"Liberal is NOT a 4-Letter Word"

The Unitarian Universalist Church

Rockford, IL

David R. Weissbard

September 04, 1996

Reading

The Liberal Gospel

Charles H. Lyttle

When [William Ellery] Channing began preaching in Boston, Liberalism was at an ebb throughout Europe and America. The Revolution, here and in France, had been followed by a harsh and haughty reaction against democracy and its attendant freedom of thought and speech, of civic, cultural and economic opportunity for the laboring classes. . .

In the religious phase of the conflict, it was a question whether New England and her western colonizations should be abandoned to the mercies of a fanatical and otherworldly Calvinism, relentlessly hostile to that spirit of common sense and self-reliance, tolerance and philanthropy which characterized the . . . most vigorous thought of the age. ... Should the Church . . . in America be so corrupted by Mammon and his worship in fashion and trade as to give its blessing to economic serfdom, represented in those days by slavery . . . ? In this titanic grapple of contending destinies, Channing chose his side; but it was not the position expected of him by his friends and kinsmen, nor the majority of his congregation, nor was it the attitude most congenial to his reflective and pacific disposition. The revelation under the willows of Cambridge of the infinite worth of a human being, his invincible persuasion of its practical validity in every sphere and situation, formed for him a far mightier compulsion than the tug of social status or the plea of temperament; and carried him by sheer force of moral conviction to the vanguard of Liberalism. . . .

...It was inevitable that the American Liberalism of which Channing was so prominent a leader and interpreter, should have become the chief religious expression of the spirit of democracy, science, and humanitarianism which the Age of Enlightenment fostered and developed, shielded from the assaults of the obscurantists and enthroned among revolutions. ...With the epic romance of our national origins, therefore, is to be associated the spiritual romance of the first organized religious movement avowedly loyal to Humanity in the fullest sense of that glorious word: loyalty to [the individual's] sense of right, to the power of mind, the one common nature and destiny, without faith in which it is plain that Jesus' dream of the kingdom on earth can never be realized. . . .

Channing's transcendent conviction of the moral dignity of human nature constrained him to play an active, and by virtue of his gifts, a prominent part in the various movements for the improvement of the conditions of the poor, the elevation of the laboring class, and the extension of . . . brotherhood into international relations . . . Such is the exceeding wisdom of a great moral principle that Channing's denunciation of war, alcoholism, slums, the fatalism of poverty, and the exploitation of the manual worker, went far beyond the consensus of his own age, and in many respects he is still far in advance of our own.

The Sermon

I wrote in the Kairos of the impasse in which the Visioning Team found itself when grappling with whether the proposed statement of our church's vision should refer to this as a "Liberal" church. Some felt it essential - others felt equally strongly that we should not identify ourselves as liberal - some because they see themselves as conservative, others because they consider themselves radical. During a break in the session I had an idea which I offered as a compromise which included some of the key dimensions of liberalism but avoided the controversial "L-word." I had some discomfort about offering such a compromise.

We have a tendency to dismiss semantic conflicts as "only semantics." In truth, semantics often points to real conflicts that should be confronted rather than evaded. The issue of the vision statement will ultimately come to you, the congregation, so it seemed appropriate for us to move on at that time, but I suggest that the issue needs to be addressed further.

There is no question but that "Liberal" is currently a dirty word, even if it does have seven letters. Conservative politicians use it as a smear of their opponents, and their opponents make it clear that they want no part of the label. There are few proud liberals today. Why then would we want to identify our church with such a pejorative term?

I cannot define our church for you. I have no divinely bestowed (or any other) authority to speak definitively as to the nature of our church. I do, however, have the responsibility of trying to articulate what I understand us to be about, to focus the issues, and this issue presents such an opportunity.

[do we stand for anything?]

One of the dangers of what we have historically referred to as religious liberalism is that our freedom and respect for diversity lead some people to think that Unitarian Universalist churches do not stand FOR anything except freedom. That is commonly translated as "Unitarian Universalists can believe anything they want." That has elements of truth and falsehood about it. Yes, we do support individual conscience. No we do not have a creed. But, yes, there are some things for which we have as a religious community, historically, stood-- things that have differentiated us from other religious communities. We have a proud tradition which, while it does not bind us, does inform our present. We do have roots to which we are connected. We can choose to change direction, but we ought not to do so without knowing we are doing it.

