Virtue By Association

April 13, 2003

[Jesus] believed in virtue by association, not guilt by association.

-Donald Lothrop

The real work of liberation in Iraq will begin only after the guns have been silenced. We will see if a free nation can be built upon the ruins of Saddam's repressive regime. Even those of us who have questioned the war must pray that a better life for the Iraqi people will emerge from the ashes of this latest, tragic conflict. We must pray even more that the so-called "war on terrorism" does not further undermine the freedoms and rights that we cherish as citizens of the United States.

These subjects are worthy ones for Palm Sunday. For Palm Sunday marks the end of Jesus' obscurity and his emergence as a more public and controversial figure. It marks his debut on the largest stage of his time and place. As we know from the biblical story, his promotion of unpopular and threatening ideas, his association with unpopular and disreputable people, and his challenge of the status quo, would ultimately cost him his life. It is a story that has been repeated down through the ages, in other times and places, by other saints and prophets.

Two weeks ago, an incident occurred during our worship service which has caused me much soul-searching. That incident had to do with my reluctance to share during the Joys and Sorrows a sorrow about the war in Iraq which I felt was potentially divisive. I should add that it has been previously stated that our wish for the Joys and Sorrows is that they should focus on the personal and familial within our congregation, and if possible avoid the political. With occasional exceptions, this has been the case. Though there is considerable difference of opinion about the efficacy of Joys and Sorrows, I believe that they have been an important tool in the building-up of community here at the First Religious Society, and would like to see them continue as such.

While most people who have spoken to me approved of the manner in which I handled the Sorrow in question, some did not. I have discussed the issue with individuals, including the writer, as well as with my Committee on Ministry and with the Parish Committee at this week's monthly meeting. Not surprisingly a variety of views, both on the particular issue at hand, and about the Joys and Sorrows in general, were expressed.

I want to make it clear that my point in not wanting to read the sorrow was not about whether people should be free to express their views about the war in Iraq, but whether the Joys and Sorrows was the appropriate place in which to do this. As I have noted, the previously stated hope was that Joys and Sorrows would focus on personal and not political issues. But can the two really be separated?

One can certainly argue that they cannot, but I trust that you can see the problem if the Joys and Sorrows become a personal political forum, or, worse, a place for moral one-ups-manship. Obviously, I believe that the church must sometimes seek to afflict the comfortable, just as I believe it must always comfort the afflicted. But it's a question of balance.

The question that it raises for me is, what is worship for? I am a strong believer, right or wrong, in the idea that the worship service is for everyone in the community. When we do choose to afflict the comfortable, we should be tactful and caring in how we do it. The great danger, as I see it, is that the worship becomes divisive, which will serve no one. I plead guilty to being cautious about that. As I wrote to one member of our congregation, I am the minister to the entire congregation, not just those who happen to agree with me.

I do not believe in censorship, and would prefer that individuals would censor themselves. However, I also do not want to stifle freedom of expression--that was never my intention.

At this difficult time, I think we all need to exercise judgment and tolerance. While I would prefer for the Joys and Sorrows to remain non-political, I think we all need to be prepared in these times for some dissonance. We need to be prepared to hear some things we don't agree with. After all, as Donald Lothrop reminds us, we should believe in "virtue by association," not guilt by association. We must never allow ourselves to be frightened by unpopular people or ideas, for often those people and ideas have important insights to offer about what is really true. And as I have said on many occasions, the truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle of all our ideas, in that moral gray-area which is full of paradox and ambiguity.

I also believe we ought to encourage, not discourage, debate about the war--if it is really debate--which despite our military successes I still find morally questionable. The question is, where and in what kind of a forum? Is the worship service really the place to have a debate? This is the question that all of us must try to answer. After all, no matter what you think, the morality or immorality of the war will not be decided here, in our weekly Joys and Sorrows.

I believe that I have made clear my personal doubts and objections about the war, as well as my hope that our community not become divided over it. Perhaps this is merely wishful thinking. Many of us come to church to escape the tyranny of CNN and the war news. However, I think it is naive to think that we can keep it completely out of church--nor should we. It is in my conservative nature, I confess, to want to have some control over that question, but perhaps it is unhealthy to attempt to exercise such control. In any case, I don't think this decision should be mine alone.

