Translations

Sermon by Rev. Gabrielle Parks

You all know the Golden Rule, right?

In the Christian tradition, it originated in the Gospel of Matthew, who is quoting Jesus in Chapter 7:1

"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law.”

In Judaism, it is attributed to Rabbi Hillel, who reportedly quipped:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow human. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

It may not surprise you, but I was very astonished when I found out that literally every World Religion has a version of the Golden Rule.

For example, in Buddhism it is found in the Udana-Varga, where it says:

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”
In the Islam’s Sunnah it says:

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

And Taoism recommends that you:
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

Finally, there is the Wiccan “Rede:”

“Everything you do will come back to you threefold.”

When you listen to these quotes of the Golden Rule, you realize quickly that they all basically mean the same: be nice to your fellow humans. But the way they are written does differ, sometimes significantly. For example, Judaism and Buddhism point out that you shouldn’t do anything negative to others, because then something negative might happen to you; whereas Islam and Taoism point out that it is beneficial for you if you consider your neighbors wishes and desires. The Christian version and the Wiccan Rede are kind of neutral in their focus. So we see that even when religious language is used that differs from our own language use, we can easily “translate” the meaning and understand that we are told how to interact with our fellow human beings.

When I started seminary, the text for my very first class, Ministry for Youth and Young Adults, was called “A Godbearing Life.” I cringed when I read the title, and when I bought the book, I thought to myself, “oh no, I’ll never be able to read a book with this title! And so I postponed opening the book for as long as possible . . . However, there came a point where I had to start reading in order to be able to keep up with the class discussions. So I read the introduction, and it made a lot of sense to me. In the first chapter I still agreed with just about everything the author said about leading a life that is an example for the next generation. I just wished he wouldn’t use the “God word” all the time. Then there were passages were I thought that it really wasn’t Jesus or God who made us do the right thing, it was ourselves. This way of reading was very hard in the beginning, because of my negative reactions to the language. But eventually, it became easier.

I think the first step was to just not let myself be bothered anymore by certain words or terms. Then came the realization that every time I struggled with a text, it forced me to think more deeply about it. When I disagreed, I had to figure out why, whether it was just the language or also the content. When I agreed - despite the language - I had to see what words I would have to replace to make it completely acceptable. So I started to “translate” in my mind as I went along. This also meant that I had to read with much more attention to detail. And every time I had to analyze my own beliefs, my theology.

And it was not only the texts. During class discussions, my fellow students would make statements that made me cringe. But I knew and respected them as individuals, and I’m a UU after all, so I tried hard to find common ground despite the language. So again I “translated” what they were saying in my mind. Throughout the next three years, I had to do this “translating” in almost every class. I looked up the definition of “translation:” In Wikipedia it says that the term translation means to “interpret the meaning of a text in one language or context and the production of a new, equivalent text.” It is a way “meaning-making . . .”

In the course of the last six years, God has come a lot closer to me, to the point that I am now considering myself a theist. But I am still very definitely Unitarian. The Trinity was one of my major “translation issues.” I could – and can – not see Jesus as divine. But I realized that the God I know has three different aspects: the creative force, the wisdom, and the spirit. These three aspects of God are represented many times in the Bible; and looking at God that way has made it easier for me to understand how traditional Christians see God. However, in my world religions class at seminary I learned that the personification of God that gave me such a hard time when reading the Bible is also very prevalent in the Hindu religion: The ten avatars of the Hindu supreme God Vishnu possess both human and divine forms and qualities, although their divinity varies in degree. But again it became clear to me after some study and reflection that those many gods only represent the many aspects of the one God, of Vishnu. I also found a similarity in Pagan rituals, when the four directions are called. Each direction and each element – fire, water, wind and earth - is associated with an aspect of divine force and power. Together they form a whole, in a way, they represent the universe we live in.

But let me go back once more to my “translating” of Christo-centric texts in seminary. I eventually realized that deep down one of my biggest problems was anthropocentric language. Any action ascribed to God by necessity used human terminology. I say ‘by necessity’, because according to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, God created humans in his image. Therefore, God looks like us, right? And acts like us, too . . . God loves, God punishes, God watches over us, God needs, etc. Trying as hard as I might, I could never translate – find alternative words – for these terms that worked for me. It frustrated me no end, until I realized that my personal theology simply did not allow for an anthropomorphic God. I agree with the Greek philosopher Xenophanes who lived in the 5^th century BCE and who said that "the greatest God" resembles humans "neither in form nor in mind." I am glad that I finally managed to translate - in my mind - the texts I needed in seminary.

