LIBERAL FUNDAMENTALISM: OXYMORON, OR CHALLENGE FOR OUR FAITH?
July 20, 2003
The Reverend Anne Felton Hines
Our religious movement has been getting quite a bit of mainstream press lately. First there was the article a couple of months ago in a Texas newspaper about UUA President Bill Sinkford's sermon calling on Unitarian Universalists to embrace a "language of reverence" - probably the identical sermon he'd delivered at my Installation back in November.
Then there was a front-page article in the Boston Globe during General Assembly last month, citing the controversy his statements are creating within our movement, and quoting the concern of several UU ministers over the return to more traditional religious language, especially what's commonly referred to as "God-language." (One of my colleagues raised her fear that we might be returning to the "old-man-with-a-beard" concept of God - though how she leapt to that conclusion is beyond me!)
And finally, there was a short article in last Saturday's L.A. Times, again about the language controversy, which ended with a quote by a UU in Berkeley who expressed her fear of a "creeping theism" in our movement. Some of you may share her fear.
But quite honestly, I have not feared a return to a "language of reverence." If you remember my sermon last November on the subject (and if you don't, you can read it in print or on our website), I am in favor of "liberating" religious language from the more conservative religions who, I believe, have abused and misused it. My fear is not language; my fear is that our movement has become more and more exclusive of those Unitarian Universalists whose "search for truth and meaning" have led them to a faith in something they call "God," and who may even identify themselves as Christians; as well as those who hold political views that are more conservative than the majority of UUs.
Those of you who subscribe to the e-mail list of our Pacific Southwest District may recall reading an "open letter" to the District a while back sent by Dave Kinnear, a member of the UU Church in Mission Viejo. Dave began the e-mail with these words: "Someone has sharply twanged our interconnected web of all existence, and I'm mightily disturbed." He then related an experience he had encountered at a District leadership meeting.
According to Dave, several disparaging remarks were made at the meeting about those Unitarian Universalists who define themselves as Christians. One comment Dave reported hearing was, "Either you're a UU, or you're a Christian;" one couldn't possibly be both. In addition to these kinds of comments, Dave said that anti-Bush and anti-Republican jokes were made, assuming that everyone at the meeting was politically liberal. The implication was that to be a Unitarian Universalist means rejecting Christianity and not voting Republican.
Of course, I don't know why I should be surprised by this; there was a time when I made such assumptions about what it meant to be a UU. I still catch myself doing so!
As you know, I first became a Unitarian Universalist at Throop Church in Pasadena, back in the late '60s. Then an avid and angry atheist, I would complain to the poor minister at the time, Harmon Gehr, every time the choir director chose hymns that mentioned God. I didn't think we still believed in such "superstition," I'd tell him.
Later, when I was attending Starr King School for the Ministry, I became dismayed at the number of entering students who defined themselves as "Christian UUs." Why don't they just become a Methodist, I would ask?
And I know I've been guilty, on more than one occasion, of assuming that a member of my congregation was politically liberal when, in fact, they were not. It's been downright embarrassing! (Recently a couple of Emersonians asked me what qualities I'd want in a mate. When I immediately responded, "Not a Republican!," they informed me that they were Republican! Fortunately, they are also good-natured and forgiving!)
But I also know I'm not alone in this. Since entering the ministry almost 20 years ago, I have been confronted over and over again by an intolerance towards those who hold views different from the majority of UUs - particularly theists, Christians and Republicans.
I think I've mentioned here that I almost didn't get called to my first ministry because of my references to God in one of my Candidating sermons. When, a couple of years into the ministry, I decided to be brave and devote an entire sermon to the subject of "God," I gave it the title, "Expletive Deleted," as I had learned by then that it was more acceptable to broach the subjects of sex and politics in the pulpit than it was to talk about God, Prayer, Jesus, or any number of other religious concepts.
I also learned that I could invite a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew to speak on a Sunday morning about their faith; but if I invited a Christian, people would stay home - or complain to me later about having such a speaker.
