Introductory Words

This morning I'd like to warm your brain up to the discussion of relativism with the words of James Q. Wilson:

In modern times, the greatest challenge to any conception of virtue is to find a basis for the proper recognition and treatment of strangers. We--that is, Westerners who have accepted the Enlightenment view that all men are entitled, at some fundamental level, to equal respect--want to give a principled account of our obligation to others. That is what liberalism, properly defined, is about: granting to all men and women the status once reserved only for free men in one's own community. The effort to do this has been largely based on providing a new interpretation of the idea of justice. If justice means giving to every person his due, we have to find a way of defining what is due.[1]

Sermon

When thinking of the core American values which transcend individual preference and cultural difference, one artist comes to mind: Norman Rockwell. Somewhere in the detailed faces and postures of these portraits of middle America going about the business of living their ordinary lives, an American identity is suggested. Woody West, a writer for Insight on the News put it well in these words:

His pictures of middle-class America, tableaux celebrating the dailyness of tradition, are frequently subjected to sneers by the dukes and duchesses of the art world. His illustrations are derided as romanticized, hopelessly sentimental. Yet in an engaging way, Norman Rockwell captured our sense of ourselves, of American culture as generations idealized it--and lived it. His pictorial vignettes of Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July and a youngster getting his first haircut helped underwrite a code that was revered.[2]

But Norman Rockwell's world is no more (if it really ever was). His world has been superseded by a world of social and moral decay. Today we endure frequent lectures from the liberals and the conservatives describing how we have lost our way. I hope my words today bring more light than heat to today's values debate.

In my research for this sermon, I came across a presentation at the World Parliament of Religions in 1993 by Watergate criminal Charles Colson. As some of you may know, he found Jesus while incarcerated and began a prison ministry. I would like to share his words with you because he is an articulate spokesman for the Christian Right. Even if we may not agree with his answers, he is asking the right questions. And his criticism highlights some of the weaknesses of our faith:

Four great myths define our times and pose a challenge to all faith traditions. They are the four horsemen of the present apocalypse. The first myth is the goodness of humanity. It deludes people into thinking they are always victims, never villains; always deprived, never depraved. It dismisses responsibility as the teaching of a darker age. It can excuse any crime, because it can always blame something else--a sickness of society or a sickness of the mind. Thus, the first horseman multiplies evil by denying its existence. The second myth of modernity is the promise of coming utopia; that human nature can be perfected by government. This horseman arrives with sword and slaughter. From the birth of this century, ruthless ideologies have pledged to move the world, but could only stain it with blood. We have seen more people killed in this century by their own governments than by all its wars combined. The third myth is the relativity of moral values. This horseman hides the dividing line between good and evil, noble and base, sowing chaos and confusion. When a society abandons its transcendent values, each individual's moral vision becomes purely personal and finally equal. Since no preference is morally preferable, anything that can be dared will be permitted. This leaves the moral consensus for our laws and manners in tatters. Moral neutrality slips into moral relativism. Tolerance substitutes for truth, indifference for religious conviction. The fourth modern myth is radical individualism. The fourth horseman brings excess and isolation. This myth dismisses the importance of family, church, and community, denies the value of sacrifice, and elevates individual rights and pleasures as the ultimate social values. But with no higher principles to live by, men and women suffocate under their own expanding pleasures. Consumerism becomes empty and leveling, leaving society full of possessions but drained of ideals--what Vaclav Havel calls "totalitarian consumerism."[3]

Colson's Four Horseman image from Revelations strikes at the heart of Unitarian Universalism. We proclaim the inherent worth and dignity of all people. Unitarians were at the forefront of positivism in the 19th Century that envisioned an evolution of the human species which eventually would put an end to social strife as we used science and reason to govern our lives. The Transcendentalists discovered the rich religious heritage of the East and West and began to question the absolute and exclusive basis of their Christian faith. In response to the intellectual constrictors of traditional religion, we have placed the individual at the center of our faith. We place our trust in each person's ability to discern and be guided by the truth.