There are times when people who have been attracted by our openness are repelled by any attempts we make to articulate our common values. Even if we do not seek to bind them as individuals to our consensus, and even if we are clear that we are not speaking for them, they wish us not to be for anything that they are not for. They have a right to take that position and to try to persuade the community of the correctness of that position. Within our movement, along with affiliated caucuses advocating for: UU Pagans, and the 7th Principle (the interdependent web), and Men, and women, and indigenous affairs, and a just economic community, and ethical treatment of animals, and stopping violence against women, there is an organized Conservative Forum for Unitarian Universalists. It states its purpose as "to ensure that all UU's 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."

The question here is not whether people who define themselves as conservatives or radicals should be welcome here - of course they should, or whether their search for truth should be constrained. The issue is: if the vast majority of our members hold a liberal perspective, should they be denied the right to articulate their consensus out of fear of offending conservatives or radicals.

It reminds me of the people who occasionally suggest that they would be more comfortable here if we would stop calling this a church - they don't like the word because of its connotations for them. But this is a church. It is not every church - it is a particular kind of church, and that particularity has historically been articulated by defining it as a liberal church. Should we give up the word church so as not to discomfort? If that were our goal, we would have short sermons because I know from experience that there is almost nothing a minister can say that someone won't find offensive.

[religion of this world]
Charles Lyttle's words about Channing make it clear, I believe, that one of the principles for which Unitarianism and Universalism have historically stood is that religion is not, for us, separate from this world. Some Christian denominations have sometimes insisted that as Christians they should stay out of politics and that religion was only an interior thing - a personal relationship with deity. [Many who felt that way are now into politics in a big way.] Liberals have never drawn those lines. The religious principles to which religious liberals are committed have social implications. Channing in the 1820's was clear about the relationship between the religious principles he articulated and the ways in which fellow citizens were treated in this world. Thoreau, Parker, Frothingham, Kerr, Skinner, Holmes, Connolly, Fritchman, Greeley, Wells -- the people who have made a difference in our movement have, not unanimously but overwhelmingly, insisted that our ideals must be not just empty words, but commitments and practices.

I believe that is true today as much as ever - if not more. The word "liberal" has become

pejorative for a reason: "Liberals" are an obstacle to any agenda, any "contract" which denigrates people, particularly the weak and powerless, and exploits them for the sake of the prosperous and powerful who are never satisfied and always demand more. There is an attempt across our society to ridicule and shut the mouths of those who stand up for liberal principles, because they tweak the collective conscience and stimulate some appropriate guilt.

[defining the differences]

Let me try to define the differences between conservatives and liberals clearly and fairly to see if the description "liberal" is one with which we should identify. It is my goal to define conservatism in a way that most conservatives will accept as accurate - test me. I spent hours this week surfing the world wide web in search of clear definitions of conservative and liberal. It is clear that there are differences within each group - there are no "pure" liberals or "pure" conservatives. There are, however, safe generalizations which can be made. [Please insert the phrase "some but not all" so I don't have to keep repeating it - it is there!]

[time frame]

I understand most conservatives to believe that there was, in the past, a time when society was much closer to the ideal than today - a time of greater peace and order - a time of less conflict. The goal of conservatism is to restore things to the way they believe they used to be, and should be.

Liberalism focuses not so much on the strengths of the past as on its weaknesses. Liberals ask, "How dare we call an era when women and racial and ethnic minorities were denied a voice a "golden age." "Yes, we have problems today," they acknowledge,"but the problems are a result of our failure to faithfully and adequately address the issues of injustice." Liberals focus on a new world of greater justice and equity for all people than we have ever known in the past.

[authority]

Conservatives tend to focus on issues of authority. Children no longer obey their parents; adults talk back to supervisors; a teacher's word is no longer law; why has the world become so gray? Conservatives are drawn to black and white moral standards for people to obey! Symbols, like the flag and the cross, are to be revered. "Just say no" to drugs and premarital sex.

