Opinion

by Barbara L. Barnes

In today’s fractionalized world, society seems to force us to “identify” with a group. This idea opposes the “come together” ideals that I embraced in my coming-of-age 1970s. Today, such dreams appear politically incorrect. Why must we choose commitment to one side or the other? Few people fit perfectly into any single, simple, stereotypical profile. Are Unitarian Universalists (UUs) falling victim to similar, simplistic, divisive thought/cultural choices, rather than championing ideological diversity?

I identify as a MUTT – Multicultural Underlying Traditions and Taboos. Specifically, I call myself a Norwegian-American, German-American, and Anything-I-Please-American. (I’m not sure of my father’s heritage.) This mixed background provides many advantages. I can choose among my allegiances and desires, while assigning my faults based on stereotypes. I hate hot weather, perhaps from my Norwegian heritage. I’m stubborn, perhaps from my German heritage. I have other flaws that I assign to Dad’s heritage. Why must I identify with only one group? I’m more multi-dimensional than that. My beliefs don’t necessarily fall within one specific mind-set, one stereotype. I see the continuing debates regarding the proposed Article II [Note 1] changes as devolving into simplistic “us vs. them” arguments.

This last summer, I attended a UU workshop on the proposed Eighth Principle [Note 2], a precursor to the proposed Article II changes. I felt compelled to contest a part of a presenter’s oral report on the recent General Assembly (GA). The reporter depicted as racists two candidates for the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) Board of Trustees since they questioned adding a new principle. I knew that wasn’t exactly true.

I responded, “I think that you ‘paint with too broad a brush.’” I continued to explain the diverse and juxtaposed opinions of the two candidates. One perhaps presented a bigoted or at least exclusionist attitude; whereas, the other lobbied heavily for additional, civilized discussion of the proposal. I added that I feared that the Eighth’s dictate for “accountability” might lead to uncompassionate and divisive acts or punishments. In immediate response to my comments, another attendee called me a racist, to the group’s silent consent. I was instantly ostracized. When had polite questioning become inappropriate in UU settings, rather than revered? When had denigration become sanctioned? To quote Bob Dylan’s song, “the times, they are a-changin’.”

How can we praise diversity, if we squelch questions or other viewpoints? One application of diversity is empowering people by respecting and appreciating what makes them different. Those differences include perspectives and opinions, supported by both lived experience and empirical data. We should listen to and appreciate all sources of knowledge, not simply dismiss a different view as unfounded or wrong without ample consideration. Free and open-minded communication is key to harmony. Judgment without reflection is stereotyping, which can lead to oppression and/or suppression. A focus of the proposed Article II discusses dismantling oppression. Why battle oppression with oppression in our religious community? This situation only adds a new variation of the same problem – oppression.

I hope the 2023 GA Article II vote motivates delegates to use both their hearts and intellects rather than simply follow a “party philosophy” from either side of the debate. I’m a vacillating centrist, continually educating myself on the issues; seeing the pros and cons of both sides while trusting in delegate enlightenment. I long for a viable compromise.

My hopes center on amendments to the proposed Article II. Our GA delegates will cast preliminary votes on the proposed amendments and Article II modifications this June. Perhaps the proposed amendments will draw us back to a more level keel. Perhaps we can regain our liberal society that respects and values a diversity of thoughts not directed by a political agenda but by individual spiritual devotion bound together by mutual desires.

I fear a splintering of our denomination and congregations as has occurred recently among other religious groups when the “us-vs.-them” mentality became entrenched. Divisive and dividing steps are already afoot in the greater UU world. A single-issue focus harmed other organizations. Let us not join the ranks of the wounded.

---

Note 1: “Proposed Revision of Article II,” Article II Study Report 2021-2023,” by the Article II Study Commission of the Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-22 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 2: “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: journeying toward spiritual wholeness by working to build a diverse multicultural Beloved Community by our actions that accountably dismantle racism and other oppressions in ourselves and our institutions.” From “The Eighth Principle of Unitarian Universalism,” First Unitarian Universalist Society of Burlington, https://uusociety.org/becoming-a-member/8th-principle/
[Return to Article]

3/14/2023.

Opinion

by Jen Ciolino

How I came to UU, and our seven principles

I am a relative newcomer to Unitarian Universalism, having come to the faith just under nine years ago and already in my 40s. I was moving away from a city metropolitan area to a smaller town of only about 40,000 people. While the town was small, there were over 100 churches. I realized that being part of a faith home was something I needed to consider for our family to help us fit into our new community. I started by searching for a Buddhist temple, and I stumbled on the local UU congregation because they hosted a weekly Sangha.

