Reflections on our Fifth Principle:  The Right of Conscience and the Use of the Democratic Process in our Congregations and Society at Large

 

A Sermon by the Rev. James R. Bridges

Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Rock Tavern, NY

 

Our fifth principle reads “We covenant to affirm and promote the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process in our congregations and society at large.”  That is quite a mouthful.  It sounds great, but it also sounds political – not religious in tone at all.  Have any of you ever wondered how democratic process factors into our religious faith?  What about Right of Conscience?  How is that religious? 

 

I believe they are religious values, and I also believe that they fit into our principles quite nicely.  Let me explain how.  Our first principle relates solely to the individual – affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person.  It is a pillar of both the Unitarian and the Universalist faith.  Gradually the principles move outward in scope, until by the fifth principle, we are dealing with larger groups of people and the democratic process, so we are moving from the individual to larger society.

 

There is another reason why these two entities fit within our principles, however.  They are historic to our faith tradition.  That is right – both go back to the founding of Universalism and of Unitarianism as religious movements in America.  Let’s turn our attention to the right of conscience first.  Although this phrase did not appear in any of the three versions of the Universalist Declaration of Faith, the first of which was passed in 1790, the “liberty clause” contained in each of them served the same purpose.  The clause states “neither this nor any other statement shall be imposed as a creedal test, provided that the faith thus indicated be professed.”[i]  In other words, even though the Universalists viewed themselves as a denomination and had a creed, the individual was free to believe that which made sense to the person.  This liberty clause served as a right of conscience.

 

The Unitarians viewed themselves not as a denomination but as an association of congregations.  They contained in their bylaws the following passage: 

 

The [American Unitarian] Association recognizes that its constituency is congregational in polity and that individual freedom of belief is inherent in the Unitarian tradition.  Nothing in these purposes shall be construed as an authoritative test.”[ii]

 

There it is again:  “freedom of belief.”  Clearly, both of these statements establish a freedom of conscience in terms of the beliefs required for membership in either church body.  These statements give a wide latitude in terms of beliefs, and both are consistent with the first principle, that of the inherent worth and dignity of every person.  If people have inherent worth and dignity, it only follows that their thoughts would then be respected as well.

 

Now, let’s go to the second part of this principle – the use of the democratic process.  This attention to democracy may seem strange in a religious context, but not so much so if we remember that both faith traditions were born in the context of the creation of a new nation and government.  Our nation’s founders created a government heavily based upon the ideals of the Enlightenment.  It is no accident that many of the founders of this new Republic were also founders and leaders in the two denominations, including Benjamin Rush, a Universalist and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Unitarian minister and scientist Joseph Priestly, who influenced strongly the Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Unitarians in their own right.  Then too, Patriots Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin also traveled in Unitarian circles, with Franklin attending Priestly’s lectures and sermons in England.

 

As the Rev. Erik Holt III, former minister of the Unitarian Church in St. Louis, MO has stated,

 

The political notion that people have a right to self-government grows out of a religious conviction that human beings have the capacity to shape their own destiny, that they are not mere puppets on a divine string. 

 

Democracy, to put it another way, is more than a mechanism of governance.  It is an expression of faith in the power of human beings to shape their own lives, a faith that is most explicit in the ideals of our religious tradition.[iii]

 

So historically, these two stands, the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process, have been part of our religious movement from the very beginning.  They may have not been expressed in the same way, but the ideals were present.

 

In terms of governance, however, I find these ideals somewhat contradictory.  Well, maybe not contradictory, but they may perhaps reside on opposite ends of a seesaw, with a fulcrum separating them in the middle.  How so one might ask?

 

The right of conscience implies that one is free to believe what one will.  This is certainly true within our faith tradition and theological beliefs.  We pride ourselves on that freedom of belief.  It recognizes the individual’s right to think for herself, to come to her own conclusions, and to proclaim her viewpoint for other’s to consider.  It is highly individualistic.

 

The use of the democratic process, in contrast, implies that decisions are made by majority vote.  Just because a member wants something does not mean that he will automatically get it.  It will have to be voted upon democratically, and he just might lose the vote.  That is what happens in democracy.  One does not always prevail with a majority vote, no matter how hard one tries to win.

