Religious liberalism arose not on the basis of abstract principles, but within a concrete social context. Unitarian Universalist church historian Conrad Wright probes how some of our principles reflected the historical conditions of the time (and place), and suggests that subsequent social changes challenge those principles. Conrad Wright writes in Walking Together:
"Liberal religion articulated a value system that derived its strength from the social arrangements made possible by the discovery of the resources of the New World. But those resources were not limitless. The infinity of the private individual was plausible enough on the shores of Walden Pond, when there was no closer than Concord Village a mile away: it is hollow rhetoric on the streets of Calcutta or in the barrios of Caracas. The progress of humankind onward and upward forever may have seemed an axiom grounded in history to James Freedman Clarke: it seems something less than that to the residents of Middletown, Pennsylvania. The principle of religious toleration was easy for Jefferson, who could not see that it did any injury to his neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no gods, but the principles of toleration takes on a sharper edge when the decisive differences are not in the realm of speculative theology, abut on the question of apartheid and what it is others should be forced, despite their opinions, to do about it."
So what is permanent and what is transient about liberal religion? Contemporary religious liberals assert that it is a religious principle to work to build a world of peace, democracy, equality and justice - we may disagree whether such a world can be attained, and just what such a world might look like, but social justice and overcoming violence and coercion have become foundational to our religious community. Our spiritual ancestors shared these values with us.
Yet Wright points out that their understandings of these principles were based on their peculiar social situation. He doesn't mention, but I will, that one particularity of that social situation of early American religious liberalism was that it rested on power, and privilege. That power and privilege was based on an accumulation of wealth that resulted from: the conquest of North America, and its peoples; the privatization of the land; the institution of slavery; and the exploitation of impoverished laborers in a rising industrial society. North America's economy today is the product of that historic accumulation.
So religious liberalism arose in a social context, and the social context was based on a history which many of us would describe as unjust, exploitative and contrary to the principles that we espouse. Our contemporary Unitarian Universalist movement exists in a social context as well, and many of us would argue that the social order in which we exist is contrary to our values, and principles. The difference between us and our spiritual ancestors may be that we are aware of the contraction, that we can understand that our religious values call upon us to transform our social situation.
The founders of religious liberalism saw the best hope for their values in their new republic, and its unfolding destiny. Today, Unitarian Universalists are much less optimistic about the wonders of an American future, than our spiritual ancestors.
One of the tasks of Unitarian Universalist theology is to articulate what is the basis for our optimism. We continue to articulate an optimistic theology and social vision. But what is the basis for that optimism. If not the republic, then have we really come to embrace a set of abstractions; such as the triumph of reason and science, the potential of human beings to do good, or love overcoming evil?
What does it mean to affirm the goal of a world community of peace and justice? And what are the means toward that end?
