Doubt and Ambiguity

a sermon preached by Rev. Khleber M. Van Zandt V at First Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois, May 17, 2009,

with three clips of the movie, Doubt, shown where indicated,

and after a reading from the sermon, Without a Doubt?, by Axel H. Gehrmann:

 

“,,,we do a disservice both to the experience of faith and of doubt, when we imagine them as inescapably incompatible.  We do a disservice to those who believe as we do, and to those who don’t, when we imagine ourselves in opposing enemy camps…

The truth of the matter is that even those of us whose understanding of faith aspires to unshakable certainty struggle with moments of doubt.  The truth of the matter is that even those of us who are compelled to question their own faith and the faith of others are guided by deeply held beliefs.

When we cast ourselves primarily as a denomination of doubters, we do ourselves a disservice.  When we portray ourselves as a church that is devoted to the practice of questioning for the sake of questioning, when we imagine ourselves a society of skeptics who can only agree on the fact that we agree on nothing at all, we are doing ourselves a disservice.

It is true, we are unafraid to question.  It is true, we are unafraid to raise doubts.  But we do so not simply for the sake of questioning.  We do so in order to find greater truth.  We do so because we are committed to an on-going search for greater understanding and greater justice.

The central message of Thomas’ gospel was not that doubt itself is the way to salvation.  But rather that the divine light can be found where we least expect it.  Split a piece of wood, and you will find it there.  Lift a rock, and you will find it there.  Look deeply within yourself, and you will find it there.  Every one of us has the ability and the obligation to find divine truth.

When we take as our motto, “To question is the answer,” we run the danger of misrepresenting our faith for the sake of a catchy slogan.  We run the danger of making a caricature of ourselves.  As if faith for us were merely a matter of idle speculation.   As if our faith were a celebration of indecision for those too timid to risk courageous action.

In fact, our faith is grounded in a living vision of a better world.  In fact, we are firmly committed to make that vision a reality.

 

Doubt and Ambiguity

John Patrick Shanley’s movie, Doubt, was nominated for five Academy Awards last year.  The movie is an adaptation of Shanley’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play.  Set in the mid-1960’s in an New York City outer-burrow Catholic school, nothing about the movie ever seems certain - except for the ever-present overlay of doubt and ambiguity.  And as the liberal Father Flynn unambiguously says in a sermon, “doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.”

I’ve read that the play features more certainty than the film – you know who’s done what when -  and the comparisons I’ve seen of the movie with the play say that the movie suffers because of its uncertainty.  I doubt it – a sense of certainty would make the story trite.  I think the most compelling thing about the movie is the sense of doubt that permeates each scene:  just when you think you have a character nailed down (or up, as the case may be), other questions arise to make you rethink your certainty.

There are lots of dualities and dichotomies playing in this film, and they constantly ebb and flow back and forth.  Doubt and certainty, good and bad, right and wrong, truth and fiction, old and new, liberal and conservative, open and closed, pastoral presence and corporal punishment, patriarchal authority and prophetic resistance, love that forces one to take a stand and love that lures across boundaries into abuse.  It’s hard to claim your ground and stand firm in such a universe – sort of like in the real world.

Father Flynn is the progressive young-ish priest, new to the parochial school and working to open up the church to new, more welcoming ways of being a religious community.  Sister Aloysius is a little older and still practicing the old ways of being a nun, keeping a close watch on the behavior and, hence, moral lives of her students.  There are three other key characters in the movie that we won’t see in the clips today:  A young nun, Sister James, is a stand-in for us as spectators of the battle between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius.  Donald Miller is the only African American child in the school and as such is singled out for special attention from Father Flynn.  Donald’s mother is only on screen for a short couple of scenes but while she’s there, she argues powerfully that, for a poor black boy in the early 60s, there are worse things than a strangely close relationship with a well-meaning priest.

I want to show you three clips of the movie that focus on just the nun and the priest.  The first clip is about three minutes long and acts as the introduction of the protagonist and antagonist, which one is which I’ll leave it up to you to decide.  You’ll need to pay attention to two threads at once:  listen to the sermon illustration story that’s being given by the priest, and watch the behavior of the nun during the sermon.

(Clip 1)

 

The kids sure seemed scared of the nun.  Who knows when she might sneak up behind you and pop you a good one?  Who treats kids like that anymore?  I doubt I’d want her teaching my kids.

And that priest!  Who ever heard of such wildly liberal ideas?  “Doubt” as the bond that keeps communities together?  Blasphemy!

What do you think at this point?  Good guys, bad guys? 

The second clip is much later in the film.  In the intervening time, Father Flynn has exhibited some suspect behavior around the school, and Sister Aloysius has warned Sister James to be on the lookout for signs that Father is stepping over the line.  Finally, in her zeal to pin something on Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius has Donald Miller’s mother into her office and tries to figure out whether the mother has witnessed anything untoward between the priest and her son.  Donald’s mother makes it perfectly and touchingly clear that she has far more to worry about than that:  Donald’s father beats him because he suspects the boy is turning out to be – well -  a sissy.  After Father Flynn sees Donald’s mother in Aloysius’ office, he comes to confront the Sister about the smear campaign she’s waging against him.  Here’s two minutes of the beginning of that confrontation:

(Clip 2)

 

With all that lightening and thunder, there’s a storm brewing, no doubt.  And Sister sure wants to keep that window closed – she really doesn’t want anything from the outside getting into her school.  And Father Flynn sure is angry about her accusations, isn’t he?  What else did you see there?  Who’s on which side of all those dichotomies now?  Who do you doubt at this point?

