RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION
A Tapestry of Faith Program for Adults
WORKSHOP 5: JUST WAR, PACIFISM, AND PEACEMAKING
BY BY REV. COLIN BOSSEN AND REV. JULIA HAMILTON
© Copyright 2011 Unitarian Universalist Association.
Published to the Web on 9/29/2014 11:16:42 PM PST.
This program and additional resources are available on the UUA.org web site at
www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/tapestryfaith.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
...the citizen, before fighting, is bound to inquire into the justice of the cause which he is called to maintain with blood, and bound to withhold his hand if his conscience condemn the cause. — William Ellery Channing
This workshop explores a range of stances Unitarian Universalists have taken in response to war. Unitarian Universalism has never been a "peace church." Our tradition has embraced advocates for the use of military power in international disputes, proponents of just war theory, pacifists, and those who hold a variety of positions in between. This workshop presents these different positions, and through them, helps participants answer the question: How does our religious tradition call us to respond to war?
After guiding participants through discussions of just war and pacifist theory, the workshop examines a time when Unitarians disagreed publicly about how best to respond to war. During World War I, Unitarian minister John Haynes Holmes and William Howard Taft, former President of the United States and president of the General Conference of Unitarians and Other Christian Churches clashed over Unitarian support for the United States war effort. Holmes adhered to a pacifist position while Taft believed that Unitarians must support their government during a time of war. Taft won the debate. Subsequently, the American Unitarian Association decided to deny aid to congregations with pacifist ministers, causing most pacifist ministers to lose their pulpits.
The workshop concludes with an exploration of the theories of peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding currently being developed by Unitarian Universalist ethicist Sharon Welch and theologian Paul Rasor.
To ensure you can help adults of all ages, stages, and learning styles participate fully in this workshop, review these sections of the program Introduction: "Accessibility Guidelines for Workshop Presenters" in the Integrating All Participants section, and "Strategies for Effective Group Facilitation" and "Strategies for Brainstorming" in the Leader Guidelines section.
GOALS
This workshop will:
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Participants will:
WORKSHOP-AT-A-GLANCE
Activity | Minutes |
Welcoming and Entering | 0 |
Opening | 5 |
Activity 1: Defining Just War | 15 |
Activity 2: Understanding Pacifism | 15 |
Activity 3: The Taft-Holmes Debate | 25 |
Activity 4: Peacemaking | 20 |
Faith in Action: Acting on Justice Resolutions | |
Closing | 10 |
Alternate Activity 1: Role Playing the Taft-Holmes Debate | 15 |
Alternate Activity 2: Envisioning Alternatives | 15 |
SPIRITUAL PREPARATION
Read Handout 1, Just War Theory; Handout 2, Pacifism; and Handout 3, Peacemaking. Consider these strategic and philosophical approaches to the issue of war. Do any resonate more strongly with you than the others? Why? What values do you think are behind each approach? What is compelling about each approach, and what are its drawbacks? If you strongly agree or disagree with one of these approaches, how do you feel about people who advocate another?
Throughout our liberal religious tradition people have held widely divergent views on war and what we should do about it. Our tradition contains both militant pacifists and strident militarists; people at these poles of thinking often find it difficult to dialogue with others whose views they oppose. As you prepare to lead this workshop, be mindful that participants in the group may have very diverse approaches to issues of peace and war. Make room for everyone to have their say. Be alert for moments when the group seems to prefer one voice over another, and guide them to listen deeply to points of view that differ from their own.
Before you lead the workshop, take time to complete this sentence: "At the end of this workshop, I hope the participants leave feeling... "
WORKSHOP PLAN
WELCOMING AND ENTERING
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
As participants enter, invite them to sign in, put on name tags, and pick up handouts. Direct their attention to the agenda for this workshop.
OPENING (5 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Have a participant light the chalice while you lead a unison reading of Reading 449 from Singing the Living Tradition: "We hallow this time together by kindling the lamp of our heritage."
Lead the group in singing the hymn you have chosen.
Introduce the workshop by explaining that a Statement of Conscience titled "Creating Peace" was adopted by the 2010 General Assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The adoption of this statement came after a four year process during which congregations and districts were invited to explore the topic, confront it, reflect on it, learn about it, respond to it, comment on it, and take action, each in their own way.
Briefly share the contents of the Statement of Conscience, from Leader Resource 1.
Tell the group that the UUA provided congregations with a study/action guide called "Peacemaking," which began with this question:
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?
