Liberal
Righteousness
Rev. Christina M. Neilson
May 27th,
2007
You know I
have to say that I really love Mike Tucci.
As president of the board, I find him willing to name the problem and to
say out loud how he feels. And that is
challenging to the status quo, and to myself.
Because when he suggested that there was such a thing as “Liberal
Righteousness”, I knew he was talking of the real experiences of being in this
congregation. He probably could have
been in most UU congregations.
He asks,
Are we a welcoming congregation? If I
were a Republican, would I feel welcome?
If I were a Christian, would I feel welcome? Can there be a
fundamentalist or intolerant Religious Left?
Is there any truth in this criticism?
What can we learn from it? Mike
purchased this sermon at the last sermon auction. He had several ideas, including “preachers
gone wild!” but this one really resonated with me.
His words
hit home because I have certainly been guilty of liberal fundamentalism. I have a thing or two to learn myself about
how to live with and acknowledge my prejudices and strong opinions. We have to learn not to make assumptions that
we all agree, and not impose our opinions on others, and yet how do we do that
when our blood is boiling over and there is frothy steam pouring from our
ears? How do we remember our
interconnectedness when we are appalled at something that was said or
done? I’m not talking about race, or
class, or age. I’m talking about
politics.
Mixing
politics with religion can lead to many problems. We don’t want our laws to be
based on religious beliefs. We have too
broad a diversity of faith groups in the United States. Who’s view would win? It was wise of our political forefathers to
advocate for the separation of church and state.
The
marriage of politics and religion is particularly problematic for us UU’s. Years ago, the Viet Nam war deeply divided
and decimated many UU congregations, causing a major denominational crisis. And current problems in the Middle East seem
to hold similar potential for trouble over politics within UU congregations,
including our own. Today I want to talk
about us.
We are known as a “liberal” religion. But, what does that mean? Liberal comes from the root liber, meaning
free or unrestricted. We live together in peace and harmony until we assume
that all UU’s are liberal in both their political principles and in their
religious outlook. We are a free
religious church. We tend to be flexible and experimental, and open to new
religious ideas, including our fellow UUs’ diverse opinions, on the existence
and nature of God, on the meaning of life, on what happens after death, and on
the nature of good and evil. Most of us
reject any thought of an established religious authority that dictates
morality, or a creed which mandates prescribed beliefs.
But it can cause both pain and hurt when we
assume that religious liberal also means politically liberal. Often the UU who
is liberal both in religion and in politics cannot understand how any UU could
possibly be conservative politically.
I’ve been guilty of thinking that.
And this is where our fundamentalism comes in. It’s as if only the liberals could possibly
be right. The conversation shuts
down. We have no free exchange of ideas
and thoughts. What’s left is bad jokes and disparaging comments, which are
offensive to Republicans, the undecided and most democrats. This is where we
need to draw the line. Jokes and
specific pointed comments make assumptions that we think alike.
Have you ever been an outsider? How would it feel to you if you heard jokes
about who you were? Have you been
excluded because you were blond, Muslim, old, young, democrat or Republican? Have you ever felt that you didn’t get the
“insider” jokes? We are not a group of
like minded people but we think and act and speak like we are. That assumption gets us in trouble.
It is
important for us all to understand the difference between liberal politics and
liberal religion. And how the two don’t
necessarily go together. Hopefully,
understanding can lead to mutual respect and acceptance of one another, our
third UU principle. Isn’t that what we
are really seeking in this religious community?
But it is quite reasonable for a religious
liberal to favor conservative political values, such as the preservation of the
established political and economic order, the existing distribution of power
and wealth in society, stability over innovation, self-reliance over
cooperation, and discipline and law and order over tolerance – the values of
political conservatism.
Politically
liberal UU’s charge politically conservative UU’s with not having compassion
for our less fortunate brethren.
Compassion and justice are implemented in the “safety net” of public welfare services,
which is often opposed by political conservatives.
But
the politically conservative UU responds that the best way they know to
sustainably help the poor and less fortunate is to provide needed jobs. Jobs will build their self-respect, rather
than perpetuate a culture of dependency.
Jobs are best created by our traditional free enterprise system,
unencumbered by taxation, regulation, and social services. A political conservative can still be a
religious liberal – open and flexible regarding God, the meaning of life, and
the hereafter.
The
situation of differing political viewpoints among UU’s would not be so much of
a problem if there were a more even balance between the numbers of political
liberals and political conservatives among us.
But my observation in many UU churches is that most UU’s tend to be
liberal both in their religion and in their politics.
If we follow our fifth UU principle of using
the democratic process on congregational issues with political implications,
political conservatives are inevitably forced to suffer the “tyranny of the
majority”, being bound by decisions and positions with which they disagree.
We have tried to avert that situation here by
creating a bylaw which requires a 2/3rds vote of the entire congregation, (not
just a quorum) to pass a statement, such as we did when we passed the marriage
equality statement. Issues that don’t
get voted in by the congregation can still be personal causes or a special
interest group activity, such as the death penalty.
What is a politically conservative member of
our congregation supposed to do when a conservative political leader, such as
President George Bush, is being loudly and personally disparaged at the coffee
hour by a group of politically liberal members?
