(Note: To go immediately to the sermon, please click here.)

Call to Worship

This is a new day that has been given unto us.
Let us rejoice in it and be glad.
And let us count our many blessings:
Let us be grateful for the incredible gift of life, for the capacity to see, to feel, to hear, and to understand.
And let us then be especially grateful for the ties of love which bind us together, giving dignity, meaning, worth, and joy to all our days.

Introduction to Responsive Reading

My sermon topic today is not the one advertised. At mid-week I decided to change the topic to align it more with the energy related to current public events. Therefore, this morning I will be talking about religious liberalism and political liberalism, the distinctions between them as well as possible connections.

Our responsive reading is one we read a month and a half ago. It is written by Dr. David Rankin, a retired Unitarian Universalist minister with whom I served as an associate for over fifteen years with an independent liberal congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The reading consists of ten statements intended to summarize the commonly held principles and values of religious liberals. And though each statement begins with the words "We believe," in no way is it meant to be a creedal statement. That would contradict a number of the beliefs stated here. Rather, this is simply one expression among others of the approach to religion found among members of Unitarian Universalist congregations and religious liberals in general.

Responsive Reading

MINISTER: We believe in the freedom of religious expression. All persons should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology, and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal.

CONGREGATION: We believe in the toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, not only possess an intrinsic merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the art of listening.

MINISTER: We believe in the authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or an official; but the personal choice and decision of the individual.

CONGREGATION: We believe in the never-ending search for truth. If the mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear to the human spirit are infinitely numerous, eternally fruitful, and wondrously exciting.

MINISTER: We believe in the unity of experience. There is no fundamental conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the same reality.

CONGREGATION: We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being. All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice; and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human life.

MINISTER: We believe in the ethical application of religion. Good works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an inner grace which finds completion in social and community involvement.

CONGREGATION: We believe in the motive force of love. The governing principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.

MINISTER: We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and ideas are open to criticism, so that people might govern themselves.

CONGREGATION: We believe in the importance of a religious community. The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers, who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual support.

Introduction to readings

As I will say in my sermon, at the core of religious liberalism is a belief in the authority of the individual in matters of religion, a belief, as one of the statements in the responsive reading this morning puts it, that "The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or an official; but the personal choice and decision of the individual."

My readings relate to this theme of authority in religion. First, words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew, where we find a series of teachings that begin, "You have heard that it was said to the men of old…but I say unto you...." For example, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

A series of these statements can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, at the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount." At the conclusion of that "Sermon," recorded in Matthew 7:28-29, is this summary statement:

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

But the question then is this: Do these teachings now become the new authority, the new orthodoxy, replacing the particular teaching but keeping the structure of authority in place; or, in breaking with the old authority, does one become like the teacher, seeing in the teacher an example of one who teaches you how to be the authority for your own life as the teacher himself was?

The difference between these two approaches is the essential difference between "religious orthodoxy" and "religious liberalism."

Theodore Parker, a controversial Unitarian minister in the mid-1800's, made this statement in a famous sermon titled "The Transient and Permanent in Christianity," delivered in 1841:

It is hard to see why the great truths of Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, more than the axioms of geometry rest on the personal authority of Euclid, or Archimedes. The authority of Jesus, as of all teachers, one would naturally think, must rest on the truth of his words, and not their truth on his authority."

(Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism: Channing, Emerson, Parker, Introduction by Conrad Wright, p. 129)

An older friend of Parker's, Ralph Waldo Emerson, also had something to say about the nature of personal authority in these matters - this from his essay, "Self-Reliance," also published in 1841. Emerson wrote:

There is a time in everyone's education when one arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; and that one must take oneself for better, for worse, as his or her portion, that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to one but through one's toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to one to till. The power which resides in a person is new in nature, and none but the individual knows what that is which one can do, or does one know until one has tried. Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes an impression, and another none. This sculpture in the memory is not without pre-established harmony.... We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents.... Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.

"RELIGIOUS LIBERALISM AND POLITICAL LIBERALISM"

Introduction

Throughout my ministry in religiously liberal congregations I have operated with a "wall of separation" between "religious liberalism" and "political liberalism." I have defined and maintained a sharp distinction between the two so that identification as a religious liberal does not by any means imply that one is also a political liberal.

It was on the basis of this distinction that two weeks ago, in announcing that there would a time of congregational sharing following the election, I asked that in undertaking that sharing one make the assumption that there were others in the congregation who had voted differently than one's self.