Say:
This workshop explores the history of liberal religious responses to war.
ACTIVITY 1: DEFINING JUST WAR (15 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute Handout 1, Just War Theory. Either invite a volunteer to read the handout aloud or ask the group to read it silently. Then, invite participants to take a few minutes to consider what circumstances, if any, justify going to war. Invite them to list those circumstances in their journals or write about why they do not believe that war is ever justified. Allow participants five minutes to write. Then invite comment and conversation.
ACTIVITY 2: UNDERSTANDING PACIFISM (15 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute Handout 2, Pacifism and either for ask a volunteer to read the handout aloud or invite participants to read the handout silently. Once everyone has finished reading, engage participants in discussion, using these questions:
ACTIVITY 3: THE TAFT-HOLMES DEBATE (25 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Project Leader Resource 2 or distribute the copies you have made. Distribute the story and read it aloud.
Then, post the questions and read them aloud. Invite participants to form groups of three or four and discuss the posted questions, reminding them that their small group may well include different points of view. Allow 15 minutes for small group conversation. Then invite the small groups to rejoin the larger group to share comments and observations.
Refer participants to Workshop 2, Handout 1, Prophetic, Parallel, and Institutional Voices. Distribute copies if participants do not already have them. Invite participants to consider whether Taft or Holmes represents institutional, prophetic, or parallel voices for social justice.
ACTIVITY 4: PEACEMAKING (20 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Explain that contemporary Unitarian Universalist thinkers such as Sharon Welch and Paul Rasor promote strategies of peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding as alternatives to pacifism and just war. Distribute Handout 3, Peacemaking and invite three volunteers to read it aloud. Then, invite general responses to the "third way."
Invite participants to find a conversation partner. Post the questions you have prepared and invite pairs to respond. Allow five or six minutes for this conversation.
Re-gather the group and lead a conversation about peacemaking, using these questions:
CLOSING (10 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Invite participants to respond, in their journals or on writing paper:
Describe a situation in your life when adopting one of the approaches we learned about today might have changed your actions. Which theory would you have found helpful in that situation and why?
Allow five minutes for writing.
Share this quote from Proverbs of Ashes; Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker:
Violence denies presence and suffocates spirit. Violence robs us of knowledge of life and its intrinsic value; it steals our awareness of beauty; of complexity, of our bodies. Violence ignores vulnerability, dependence, and interdependence. A person who acts violently disregards self and other as distinct, obliterating the spaces in which spirit breathes.
We can resist and redress violence by acting for justice and by being present to one another, present to beauty, present to the fire at the heart of things, the spirit that gives breath to life.
Invite a participant to come forward and extinguish the chalice as you say these words: "As we extinguish this chalice, may we let the light of our tradition kindle our hope for a better world."
Distribute Taking It Home and invite participants to continue to write in their journals between workshops.
FAITH IN ACTION: ACTING ON JUSTICE RESOLUTIONS
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Should the Unitarian Universalist Association take positions on specific wars?
Congregational delegates to the General Assembly sometimes affirm a position on a conflict or war. These positions guide the associational staff, but are not binding on individual congregations. Many congregations and individuals do choose to support the resolutions of the General Assembly and use them to determine their own justicemaking priorities.
Explore recent social justice statements and resolutions regarding wars, conflicts, and peacemaking (at www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/index.php) passed by the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Which statements are in line with justicemaking work you or your congregation are already engaged in doing? Are there statements that surprise you? Resolutions that make you proud? With which you agree wholeheartedly? Are there some with which you have disagreement or about which you have questions? You are invited to view the social justice statements as invitations to action on your own or as part of a Unitarian Universalist group, in a small or large way. Discuss how your faith and the statements passed by the General Assembly inspire your actions on behalf of justice.
LEADER REFLECTION AND PLANNING
Take a few moments right after the workshop to ask each other:
Review the next workshop. Are there any questions to research or logistics to arrange between workshops? Make a list of who is responsible for which preparations and materials.
TAKING IT HOME
...the citizen, before fighting, is bound to inquire into the justice of the cause which he is called to maintain with blood, and bound to withhold his hand if his conscience condemn the cause. — William Ellery Channing
This week, when reading, watching, or listening to the news, pay attention to stories about wars or other armed conflicts that are happening in the world today. Do the news reports mention any of the peacemaking or peacebuilding strategies we discussed in this workshop? Do reports include any pacifist or nonviolent perspectives on the conflict? How much media attention do advocates for peacebuilding receive, in comparison to advocates for military strategy?