I was curious what kind of non-Buddhist church would host a Buddhist practice, so I explored the website, specifically looking to understand what Unitarian Universalists believe. I found it to be very different from other religions I had explored or practiced in that there was no particular required creed. Instead, I found and read the seven principles. The first time I read the principles, I was moved to tears and wondered if it was possible that I had found a church home where I could actually belong. The three principles that resonated most strongly for me are the first, third, and seventh. When people ask me about my religion, and I tend to blend those principles in my answer, saying something like, “We honor the inherent worth and dignity of every person, accept and encourage each person’s individual spiritual journey, and understand how we are all interconnected.”

I have learned through conversation and personal experience that each Unitarian Universalist is drawn more strongly to different principles, and that each UU tends to explain Unitarian Universalism in a different way. I see that as one example of how we live our principles, where each of us is on a unique spiritual journey.

I have never believed our principles to be perfect, in fact, far from it. I have seen people abuse the fourth principle by bringing their own definition of “responsible” to “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” I have balked at the fifth principle, believing that sometimes the majority become the oppressor simply because they can, even without oppression as an intent. I have felt that the second and sixth principles were “watered down,” setting an aspiration for a world nirvana without any guidance or accountability of how we live our faith to achieve that.

Nonetheless, I have supported our principles as written, and I have found my own meaning in them, with all of their beauty and all of their warts, much like UUs often do when elements of rituals or language aren’t an exact match for our own unique spiritual journey.

My first exposure to Article II

It was only very recently that Article II was something I was aware of. I had heard rumblings that our faith was trying to tackle racism in our congregations and in our society. I didn’t know what was happening, but I was so happy to hear that we were doing that. For quite some time I had seen how active and inclusive the church was for people who were LGBT. But I had always felt our disconnect to the reality of racism in our society, and my (black) husband and I have joked on many occasions that “UU so white.” I wondered if the reason that the faith hadn’t worked on racism was based in the fact that it doesn’t directly affect many of its adherents, since we are so overwhelmingly white.

As much as I love what Unitarian Universalism stands for, I have seen racial oppression receive lip service in our faith while seeing systemic initiatives for other topics, like certified Welcoming or Green congregations.

Then I read an opinion piece about a proposed Article II revision. I had a visceral reaction to what I read. I hadn’t read the current or the new Article II, but the opinion I read felt like a slap in the face. The piece tore into the language in the proposed Article II in a way that felt like it was attacking efforts to be racially inclusive and bring racial justice to the same level of prominence as LGBT justice in our congregations. It attacked language that those involved in racial justice know well, and I saw it as yet another symptom of the very racial oppression we say we abhor. I didn’t hear in that piece anything that centered the voices or experiences of the racially oppressed or of those who drafted the language.

I have since read additional opinion pieces. One common theme I run into cites that our principles of inherent worth and dignity of every person, along with justice, equity and compassion in human relations already cover racial injustice. It felt like the UU equivalent of “All Lives Matter.”

Article II – why it is important

I have now read Article II in its most recent form. I have not been following its development over the last couple of years, and I don’t know how it has evolved in its many versions. Those on the commission embody racial and generational diversity, along with a blend of formal religious training and lay people. I saw a commission of people dedicated to our faith and committed to this important work. And I saw the long list of stakeholders whose feedback the commission needed to consider.

To me, the language details of Article II are not as important as what it represents; whose voices are centered; and how it strengthens our faith. As a living faith, I am so proud to see us bravely and boldly seek progress. With the increasing diversity and multiculturalism in our society and in our world, and with the decline in numbers of faith adherents, our reality is we have to continue our progressive path. As my child once said to me, “The opposite of change is death.”

So I read Article II with an excited and open heart. I read it from a place of wanting wholeheartedly to support it. I fully expected it would not be perfect, and I read it assuming best intent and with full spiritual trust in those commissioned to do this work.

Article II – I see beauty in our faith

The first element of beauty I find is in the opening section on Purposes, stating, “The purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association is to actively engage its members in the transformation of the world through liberating Love.” In reading this, I experienced the commitment of our association to all of us and to manifesting the aspirations outlined in our current principles.