Now, lest it sound as if I'm simply pointing the finger at that one congregation, let me say that I have found this attitude alive and well in every congregation I've served, as well as in casual conversations with UUs around the country. Time and time again, I hear good Unitarian Universalists imply that one cannot put one's faith in a God and be a UU; or one cannot be a Christian and be a UU; or one cannot be a Republican and a UU.
So, when I read Dave Kinnear's e-mail to the District, I became "mightily disturbed." It sounded all-too-familiar.
My question for our movement is this: When we rid ourselves of certain religious language - what Sinkford calls a "language of reverence," or ridicule the Bible, or throw out some of the traditional religious rituals, are we not interpreting these things as literally as Fundamentalists do - rather than looking at them more broadly, and perhaps finding the same poetic beauty and universal wisdom in them that we might find in the Bhagavad-Gita, or in Zen meditation? Aren't we allowing the Fundamentalists to "own" the language and the concepts - to determine what their meanings will be?
Likewise, when we immediately reject a more conservative view of some political issue (something I am apt to do as much as anyone), do we not risk a failure to fully explore the issue - to learn all sides of it before determining our position? Are we perhaps afraid that by listening respectfully to an alternative voice, we'd have to deal with the complexity of the issues, and make hard choices between conflicting values?
Do we truly believe that doubts should be cherished, as this morning's Responsive Reading suggests, or only those which doubt Christianity, the Bible, the existence of a god, or certain political positions? I can't answer those questions for each of you; I can only answer them for myself. But I do wonder just how "safe" our UU congregations are for those whose religious or political views are in the minority.
"Fundamentalism" is defined by the Encarta World English Dictionary as "a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine." That's why we refer to Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of all the Biblical stories and laws as "Fundamentalists." And it's why the phrase "liberal fundamentalism" seems an oxymoron, since to be a liberal implies not adhering to doctrine or literalness.
However, if we take the term "fundamentalism" literally, it really only implies a return to the basics - the "fundamentals" or "foundation" of a movement. It's no wonder, then, that the more moderate voices of all religions decry Fundamentalism as it's defined and practiced today, for they know that the "foundations" of their respective faiths have nothing to do with narrowness, hatred, violence, or repression, but only with love, peace and compassion; these are the real "fundamentals" of their traditions.
As with "fundamentalism," the word "liberal" has also run into trouble, both in our churches and in the larger society. Who can forget the beating it took during the Presidential campaign between Michael Dukakis and George Bush, Sr.? Not only was Dukakis accused of being a liberal - as if that were something shameful; but the label became synonymous with socialist, atheist, a "coddler" of criminals, and generally un-American. What was worse for those of us who do consider ourselves to be liberal, was that Dukakis never disputed those distortions of the word. Instead, he simply kept denying the accusation, trying to portray himself as anything but liberal.
But the actual definition of "liberal" is far from shameful; it's simply "a belief…in the freedom of individuals to act and express themselves in a manner of their own choosing; to be tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others." That's why Unitarian Universalism is referred to as a "liberal" religion; it has nothing to do with politics, or with any specific theological beliefs. It simply points to our 3rd, 4th and 5th UU Principles: "Acceptance of one another…," "the search for truth and meaning," and "The right of conscience…" in our decision-making.
And it explains why the Christianity from which our movement evolved was considered a liberal Christianity, focusing on the humanity of Jesus, and defending the right of every person to read and interpret the Scriptures for him or herself. It lifted up the importance not only of Mystery, but of scientific knowledge as well. And the freedom to practice one's faith unencumbered by the beliefs of the majority was an absolute imperative.
If we take the truer meanings of both "fundamentalism" and "liberal," the phrase "liberal fundamentalism" becomes not an oxymoron, but simply a reference to the "foundations" of our religious tradition as they appear in our UU Principles. To be a "liberal fundamentalist" - or perhaps a "fundamentalist liberal" - would mean that we truly "cherish doubts," even when those doubts challenge some of our UU Resolutions on social and political issues, or our individual assumptions about what UUs believe and don't believe.
