“Religiously Liberal Political Conservatives:

 Mythical Beasts or Endangered Species?
by Reverend James Kubal-Komoto

Saltwater Unitarian Universalist Church

Des Moines, Washington

January 15, 2006

            Tomorrow we as a country celebrate the birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and because we do, this morning I want to talk about diversity.

            However, I don’t want to talk about racial diversity or economic diversity. I want to talk about political diversity. I especially want to talk about political diversity within this congregation because I believe it is an issue with which this still congregation struggles.

            What do I mean?

            Very simply put, I think that we sometimes confuse what it means to be liberal religiously with what it means to be liberal politically, and this leads to some unfortunate consequences.

            Of course, this is an easy enough mistake to make.

            Throughout the history our Unitarian Universalist tradition, religious liberals have often supported causes that were also considered politically liberal, and the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Unitarian Universalists are both religiously liberal and politically liberal.

            In one recent survey, Unitarian Universalists nationwide were asked to describe their political leanings. In that survey, 31 percent described themselves as “very liberal,” 47 percent as liberal, 16 percent as middle of the road, 4 percent as conservative, and only 1 percent as very conservative.

            The big surprise to some people when they hear these statistics is that 5 percent identified as conservative or very conservative.

            Some people have asked me, “Why don’t you preach on social issues more often?” My response: “Who do I have to convince?”

            Sometimes when I do preach on social issues, I even feel a little guilty. It’s like throwing red meat to lions.

            Why don’t religious liberalism and political liberalism necessarily go hand in hand?

            To answer this question, it might be useful for me to say exactly what I think it means to be a religious liberal, and I want to suggest four common beliefs among religious liberals. First and most importantly, religious liberals believe that individual experience and conscience, informed by modern knowledge, should be the ultimate authority for one’s religious beliefs. Second, religious liberals believe that creation itself is sacred. Third, religious liberals believe that the focus of religion should be on how we live this life, and as I said last week, religious liberals believe that the purpose of this life is to grow spiritually. As Henry David Thoreau said, our philosophy is, “One world at a time.” Fourth and finally, religious liberals believe in the importance of creating a society that is more compassionate and more just for us all.

            Unfortunately, I can’t give equally exact explanations of what I think it means to be a political liberal or a political conservative. However, during the past few weeks, I’ve spent time talking with people who describe themselves both as religiously liberal and politically conservative, both within this congregation and outside of it. Some I sought out. Others sought out me. So these people do exists. To answer the question I posed in the title of my message this morning, they are not mythical beasts. Neither do they believe that being a “religiously liberal political conservative” is an oxymoron or something that creates any cognitive dissonance.

            Here’s what one person who is a member of this church told me: “I did not join the Unitarian Universalist religion to become steeply involved in political action causes.  I joined because I love the freedom of being able to worship according to my own conscience, and not be told how to think or believe. I whole-heartedly accept the [social] principals of Unitarian Universalism. Yet, I reserve the right to believe in some politically conservative positions.”

            How is this possible? Here’s my answer.

            As Unitarian Universalists, we are committed to creating a more compassionate and just world for us all. More specifically, we are committed to creating a world that is more respectful of all people, that is freer, more egalitarian, more democratic, more peaceful, and more respectful of the natural world to which we all belong.       Yet these are all ends, and while we may agree on the ends, we may honestly disagree about the best means to attain them.

            Here it may help to do a bit of explaining.

            For the most part, I have found that many of the Unitarian Universalists who describe themselves as “politically conservative” do so because of their beliefs about the economy or international affairs rather than their social beliefs. For example, many may believe in a woman’s right to choose and gay rights and stem-cell research, but also may believe that free markets are more effective at contributing to the common good than government programs or that the decision to invade Iraq was a necessary evil.

            It may be helpful for us to remember that of three Unitarian Universalists now serving in the U.S. Congress, one of them, Representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, is a Republican, and that the last Unitarian Universalist to serve in a U.S. president’s cabinet was William Cohen, who was Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, but was a Republican Senator from Maine before that.

            Of the Unitarian Universalists with whom I spoke, both inside and outside this congregation, all were very wary of the influence of the Religious Right on American politics and especially mourned this group’s impact on the Republican Party. Most were not huge fans of President George W. Bush, though some did vote for him.

