|
I wish here to ask some questions about one of the sacred cows of the modern Unitarian movement, our oft-proclaimed and much-vaunted espousal of liberal values, across a whole range of social and other issues. Now, Jesus was on the liberal wing of the Judaism of this time; thus following his teaching and example can quite properly be said to involve a preference for liberalism over extremism, for tolerance over bigotry. And yet . . . there is rather more to this issue than at first appears or is often superficially assumed. I think we make a critical misjudgement in supporting that, since we part company with mainstream churches in matters of creed and dogma, we must therefore necessarily be liberals. There is no over riding reason why monotheism or Unitarianism, as religious positions, have to be liberal. Look at the great monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam: in the case of the former there are many traditionalists as well as many liberals; in the latter case traditionalists far outnumber liberals. And most of us, such as myself, who have come to Unitarianism theologically will above all be conscious that being a Unitarian is not a choice made because many Unitarians are liberals and it is good to be in like minded company. In such a matter of cause and effect, the tail should not be allowed to wag the dog. I wrote above that there is rather more to this issue than appears superficially. Granted that Jesus was a liberal – an extreme liberal; in fact who, according to the Gospel of Thomas (verse 14), could so ignore Jewish dietary restrictions as to advise “if you go into any land . . ., eat what is set before you”-, what are we then to make of Jesus comment at Mathew (5.18, also Luke 16.17) one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”? And that this is indeed an original saying of Jesus, uttered in Aramaic is confirmed by the phrase which introduced the idea, “for verily I say unto you”, a form of asseveration characteristic of Aramaic speech. And so the conundrum is: we are called to be both extreme liberals and enforcers of every detail of the law. How is such a paradox possible? In ordinary, everyday life it is surely a recipe for immediate schizophrenia, with the accusation being levelled at us into the bargain that we are guilty of double standards. And so let me rephrase the question. In what circumstances does it cease to matter whether we are traditionalists or liberals? Under what particular dispensation do the two apparent opposites come together as one? You may have your own answer to this dilemma. I should like here to suggest one answer which occurs to me. If we have accepted Jesus' teaching about the nature of the Kingdom of God, if we succeed in this life in living according to the precepts characteristic of the Kingdom, then perceived opposites, in this and other areas fade into the margins. And the result, inevitably, is that it is not enough merely to be liberal and, in somewhat self satisfied fashion, to wear our liberalism on our sleeve. We must somehow square the circle and, at whatever personal cost, be inclusive of the traditionalists at the same time.
Dr.Martin Pulbrook
|