HomeRELIGIOUS LIBERALISM: Unitarian Universalists are religious liberals. What is liberalism, how does it manifest itself in religion and how does religious liberalism differ from other forms of liberalism?
READING: Ephesians 2:1-2; 5:1-2, 6-14
Good morning.
My topic this morning is Liberalism in general and Religious Liberalism in particular. Because I feel a need to define terms and give some descriptions of various kinds of liberalism, this sermon may begin with the feel of a lecture. I hope you agree that by the end that it has mutated into something else.
First, let me begin with a very brief claim about the distinctions between Liberalism and Conservatism.
Conservatism tends to prefer order and established institutions, traditions and values and believes that to jettison these is to invite social disorder. That is a valid and worthy fear. To the extent that it accepts changes, it accepts them only slowly. Conservatism also tends to take a dim view of human nature; within Religious Conservatism, for example, human beings are too fallible to create perfect or even very good things, so truly good institutions only come from God. Conservatives tend to view human nature as static. Conservatives are also much more likely to divide people into what Paul in his Letter to the Ephesians called the Children of Light and the Children of Disobedience or Darkness. That is, even though they believe that all are broken, they are more likely to see people as either God-striving or Satan-taken, either striving towards good or filled with evil. For Religious Conservatives, tossing out traditional values and practices in the area of religion invites down upon our heads the anger and wrath of God, and the tribulations associated with that are far greater than mere social chaos.
Liberalism takes a more positive view of human nature and its abilities and perfectibility. It tends to believe in the ongoing growth of human nature, human understanding and human morality. It also holds a general belief that human beings are capable of making their own decisions in life and that there is a sphere of action which by nature belongs only to the individual and which no institution or other person has a right to impinge upon. Therefore Liberalism tends to oppose the amassing of excess power or the abuse of legitimate power in any area of life. Conservatism is more likely to impose limits on the person if social order or tradition requires it.
Liberalism, then, focuses on the rights of the individual. We tend forget just how radical this idea is and that how much it defines modern western culture.
Liberals are more likely to strive to make things better, to be idealistic and progress oriented, because they believe that it is within human ability to make things better. They are more likely to reject established traditions and practices for the new and better.
There are different realms of Liberalism, which overlap and intertwine but which are different. Most Americans are liberals in almost all areas of life, and most of our political, economic, social or religious debates are between different schools of Liberalism.
Historically, Religious Liberalism was the first liberalism. I will speak briefly about it, move on to other areas, and then return to religion.
At the time of the Reformation, in the late 1500’s, one of the claims of the Protestants was that individuals should read the Bible for themselves and also decide for themselves just what the meaning was. This was a rejection of the practice of having the Priest, the Bishop, the Pope or the Church define the meaning for people.
It was the exhaustion of thirty years war of the sixteen hundreds that led to the agreement that local rulers could establish the religion of the territory they controlled. Slowly that evolved in northwestern Protestant areas into the belief that each individual had a right to their own relationship with God, which further evolved—but only slowly--into the belief in the absolute right of the individual to seek own their religious path, including a path that did not include a god or divinity. This required protection of the individual against pressures from both the religious and political hierarchies and so led to the separation of religion and state.
This went hand in hand with a psychological or sociological Liberal view that human beings are inherently good. The Conservative Religious view tends more to focus on the inherent depravity of human beings, symbolized in the Protestant tradition by story of the Fall in the Garden of Eden. So Liberals tend to press for human freedom, Conservatives tend to press for controls over human behavior. Historically this has included the Inquisition, heresy trials and burnings at the stake.
While Religious conservatives tend to emphasize the anger and punishment of God for those who go astray, Religious liberals like our Universalist forebears emphasized a loving, merciful God and believed in Universal salvation. Those Universalists that believed in punishment for sins—and not all did--argued that punishment exists solely for the purpose of correction, so that once the soul has been “corrected”, it is welcomed into heaven, therefore punishment is not eternal.
Political Liberalism is the belief that the individual and their sphere of rights must be protected from government intrusion, and that the consent of the governed is required by the rulers, which leads naturally to a belief in democracy. But, note: our democracy includes a system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to protect the individual from even the will of the majority. Where disagreements arise is in the application of rights and in the interpretation of Constitution. Conservatives are more likely to believe that the rights listed in the constitution are the only rights we have, Liberals are more likely to believe that they are a minimum list of rights, that they presume other rights--such as a right to privacy--and that each right listed also has derivative rights associated with it.
In the economic sphere Liberalism gave rise to capitalism in opposition to mercantilism. Classical Liberals believed in taking from government the right to control the economy, and in allowing a free market where individuals have freedom to act and in pursuing their self interest will create a self-regulating economy.
Most Americans are economic liberals, and our economic debates are between economic liberals of various stripes. For example, I do not want government deciding that there are enough ministers and so I should pursue another career path.