 

While it is true that we within Unitarian Universalist congregations do not choose our beliefs by majority vote, so the right of conscience, as it extends to one’s beliefs, remains intact, nonetheless, I can think of several examples where the commitment to right of conscience must be toned down to remain in right relationship to one’s congregation or board.

 

It is in areas such as these – where the right of conscience may conflict with the use of the democratic process – that I find instructive and revealing.

 

I can think of one example in this congregation where the board voted to make a certain large expenditure.  All seemed united in the decision except for one member of the board who believed the expenditure was not in the best interests of the congregation and was an expenditure of money, money which was critically needed in other areas of the budget.  Yet, in spite of those beliefs, the member was observed to speak favorably about the project after he lost the vote.  When confronted by someone who knew his feelings prior to the board vote and then asked if he might not be acting hypocritically, his response was very revealing.

 

He said that yes, he had indeed been opposed to such an expenditure.  However, the board was democratically elected by the congregation to deliberate and make such decisions.  The board cast their own democratic ballot to decide the outcome of this expenditure.  The vote carried and the board then made the purchase.  The dissenting board member was understandably disappointed.

 

But, do you know what he did?  Much to his credit, he chose not to go out into the congregation bad-mouthing the decision.  He reasoned that such would be showing disrespect to the use of the democratic process, to which he is also committed to affirm and promote.  While he did not have to believe that the decision was a good one, he did not believe that the right of conscience gave him the authority to chronically speak out against the decision.  To stay in right relationship to the board and the congregation, he had to accept the vote, which he did indeed do.

 

This type of behavior I believe is difficult for many of us in Unitarian Universalism.  Far too often we believe that the right of conscience allows us to keep on fighting “the good fight,” even after the last ballot has been cast and the decision made.  Our approach becomes rigid and self-righteous.  We cannot see the other side.  From my perspective, the right of conscience does not grant one that right to keep fighting.  The individual’s right is not absolute, for if it is, community, true community, cannot exist.  Overly strong individualism is innately opposed to a dynamic community and the use of the democratic process therein.

 

But should the individual be subsumed into or lost in democratic votes?  No, I don’t mean to imply that either.  What is necessary is a sensitivity on both sides – to the right of conscience to be respected by any community, and then the right of conscience must also respect the use of the democratic process as an aid in making decisions.

 

It all boils down to the question of right relationship.  We can covenant to be honest with one another and yet show respect and honor to decisions made by voting, even if we disagree with the resultant outcome.  That is maturity as opposed to adolescence.  Honest disagreement, combined with respect, leads to maturity.

 

Why do I talk about this now, you might ask?  We just had a hotly contested budget vote, and feelings are still hurt by the outcome.  We are also focused on growth, and not everyone may agree with growth and the burdens and responsibilities it incurs.  Further, we also will soon be reviewing architectural plans on how we can create more suitable RE space.  Each topic can result in tension and turmoil.  Through the turmoil, I hope and trust that we will remember our common vision, that of Unitarian Universalism.  I also hope that we can utilize the democratic process to reach such decisions amicably and fairly.

 

Not everyone may agree with what occurs here 100%.  Thoughts and feelings of disagreement are not unusual in any group, especially one of UUs, who often resemble cats, each completely autonomous and independent.  Independence, however, should not be continually confused with each person continuing to do their own thing, after the congregation has voted some decisions.  Once the decision is made and voted upon, right of conscience does NOT give one the right to continue to try to undermine the decision, to continue to speak out against it, and so forth.  To me, one is then called upon to take a big step, to affirm the democratic process and abide by the decisions made therein, by either one’s congregation or one’s board.  One may not welcome the decision, one may not feel joy and happiness, and I am not advocating you fake feelings and thoughts you don’t have.  On the other hand, to continue to speak out against the decision becomes divisive and potentially destructive to the overall community, and one then leaves being in right relationship, a place in which I don’t believe anyone wants to be.

 

In other words, I ask each of you for commitment to this congregation, to the democratic process, and to the right of conscience.  Most importantly, stay in right relationship to this your congregation.  Whether or not you agree with something, you are a valued member.

 

Thank you for your thoughts and attention to this difficult issue.  Are there any responses or questions?

---