Talk with a friend or family member. Explain that you are learning about different philosophies of peace and war and ask if they favor a particular approach. Is war ever justified? If so, under what circumstances? Make the conversation an opportunity to reflect on the strategies this workshop introduced.
ALTERNATE ACTIVITY 1: ROLE PLAYING THE TAFT-HOLMES DEBATE (15 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Explain that you (or two volunteers) will present a mock debate between John Haynes Holmes and William Howard Taft about the United States' response to World War I. The focus of this debate is not necessarily historical accuracy, but to present the main arguments from each side with passion and sympathy.
Assign participants in the audience to act as pro-Holmes, pro-Taft, or neutral listeners.
Give the debaters three minutes each to make their case. Then allow five minutes for questions and rebuttals from the "audience." Encourage audience participants to ask questions of the debaters. Direct the debaters to supply their own answers in support of their assigned position. Afterward, ask participants to reflect:
ALTERNATE ACTIVITY 2: ENVISIONING ALTERNATIVES (15 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Participants apply the concepts of just war, pacifism, and peacemaking to a contemporary conflict. If time allows, use this activity to extend the workshop.
If needed, distribute handouts. Invite participants to review them. Allow a few minutes if the group has not seen these handouts before. Explain that the group will apply these three approaches to a current world conflict. Present the positions, as you understand them, of the major antagonists in the conflict. Invite participants to briefly offer their input into the positions of the antagonists. Explain that it not necessary for the purposes of this activity to get the nuances of positions exactly correct. The focus of the activity is to try and imagine how the approaches explored in the workshop might be used to address the conflict. Lead the group to brainstorm ways to apply each approach to the conflict. Ask questions such as:
If the conversation becomes heated, remind participants that the purpose of the activity is not to find right or wrong answers. Rather, it is to explore how the approaches discussed in the workshop might open new possibilities for addressing conflict.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
STORY: THE TAFT-HOLMES DEBATE
The United States entered World War I in April 1917. Shortly afterward, Congress passed the 1917 Espionage Act. The act made it a crime for people to speak out against the country's involvement in the war or to encourage draft resistance or conscientious objection. As a result of the act, several hundred people were arrested. Peace and social justice organizations, minority political parties, and radical labor unions were repressed. Against this backdrop, the General Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches met in Montreal, Canada for its biennial meeting.
Events at the conference challenged the Unitarian tradition of free speech and dissent. In advance of the meeting, John Haynes Holmes, minister of the Church of the Messiah in New York City, prepared an official report outlining different attitudes found among Unitarians toward the war. The report, though authored by Holmes, was presented on behalf of the Conference Council, an official body designated to assess the state of Unitarianism between meetings of the conference.
The report asserted that there were "varying attitudes maintained by Unitarians towards this war." Holmes identified four groups. The first were those who agreed with President Wilson, "that the Allies are battling...to make the world safe for democracy" and held Germany and its allies to be the aggressor. The second supported the war effort, but were less certain about with whom the fault lay. The third felt that the war must be brought to an immediate end even if that meant "peace without victory." The final group, a small minority to which Holmes belonged, were pacifists and opposed to not just the current war but "war in general." The remainder of the report was split between a plea that "nothing is more important at this time than opportunity for full, free, and fair statement of all points of view" which argued for the right for people to hold dissenting opinions, and Holmes's hope that churches could develop a "ministry of reconciliation" and create a "gospel of peace."
After hearing the Report of the Council, the president of the conference, former United States President William Howard Taft, was outraged. He expected Unitarians to line up firmly behind the war effort. In an effort to make the position of the Unitarian denomination clear, he made a motion stating: "Resolved, that it is the sense of this Unitarian Conference that this war must be carried to a successful issue to stamp out militarism in the world; that we, as the Unitarian body, approve of the measures of President Wilson and Congress to carry on this war, restrictive as they may be..."
Taft's resolution resulted in a debate between Taft, Holmes, and others as to the appropriate response to the war. Holmes stated, "I am a pacifist, a non-resistant, I hate war, and I hate this war; and so long as I live I will have nothing to do with this or any war." He was not trying to force his opinion on others. He only wanted to show that there were many different opinions held by Unitarians.
In response, Taft argued that it was necessary for the Unitarians to show that there was only one opinion among them. Doing otherwise would not respond adequately to "the great issue that is being fought for, for which the blood of our dearest is being shed." At such a time as when "our house is afire" it is not proper to consider "whether the firemen are using the best kind of water," Taft orated.