Too often, I fear, we "religious liberals" don't practice true liberalism, and instead fall into a tyrannical and disturbing form of "fundamentalism," becoming narrow in our view of what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist. And the shame of this is that it can create an unsafe and hurtful environment in our churches; an environment that excludes people because of their religious or political perspectives - because they have doubted a view held by the majority of UUs.
Listen to some of the responses that Dave Kinnear received to his e-mail to the District:
From a Seminary student: "The display of bigotry and intolerance you describe hurt my heart. It is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. This attitude…is the main reason that when I answered the call to ministry, I went outside the UU church….I am now a seminary student at the Chaplaincy Institute for Arts and Interfaith Ministries….I love the path I am on, but it breaks my heart that a lack of respect for other's religious beliefs in my UU congregation is one of the things that steered me here."
From a layperson: "On a recent Sunday, we brought my partner's parents to our service. They are long-time Republicans. Our guest speaker was a musician who put quite a bit of effort into bashing Republicans and President Bush. We didn't bring our guests to have them ridiculed! I felt embarrassed and sad that we are so intolerant of others with different opinions."
And from a UU Christian: "I've been told that it's amazing how 'smart and reasonable' I seem when in fact I allow myself to believe in that 'Christian crap.'
"At the …meeting to discuss choir issues, the agenda (for one topic)…read 'The G word.' Funny…I never knew God was a four-letter word.
"I cannot tell you how this hurts."
The pain expressed in these statements hurts us all. It is particularly the narrowness towards theists and/or Christians in our congregations which galls me, as this not only contradicts our UU Principles, but is also historically inaccurate. Unitarianism and Universalism didn't evolve out of Humanism, Paganism, Atheism, Buddhism, or any other theology which UUs today so eagerly embrace; it evolved out of Christianity, and a profound faith in a loving God. That doesn't mean that one has to hold those beliefs today; but it does suggest we ought to hold a bit more respect for those among us who do.
Father Peter J. Daly contends that, "Fundamentalism has a common denominator of fear." Do we not need to ask what it is we fear when we so quickly reject a Unitarian Universalist who speaks of a presence of God in their lives? Or claims Christian UUism as their theological stance? Or perhaps believes that the Death Penalty is a form of social justice? Or supports the war with Iraq and our continuing presence there? From what are we running when we refuse to listen to what they have to say with as much respect as we listen to those who share our own views?
Our 4th Unitarian Universalist Principle "affirms and promotes a free and responsible search for truth and meaning." That means that none of us is to reach our theological or political conclusions lightly; but neither should we assume that the person sitting next to us on Sunday morning has reached theirs lightly.
If Unitarian Universalism is about anything, it is about relationship -- about speaking our truth with love, and encouraging others to speak theirs. Because of this, we are called to go beyond our fears and biases, and listen to one another, with both an open mind and a loving heart. We are called to truly "cherish our doubts," and the doubts of one another - even, and especially, when those doubts challenge our own assumptions. It doesn't mean we have to give up our beliefs; it only means that we are to serve as companions to one another in our quests for truth -- honoring the beliefs of others, and remaining open to the possibility of being changed ourselves.
I know that not all of you have been comfortable with my criticisms of the Bush Administration and/or my anti-war stance. I am not going to refrain from preaching my perspectives; that is what you have called me to do. But I need to always remain mindful that those who disagree with me are just as rational and compassionate and good UUs as I; I need to allow all voices to be heard, and remain open myself to change.
I also know that some of you are uncomfortable with the language I occasionally use to describe the Transcendent. I am not going to refrain from using that language. But I must always remain mindful of the need for language that includes everyone at least some of the time; and I need to allow all voices to be heard, and remain open myself to change.
I believe that that is what our Unitarian Universalist faith challenges all of us to do every day: Open ourselves to one another; listen to the stories of those with whom we disagree; talk, and talk some more, until we find where our common ground lies; and then stand on that ground solidly together, sharing the fundamentals of our liberal faith so deeply that we risk transformation.
It will be from such transformation that we find a growing wholeness within ourselves. And from that wholeness - that holiness - we will move forward, in unity, to transform and heal our world.
© 2003 Anne Felton Hines. All rights reserved.
