The Commission on Social Witness has brought forth one study action proposal this year. It is entitled Peacemaking.
It is important that people read the proposed study/action. Discussion can not go forward based on responding to misquotes and snippets taken out of context.
The proposal asks us to discuss what may be the central ethical question for Unitarian Universalists (at this time at least.) How do we as a religious community respond to war, to violence? Reading the study action proposal makes it clear that there is no attempt to dictate a predetermined position, it does not proscribe a creed.
This discussion will deepen the theological understanding of our faith community, and congregations that engage the questions will be encouraging spiritual growth, and enabling us to really work toward that world of peace and justice that we proclaim as a foundation principle.
Some of the reactions to this proposed resolution I find puzzling. If we have differences on a fundamental question, do we avoid talking about those differences? Is it divisive to study and discuss? Some of the same objections have been raised before. When we began to tackle our own Unitarian Universalist institutionalized racism, some objected that the discussion will be divisive. When we began to talk about our own practice of homophobia we were warned that the discussion would be divisive. The same objection was raised when we began to look at institutionalized sexism. Some of us are threatened by conversations that challenge our pet prejudices., but more of us are conflict adverse. We avoid discussions about subjects on which there is disagreement because we are afraid the discussion might get out of hand.
Are there irresponsible people on all sides of this question that might inject moral posturing, jingoism, uncharitable comments about those who disagree with them, and factional organizing into our discussion? Yes. How do we handle disrupters? Vote them down. Rule them out of order. The Unitarian Universalists have avoided discussions of theology and ethics because we are afraid of divisiveness, and then we refuse to make and enforce rules of civil conduct.
Discussions among Unitarian Universalists can be transformative, we may be in a different place relative to war and peace after this discussion than we are now. Still, I can't imagine how we could become pacifists after a year of congregational study. I have been working on becoming non violent for decades and I still have a long way to go. Becoming a committed peacemaker is hard work, this discussion will only clarify the issues. Yet we fear transformative discussions.
Often those who fear discussion attack those who make the proposal for a transformative discussion by pretending to divine motives. When Unitarian Universalists have raised questions of racism, sexism, and homophobia, the proposers were accused of wanting to make people feel guilty! Such was not the motivation, rather Unitarian Universalists were seeking to promote activity toward overcoming institutional oppression. This proposal for study/action does not and can not impose a creed, it asks us to discuss just war and non violence, it asks us to tackle means and ends. It asks us to be a little bit more clear about a moral and ethical question.
Leave a comment