What Creates a Responsible Commonwealth?

Last Thursday, at the Olympic Club, a fellow member – a committed Libertarian -- gave a provocative speech on liberty. His views echo the early pioneer creed of self-reliance, freedom to choose, and readiness to take responsibility for the outcomes of those choices. He decries any government mandates – whether to participate in Social Security or wear seat belts or whatever. Thursday night, I pondered a response about the balance of freedom and commonwealth; if not government in our complex, heterogeneous society, what mechanisms constrain liberty from becoming mere license?

Friday morning, I joined the leadership team of Horizon House to have breakfast with Geoffrey Black, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. (Horizon House, Seattle’s leading continuous care retirement community, was founded 50 years ago by members of Plymouth Congregational Church, a UCC affiliate; we still have ties to the UCC though we are a heterogeneous, multi-faith community of curious, active persons dedicated to creative ageing. I serve as a non-resident trustee.) This was a remarkable coincidence, coming as it did after my musing on the responsibilities of free citizens to a community of free citizens. The Reverend Black talked passionatly about peace and justice and what his community of faith had to be and become to minister effectively in the 21st century.

The UCC, itself, is remarkable. Formed but in 1957 by the merger of the Congregationalists of my forbearers with the Evangelical and Reformed Church, and small (only 1.1mm and shrinking like so many other mainline denominations), UCC has swung a disproportionate weight in the fights for civil rights, against Apartheid, for women’s rights, for gay and lesbian rights (UCC lost 400k members in 2007 after officially endorsing gay marriage), against nuclear arms proliferation, and so on and on. And these are not merely positions; this is a church of deeds -- showing up, organizing, contributing, calling, laboring, feeding, housing, providing sanctuary, whatever.

The UCC is committed to peace and justice; its congregations are open and welcoming to all of whatever ethnic or social strata or sexual persuasion, so long as one shares belief and commitment.

My home church was Colonial Church of Edina, a Congregationalist church led by Dr. Arthur Rouner, a congregation that decided to opt out of UCC at the time of merger. When I came to Seattle, I was attracted to Plymouth Congregational and its senior minister, Joe Williamson. His was a remarkable intellect; he later served as Dean of religious life at Princeton University. Plymouth continues to live the UCC progressive, activist tradition: Plymouth Housing Group operates 800 units of low income housing; its supports sister church relationships in emerging nations (it was through Plymouth that I was able to go and take a close look at Nicaragua in the Sandinista years); it has persistently protested the Iraq war. I served it for a while as head of adult education, studying and wrestling with the complexities of these kinds of moral and ethical questions.

It wasn’t the church’s activism or stand on issues that ate at me. It was questions of belief and faith. I dreaded a certain question at breakfast with Rev. Black, since I am no longer a member of Plymouth – or of any church. Why, when I obviously admire Plymouth and the UCC?

For years I had swallowed my doubts and salved my conscience by rationalizing that the Apostles Creed was merely poetic metaphor, or by standing silent while my fellow congregants stated their true belief in trinity, in resurrection, in an activist God who would intercede in the affairs of men. My doubt of a ‘loving’ God who obviously did not intercede to mitigate the chaos, the tragedies, the inhumanities of the world grew; along with it, my sense of hypocrisy. And then I began spending more time in Southeast Asia, increasingly exposed to the teachings of the Buddha.

My journey finally arrived at a point where I no longer can call myself a Christian. I still revere the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. We know he would be appalled by some of the deeds committed in his name But also that he would be delighted by others, like those of progressive UCC’ers committed to Acceptance and Peace and Justice. I have come to accept the Buddha's disdain for questions of the nature of God as an unkowable distraction from the problems of dealing here and now with suffering, self control, and injustice.

But the Thursday question remains: what mechanisms should we use, if any, to balance freedom with community responsibility? Is it enough to rely on 1.1mm UCC’ers or ten times as many Methodists or twenty times as many Baptists to handle the demands of 300millions more Americans, many of whom may not be responsible and self-sufficient, who have needs and suffer injustice? What creates a responsible, civil commonwealth? And what is the proper role of the majority, i.e., of a government of the governed?