In the actual sharing that took place last Sunday, however, it appeared that everyone in this congregation, from both services, had voted on the "politically liberal" side of things and against the current administration. Or, if there were some within the congregation who had voted the "politically conservative" side and who were pleased by the outcome of the election, they did not speak. Indeed, though I thought that the tone of our sharing was basically respectful of possible differences, I suspect it would have taken a bit of courage last week to indicate that one had voted for the present Republican administration.

This is something I have noticed over my years in the ministry, namely, that it seems there are fewer and fewer political conservatives in our religiously liberal congregations. I haven't done research on this, nor do I have numbers to back me up, but it has seemed to me to be so, though I could be wrong.

Incidentally, there is an affiliate organization in the Unitarian Universalist Association who call themselves the "Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists," organized, as they say, "to ensure that all Unitarian Universalists are free to pursue a responsible search for religious truth and meaning in our societies and denomination, regardless of their individual views on politics, economics, or social issues." They have, no doubt, felt compelled to come together to create such an organization in order to maintain that there is also this stream in the larger politically liberal current of Unitarian Universalists.

At any rate, in light of what I perceive as the decreasing numbers of politically conservative members in our religiously liberal congregations and in view of the experience of this recent election, this morning I want to explore for a bit the topic of religious liberalism and political liberalism and invite you to do the same, to reflect and to ask ourselves these kinds of questions:

What is the distinction between religious liberalism and political liberalism?

Are they essentially of one piece, one fabric, belonging together, or, are they completely and utterly separate?

And if they meet, where do they meet; if they overlap, where do they overlap?

The core of religious liberalism

The core of "religious liberalism," as I understand and work with it, is found in some of the statements from the responsive reading this morning: the first statement, for example, which states: "We believe in the freedom of religious expression." This is the encouragement to individuals in our congregations to develop their own personal theologies and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal.

And if you want such freedom for yourself, it follows you should also promote and encourage that freedom for others. Thus, the second statement of this summary of religious liberalism: "We believe in the toleration of religious ideas."

Then the third statement, the one I have suggested is perhaps the most important in terms of getting at the heart of religious liberalism: "We believe in the authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or an official; but the personal choice and decision of the individual." This is central to religious liberalism: the authority of the individual in constructing a life, in searching for and discovering personal truth.

Several other statements in the responsive reading also strengthen this idea, such as statement six: "We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being," again a statement that honors the individual soul.

And statement eight: "We believe in the motive force of love," a principle that respects the sanctity of each person.

Also statement nine: "We believe in the necessity of the democratic process," which is a way of seeking to recognize and honor each voice, each conscience in the congregation.

All of these statements flesh out of a number of the principles of the covenant our Unitarian Universalist Association congregations which you will find printed on the back of the cover of the Order of Service. In particular you might note principle #five which has to do with "the right of conscience," as well as principle #3 which speaks of "a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning."

These, in turn, are related to other principles affirming the place and value of the individual in religion: principle #1 which affirms "The inherent worth and dignity of every person;" principle #2, which affirms "Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations; and principle #3 which promotes the "Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth."

The core of all this, the chief defining and distinguishing characteristic of religious liberalism, is the belief that the locus of authority in matters of religion rests with the individual, not with an institution, a creed, a book, or an authority figure.

Religiously liberal congregations are formed to provide a structure, a container, an environment in which individuals are granted the largest possible freedom to reflect, think, ponder, consider, question, doubt, probe, explore, search, and to re-search.

Our congregations are communities that build, guard, and defend the structures that allow for freedom of individual thought and individual conscience. Thus, the ideal in this place is to provide you with an opportunity to discover who you are, how you might live, and what you may contribute to life. We aim and covenant to mutually encourage, support, and assist each other in this enterprise.

A personal example

In my own life I can clearly identify the point at which I stepped across the line, moving from religious orthodoxy to religious liberalism.

Probably many of you were raised in an essentially liberal setting where it was expected that you would be your own authority in matters of religious philosophy and belief, making your own decisions, discovering and choosing your own sources of religious inspiration. But for many others here, including myself, this was not the case.

I was raised to believe, and fully accepted, that I should submit my thinking and living to the authority of the Bible as interpreted by my particular Protestant denomination. For many years, right up into my mid-twenties, I struggled with this - a combination, on the one hand, of trying to bring my thoughts into coordination with the scriptures and, on the other hand, trying to see if there were interpretations of the scriptures that might make more sense to me.

