A RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE
Romans 12:14-21

A sermon given by
Moderator Matthew B. Hird
June 5, 2005 / 3rd Sunday of Pentecost

Well, here we are again. The annual "Meeting House Address." Off and on for the past few months Rick has been reminding me of the impending moment and obliquely inquiring if I had "another one in me." I am assuming that he was wondering if I could top last year's magnificent oration. Others, less charitable but more realistic, might wonder if in fact this little brain does indeed have more than one message of interest and perhaps value to more than a few relatives and friends. Well, perhaps; or perhaps not. We shall see.

I remember as a teenager, listening from the balcony of our church in Longmeadow, Mass., as my father gave a moderator's message. The balcony is where we always listened to sermons because it was one of the few places my mother, all five feet of her, could look down upon anyone. I remember that my father's talk was centered on Henry David Thoreau and his famous pond. Unfortunately, that is all I remember, HDT not being as prominent a part of the English lit catechism then as he was in Dad's day. The theme or thrust of these moderator's talks are a little tougher for us lay people than for the professionals, although having to come up with one every week seems a little daunting. Being well versed in Biblical texts is useful, as Harl demonstrated a few years ago with his "Dig into your pockets because we need an elevator" sermon. But since I have none of these skills, you'll just have to suffer with an amateur.

Last year, you may remember, I tried to suggest that the then current words coming out of the White House and other parts of the government, were ones of dichotomy, of polarization, of us versus them, the good guys versus the bad guys, the righteous versus the ungodly; and I suggested that the world is usually not black and white and that we are on a continuum from simple understanding to sophisticated comprehension of God's world and plan. Today, I would like to elaborate on that theme.

Last December, I packed my suitcase and traveled across to the East Bay, to Roger Williams University to listen to David Gergan, the well known Presidential advisor, TV pundit and current head of Public Policy Center at the Kennedy School of Government, part of Harvard University.

This talk occurred soon after the Presidential election and Gergan described many of his friends, both in Cambridge and elsewhere coming to him, emotionally distraught, and some physically sick, over the results and wondering about what was to become of their country. There was the familiar red state-blue state divide. There was the cultural divide. The religious divide. There was the feeling that there was this vast part of the country that was a total mystery to them. How could anyone vote for this man who was so economically clueless and who had produced deficits as far as the eye could see at the expense of the poor and underprivileged, who had brought the country into disrepute in the eyes of the world, and who had lied to the American people. What was going to happen to the country? What could be done in the face of this rigid, unreasoning, unapproachable, inexplicable mass of people?

David Gergan told them that he, "Felt their pain." That he said is the main question. How do we set up a dialogue? How do we come to a mutual understanding if not agreement? He said it won't be easy. The social conservatives and the religious right are confident in their beliefs and believe themselves validated in the polls. They are the winners. Why should they listen to anyone but themselves? But if they won't listen to us, Gergan said, we have to listen to them, to try to understand them, to demystify them in our own minds, and reach out to them. Now how we were to do this he didn't say, and it seems to me more difficult since the leadership in Washington on both sides seems to feel they can profit from this divide. Certainly the current debate over nomination of judges and the "nuclear option" doesn't bode well for future comity and bipartisanship. And when a pastor in North Carolina feels able to expel nine members of his congregation for voting for John Kerry, the picture doesn't look good for a mutual understanding. So we can at least start with an attempt to understand what's going on in our country.

David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, writes that both liberals and conservatives have strengths but also problems. Conservatives have the strength and power of religious and moral principles to inform and support their positions and beliefs. Belief that only God can take away life propels them to be against abortion and government programs that support contraception. They cite Biblical passages against homosexuality as reasons why same-sex marriages should be illegal and marriage should be defined in state and the federal constitutions as being between a man and a woman. A "culture of life" should be paramount. And the list goes on.

And yet, says Brooks, conservatives have problems where belief meets the real world. A lack of contraception breeds HIV/AIDS. Science is proving that homosexuality is a normal part of the animal world. Research is beginning to indicate that homosexuality is present in animals as well as people. And if God creates all life, what about homosexuals? Did God make a mistake? And conservatives seem to forget about life before Roe v. Wade. Do they really want to go back to the days of back ally abortions, wire coat hangers, and suicide? Who decides when life begins? And what about Terry Shaivo? Shouldn't a person have a say on how their life's journey should end?

Now liberals are strong when it comes to the real world and its suffering. Motivated by a sense of social justice and equality, they are in the forefront of movements for social change. Millions of children are without health care. Economic inequality breeds poverty and disease. Educational inequality limits career choices and the ability to improve one's condition in life. But liberal positions and beliefs seem to be missing religious and moral underpinnings. Liberalism has become a pejorative phrase partly because of a dearth of Biblical justification. Liberalism is seen by many to lack legitimacy because its proponents don't cite Biblical passages or invoke religious doctrine or teachings to bolster their views. Certainly these are present, but they don't seem to be voiced. Liberals seem to be so wedded to the principle of individual religious freedom that they are reluctant to utilize religion at all and are seen by conservatives as being secular and not to be trusted.

One thing I think we need to remember. Conservatives are not bad people. They may look at the world from a different learning and belief structure than we do, but their beliefs are sincere and need heeding. And they may not be so different. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicated that President Bush won the poor working class vote by 23 percentage points in the last election, an interesting finding since the Republicans advocate tax cuts for the rich which are sure to cut back or eliminate programs designed to create safety nets for the poor. Affordable health insurance, affordable medications, affordable housing and other programs pushed by Democrats should motivate the poor to vote Democratic. However the working poor are drawn to the Republican's message of hope in the future, of making it on your own, of optimism. They believe in the work ethic. Conservatives believe in people standing up for themselves, not looking for help. They believe in personal integrity, in taking responsibility for what you do. Are those beliefs bad? Would we not agree?

Of course the liberal would counter that there are many instances where individual responsibility and desire to make it on one's own is simply not possible, but why must the two viewpoints be mutual exclusive? We need to know, understand, and appreciate the other points of view on the religious-political spectrum. Over 50 years ago, John Courtney Murray, a Catholic scholar, developed a classification system for religious beliefs. Here they are.

The radical is someone who is both for the environment and personal liberty and who mistrusts religion and government. He is good natured and wants everyone to embrace freedom and equality.

The liberal is for progressive social change and believes in public service. They believe in active solutions to problems.

The traditionalist believes in traditional religious values and is very patriotic although they mistrust government when it seems to contradict their religious beliefs. They are quick to help people in need and volunteer for charities.

The conservative is someone who often is a convert to religion and believes that faith should inform how people understand everything in their life. They are active in community groups, teach Sunday School and support faith based groups.

Using same-sex marriages as an example, the radical rejects any attempt to regulate the behavior of consenting adults. The liberal wants legal guarantees of equality and justice. The traditionalist and conservative recoil at any attempt to change the traditional definition of marriage although the traditionalist feels the state has a greater stake in the outcome while the conservative feels the church has more to gain or loose.

These categories attempt to define the view and motivations of different groups of people. They try to promote understanding and awareness between groups by indicating that people are motivated by good and understandable impulses. Knowing who we are and how we look at others-what can we learn?

If we treat others as categories, as people to be avoided at all costs, as people who should be vilified or decried, we get nowhere. If we try to understand, to listen actively, to be open to agreement when we agree, to acknowledge truth wherever we find it, the future will be brighter. If we don't than the gulf will become wider and the shouting and name-calling will become louder. That is our challenge. I hope we are up to it.

Amen.