“MORE THAN
JUST WORDS: THE RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE”
A sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
If I were to ask the average UU to
identify what it is that makes our religious tradition distinct from other
traditions – how are we different from others? – I expect the answer would in
some way refer to our rejection of creed and dogma, our affirmation of freedom
in religion, and our embrace of tolerance and reason in religion.
Those are accurate descriptions, but
it seems to me that what is distinctive about our tradition has less to do with
what we believe and a whole lot more
to do with how we believe. If you try to nail down the precise beliefs
of Unitarian Universalists, you will quickly find you are trying to pin down a
moving target or nail jello to the wall.
But the question of how we
come to our individual beliefs is easier to describe, and I think a lot more
profound and revealing. The deeper
question is what authority people invoke for believing as they do. And how is that authority for belief
different among UUs than from others?
In traditional Christianity, almost
unanimously, the “authority” for what to believe is the Bible. That is sufficient. (This is also true for Judaism and Islam,
concerning their respective bibles.) While
it is true that the different sects read the Bible differently, they all
profess their allegiance to the Bible as the ultimate authority. If the Bible seems ambiguous on some
question, then authority comes from church institutions or from the writings of
the founders.
Our answer is different. By what authority do we arrive at our
beliefs? The answer isn’t
difficult. Our beliefs rely on the
authority of our own reason and conscience.
We actively seek out things to influence our beliefs – the Bible and
religious traditions can be a useful source, as can science or literature or poetry
or music or anything that inspires – but in the final accounting, belief is a
function of our individual conscience. That
we don’t always agree among ourselves on matters of religious belief, then, is
understandable. Each of us experiences
our conscience somewhat differently. But
we hold in common an absolute reverence for the right of conscience, and it is
out of that conviction that we arrive at principles such as religious freedom
and tolerance.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who began his
career as a Unitarian minister, said it about as bluntly as it can be
said:
“Nothing
is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
Nothing! Not bibles or rituals or traditions or
prophets or even sages like himself. The
human conscience, the integrity of your mind, is ultimately what we should
accept as sacred. One consequence of
this view, by the way, is that we claim full responsibility for our beliefs –
we cannot make a bible or the church the source of our convictions.
This principle goes far back in our
history. Jonathan Mayhew was one of the
leading colonial ministers during the early 1700s that paved the way for
Unitarians some years later. As the
churches in the American colonies were debating about which creeds to follow,
Mayhew condemned all creeds as doing injury to religious liberty and human
reason. “Creeds,” he said, “are
imperious and tyrannical. . . They are
an infringement on those rights of conscience, which ought to be sacred.”
The phrase used at that time for the
religious liberty was the “right of private judgment,” the right to think for
yourself. Churches were adopting creeds
out of concern that allowing people to decide for themselves is encouraging
religious infidelity. Mayhew thought
differently. “No one,” Mayhew said, “has
a right to deprive another of (their right to private judgment) under a notion
that he will make ill use of it, and fall into erroneous opinion. We may as well pick our neighbor’s pocket,
for fear he should spend his money in debauchery, as take from him his right of
judging for himself and chusing (sic) his religion, for fear he should judge
amiss and abuse his liberty.”
This principle of the right of
conscience permeates both our history and our institutions. The by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist
Association contain this statement:
“Nothing
herein shall be deemed to infringe upon individual freedom of belief which is
inherent in the Universalist and Unitarian heritages or to conflict with any
statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any congregation,
unless such is used as a creedal test.”
Most of our individual churches
contain a similar statement in their by-laws prohibiting a creedal test for
membership. UU ministers receive their
credentials through a group called the “Fellowship Committee.” That group may reject a candidate for our
ministry based on any number of things – perhaps they haven’t had adequate
academic or practical training, or perhaps they have personal problems that
need addressing first – but the Committee is expressly prohibited from
rejecting a candidate based on a creedal test, on the nature of their theological
belief.
We are, therefore, not just
non-creedal, we are anti-creedal. And we
reach this principle from our acceptance of the rights of conscience. And not only do we have no creedal test for
joining, we have no system of excommunication of membership based on
belief.
It is no coincidence that given this
principle, our churches are organized under what is called “congregational
polity” or even “radical congregationalism.”
Our system of church governance, known as “polity,” is democratic in nature. It is an unusual system to be sure. Ministers are chosen by congregational vote,
not appointed by denominational officers.