Eventually, it all became too much, and I said, "Enough. That's it. I will look for possible inspiration in the scriptures, but not authority. I will look for assistance in living my life, but it will be my life." I will look to Moses and Micah and Jesus and Paul as fellow searchers and travelers, brothers seeking a faith to live by, but not authorities for my faith.

So I have clear personal experience of the meaning of religious liberalism - "liberalism," which has at its root the Latin word, liber, meaning "free." I know through hard personal struggle of the freedom, the liberty, at the heart of religious liberalism. That is where I start with my faith, and I would be loathe to give it up.

Process before particular content

Thus, religious liberalism, as I work with it, has to do not with a particular faith or a particular set of ideas but with an approach to faith, with the recognition of individual authority and responsibility in these matters. It has to do with a process not a particular content. The particular content is the privilege and responsibility of the individual seeker.

Indeed, within Unitarian Universalist congregations we speak of a wide variety of sources - "living traditions" we call them - from which members of our congregations draw inspiration as they seek to determine a way to live. Six such sources are identified and named. You can find them listed on the back of the bulletin cover.

Thus, religious liberalism promotes a process for an individual before it defines a particular content for the individual. And therein lies a factor that accounts for a primary distinction to be made between "religious liberalism" and "political liberalism," namely, that religious liberalism does not prescribe a particular content whereas political liberalism does. The content of political liberalism may be quite broad and not always easily defined, but still it is a specific content that can be distinguished, for example, from the content of political conservatism.

My point is this: coming out of a religiously liberal approach individuals may, through their thinking and their experiences, and in good conscience, come to a number of different conclusions and perspectives as to how one should live and what practical policies and positions one might promote in a given society.

Politics in organized religion

It is has largely been this understanding of religious liberalism that has caused many members of religiously liberal congregations to say:

"We don't want politics in our church. Stick to helping me to discern my spiritual relation to life so that I can live out of that. This is the one place where I can do that. There is no other organization that is deliberately created for such a task, so don't undermine that role.

"Now we can and we should explore and discuss and debate questions that relate to social, economic, and political issues. After all, our life is in this world. But here in our religious organization we don't vote on these things; here we don't take stands. If you want to take a stand, then join an organization that is designed for that purpose. Or, create such an organization yourselves for that purpose, but don't bind the religious organization to given political parties or to given political policies. We must maintain the freedom of our religious organization and the freedom of individual consciences within our organization."

An illustration of this came up a number of years ago in a previous religiously liberal congregation I served when there were a number of people who wanted the church to declare its property a "nuclear free zone." It was, of course, a symbolic gesture - the government was not asking to manufacture or store nuclear weapons at the church - but still it was an important statement for many, a statement relating to the worthy effort to protect human life from nuclear annihilation. It's hard to think of any political and social issue more important than that.

But such a vote had never before been taken by the congregation - that is, a vote that would commit the entire congregation to a particular political position. And when the smoke had cleared and the vote was tallied, the motion was defeated.

Those who were fairly new to the congregation were stunned and perplexed - "I thought this was a liberal congregation?! What is this?"

What this was is that many people in the congregation, a majority as it turned out, didn't want the church voting on any political issue. Their position, as I have said, might be stated something like this:

"If in this religious community you have found a spiritual connection to life that has implications in the social, economic, and political realms, as one might certainly expect, and if you want to live these out in a given way, then inquire if there are others in the congregation who think, feel, and are moved in the same way you are. You are free to do that here. More than that, you are encouraged to do that here. So put out a call for persons within the congregation who might be interested in a given cause or a given social or political concern, but please don't commit the religious institution as an institution to any particular political or social stance."

Indeed, several times in this congregation's history social justice issues had been addressed by groups that had come out of the congregation, so that organizations like Planned Parenthood or an environmental action council were spun out of it - organizations that received their impetus and a good deal of their membership from the religious organization, but who had formed separate organizations, not ones related to the religious organization.

These, of course, are delicate and difficult matters - the coordination of the life of the spirit and the practical living out of that spirit - and religiously liberal congregations will deal variously with these concerns, but generally there is a concern for and a respect for the religiously liberal principle of individual authority and freedom of conscience in these matters.

