call this “The Glass is Half Empty” view of society. In this view, we are a species that practices “survival of the fittest,” with those who have the inherent advantages winning, and those disadvantaged losing. This is the nature of human society. Always has been, always will be so.

It is also observed from this “Glass Half Empty” point of view that human nature is inherently inclined toward violence to get its way. From prehistoric times through eras of conquest and crusade, empires and modern wars, it has been a characteristic of human society to use violence to resolve political and national rivalry. Always has been, always will be so. It is human destiny to cope with this fact, and do whatever we can to put controls on this greedy and violent human quality of social and political relationships.

This perspective shares some of the spirit found in the theological doctrine of “original sin.” This is just the way we are, the nature of the beast that is human society. We may advance civilization through such efforts as technology and laws, but when push comes to shove, we appeal to our reptilian nature whenever it feels like our interests are at risk. We may find more effective ways to put artificial restraints on our brutish nature, but we can’t change that nature. A quick look at almost any place in the world attests to that – from Kosovo to Afghanistan, from Iraqi suicide bombers to the Abu Ghraib prison guards.

History confirms this view of human society. The only thing that seems to separate us from the warring nature of our Neanderthal ancestors is that we have developed a sophisticated layer of laws to inhibit the full expression of our animal human nature. The laws don’t always work, of course, and at any given moment around the world there can be found a dozen or more hot spots where civilized law is transgressed and violent engagement with others is chosen to express human interest. Whether it is a military coup is South America or an ethnic cleansing in Sudan, or a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, the rule of law takes a backseat to the rule of the sword. After all, the country which considers itself to be today’s most developed and advanced society in the world has only recently declared that countries ought to pursue a doctrine of “pre-emptive,” rather than merely “defensive,” wars.

This “Glass Half Empty” perspective of our nature as society does not necessarily advocate in favor of this long history of conflict among peoples. It doesn’t applaud the prospect that this behavior is destined to continue as long as human history is written. But neither does this perspective apologize for what it sees as the natural human condition. We are slaves to the destiny of our nature. We can’t help being human, anymore than spiders can’t help being spiders, and part of human nature, especially in social or national groups, is to pursue your own interests, even when it is at the expense of the interests of others, if it comes to that.

There is an alternative view of human social nature, though. There are others who view human civilization as more flexible and teachable. I’ll call this the “The Glass Half Full” view of human society. In this view, we may be slow learners sometimes, but we are learning and, over generations, changing our destiny. Human nature may have its savage qualities, but above all, human nature can evolve and change and grow.

We can see that as individuals. We all know of people who, perhaps in their youth, approached life selfishly, but eventually learned that selfishness was not a route to true happiness. Over time they learned to change their basic outlook on life, and become generous and caring.

The “Glass Half Full” people believe human society is capable of learning and improving, and they believe there is ample evidence of this. Slavery is one example. There was a time when slavery was the norm around the world. At that time, few would question its legitimacy or morality. God himself approved of it. Over two hundred years ago when this country was founded, no one questioned the legitimacy of the institution, even if individuals were personally opposed to it. Our nation’s founders gave slavery a legal blessing.

Today, almost nowhere on the globe is slavery legally practiced. Yes, there are underground and sometimes more open practices of slavery, yet nearly all human societies have come to outlaw slavery and make it illegitimate. The “Glass Half Full” people would say, “Look. Human society is capable of learning and improving!”

In 1989, we celebrated the bicentennial of our Constitution, and I recall that there was a proposal that we produce copies of that document to be signed by everyone in the country – all the teachers and students, all the politicians and business leaders, and so forth. But it was pointed out that what the founders signed onto in 1789 would be exceedingly unacceptable to us today. Not only did they endorse slavery, it didn’t even occur to our founders that women should have inalienable rights of citizenship. It wasn’t just that women couldn’t vote; they weren’t even counted as citizens! By rejecting the idea of having everyone sign the Constitution of 1789, it was recognized just how much progress has been made by human society in two hundred years.

We human beings may be born with some biological predisposition in the brain toward racism and sexism, believing that there are prescribed roles for women in society and a prescribed status for different races. Even if that were true, that the brain is wired with a propensity toward racial and gender prejudice, cultural evolution is gradually playing a trump card against biological determinism.

The social changes in my own lifetime alone are astounding. When I was young, it would have been unheard of for there to be a female news anchor on television. It would have been unthinkable for there to be an African American in the lead role on television, or in the movies, or even appearing in a commercial. Women doctors or African American lawyers were so rare then that they were a startling curiosity and the subject of much astonishment. Today, it is doesn’t even register in the average mind to observe any of these circumstances. This doesn’t mean the work of equal rights and opportunity is over – far from it – but it does mean that our society has undergone a dramatic re-education that previously would have seemed impossible.

Unconscious human habits, even small ones, can be, and have been, changed. I remember when no one gave a thought to tossing trash out the window of a car when driving down the road. Littering wasn’t really a bad word – it was hardly a word at all. That’s just what people did.

