UU's on war...

[Green Gaia]

David, thank you for taking time to post on this thread. I'd hoped you would.

 

[Green Gaia]

Pete, might I suggest setting an appointment with the minister of the UU church you want to attend and sharing some of your thoughts and concerns with him/her?

 

[robtex]

I have an even LARGER issue with a callous disregard for the horror of war that I have observed in many churches of Christ as well as a few other congregational churches. This WWJB mentality leaves me cold with anger. I understand the rage that Jesus felt when he saw the money changers in the temple. Worship should be a time to rejoice, not a time to bite your lip and avoid causing a scene. I have been essentially asked to not come back to two churches.

I remember you posting the first church you walk out on for being pro-war. I have a lot of respect for you for doing that. For those unfamiliar with WWJB, it stands for Who would Jesus Bomb. Kinda funny in dark sardonic way but certainly applicable to many of the congregations mentality.

Funny seeing you entertain this idea since your mother was a UU.

As far as UU and war, what was posted was really good. Being as it is an organization that tries to bring people of all walks of lifes and all beliefs together as one humanity living in cooperation and trust, it wouldn't really be apt to attract people who think war is a great first option solution. Only an inflexable rigid moral system could be in congruence with advocation of the "first strike and pre-emptive strike mentality the current executive branch has exhibited since gaining office. Inflexible is one of those words that ain't in the UU postulation of spirtual study.

Pete, maybe you can start a Christian same-faith debate on was Jesus a pacifist and if so why are modern Christians not (or some similar phrasing) to address this on RF. Would be a great debate.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maize,

I would rather attend first and see if there is any chemistry first! Unless you think they might ban me before I even get in the door.

Robtex,

I abhor war just as much as I hate bigotry of any sort. Either are a deal breaker for me. Its just as important for me that the congregants are as against this war as the official position. It has been a long search for me and so far I have yet to find a spiritual home.

 

[robtex]

Robtex,

I abhor war just as much as I hate bigotry of any sort. Either are a deal breaker for me. Its just as important for me that the congregants are as against this war as the official position. It has been a long search for me and so far I have yet to find a spiritual home.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize,

I would rather attend first and see if there is any chemistry first! Unless you think they might ban me before I even get in the door.

No, of course they won't!

I was just thinking that the minister could give you the overall feeling of the church on the issue. But as I'm sure you know, all UUs don't agree on most anything. So don't be surprised if there is a wide range of thought on the subject. The UUA is not our Vatican, they issue their statements but we don't have to agree with them.

I think David did a beautiful and very accurate job of describing how most UUs feel about this war.

 

[lilithu]

OK,

I just have to ask (although I think I know the answer):

What is the UU stance on war? Is there an "official" stance as well as a "common" one?

Funny that you should ask this question, NetDoc.

Every year, UUs get together at General Assembly (GA) to conduct the business of being a UU. (I've gone the last two years and met Davidium last year.) And one of the things that we do is vote on an issue that we think deserves particular study/reflection/action which then becomes our "study action issue" (SAI) for the next few years. At the end of the process (now four years long), we then vote on a consensus document, called a "statement of conscience," (SOC) which then gets published. A statement of conscience is our official stance, or as best as UUs can get to one. It is meant to be a democratically arrived at position on what our our UU congregations think/feel about the issue.

This past GA in St. Louis, we ratified our SOC on "Threat of Global Warming/Climate Change" and selected our next SAI to be "Peacemaking", which means that for the next four years, we will be studying and reflecting on the different positions on peace/war: pacificsm, just war, and more current ideas that would involve UN sanctioned military policing rather than letting the two quarelling countries decide things by who has superior poswer. (Sorry, I can't remember the proper term for that third position but those who work in the area currently favor it as a way to avoid the dichotomic pitfalls of arguing pacifism versus just war as we have traditionally done.)

Anyway, the current SAI seeks to clarify the official UU position on war, as you asked, because as the SAI says, we haven't been entirely consistent. (tho understandably so, this being such a complex and contextual issue).

From the intro of our current SAI:

UUA Congregational Study/Action Issue 2006-2010

Issue: Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?

Background and Reasons for Study: As the human population has increased there has been a corresponding increase in contact between groups of people who were largely isolated from one another in the past. This contact, coupled with differences in politics, religions, moral values, and beliefs as well as economic injustices and competition for resources, have led to countless conflicts around the world. Humankind struggles to achieve peaceful coexistence economically, socially, politically, and spiritually.

Significance to Unitarian Universalism: Historically, Unitarian Universalists have agreed with the theory and practice of “just war,” or use of force in self-defense to preserve the life of another person. However, we have also supported peace and disarmament in over eighty resolutions since our merger in 1961. We offer counseling for conscientious objector status. We call on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Buddha,
Siddhartha Gautama, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Our principles are models forpeacemaking yet we act as if violence is more effective than nonviolence in certain situations. As a religious denomination, we need to clarify our position and apply our covenant to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

(The rest of the text is in this pdf.)