In the next section, Values and Covenant, the introduction speaks to my heart and to my reason for being a UU. The first part says, “As Unitarian Universalists, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and through our association, to support and assist one another in our ministries. We draw from our heritages of freedom, reason, hope, and courage, building on the foundation of love.” This says to me that we are a community first, and that we honor our past, respect our individuality, and build on Love as our foundation with hope in our hearts and courage in our actions.

The next two sentences are crucial in boldly proclaiming that our faith must be lived to be manifest: “Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.” This says to me that we are not passive in this faith; we are active. We do not simply pay lip service to our values and principles; we bring them to life. This segment embodies the part of our own congregational covenant when we say, “Service is our prayer.”

Article II – some criticisms

As a person in a corporate career, there were elements of the proposal that struck me as an attempt to take large, complex issues and make it simple, resulting in the new graphic with the single words. I thought it missed the mark in many ways. I see that graphic as something we can anchor to in our religious exploration. The commission was writing words for Article II (and maybe they needed a visual artist!), and I would offer that the best use of this graphic is a basis from which to explore our faith, not a “logo” for Unitarian Universalism.

I have heard some say the new Article II is missing the poetry of our current principles. I understand that perspective, and I initially shared it. I asked myself to reconsider where I expect to find that beauty and poetry. What I found is that it is evident in the opening section for the values, and it is evident in each individual value. I think I was looking to read the values the same way I read the principles. I reframed my expectation, and I found the poetry and beauty I thought I was missing.

I have heard some say the language change from principles to values somehow fundamentally changes who we are. I did a lot of research on those terms, and I found mixed results about whether principles underlay values or the other way around, and whether principles or values are the basis for action. Either way, I concluded it was a semantics discussion that didn’t really impact the overall message for newcomers; it required a shift in thinking for those who might grieve the loss of what they have incorporated into their lives for so many years. I hope that if this article passes, many congregations will continue to honor their heritage of the principles by continuing to put them alongside the new values. I don’t think we as individuals or as congregations have to choose one or the other; both can live within us.

I have heard that some believe that the revised Article II pushes us away from being a faith organization by requiring activism. I humbly disagree. I do not see this Article challenge us to go beyond ourselves and our congregations in our actions. Instead, I see this Article challenge us to be uncomfortable where we might be complacent, to be willing to change ourselves where we discover we create barriers, and to continue to live our faith in our lives, beyond how we live our faith within the walls of the sanctuary.

Final words

This type of change is especially challenging for us because we have built our faith, our rituals, our language, and our lives around a set of words that have deep meaning for us. I offer that this is exactly why we need a bold change. We are by our own proclamation a progressive and liberal faith. We want to see our world transform around us, to see the manifestation of justice, equity, and compassion in human relations; the manifestation of a world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Would I have written some elements of Article II differently? Of course! Are there elements that could be improved? Of course! Will it ever be perfect or make everyone happy? Of course not.

It is time for us to allow new voices to articulate our faith, to keep us moving forward, and to help our faith change with our world. Growth comes from a place of discomfort. I am ready to embrace the discomfort of reframing my own faith. And I will do that while holding and honoring the steppingstones that brought us to where we are.

March 2023

Opinion

by Barbara L. Barnes

The term “judgment” means different things to different people and in different contexts. The definitions in multiple dictionaries range from opinion to legal pronouncement with consequences. In Christian circles, judgment often alludes to the “Last Judgment.” This construct purports that, come the end of time, God will review all lives, with those people found lacking condemned to Hell.

This religious use of “judgment” directly opposes our Unitarian and Universalist roots. As Lincoln Baxter states in his essay “Article II Comparison with Detailed Commentary” (Note 1), page 10, Unitarians “rejected predestination and adopted the concept of salvation through character … (and Universalists) rejected ‘original sin’ and proclaimed that God wouldn’t damn anyone to Hell forever.” Essentially, non-judgment, acceptance, or at least tolerance and compassion are bedrock for Unitarian Universalism (UU). The concepts explain UUs championing diversity and dissent. UUs have promoted debate as a route to individual truth. However, is non-judgment true in UU practice today? Is judgment creeping into our religion, at both national and local levels?

Judgment resides in the currently proposed Article II changes (Note 2) to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) bylaws and the current UUA five-year plans (Note 3). The proposed Article II up for vote at General Assembly 2023 superficially appears noble and aspirational. I agree with the proposed Article II’s general concepts of love, opposing racism and all forms of oppression, and multi-cultural inclusion.