Leaders are elected by the congregation, not by church hierarchy. The governing Board answers to the
congregation, which has authority to overturn any decision of the
leadership. But as the UUA Commission on
the Free Church noted in its 1963 report, “Congregational polity. . . is the
conscious application within a human institution of belief in the free
spirit.”
Radical congregational polity
extends to the larger Association of Unitarian Universalist churches as
well. The Unitarian Universalist
Association (our denominational organization known as the “UUA”) has no formal
authority over the churches, which are considered independent and
autonomous. The UUA exists only to
assist congregations, and it is the congregations that elect the UUA
leadership.
Our church organization is a direct
product of our principles of respecting the rights of the individual. Just as within our churches each individual
is recognized as independent and autonomous, within our denomination each
church runs itself. In both cases, the
individual and the church are honored through a democratic system. Or as a former UUA President Frederick May
Eliot said it, “The basic principle of our associated religious life. . . is
the right of each individual and each (local) church to hold and affirm
whatever opinions and beliefs commend themselves as true and important.”
Put
differently, this democratic congregational system expresses not so much what we believe but how we believe – through honoring the rights of individual
conscience.
This is why in the Statement of
Principles of the UUA, these two ideas, rights of conscience and democratic
process, are linked. The principle I
refer to says it this way:
“We
covenant to affirm and promote. . . the right of conscience and the use of the
democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”
Having talked so far about the “rights
of conscience,” I expect most people in this room have little or know problem
with it. And yet I also think this is
one of those topics where the words are easier to say than the principle is to
live. There is a line from Shakespeare’s
Merchant of Venice that expresses
well those values that are easier said than practiced:
“I
can easier teach twenty what were good to be done, than to be one of the twenty
to follow my own teachings.”
The fact is that in practice the
honoring of the rights of conscience sometimes has its own challenges. One such challenge is the question, “Can
anyone be a member regardless of their beliefs, and even if their beliefs are
repugnant to most of us?” Does the
absence of a creedal test and the affirmation of the rights of conscience open
the door of membership to anyone who wants to come in?
Can an avowed racist be a Unitarian? Our answer would be “no,” with some
qualification. Racism violates what we
affirm when we affirm the “right of conscience” of every individual, for it
denies dignity to all people. Someone
who denies the inherent worth of each person has already excluded themselves
from the Unitarian communion. But can a
racist join a Unitarian church? In theory, yes. But for a racist to feel at home in this
community would mean we have failed at expressing our principles.
Can a fundamentalist who believes in
a literal reading of scripture join our church.
In theory, yes. But until they
are comfortable with a free religious inquiry, with respecting the right of
conscience of those who disagree, and with affirming diversity of opinion, they
would not be in fact a Unitarian Universalist, though they could be permitted
to join a UU church. I am certain that
such a fundamentalist would not be comfortable with our freedom, and even find
it personally threatening. Over the
years I’ve had a few such visitors walk out in the middle of my sermons.
But there is a tougher challenge
presented by this affirmation of the “right of conscience.” It has to do with the church’s public actions
in matters of social justice, for example.
Our religious values often encourage
us to become involved in public issues of social justice. It makes me proud of this church to see our
members actively working for important causes in society. Even controversial causes. Our churches are places that should reinforce
and encourage our commitment to a better world, and it would be irresponsible
not to do so. If offers that
encouragement through discussion groups, such as the Sunday forum, and through
occasional Sunday sermons on controversial topics, and through a network of
people who share similar values.
There is no question that a church
which explicitly honors the right of conscience of each person would support
them in the effort to live out their convictions. But to what extent can the church
institutionally take a stand on controversial issues without infringing on the
rights of conscience of those members who may disagree?
This is one of the perennial
dilemmas of our churches. Our religion
is grounded in solid values, and often those values are translated into public
action. Unitarian Universalists have
earned a reputation as being on the frontlines of many causes. During the civil rights movement In the
South, our churches became sanctuaries of support for civil rights
workers. When Dr. Martin Luther King
made a public invitation for clergy support in
Unitarian Universalists are visible
in a variety of social action causes.
During the Central American wars in the 1980s, the UU Service Committee
sponsored a number of peace groups there – and many churches provided sanctuary
to refugees. We were among the first
denominations to affirm the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers, and when
the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the first such wedding
took place in a UU church, officiated by the President of the UUA.
The list goes on and on. People who have heard of our religious
tradition are likely to associate us with advocacy of social justice issues
than almost anything else.
But it is, as the saying goes – a
saying that has always puzzled me – a “sticky wicket.” When can the church as an institution declare
its support of a controversial issue without stepping on the rights of
conscience of those members who disagree?
