The purpose of The Talk of TJMC is to provide a place for congregants to have a place to share their thoughts about things we, as a congregation, should be talking about.  It provides a forum that is longer than a Facebook post, and more public than an email.  If you have something to say, and think that this is the right place to say it, please send your piece to revwik@uucharlottesville.org.

It strikes me that the nature of our conversation around the letter to Christina is distorted because of one simple thing.  The letter was not signed.  It was anonymous.  The result has been a maelstrom of conjectures about the writer mixed in with a healthy dose of UU angst and guilt.  I see a lot of flailing in the dark (including me).  Sadly, the path I see some people—including leaders in the church—follow doesn’t line up with my UU values.

But maybe there is a better, clearer path.  To find it, however, instead of asking, “How should I (or the church) respond to this letter?” I ask a different question, because sometimes answering a different question sheds light on how to answer the first question.

The second question is, “What if the letter had been signed?”  What if we all knew who wrote the letter?  Then I think our path would have been very different.  It would have been a question of “How do we embrace this person, while at the same time repulsed by his/her action?”  The conversation would be full of conflict and angst, still.  But the requirements of our journey would be much clearer.  We would need to engage with that person.  We would engage with each other on how we engage with that person.  We would introspect, UU-style, on how we engage with each other, etc. ad nauseum.  (We can’t help it.  We’re UU’s.)   But the goal of our engagements would be love.  Not excommunication.   Not condemnation.

I believe the conversation would be VERY different if we were engaging with a real, identified person.  So, shouldn’t the answer to the first question be the same even when we don’t have a name?  After all, the person who wrote the letter does exist.  He or she may still be attending church.  (And if not, that doesn’t change anything.)   Shouldn’t we treat that unidentified person with the same covenant of love that we would an identified person?  It would still be difficult and unpleasant for all, yes.  And it would have an additional existential weirdness because we’d be talking to an empty space, of sorts.  But, at least, it would be a direction that would make sense to me as a UU.

PS — This addresses only our response to the letter writer.  Our support for Christina is another matter outside the scope of this letter.