However, both the proposed Article II and UUA five-year plans repetitively connect covenants/commitments with accountable/accountability. Joining the concepts has led to selectively publicized situations of the UUA expelling UU ministers (Note 4) and congregations ejecting members (Note 5) for being out-of-covenant when expressing personal beliefs.

Enforced accountability arises on page 13 in the five-year plan report by UUA staff entitled “Widening the Circle of Concern, 2022 Implementation Plan,” (cited above.) It states, “Accountability Launch Group – The UUA Board is preparing with key UU identity groups and stakeholders to launch an ongoing, iterative accountability group to help ensure the UUA follows through in its long-term AR/AO/MC commitments.” (AR/AO/MC means anti-racism/anti-oppression/multi-culturalism.) The cited commitments are unexplained.

A follow-up bullet point in the document states, “Develop practices and frameworks for reparations within the UUA.” This statement, meaning codifying proper amends for judged wrong acts, reaches beyond just the organization. It applies to UU congregations and members, since the proposed Article II covenants address the organization, congregations, and individuals. The UUA plans also address embedded accountable action including “… audit(ing) for oppressive practices at the congregational level.” (Note 6)

In the proposed Article II, why covenant repetitively? In the current Article II Seven Principles (Note 7) we merely promise once to “affirm and promote” the outlined concepts with “mutual trust and support.” UUs often tease that we don’t have Ten Commandments we have Seven Suggestions. I consider this no frivolous joke. The proposed Article II replaces the “suggestions” with six specific action-statement covenants. I fled a religion that enshrined a code of thought, eliminating differing opinions. Allowing me to choose my own beliefs, rather than submit to enforced regulations, attracted me to UU.

Why dictate accountable actions? Inciting action often uses either a carrot or a stick. I believe that a religion should inspire adherents rather than compel with threats. The current Six Sources in Article II (Note 8) list inspirational resources. People opposed to the proposed Section C-2.3 Inspirations (Note 9) (replacing the Six Sources with vague allusions rather than a never-complete list) state that the new language doesn’t inspire. With no motivational “carrot,” the alternative of an accountability “stick” appears. Many religions have used disciplinary methods to assure adherence to their authority and philosophies. The Inquisition provides an extreme example.

Accountable covenant language in the proposed Article II Section C-2.2. Values and Covenants (Note 10) comes uncomfortably close to creedal language, often used in accountability tests. People argue that the proposed Article II is not a creed, because the covenants concern values, not theological beliefs. Perhaps better terminology suggests that the proposed Article II requires pledging “correct” reactions to a perceived set of “correct” values/beliefs. Creedal or “correct” allegiance, either assessment presses external judgment on my personal beliefs.

A counterargument to my viewpoint might claim, “But, UU centers on Love!” As stated earlier, I agree with the proposed Article II’s general principles of love, opposing racism and oppression, and multi-culturalism. However, in my opinion, a cornerstone of love is not accountable covenant judgment. Accountability produces judgment using conditional love – love when you believe/act as I do. Judgment, embodied in accountable covenants, codified in the proposed Article II and UUA plans, is not aligned with the bedrock UU value of loving acceptance/tolerance. According to the definition by Karen Armstrong, acclaimed religion scholar, accountable covenants fail the compassion test of a valid religious idea (Note 11).

---

Note 1: “Detailed Analysis,” Save the Seven Principles, savethe7principles.wordpress.com/analysis-commentary/
[Return to Article]

Note 2: “Article II Study Report 2021-2023,” prepared by the Article II Study Commission, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-22 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 3: “Widening the Circle of Concern: 2022 UUA Implementation Plan,” submitted by UUA Staff, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2022-07/WCC_2022_implementation_plan.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 4: In “UUA Clergy Removed or Resigned from Fellowship with Completed or Pending Misconduct Investigations,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/mfc/clergy-misconduct-investigations, see the last two de-fellowships and two resignations, citing bullying and abuse. See “The UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry,” Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association, uuma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/uumaguidelines2021.pdf, page 5 point 8 and the definition of bullying and emotional abuse, page 39. See also Used to be UU: The Systematic Attack on UU Liberalism, by Casper & Kiskel, chapter 8, The Demolition of the Fourth Principle, The Real Meaning of Covenant and Accountability, re Rev. Eklof pages 147 – 151, and chapter 13, Accusation and Polarization II, The Suspension of Rev. Kate Rohde, pages 229-231. See also “UUMA Board to Ministers: Shut Up!” by Rev. Richard Trudeau, Truly Open Minds and Hearts, trulyopenmindsandhearts.blog/2019/12/21/uuma-board-to-ministers-shut-up/
[Return to Article]

