Reading: Excerpt from a pastoral letter by the Rev. William G. Sinkford, President, the Unitarian Universalist Association
Dear Friends,
I write to you as we approach Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement for the Jewish people, a time when they seek forgiveness for past mistakes and commit themselves to living moral lives, striving again to have their names written in the Book of Life.
We Unitarian Universalists do not have such an annual holiday of atonement, but I have often wished that we did. I am thinking about atonement particularly during this 200th anniversary year of Hosea Ballou's A Treatise on Atonement. This theological statement of Universalism, asserting that all people are worthy of salvation and may find it if they act in accordance with what they know to be good and moral, has called generations to align themselves so that they stand on the side of love.
It is a difficult time, as our hearts and minds and media waves are filled with images of suffering, war, and human misery. And yet I believe it is at exactly such moments that we must commit ourselves, through acts of faith, to stand on the side of love.
Our nation remains at war. 140,000 US women and men occupy Iraq, with thousands more still mired in Afghanistan. American, Iraqi and Afghani citizens are dying daily, leaving loved ones bereft and wailing. Before this war began, I spoke out with many religious leaders to question its wisdom. After our government embarked on war, however, it was less clear to me what it meant to stand on the side of love, both domestically and internationally.
It is now clear to me that the time has come for a phased and scheduled withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I have conveyed my beliefs to the White House and Congress, and our UUA advocacy staff remain active in the Win Without War coalition. I am also aware that hundreds of you visited the nation's capitol last month to stand up for your own beliefs about this war, and that one of our clergy, David Blanchard of the First UU society of Syracuse, NY, is fasting for an end to this war. ...
[Rev. Sinkford letter continues with other social justice activities the UUA and the UUSC are involved with... stopping the genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan and torture in American detention centers and raising money for hurricane relief in the South.]
No matter what we do, however, we may feel that our small actions are insignificant, that we do not have the skills or the time or the opportunity to choose life, to stand on the side of love. Yet even small acts may have results we cannot imagine. Your own acts for love and justice inspire me, and others, in ways you may never know. And please be gentle with yourself, allowing yourself to risk even when you know you may fail. As the Rev. Robert Eller-Isaacs, co-minister of Unity Church-Unitarian in St. Paul, Minnesota, wrote in his Kol Nidre:
For remaining silent when a single voice would have made a difference, We begin again in love...
For each time that our greed has blinded us to the need of others,
We begin again in love...
For losing sight of our unity,
We begin again in love...
In this time of difficulty and peril, let us, over and over, begin again in love.
In faith,Sermon:
The Rev. William G. Sinkford
When the Reverend Bill Sinkford talks about standing on the side of love, this is not just a passive stance. Of course, one must begin with thinking loving and compassionate thoughts for ourselves as well as for others. One must also work to forgive ourselves and others for human frailties. This in itself may require some inner work. And that's certainly a good place to start. But we Unitarian Universalists are somewhat unique among religious folks. We believe as much if not more in action than we do in meditation and prayer. We know that to stand on the side of love is not just to think about or pray for peace or justice. To stand on the side of love is to work to save a person, a community or the world. We sum it up in the phrase "deeds not creeds." Sometimes we skip over the spiritual part ... or if you prefer the first steps of self-education, consciousness-raising and reflection. We may go straight to the good deeds without what more traditional Christians may call "praying to discern God's will" or what most of us Unitarian Universalists may call deeper thought and reflection.
Skipping the understanding and meditation part is mistake. To stand on the side of love, we must cultivate hearts of love and compassion. Otherwise, we may be doing something for the wrong reasons. We may become arrogant and self-righteous. We may feel like we're better than the next person... and adopting a "holier than thou" attitude. Or we do good deeds just to please someone else. Then, not realizing how hard the task may be or lacking depth of commitment, we may suffer from a loss of staying power as well as a loss of heart. We may lose our way, losing touch with that spirit which gives us energy and sustains us.
But, as Rev. Sinkford's letter points out, Unitarian Universalism is a hopeful faith, one that believes in the possibility of Salvation for all people. Like the Universalist preacher Hosea Ballou, we believe that people are worthy of Salvation. As Ballou said, they may find Salvation "if they act in accordance with what they know to be good and moral.1 Right action was the way to Salvation, the road to Heaven. Of course, nowadays many of us doubt the very existence of an afterlife, certainly of a biblical Heaven. We believe more in the possibility of salvation in this world and we are rather agnostic about the next. But still, we believe that people are born with the potential to be good as well as bad. And we are hopeful that if conditions are right, the good will generally prevail.
