The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Phoenix has some photos up of a civil disobedience action in Phoenix to protest Arizona SB 1070. Here’s to the brave Unitarian Universalists who are taking on the evil of Arizona SB 1070 — many of us are thinking of you, and sending you moral support from afar.
And at the same time, I have to admit that all the energy that Unitarian Universalists are pouring into the protest of Arizona SB 1070 makes me feel a little lonely. As a religious pacifist, I view the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq and Pakistan) as being of far greater moral importance than immigration reform. Yet I’m afraid my view is not shared by the majority of Unitarian Universalists; our denomination has made it clear that immigration reform is of far greater importance to us than antiwar efforts. I think maybe I need to hang out with some Quakers in the near future, and get a big dose of religious pacifism to tide me over for a while.
Well the Palo Alto meeting isn’t too far away from the Palo Alto UU building…. (I’m not a Quaker though I have attended the Palo Alto meeting a handful of times).
The issues are related in that both deal with how we treat those perceived as aliens.
Erp @ 1 — You write: “The issues are related in that both deal with how we treat those perceived as aliens.”
Thanks for putting this so neatly! The two issues are indeed related in the way you point out.
As for hanging out with Quakers, one of my dearest friends is a Quaker. I’m planning to go to services at the San Francisco UU church this Sunday, so won’t attend Palo Alto Friends Meeting.
Just wondering about the title of your post.. I understand the morality of the issue, but how hoes does that translate into a theological difference of opinion? What’s your definition of theology?
Choose your Quaker meetings carefully (not all Quakers are created equally liberal and peaceloving).
However, that said, I’m with you: the wars we continue to wage are woefully destructive, and not simply to those who are “other” (alien) but also to an enormous number of ordinary, often working class, men and women in this country. Who enlist because they have no other damn options. Just ask my students. Any number of them.
Victor @ 2 — Theologically, I’m a religious pacifist in a denomination where religious pacifism is a theological minority. Like mainline Protestant denominations, Unitarian Universalists mostly affirm some sort of just war theology — most Unitarian Universalists would say that war is acceptable in appropriate circumstances, whereas a religious pacifist would say that war is always morally wrong.
By contrast, anti-racism and anti-oppression discourse currently lies at the center of Unitarian Universalism’s theological discourse. This is fine with me, and I consider myself committed to ending racism, oppression, and domination. However, because of my theological orientation, I consider the war in Afghanistan to be a far greater moral wrong than Arizona SB 1070. (Because ecothology is also at the center of my theology, I would also rank global climate change, ecojustice/environmental degradation, and overpopulation as moral issues of far greater importance than Arizona SB 1070.)
Jean @ 4 — Yes to everything you say.
To me the Palo Alto meeting is conservative in its traditions and liberal otherwise. I know it has at least one atheist member and a few who are war tax resistors. BTW they also have a small Wednesday 6pm meeting.
I agree that war is destructive to all sides but the ‘other’ is the excuse.
Dan, have you run into Geoff Browning over at Palo Alto First Presbyterian? He is quite active in some of the local anti-war activities though I don’t know whether he is a pacifist or a just war person.
Dan,
Thanks for the explanation.
Understand that UUism requires that we all develop a personal theology, such as you’ve described for yourself. However, the use of the word theology implies something of a spiritual nature is involved, and that’s what I’m trying to understand/isolate/define.
How does a personal theology differ from a personal morality or a personal religious philosophy, or simply, personal values? Are they all one and the same to you? Perhaps it’s because you use the word theology frequently, and I’m never quite sure what you mean by it..
For me, anyway, it’s important to understand the distinction in those words because it really goes to the core of UUism. Is there a sacred component involved in your understanding and use of the word theology? Is that the distinction?
.. am I being annoyingly obtuse?
Victor @ 7 — My two-bit definition: Theology is rational discourse about religion and spirituality, usually with a goal of creating some kind of intellectually consistent position. When I use the indefinite article and speak of someone having “a theology,” I’m referring to one person’s articulation of his/her own religious and spiritual position, in an intellectually consistent way. When I don’t use an article, and speak of “theology,” I’m referring to the broad conversation about religion and spirituality that involves many thinking persons.