However, this need to translate a religious text is not limited to Christian scripture, at least not in my case. When I first started learning about Buddhism, there were quite a few words I didn’t understand, and there was terminology that I could not really agree with. For example, I had a hard time understanding the concept of “emptiness.” How can something be good or useful that is nothing, that has nothing in it? How can it be good for a person to be empty? Why would I strive for that? It only started to make sense when a member of my Buddhist group explained that this emptiness is – for example - like the emptiness inside a vase, to be filled with water, or with beautiful flowers. Now I understood it. There is no one English word that translates it correctly, so I am calling it the “to-be-filled-ness.”

I came across the same concept during my chaplaincy at the Hershey Medical center, when my supervisor strongly suggested that we completely “empty” ourselves before we go into a hospital room to talk with a patient. It is not the negative empty we associate with nothingness, it is the “empty” that makes it possible to be filled with the knowledge of another person--which in turn makes it possible to feel compassion for this individual.

I also had a problem with the “Second Noble Truth” of Buddhism which states that all suffering is caused by desire. There’s nothing inherently wrong with desire! Desire drives a lot of our actions, in a good way! Only when desire goes overboard do we run into problems. So the statement of the second Noble Truth became true for me when I replaced/ translated “desire” with “craving,” or excessive, unhealthy desire.

Now why am I telling all this? It is because I want to share with you how I realized in a relatively short time period that it is a shame to reject a text, a statement, a religion because one doesn’t like some of the words that are used. I have found unexpected treasures in Sacred Texts, once I started “translating” some of the problematic terms. And along the way I found my theology as a surprise bonus!

And then I saw many parallels to this epiphany in daily life. Don’t we often hear or read statements we think are crazy, or ridiculous? But sometimes it is a good idea to “translate” what we hear before we react. For example, when your child is mad at you (for whatever reason) and yells at you “I hate you!” Or “I’m going to run away!” If we are wise parents, we know that the translated version would be “At this moment I do not like you very much.” Or: “I want to go away from you so that you will miss me and come and get me back.” If we take the time to translate this in our mind, we will react very differently. If we only hear “I hate you” then we will probably feel angry, or guilty, or rejected. If, on the other hand, we see that this is only an outburst of frustration, we can understand it much better. We can react more calmly and understanding.

Along similar lines, when you hear a teenager say: “Life really sucks, man!” you may wonder what on earth is this young person’s problem? He or she has everything imaginable – loving and caring parents, their own car, laptop, TV and DVD player, etc. It makes you angry to hear such a statement, doesn’t it? But again, when you take time to think, and to translate, what the teen is really saying, namely: “in my view, life sucks” you might be able to approach this statement from a different angle.

I like to use “translation” as a metaphor for the process of understanding others. The translation process, according to my dictionary, can be described as

- decoding the meaning of the source text, and

- re-encoding this meaning in the target language.

Etymologically speaking, trans-lation" is a "carrying across" or "bringing across." So you decode what you hear from your teenager, or from other people, and then “bring it across” into your “language,” that way, you find meaning for yourself and understand the other.

When I first started thinking about this sermon, I of course thought about my mother tongue (German) and the language I live in. After twenty years in America, most of my day-to-day conversation, and all my thoughts, are in English. But sometimes I still have some need for conscious translation. For example, when somebody asks me as a greeting “how are you?”, I still answer. I tell them how I am doing at the moment, and realize too late that the questioner has already moved on. I have to make a conscious effort to translate the question about my well-being into a greeting.

And then there are the many euphemisms that are so popular these days, and that still confuse me sometimes. For example, it took me a while to translate “zero growth” into “stagnation;” and “restroom” into “toilet.” J Yes, this is funny in a way, but I see a potential pathology behind the increased use of euphemisms. Doesn’t it indicate an intentional denial of reality? In a way, we are lying to ourselves, to our peers, to our clients. Maybe using a euphemism is intended to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling for the listener; but often it is really “doublespeak” which makes it less troublesome for the speaker. t conceals or confuses the truth. Just look at the military’s use of the word “friendly fire” for someone having been attacked or killed by your own troops.

And here is a big difference in the need for translation. It’s different from the desire to understand. With religious language, and in interactions with others, you should translate some terms to find meaning for yourself. With euphemisms, you have to translate the term in order to see the true meaning. And then you can decide whether you agree with it or not.

If people choose to only look at one meaning of a word then they are limiting the richness of our language. It is their loss, and it might say more about them than it does about the speaker of the words.

Perhaps there is a need to overcome our own prejudices and hang-ups regarding words and language. That is work each of us needs to do on our own, and not insist that others, who are not having difficulty with given language, accommodate our individual struggles. We cannot truly be Unitarian Universalists if we believe that only our own beliefs, our own journeys are valid.

I encourage you to be more mindful of your own reactions to certain words. When you have a hard time understanding or accepting some words or phrases, try translating them. Whether it is religious language in sacred texts, or utterances by fellow humans, or euphemisms, do not always take it literally. Look for the meaning, and then see whether you still disagree.

You may be surprised . . .