Can the church as an institution speak to any issues on behalf of its
individual members? Our tradition of
respect for the “rights of conscience” would seem to say that the church has no
place in taking a public stand in the name of its membership.
One may say that it is all right for
the church to act on such issues within the rules of democratic process. If the majority say support something, that’s
all it should take for the church to take a stand.
But majority rule is always in
tension with minority rights. The
democratic process does not guarantee respect for the rights of conscience of
individuals.
Let me offer a specific
example. Let us say there is a broad
consensus within this church membership on some controversial subject – whether
it is amnesty for illegal aliens, funding for embryonic stem cell research, or
international Free Trade alliances. Let
us say, just hypothetically, that 55% of our church members approve of some
program of amnesty for illegal aliens, and 45% oppose it. Then say that we are approached to put our
church’s name on a petition, or have our church contribute to or join a
movement, to support amnesty. Would such
action infringe on the right of conscience of the minority within the church
that disagrees? Would it be an offense
to the principle of “right of conscience” to suppose that the church’s actions
represent the view of All Souls and its members? It would appear to do so, I think. I further think that almost everyone in that
minority would feel not only alienated from the church at large, but feel that
the church’s principle of “rights of conscience” has been violated.
Now suppose the difference in
support for amnesty for illegal aliens is 95% for and 5% against. Would the difference in numbers change the
nature of the principle involved? If so,
what numerical ratio of support would justify a change in principle?
The fact is that on matters of
social and political policy, it is not difficult to find a majority, if not a
consensus, among Unitarian Universalists.
That being the case it is easy, far too easy, for some of us to slip
into a mind-set that “everybody agrees with me.” The presumption that “everybody agrees with
me” becomes a not-too-subtle threat to the “rights of conscience” principle we
proclaim, and mutes the voices of those who disagree. It is not unusual to hear it said that
although Unitarian Universalists do not allow creedal tests in religion, they
have no rule against political and social creeds.
This dilemma is real, and one of the
reasons that I raise it today is because it is something we need to face
directly from time to time. A couple of
months ago, it became the subject of a Board discussion when the Board was
asked to lend our name and make a contribution to a good cause that was not
necessarily something all members would support. Though it was recognized as a good cause, the
Board declined to do so based on the principle of “rights of conscience.”
All Unitarian Universalist churches
have to face this question from time to time and decide between the two worthy
but conflicting choices: to lend
institutional support to a cause that most members would affirm, or to withhold
institutional support on the principle of “rights of conscience.” It is a long-standing dilemma in our
history. A 1936 self-study by the
American Unitarian Association concluded that “the theory of tolerance (in our
churches) faces its most acute test in the field of social (action).” When the Unitarians and Universalists merged
in 1961, there was the most thorough self-study ever made by our movement. In its report, entitled “The Free Church in a
Changing World,” it included among its conclusions this comment, which was part
of our earlier reading:
“Certain
characteristic problems confront the churches of congregational (polity). Among them (is) . . . the tendency of the
attitudes of the group to evolve into a kind of unexpressed social or
theological orthodoxy, discouraging the expression of those independent
insights which the group exists to foster. . .
(This can be called) the tyranny of the group mind. . . . Our only safeguard is. . . to encourage and
honor within our churches the expression of widely divergent views on
economics, politics, and religion.”
Over
many years, when All Souls has been faced with this ethical dilemma, it has
almost always chosen to err on the side of “rights of conscience.” I am in agreement with that stand, and with
this sermon, I encourage broader discussion.
It seems to me that the “rights of
conscience” principle should, under most circumstances, be the trump card in
these questions for reasons I’ve given earlier.
Like all ethical dilemmas, though, there are no easy answers – otherwise
it wouldn’t be a “dilemma.” So my
support for the primacy of “rights of conscience” over institutional social
action is surrounded by a number of provisos, which I will now mention.
My first proviso is that while free
churches should protect freedom by generally refraining from institutional
stands, it should be actively involved in conversation about controversial
issues. It should welcome public forums,
it should encourage interest groups, it should educate.
Second, the principle of “freedom of
the pulpit” is no threat to “rights of conscience.” In our tradition, the minister is encouraged
to address important social issues, giving a personal perspective. Individual members may agree or disagree, but
the notion of a free pulpit is sacrosanct.
A corollary to this proviso is that the minister may be active in any
public policy action, however controversial, but he or she is acting only his
or her own name, and not on behalf of, or as representative of, the
church.