You ask: “How does a personal theology differ from a personal morality or a personal religious philosophy, or simply, personal values?”
Theology, for me, is a subset of philosophy — at least, that’s been historically true in the Western tradition, and continues to be true for most of us in the West today. (Outside of the Western tradition, there is debate as to whether the terms theology, religion, and philosophy should be used at all; and if they can be used, what precise meanings they have.)
Morality and ethics are two terms that overlap to some extent, and I’m not always careful in making a distinction between morality and ethics. However, strictly speaking ethics would be a subset of philosophy (where philosophy may be understood as some kind of rational discourse) that attempts to articulate how human beings ought to act. Morality does not necessarily involve rational discourse, and can include gut feelings about how one ought to act, largely unquestioned cultural norms about how one ought to act, etc.
I don’t often use the term “personal values.” To me, it seems like an imprecise and very squishy term that could refer to a wide range of things. I suppose it could encompass ethics, morality, and several other things.
You also write: “Is there a sacred component involved in your understanding and use of the word theology? Is that the distinction?”
Tell me what you mean by “sacred component,” and I’ll tell you if it’s involved in my understanding and use of the term “theology.”
Erp @ 6 — Thanks for the insight into the Palo Alto Friends meeting.
As for your last question, I have not made many connections with local pacifists except here in this congregation. Partly under the influence of my life partner, for the past couple of years I have been devoting more of my energy to ecojustice than to anti-war activities.
Dan, Thanks for your explanation of your understanding of theology. But it’s probably safe to say that we don’t share the same definition, because I think of theology as a noble, but ultimately futile attempt, to explain the unexplainable – that which can’t be described in an intellectually consistent manner. So I wouldn’t define theology as a subset of philosophy (i.e., religious philosophy), but as the study of matters that are beyond our comprehension – basically, as an attempt to describe our relationship with the divine.
I think the two people who have come closest to explaining “sacred component” are perhaps Mircea Eliade and Marcel Proust – who both wrote about escaping chronometric linear time and connecting with – what Proust called – enduring time. And I view all religious rituals (including UUism) as an attempt to momentarily suspend time and bring us into contact with the sacred, with the eternal.
But I recognize your explanation probably comes closer to how most UUs think of theology, and my explanation wouldn’t sit well with most UU humanists.
Victor @ 10 — You write: “So I wouldn’t define theology as a subset of philosophy (i.e., religious philosophy), but as the study of matters that are beyond our comprehension – basically, as an attempt to describe our relationship with the divine.”
OK, but there’s lots in your definition with which I cannot agree.
First, your definition does not account for self-professed humanist, non-theistic, and atheist theologians such as Anthony Pinn, William R. Jones, Gordon Kaufman, etc. If I’m going to take your definition seriously, I need you to justify why you’re shutting them out, and to show why what they’re doing is not theology. Although many conservative Protestants would probably feel pretty comfortable with your definition, because no way would they let those doggone humanists into theology — so you probably have plenty of company here.
Second, your definition has a distinct Western bias. You are privileging “the divine,” which is a polite way of imposing the Western priority placed on God. This is perfectly valid, of course, but it’s important to remember that basically your definition makes theology concern only the narrow range of theorizing within the Western (predominantly Christian) tradition — here again, you’d find plenty of company amongst conservative Protestants. This bias is not a dealbreaker for me, although I would love to see you take the next step and talk a little bit about what it is that non-Westerners do when they do whatever it is that they do that kind of looks like theology.
Third, purely on abstract grounds, your statement that theology is “the study of matters that are beyond our comprehension” seems problematic to me. The danger here is that you’re imposing your definition of the divine on the subject (the divine is unknowable), excluding the possibility that others who do theology might think that parts or all of the divine are indeed knowable.
So for me your definition of theology is somewhat problematic. I’d like to see you lay out somewhat firmer boundaries, for the simple reason that I need to know where what you call theology, and what I call theology, happen to overlap — because there we can have some kind of meaningful conversation.
