UU Social Action – Social Justice

October 19, 1980
Lakeland

UU Social Action – Social Justice

In this series discussing our heritage and principles, the area of social action has presented more difficulties, and more opportunities, than other parts of our religious history and institutions.

The attempt today will sketch certain attitudes created by our theology, to remind ourselves of the principle in our common purpose which place responsibility for social justice on our shoulders and conscience, to discuss the two main ways the principle is applied, and lastly, to state where I stand and have maintained a position.

First, our theological heritage inevitably created particular attitudes toward issues and problems in the human condition.

Both Unitarians and Universalists rejected any idea of a God who would send persons to Hell because they either disbelieved creeds or behaved in ways contrary to the ways that ministers, bishops, or kings decreed they should believe. We dismissed the theological nonsense (nonsense to me) that all persons were born in sin and could be purified/saved only by the supernatural sacrifice of God in the person of Christ.

In all my years in the Unitarian Universalist movement rarely have I heard anyone speculate about the bliss of Heaven (except for jokes) or the torments of Hell in some life beyond this life. Such theoretical distinctions are just not punched on our tickets.

When exposed to human misery, hunger, war, there is no comfort in saying they suffered here but will be rewarded in Heaven. Or, when observing the doers of injustice, the exploiters, the cruel slavers in the human enterprise, “they’ll be punished in Hell.” The multitude of Unitarian Universalists, historically and currently, would affirm that such attitudes are at best wishful thinking; at worst, escapist thinking and evasion of that which sorely troubles so many of the human family.

On the editorial page of today’s Ledger, there is a column by one Gary Potter, who heads Catholics for Christian Political Action. He castigates those he mistakenly labels “secularist” because “the secularist has no vision of anything beyond the here and now. He (sic) does not believe in eternal life, or at least he acts as if he does not. The here and now are all he has. So his compulsion is to make an imperfect world perfect.” He ends his column with the phrase, “liberalism is a sin.”

The distortions in this article would take an hour to disclose. The question is not perfection – there can be no perfection. But improvement of life on this earth – yes indeed – liberals believe in that.

Furthermore such a goal is thoroughly consistent with the Christian tradition to which the columnist professes allegiance. Just read the Sermon on the Mount.

Ethical behavior in this world is intrinsic and inseparable to all the world’s great religions.

Think of the Hebrew prophet Amos:
5/15 – Hate evil and love the good and establish justice in the gate
5/24 – But let justice roll down like water, and righteousness as an ever-flowing stream.

Or Micah:
6/8 – “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God”

Then too the Golden Rule, or its equivalent, is found in all the world’s great religions. Injunction to ethical behavior is the here and now.

When Unitarian Universalists use the terms “heaven” and “hell” we speak of the here and now in a world to be taken seriously. Heaven is human dignity, human freedom, human love, human fellowship. Hell is human hate, human exploitation, human despair, human misery, human loneliness, human heartbreak.

There is an old story of an unfeeling man who said to a small boy, “If God loves you, why doesn’t he tell somebody to give you a pair of shoes?” The boy replied, “God did tell somebody, but somebody forgot.”

Or, as one of my colleagues put it, “Faith is the ability to act as an agent of reconciliation. Men (and women) of faith work to heal the separation and estrangement of persons from persons and the separation of men and women from the dignity that is essentially theirs as members of the human family. This faith is concerned for the social and political events in the secular world, because it sees every individual as a child of history. Persons of this faith take the world seriously because it is the place where persons are made or lost, where our lives are reduced or damned, and where our identity as humans is sealed.”

This theological base has been incorporated through the years in the stated purposes of Unitarians and Universalists. When Unitarian Universalists consolidated in 1960, the principles were stated:

a) support the free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of religious fellowship;
b) cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition, immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to humanity;
c) affirm, defend, and promote the supreme worth and dignity of every human personality and to use the democratic method in human relationships;
d) implement the vision of one world by striving for a world community founded on ideals of brotherhood, justice, and peace.

Through the days of our American Republic (and Canada), Unitarians and Universalists have made substantial contributions to such ideals.

John Murray of Gloucester, minister of the first organized Universalist church in this country, when he came back from Revolutionary War chaplaincy, organized relief efforts for the hungry of Gloucester, a city which was sorely deprived of food by the British naval blockade.

William Ellery Channing – leader, it was said, of half the reform movements of the 1st half of the 19th century

Theodore Parker – risking his ministry and his life for runaway slaves.

In 1844, nearly 350 Universalist ministers signed a petition to abolish slavery in a time when abolitionists were a minority even in the North.

Clara Barton, a clerk in [the] patent office in Washington, DC, went to the battlefields in the Civil War to nurse the wounded. Later, she was founder of the American Red Cross.