Another example. For most of this country’s history, it was desirable to have a large family with lots of children. After the baby boom in the 1960s, we suddenly realized that there was danger in having the population grow at such a high rate – the strain it put on our resources would eventually be much too heavy to bear. By the end of the 1970s, in the U.S., smaller families became the norm – which came about through both education and self-awareness, and without any government pressure. Issues of population growth around the world, sometimes considered as “family planning” programs, have been steadily promoted with some substantial progress.

Perhaps the most recent change being made in human society concerns our attitude toward the environment. There was a time when no one worried about using up the resources of food and energy, and a time when nobody cared about short-term or long-term effects of air pollution or water pollution. Conservation of natural lands or protection of wetlands, or reforestation were concepts that had little meaning. Nature was there for us to exploit, so we used it. It was as simple as that.

All of that has changed. Protection of resources has risen to high on the list of our society’s values. That concern is shared by many other societies around the world. It can be a delicate issue in the poorer countries since they would like to have the advantages of economic development without environment restrictions the way we did when we became wealthy, but they also see the necessity of such protections. Every year, it seems, international conferences are reaching agreements on protecting the environment. International pressure is often effective in making such agreements possible. There is no turning back to the old ways of living in ignorance of how our actions affect nature.

The “Glass is Half Full” perspective believes that since humans are teachable, so also human societies are teachable. The evidence of this is overwhelming. We can, and do, learn lessons about being more fair and just, being more open and tolerant. We are not condemned to live life as we always have lived, and we can shape a future along the lines of the values we embrace. Our destiny is not the slave of our animal nature.

It might be noted, also, that this “Glass Half Full” perspective has deep roots in our Unitarian tradition. The distinguishing characteristic of American Unitarianism when it was born was its optimism concerning the dignity of human nature. In contrast to the Calvinist view of innate human depravity as expressed during the colonial era of America, Unitarians offered a perspective that human nature is capable of good, and capable of improvement.

The leading voice was William Ellery Channing at the beginning of the 1800s. He once said that all his work was centered around what he called “one sublime idea.” Channing’s “one sublime idea” was the goodness of the human soul, and its perfectibility – that we can improve ourselves, even toward perfection. He believed that there was a divine spark in every person, and that God or divinity itself is revealed in the human soul. In a sermon entitled “(Human) Likeness to God,” he put it this way.

“The (human) soul is always bursting its limits. It thirsts continually for wider knowledge. It rushes forward to untried happiness. It has deep wants, which nothing limited can appease. Its true element and end is an unbounded good. Thus God’s infinity has its image in the soul. . . .”

If ever there was an optimistic, “Glass Half Full” view of human nature, it was found in Channing. He acknowledged, as we acknowledge, that all of us can, and do, make wrong choices, and that history is littered with stories of human selfishness, greed, and cruelty. Yet over time, the better of human nature becomes stronger, and gradually we learn – as individuals and society – how to live with fairness and tolerance, and divine principles of love.

I believe the evidence for “Glass Half Full” is persuasive. I believe progress is undeniable. But it is naive to think we don’t have a long way to go – or that there is progress before us in areas we don’t even know.

What about, for example, human propensity toward violence? What about wars and “rumors of wars” that blanket our history as a species? I speak this morning on “United Nations Day,” and hope to endorse its importance in our lives and in our future. When most of us think of the UN, we often think only of its expected role as a peace-making body. Though this overlooks the majority of its work in global health issues and human rights issues, for example, it is understandable that our highest expectations of this organization is for peace-making. In a world which continues to be beset by violence and war, what role is there for the United Nations?

First of all, I wish to think of myself as a “Glass Half Full” person, even when it comes to the issue of violence and war. I believe that progress is being made, though not as rapidly as I would hope. I believe that our human society is capable of making war obsolete, and though there is still a long way to go, nevertheless we have come a long way from the days of empire and world war. I also believe that the United Nations will necessarily play a central role in any progress we make in the future, and it is in our interest – both as a nation and as a global community of nations – to strengthen the role of that institution.

We had the vision of world peace within our grasp once or twice recently, or at least we seemed to have it. Most of you remember when the Cold War ended around 1989 and 1990 or so. A feeling of liberation seemed to engulf the world. The vision of a world at peace was perhaps, for the first time, within reach. Humanity never before had such an opportunity for cooperation and advancement.

But something happened. I can’t be quite sure what it was, but something happened to that great promising future. Ethnic and civil wars continued to appear, ranging from Central America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and of course, the Middle East. The prospect of a nuclear holocaust from the warring of two great superpowers was seemingly eliminated, but we learned that violence continued too often to be the default political option in various regions of the world.

This time, however, without the competing influences of two superpowers, rival groups seemed perhaps more inclined to submit to the leadership of the United Nations. The U.N. successfully negotiated peace settlements in places like El Salvador and the Iran-Iraq war. U.N. peace-keeping forces were successfully used in Central America, the Balkans, Mozambique, and other areas. In dozens of spots around the globe, the U.N. established cease-fires among warring factions, deterred violence, and monitored free elections. There are now nearly 50,000 UN military and civilian personnel coming from more than eighty countries engaged in more than a dozen operations for peacekeeping and conflict resolution.

