WHAT STANCE SHOULD THE UUA TAKE ON WAR & VIOLENCE?

Sermon for 11 January 2009, 1st Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois

Ronald J. Glossop

I. Introduction

A. This coming June in Salt Lake City the UUA General Assembly is supposed to vote to adopt a Statement of Conscience concerning war and violence, but that will occur only if before February 1, 2009 at least one-fourth of all UUA congregations vote to do that.

B. The very first long-term denominational Congregational Study/Action Issue (CSAI) was selected by the UUA General Assembly here in St. Louis in 2006. The procedure is that all UU congregations are to study and discuss an issue for two years under the leadership of a CSAI Core Team. Then attention shifts to formulating a Statement of Conscience (SOC) on that issue for adoption at the following General Assembly. In the fourth year efforts are to be undertaken to publicize and implement that Statement of Conscience. This procedure reflects the fact that we are the Unitarian Universalist Association of congregations. Consequently, UUA policy decisions should be made by congregations, not just the representatives who attend a particular General Assembly.

C. The question which the 2006 GA voted to be considered, probably influenced by the war being fought in Iraq, is “ . . . should the UUA reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through non-violent means?” For many, the issue was to consider whether the UUA should become a “peace church“ like the Mennonites and Quakers rather than continuing to follow the traditional UUA “just war” position, which says that sometimes (like in World War II) violence is required to fight against evil and injustice.

D. The CSAI Core Team, led by Mac Goelker and Judy Morgan, has taken the view that instead of interpreting this question as a call for debate between just-war and pacifist perspectives, it should be viewed as a matter of exploring “violence and peacemaking on all levels.” Consequently, we have the title “Peacemaking” for discussion of this issue as well as a widening of the topic to a consideration of violence and aggressiveness in any context or at any level, not just international relations or relations between “peoples.”

II. The draft Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking prepared by the CSAI Core Team was finalized in November 2008, and it has been distributed to UUA congregations for their feedback, due no later than February 1, 2009. Consequently this congregation will be discussing this Statement of Conscience at our congregational meeting on January 16. (It is also available at <http://www.uua.org/documents/csw/081101_csai_updates.pdf>.)

A. The first paragraph (lines 1-10) aims to provide an introduction to the statement which follows. It cites the issues raised in the original question and calls attention to our sixth principle, which is to promote a “world community of peace, liberty, and justice for all.”

B. The next section called “Theology and History” (lines 11-30) notes how our theology of love, compassion, and inclusiveness leads us as a denomination to support peace and to oppose war and violence. But diverse viewpoints remain on specific issues related to war and peace. Our commitment to persuasion over coercion is consistent with the convenantal charter of the United Nations. In the past some of our leaders have strongly supported the need to use war and violence to combat evil and injustice while others have just as vigorously rejected participation in war and championed a pacifist stance.

C. The section “Pacifism and Just War” (lines 31-42) seeks to clarify these two opposing views. It notes that the term “just war” means “justified war” and lists the usual criteria used to decide whether resorting to war is justified. It is noted that there are variations of these two general views and says that all of them are stances of conscience and reason.

D. “Human Biology” (lines 43-54) responds to the notion that war cannot be abolished because humans are genetically disposed to violence both individually and collectively. Such dispositions to violence do exist, but humans have also evolved an inclination to cooperative behavior based on morality and a reluctance to use violence. They have also learned how to create political and legal institutions which minimize the use of violence.

E. The section “Just Peacemaking” (lines 55-78) attempts to move the discussion to a new level which honors both the pacifist and the “just war” viewpoints. The criteria used to determine whether war is justified should be converted to guidelines for “what justifies the humanitarian preservation or restoration of peace. If force is ever to be used, it must be in the service of ending violence of much greater magnitude.” The goal should be “a culture of peace that makes war and all other forms of violence avoidable and universally recognized as reprehensible and ineffective for honoring human rights & human dignity.” We should aim for “a culture of peace at all levels of human interaction.”

F. “Calls to Action” (lines 79-125) moves from the general concept of “Just Peacemaking” to the more specific actions which should be undertaken individually and collectively. This part on proposed actions contains 5 sections: International Peacemaking, Societal Peacemaking, Congregaional Peacemaking, Interpersonal Peacemaking, and Inner Peacemaking.

1. The international dimension focuses on supporting (a) the UU-UN Office and its efforts to advance several UN initiatives, (b) the UU Service Committee in its effort to stop torture & to change the ongoing systems that keep some groups poor, (c) interfaith groups which advocate for the right of conscientious objection, and (d) the creation of a national working group of UUs to distribute information on peacemaking programs and resources.

2. The societal dimension focuses on supporting (a) socially responsible investing of denominational assets, (b) denominational efforts to eradicate all forms of cultural and economic oppression, and (c) the UU Ministry for Earth and efforts to promote lifestyles and policies which protect the natural environment.

3. The congregational dimension focuses on (a) developing Peace Teams to train and teach about compassionate communication & conflict resolution and promotion of a culture of peace, (b) the development and honoring of behavioral covenants within congregations, (c) religious education programs which teach conflict resolution and compassionate communication and involvment in social justice ventures and the use of UU resources on “Peacemaking,” and (d) being a peacemaking resource within our local communities in cooperation with other faith traditions

4. The interpersonal dimension focuses on (a) practicing compassionate communication, (b) honoring congregational behavioral covenants, and (c) adopting lifestyles which preserve the environment.

5. The inner dimension calls on individuals to develop spiritual practices that impart internal peace.

G. The final statement (lines 126-27) commits us to practice peace by minimizing violence at all levels of human interaction.