The Christian Right has dissected the ills of our society and laid them at the feet of cultural relativism, the idea that all cultures are true, valid, meaningful and deserving of respect and toleration. Many of today's social debates revolve around authoritarianism vs. relativism. The abortion debate is a prime example. If one believes the Bible commandment not to take the life of another, there is no room for individual choice. One set of orthodox values must be imposed on the rest of the world.

The Christian Right is terrified of creeping relativism because they do not really appreciate the value of separating church and state. This is a relatively new idea in the span of human history, and we have yet to find out if it works. Up until the 20th Century, Protestant Christian religion was the defacto faith of America. Religious freedom used to mean one was free to choose one of the different Protestant sects. Please remember the Catholics had a very difficult time finding acceptance in American culture when the waves of immigrants came in the 1800's. It is only really in the last 50 years that we as a society have been forced by civil libertarians to separate church and state.

Attacks on Christian values are also perceived to come from the scientific and academic communities. Science and scholarship have long been a threat to the fundamentalist view of Christian faith. The issue of evolution, settled long ago by solid science, still continues to be debated by school boards. Sexual education in the schools is always a hot topic among those who believe ignorance serves us better than accurate information. Astronomers staring out into the skies and talking about big bangs are likely to get the fundamentalist ready to go ballistic. Dennis Overbye writes:

[In the summer of 1992] a journalist named Bryan Appleyard rode this discontent to the top of England's best-seller lists with a neoconservative polemic called Understanding the Present, subtitled Science and the Soul of Modern Man. In Britain, the book inspired headlines such as FOR GOD'S SAKE FIRE THE BIG BANG BRIGADE. Its publication in the U.S. has begun to strike sparks. Science, maintains Appleyard, devalues questions it can't answer, such as the meaning of life or the existence of God. Its relentless advance has driven the magic out of the world, leaving us with nothing to believe in. With no standards, liberal democracies descend into moral anarchy and cultural relativism. Once Galileo looked through that telescope, it seems, the Los Angeles riots were only a matter of time. Science, he concludes ominously, must be "humbled."[4]

Cultural relativism seems to be going the way of that much maligned word we (I hope) still cherish called liberalism. Relativism is becoming a symbol of what is wrong with America as every meaning becomes contextual and conditional, leaving us in nihilistic ambivalence. The problem here is the misuse of relativism. Relativism is not a way to discover and build a value system, but rather a way to compare value systems. It is a tool for building cross-cultural understanding, not a replacement value system.

What is missing from the understanding of relativism generally projected by the Christian right is a concept we take for granted: Universalism. Without the concept of Universalism, relativism truly is morally bankrupt.

Umberto Eco, Italian semiologist and author of the best selling book, The Name of the Rose, has done much thinking on the topic of relativism, because his field is the study of language. In his understanding of language, we find the value of relativism through the belief that universal human values can be compared and validated across cultural and religious divides. We may speak different symbolic languages, but the concepts and understandings about what is most noble, valuable, and meaningful can be connected and bring mutual respect and appreciation. Eco has great optimism about ability to bridge languages and cultures. Eco believes "there is no unresolvable contradiction between cultural relativism and Universalism."[5]

My faith in universal human values has its roots in the comparative religious dialogue itself that is the basis for relativism. My work in Buddhist- Christian dialogue, studying Christian Scriptures with a Buddhist understanding, has expanded my appreciation of the truth to be found there. Both Buddhism and Catholicism focus on the suffering component of life and the importance of compassion in human relations. Both have developed methods of meditation that are complementary. This does not make me want me to take Jesus as my personal savior, rather, it increases my respect of practicing Christians. The concepts, language, and symbology are quite different, yet the spirit has many similarities.

Because a Universalism can be found, this does not mean that Universalism then supersedes those religions or cultures; rather, it creates bridges between them which allow for greater tolerance and respect. This is the critical component of relativism that the Christian Right does not appreciate. It is this bridging between different faiths which strengthens them both - as long as one is willing to accept that God might have more than one prophet and teacher. To have the heart of one's faith affirmed by millions of others who are of another religion and culture actually can be a source of strength rather than weakness - if one is willing to embrace Universalism.