And lets be honest- we’ve heard a lot of comments. Should the political conservative try to stop
every conversation in its tracks, making it clear that he/she does not agree?
What is their responsibility? Should they take the risk and speak up as
Mike has done? Should they keep silent,
and just live with the inevitable feeling of resentment, at not speaking
up? Silence is assent. Is that what we expect from them? Should they feel hopeless and cast out and
silently leave the church as most will do when they no longer feel like they
fit in? Neither course of action builds up mutual respect and acceptance of one
another. After all, aren’t we here to
share our common commitment to liberal religion, not to liberal politics?
Why do the political liberals among us make
these comments? What are we
bolstering? What is behind our need to
put down and feel righteous? To claim
the church as “my” group?
So,
what can we do to strengthen unity and cohesion in our religious community, and
avoid conflict based on differing political viewpoints? I have thought a lot and have a few ideas
most of which are not original. I must
confess that I have not always personally carried these out as well as I might
have, but I do hold certain boundaries.
One
thing we can do is simply to be aware that we have a wide range of views
represented in our congregation. Among
these is probably a minority of more politically conservative members and
friends. Understandably they are perhaps
inclined to keep their political views to themselves. Nevertheless, we should not automatically
assume that everyone present is in agreement when political issues come
up.
Further, we can try to keep discussions
focused on facts and ideas, not on partisan personalities. Remember our first UU principle: the inherent
worth and dignity of every person, including politicians who are not our cup of
tea. That is hard to do when we don’t
agree, but we need to try to approach politics with the same openness that we
face religion.
One rule of thumb that I give couples when I
counsel them is “No put downs.” Even if
they say they were joking, most jokes that are put downs are not really
funny. They are just thinly disguised
ways to make someone feel less than, or to try to make someone else feel like
they are right or superior. Whether it’s
a blond joke, gay joke, racist or political, most are really about being better
than. That’s the heart of
“righteousness”, whether it is liberal righteousness or other
fundamentalism. Both hurt. Both make us feel excluded.
In
discussions of society’s and the world’s numerous problems, we can often defer
conflict by focusing on the nature of the problem, and not specifically on how to solve it. Healthy dissent is fine. Political liberals and conservatives can
often agree on goals, but differ on how to accomplish them.
We can all agree on the goal of reducing
violent crime and drug use. But some of
us want tougher laws, more jails , and capital punishment; while others advocate just as strongly for
social programs to address the root causes of crime and drug use.
We can agree on the goal of trying to reduce
teen pregnancy, but some want more sex education and condom availability, and
others want less of those things and more reliance on parental
responsibility. So we’ve got to be
careful when we start talking about specific means to desired ends. But we can’t just shut down the conversation,
because reducing violent crime is a moral issue. Teenage pregnancy is a moral issue. We need to hear all voices.
For
many of us, however, our religious faith does not have meaning if it does not
lead to action to try to solve problems and make this a better world. The humanist in me believes that it is up to
us to create change. Theology in action
is the path to moral living. It is our
job to act on our beliefs as individuals, but when we can make a statement as a
church, it has more power. We
acknowledge in that process that all may not agree, that it only reflects the
majority. This is what we have done for
centuries, whether the issue was slavery, temperance, suffrage, or war. And it has always split us.
The
Cambridge Platform, the constitution that established us as a free church in
1648, says that we are a body politic. “Saints by calling must have a
visible political union among themselves, or else they are not yet a particular
church…the Scripture…show[s] the nature of particular churches; as a body, a
building, house, hands, eyes, feet and other members, must be united, or else
are not a body. Stones, timber, though squared, hewn and polished, are not a
house, until they are compacted and united; so saints or believers in judgment
of charity, are not a church unless orderly knit together.”[1]
We have to be more than the bricks, mortar and
stones that make a building. We need to talk about the moral issues of the day
as a church body, but not use it as an excuse to bash particular leaders. At the same time, our faith has to transcend
the political issue itself. A pagan
belief is that we are all one spirit.
One spirit with the president and with our neighbor. One spirit with the gay and the blond and the
racist. One spirit with our blood
boiling or when we are calm. Our well
being depends on the well being of everyone on the planet and the well being of
the earth.
As I was sitting with someone at the bedside
this week, as one of our members lies struggling to live, all I could think of
is how petty our concerns can sometimes be.
As Rev. Gary Blaine said “It is the church that remains standing when
the last liberal cause has washed away.”
Our strength in is our covenant to be a religious community. “We need not think alike to love alike.”[2]
We need to be here for one another, and we
can’t let our politics stand in the way.
Because we need a liberal church.
We need a place for our beliefs to be right with our soul. We need a place to be true to our deepest
longings, and the faith that is the deepest expression of ourselves. In the end, we account to our version of God,
and we have to make sense of our lives, our actions.
We have to be in right relationship with the
people in our lives. That is our
greatest covenant as a church community.
To be in right relationship with one another, to live together in
harmony (dissonance is harmony) to be held accountable for what we say and
do. Do you want to be in right
relationship or do you just want to be right?
Keep the same openness of mind with your politics as you do with your
faith, and you will be open and welcoming, and maybe even affirming to all.
Blessed be.