This sermon was presented by Rev. Judith Campbell at Stevens Chapel on April 6, 2003.

We Affirm and Promote the Right of Conscience

Our fifth principle reads as follows, we affirm and promote the right of conscience and the use of the Democratic Process within our congregation and in society at large. And certainly the democratic process within our congregation was never more beautifully demonstrated than the weekend before last at our leadership and visioning retreat. Thirty of you showed up, we had under twenty at the last one we had a little over a year ago. Thirty of you, almost half the voting membership including a number of friends who are considering membership, came together to share ideas and strong opinions about the nature of who we are, what is our purpose, and where we are going in the next few years. A few of you expressed a concern that is often voiced by any growing organization: that is, yes we are growing, but we don’t want to grow too fast; and I agree with that. We want to grow because we have a wonderful message and purpose that we want to share, but we don’t want to grow just for the sake of more money and more bodies. That’s irresponsible growth.

What we did was to express our views on the things that matter to us personally, and those things that we envision for our future as a community. And after we had listed them, we voted for those Items in which we had the most interest or felt was in the best interest for the church. That was our congregational polity; that is a church community of and by and for the people, and funded and administered by the people, and facilitated through the Democratic process, where everybody gets to have an opinion and be heard, but the majority of votes on all of those opinions and ideas will determine the direction we will take and the projects we will undertake. And as inclusive and accepting and encouraging as we try to be, we will not be able to do every thing on the list. We cannot be all things to all people, and I don’t think we should try.

And in this scenario, unfortunately, there will always be some who, if their pet project is not adopted, will pick up their marbles and their pledge card and go home. That’s voting with your feet. And for some it is the only answer. I suppose it is one way to exercise your right of conscience: voting with your feet or your checkbook.

Right of conscience is a more personal and individual thing, although it can often lead to group action. Protesting the war is a right of conscience, but advocating military action is also a right of conscience. Many people use acts of Civil disobedience as away to exercise our right of conscience. The question we ask ourselves, and the question that came up at the workshop, is: where do religious liberals draw the line. Do we draw a line? Is everyone really welcome here? Is the person who is harassing me and others at our peace rallies, is he welcome here? And if he is, is he welcome unequivocally or is he welcome with conditions? And who sets the conditions? There are those who would welcome him, hoping that by being exposed to our views, he might soften his stance, or at the very least, understand ours. But is that a risk we are willing to take? These are the really tough issues that liberal, open and welcoming organizations, like ours must face; and in my opinion, there are no fixed answers, only situations; and then we have meetings called to address the situation. It’s cumbersome, and people get wordy and meetings seem to go on forever, but when you consider that in many other places on this planet, the right of conscience and the democratic process simply does not exist, it is really a gift, not a right. It is a gift, beyond all measure..

There are those among us who will say that here anyone has the right to say what they want when it is a matter of conscience. That is the philosophy behind the cherished tradition of the free pulpit in Unitarian Universalism. I’ve said this before, I really can preach on what I want, and I can express my own views without censure, as long as they are in keeping with the overall philosophy and mission of the church and within the ministerial code of ethics which I accepted as my own upon my acceptance into ministerial fellowship in UU ministry.

Some lines are easy to draw. We have established policies that guide community behavior. We have a policy that says we will not tolerate any kind of child abuse. We would not allow any kind of physical abuse of one member by another. We would not tolerate misuse of our funds or intentional disruption of our Sunday worship. But when does annoying or aggravating behavior become intolerable or worse, abusive or destructive, and then where do we draw the line? Do we "policy" ourselves out of existence in anticipation of something, or do we wait until after the horse has escaped before we shut the barn door? Where or what is a safe middle ground. Henry David Thoreau advocates pure-minded civil disobedience. When a law is unjust or unfair he says we have a moral obligation to disobey it, because to obey an unjust or discriminatory law would continue to advocate and support an unfair practice or situation. For far too long, the right to vote and to own property, for example, was limited to white males who owned property. There is a long list of laws that have been changed through civil disobedience. We Unitarian Universalists have been a part of that for as long as we have been a denomination, and it is a proud history.

But let’s get back to individual churches. Our democratic process and right of conscience dictates who we will call as our minister, and how we shall conduct our Sunday services and what shape our religious education, for both children and adults, shall take. And if something or someone gets seriously out of step with that or is obstructing the healthy interchange between members and growth of the community, then something needs to be done. But the problem often is that NOBODY wants to actually do it. Every body has an opinion, but actually drawing the line is really hard. It is really hard for us, because in our heart of hearts, we believe everybody should have a voice and a place in the choir, but the reality is not everybody fits. I come back to the point that we can’t be all things to all people.

Where do you draw the line? Let me use an example I used when we had our conversations of safe congregations when I first come here.

