I was just in high school. The Presidential election was dominating the media attention, and attracting my attention. Who would win, Kennedy or Nixon? I asked my mother who she would vote for, she indicated that she might not vote at all! What? It seemed a contradiction to my Unitarian understanding. Well, she explained, my Father was a Democrat and she was a Republican, and if they voted they would just cancel each other out, and so they decided not to bother.
Later it occurred to me that my Mother was not excited about Nixon and my father was not excited about Kennedy, and their no vote pack would not last until November. They did vote, and the result indicated that the country was just as divided and nearly as uncommitted as my parents. I grew up in a Unitarian Universalism that was politically diverse, my congregation was made up of good religious liberals who expressed themselves as Republicans and Democrats. Several years later as a first time voter, I voted in the Republican primary against Goldwater, and ended up voting for LBJ. Then, I demonstrated against LBJ's on the day of his inauguration. My political orientation was becoming independent and critical to the politicians of both political parties. I am not now and never have I been a Democrat. I was a registered Republican for a few months. That was a long time ago.
I have never doubted that religious liberals could and do hold a variety of partisan orientations, and in my ministry I have tried to respect that diversity. I try to articulate what I take to be our religious liberal values in way that challenges the comfort of both Republicans and Democrats, and hope that partisans of both camps can find something transformative about the good news of our Unitarian Universalism.
All theology is autobiographical. My life story includes both a loving but critical relation to Unitarian Universalism as an evolving movement over the last five decades, and whole lot of activism against violence, and the domination system's many oppressions. Based on personal experience, I know that Unitarian Universalism has been and continues to be complicit in racism, sexism and homophobia, but I am encouraged that so many of Unitarian Universalists have become aware of these manifestations of the domination system and have committed to work to overcoming oppression and trying to create a more inclusive religious community. I am aware that the powers that be within Unitarian Universalism avoid conversation about overcoming classism, and economic privilege, and I know that we can not seriously grapple with racism and cultural oppression with out understanding the linked oppressions of race, cultural domination and class. I think of my theology as transformational, and I intend it to challenge all politics as that term is usually understood.
With that I begin my thinking about Peacebang's proposal as expressed in the comments section of Merry Christmas, UUA where she asks: "How about doing an internal audit of self-righteous political homogeneity? The Commission on Appraisal is looking for a topic for its next big study, and in that it is apparent that how the Association and its congregations express themselves on social justice and peace issues has become a persistent controversy among some Unitarian Universalists. Peacebang's idea is a good starting point for a proposed study topic. Before submitting to the question to the Commission, I would like to reframe it a little. I think the reframing opens up the question, and shows why it would be such a fruitful topic.
Do we have a political homogeneity among Unitarian Universalists? No. And I don't think Peacebang is implying that we do. I have met monarchists, communitarians, as well as anarchists Unitarian Universalists. We are diverse, but most of our co-religionists believe in constitutional procedural democracy. We have free enterprise ideologues and liberation socialists, we have folks who believe in standard issue economic development, and folks who are committed to sustainability. We have absolute civil libertarians, and folks like me who seek to outlaw racism, sexism, homophobia, advocacy of violence, and fascism.
After too many years of watching the compromise forming process of our General Assembly resolution making, I have a pretty good idea of what will pass and what will stall. Civil liberties will pass. Economic Justice has taken an uphill battle to even get considered. War and Peace resolves will be amended and debated to create some working compromise. Specific proposals are racial justice will need a lot of explaining, while general statements of equitable principle will pass with little debate. Some delegates will be swayed by the floor debate, and choose between controversial questions based on how they experience the advocates, and other subjective criteria. No resolution passes unanimously, and there are "division of the house" votes on the more controversial questions - we are not politically homogenous.
At the General Assembly, we use procedural democracy which is a system that creates compromise statements that are supported by shifting majorities of politically diverse Unitarian Universalists, and opposed by shifting minorities that are also politically diverse. I have voted against resolutions, not out of ideological opposition, but because I didn't see the question as a priority given all the other concerns facing our world.
But there is a process within Unitarian Universalism that creates what appears as "political homogeneity." As a religious community we are more united around common values than mainstream Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. (See chapter in Engaging our theological diversity on Values.) These common values led many of us to embrace common ethical stances. Both Unitarian and Universalism were first and foremost ethical religions, and that orientation continues. For most of us ethical expression calls for public expression.
In recent years, the public ministries of Unitarian Universalist ministers, congregations and the Association has led us to express those values in the face of increasing polarization in the political life of this country. Unitarian Universalism has been closing ranks politically in direct response to the rise of the political right. A survey of religious movements including our own shows that are periods of when the movement becomes concerned with an external threat, and enters into a righteous crusade. There was that awakening to the dangers of the Slave Power that swept Protestantism both liberal and evangelical in the Northern states in the 1850s, and there was the fight against Demon Rum. History tells us of other less all embracing mobilizations as well. If Unitarian Universalism has moved toward political homogeneity in the last several decades, shouldn't we be probing the political context in which we live and attempt to do ethical religion?
