lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
One of the many things that attracted me to UnitarianUniversalism was that UUs unabashedly call themselves "liberal." Having grown up in one of the bastions of liberalism, San Franciso, I have always proudly called myself a liberal. And I've been greatly dismayed to see that label turned into slur, and to see liberals accepting this, claiming to be "progressive" but not liberal. To me that's like claiming to be "spiritual but not religious." One is retreating from one synonym to another, fleeing a connotation, but never dealing with the reason for the retreat.
I still proudly and defiantly call myself a liberal. I cherish our tradition of open-minded inquiry and tolerance; our message of love for all of us, not just a few of us. But at the same time, I recognize that there are problems, very annoying and pressing problems, associated with liberalism. One the one hand, despite our claims of tolerance, we can be just as stridently self-righteous as the religious right; it's just that our self-righteousness is based on a claim of superior intellect, not morality. On the other hand, despite our stridency, we can be morally indecisive and curiously feckless. Some of the criticisms that the Right makes of us are actually valid. What gives?
I made friends with a defiantly conservative man today, after trading some playful barbs. Simply because I was willing to admit that there were some problems with liberals, he shook my hand and said, "You're not like any liberal I've ever met." Back-handed compliment but I know he meant it in a nice way. In order to prove to him that there are more like me, a lot more like me and like you nice folks at RF, I've pulled out a sermon on liberalism by my senior minister to email to my new friend. Because it is relevant to much of our recent discussion here, I thought I would share it with you guys as well. Also, I just wanted to share a little of Rob with you guys. Sermons like this are why I adore the dude, why new members are flocking to our church, and why Rev Sinkford asked him to preach at GA. Davidium got to hear him there, and I don't even think that was one of his better sermons. (It was still really good!) This one is up there as one of my top ten favorites.
'A Religious Liberal Examines His Heart'
by Rev Robert Hardies
delivered at All Souls Church Unitarian, Washington DC
on April 10th, 2005.
Back in January, I got a call from a member of the congregation inviting me out to lunch. We ended up sharing a meal at a restaurant in Dupont Circle, right in the middle of President Bush's inaugural activities. You may remember how the city was taken over that week by out-of-town guests. Well, we had a window seat on Connecticut Avenue from which to take in the parade of proud men in ten-gallon hats and cowboy boots, and women in their furs. Now, I consider the person with whom I was dining to be a fairly upbeat and hopeful guy. But inauguration week was testing even his resilient spirit. After a long silence, the man turned to me and said: "Rob, how did we get to this place? Is something the matter with liberalism? Why does it feel like we're doomed to perpetual failure? Is there some tragic flaw? Something inherent to the philosophy of liberalism that dooms us to failure?"
"You don't have to answer me now," he said. "Why don't you just preach a sermon about it?"
Well, I've given his questions a lot of thought over the last few months. I've been reading all the things written in the news, and I've searched my own heart out on this question. I've also gone back and consulted guides whom I've trusted. And so here, four months later, is a collection of thoughts I have about the liberalism I know best: religious liberalism. The religious left. It's not really appropriate for me to talk about the political left. I leave it to you all to do the translating you need to do if you want to draw political lessons from this sermon.
The first thing I want to say is, Don't panic. Since November, there's been no shortage of hand-wringing about the state of both political and religious liberalism. The consensus is that there's a crisis and we need to do something about it. Well, one thing you learn if you study the history of the left is that we always think we're in crisis. In fact, one of the things that sets we religious liberals apart from the orthodox is that we believe that revelation is not sealed. It's ongoing. Truth is always opening up around us, if only we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Because we are always open to new truth, we must always be open to new critique -- including the critique of liberalism itself. One thing about being a liberal is being open to the possibility that you're wrong. That's a big difference between liberalism and conservatism, and one I wouldn't give up for the world. So right in our current situation, we find ourselves grappling with one of the strengths and weaknesses of liberalism.
Here it might be helpful to tell a story. Early in the last century, a young Unitarian minister and theologian, James Luther Adams, went to study theology in Germany. Germany was the birthplace and enduring center of religious liberalism. Adams went to study with the masters. He went back and forth to Germany several times during the 1920's and 30's, and what he found terrified him. He discovered that by and large, religious liberalism was complicit with the rise of Nazism in Germany.