She came in late, sat up front, dog scratched and grunted all through the service and really distracted everyone. Woman claimed disability discrimination. She refused to come on time or early, and no one wanted to tell her to stay away. But many members stopped coming because they found the dog and its owner to be so distracting and disagreeable. Rather than drawing a line, the congregation talked around the edges, and voted with their feet. What they needed was a disruption policy, which they eventually developed, but it was of no use in this situation because it was ex post facto and she knew it. I don’t know how it finally resolved, but there were people in the church who said they really felt that she had every right to be there with her dog, and so what if it disturbed the service. She and the dog wanted to come to church and should be welcomed with open arms, or paws. Other people left until after she stopped attending! I don’t know how it was officially resolved, but as far as I know, she and the dog worship elsewhere!

It won’t win a lot of points with some Unitarian Universalists. But I am all in favor of drawing lines. And when and if a line needs to be drawn, we will do it as a community, through the democratic process and exercising our rights of conscience. And I promise you it will take time.

If there is ever a universal in churches - all churches - it is that meetings go on for ever! (No one has ever said that here. But in OTHER churches, it has been heard to be said that some people take too long to make their point, or that they keep making that point until every one has either fallen asleep or left!) But I’ll tell you, I would much rather listen to someone go on too long than not have the right to speak out. It is a very precious privilege that here in America, we regard as a basic right!

We can however, vote to limit the amount of time each speaker has. They do it at general assembly and nobody minds. Speakers just think very carefully about what they want to say, and do it in 2 minutes! Don’t worry, I’m not even THINKING about suggesting that for us. I’d be the first one to butt heads with the policy. But equal time is important, getting your time and making sure that others have theirs, which can mean turning yourself off!

I think one of the most tragic and self defeating mistakes that the Roman Catholic church is making right now is not listening to the reform group that calls itself "the Voice of the Faithful". Here is a group of people who are exercising their right of conscience. They want to raise their voices and their checkbooks in a democratic process, to rebuild a more equitable and safe and democratic Catholic church. And they are not being listened to. They drew lines and were told to leave, and the people in power told the churches to close their doors to them. I believe one day the Voice of the Faithful will be heard, and will effect change in an institution where, I believe, it is long overdue. As a side note, when I started this sermon, earlier this week, I thought that the Voice of the Faithful had made some progress. Now I hear that the new Boston Archbishop has again refused so accept any contributions from these people. I think it is a very costly mistake, and I am not talking about money.

I wish there was a single answer to line drawing and authority questioning. Well, there is actually, and it is in the democratic process and a stop watch. And only through the democratic process is how we, as a group, can exercise our right of conscience in community. We do it by example. We do it in our social action and justice work. And if we feel it is necessary, we may vote to draw lines of justice and equity through civil disobedience, in the larger community of which and in which we as a denomination are a small, vocal, feisty, activist, letter writing, hungry feeding, prison visiting, widow comforting, child protecting, war protesting, war supporting, democratic, republican, libertarian, green, liberally religious, politically all over the map, group of people who have been making other people question their authority for about 500 years; give or take a few. Or maybe 2003 years if we want to think of Jesus of Nazareth as one of the more significant authority questioners, or fast forward 500 years to the Buddha, who when he woke up to the suffering and the pain in the world asked "Why" and realized it didn’t have to be that way, or Martin Luther King who had a dream: that one day Freedom really would ring from every majestic purple mountain top.

As Unitarian Universalists, we cherish our right of conscience and our democratic process, and we sincerely try to use it in all aspects of our experience as a growing community. Two weekends ago, we got together and talked about what was important to us. From that list, our elected parish committee will take those ideas and see what they can do to make them a reality, taking into account the very real time and budget and personal energy constraints that are also part of a community such as ours.

When you think about it - and you may find it hard to believe - the democratic process is part of our process of spiritual deepening. (Remember the sermon on the Third principle: acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations?) As slow and cumbersome and awkward as the democratic process may sometimes seem, it is a vital part of how we get to know each other, and how we grow Spiritually – yes, spiritually - within a congregation. Respectfully pushing against each other’s ideas, compromising, finding a middle road, coming to consensus, giving in even - all involves listening and hearing; active listening and respectful responsible hearing and not just time marking until it is our own time to pontificate!!!

And sometimes within this process, the best consensus we can come to is to agree to disagree. That’s not only OK; I think it is a resolution which is respectful of both points of view. After all, if every one had the same point of view, then we wouldn’t need a democratic process. Would we? (Don’t worry, that is not even a remote possibility here.)

And I wouldn’t have it any other way. And neither would you, because that’s why we are here today and why we will return next week: because we care deeply, so deeply, about what we do and how we do it, even if and maybe even because of the fact that the spiritual and religious journey that we share will be just a little different for each and every one of us. "Welcome to Unitarian Universalism."

Blessed be!