"Where You Go I Will Go"

This week the Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill donated a kidney to his older sister, Alicia Watts, joining thousands of individuals nationwide who have donated a living organ. Cahill and Watts come from a family with nine siblings. Cahill, 44, found out last August, during his campaign for treasurer, that he appeared to be a good donor match for his sister, who has kidney failure related to diabetes. His sister, he says, has been very good to him.

 

Another item in the news: There is an article in this week's Sports Illustrated about highly regarded manager Lou Pinella that begins with this question:  "Why," it asks, "would Lou Pinella leave a winner in Seattle to manage the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the worst team in baseball?"  In the article we learn that Pinella's roots are in the Tampa Bay area.  He grew up there; his mother, father, brother, a lot of his friends, his childhood friends, are still there. The answer to the question of what motivates him is, in his words, simply, "I'm from here."

 

And one final story: In 1997 every media outlet in the country reported this story.  The Unabomber had finally been captured.  Brilliant sleuthing on the part of the CIA or FBI didn't lead to his capture - neither did the million dollar reward.  The Unabomber was brought to justice because of a phone call by one emotionally torn man named David Kaczynski, who was concerned and fearful that there was a chance the Unabomber might be his own brother. He made that call suspecting that it could be so, and  knowing that, right or wrong, the call would permanently destroy his relationship with his brother.

 

You might wonder what these three stories have in common other than the fact that each has attracted the attention of the press. What they have in common is that the individual at the center of each has made a free choice based on their values that has, for whatever reason, drawn the notice of the public. Tim Cahill, Lou Pinella and David Kaczynski have each revealed by their choice, a certain striking loyalty. 

 

What do I mean by loyalty? Loyalty is faithfulness to an individual or cause. These stories are quite different, but there are many kinds of loyalties, some more visible than others. We usually think of loyalty as a positive and healthy quality, and most of the time it is. Loyalty in a friend, for example, we think of as being a good and healthy characteristic. If you confide that you are in a new romance that you are not yet ready to go public with, a loyal friend or family member will keep that secret. Loyal friends can be counted on for a helping hand, for advice, or for resources when needed. I think it's fair to say our first experiences in feeling loyalty, begin at home. Loyalty between friends and relatives and colleagues is usually forged in small daily acts of consideration and dependability.

 

But, as usual, nothing is ever entirely black and white - and loyalty isn't always a good trait. Loyalty can also form misguided and sometimes downright unhealthy allegiances.  What if  you learn that your friend is snorting cocaine and expects you to keep it a secret?  Only a mistaken loyalty would go along with this. Do you write a glowing reference for a friend even if you think your friend isn't going to be able to do the job, or isn't mature enough or settled enough? Or f you are miserable in your marriage or your spouse is a batterer, does loyalty to your vows take precedence over your happiness or safety? In some situations we experience conflicting loyalties.  So there is the question of how we make those decisions, we'll look at that a little later.

 

But first, think about yourself for a minute - Do you consider yourself a person who is loyal to your friends and family? Consider this:  when someone confides in you do you keep their confidence or are you apt to share it with someone who wants to know, thinking, "no harm done." Do you tell the truth about issues large and small even when it makes you uncomfortable? Do you stand by others when they are having a hard time - even when they caused it themselves? Loyal people can be counted on to do these things. And when loyalty comes into play between people, and can be counted on, the result is an environment of trust and a feeling of safety for those who share it.

 

Loyalty between people is formed in the small day to day moments, but it sometimes goes unsuspected or appreciated until it reveals itself during a time of crisis or need.

One of the most beautiful stories about loyalty in the Bible is the story of Ruth and Naomi. Naomi, from Judah, and her two daughters-in-law, are stranded in a foreign land where their husbands have all been killed. Naomi, urges her daughters-in-law to return to their homelands and she will return, alone, to Judah.  One daughter-in-law accepts the instruction and leaves.  Nothing wrong with that.  But for Ruth, the daughter-in-law from Moab, the thought of leaving Naomi alone is unacceptable.  So she stays with her, even though she risks being despised as a foreigner in Naomi's homeland.  She says, "Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodge, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."   The striking thing about the bond between Ruth and Naomi is that they were from different groups.  The Bible shows here that it is possible to have generous bonds of caring and trust with people who are not like us.

 

When State Treasurer Cahill learned that his big sister needed a new kidney to stay alive and that his was a match, he was immediately willing to undergo the risk and discomfort entailed in the four-hour surgery.  Such uncompromising loyalty is not uncommon among blood relatives.  "Wherever you go I will go," is a common ethic. There was no question about his priorities; Cahill said.  Alicia's situation put things in perspective for him.

 

Lou Pinella's decision to drop the last year of a lucrative contract with the Mariners wasn't an emergency. For him it was a building realization that events, big and small, in the lives of the people closest to him had for too long unfolded while he was away. Pinella realized the prestige of a winning team or big money were no longer as important to him as being with the people he cared most about.  Been there, done that.  His highest loyalty - and nowadays this is surprising - is to family and childhood friends - "Whither thou goest I will go; and where thou lodge, I will lodge." For Pinella it is time to go home.

 

It can feel good to sacrifice for those we love. Very good. I would ask you to consider your loves, your loyalties and the sacrifices you might be willing to make for the sake of those relationships.