III. Personal observations about this draft statement.

A. The title of the statement should be changed to “Toward a Just and Lasting Peace” because the term “peacemaking” has now come to be used by the UN and others to refer to a very limited group of specific activities which are to be contrasted with “peacekeeping” and “peacebuilding.” Using this term “Peacemaking” to refer to our whole statement makes it seem that we are ignorant about that other use of this term.

B. In the section on Human Biology, after the sentence “Cooperative behavior is the foundation of nonviolence and peace” (lines 52-53) I think that the last two sentences (lines 53-54) should be replaced by this sentence: The establishment of democratic government is an important example of socially cooperative behavior that promotes peace and justice. I will soon explain the appropriateness of this addition.

C. The weakest but potentially most valuable part of the statement is the section titled “Just Peacemaking.” I think that a better title for this part would be “Creating a Just and Lasting Peace.

1. A crucial sentence (lines 63-64) says “. . . we need an approach to conflict—including the horrific conflict that is war—which transcends the dichotomy of pacifism vs. just war [theory].” This sentence states the problem succinctly and is directly relevant to the issue raised in the original question raised in 2006. The UUA needs a statement on the issue of war which goes beyond the traditional dichotomy of pacifism vs. just war theory.

2. We need a statement which makes it clear that we humans have already found a way to nonviolently work out conflicts about issues of justice. We make use of this way within many of our national governments, including our own. The key to creating a just and lasting peace is to establish the rule of law under a democratic government where the rulers are elected by the people for limited terms in office, where there is freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of thought and freedom of the press and freedom of association. Conflict is not eliminated, but the means are created to manage conflict through political and legal processes rather than resorting to violence. Those who feel they are being treated unjustly have the opportunity use arguments to appeal their case to everyone. In a democracy by a vote of the majority the current rulers can be voted out of office and replaced by others.

3. This conclusion about how to get a just and lasting peace is supported not only by experience but also by a careful consideration of exactly what war is.

a. What is war? War is large-scale violent conflict between organized groups seeking political (governmental) power. Note that not all conflict is war (some conflict may in fact be desirable, so it is not necessary to get rid of all conflict but only to manage it so it does not get violent!). Note that war is between organized groups, not individuals (so the solution to the problem of war must deal with group behavior, not the behavior of individuals who have committed themselves to nonviolence). Note that the aim of warfare is the gaining of political (governmental) power in the community, so solving the war problem requires an alternative way of determining who gets political power.

b. How do we acquire a peaceful society with at least a modicum of justice? We need a government to enforce the laws, and a democratic government to make laws that are for the benefit of the governed. Democratic governments require secret ballots, trustworthy counting of the votes, uncontrolled media, free speech (especially for minorities), and an educated citizenry.

c. We have witnessed how well this works within many nation-states. What is required now is to implement full democracy in all nation-states (including our own by eliminating the undue influence of money on our elections). No country should be forced to be democratic, but all should be encouraged to become democracies.

d. We also need to create a democracy for the whole world community by converting the current United Nations into a democratic world federation with a democratically elected world parliament and a world executive. Just as our own country went from being governed by the Articles of Confederation to a federal government created by the U.S. Constitution, so the leaders of the nations need to create a constitution to change the United Nations into a world federation .

e. At present nations with unlimited national sovereignty go to war and arm themselves as much as they can because there is no authority over them and no way to work out their conflicts by political and legal means. At the same time our states operate with limited state sovereignty and a federal government to deal with problems for the country as a whole, including conflicts between state governments. How much do our states need to worry about developing armies and armaments because of possible war with other states? How much do they spend on the military? The development of the European Union also shows how this principle of resolving conflicts by political and judicial means can lead to the reduction of the need for national military defense.

f. What should this UUA General Assembly affirm concerning the way to replace war and violence with enduring peace and justice? We should proclaim that what the world needs is democracy within countries plus democracy for the world community. Such a stance would reaffirm our 5th principle on democracy and our 6th principle on world community.

g. Here is my proposed wording for this important section on “Creating a Just and Lasting Peace.”

We need to develop a trustworthy and nonviolent way of resolving disputes between peoples. Our aim should be to abolish war completely so that individuals in our country as well as in other countries will no longer be forced to decide between serving in the military forces of their nation on the one hand or being conscientious objectors on the other. We need to develop a system on the global level as well as within countries that allows people to fight against injustice without having to resort to violence to call attention to their concerns.

We already know what kind of system is needed. We have such a system in this country and in many other democratic nations. It is a system based on the rule of law where those who make the laws and those who enforce them rule with the consent of the governed for limited terms of office. It is a system which has voting by secret ballots, trustworthy counting of the votes, a free media, free speech (especially for minorities), and an educated citizenry. No country should be coerced to adopt a democratic political system, but every country should be encouraged to do so on grounds that it promotes enduring peace and allows for peaceful change to overcome injustices.

We need to persuade the leaders of our country that a global democratic political system is much better for this country and for the world than an American Empire or a world controlled by the military and economic power of this country or an alliance of a limited number of countries.

Working to develop such a democratic federation for the global community is completely consistent with our own UUA principles, especially our fifth principle (“the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large”) and our sixth principle (a “world community, with peace, liberty, and justice for all “).

We realize that our efforts to achieve this end of creating a just and lasting peace will require not only our involvement in our national political system but also involvement in civil society organizations working for peace and justice and the education and commitment of individuals to a culture of peace, to the rule of law, and to the welfare of the whole global community.

D. Returning to recommended minor changes in the existing draft, in the section “Calls to Action, International Peacemaking,” after line 97 I would add a fifth point: “Encouraging our members to participate in the political life of the community and to be active in civil society organizations striving to advance peace and justice.”

IV. You now have my summary of the UUA draft statement on Peacekeeping along with my recommendations for modifications. I hope that you will join us for our discussion of this document at the congregational meeting on Friday evening, January 16.