The third clip comes soon after the second one, at the end of that same confrontation, and may be the turning point of the film.  As it begins, questions of authority are addressed at high volume and in high drama.  But soon, we’ll see someone win and someone lose.  We’ll see someone remain steadfast in their convictions and someone back down in the face of superior strength.  The truth comes out – or does it?  Let’s watch…

(Clip 3)

 

“Wait…” Father says, recognizing when he’s done for.  Now we’re sure.  Now he’s come clean.  Or has he?  Is he guilty as charged, or does he simply know when he’s met his match? 

And the Sister:  how can she be so certain in her convictions and dogged in pursuit of victory over him?  Is she guilty of some mortal sin that still haunts her even though, as she tells Father, she’s confessed it?

Lots of questions, one concerning the nature of forgiveness:  if you, like Father Flynn, have left your sins in the hands of your healing confessor, are you then free to go out and commit the same sin again and again, continuing to hurt people for your own gratification?  I don’t think so. 

And if, like Sister Aloysius, you are convinced that you alone bear the responsibility to confront an evil, how far should you go?  Is it okay to lie and break the rules as you perform your duty? 

That’s a question we’re asking ourselves in this country right now:  “do the ends justify the means?”  Before you answer with absolute certainty, consider the debate in this country about the legality and acceptability of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torturing our prisoners to extract information so we can possibly stop terrorist attacks from killing more of our countrymen and -women.  The answers are rarely as cut-and-dried as the news shows make them out to be.  But that is a topic for another sermon.

 

I have three points I wish to make as we finish up.  Point one:  We cannot help but see these issues through our own eyes, through our own lenses, through our own experiences and biases.  If you were abused at the hands of a priest, it would be very difficult not to see Father Flynn as a monster deserving of the most horrendous fate.  If you attended a Catholic school where nuns smacked kids with rulers for the smallest of infractions, you might not be able to see Sister Aloysius as the paragon of virtue who sounds the alarm and rids the Church of vile and evil men.  What are your lenses, and how do you see through them?  My first point is to invite you to reflect, not just about what you think, but about how you think as you address the questions of your life. 

Point number two:  If you’re seeing the issues raised by this movie as limited only to a particular confrontation between a priest and a nun at a particular time in history way back in the 1960’s, then I haven’t said enough.  I think this movie asks us to consider how we are in the world today. Within myself, I see elements of both these people and their private battles; maybe you see them within you, too.  I have noticed within myself at times a desire, like Father Flynn, to break open staid traditions and to let new light in.  Have I ever, also like Father Flynn, allowed my zeal to cross the line into something that’s not helpful?  Surely I have, though, I sincerely hope and pray, not to the point of abuse.  I can also see myself, like Sister Aloysius, having taken on certain issues as personal crusades, sometimes willing to bend the rules because I felt led by my own moral compass.  Is that a good thing, or should I be more reflective before starting a crusade?

Point number three:  In our tradition, we celebrate doubt.  The responsive reading from Robert Weston, Cherish Your Doubts, is right there in the back of our hymnal and it sounds like we want to hold fast to our lack of certainty.  I am not shy, we are not shy, about telling people we have few answers and are mostly looking to refine our questions. 

But this is where our worship of doubt and our ambivalence toward certainty pushes us beyond the pall and over the line:  when we become too proud of our ability to doubt, when doubt becomes an end in itself, when doubt becomes all we cherish, then we will have nowhere left to stand.  When we slip into thinking that by merely tearing down the things that others seem certain about, when we slip into thinking that by rejecting someone else’s certainties that we are constructing something important, then we’ve overlooked our full responsibility to seek the truth.  Tearing down is only the first step in the construction process.  If we’re not rebuilding, if we’re only rejecting and not rejuvenating, then we’re left living in ruins.

 

Unitarian minister Curtis Reese, in this pulpit from 1913 to 1915, wrote, “This is not a time for liberals of the genteel tradition who are frightened in the presence of explosive issues that blast their world and shake the earth.  It is not a time for liberals of the pious tradition who believe that all is right with the world and that all things work together for good.  It is not a time for confused liberals who move simultaneously in all directions without arriving anywhere in particular… This is a time for liberals who believe that the only form of society worth building and perpetuating is one grounded in respect for the integrity of persons, committed to critical inquiry and devoted to abundant freedom.”

Reasons for doubt are all around, and we cannot cease asking our questions, but neither can we be paralyzed when answers come back laced with ambiguity.  Like Father Flynn, we should cherish our ability to doubt, and we should doubt with vigor and integrity.  But like Sister Aloysius, we should also exercise our ability to act, saying a resounding ‘no’ to those things that threaten our loved ones, our neighbors, our world.  In the words of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer, “God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

So may it be..