The Rev. Dr. Morris W. Hudgins
Northwest UU Congregation
March 11, 2012
Introduction
Some months ago, I gave a sermon in which I make the case that one can be a religious liberal and a political and economic conservative. Today I will make the case for religious liberalism. The word “liberal” is not politically correct these days. If you are a candidate for political office, you want to be a conservative these days. For some politicians the word “moderate” is a bad word. That is a sermon for another day. Today I would like to show the roots of the word liberal and show that it “is not a four-letter word.”
My sermon this morning and this service as a whole fall into the tradition and the belief that one’s religion should not be separated from everyday life. What we do on Sunday should not be isolated from the political., social and economic order. While I say this, I also acknowledge that our church should be as non‑partisan as possible. We should encourage our members and friends to vote their conscience. We should discuss issues freely. We should also try to hear both sides of an issue and not assume that we all agree on our political positions. Though I do not agree with the Catholic priest in my college days who wore his Goldwater button under his clerical collar where no one could see it, I feel that ministers should be as non-partisan as possible on Sunday mornings.
I have a confession to make. I am not happy with the politics of today. Our politics is in the gutter. I cannot stand the use of political ads to slam opponents. I wish that something would be done to limit the unfair use of advertising to distort an opponent’s views and record.
First, let me say that the word liberal should not be equated with any political party. I am often reminded of one of the most successful Unitarian ministers of the twentieth century‑‑a man with whom I rarely agreed with but grew to admire his legacy in our movement. James Madison Barr, minister for many years in Memphis. Tennessee. James was a Republican through and through. I can understand this. However, I could never understand how he could support Richard Nixon to the bitter end. It would have been appropriate for James to have given Nixon’s eulogy along with Billy Graham. We should always remember that there are representatives of more than one party in this room. We should not assume that just because someone is a religious liberal, that they are a political, social, or economic liberal. Much too often we make this assumption and it should be corrected at every turn. I wonder how many religious liberals we have lost because we expect them to be political liberals.
One of my good friends in the ministry is The Rev. Jan Knost. We played golf together for over 25 years. When he was minister of our church in Summit, New Jersey, he invited me to play golf with him at his private club while I was serving a church near Philadelphia. After nine holes of golf with a caddy I noticed that the caddies were not allowed in the clubhouse. The players often bought them a drink and then brought it out to them as they went to the tenth hole. 1 told Jan after the round that this made me very uncomfortable and would prefer we play without a caddy. It was then that Jan called me a “knee‑jerk” liberal.” This strained our friendship for awhile. We never played at his club again. I stood firm on my position and later turned down membership in a club in Pennsylvania because they did not allow females.
When I told Jan he didn’t say a word, but I knew he wanted to say use that phrase again. Jan and I have stayed friends over the years. We often refer to each other as “brothers.” We are and we will always be. But we often have different political views. This is the way it should be in our churches.
What is liberalism?
In some ways this sermon is for people like Jan. I want to defend the word liberal. I wish one politician would investigate the rich tradition behind the word “liberal” and stand up for this tradition.
Before I look into the history of the word liberal I want to say what liberalism is not. Liberalism should not be equated, with socialism. A liberal can be a socialist, but not all liberals are socialists, just as not all socialists would be comfortable with the liberal label
Secondly, liberalism is not radicalism. During the Reformation religious liberals were often called radicals. Both liberalism and radicalism may differentiate themselves from conservatism, but they are not the same. The conservative wants to hold on to the past because it is the past. The radical wants to change the past for the same reason. The liberal wants a more gradual change. Holding on to the past is important, but making progress in areas that are not working.
All of these positions: conservative, liberal and radical, have their strengths and weaknesses. I would be the first to acknowledge the weaknesses of some liberal positions. We can take the most popular liberal position of the 19th century‑‑gradual emancipation of slavery. One can argue eloquently that this was a way to avoid immediate emancipation. Another example is the Revolutionary War. I would be the first to argue that liberalism as an approach to the revolution did not work in the end. The goals of liberalism, which I will outline this morning, fell short when the British resisted. There are times when radical measures are called for to achieve liberal goals. There are also times when we need to work to conserve something important from the past instead of blindly accepting change whether gradual or radical.
Even with all of these qualifications I want to stand up for the goals of liberalism. What are they? The word liberal came from the “liberales” party in early 19th century which advocated a constitutional government. The word stems from the Latin verb, liberare, which means to liberate or to set free. In the beginning it meant the party or government that advocated freedom as opposed to authoritarianism. The roots of liberalism can be traced to the 18th century Age Enlightenment. I will outline six basic aspects to the emergence of liberalism.
1. First, the liberal approach was to affirm the importance of reason in a world that was full liberalism of superstition. Challenging both the church and the king, liberalism said an argument must stand for itself and should not stand on the authority of the person making the argument. Tradition does not make a practice right. The authority of the ministers, the priest, the Pope, the monarch, the king or even the Bible is not in itself valid. Th use of reason must be added to the mix. The liberal acknowledges the change is important, while the conservative is holding on to the status quo.
2. Second, the liberal emphasizes the importance of doubt. At the heart of all liberalism is ability to question. As human beings we are not all‑knowing, omniscient beings. No matter how right we think we are we must allow someone to stand and raise a question.
3. Third, is the principle of tolerance which is basic to liberalism. Morris Cohen writes:
The touchstone that enables us to recognize liberalism is the question of toleration. Do you believe in prohibiting the expression of opinions that are contrary to what you hold to be the truth in politics, morals and religion? If you do, then admirable as you may otherwise be, you are not of the true liberal faith.