Liberals tend to focus much more on issues of freedom and liberty. Liberals stress the importance of the unfettered exploration of ideas, and are suspicious of the power of authorities. Liberals almost celebrate irreverence. Morals and ethics are, indeed, viewed by liberals as situational, which is to say, grey rather than black and white.

There are, however, many areas of reversal here, which makes this complex. Most conservatives demand a very high level of economic freedom, the freedom to discriminate among people, and the freedom to carry automatic weapons. There is, among conservatives, a love of authority but a fear of democratic (small "d") government. Liberals, on the other hand, hate authority but welcome governmental intervention, affirming that the purpose of government is to assure humane treatment of the less fortunate and to establish a "level playing field" to give everyone equal opportunities.

[economics]

The Free Market is a central element of the conservative creed. The problem is, hardly anyone would suggest that we have many free markets today when mega-corporations unite to drive out competition, when governments provide multi-billion dollar bailouts of investors who put their money in Savings and Loans that promised get rich quick returns, and when more welfare, governmental support, is paid to industries than to people.

[equality]
It is a fundamental conservative belief that people are inherently unequal - some are bestowed with superior gifts which make them better people than those who have fewer. One homepage defines it as "Individual Excellence." In that view, some people are inferior and are therefore not entitled to be treated well. Even some who do not believe in evolution believe in social Darwinism, which is the survival of the fittest. Garret Hardin, a biologist and a Unitarian Universalist, insists that we doom our society by keeping the weak alive to reproduce their inferior genes. Those who are weak do not deserve to survive. Others will keep them alive but insist upon humiliation to remind them of their inferiority. Keep them in their place. (It's like the school principal in Massachusetts who, it was reported last week, was determined that kids should be visibly color coded by family income level for easy recognition of those who are in poverty, and those in semi-poverty, for the convenience of the lunchroom staff in knowing whether and how much to charge for lunch. He insisted that the kids would not pay any attention to or be troubled by the labeling. One wonders at the level of his knowledge of kids.)

In contrast to that, the liberal belief is that every human being has worth and dignity to which attention must be paid. Quakers and Hindus express it as a belief that "There is that of God in every person." While people are certainly not all the same, there is obvious variety in human strengths and weaknesses, all people are nonetheless deserving of respect, and should be entitled to a standard of living which enables dignity. From that perspective, those who benefit from the economic structure of the society should be prepared to contribute to the support of those who are less fortunate, and it is the responsibility of government to see that this happens.

[justice]

In the conservative view, justice is enabling those who have acquired much to keep everything they have, and have unrestricted access to more, while the liberal view is that justice is being sure that everyone has enough.

Justice also refers to the system by which we deal with those who violate the laws or the rights of others. Conservatives advocate the re-establishment of order through the harsh punishment of those who disobey the laws. They seem to have a predilection for the moral concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is only fear of punishment that conservatives believe will motivate change. Liberals, affirming inherent human goodness, and compassion for those who have been denied full access to the economic system, have historically asserted the need for penal programs focusing more on rehabilitation than punishment, and the treatment of prisoners with sufficient human dignity that they are not brutalized further by imprisonment. This is one of many areas where conservatives point to the failure of liberal programs when those programs have generally not been funded sufficiently to have had any chance of working.

[democratic process]
Conservatives and Liberals all affirm a belief in the democratic process, but they do not necessarily see it the same way. I am in the midst of doing research for a paper that will be the basis of my next sermon, on the American Dream. Our Revolutionary ancestors were not all in agreement as to the meaning of the democratic process. Some believed that only the elite should be able to participate in government, while the relatively liberal populists believed that participation should be broader. Few, in that time, envisioned women or people of color being included in the process. There was fear of "the Mob" and what would happen if all the people had a right to participate. Politicians in both parties have that fear today. Liberals believe they believe in participation of all.

