That
was my first wake-up call that being a religious liberal was not the same
thing as being a political liberal.If
you’re a Republican in our congregation, you already know this.But
if you’re a Democrat or a Green or a Working Families Party member, this
may not be transparent.Let me explain.
Unitarianism
and Universalism are divisions of a much larger European religious movement
called “theological liberalism.”Theological
liberalism is a form of religious thought that rejects the authority of
tradition as the sole basis for religious inquiry[ST1].The
alternative source to scriptural revelation that gradually grew out of
the Enlightenment was science and reason. It affected Protestant Christianity
from the time of Descartes on.
The
defining trait of this liberalism was a questioning of external authority
and a valuing of internal motivation.
Descartes
built the groundwork of liberalism on these four presuppositions:
(1)confidence
in human reason
(2)primacy
of the person
(3)immanence
of God, and
(4)meliorism
(the belief that human nature is improvable and is improving)
Unitarianism
was born in America in the midst of the second stage of theological liberalism
called Romanticism.The increasing
importance of the individual and the valuing of individual experience were
brought to new heights of religious significance by Transcendentalists
like Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.Individual
experience and creativity expressed through the personality ranked high
as a source of meaning and value.Following
Rousseau and Kant, individualism and independence are unique trademarks
of the liberal democracy the founders of this nation sought to enshrine
in our constitution and bill of rights.
Religious
liberalism moved further away from orthodoxy with the publication of Charles
Darwin’s Origin of Species and advances in science and engineering.We
chose to bring our religious thinking into alignment with these innovations
and discoveries rather than to deny them.When
the Bible conflicts with science, scripture must yield its truth claim.Rather
than rely on tradition to guide moral decision making, the gospel must
stand up to scientific trial before it is acceptable. The study of Christian
doctrine was transformed into three areas of intellectual inquiry:
1.the
psychological study of religious experience
2.the
sociological study of religious institutions and
3.the
philosophical inquiry into religious knowledge and values[ST2].
So
the hallmarks of religious liberalism are the primacy of a worldview grounded
in reason and experience rather than scriptural revelation.To
look for God or guidance, the liberal may go to scripture.But
then the liberal looks for confirmation of the message in human thought
and human experience.Revelation
alone is not enough for us.
For
a century, liberalism has dominated in academics and civil government much
to the consternation of traditional religionists.Whether
Democrat or Republican, the values of empiricism, reason and scientific
inquiry guide the decisions of our elected officials. It
is only when we compare our major political parties with the political
parties in the rest of the world do we see just how similar they are.Neither
party is arguing for establishing a theocracy.Neither
party is arguing for the overthrow of capitalism.Sadly,
neither party is green enough to put the concerns of our planet first.
The
similarities between Democratic and Republican values jump out of their
platform statements.Both are for
national security.Both are for
private property and private enterprise.Both
are for economic growth.Both believe
in families as the fundamental social unit of society.Both
believe in educating our children.Both
believe in equality for women.Both
believe ethnic and religious minorities should have equal opportunity for
success and happiness.Both believe
in health care for everyone.Both
are optimistic about the future.
When
we just focus on differences, it is hard to remember there are many similarities
between both parties.This is particularly
true in Albany where many Republicans here would be Democrats in Texas
and many Democrats here might be Republicans in New York City.
The
parties are not only similar, they often change horses in midstream.Remember
when Republicans were the defenders of balancing the budget and the Democrats
were the free spenders?It was Bill
Clinton who successfully balanced the budget I remind you.Recently
it was Dick Cheney who said, “Deficits don’t matter.”
Democrats
used to be protectionists defending unions against foreign competition.Again
following the lead of President Clinton, now they are free traders.Republicans
strongly opposed civil unions but now that they must face the possibility
of same-sex marriage, all of a sudden they seem to think civil unions are
a fine alternative.Both parties
do seem to move with the times.
Of
course they still have many, many significant differences.The
programs and methodology to support those common values vary significantly
between the parties.These differences
are what we get so intensely wrapped up in during an election year.
The
media is in a frenzy about the polarization this year between Democrats
and Republicans.I wonder.I,
for one, don’t see anything unusual in it.I
know I’m just as polarized as I normally am this close to the election.Each
side is caught up in the hysteria of trying to get that last undecided
voter gathered in before Election Day.You
can expect each side to do whatever they can legally and, unfortunately,
even illegally to tip the election in their favor.
Tom
Chulak, our Saint Lawrence District Executive, spoke last Sunday at Silver
Bay about the need for tolerance as we approach the election.He
told an instructive story about attending a memorial service for an in-law
from a conservative family.At the
reception afterwards, if my memory serves me, he sat next to a Fundamentalist
Christian relative.The subject
of their differences in belief came up.Tom
explained to us how hard he works to not antagonize these in-laws so he
can be in relationship with them.So
he said to her, “I respect how important your faith is to you.I
want to learn from you about what you think and believe and I’d like to
share with you what I think and believe.”