So salvation for you and for me can be found in doing what we believe is good and moral. In Sinkford's words, it is standing on the side of love. The hard question is trying to decide what to do or where to stand in a difficult and complex situation.
How do we to stand on the side of love in the case of the Iraq War? Like some of you, I have been in conflict over this issue. There are no easy answers and no simple solutions.
Before the invasion of Iraq began, this church hosted a video and discussion group about the lack of evidence for going to war. A UN weapons inspector testified in the video that there were no weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. And there was no alliance between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. A week or so later, some members and friends of this church and I were standing with a few other anti-war protestors on the Taunton Green. We knew this war was wrong and based on lies from the start. But standing there to me felt like spitting into the wind. It had no discernable affect. At least we got a few thumbs up from passing cars along with the obscene gestures and rude shouts from others. And maybe it showed others who had doubts about the invasion of Iraq that they were not alone.
Although I have stood as a witness against the war both then and more recently over the summer, I wondered what would happen if we left Iraq in the midst of what looks like the start to a civil war. Would we be leaving the Iraqis to an even worse fate? Aren't we responsible for bringing this war and a power vacuum there and for drawing the foreign radical Jihadists to the country? Shouldn't we stick it out until stability and the beginnings of a democracy are established? Is sacrificing American lives, not to mention our economy, part of the price we must pay? Although I don't trust this administration, I wondered if in some way they were right, that pulling out now or announcing a timetable for withdrawal would just create greater chaos.
How can we reconcile wanting to be a peaceful, loving and justice-loving people with waging this war? In a complicated and rapidly changing world, it can be tough to figure out where truth and goodness lie. It's not enough to have "good instincts" or a good heart. It's also a matter of trying to get the facts. This isn't easy when we know this administration lies more than any other and we don't trust the mainstream media. How do you analyze a complex situation from half a world away, with insufficient data. Where do you turn? In what or whom do you have faith?
Well, I have some faith here - in the wisdom of some good people. I personally trust like-minded, intelligent, informed and reasonable people I know. People like Rev. Sinkford for one. Earlier this week, I received a copy of Bill Sinkford's pastoral letter by e-mail. It addressed exactly the issue which has preoccupied me: "Is there a way to get out this unjust, ill-advised and failed war in Iraq fairly rapidly without creating greater harm?" His letter began to give me hope and a sense of direction.
And I have faith in the leadership of Move On and in the Tikkun Community, the American Friends Service Committee and the National Council of Churches. The UUA and these and other liberal religious and civic organizations have joined together in a coalition called Win Without War. This is a coalition of 40 mainstream organizations. It advocates international cooperation and enforceable international law as the way to provide the greatest security for the United States and the world.
I think its impact might be huge and might force changes in our government and its conduct of the war. Maybe not right now, but certainly by the 2006 elections. After all, they turned out a huge crowd (some say 300,000) at the September anti-war event in Washington, DC. And I was proud to read that the Unitarian Universalist Association has been an active member of the coalition since its beginning.
I went to on the UUA website to find out more about our denomination's anti-war efforts. I read with great interest the outline of Win Without War's Plan for a Successful Resolution in Iraq:
That seemed a reasonable, even moderate position. It was not "cut and run"... leaving the Iraqis who wanted peace and democracy in the lurch. But I wanted to know more of the details. Could we really win without war? How?
I followed Rev. Sinkford's suggestion and visited the website of the Win Without War coalition. It reads:
"We are patriotic Americans who are committed to a U.S. foreign policy that embodies our nation's highest ideals. We oppose the militarization of our foreign policy and its effects at home and abroad. We share the commitment to countering terrorism and weapons proliferation, but oppose the doctrine of unilateral military preemption. We believe that international cooperation and enforceable international law provide the greatest security for the United States and the world, and the greatest opportunity for people to live in free, healthy, and just societies."