Taft's motion was carried by a vote of 236 in favor to 9 opposed. Over the next few months the Board of the American Unitarian Association (AUA) voted to deny aid to congregations with ministers that did not support the war. As a result most of the Unitarian ministers who had taken pacifist positions in opposition to the war lost their pulpits. In protest, Holmes resigned his fellowship with the American Unitarian Association and convinced his congregation to rename itself the Community Church of New York.
Throughout the rest of his life, Holmes remained a steadfast pacifist and an outspoken critic of the United States government. In addition to playing a central role in the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People, and the War Resisters League, he is remembered for his part in introducing Mohandas Gandhi widely in the United States. After his retirement from ministry, Holmes resumed fellowship with the American Unitarian Association. Today the Unitarian Universalist Association honors his memory through the annual Holmes-Weatherly Award, which is "given to an individual or organization...whose life-long commitment to faith-based social justice is reflected in societal transformation."
More important than Holmes's reconciliation with the AUA is the fact that the General Assembly of the Association decided, in 1936, to recant its denial of aid to congregations with ministers who did not support the war. In World War II and subsequent wars, the AUA and the UUA have supported conscientious objectors and those who have spoken out against governmental policy.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
HANDOUT 1: JUST WAR THEORY
This summary is based on information from God's War by Christopher Tyerman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006).
In the 4th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Aristotle outlined what he considered to be acceptable categories of warfare. In his work, Politics, he declared that war was never to be an end unto itself, but was legitimate when waged under certain circumstances: as a form of self-defense, to secure an empire, or to enslave non-Hellenistic peoples. Later, the notion of war waged for the sake of a peaceful, prosperous, and secure state was enshrined in Roman Law, and the concept of "just war" was born.
This Greco-Roman concept of just war was not explicitly religious in nature. Early Christians developed their own theological understanding of war. Some Christians derived the concept of war by divine right from the Judaic tradition, whose scriptures tell stories of the Israelite people going to battle with God on their side. There were also Christian theologians who rejected the morality of war, favoring a more pacifist stance. Among them was Origen, a 3rd century CE theologian who argued that the battles of the Hebrew scriptures were allegorical in nature.
The definition of "just war" changed with the conversion of the Roman state to Christianity in the 4th century CE. The idea of war fought for God and with God's approval became merged with the political definition of a just war. Augustine of Hippo, in the 5th century, stated that sin was the cause of war, but that sin could also be combated by war, as long as the intent of the conflict was to establish a Christian peace. He established four essential components of just war: a just cause, an aim of defending or recovering rightful property, sanctioning by a legitimate authority, and fighters who are motivated by right intent.
The concept of divinely justified war had a powerful influence during the period of the Crusades and the Inquisition (beginning around 1100 CE). During that period, the image of Christ was often transformed into a warrior-hero, the model of a righteous soldier. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, made important contributions to the development of Christian just war theory, and the Catholic church has since added these elements to their doctrine:
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. — Catechism of the Catholic Church (at www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm)
Just war theory is not only a Roman Catholic doctrine, however. It has been heavily debated across the spectrum of Christianity. After World War II, the concept of a just war was reexamined in light of the Holocaust. Twentieth-century theologian Reinhold Niebuhr speaks for many modern just war theorists when he says:
It has since become quite apparent that tyranny would have conquered the world if the material resources of civilization had not been organized and harnessed so that force could be met by superior force. — from Love and Justice, part III, section 41)
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
HANDOUT 2: PACIFISM
The exact meaning of the term "pacifism" can be difficult to pin down. It is used to refer to perspectives ranging from absolute rejection of violence of any kind to a principled refusal to engage in military activity and a belief that conflict among nations should never be resolved through war. Although pacifism is often tied to antiwar movements and its adherents may utilize nonviolent methods of resistance, pacifism as a theory implies a dedication to a way of life or a world view that sees the application of force as the root of the problems in society and never the solution. Pacifism, in this workshop, is defined as a political and/or religious stance that rejects all forms of violence against persons.
Christianity has been an important influence in the development of theories of pacifism. Articulations of pacifism rooted in Christian tradition can be traced back to the first centuries of the early church, to theologians, including Origen, who argued that much of the violence in the Bible was allegorical in nature. Grounded in a belief that the Christian struggle is spiritual, not physical, and a view of Christ as a model for nonviolent action, Christian pacifism is an integral part of the Quaker, Moravian, Mennonite, Amish and other faiths.
