Liberalism is dead. Long live liberalism!! (ritual, moral, Earth, tradition)

[lilithu]

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...]

[lilithu]

[continued from first post....]

James Luther Adams used to have a saying for times like these -- times when liberals were in their soul-searching mode. He used to have a slogan. He'd say, "Liberalism is dead! Long live liberalism!"

What did he mean by that?

Well, first, he was simply pointing out the fact that self-critique and self-renewal are integral parts of what liberalism is. Revelation is ongoing. But he also meant that there are parts of liberalism that must be set aside, that must die, in order for the redemptive qualities of liberalism to survive. Liberalism is dead. Long live liberalism.

These days are clearly one of those times when we must decide what about liberalism is dead, and what is redemptive. We must jettison the former and cling tenaciously to the latter.

I want to submit to you today that the liberalism that must die is the liberalism that spends so much time sorting out the issues that it never takes a stand for what's right and what's wrong. The liberalism that must die is the liberalism that, even after the most inhumane and violent century of recorded history, still refuses to take seriously the human capacity for sin and evil -- and that refuses even to use those words simply because the religious right has misused them. The liberalism that must die is the liberalism that has such a negative attitude toward power and authority that it permanently relegates itself to powerlessness.

The liberalism that must die is the tepid faith of those who can't make up their minds. Once, the wife of Oliver Wendell Holmes said to someone who asked her what religion she was, "We're Unitarian." He said, "Why?" And she said, "Because it's the least you can be." The liberalism that must die is the liberalism that demands nothing of us.

The liberalism that must die is the liberalism that has abandoned its historic commitment to justice, and that, instead, has become a theological cover for middle-class respectability. The liberalism that must die is the smug arrogance that always has a reason why someone's scheme isn't good enough, but whose arrogance is really just a cover for a lack of courage to enter the fight.

Those liberalisms have got to go.

Conversely, the liberalism that must live on is the liberalism that looks at the human heart with a clear and unsentimental eye, and still finds reason for hope. That can say, with William Ellery Channing, "Despite all our failings, I still thank God that my fate is bound together with the human race."

The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism whose commitment to the worth of every person is such that it always asks the question: "Who among us is not free?"

The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism with a grown-up's understanding of freedom. Freedom is not "I can do whatever I want." Real freedom is "I can do what I must. What I'm called to do."

The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism that takes all the available knowledge -- knowledge of faith and of reason -- and based on that knowledge makes judgments about what's right and what's wrong. The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism that values the rational mind, yes, but that values equally the convicted heart and the strong will.

The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism that is committed to the prophetic call for justice. The call that has motivated generations of liberalism to work on the front lines of justice.

There are some in this country who have already given up on a significant portion of our youth. And right this moment, they are building prisons where our children will be warehoused for the rest of their lives. The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism that won't abandon our children to the prison cell, and that provides them with a strong moral compass to avoid it.

Friends, religious conservatism can only take us into the future by amputating a good portion of humanity. It is not a viable faith to lead us into the future. But religious liberalism will only be a viable option when it can muster the courage of its convictions, and recommit itself. This is just to let you know that today I'm recommitting myself. That from today on, I'm going to try even harder. I'm going to pray more. I'm going to commit more. I'm going to give more of myself and my resources. And if this sounds a bit like an altar call, well, it is. Because now is a time for decision. And for commitment.

Thank God we don't live in Nazi Germany. But we do live a nation that reeks with injustice. And this nation and this world don't need a bunch more people who are content as long as things are good for them. These times need more people who recognize themselves as members of the great family of all souls, and who won't be content until all of our kin know what it means to be free.

And so to the friend who asked me four months ago about the future of liberalism, I say what James Luther Adams said to us: "Liberalism is dead. Long live liberalism!"

Amen.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Liberalism is to me:



When you say you will do something, it is more than a promise.

That you owe service to society as a whole not just your own group.

Fair mindedness, Fair handedness. And Fair justice should be mandatory.

The realisation that the less fortunate should have special consideration.

That politics, trade, finance, the environment, religion, foreign relations

and all aspect of life should be conducted with the same liberal values


Terry
_________________________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

[Stairs In My House]

Wow, that's really good. This part was my favorite:

Originally Posted by lilithu

The liberalism that must live on is the liberalism with a grown-up's understanding of freedom. Freedom is not "I can do whatever I want." Real freedom is "I can do what I must. What I'm called to do."

This pretty much sums up why I stopped being a libertarian in my early 20s and became a liberal.

[Darkdale]

That's a pretty scary image in liberalism, if I'm reading it right. It is, however, an accurate one.

[Green Gaia]

Well, first, he was simply pointing out the fact that self-critique and self-renewal are integral parts of what liberalism is. Revelation is ongoing. But he also meant that there are parts of liberalism that must be set aside, that must die, in order for the redemptive qualities of liberalism to survive. Liberalism is dead. Long live liberalism.

Namaste Lilithu. Thank you for that wonderful sermon. I'm so glad you're back!

[Davidium]

The liberalism that must die is the liberalism that demands nothing of us.

From me, that receives one loud and resounding "AMEN!"

I'm glad you are back too, Lilithu....

YoUUrs in Faith,

David