That's what I believe, too. What next? I read a description of the conditions in Iraq:
"Many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the crossfire. The lack of security has brought reconstruction of most of this devastated country to a near standstill. By all accounts, life in Iraq since the invasion is one of deepening misery. A recent study from the United Nations Development Program and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning found that the Iraqi people are suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition, and significant setbacks for women. The economy remains stagnant, many cities in ruins, and basic services still erratic or non-existent."
Okay, I thought, now what should the United States be doing about this?
"The U.S. military presence is indisputably counter-productive. This is a failed policy. Only a phased withdrawal with emphasis on peace-keeping rather than military aggression will produce peace. Only replacement with international forces will enable progress toward peace." I won't go on to give all the details, but the plan involves rebuilding the infrastructure and the economy and in better training for Iraqis security forces... funded mainly with U.S. dollars.
George McGovern, past presidential candidate, and Jim McGovern, a Congressman from Massachusetts, wrote a very eloquent piece for the Globe last June. I'd like to offer a part of that:
"There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue. We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.
"Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo.
"We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction.
"But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington -- and for concerned citizens across the nation -- to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country.
"The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the nation. It is past time to change course."
Tom Andrews, Director of Win Without War spoke at the National Press Club on September 22. His message was that the majority of the American people were against this failed war in Iraq. And the anti-war demonstrators who were to gather that weekend in Washington represented the will of most Americans.
He continued, "Unfortunately, the president and unacceptably large numbers of members of Congress have decided that it is better to support a failed policy that continues to kill more and more Americans and innocent Iraqis than it is to support the will of a majority of the American people." Part of the solution was for American voters to threaten to unseat those in Congress who refused to listen.
What more can we do? The UUA and the Win Without War coalition supports the bipartisan The Homeward Bound Act. This act calls for the U.S. President to develop a plan for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by December 31 of this year and to initiate the withdrawal by October 2006. The UUA urges all of us to contact our representatives in Congress to support the Homeward Bound Act. For those who are interested, I have a copy this act on the Welcome Table, along with the details of the Win Without War's plan.
I know that it's easy to feel apathetic. The Administration seems unmoved and unmovable. And many in Congress seemed resigned to go along by voting for more funding. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ''now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay." It's easy to think there's no use protesting because things just won't change. But such apathy and resignation are luxuries we cannot afford. The war threatens to go on for years and to consume more of our resources, to take the lives of more of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and to make us less secure, not more, as it fuels anti-Americanism in the Middle East and around the world. It is certainly bringing more violence to Iraq, not less.
I, too, have my moments of despair. But I also take hope from history, from the ultimate result of the American protest against the Vietnam War. And I have faith in the ability of people to come together to make a difference. In the end, standing on the side of love is standing on the side of peace.
So in this time of difficulty and peril, let us not be faint of heart.
Let us stand on the side of love for ourselves and for the Iraqi people.
Let us not lose faith that a single voice can make a difference.
Let us not lose sight of our unity.
Let us begin again in love.
Amen and blessed be.
Endnote: Hosea Ballou (1771-1852) was the most influential of the preachers in the second generation of the Universalist movement. His book, A Treatise on Atonement, radically altered the thinking of his colleagues in the ministry and their congregations. ..
.In A Treatise on Atonement, 1805, Ballou put great stress on the use of reason in interpreting the Scriptures. The core of the book, as the title implies, was Ballou's reformulation of the doctrine of atonement. As finite creatures, he argued, human beings are incapable of offending an infinite God. Therefore, he rejected the orthodox argument that the death of Jesus Christ was designed to appease an angry God, and replaced it with the idea that God is a being of eternal love who seeks the happiness of his human children. It is not God who must be reconciled to human beings, but human beings who must be reconciled to God. Ballou was convinced that once people realized this, they would take pleasure in living a moral life and doing good works.
To those Calvinists who had modified the orthodox view of atonement as a ransom, replacing it with the notion that Christ died to uphold God's law, or for his glory, Ballou responded that God's reputation needed no such enhancement. The Treatise was written in the pungent, down-to-earth, homespun style of the hill country from which Ballou came, with many flashes of humor. In rejecting the trinity as unscriptural and against reason, for instance, he likened it to belief in "infinity, multiplied by three."
From an article by Ernest Cassara at the UU Historical Society website: www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/hoseaballou.htm