Modern pacifist theory in the United States dates back to the abolitionist movement, and Unitarians and Universalists played no small part in its development. In 1814, Unitarian minister Noah Worchester wrote a well-circulated pamphlet entitled "A Solemn Review of the Custom of War," the first significant work of American pacifism. Universalist Adin Ballou converted to Christian pacifism in 1838 and founded the pacifist Hopedale Community in 1840. Henry David Thoreau was strongly opposed to the 1848 Mexican-American War and advocated nonviolent civil disobedience. Many Unitarian abolitionists joined the journalist and reformer William Lloyd Garrison in founding the New England Non-Resistance Society, which states in its founding document:
We register our testimony, not only against all wars, whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for war; against every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia system and a standing army; against all military chieftains and soldiers; against all monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits; against all appropriations for the defense of a nation by force and arms, on the part of any legislative body; against every edict of government requiring of its subjects military service.
These early pacifists influenced generations of social justice reformers, including Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. Pacifism is not necessarily rooted in a religious orientation, and pacifism in various forms can be found among socialist movements throughout history and among some anarchist groups of the early 20th century. Pacifism as theory and practice enjoyed a resurgence after World War I, as reports from the battlefields inspired many to reject the ultimate utility of war.
Expressions of pacifism often generate utopian or secessionist movements, such as Adin Ballou's community of Hopedale, when adherents find they cannot continue supporting a government that supports violence. John Howard Yoder, a 20th-century theologian from the Mennonite tradition, argued that the church's responsibility is not to transform the sociopolitical order through direct engagement, but rather to establish its own community, one that is "in the world, but not of it." One ongoing tension within pacifism is that between personal conviction and governmental authority. Today, many people continue to align themselves with this rich and evolving tradition.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
HANDOUT 3: PEACEMAKING
The 2006-2010 Study/Action Issue for the Unitarian Universalist Association asks the question: "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?" This Study/Action Issue was proposed as an effort to develop an alternative to both just war theory and pacifism. As the Unitarian Universalist theologian Paul Rasor writes, "we should avoid getting caught up in a debate between just war and pacifism." Unitarian Universalist ethicist Sharon Welch agrees and suggests that "a third way" exists that includes "joint efforts to prevent war, stop genocide, and repair the damage caused by armed conflict."
Welch calls this third way peacemaking and Rasor describes it as prophetic nonviolence. Whatever its label, the strategy seeks to "move beyond old divisions and adopt a position that integrates critical elements from both traditions." Welch identifies the third way as having three components:
This third way calls for the use of violence only as a last resort. It draws some of its inspiration from earlier Unitarian and Universalist thinkers such as William Ellery Channing and Adin Ballou. Channing advocated 19th-century versions of just war theory and observed that "peace without can come only with peace within." Ballou's pacifism was deeply nuanced; he advocated for the use of "uninjurious force" in cases of self-defense or to protect society from violent criminals.
Peacemaking or prophetic nonviolence seeks to position itself as an alternative to both just war theory and pacifism. It is a relatively new theory, and one to which Unitarian Universalists are making an important contribution. Whether it is able to provide an alternative path and help bring stability and peace to our planet remains to be seen.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
HANDOUT 4: TAFT AND HOLMES
You will present a mock debate between two great Unitarian figures from the 20th century, William Howard Taft and John Haynes Holmes. Both men were passionate orators and spoke eloquently for their positions. Review their arguments, read the online materials on Taft and Holmes, and get ready to stage your debate. Remember, this is an imaginary debate, not a historical re-enactment, so do not feel pressured to get it "right." Instead, try to portray Taft or Holmes as a principled, well-intentioned man making his best case for the betterment of society.
John Haynes Holmes
William Howard Taft
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
LEADER RESOURCE 1: STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE — CREATING PEACE
This statement was passed on June 25, 2010 by the delegates to the 2010 General Assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Unitarian Universalist theologians Dr. Sharon Welch, Dr. Dan McKanon, and Rev. Dr. Paul Rasor were consultants in the crafting of the statement, and all three spoke in support of it before the General Assembly.
We believe all people share a moral responsibility to create peace. Mindful of both our rich heritage and our past failures to prevent war, and enriched by our present diversity of experience and perspective, we commit ourselves to a radically inclusive and transformative approach to peace.
1. Our commitment to creating peace calls us to the work of peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peacekeeping.
Peacebuilding is the creation and support of institutions and structures that address the roots of conflict, including economic exploitation, political marginalization, the violation of human rights, and a lack of accountability to law.