The
process of dialogue with our political rivals is quite difficult this time
of year because of heated emotions … but that dialogue can also bear good
fruit.While campaigning for votes,
politicians can be pressed to define themselves and say what they stand
for.Partisans on each side must
also take stands along with their candidates and define themselves and
their political philosophy.In conversation
with each other about the issues, if we really listen to each other, our
positions can become clarified and refined.
Because
I’m wise enough to know I don’t have all the answers, I enjoy dialogue
with people who don’t share my political views.I
know all political theories break down when translated into action by imperfect
human beings.Partisan as I am, I
recognize that my political ideals may not always translate into just and
effective social policy.And when
I talk and listen, I learn and grow.
One
of my articles of faith is the harmfulness of concentrating wealth in a
small stratum of society.I believe
that a robust middle class is the foundation for a strong society.Concentration
of wealth decreases social mobility and flow of money to support trade,
which, in turn, decreases prosperity for all.Yet
in conversation with some of the wealthy people I have known, and watching
what they do with their money, I recognize I don’t have the whole picture.
I
don’t mind having a few generous, compassionate, and wise wealthy people
around because of the good things they will do with their money that the
middle class may not choose to do.Andrew
Carnegie built many libraries in rural communities that wouldn’t have had
them otherwise.Bill Gates’ foundation
is funding research into a cure for malaria, a disease that governments
and drug companies have ignored lacking economic incentive because most
of the millions who get malaria are poor.We
would not have the variety of concert halls and art galleries and the diversity
of artistic expression in them we do without wealthy patrons.
Another
strong belief I have is in public education.I’ve
been opposed to charter schools for this reason as they drain public resources
from public education.Yet having
talked to supporters of Brighter Choice Charter School, around the corner
from us on Lake and Central, I’ve learned about the changes they are implementing
that I think would improve public schools.They
have full days of instruction and recreation from 9 in the morning to 5
at night and they run an eleven-month program.As
an experimental school, they can research the value of these changes and
provide demonstrations of the results.A
most dangerous time of day in the inner city is between the time school
lets out and the time parents come home from work.
I
firmly believe in the separation of church and state.Yet
the secularization of our schools may have had some unintended consequence
of weakening the moral fiber of our children.In
dialogue with inner-city African American ministers, I’ve been sensitized
to their concerns.While I feel strongly
the state should not impose any system of religion in public school, I
think there can be support of a child’s religious faith within the school.One
possibility ministers discussed with the last Superintendent of Schools
in Albany was to have pastoral counselors of different faiths available
on school grounds to discuss religious concerns.
I’ve
been moved and influenced by these conversations, particularly with inner-city,
non-white ministers.Because I don’t
live on Orange Street or Sheridan Avenue and my friends don’t live on Clinton
or Livingston, and my son doesn’t go to Hackett Middle School, I can be
out of touch with the effects of my political philosophy here.
David
Brooks had a great column in the paper two weeks ago making the connection
between political philosophy and geography.He
called this election “Not just a personality clash, [but] a conflict of
visions.”One’s physical location
being an urban office worker or a rural farmer can shape his or her political
outlook.Urbanites are packed in
and thus feel the world is small.Rural
people look at their vast open spaces and feel just the opposite.The
urban person is accustomed to dealing with religious and cultural differences
and the rural person may not.The
urban person is likely to understand the need for international cooperation
where as the rural person is more likely to want to go it alone.
So,
how do we bridge these differences?We
need to realize the limitations of our own point of view and see those
who think differently as resources for us to expand our thinking.My
movements on these issues I described have come from keeping my mind open
and willing to be shaped by what I’ve heard.As
Anais Nin put it: “When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system,
a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.”
Tom
Chulak told us that at the end of a half an hour of conversation, the in-law
said to him in amazement, “I’ve never had a conversation with anyone like
this before.”The skill we can develop
here in our congregation is deep, transformational listening.What
we have to offer each other is the rich diversity of our personal experience
and our reflection on that experience.What
we can learn from each other is our own personal limitations and our need
for these encounters to better refine and sharpen our own political philosophy.
This
is what liberal religion is all about: revising and refining our ethics
and action based on human reason and human experience.The
wellspring of our faith is here not the hereafter.We
can only be successful in this endeavor when we honor our differences and
learn from them.
May
we feel free to speak the fullness of our political philosophies here and
get a respectful hearing.
May
we recognize the value to all of us of our political minorities.
AND
may we grow through our appreciation of our differences.
[ST1](Britannica
CD, Version 98(c) 1994-1998. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.)