            So these are individuals who are strongly committed to Unitarian Universalist values, but may honestly disagree with the majority of other Unitarian Universalists about the best means of making those values a reality in the world.

            Unfortunately - - and this is what I really want to talk with you about today - - these individuals don’t always feel welcome in Unitarian Universalist congregations. They do sometimes feel like endangered species.

            Let me share some remarks that other Unitarian Universalist in other congregations across the country have made about this issue.

            Dawn Cooley, a member of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, said very honestly, “I [used to be] one of the people who did not understand how someone could be a conservative and a Unitarian Universalist at the same time. My vision of what it means to be a conservative was someone who is self-centered, uncritical, and frankly, wrong.” She discovered that in her congregation, there was a “self-righteous attitude” common among many members that people who share the same religious beliefs could not logically “come to different political conclusions.”

            Lt. Eric Johnson, a Unitarian Universalist U.S. navy chaplain and former classmate of mine, said, “The war [in Iraq] has revealed something that has been lurking in our churches for a long time - - that Unitarian Universalism is no longer, in my opinion, a creedless faith. Liberal political beliefs have so infused our liberal religious beliefs that there is a very real doctrinal test for inclusion and acceptance in many, if not most of our congregations - - you must be politically liberal!”

            The Unitarian Universalist minister Rob Eller-Isaacs, co-minister of the Unitarian Universalist congregation in St. Paul, Minnesota, said, “Ask a religious liberal who happens to be a Republican or a businessperson how it feels to be part of most of our congregations: You’re apt to hear how they feel pushed away by unfounded assumption and thoughtless remarks by well-meaning people made foolish by their ideology.”

            Sid Kasley, a Unitarian Universalist lay person in Miami Florida, said, “Bring a Republican, a capitalist, or a country music lover to [a Unitarian Universalist church] and watch the cold shoulders.”

            Damn. That means both David Brooks and Garth Brooks are out.

            Of course, nobody could ever make those kinds of remarks about this congregation, could they?

             Well, there is the member of the congregation who wrote to me, “I desire to continue to feel at home at [this church]. It is a congregation of very loving and caring people.” Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but I wonder if there is a tinge of uncertainty in those words, a wondering by this person whether he will be able to continue to “feel at home” at Saltwater Church if other people knew more about his political beliefs.

            Then there is also the member of this congregation who stayed away for a while during the last presidential election because the political rhetoric he heard in the Welcoming Room on Sunday mornings got to be too much.

            Then there are a few individual who are no longer members of this congregation, in part because their support for the Iraq war made them feel like outsiders.

            Now for those of you who are visiting this morning, I admit that I am airing some of this church’s dirty laundry in public this morning, and I don’t want to give you the wrong impression.

            It’s my impression that this congregation has improved its acceptance of political diversity in recent years, and I don’t believe this is the biggest problem we face as a congregation. On the other hand, this is still enough of a problem that I don’t want to ignore it.

            Why does it upset me so much when I hear people say things or do things that reflect the belief that if you are a religious liberal, you must be a political liberal, or even worse that belonging to a Unitarian Universalist church means that you also must be a Democrat?

            It upsets me because this community is first and last a religious community, not a political one, and our primary purpose in coming together is a religious one, not a political one, and as I understand religion, it is the search for connection and meaning in our lives. It is to answer the question, so well posed by poet Mary Oliver, “What are you going to do with your one wild and precious life.” It is, as I said last week, about learning to live with more compassion, gratitude, acceptance, and commitment.

            Yes, our quest for question for connection and meaning may lead us into the political realm, but I think it’s always important to remember that, at least in our interactions with one another in church, our religion should come before our politics.

            The Unitarian Universalist minister Chris Walton recently wrote, “The complaint…that Unitarian Universalism is little more than thinly disguised left-liberal politics sometimes hits pretty close to the mark, especially in many smaller congregations. The charge is not that Unitarian Universalists derive their political values from their religious values, but that they sometimes dress up their political values in religious clothing.”

            My hope is that this is never true in this congregation, and it pains me to think that there might be individuals and families in South King County who would very much like to find a liberal religious home, but might not feel welcome here because of their political beliefs. It upsets me that in looking for a religious home, some people might have to choose between feeling at home theologically or politically, between choosing a church where people proclaim a savior who walks on the water is the only way and a church where people proclaim a savior who windsurfs on the water is the only way.