 

The previous examples are very different from the situation of David Kaczynski who was faced with the agonizing decision of whether to call the FBI to report that his brother might be the Unabomber. The fact that Kaczynski made the call didn't mean he didn't love his brother or that he was a disloyal person. What a hard thing to do. But his situation reveals that we don't have just one loyalty in our lives - or at least we shouldn't. There are times when it is right and appropriate, even though very difficult, to decide "Wither thou goest I will Not go." We have layers and layers of loyalties tugging at us, and our loyalties are not just to people. They can also be to ideals.

 

As Theodore Roosevelt said,  "I entirely appreciate loyalty to one's friends (or, I would add, family) but loyalty to the cause of justice and honor stands above it."   Kazcynski chose justice.  He turned his brother in for the sake and safety of society at large.  And the common weal is the better for it. As painful as his decision must have been, there is no doubt that his priorities were in order. And we are a grateful citizenry.

 

Consider, by contrast, William Bulger's refusal to reveal any information on the whereabouts of his brother, James ''Whitey'' Bulger  who is wanted for the murders of sixteen men and two women. After Bulger refused to come forth with any helpful information about his brother at a grand jury hearing last year,  he was asked, "So, just to be clear, [Mr. Bulger] you felt more loyalty to your brother than you did to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?"  William Bulger replied, "I never thought of it that way,  but I do have an honest loyalty to my brother, and I care about him. It's my hope that I'm never helpful to anyone against him." This from a man who is President of the University of Massachusetts and before that, longtime President of the Massachusetts State Senate.

 

Needless to say, William Bulger's allegiance to his brother is misguided - wrongheaded - his priorities shamefully misplaced. As one who has worked all his life in the public sphere one would expect him - properly - to put a very high value on protecting the public. Instead he has embraced the code of the street in which you don't rat on family no matter what.  My husband suggests Bulger's decision may have been shaped by his ethnic heritage which expects clan loyalty to come first. Ethnic identity can be a powerful force. I know my Italian-American husband Larry knows something of this. As you can see, loyalties need to be prioritized and we should be careful not to allow misguided loyalties to control us.

 

There's one last type of loyalty that bears mentioning  that affects us all. In addition to those decisions we make about our personal loyalties, we are all faced with needing to weigh our responsibility to the world stage. The Random House Dictionary defines patriotism as "national loyalty". The world scene has changed dramatically and breathlessly since 9/11. Given the world scene and America's role in it, right now this an especially important time for us to take stock of what we see, and evaluate and prioritize our allegiances in light of public events.

 

Most Americans appear to be content supporting and trusting our president in his decision-making. Any criticism of America's stance against Iraq is taken by some as disloyal. With tempers running high, speaking out is difficult and takes courage. Whether you agree or disagree, the decision by John Brady Kiesling, a 20 year career diplomat, to resign yesterday, took courage.  In his letter of resignation to Colin Powell, Kiesling wrote:

 

"Until this Administration it had been possible for me to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.  Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon…. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known.  Our current course will bring instability and  danger, not security."  

 

Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said:

 

 "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy.  Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game -- we have a very strong premium on loyalty."

 

I agree with Kiesling's stance.  I applaud his move. My feelings against this pre-emptive war are strong enough so that I feel I do you a disservice by remaining silent or indirect about my views here in this sanctuary even as I do more and more outside to oppose the war.  Let me make myself clear. I don't oppose the objective of disarming Iraq.  But I object strongly that the time has come for us to resort to carnage. I oppose the means. America today, the sole superpower is way too quick on the trigger.  Had we invested the kind of money, resources, noise and sacrifice that the war will take - had we invested ourselves fully to peaceful, creative negotiation we would have - or at least we might have - the capacity to lead the world to a peaceful resolution. Do not get me wrong. I am no pacifist. I just don't believe we have tried hard enough or creatively enough.

 

My good friend Tom Andrews, an ardent Unitarian Universalist and former member of congress - who came here and delivered the charge to the congregation at my ordination, has recently been named the National Director of Win Without War. Win Without War is a coalition of groups that are advocating alternatives to preemptive war against Iraq.  Members include the American Friends Service Committee, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, NAACP, the National Council of Churches, Oxfam America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club and the Unitarian Universalist Association among others, that believe we can Win Without War. This is my view.

 

I have been hesitant before now to come out so straightforwardly about where I stand. I want to be loyal to your thought process and your need to think and feel for yourselves. But to tiptoe when such great issues are at stake does us all a disservice. This is a sophisticated, thoughtful committed community. To be true to one another sometimes we need to make room for difficult conversations.

 

I subscribe to a number of Christian email newsletters. Recently the editor of one wrote effusively,

  "Never before have the churches in America been so united on the issue of peace."

To this, a frustrated reader replied: I do not believe it is true. National leaders of denominations may be in favor of peace, but they DO NOT EVEN RAISE THE ISSUE at the congregational level. Morally, this war is a total non-issue in contemporary American culture, and the failure of the churches to engage in conversation about this amounts to a deafening silence."

I do not want to be responsible for a 'deafening silence" here. I believe we are loyal to our Unitarian Universalist heritage only if we open up this topic, put it on the table and discuss it freely.

 

You certainly need not agree with my stance. I need to hear from you and we need to hear from each other.  Please, if you feel a desire, stop by, give me a call, write a note or make an appointment.

 

There are so many loyalties that have a claim on us. Our daily loyalties to our partners and children and friends, to our community, our nation -- and our loyalties to ideals - each needs our attention as we pursue a positive, meaningful and balanced life in troubled times.

Let us make every attempt to walk together in peace.