Really, there were three kinds of liberals that he discovered.
The first were the good, middle-class Lutherans who perhaps were distasteful of some of Hitler's tactics. But it didn't really affect them. The horrors weren't really present to them. They didn't see it on a daily basis. When they went to church on Sunday, the minister didn't talk about it. And so they went along. Perhaps they tutt-tutted about it in their living rooms, but they didn't act. Theirs was a tolerant, open-minded liberalism. Liberalism of the "live and let live" variety. But it wasn't enough to say "live and let live." It wasn't enough to say "to each his own." This vaunted tolerance allowed the rise of the most virulent and deadly intolerance the world has ever known.
Adams also identified a second kind of liberal. He recalled one time when he had a conversation with one of the leaders of the Lutheran Church in Germany, a theological liberal. He was shocked to hear the leader explain to him how God had sent Hitler to fulfill the German people's destiny on Earth, much as Yahweh had sent his help to the descendants of Abraham so they could fulfill their destiny. (Of course, he didn't see the irony that the German people's understanding of their destiny involved eliminating the people with whom Yahweh had made his covenant.) Adams tried to argue with him. He reminded the minister that when Abraham's descendants strayed from God's mandate for justice, then God turned against them. The minister stood up in his seat and shouted at Adams, "How could God be against us? God is in us!" That last line should be familiar to you from the Sunday mornings when we dedicate children to the church, and recognize the divine spark within them. And its familiarity should send a shiver down your spine.
There was a third kind of liberal as well. These were the ones who risked everything to oppose the Nazis. Adams had gone to seminary at Harvard with one young man. When he arrived in Germany and looked him up, he discovered that his friend had been sent to Dachau for preaching against the Nazis. These folks had to go underground, where they worshipped like the first Christians. They set up seminaries. They plotted violent and non-violent means of opposing the regime. Adams said that the watchwords among this group of liberals were "decision," "commitment," and "choice."
Basically, Adams concluded the following about liberalism from his time in Nazi Germany:
First, liberalism that relinquished its moral compass was complicit with evil. And second, liberalism that failed to muster commitment from its adherents was impotent.
So I've taken this all to heart over the last few months.
[continued in next post...]
I still proudly and defiantly call myself a liberal. I cherish our tradition of open-minded inquiry and tolerance; our message of love for all of us, not just a few of us. But at the same time, I recognize that there are problems, very annoying and pressing problems, associated with liberalism. One the one hand, despite our claims of tolerance, we can be just as stridently self-righteous as the religious right; it's just that our self-righteousness is based on a claim of superior intellect, not morality. On the other hand, despite our stridency, we can be morally indecisive and curiously feckless. Some of the criticisms that the Right makes of us are actually valid. What gives?
I made friends with a defiantly conservative man today, after trading some playful barbs. Simply because I was willing to admit that there were some problems with liberals, he shook my hand and said, "You're not like any liberal I've ever met." Back-handed compliment but I know he meant it in a nice way. In order to prove to him that there are more like me, a lot more like me and like you nice folks at RF, I've pulled out a sermon on liberalism by my senior minister to email to my new friend. Because it is relevant to much of our recent discussion here, I thought I would share it with you guys as well. Also, I just wanted to share a little of Rob with you guys. Sermons like this are why I adore the dude, why new members are flocking to our church, and why Rev Sinkford asked him to preach at GA. Davidium got to hear him there, and I don't even think that was one of his better sermons. (It was still really good!) This one is up there as one of my top ten favorites.
'A Religious Liberal Examines His Heart'
by Rev Robert Hardies
delivered at All Souls Church Unitarian, Washington DC
on April 10th, 2005.