Peacemaking is the negotiation of equitable and sustainable peace agreements, mediation between hostile parties, and post-conflict rebuilding and reconciliation.
Peacekeeping is early intervention to prevent war, stop genocide, and monitor ceasefires. Peacekeeping creates the space for diplomatic efforts, humanitarian aid, and nonviolent conflict prevention through the protection of civilians and the disarmament and separation of those involved in violent conflict.
2. We advocate a culture of peace through a transformation of public policies, religious consciousness, and individual lifestyles. At the heart of this transformation is the readiness to honor the truths of multiple voices from a theology of covenant grounded in love.
3. We all agree that our initial response to conflict should be the use of nonviolent methods. Yet, we bear witness to the right of individuals and nations to defend themselves, and acknowledge our responsibility to be in solidarity with others in countering aggression. Many of us believe force is sometimes necessary as a last resort, while others of us believe in the consistent practice of nonviolence.
4. We repudiate aggressive and preventive wars, the disproportionate use of force, covert wars, and targeting that includes a high risk to civilians. We support international efforts to curtail the vast world trade in armaments and call for nuclear disarmament and abolition of other weapons of mass destruction. We repudiate unilateral interventions and extended military occupations as dangerous new forms of imperialism. In an interdependent world, true peace requires the cooperation of all nations and peoples.
5. For Unitarian Universalists, the exercise of individual conscience is holy work. Conscientious discernment leads us to engage in the creation of peace in different ways. We affirm a range of individual choices, including military service and conscientious objection (whether to all wars or particular wars), as fully compatible with Unitarian Universalism. For those among us who make a formal commitment to military service, we will honor their commitment, welcome them home, and offer pastoral support. For those among us who make a formal commitment as conscientious objectors, we will offer documented certification, honor their commitment, and offer pastoral support.
6. Our faith calls us to create peace, yet we confess that we have not done all we could to prevent the spread of armed conflict throughout the world. At times we have lacked the courage to speak and act against violence and injustice; at times we have lacked the creativity to speak and act in constructive ways; at times we have condemned the violence of others without acknowledging our own complicity in violence. We affirm a responsibility to speak truth to power, especially when unjust power is exercised by our own nation. Too often we have allowed our disagreements to distract us from all that we can do together. This Statement of Conscience challenges individual Unitarian Universalists, as well as our congregations and Association, to engage with more depth, persistence, and creativity in the complex task of creating peace.
II. Historical and Theological Context
Our Universalist faith in the oneness of the whole human family teaches us that peace is necessary; our Unitarian faith in the sacred potential of each person teaches us that peace is possible.
A. Historical Practices
For two hundred years, Unitarians and Universalists have worked to build peace by removing the underlying causes of war. As early as 1790, Universalists gathered in Philadelphia declared, "Although a defensive war may be considered lawful, yet we believe there is a time coming, when the light and universal love of the gospel shall put an end to all wars." The Massachusetts Peace Society, founded by Unitarians Noah Worcester and William Ellery Channing during the War of 1812, helped launch the first peace movement to include both those repudiating all violence and those supporting defensive wars, to welcome members of all religious persuasions, and to affirm that nonviolence is humanly possible as well as divinely commanded. Since that time, Unitarian and Universalist peace efforts have continued to be informed by those principles. Though we have always held diverse views on the justification of defensive and humanitarian wars, at our best we have worked together to end the violence of slavery, to promote international law, to liberate Jews and others from Nazi tyranny, and to build the United Nations and other institutions of international cooperation. This Statement of Conscience builds on this tradition by challenging individual Unitarian Universalists, as well as our congregations and Association, to engage in a variety of nonviolent and peace building practices.
B. Theological Principles
This Statement of Conscience is grounded in the following Unitarian Universalist theological principles:
The fundamental unity and interdependence of all existence. The interdependence we have long affirmed has become the daily reality of our globalized world. Our interdependence makes it both possible and necessary that we see the peoples of the world as one community in which the security of each nation is entwined with the security of all others.
The transforming power of love. We affirm the reality of love as a dynamic power within and among us. This power moves us to create relationships of compassion, respect, mutuality, and forgiveness; to love our neighbor; and to recognize everyone as our neighbor. We stand on the side of love when we work for peace.
The inherent worth and dignity of all persons. All human beings have the right to a meaningful and fulfilling life, including physical safety and economic and social well being. All have the responsibility to work on behalf of the dignity of others.