Note 5: I know personally of two ejected congregation members, privacy maintained. For additional expelled members see “The Dark Side of Dismantling,” Fifth Principle Project, fifthprincipleproject.org/2022/10/04/the-dark-side-of-dismantling/
[Return to Article]

Note 6: In “Accountability and Resources,” part of Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/accountability-resources, see Recommendations and Take-Aways that discuss embedded accountability. See also Used to be UU: The Systematic Attack on UU Liberalism, Casper & Kiskel, The Expansion of Accountability, pages 158-163.
[Return to Article]

Note 7: “The Seven Principles,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
[Return to Article]

Note 8: “Sources of Our Living Tradition,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/sources
[Return to Article]

Note 9: “Article II Study Report,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 21-22 (PDF pages 23-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 10: “Article II Study Report,” Unitarian Universalist Association, uua.org/files/2023-02/article-II-study-report-2021-23.pdf, report pages 19-21 (PDF pages 21-24).
[Return to Article]

Note 11: “The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God’s name, it was bad theology. Compassion was the litmus test for the prophets of Israel, for the rabbis of the Talmud, for Jesus, for Paul, and for Muhammad, not to mention Confucius, Lao-tsu, the Buddha, or the sages of the Upanishads.” Karen Armstrong. As found in LibQuotes. tinyurl.com/Armstrong-Quote
[Return to Article]

March, 2023.

Opinion

by Bob Lamb

You have read a lot recently in this space about things going on at the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) level, especially the review and rewrite of Article 2 of the Bylaws, which contains the seven principles. I want to provide my perspective as an observer and sometimes delegate for Heritage UU Church at the UUA General Assembly for the last seven years.

I came to UU looking for a religion where I felt comfortable as an atheist/ maybe agnostic/ quite possibly spiritual person. By religion I mean an organized movement focused on common goals and desires derived from a sense of something true and necessary in all people. I also mean a movement filled with joy and spirit. My religious experience had been Pentecostal churches both white and black. I loved the energy, never bought the message.

A work colleague said, “UU? That’s nothing but a Democratic Social club!” But it didn’t feel like that at Heritage. Heritage felt like love. I attended a couple of other UU churches and didn’t get that feeling, though. My first experience at GA reinforced what I felt at those other churches; UUism was neither a religion nor a Democratic club. It was simply a debate society for left leaning intellectuals. I felt religious when marching with the Side With Love movement, or with Black Lives Matter, but those efforts did not seem to be at the heart of UUism.

What was missing? This excerpt from an article by Rev. Mark Morrison-Reed in the Fall, 2017 edition of UU World tells a part of the story:

A 1989 study of UU worship preferences tells us that African Americans don’t fit the UU pattern. What was most important in worship for 74.5 percent of UUs overall was “intellectual stimulation.” What was most important for African American UUs who responded to the survey? “Celebrating common values” (chosen by 69 percent), then “hope,” “vision,” and “music”—all before “intellectual stimulation.”

Why did African American culture, experience, and sensibilities remain invisible?

There was cultural dissonance between a people who, having political rights, prized “intellectual freedom” in their struggle with orthodoxy and those for whom the struggles for basic freedoms—political and spiritual freedom—were paramount. But the white conscience does not want to know. Not knowing the history and not being reminded during worship means white liberals don’t have to feel guilty or be confronted by the emotional aridness of UU worship. (emphasis added)

The full article can be found here. It is an excellent survey of how African American UUs have been marginalized, ignored, and neglected throughout the history of Unitarianism.

So I found UU “worship” to be unfocussed and emotionally arid. HUUC was better than others–there’s that Universalist strain coming through.

Then Ellie and I attended the messy, amazing, chaotic, transformative GA in New Orleans, where Susan Frederick-Grey was elected President (not my vote, but I am very happy after seeing her in action) and the Commission on Institutional Change was appointed. And the rest, as they say, is history, leading to where we are now.