As was suggested at the Parish Committee meeting the other night, one can certainly imagine a joy or sorrow being offered which was totally inappropriate or hurtful to people or groups within our church, and which I think it would be well within my prerogative, for the good of our community and individuals in it, to refuse to read. And I would hope that you might be grateful for that.

Of course, groups within this congregation are free to make whatever statements they want about the war, and some have. Individuals have participated in various peace activities. A peace vigil has been held after the worship service the last few weeks. But to make statements in the name of the whole congregation would in my opinion and experience be destructive of our community. Many churches destroyed themselves during the Vietnam War by taking such stands. Did this serve the people or our movement well in the long run? I would argue that it did not, and would hope that we have learned that difficult lesson along the way.

As I said to one tough but thoughtful critic of my handling of the Joys and Sorrows issue, I am deeply grateful that we do not have a Pope who makes all encompassing statements on behalf of our churches. And as we know, people ignore those statements in practice, anyway. What it means for us Unitarian Universalists is that we must all struggle toward the truth on our own, though in company with others. And we are free to dissent. While the Unitarian Universalist Association, like most of the mainline religious denominations, has made its opposition to the war pretty clear, it does not speak for the individual congregations, which for better or worse are autonomous, nor for individual Unitarian Universalists, who are free to obey their consciences. Thank God.

Believe me, I do not take your criticisms lightly, for I have been wrestling with these issues since well before the war began. I do not speak for all of us: that is the glory and the bane of Unitarian Universalism. It's up to each of us to engage in "the free and disciplined search for truth." I believe that the democratic process and our highest ideals demand that we respect opposing points of view, no matter how distasteful they may be. The truth need not fear falsehood, nor need it especially fear the free exchange of ideas.

Though I would not have gone to war about it, preferring other means, it is still at least possible that Saddam Hussein's cruel mistreatment of his own people justifies his removal from power.

I would be the first to admit that we Unitarian Universalists often fall miserably short of our ideals, but, then, Christians down through the centuries haven't done so well with "love to God and neighbor," either. This is not to excuse, but only to recognize what is obvious. The ideals are what we strive for, but as I suggested in my sermon two weeks ago, we are not yet perfect people.

While I do believe that not all views have equal value, this is not a morally black and white world, the opinion of some members of the present Administration not withstanding. But there is more than enough immorality to go around in this conflict, and not all of it on our country's side. I believe that most people in this congregation are morally conflicted about the war. They are thoughtful, they are struggling to figure out where they stand. I give you credit for being able to do that, and I believe that the church should be a safe, if not always comfortable, place for that struggle to be joined. None of us needs to hear the implication of our moral inferiority from the pulpit, or elsewhere, as if we haven't thought about the issues, too. (Besides, such an approach has never changed a single mind.)

I have stated my conviction that the worship service is for all of us. We must be responsible for our statements, on whatever side of the issues they fall. We must speak for ourselves, and not assume to speak for the entire congregation. In other words, we must exercise judgment and avoid self-righteousness.

As I said the other night in my monthly report to the Parish Committee, there is much more positive going on here at the First Religious Society than otherwise. Attendance is strong, and new people continue to seek us out. Your financial support for the church remains strong in these hard economic times. Let us speak of what holds us together rather than what separates us. Let us be careful of one another's feelings even as we seek to be true to ourselves and to our highest ideals.

I would personally hope that we would not turn our worship service into a forum on the war, and that we would seek other venues for that discussion. However, I also feel strongly that restricting freedom of expression will not serve us well in the long term. Obviously, we have some work to do before this issue gets resolved; if, indeed, it is ever resolved.

Let us assume that our association together in this special place, in all of our differences of personality and opinion, and even in our occasional disreputableness, will lead us ever closer to the practice of virtue and to the possession of truth. Let our guilt be for our failures and our fears in that regard. May the spirit of this beloved community unite us in this troubled hour. That is my prayer for each and every one of us, on this day and in the days to come.

The Rev. Harold E. Babcock