Human freedom. Most human beings are free moral agents with the capacity to make choices and are accountable for these choices. Human freedom may be used creatively or destructively. These possibilities are expressed not only in our individual choices and actions, but also in the institutions and social structures we create. Peace is the product of human choices that empower human agency and extend the possibilities for human freedom.
Rejection of moral dualism. We reject as false the sharp separation of good and evil, refusing to assign individuals and nations into one category or the other. Moral dualism can blind us to our own and our nation's capacity for evil and to the inherent worth and dignity of those whom our nation labels as enemies. In the midst of ambiguity we can build peace by cultivating the goodness in ourselves and others.
Cooperative power. Power is created and expressed in complex networks of human relationships. Power can be used to create or destroy, to liberate or oppress. Preventing war and creating nonviolent alternatives require the use of cooperative power—power with, not power over. Cooperative power is grounded in a commitment to mutual persuasion rather than coercion.
Justice and peace. Justice concerns the fair ordering of human relationships, including social and political relationships. War signals the breakdown of fairly ordered human relations. Peace is an attribute of relationship; it is a process, not a stagnant state. Peace emerges as our social and political institutions become more cooperative and more just. Lasting peace rests on just relationships.
Humility and open-mindedness. We affirm an open-mindedness that makes us suspicious of all claims of finality, including our own. Humility allows us to take strong stands while remaining open to the possibility that we are wrong or that future circumstances may call for a different position.
III. Calls to Action
Creating peace calls for action at all levels of human interaction. To be effective, our actions must be incorporated into existing structures and institutions, and new systems must be created.We support the Unitarian Universalist Peace Ministry Network in its work of identifying resources, disseminating information, and evaluating methods to create a culture of peace on all levels.
Creating Peace in Our World
We covenant to advocate vigorously for policies and participate in practices that move our nation toward collaborative leadership in building a peaceful, just, and sustainable world, including:
Creating Peace in Our Society
We covenant to act in the wider community in reducing the causes of institutional and structural violence by:
Creating Peace in Our Congregations
We covenant to create peace through worship, religious education, and social action by:
Creating Peace in Our Relationships
As individuals we covenant to:
Creating Peace within Ourselves
We recognize that peace begins with each person and covenant to:
In reverence for all life, we covenant to practice peace at all levels of human interaction.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
LEADER RESOURCE 2: JOHN HAYNES HOLMES AND WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT, PHOTOGRAPHS
Holmes (left), from the Unitarian Universalist Association archives. Taft (right) from the Unites States Library of Congress.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 5:
LEADER RESOURCE 3: BEYOND JUST WAR AND PACIFISM
From an article, "Prophetic Nonviolence," by Paul Rasor, which appeared in the Spring 2008 issue of UU World. Used with the author's permission.
I believe we can move beyond this old divide by adopting an integrated model I call prophetic nonviolence. To move "beyond just war and pacifism" is not to abandon either tradition; it is to recognize that both perform important roles in our ongoing efforts to reduce the violence of war.
I begin with a fundamental commitment to nonviolence. Unitarian Universalists have always affirmed peace as among our most basic values. We have always worked to create the kinds of just communities out of which peace emerges, and we have long supported the use of nonviolent methods of conflict resolution. This is the legacy we share with pacifism.
At the same time, Unitarian Universalism has always been an engaged religion, one that tries to make a difference in the world. An important part of this engagement is our tradition of speaking prophetically—of bringing reasoned judgment and critique to bear on the social conditions that generate injustice and violence. In the context of war, this commitment has been well served by the just war model.
My proposal for prophetic nonviolence links our deep commitment to nonviolence with our historical practice of prophetic critique, and it is supported by several commonalities between the pacifist and just war traditions. Both share a presumption against war, a presumption based in part on a moral duty not to harm. Both put peace in the center of their ethical thinking and relegate war to the margins. Keeping peace in the center helps focus our critique and reminds us of the importance of peacemaking and other violence-prevention strategies.
In addition, both just war and pacifism are concerned with the limits of loyalty to the state. This is more obvious in religious pacifism, which often speaks of a higher loyalty to God. But this concern is also present in the just war model. By placing the burden of proof on those who would justify the use of force, the presumption against war reflects a basic suspicion of official claims. Ethicist Joseph Fahey says: "Today's nation states presume that young men and women are willing to kill other young men and women for their flag." This presumption is reflected in our national policies toward conscientious objectors, for example, who must make a case for not taking up arms. Both the pacifist and just war traditions take a principled stand against the official presumption that young people must be prepared to kill at the behest of the state.