Where are we? First, GAs are a whole lot more interesting—singing, dancing, real preaching, actual emotion! But more importantly, African Americans and other BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People Of Color) people are in many positions of power and authority in our faith, positions they were unjustly denied in our history. And they are guiding UUs with great (religious) fervor to attack America’s biggest issue that has infected our institutions and held our country back in all our attempts to unite to make a better world: Racism, and especially the institutional racism that permeates our culture that we can’t even acknowledge because it is so much a part of everything.

As President Frederick-Grey said at the 2018 GA, this is no time for a casual faith.

So now I ask that you reread the proposed new Article 2 section on values and covenant, with my emphasis on the covenantal words. What’s different from our principles? First, everything is based on love—not even mentioned in our principles. Second, we are called to action—not the wimpy “affirm and promote” language of the principles. They want passion. They want direction. They want us to be a religion that stands for something. So do I.

C-2.2. Values and Covenant.

Love is the enduring force that holds us together.

As Unitarian Universalists in religious community, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and through our association, to support and assist each other in engaging our ministries. We draw from our heritages of freedom and reason, hope and courage, building on the foundation of love.

Love inspires and powers the passion with which we embody our values. Inseparable from one another, these shared values are:

Justice. We work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all people thrive. We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.

Generosity. We cultivate a spirit of gratitude and hope. We covenant to freely share our faith, presence, and resources.

Transformation. We adapt to the changing world.
We covenant to collectively transform and grow spiritually and ethically. Evolution is fundamental to life and to our Unitarian Universalist heritages, never complete and never perfect.

Pluralism. We celebrate that we are all sacred beings diverse in culture, theology, and experience. We covenant to learn from one another and openly explore the depth and breadth of our many wisdoms. We embrace our differences and commonalities with love, curiosity, and respect.

Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain a fully inclusive and accessible community of communities.

Interdependence. We honor the sacred interdependent web of all existence. We covenant to care for and respect the earth and all beings by fostering relationships of mutuality. We work to repair the bonds we have broken.

Finally, the proposal adds this to the freedom-of-belief clause: “In expressing our beliefs, we do so in the spirit of love, in ways that further Beloved Community.”

Beloved Community is where everybody helps each other, everyone gets along, everyone looks for the common good. Look it up and you’ll find most of the references are to Martin Luther King, Junior. It is what he was talking about at the end of his “I Have a Dream” speech. So all they are saying is, show love when you express your opinions. Here at Heritage we are bound by a wordier covenant with the same essential meaning (from our website):

Our Pledge for Living in the Spirit of Community

We, the members and friends of Heritage Universalist Unitarian Church, seek, encourage, and support the continued spiritual growth of our diverse community.

In support of this pledge, I accept responsibility for my words and actions and seek to understand other’s concerns and viewpoints.

I will listen actively to others, asking for clarification to avoid misunderstanding.

I will express my thoughts and feelings in a non-judgmental way.

I will seek to resolve significant conflicts directly in the spirit of loving-kindness.

I will refrain from gossip and hurtful comments.

I will be welcoming to visitors and others.

I will honor confidences that have been shared with me.

I will seek out the opinions of those who will be affected by my decisions.

I will carry out my church responsibilities in a timely manner.

We, being human, may fail to meet our pledge many times. I will seek to heal the hurt in myself, and others, when I and they fall short.

So the UUA is starting to be a religion, with service, passion, and direction, focused on love. There is also a lot of talk about the sacred and divine. Sound familiar? Read the HUUC covenant.

The UUA is looking more like Heritage every day. I love it.

January 2023.

“We will Transform the World by our Liberating Love”

Opinion

by Rebecca A. Pace

“We will transform the world by our liberating love.” These glorious words are the last sentence of the proposed Purposes clause, in Article II of our UUA bylaws, up for a vote for approval at the 2023 General Assembly. (To see a side-by-side comparison of the current Article II and the latest proposal, click here.) It sounds like a wonderful idea, but what does it really mean?

There is a school of thought that the purpose of religion is not to reach the individual soul, but is to change society, to raise up the oppressed. This concept is called Liberation Theology. I see liberation theology in another part of the proposed revision to our bylaws, the Justice Value. “We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.”

The 2020 publication, Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, suggests “our congregations must center themselves in the communal….” (Note 1) The new UUA style of Liberation Theology appears to attack individualism and “freedom of belief” as self-centered. According to the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, focusing on our First Principle, the inherent worth of an individual (individualism) is incompatible with collective work for social change.