By my interpretation, the person(s) who wrote the SAI have a pacifist leaning and are reacting to the current unjust war in Iraq. It is my personal hope that we UUs can get past being purely reactionary and take this opportunity to craft a well reasoned and balanced position that best reflects and affrims our spiritual values. From listening to the people who are most actively working on the SAI now, I am hopeful that we can, but it's still early in the process.

(David, I know you're very busy but this is something that your group should probably keep an eye on, lest we later be unpleasantly surprised by the outcome. That's what nearly happened with global warming.)

 

[lilithu]

No, I am not. I have some specific issues with attending a UU church as it relates to belief in the Scriptures. However, I have an even LARGER issue with a callous disregard for the horror of war that I have observed in many churches of Christ as well as a few other congregational churches.

You mean UCC churches?

My experiences with our Christian congregational cousins is that they are pretty darn liberal. The social justice minister of our church is ordained UCC and we work with UCC groups all the time (as well as Quaker and liberal Jewish). You're saying these congregations STILL support THIS war?

This whole thing is astounding. A while back I took an ethics class and one of the topics was "just war." After reviewing the different considerations, by my criteria, I had a looser criteria for what would constitute a just war than my professor did. Theoretically speaking, there were more instances in which I would have thought it justified to go to war than he would have. (Mainly this is because, like David and Maize, I believe that there are certain times when violence is necessary to stop someone from committing gross violence on a third, weaker party.) But the kicker - the thing I couldn't figure out - was that I thought the current war was not justified (NOT EVEN CLOSE) by my looser criteria and my yet prof felt that it was justified by his theoretically more stringent criteria. We literally had an argument in the classroom where he got angry with me (it freaked the other students out). But I wasn't trying to disrespect him (I actually like him quite a lot) or even change his mind. I just couldn't understand how he could reach that conclusion based on his own criteria. That argument made me think that the whole just war/unjust war way of thinking was bogus. There was a disconnect going on either with him or with me or both. We need another way to approach this thing than arguing whether we can justify violence, as if violence is the only resource open to us and we only need to figure out when to apply it. There's something wrong with those starting assumptions.

 

[Green Gaia]

You mean UCC churches?

I'll answer for Pete since he's not here (hope he doesn't mind!), but he's not referring to United Church of Christ denomination, but the churches of Christ (little c) which is is generally on the other end of the Christian spectrum (in my experience, I grew up in a church of Christ), very conservative and fundamentalist.

I left the church of Christ and headed for UU, Pete left UU and headed for a church of Christ.... I find that amusing, especially since we agree on more than we disagree.

 

[lilithu]

I'll answer for Pete since he's not here (hope he doesn't mind!), but he's not referring to United Church of Christ denomination, but the churches of Christ (little c) which is is generally on the other end of the Christian spectrum (in my experience, I grew up in a church of Christ), very conservative and fundamentalist.

I left the church of Christ and headed for UU, Pete left UU and headed for a church of Christ.... I find that amusing, especially since we agree on more than we disagree.

Thanks Maize, Yeah, I think I ran into that same confusion a while back. So the churches of Christ is congregationalist as well? Are they geneologically related to us as the UCC are? When I hear the word "congregationalist," I think UUs and UCC but I suppose there would be other denoms with the same loose organizational structure.

Pete, why don't you check out UCC congregations near you? (United Churches of Christ)

Tho as David said, there are UU christians, and as far as I can tell, they are re-establishing their voice within UU. Good for them! The Universalist congregations may be more up your alley than the Unitarian ones, if there are any of those in your area.

As far as scripture goes, I believe that the bible was not divinely written but divinely inspired. It was written by (many different) humans who had experienced the Divine and were so moved by their experience that they sought to relate these experiences to others in words. To my mind, that does not make them any less sacred or spiritually true. Through them we can share in an understanding of that experience of love and being loved. That's my two bits anyway, and I know many UUs who feel the same. If you hold a more traditional christian view of scripture, that's fine too. I'd welcome you back to UU with a big bear hug.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have been to a UCC congregation (2 of them) during these past few months, and there is "no chemistry".

I like the idea of a study on peace. I had acheived CO status for the Vietnam war through my UU congregation. How ironic, eh?

Maize, it also amazes me how much we agree on.

Lilithu, that's pretty much how I view the scriptures. Go figure! They are inspired and not written by God. They are a blog written by man trying to understand the devine and nowhere do they claim to be perfect.

 

[Green Gaia]

Thanks Maize, Yeah, I think I ran into that same confusion a while back. So the churches of Christ is congregationalist as well? Are they geneologically related to us as the UCC are? When I hear the word "congregationalist," I think UUs and UCC but I suppose there would be other denoms with the same loose organizational structure.

They are congregational and autonomous, there is no church of Christ headquarters. They formed out of the Restoration Movement, whereas UCC came from the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church with the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches in 1957. The Congregational Christian churches can trace their roots to the Restoration Movement as well, but while the United Church of Christ has very close ties with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), it is theologically and culturally dissimilar to the churches of Christ despite their similar names.