—
Turning to your definition of the sacred, that the sacred is about momentarily suspending or escaping from linear time. Given that, then I can get back to your earlier question, viz.: “Is there a sacred component involved in your understanding and use of the word theology?” — which I’ll reword thus: “Is there a component involved in your understanding and use of the word theology that includes suspending or escaping from linear time?”
Certainly an understanding of time is critically important to theology. Within my broad definition of theology, which includes humanist/atheist and non-Western theologies, there are several possibilities regarding time, e.g., time could have a beginning, a middle, and a final end (as in traditional Christian theologies); time could be cyclical (as in some Buddhist theologies); time could be flowing from the present into the deep past (as John Mbiti claims about traditional African theologies); etc. But not all understandings of time are, in fact, linear; whereas if I’m going to talk about the sacred (whatever that might be), I think I’m going to want to be able to extend that concept over a broad range of theologies, including those that might not use linear time — therefore, I find myself unwilling to accept your definition of sacred as an escape from linear time.
Crap, I think we’re back at square one. Do you have another approach to a definition of sacred?
Dan,
No doubt my personal theology reflects a bias toward Western Christian thinking (I am a product of my upbringing), and lacks clear boundaries. And I’m not familiar with the “atheist theologians” (an oxymoron?) you mention, but I’m sure they have plenty of good thoughts with which I probably would not disagree. and some with which I would disagree.
Fundamentally, I think the difference in our views boils down to how much confidence we have in the intellect to understand and interpret reality. Personally, I’ve never had much confidence in the intellect when it comes to making judgments on really important matters, especially matters of faith. Moreover, I’m convinced that relying on the intellect alone to understand almost any area of knowledge (including so-called “objective” science) is a self-induced human fallacy. I don’t consider myself to be a nihilist, incidentally, just more of a realist who is willing to accept the fact that all human knowledge has its limitations.
When I was working on my Ph.D. in French Literature, the subject I choose was a little known work by Gustave Flaubert called “Bouvard et Pecuchet.” It’s the story of two Parisian copy clerks who live in 19th century France. One of them unexpectedly inherits a large fortune, and they purchase a country estate and decide to pursue knowledge. They start out with agriculture, the most basic area of human knowledge. They amass a large numbers of books on the subject, read about the different theories of agriculture, and then plant their crops accordingly.
Their crops all fail. Their neighbor, who plants the same crop year after year, in the same rocky field, has an abundant harvest. So, they become disillusioned with agriculture and move on to progressively higher and higher forms of knowledge, up to and including theology. With each category of knowledge, they read a lot of material, try to follow the information, and fail miserably. They always come to the same conclusion – that there are contradictory opinions in the material. Ultimately, they give up on their pursuit of knowledge, and build a desk where they can both sit together, and return to their old jobs as copy clerks.
Flaubert thought this was his most important work, and spent 20 years working on it. I think his message to us is that all forms of intellectual thought contain their own seeds of self-destruction; but human relationships endure.
So, I’m open to the mystery of all things, especially the mystery of theology.
I was one of the UUs that went to Phoenix to protest the bill. I also regularly participate in or support the weekly peace vigils we hold here against the war as do many of the Peace and Social Justice activists at my church. I am also a pacifist, completely against the war. But it’s not exactly practical, justifiable, logical, or intelligent to throw 180 UUs down in the middle of Afghanistan to commit acts of civil disobedience. Nor would you get many takers.
Right now immigration is a big issues on the human rights front. I can be against the war, against racist legislation, fighting for LGBTQ rights, and encouraging people to eat locally and every one of those types of activism takes on a different form. Right now my human rights activism is pretty immigration reform centric because that’s what is happening, just as last fall I kind of let ENDA fall off my priority list when I was helping to run the No On 1 campaign here in Maine.
My anti-war activism doesn’t look like any of my other activism. That doesn’t mean it is less important to me.
Andrew @ 13 — Great to hear you went to Phoenix! And wow, you are really active in social justice causes — go team!
In a later post, I’ve tried to articulate more clearly what I’m trying to get at here. So you might want to read that later post: On Civil Disobedience.