But even with the dissolution of the Cold War, it was still clear that a magical era of world peace would not easily be reached. Hard work and commitment to world cooperation through the United Nations and through our own individual governments would still be required.

The great vision of world unity happened again more recently, and somewhat suddenly. After September 11, 2001, we witnessed unprecedented world solidarity and goodwill. The attack on the United States united the world in a way nothing else has before or since. For a brief period of time, a window of international goodwill opened up, and the world spoke as one voice against the rogue actions of a small group of terrorists. That world unity of spirit was refreshing, like nothing else I can remember. We all recall feeling as if the arms of the world were linked together in sympathy and unity of spirit, and for the second time in my life it felt as if we just might be able to achieve a great stride toward cooperative world community.

But that spirit of unity also fell apart eventually. The United States and Britain chose to defy the United Nations’ call for completing weapons inspections in Iraq before initiating war. Suddenly, the world started taking sides. The spirit of world unity disintegrated and the opportunity for a worldwide joint alliance against terrorism became derailed, replaced by a disturbing divisiveness among nations that previously had common cause together.

The idea of the United Nations has, from the beginning, been full of controversy. Criticisms come from what might be called “nationalists” and “cynics.” The “nationalists” are those who feel that the interests of their own country should take precedence over the interests of any other country, or even the world at large. The “cynics” point out that the UN hasn’t eliminated war from the face of the planet, and therefore doesn’t work (which strikes me a little like saying that since there are still fires burning down buildings in our cities, we should get rid of our fire-fighting departments). There is no question that over the years, literally hundreds of wars around the world have been controlled, contained, mediated, prevented or ended through U.N. intervention or negotiation.

Putting aside the question of war and peace, no organization in the history of the world has done more good, or relieved more suffering, than the United Nations – or for that matter provided more hope. It was the U.N. World Health Organization which eradicated smallpox from the world’s population, and eliminated polio in the Western Hemisphere by 1980. From 1974 to 1995, the number of children immunized worldwide from tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, and tuberculosis went from 5% to 80%, through the work of the World Health Organization. The UN has provided famine relief to millions of people over the years, victims of natural disasters or political oppression. In 1996 alone, the UN assisted 27 million refugees, mostly women and children, with food, shelter, and medical care. UN programs promoting education of women helped raise the literacy rate of women in developing countries in just 20 years, from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990.

The United Nations is the world’s leading protector of the environment, sponsoring numerous conventions and treaties over issues of pollution and development that countries cannot agree on otherwise.

The UN is the primary sponsor international monitoring of human rights. From the beginning, it issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and since then has promoted more than 80 treaties to protect such rights.

There is a long history of support for the principles of the United Nations within Unitarianism and Universalism. This support is a reflection of the statement of principles in the UUA by-laws which urge us to “promote and respect a vision of a world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.”

When the UN was being organized after World War II, what was then known as the “Unitarian Laymen’s League” was actively involved in promoting its success. It was from a suggestion offered by the Unitarian Laymen’s League that the Preamble to the UN Charter begin with the words, “We the Peoples of the United Nations,” instead of the originally proposed wording, “We the High Contracting Parties.”

Over the years, the Unitarian Universalist Association has offered support for the UN in a variety of ways. It was instrumental in establishing October 24^th as United Nations Day, where people around the world can join in celebrating world cooperation. The UUA has been granted “consultative status” with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is invited to give advice and counsel.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is represented there by a UU United Nations Office. The UU-UNO, as it is called, is not an official UUA organization, but rather an independent group, funded by the donations of individual Unitarian Universalists. Many individual Unitarian Universalists who seek to promote the work of the United Nations choose to do so through the UU-UNO.

The “Glass Half Full” vision of human society has, I believe, solid justification. Progress may not be made as quickly as we would like, but reviewing the past establishes just how far we’ve come.

In this morning’s reading, Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos spoke of a new world vision that is emerging from the insights of ecology – the insight that our planet is a unified system, and we benefit from that unity. They said, in part:

“If this vision of unity – which is not a vision only but a hard inescapable scientific fact – can become part of the common insight of all the inhabitants of the planet Earth, then we may find that, beyond all our inevitable pluralisms, we can achieve enough unity of purpose to build a human world.”

An even better future awaits, I believe. A new world beckons in which war genuinely becomes the last option, if it is an option at all. A new world beckons in which we come to understand that what is best for the world community is best for each nation. A new world beckons in which boundaries between people are seen as opportunities to overcome our differences.

That new world requires a specific kind of faith, a faith in cooperative efforts across the borders of human civilization. Those efforts, I believe, are most effectively made by strengthening world-wide organizations like the United Nations. Such a new world requires faith that though we may be a long way from success, each success along the way is worth celebrating. That new world requires a continued faith that sees the human story as a “Glass Half Full.”

Faith is generally a religious word, but it is also an encouraging aspect of human nature. Religious historian Kirsopp Lake put it this way:

“Faith is not belief in spite of evidence, but life in scorn of consequences – (it is) a courageous trust in the great purpose of all things, and pressing forward to finish the work which is in sight.”