The UUA workshop entitled Compass, Navigating the Paths to Liberation Together, which I attended in December 2021, illuminated the goal of the Article II Study Commission. The stated purpose of the workshop was to collect input for the Commission’s work. However, the Commission clearly had their version of liberation theology already in mind when they designed the workshop. Liberation terminology was often used by the speakers while denigrating individualism.

In his Sunday homily, at the Compass webinar, former UUA President Rev. William G. Sinkford said:

“Are we called to be a liberal religious movement whose first principle and priority is the empowerment and protection of the individual, or are we called to become a liberating faith…? Can we accept the changes that will be needed in ourselves and in this faith if UU is to become liberating with the power to help us all get free?”

We are not talking about liberating love, in the sense that we give ourselves and others the freedom for a personal search for truth and meaning. No, The Report by the Commission on Institutional Change calls for centering the communal for theological exploration. (Note 2) This liberating love defines church as a social justice action collaborative.

In the Justice Value, we are bound to the work of liberation. “We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.” The UUA Board began implementing the accountability teams at the May 9, 2022 UUA Board of Trustees meeting. (Note 3) Team members are drawn from marginalized identity groups associated with the UUA. The accountability teams are charged with enforcing the Values Covenants at the leadership and congregational level.

The process of reshaping our UU governance—and our Principles, the fundamental underpinning of our faith—is going on now. In the current draft, the Seven Principles and Six Sources are replaced by completely revised Values and Inspirations. A new draft will be released in January. In late winter, General Assembly mini-assemblies will start to consider and finalize the draft to be presented in June. Final adoption of any changes to Article II must be voted on and approved at General Assemblies in 2023 and 2024.

Please become familiar with the issues. If you would like more information or resources, so you may explore the issues yourself, let me know. I would be happy to share additional material and videos with you.

My fellow Heritage Board members and I want to know what you think about the proposed Article II.

To see other opinion essays by Rebecca Pace regarding the UUA proposed changes, click here.

---

Note 1: Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, 2022, page 46. Or online at https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/congregations-communities, in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends.” For a PDF version of the full printed document, go to: https://huuc.net/pdfs/widening_the_circle-text_with_covers.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 2: Widening, p. 10, or online at
https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/theology in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends.”
[Return to Article]

Note 3: “Board of Trustees MEETING: May 9, 2022, 7:00 pm Eastern Time,” Unitarian Universalist Association, Appendix starting on the third page of the minutes, https://www.uua.org/files/2022-07/bot_min_05092022.pdf
[Return to Article]

January 2023.

Opinion

by Rebecca A. Pace

Our beloved Seven Principles and Six Sources will no longer be a part of the Unitarian Universalist Association bylaws if the Article II draft is approved at General Assembly (GA) over the next two summers. “Values” and “Inspirations” will replace them. The Unitarian Universalist Association bylaws require a review and potential updating every few years. Although this provision assures that our religious association maintains a relevance to current societal trends, should an “update” consist of a purging the fundamentals of our faith?

“Principles” do not equate to “values.” Principles are fundamental truths that serve as the foundation for a system of belief. Values are internalized standards of behavior. Like many people, I became a UU because of the Seven Principles. I saw them as poetic and inspiring. The Principles have a flow, from the First Principle, affirming the worth and dignity of every person, to the outward reaching Seventh Principle expressing respect for all existence.

The Article II Study Commission will update the current draft of Article II based upon the just-completed feedback. However, it is clear that the Principles and Sources will not be included. The new Values and Inspirations are the culmination of years of board actions and published reports. Read the latest draft of Article II here.

Now, the Principles are being replaced by seven emotionally-driven values: Love, Justice, Evolution, Pluralism, Interdependence, Equity, and Generosity. The Commission assigns ambiguous meanings to each Value. With each Value, we are asked to covenant to take action. The covenant is not between the individual and their congregation, but between the individual and all UU congregations and UU organizations, to whom the individual is accountable.

The current Principles consist of 102 words, succinct and meaningful. The draft Values consist of 296 words, some using popular phrases with specific meaning to certain groups, but which are understood differently by people outside those groups. There is nothing here that makes us unique. The Values seem trivial. They are only shadows of the Seven Principles.

The proposal recasts most of the Principles as Values, but the Fourth and Fifth Principles do not appear in the proposal.

Fourth Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

Fifth Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.