[nationalism]

Conservatives in every nation have tended to emphasize nationalistic sentiments of their government and people as being especially chosen by deity to carry forth their culture and to be dominant in their relations with other nations. Liberals in most nations have tended to affirm the oneness of the human family and to see national boundaries as artificial. Conservatives are most comfortable with a balance of trade which shows others as our debtors, while liberals tend to look at the larger picture which suggests that we can be truly secure only when all members of the human family are secure - not when we are in a dominant position and our citizens consume 60% of the world's resources. That is inherently unjust and is not indefinitely sustainable.

[environmentalism]
Conservatives have tended to view ecological concerns as obstacles to the exploitation of natural resources for corporate gain. Why should profits be reduced just because a corporation is polluting the air or ground water or depleting the ozone layer? How dare we restrict the ability of tobacco companies to profit from the addiction of men, women and children? No amount of scientific research seems to be able to convince some conservatives of the link between poisons and death. Remember Ronald Reagan's famous line about how pine trees are a major source of pollution of the environment?

The Liberal view is that the common good demands that we maintain a longterm perspective on the impact of our lives on the biosphere upon which we are dependent. For a small segment of the community to profit in the short term from actions which pollute the air our children will breathe and the water they will drink, is not acceptable.

[a conservative credo]

As I said earlier, my hope was that I could describe the conservative position fairly, which is to say in a way that would satisfy conservatives. I have suggested 10 elements of the conservative perspective:

a belief that the best future would replicate a simpler time from the past;
a strong respect for authority, but not for democratic government which is suspect;
clear standards of morality (at least in some areas, like sex - not necessarily in the marketplace);
maximal economic freedom;
a belief in the inherent inferiority of some people which frees us of responsibility for what happens to them;
an emphasis on justice as protecting the haves from the havenots
harsh punishments as a means of social control
a preference for a narrow definition of democracy which does not seek to give all an equal voice;
a nationalistic perspective which views our nation's interests as the primary concern;
an attitude toward natural resources which places minimal value on their protection and maximal value on their exploitation.
[a liberal credo]

In contrast I suggested 10 elements of the liberal credo:

A focus on a future that is "better" than any time in the past;
An emphasis on freedom over authority, although I conceded that this is a very mixed bag - different freedoms from those preferred by conservatives;
A preference for situational or contextual ethics;
A stress on economic responsibility for the community over unrestricted individual gain;
The worth and dignity of all people;
Justice as providing a decent standard of living for all in the community;
A stress on rehabilitation and dignity in the penal system, rather than relying on harshness as a deterrent;
The extending of participation and power to the greatest possible portion of the population;
An emphasis on world community above national interests;
A perspective on life which emphasizes respect for the interdependent web of existence.

[consensus?]

It is my belief that there is a consensus within our congregation that centers around those liberal perspectives. It is not, in any sense, that I propose that list as a creed. The word "consensus" suggests only general agreement, not unanimity. I take it for granted that virtually everyone could find one or more elements with which they disagreed. I have studiously avoided discussions about how these ends are to be achieved, because implementation is even more debatable than goals. I also believe that there are elements of reality and truth in each of the conservative perspectives and that we therefore gain by having people in our midst who conscientiously raise those concerns.

But I believe it is neither honest nor productive for us to deny the existence of such consensus as exists. Acknowledging our liberalism rather than pretending that we begin as a tabula rosa, furthers the debate, and the debate is essential. No element of the consensus, if I am correct that there is one, is above debate. Our tablet, while not blank, is not cast in stone. At the point where we declare any element of the consensus to be not debatable, we are revealing our insecurity and dogmatism.

["Ich bin ein Liberal"]
Thirty-six years ago, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, then a candidate for the presidency, responded to accusations that he was a liberal with these words:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then . . . we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

He went on to define what he meant by "Liberal":

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, For liberalism is . . . an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in [human] ability through the experiences of ... reason and judgement to increase for [all] the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. . . .

I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

...I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today.

[up to you]

I have suggested the existence of a consensus that centers around the designation "liberal." It is for you, and not for me, to decide the extent to which you believe that these values do and/or should characterize your church.

click here to return to home page

click here to return to sermon index