Dorothea Dix, with Channing’s support, made notable strides in improving the conditions of persons in mental institutions where their lot was hardly better than cattle in a stock-yard pen.

John Haynes Holmes, a leader and one of the founders of both the NAACP and the ACLU.

Susan B. Anthony worked more than a half-century for women’s suffrage against formidable opposition and persisting prejudice.

There have been many more. There are many church groups who have made fine contributions to social concerns and social justice, and there is no intention to slight them. But I’m speaking today of our heritage and principles. Many historians comment that Universalists and Unitarians have had an influence in the social order far out of proportion to our small numbers.

The methods of influence have been, and I surmise will continue to be, a matter of contention among Unitarian Universalists. There are two main points of view, each of which is strongly held by differing parts of our constituency.

One is the belief that individuals should act and speak, not the church as a corporate body. Those who affirm this position assert that freedom from dogma should apply to political, economic, and social issues too. They do not wish others, even a majority, to speak for them.

The advocates of this position would also point out that many of those we remember with pride worked as individuals or in connection with other organizations, not the church as such.

Advocates of this position would also contend that political action and dispute by the church divides a congregation. Unitarian Universalists do not think alike, nor do all belong to the same political party. Where acrimony occurs, open dialogue and truth-seeking become difficult. Let there be discussion and education, say those of this point of view. Then the individual pursues a cause or not as he/she may choose.

No theological creed; no social creed either, they assert.

The other view that exists in the by-laws and attitude of the Unitarian Universalist Association is that as a denomination we have an obligation to act together on the issues of the day, even the most controversial. [CJW note: a religious community should act as a community, not as a collection of individuals].

The process by which denominational actions are taken is democratic. There is an established method for individuals, churches, and fellowships to place items on the agenda of the annual General Assembly. In the General Assembly the delegates from the [churches and fellowships] debate and vote on the various resolutions.

When passed, these resolutions become guidelines for our Washington Office of Social Concern, the Social Action Clearing House, the Office for Gay Concerns, the Task Force on Women and Religion.

In addition, we have social concern / social justice organizations which are individual membership groups but which are also centered in Unitarian Universalist efforts on social concern [erg.,] the UUA – UN, UUSC (Unitarian Universalist Service Concern).

There are parallel efforts – consciousness-raising on issues, attempts at consensus.

It is fair to note that our ways on social justice/action are not the prevailing reasons persons join the Unitarian Universalist movement. As pointed out a couple weeks ago, the prime reason is our freedom from dogma. Next is people to people – friendship, equality, congeniality, the stimulation of diverse backgrounds. After that, our theology – liberal, accepting, open to examining claims, curiosity, social action – outreach [follows?] that in motivating persons to become part of our religious community.

I said at the beginning that I would state where I stand on the question of individual action vis-a-vis group attitudes and action on thorny issues and touchy subjects.

Both. I have no dispute whatever with the person who believes only in individual action, and does not want the group to speak for him/her. Actually the group does not speak for the individual. It speaks for the majority who may decide. I wish there were more individuals active as individuals on issues in the social order. There are fewer than such individualistic claims might lead one to believe.

But I believe in the group decision, too. There is attention given that is not achieved otherwise. [CJW note: Harrison Williams – point out to him – GA resol.... I cannot spend time in Washington to pursue office our Social Concern office is there – transmitting our GA position. Follow-up – coalitions w/ other...]

Religion is a binding [of] a community together. United effort counts. We are individuals, but the well-being or misery of people happen in society. This is an age where cooperative, or organized effort, seems necessary to effect social change. There are two sides, at least, on controversial issues. On most issues where many of us take a stand, the opposing side almost always has heavy financing and skilled lobbyists to get the letters written and the phone calls made, and access to the powerful varieties of mass communication – TV, radio, print. To contend with such formidable but legitimate powers requires joint effort and support. In the world that we live that is a way social change is achieved and precious liberties and rights maintained and extended.

In summary, social concern, social action, has always been basic to what we believe our religion is and does. Deeds, not creeds. Service, not sacraments. Save lives on earth, not save souls for Heaven.

We fall short of our aspirations, our goals; we have been weak when we could have been strong; quiet when we should have been heard. We do fail to live up to our best visions. But even in our shortcomings, when the visions of freedom, fellowship, and human dignity beckons us on, our failures can be learning experiences for the next step.

I don’t know how one can apply or live one’s religion, no matter what that religion is, unless there is encounter in the social order, meeting persons where they are and understanding what they value; sharing with them our ideals and ideas; expending our human love and support in this world for that which makes life and persons so precious.