Classical Liberals believe that the free market will balance itself out, that it contains within itself all of the checks and balances it needs. But, as with pure democracy, left wing Liberals see problems with an unfettered free market: what to do for those who for whatever reason do not succeed, what to do about manipulation of the economy by those with economic power, what to do about those who con the gullible out of their money, and that an absolute free market puts excess power over employees into the hands of corporations and employers. For left wing Liberals it does not matter whether the violation of individual rights comes from a government or from a corporation, the violation is the issue. So, those Liberals have supported checks and balances within the economic realm including labor unions and government regulatory powers.
Social Liberalism believes in the equality of every individual in many areas: legal, moral, ethical and social. Social Liberals have therefore pushed for full equality for racial and ethnic minorities, for religious minorities, for women and for sexual minorities.
Conservatives are more likely to hold to traditional values, even where those are oppressive. Social Liberalism also believes in the inherent goodness within each person, and believes that people who break the law or harm others are still inherently good, have gone astray and can be redeemed (hear the Universalist message within that). Punishment therefore should be corrective. Social Conservatives are more likely to believe that the lawbreaker is depraved and is beyond redemption, so responses such as capital punishment are justified.
Let me turn my attention back now to Religious Liberalism. In the sense that I have so far used it, Religious Liberalism just means a willingness to let others have their own religious beliefs free from interference by anyone else. So, most Americans are Religious Liberals though there are those Conservatives who disagree with the separation of religion and state and who would impose Christianity on everyone else.
But note that, technically, one can be a Religious Liberal in that sense and also be a Theological Conservative. One can believe that each individual is and ought to be free to do as they wish religiously, while also believing that one’s sacred text is the word of God. We are mistaken when we think that all Theological Conservatives are by definition Conservatives when it comes to religious freedom. So from this point forward I will distinguish between Religious and Theological Liberalism.
Note that one can be a Liberal in some areas and a Conservative in others; one can be a Theological Conservative and an Economic, Political or Social Liberal. I try not to mix up those terms.
Theological Liberalism accepts Historical Critical analysis of the Bible. It has a willingness to see Biblical writings as influenced by time, place and author. Over time this yielded in some more cynical liberals to an assumption that all of the sacred texts of the world were false, but in others led to a willingness to read all of the sacred texts of the world as sources of religious and spiritual truth, but not necessarily literal truth.
Theological Liberalism is idealistic about the human spirit and the human soul. Because it has a positive view of human potential, Theological Liberalism believes in human reason. Religion is not about submission or acquiescence to creed, dogma or the will of divinity, but is about the individual journey; it is about the individual exploration that can open new vistas, new understandings about humanity and divinity and about our human relationship with each other, with the world and with the universe.
Religious Liberalism is about living, individual theology. What, then, is my theology?
I believe that human beings are inherently good, though there is some admixture in each of us of greed and selfishness and an ability to yield to fear or anger—and we have seen too much of those in the world lately. Some of us, even most of us, may be misled by our fears or our angers into doing that which is hate-filled or evil, but that does not make us evil; it makes us good people who are doing wrong.
The good outweighs the greed; whether one believes that this is because we are made in the image of God, or believes instead that this is because we are the product of evolution that made ours a social species and being a social species requires some level of reaching out to others, of cooperating with others and some level of altruism within each individual, does not matter. What remains true for me is that we are all inherently good. Whatever I may have done in the past, whatever you may have done, we are, each of us, inherently good. I am good. You are good. For those who believe in God, that means that God still loves you no matter what you have done. With all of your faults and failings you are still acceptable to the divine.
That inherent goodness does not eliminate the fact that personal growth—and the growth and development of our species—is possible and desirable. In fact, our knowledge of evolution tells us it is inevitable. We can strive to change ourselves through what earlier generations of religious liberals called “self-culture”. That means we do not have to wait for evolution to change us, we can choose a direction of progress for ourselves.
I also believe that as a species we are still evolving. I believe that we are changing towards greater connection, greater unity and a higher morality that includes all people and ultimately all living beings.
Because we are inherently good and can grow in knowledge and also in understanding we can also build a better society. We can build a society that is ever more open and nurturing, that feeds the hungry and clothes the naked; that houses the homeless, that heals the sick and that comforts the sad and the lonely.
I believe that we can do what some call blasphemy: that we can build a heaven here on earth.
In the nation and world that is coming into being, I believe that the Liberal message of human goodness is a necessary counter claim against the Conservative message of human depravity.
I believe, too, that there are no dispensable or disposable people. Because, really, there are no people of God in struggle with the people of Satan, no Children of Light combating the Children of Darkness. We are all Children of God; we are all Children of Light, though sometimes each of us strays into darkness. When we do, it is human love that can guide us back.
May I be an instrument of that love which comforts the sick, clothes the naked, heals the hurt and redeems the souls of those who are gone astray.
So let it be.
Return to
Home
Return to Sermons Index