Finally, the recent trend toward pacifism in many non-peace churches suggests a growing convergence of the two traditions. Roman Catholic teaching now recognizes just war and nonviolence as "distinct but interdependent methods of evaluating warfare" for both individuals and states. Fahey notes a similar shift in the liberal and mainline Protestant churches, which traditionally have depended on the just war model. "[T]he return in the late twentieth century to pacifism," he writes, "is perhaps the most notable feature of contemporary Christian teaching on war and peace." Our denominational study process may tell us whether Unitarian Universalists are moving in a similar direction.
Bases for critique
In our prophetic critique of the government's justifications for war, we will naturally draw on the just war criteria. These have a built-in familiarity and a rich set of interpretive traditions that make them extremely useful for this purpose, and public discourse about particular wars is likely to be carried on in just war language. However, as helpful as these criteria may be, we must remember that our real criteria—the true bases for our prophetic critique—are our own theological principles. Our critique must be our critique, grounded in our religious values and historical practices. Unitarian Universalist theological principles relevant to a UU response to war include these:
These principles suggest that in addition to applying the just war criteria, we must ask questions such as: Does this military action promote or inhibit unity among peoples? Does it express love and compassion toward our neighbors, or does it reflect fear and hate? Does it increase or restrict the possibilities for human freedom and fulfillment? Does it contribute to the creation of right relationships and just social structures, or does it harm these relationships? What kinds of power are being used, and by whom? These kinds of assessments will add power and depth to our prophetic practice.
Our challenge
Whatever position we adopt as a denomination, we need to be as clear and as theologically grounded as possible. Clarity will best serve individual members and congregations in their own discernment processes, and it will provide the most effective basis for strong prophetic critique. Any stance we adopt will be ineffective if it is simply a reaction to the current political situation. Instead, it must be a genuine expression of our Unitarian Universalist theological principles and religious values.
We need to honor the differences that exist among us. Any statement worth making will surely provoke disagreement. This is not a reason to avoid the issue or to take so noncommittal a stance that we don't really say anything. But we need to be careful to welcome and honor those who hold different views, and perhaps to remind ourselves that one of the tenets of liberalism is that nothing is ever finally settled.
We must avoid the dangers of political correctness. We don't have a very good record on this count. The ostracism suffered by those who held minority positions during World War I and the Vietnam War reflects an unfortunate streak of illiberal self-righteousness that runs deep, as any Republican in our midst can testify. By drawing on the commonalities between the just war and pacifist traditions and by emphasizing our Unitarian Universalist theological principles, I have tried to show that it is possible to formulate a position that can be endorsed by pacifists and just war advocates alike. My own proposal is surely not the only possible synthesis. Yet a question that haunts me is whether our members who serve in the military would feel less welcome if my proposal were adopted as a denominational stance. I truly hope not.
Whatever our individual views, we need to treat each other with compassion, respect, and love as we move through this process. However inclusive our intentions and our language, we cannot eliminate all disagreement, nor should we try to do so. The very process of discussion through disagreement can help clarify our ideas and make us aware of the unintended consequences of our own words. At the same time, we need to remember that we belong to a shared religious tradition and that our disagreements reflect our deeper levels of agreement—our shared theological principles and our shared commitment to peace.
Our current study process presents an opportunity to clarify our thinking, to air some long-hidden differences, and to make a strong public statement in support of our deepest values on one of the most important issues of our time. May we accept the challenge in a spirit of love and grace.
FIND OUT MORE
Holmes and Taft
Find biographical information for John Haynes Holmes and William Howard Taft in the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society's online Dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist Biography (at www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/index.html).
The "Third Way"
Read more here:
"Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Toward a Unitarian Universalist Theology of Prophetic Nonviolence (at www.meadville.edu/LL_JLR_v8_n1_Rasor.htm)" by Paul Rasor, Journal of Liberal Religion, Vol. 8, Number 1
"Prophetic Nonviolence (at www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/68490.shtml)" by Paul Rasor, UU World, Spring 2008
"'Memo to Obama from Sharon Welch: On Enduring Security, Sustainable Peace (at www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/128128.shtml)" by Sharon Welch
UU Peacemakers Ministry Network
The UU Peacemakers Peace Ministry Network (at www.uupeacemakers.org/), formed to promote and support the UUA Statement of Conscience — Creating Peace after the 2010 General Assembly, provides resources and news updates.