Third, the principle of “rights of
conscience” works best when there is opportunity for members to support groups
which can take action. For many years,
this has been the work of a group called the Unitarian Universalist “Fellowship
for Social Justice” (or FSJ). The
concept was to have UUs from the different churches around the city who share
similar concerns to have a group that can take action, sign petitions, and
offer financial support to groups that may be controversial. Such support would be in the name of the
“Fellowship for Social Justice,” not in the name of all Unitarian Universalists. In recent years FSJ has been struggling to
find enough support to be a strong voice.
It is my hope that it can become more vibrant and active. If you are interested, please contact me or
our office.
In addition to the Fellowship for Social
Justice, there exists on the national level the “Unitarian Universalist Service
Committee” (or “UUSC”). This group
becomes involved in issues around the world and offers support in poor
countries to the native populations. It
is not a missionary group, since it has no interest in proselytizing people,
but seeks only to help. Issues such as
health and women’s rights are often the focus.
UU Service Committee is entirely independent of the Unitarian
Universalist Association, so its activities are done on behalf of its
membership, not in the name of Unitarian Universalists in general. The Service Committee has chapters within
congregations themselves, and here again I would hope some from All Souls would
be willing to become leaders of UUSC within our church.
A fourth proviso is that just as I
don’t believe in absolutes in principle, I don’t believe in absolutes in this principle of “rights of
conscience.” I can’t help but feel that
there are times when the issue is too great not to act. It is one of the shameful pages of history,
for example, that the churches in
One example. In my previous church in Pacific Northwest,
the state of
But
this isn’t a card game and for one principle to “trump” another is always
ambiguous and subjective. These are
dilemmas wrapped in uncertainties surrounded by in ethical puzzles. It is a simple phrase, “rights of
conscience,” that on the surface offers simple understanding, but like almost
all principles worth defending, it takes serious thought and deep courage to
defend. What can guide us is the insight
mentioned earlier, given by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
“Nothing is at last sacred but the
integrity of your own mind.”
“The Free Church in a Changing World” 1963
Report of a Special Commission of the
Unitarian Universalist Association
“For us the individual is central. .
. . All authority is rooted (in the
individual). . . . As a result of the
freedom which is ours, our members reach many different conclusions on
theological and other questions. But
these differences do not divide us. They
vitalize us. Our ideal is that each
shall be given full opportunity to express his (or her) views; that none shall
submit to the dominance of those whose views are different; but also that none
shall go (their) schismatic way alone.
We do not merely tolerate differing opinions, we encourage them and look
upon them as the most likely source of new and better understanding. With us the heretic is the one who insists
upon having his (or her) own way, who says, “Play my way or I won’t play at
all.” The real opposite of liberalism is
not a traditional set of theological opinions but the dogmatic insistence that
a particular set of opinions is right. . . . .
“Democracy has been described as a
process in which people are locked together in dialogue, where dialogue means a
conversation in which each person really expects to learn from the other. The free church is an institution in which this
creative interchange centers in religion.
It rests upon the conviction that, since (people) are finite and cannot
know ultimate truth, (our) best hope for arriving at what is true about
ourselves lies in the full and free exchange of insights.
“Certain characteristic problems
confront churches of the congregational way.
Among them (is). . . the tendency of the attitudes of the group to
evolve into a kind of unexpressed social or theological orthodoxy, discouraging
the expression of those independent insights which the group exists to foster.
. . (This can be called) the tyranny of
the group mind. It is true hat such
tyranny is also to be found in the more doctrinal and authoritarian churches,
but the problem is accentuated with us because we are not usually aware of
it. Our churches, like all others, have
their orthodoxies too – social, economic, and political, as well as theological
– and often they are the more stringent because unacknowledged or
unnoticed.
“Our only safeguard is. . . to
encourage and honor within our churches the expression of widely divergent
views on economics, politics, and religion.”
“The great conversation can best
occur in a congregation in which there
is a diversity not only of opinion but of life-experiences as well. A congregation fortunate enough to have many
social classes represented in its membership is a richer congregation than one
that does not.
MEDITATION
Let us join in
the spirit of meditation and reflection:
Let
us be thankful for a world so vast in its diversity, and yet still holding a
universal thread of common human experience.
Let
us cherish the great questions of life, and hold our answers as both true and
tentative.
Let
us seek truth, but never be complacent with our discoveries.
Let
us find a healthy faith of conviction, and yet slay the false god of presumed
certainty.
Let
us not fear to be open. Let us now cower
before doubt. But let us refresh
ourselves in the renewing enterprise of shaping our world as it shapes us.