The basic difference between a liberal and a conservative today in politics should concern the issue of tolerance. The liberal is one who tolerates different views, races, classes, religions, ethnic backgrounds, gender and sexual preferences. Hate is a four-letter word for the liberal.
4. Fourth, the liberal believes in the ultimacy of progress and that we can made a difference. Liberalism is firm belief that progress is possible, that as individuals we can change course of human events. The liberal is not a cynic, a fatalist or a determinist, that things are out of our control. At times they are. The liberal accepts those things that are out of our control, but works to change things that can be changed. Take control of our lives. The UU Service Committee said it best in their motto, “We Can Change the World.” That world must include our own backyard. It doesn’t mean we have to do it alone. We each must play our part. The liberal must believe in human progress.
5. Fifth, liberalism must look to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It does not ask for favors for the minority, for the privileged or for a special few. It seeks to protect the rights of all while achieving good for the greatest number. A good example of this is in the area of crime and punishment today. The liberal must saÂy that we can protect the rights of individuals while punishing those who do wrong. In my view, the liberal would acknowledge wrongdoing, the, need for restitution, and for trying to create circumstances that allow for the best of human behavior. We should be concerned about getting criminals off the street and for creating a society where all individuals have the potential to be productive.
6. Which leads to a sixth principle‑‑the worth and dignity of the human personality. Yes, there is evil. Yes, we fall short of the mark of goodness, but the liberal must believe that we are created with the potential for goodness. For some that goodness if more difficult to find, but it is still there. David Rankin writes, “The fundamental postulate of liberal religion is the moral worth, the absolute value, and the essential dignity of the human personality.”
These liberal principles have a rich legacy. Liberals have done amazing things. It is the liberals like Locke, Hume and Smith in England, Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu in France, and Paine, Adams and Jefferson in America who contributed to the democratic revolution in their countries. It was the liberals who fought for freedom of thought and expression (Voltaire), opposition to physical force and coercion (Locke), believed in the natural right to the pursuit of happiness (Rousseau), the opportunity to share in the fruits of labor (Adam Smith), government based on the consent of the governed (Jefferson), equality of all people before the law (Adams), the freedom to form associations of all kinds (Montesquieu), the desirability of promoting social change and the right of revolution against despotic powers (Paine). Liberals can differ in the methods of accomplishing these honorable goals, but we should all affirm them in principle.
Historically, liberals have stood for a government that protects the individual from the evils of society. Laissez-faire politics and economics create a society where the people are the victims. Liberalism should be the mid‑way point between control of society by the dictator and the greedy people of society. Liberals have challenged society to encourage small businesses to thrive, and opposed the tendency of economic enterprises to combine into monopolies so as to control the market, fix artificially high prices.
When it became apparent that businesses could and would exploit individual laborers and consumers, liberalism sought to create counter balancing forces. It supported the right of labor to organize into unions for the protection of labor and the consuming public. It encouraged and supported the formation of consumer cooperatives, credit unions and consumer advocate programs, as well as enforceable product standards to be met by business producers.
It was the liberals who fought for the reform of what they considered to be evils in our society. They called for the end of slavery, the punishment and endless institutionalization of the mentally ill, and they called for government control of childhood labor. It is the liberals who are now protecting the environment, who are concerned about the abuse of children around the world, who emphasize education, and want to protect the safety of our children and the elderly. We should not apologize for supporting these positions.
The word liberal should not be a four-letter word. It should be the heart of our political system including the protection of basic human rights, concern for the well‑being of all the population, opposing racism, encouraging tolerance in a pluralistic society. It is time for politicians to stand up for these honorable principles. I agree with the liberal. Walter Lippman, who early in the twentieth century wrote that politicians should,
. . . provide fine opportunities for the expression of human impulses‑‑to surround childhood, youth, and age with homes and schools, cities and countryside that shall be stocked with interest and the chance for generous activity.
As Unitarian Universalists we should be working for these goals no matter what our political party membership.
Conclusion
I close this morning with one final story. One of my favorite books is by my friend and colleague, Judit Gellerd. Judit has been the inspiration behind the Partner Church Program in which we have developed a relationship with the Unitarian Churches in Transylvania.
For eight years I was chair of the International Funding Panel which helped fund projects internationally to spread the word of liberal religion. We helped fund the project in which Judit Gellerd returned to Transylvania and interviewed the remaining men who were imprisoned with her father under communist repression. Her father committed suicide when he was to go back to prison one more time. He had had enough and decided to end his life.
Here are the final words of his last sermon given on the eve of his sixtieth birthday:
God does not expect you to save the world. Your mandate is limited to one single human being, which may be just yourself-or your neighbor. God never expects more from us than we are capable of doing. Each word of comfort, each act of compassion, is a small bonfire in the thundering nights. But these tiny flickering flames, the simple gestures of loving hearts, will add up and will eventually save the world. Salvation is not something we have to wait for, but we must do something about. Because we can. Because we can, therefore we must.
Judit writes,
Therefore we must! The words echoed in his mind. He had crawled too long in cages. There had been too few words of comfort in the endless darkness. He had to free himself at last. He had to see another path to salvation, even if that were a fatal shortcut. It became his mandate to glimpse his life form the other side, for he wanted to believe that his life ultimately had meaning. His faith was at stake, and he offered his life in exchange.
This should be our faith as religious liberals. We want to believe that life has meaning for all people around the world. We want to work for the good of all, to end the darkness, to free all people from oppression. May this be our goal. Thank you.