Response to "Unitarian Universalism in Africa" by Bret Lortie
Prairie Group 2016
Roger Bertschausen
I'm grateful for Bret's paper. Yet again Prairie Group's planning committee chose the right person for the right assignment. Bret's journalistic approach was exactly what was needed for this difficult assignment. In truth, other than in South Africa and Nigeria, Unitarian/Universalism[1] in Africa is in its infancy. Given this, relying on interviews mostly with ministers and lay leaders in Africa was the perfect approach. The mostly nascent U/U communities in Africa do indeed need to be more heard than scrutinized. I also am grateful for Bret's unpacking the wide variety of U/U religious experience in Africa. His paper might be aptly named "Unitarian Universalisms in Africa."
Metaphorical land mines certainly did pepper Bret's path--as is true for all of us North Americans treading this (in Bill Sinkford's words) "border-crossing work" of interacting with African Unitarian/Universalism. The most pervasive and dangerous land mine is undoubtedly the ever-potent legacy of colonialism.
Informed by his conversation with Sinkford, Bret nails the crux of approaching African U/U theologies when he asks, "Do privileged, Western Unitarian Universalists get to define who is UU for the whole world?" If the answer is yes, how how can we possibly justify this in the context of colonialism and our privileged place in the world? I would submit that the answer to Bret's question has to be no. There is no justification for us getting to define for the world who is U/U (and the related question of what Unitarian/Universalism is). Doing so would be a continuation of the colonialist/imperialist impulse. And we are no stranger to this road: think of the Unitarian William Howard Taft, civilian governor of American controlled Philippines from 1901 to 1904. Border-crossing work doesn't work if we get to define both sides of the border.
But if we don't get to define who's U/U, what do we do with the Nigerian Unitarian lack of full affirmation of LGBTQ folks? What do we do with the fact that although the Deputy Bishop of the Hungarian Unitarian Church (HUC) spoke in favor of marriage equality as an individual, the HUC doesn't take a stand one way or the other? What do we do with the reality that many Hungarian and Transylvanian Unitarians support the right wing Orban government in Hungary or the even more radically nationalist Jobbik (Movement for a Better Hungary) party? Some Unitarians in this part of the world are working on behalf of refugee rights, but others support parties and individuals who advocate closing the border to all immigrants. What do we do with this? What do we do with Philippines Unitarian Universalists who support President Duterte's violent campaign against alleged drug dealers and users? This question of who gets to define Unitarian/Universalism is important and enormously complicated not just in Africa but everywhere.
My answer to all of this is to remind us that defining our faith has been difficult in this country. It's been the centerpiece of theological controversies going back to nearly the beginning of our faith in the U.S.--the Transcendentalist Controversy. As far as I can tell, we aren't much closer to answering this definitively than we ever were. If we ever do figure this out once and for all, it feels like Prairie Group will be out of business. Should we be surprised that this question that has confounded us for two hundred years is even more complicated and daunting when we ask it in a global context?
Rather than defining what Unitarian/Universalism is for these kinfolk in Africa and elsewhere who are also Other from American Unitarian Universalists, I think we need to get to know each other. We need to spend more time observing, listening, and asking questions with an open heart. In doing so, we can with our partners build a foundation for a mutual exploration of the definition and meaning of our faith. In partnerships with Transylvanian congregations that have been more about mutual relationship and less about our "rescuing" Transylvanian Unitarianism or writing checks, this sort of mature, mutual dialogue is beginning to happen. In such a dialogue, we can share our opinions honestly and openly, but not from a place of arrogance or colonialism. Maybe we and our partners will conclude at some point that this is a shared faith, but one with very different manifestations in different parts of the world. Maybe we'll conclude that it's really not the same faith. Without a doubt, the U/U faith in Africa and elsewhere beyond our shores will continue evolving, just as our American U/U faith has since Channing delivered that famous ordination sermon in Baltimore.
I'm willing to search our way to the answer in a mutual dialogue with our global U/U kinfolk. I believe that this searching will inform, deepen and expand our understanding of the roots and breadth of our U/U faith. And I believe that this work will help us in the vital border-crossing work we need to do within our congregations as they (hopefully) become more multicultural within the communities where we live.
[1]I am using Unitarian/Universalism as an acknowledgment that some of our kinfolk in faith identify themselves as Unitarian and others as Unitarian Universalist.