Connections and overlap between religious liberalism and political liberalism

Let me now briefly take up this question: Are there places where the principles of religious liberalism interface and overlap with political liberalism? Are there principles in the religiously liberal approach that would tend to steer one toward political liberalism? And, conversely, are there principles in religious liberalism that might push one toward political conservatism?

Let me list four places where political liberalism and religious liberalism might meet and overlap:

1. First, political liberalism is usually identified as being progressive in its orientation, willing and interested to examine the status quo and to make changes that seek a larger good. There would be a link here to a liberal approach in religion, where the individual, not bound by the authority of the past, is encouraged to examine the status quo and to seek changes that would enlarge the life of society.

2. Secondly, political liberalism is typically identified with the expansion of individual rights and extending such rights to persons who have not previously had them. The religious liberal would also be jealous of and zealous for such individual rights. Historically, it has been the case that much of the inspiration and energy for such expansion of rights has come from religious liberals.

3. Thirdly, political liberalism tends to see a positive role for government in extending individual rights and promoting the welfare of all. Religious liberalism also has "liberality" at its core - a generousness of spirit and an openness and idealism that would want government to be helpful in this regard.

4. Fourthly, political liberalism is usually identified with an affirmation of diversity - diversity of belief, diversity of practice. Again, religious liberalism with its principle of toleration of individual difference would connect with this.

Connections and overlap between religious liberalism and political conservatism

But are there also principles, values, and qualities in political conservatism that might overlap with a religiously liberal approach? I can think of a few:

1. First, political conservatism has usually been identified with a reliance on the individual and the embrace of personal responsibility. This would certainly be in keeping with religious liberalism and the value of individual conscience and personal examination.

2. Secondly, political conservatism has generally sought a more limited role for government than political liberalism, and for at least some religious liberals this would connect with a sense of individual responsibility for life. There are a number of religious liberals who tend toward a libertarian political philosophy.

3. Thirdly, political conservatism, traditionally, has sought fiscal responsibility and avoidance of waste. That has pretty much gone by the wayside at present, but this value is still generally considered to be part of political conservatism, as the name "conserve" would suggest, and, insofar as that would be followed, religious liberalism and its efforts toward personal responsibility would again connect.

4. Finally, political conservatism has traditionally been identified with hard-headed, pragmatic realism, and with a concern for order in society and how to bring that about. Again, this could relate to the religious liberal who is concerned to thoroughly examine a life, to be scientifically precise, tough-minded, and realistic about the nature of being and reality.

Conclusion

So where has this exercise of looking at religious and political liberalism brought me this morning and what have I been after?

1. I think I wanted to stand back a bit from the heat of things and look in a somewhat more philosophical way at these matters.

2. I have wanted to raise up an important principle in religious liberalism and not lose sight of respect for individual authority and freedom of conscience in religion. In this last election we have seen increasing use of religious organizations for partisan political purposes, increasing identification of political and religious organizations. I judge that not to be a healthy trend and would hope that as religious liberals who value individual conscience we maintain a "sanctuary for the spirit."

3. Thirdly, I think I have been looking for a way to bridge some of the polarization that has occurred in the recent election. A friend of mine told me this week that since the election in this person's place of work, people have been making an extra effort to be polite and considerate of one another. Prior to the election there had been a good deal of upsetting debate that had occurred as people argued over the upcoming election. But since the election, knowing that they will have to work together in the future, there has been an attempt to be extra civil with each other and an attempt to see a larger humanity in one another.

I don't know if this has been helpful to you. I know I have struggled with this topic. I feel I have only scratched the surface of a subject that bears more consideration and larger discussion. I realize there are a lot of side-roads one could go down from the road that I have taken this morning.

In the meantime, let us live our lives as faithfully, as openly, and as humbly as we can, always looking for more light to illumine our way.

Let us be thoughtful. Let us be vigilant. Let us be tolerant. Let us be hopeful. Let us deal tenderly one with the other. Amen.

Benediction

May peace be in our hearts,
and understanding in our minds,
may courage steel our wills,
and the love of truth forever guide us.

Extinguishing the Chalice

Now may peace be in our hearts,
and understanding in our minds,
may courage steel our wills,
and the love of truth forever guide us.

(NOTE: This is a manuscript version of the sermon preached by The Reverend Bruce A. Bode at the Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship on November 14, 2004. The spoken sermon, available on audio cassette at the Fellowship, may differ slightly in phrasing and detail from this manuscript version.)