Some have argued that we substitute "political consensus" for "theological unity." In my opinion we have never had theological unity in the UUA, and neither the UCA or the AUA had known theological unity for generations before the merger. Our unity then and now was based on a set of values, expressed principles, idealized heritage, and a process of community building. I am not sure any major religious movement really has 'theological unity" but that is another debate. The whole idea of our political unity / lack of of theology is challenging and would be a great topic for the Commission on Appraisal.
What about the adjective in PeaceBang's characterization? Shouldn't the Commission of Appraisal look at the whole question of "self-righteousness?" I think so, because I think the question raises so many questions for religious liberals. Can one be an ethical religion confronting a world of wrong without a stance of righteousness? For me, righteousness is working toward a vision of right relationship, with oneself, with intimate others, with ones covenant partners, with all brothers and sisters in the human family, with all creatures great and small. Righteousness is a good thing.
My childhood Unitarianism asked me to emulate the teacher from Galilee. He was the model of the righteous. My adolescent heros include Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks - righteous models indeed. Is there a distinction between self righteousness and righteousness? From my early encounter with the liberal Jesus, the Pharisees were models of self righteousness. They weren't really concerned with ethics, they were concerned with showing themselves to be good. It was an outward conformity to the ideal, rather than inner conversion of the heart. (I learned that in Unitarian Sunday School!)
I have matured and now understand that righteousness and self righteousness are not as separate and distinct as the Sunday school lesson above implies. Self righteousness is a corruption of righteousness, and we live in a corrupting world. To advocate high ideals and transformation gives rise to a stance of one-sidedness, and intolerance not only toward those for who oppose those ideals, and that change, but for those who have differences in tactics, and approaches. Wise and compassionate radicals are formed by self criticism and repentance from those who have experienced their own self righteousness and sought to save their souls, not by giving up their ideals, but finding new methods of struggle.
So we need to examine the self righteousness that accompanies our work for justice.
Occasionally, I experience this charge of self righteous social justice activism as an objection to substance rather than style. Unitarian Universalism since the merger has witnessed a growing constituency for personal religiosity, what James Luther Adams called pietism. Gandhi argued that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. He was witnessing that there is a connection between personal /interpersonal transformation and social transformation. The political but not spiritual activist attempts to change the world without attention to their own self transformation, and the result is a continuation of a world of competition, power and violence. The personal religionist, on the other hand, despairs of changing the world, rejects the call to transformation and seeks instead inner religious experience that results in personal peace, wisdom and solace. Those seeking "personal religion" experience all attempts at public ministry and justice making to be self righteous by definition, since they experience the call for transformation as a call to an alien and unwelcome mixing of "religion and politics." This raises the question, can pietists exist without stress and challenge in a religious community that is committed to social ethical expression and is profoundly unsympathetic to pietism due to the influence of James Luther Adams?
I think this could be a helpful and useful discussion, and one that will help us move beyond the present impasse. I don't think we can continue to be all things to all people. If our our youngest and most committed people are getting ready for a fight for their values, then it is the responsibility of their religious leaders to give them the theological grounding they deserve. If on the other hand our future is be providers of spiritual growth exercises for New Age consumers, then we should stop taking any stands that will disturb our tranquility. Let us define our vision for the future, and that will mean a conversation about our political theology.
Let the Commission on Appraisal probe whether our apparent political unity is real or apparent and if indeed our unity based is based on common values, what do those values imply for us, and how do we express them in the world? And if we are to express them in the world, what will that mean for our internal culture of tolerance given the rise of a political coalition that is antagonistic to everything that we stand for? How do we remain rooted to abiding values in the face of demands of this critical time for our nation and our world? And let us ask the spiritual question, as we work for right relations, how does our witness avoid the shadow of righteousness - self righteousness and lack of understanding of the thinking of others?
Hi Clyde,
Wow, there's so much here! I appreciate that you took so seriously my flippant little comment on Boy In the Bands. I would like to see the Commission tackle this.
Two things: I like very much your expression "closing ranks," which is part of what distresses me about the current UUA climate, and all with an insistent avoidance of difficult, deepening theological concepts like "repentance" or an acknowledgment that our commitments have any source more transcendent than our spiritual foremothers and forefathers (who were, of course, reading their Bibles and taking the gospel imperative seriously). Second, I appreciate your reflections on righteous vs. self-righteous. Thanks for taking this up.