Back in January, I got a call from a member of the congregation inviting me out to lunch. We ended up sharing a meal at a restaurant in Dupont Circle, right in the middle of President Bush's inaugural activities. You may remember how the city was taken over that week by out-of-town guests. Well, we had a window seat on Connecticut Avenue from which to take in the parade of proud men in ten-gallon hats and cowboy boots, and women in their furs. Now, I consider the person with whom I was dining to be a fairly upbeat and hopeful guy. But inauguration week was testing even his resilient spirit. After a long silence, the man turned to me and said: "Rob, how did we get to this place? Is something the matter with liberalism? Why does it feel like we're doomed to perpetual failure? Is there some tragic flaw? Something inherent to the philosophy of liberalism that dooms us to failure?"
"You don't have to answer me now," he said. "Why don't you just preach a sermon about it?"
Well, I've given his questions a lot of thought over the last few months. I've been reading all the things written in the news, and I've searched my own heart out on this question. I've also gone back and consulted guides whom I've trusted. And so here, four months later, is a collection of thoughts I have about the liberalism I know best: religious liberalism. The religious left. It's not really appropriate for me to talk about the political left. I leave it to you all to do the translating you need to do if you want to draw political lessons from this sermon.
The first thing I want to say is, Don't panic. Since November, there's been no shortage of hand-wringing about the state of both political and religious liberalism. The consensus is that there's a crisis and we need to do something about it. Well, one thing you learn if you study the history of the left is that we always think we're in crisis. In fact, one of the things that sets we religious liberals apart from the orthodox is that we believe that revelation is not sealed. It's ongoing. Truth is always opening up around us, if only we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Because we are always open to new truth, we must always be open to new critique -- including the critique of liberalism itself. One thing about being a liberal is being open to the possibility that you're wrong. That's a big difference between liberalism and conservatism, and one I wouldn't give up for the world. So right in our current situation, we find ourselves grappling with one of the strengths and weaknesses of liberalism.
Here it might be helpful to tell a story. Early in the last century, a young Unitarian minister and theologian, James Luther Adams, went to study theology in Germany. Germany was the birthplace and enduring center of religious liberalism. Adams went to study with the masters. He went back and forth to Germany several times during the 1920's and 30's, and what he found terrified him. He discovered that by and large, religious liberalism was complicit with the rise of Nazism in Germany.
Really, there were three kinds of liberals that he discovered.
The first were the good, middle-class Lutherans who perhaps were distasteful of some of Hitler's tactics. But it didn't really affect them. The horrors weren't really present to them. They didn't see it on a daily basis. When they went to church on Sunday, the minister didn't talk about it. And so they went along. Perhaps they tutt-tutted about it in their living rooms, but they didn't act. Theirs was a tolerant, open-minded liberalism. Liberalism of the "live and let live" variety. But it wasn't enough to say "live and let live." It wasn't enough to say "to each his own." This vaunted tolerance allowed the rise of the most virulent and deadly intolerance the world has ever known.
Adams also identified a second kind of liberal. He recalled one time when he had a conversation with one of the leaders of the Lutheran Church in Germany, a theological liberal. He was shocked to hear the leader explain to him how God had sent Hitler to fulfill the German people's destiny on Earth, much as Yahweh had sent his help to the descendants of Abraham so they could fulfill their destiny. (Of course, he didn't see the irony that the German people's understanding of their destiny involved eliminating the people with whom Yahweh had made his covenant.) Adams tried to argue with him. He reminded the minister that when Abraham's descendants strayed from God's mandate for justice, then God turned against them. The minister stood up in his seat and shouted at Adams, "How could God be against us? God is in us!" That last line should be familiar to you from the Sunday mornings when we dedicate children to the church, and recognize the divine spark within them. And its familiarity should send a shiver down your spine.
There was a third kind of liberal as well. These were the ones who risked everything to oppose the Nazis. Adams had gone to seminary at Harvard with one young man. When he arrived in Germany and looked him up, he discovered that his friend had been sent to Dachau for preaching against the Nazis. These folks had to go underground, where they worshipped like the first Christians. They set up seminaries. They plotted violent and non-violent means of opposing the regime. Adams said that the watchwords among this group of liberals were "decision," "commitment," and "choice."
Basically, Adams concluded the following about liberalism from his time in Nazi Germany:
First, liberalism that relinquished its moral compass was complicit with evil. And second, liberalism that failed to muster commitment from its adherents was impotent.
So I've taken this all to heart over the last few months.
[continued in next post...]