            It also upsets me when people with politically conservative beliefs may have been made to feel unwelcome because it is contrary to some of the values we hold highest as Unitarian Universalists, values such as humility, open-mindedness, respect, toleration, and especially compassion.

            It infuriates me when I hear anybody inside of this congregation or outside of it question the intelligence, the knowledge, or the moral character of another individual simply because his or her beliefs may be different.

            Where is it written that speaking passionately about the deepest values of our own hearts requires us to question the goodness of anyone else’s heart?

            Let us remember that in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter from Birmingham Jail, a letter to fellow clergymen who were in opposition to his civil rights activities, he does not question the goodness in their hearts, but addresses them as “men of genuine goodwill.” Neither does he ever question the validity of their Christian faith, but encourages them to go deeper in that faith.

            William Schulz, former president of the Unitarian Universalist Association and now the executive director of Amnesty International USA once said, “Political conservative Unitarian Universalists must recognize that they may well be in a minority on some issues. But politically liberal Unitarian Universalists must recognize that how they treat people in the minority is a reflection of their religious values.”

            It also worries me when I occasionally hear people in this church express such animosity toward elected officials with whom they disagree. Hate is never good for our souls, and it never changed the world for the better. Love has. Think of those marchers in our first reading, shouting their love for Sheriff Jim Clark.

            It also upsets me when we over-identify our religious liberalism with political liberalism or any other label because, in the end, I think it hampers the amount of good we can do as a church in the world.

            Frankly, I’d like to see this religious congregation develop a little more of what William Shulz has called a “theology of dirty hands.” I’d like to see us to a little bit more hands on stuff in our local community. For example, volunteering at Hospitality House, the homeless shelter for single women in Burien, is something that anybody can do regardless of whether they are a Democrat or a Republican or something else, and if we had a few more folks of any political persuasion we could help out more.

            During the past four years, we’ve raised enough money to start microbanks in villages in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, and Afghanistan, and we now have enough money to start another one. With a few more people of any political persuasion, we could start even more. I even think our microbank program might be particularly appealing to those of a more conservative bent, since it is in essence helping to spread capitalism to the far corners of the globe.

            Even when we do advocacy in the wider community, it hurts us when we think of any one party as the “good guys” and any other party as the “bad guys.”

            As many of you know, one of my involvements in the larger community during the past few years has been advocating for increased funding for human services in King County. One of the things I’ve learned is that not all Democratic politicians are supportive of the same things I am, and not all Republican politicians are opposed to those things.

            The Washington State Legislator will soon vote again on whether to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in Washington State. In the past, at least a few Democrats have opposed this bill, and whether it finally passes this year will most likely come down to the vote of Republican Senator Bill Finkbeiner of the Redmond area.

            Here I find the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. again to be instructive. King said the role of the church is not to be the master of the state or the servant of the state but the conscience of the state. Similarly, I believe that any church should not try to be the master of any political party, or the servant of any political party, but the conscience of any and all political parties.

            Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical, has also advocated against too close a relationship between religious organizations and political parties. “Cleary,” Wallis says, “God is not a Republican or a Democrat, and the best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the Left and the Right.”

            So where does all this lead me?

            I’d like to finish with some suggestions for all of us to consider.

            1. Remember, first of all we are a church. Our primary purpose here is nurturing spiritual growth among ourselves. Politics is always second to that.

            2. Don’t’ assume everyone here is of the same political beliefs. Recognize that it’s possible to have similar religious values in common and different religious values. As the Unitarian martyr Francis David said, “We don’t have to think alike to love alike.”

            3. Remember that that most people have good reasons to think the way they do. Never question the intelligence, knowledge, or moral character of somebody with different political beliefs. It’s tacky. If you hear somebody else doing it, let them know it’s not appropriate to do so in this religious community.

            4. Let us be a model for the rest of the world. When somebody’s beliefs are different from your own, find out what experiences led them to those beliefs. Focus on what common beliefs you share.

            5. Remember that most of the good we as a church can do in the world doesn’t have anything related to politics at all, and when our faith does call us into the political arena, we should be very wary of too closely identifying with any one party. Our focus should always be on issues, never on labels.

            Yes, my friends. Let us change the world. Let us work toward making it a more compassionate and more just place for us all, but let us make no Faustian bargains, abandoning the religious values which bind us together, in order to do so.

            So may it be. Amen.