As we move toward world community, we will need to find more and more ways to bridge our sometimes great differences in belief. And this isn't going to be easy. What about the religions which practice animal sacrifice? How many of you approve of clitorectomies? How many of you appreciate the Islamic view of women? How about the practice of infibulation? Listen again to Eco:

Problems like these have to be solved case by case, and are often harrowing. In Italy, for instance, one such question has arisen over population groups that practice ritual infibulation. When they come to our country, a difficulty arises because we consider infibulation an intolerable practice. Some people have suggested there could be special clinics where the infibulation required by their customs could be carried out. For myself, I consider infibulation to border on the intolerable. But where is the borderline between tolerable and intolerable? That is the really difficult question.

There is a subtle deception in the Christian Right's thinking. If we just shared the same faith and values, we could make the world a better safer place and return us to a fantasy of the good old days. Eco has this disturbing rejoinder:

I do not believe, either, that a shared language or culture necessarily means a brotherhood of man: some of the worst conflicts of the last 200 years have been civil wars between people speaking the same language.

The way to make the world a better, safer place is through an expanded appreciation of those who are different. This requires religious leadership secure enough in their own faith to build a bridge, knowing that another name for God does not deny the Truth of one's own name.

We do not need our Government to tell us who is right and who is wrong. On the contrary, we need a government that facilitates the building of bridges, that allows the society to find a value consensus even if we use quite different language to define our universals. Listen again to Dennis Overbye:

If history teaches us anything, it is to beware people who know the truth. Appleyard and his neoconservative friends moan about the demise of moral and cultural authority and bash liberal democracy because it fails to choose. But the failure to choose is itself a choice. What it chooses is that people are, or can be, grownups. That too is a value, the notion that we all individually or collectively may be the salvation of one another. Cosmic ignorance does not diminish us, it ennobles us.

To Charles Colson's four horsemen, I'd like to offer four riders which bring these horses under control.

Yes, there are relatively bad people in the world who seek to harm rather than help. Yet if we assume every person we meet to be an enemy, our society will degenerate into barbarism. We must assume the goodness of another person until we know better, testing our prejudices rather than yielding to them.

Yes, the world seems imperfectible, yet we must strive to alleviate the suffering of others, for without the tenderness of human warmth for the stranger, what is the value of civilization? What good can come from a world without love?

Yes, relativism is bankrupt without an awareness of the universal human values that words can only suggest but the gentle touch of a human hand proves. Relativism is a way to affirm one's limits while at the same time going beyond them in a way that brings people together rather than driving them apart.

Yes, individualism has its limits and few find satisfaction in a life of isolation or consumerism, yet individualism is required in a democracy to safeguard justice. And a society without justice can have no freedom.

Colson himself makes the best argument for relativism in the beginning of his speech to the World Parliament of Religions:

I speak as one transformed by Jesus Christ, the living God. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He has lived in me for 20 years. His presence is the sole explanation for whatever is praiseworthy in my work. That is more than a statement about myself. It is a claim to truth. It is a claim that may contradict your own. Yet on this, at least, we must agree: The right to do what I've just done--to state my faith without fear--is the first human right and the essence of human dignity.

Human dignity, human worth on a small blue green planet in a minor galaxy. Why we ultimately need relativism is to remind us how small we really are in the grand scheme of things to be proclaiming the one absolute truth. I'll close with more of Dennis Overbye's wise words:

The question of whether the universe is steady state or Big Bang, or whether it has ten dimensions or four, is just decorative trim around the grand mystery of why anything or any law exists. But by reminding us of our deep cosmic ignorance, science, far from dulling the mystery of existence, sharpens it the way garlic wafting on the evening breeze whets your appetite. It reminds us that we dwell in a mystery that is ultimately more to be savored than solved.

So Be It.

Copyright (c) 1995 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore, All Rights Reserved.