Although, at the last feedback session in November, the moderators indicated that the Commission would restore democracy as a Value in some fashion, it is not surprising that the Fifth Principle initially didn’t make it into the current Article II draft. In spite of the emphasis on “UU the Vote” for our country’s elections, the UUA Board has not been very diligent about upholding our democratic principles within the Association. As I pointed out in my September article, here, the rules for UUA nominated candidates were much different than the rules for candidates who ran by petition.

The UUA Board continues to mangle democracy. As things currently stand, in spite of the UUA bylaws requiring that two candidates for President be on the ballot at the 2023 General Assembly, the Presidential Search Committee has put forward only one candidate. (Note 1)

Restrictive provisions in the bylaws make it nearly impossible to run by petition for the post. Fifty congregations would have to vote to approve a petitioner between November 15 and February 1, but the petitioner is forbidden to reach out to any congregations to indicate an interest in running for election before November 15.

I have no hope that the Fourth Principle will be restored, and in part this is due to statements in the 2020 publication, Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change. This publication discusses the Fourth Principle as follows:

“…the free and responsible search for truth and meaning… [has] …come to be interpreted almost exclusively through an individualistic lens. …[A]s a religious organization…we operate as a collective based on principle, so that this “free and responsible” search is done within the boundaries of communities.” (Note 2)

And later in Widening the Circle of Concern we find:

“…an overemphasis on individual exploration and experience as the primary …center of religious experience developed. This centering of the individual decenters the communal as a locus of theological exploration. One of the unintended consequences has been the atomized individualism of the search for truth and meaning without accountability to its impact in communities.” (Note 3)

The individual has been replaced by the collective. Freedom of Belief, addressed in a separate section of the proposal, is at risk. Read more on this in my November, 2022, article here.

There is one Value that is implied but not separately stated in the current Principles. That is the proposed Eighth Principle. (Note 4) The new Value has been incorporated into Article II as the Justice Value.

“Justice. We work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all people thrive.
We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of oppression within individuals and our institutions. We are accountable to each other for this work.”

Again, the drafters refer to “Beloved Community.” The term “Beloved Community” figures prominently in Widening the Circle of Concern, but is never defined. See my November, 2022 article, here, for perspectives on what this may mean.

As with each proposed Value, the definition of Justice is followed by a covenanting statement. This statement has several loaded words beginning with “covenant.” Covenanting to “dismantle racism and all forms of oppression” is a far different thing than covenanting with each other that “Love is the Spirit of this Church.”

The Justice Value covenant ends with, “We are accountable to each other for this work.” To whom are we accountable? And what does it mean to be held accountable? The UUA Board of Trustees began establishing accountability teams at the May 9, 2022 meeting. (Note 5)

A year-long study had been conducted on how to implement the 2021 GA Statement of Conscience, “Undoing White Supremacy: A Call to Prophetic Action” (Note 6). Based on the study, the UUA Board agreed to split the accountability team duties into two groups. One team will facilitate feedback and build relationships to support congregational accountability. The other team will provide input and review the work of the UUA Board. The UUA will appoint team members from UU identity-based groups including Black Lives of UU (BLUU), Diverse and Revolutionary UU Multicultural Ministries (DRUUMM), Transgender Religious professional UUs Together (TRUUsT), and EqUUal Access.

The accountability teams will not only influence the direction of the UUA, but also will work to make sure the congregations stick to the “covenant.” There are already paths for the teams to pursue this goal. One team will review each congregation’s budget. Beginning last year, the UUA began requesting more detailed information on what congregations are spending for their racial justice work. The other team will continue rewriting our religious education material.

However, another, more sinister form of accountability is appearing. At the 2019 GA, a workshop focused on helping congregations develop a “destructive behavior policy” to address micro-aggressions. (Note 7) A micro-aggression is a commonplace, subtle, often unconscious or unintentional slight against members of a marginalized group. In practice, this policy is often called a “disruptive behavior policy.” It’s not designed to address people yelling obscenities during the worship services or even vandalizing property. The policy supports those who feel they have been harmed by micro-aggressions destructive to their well-being.

These “disruptive behavior policies” and practices are based upon assumptions about Unitarian Universalism’s supposed white supremacy culture. Around the country we are seeing congregations respond to claims of “harm” with the assumption that a micro-aggression was intentional, and that those harmed are weaker parties and need extra support. (Note 8) These situations can become highly emotionally charged and lead to painful divisions within the congregations. Ideally, these questions can be resolved and both parties can find new understandings. But, it seems that more often “offenders” are encouraged to resign or may be expelled, without any recognizable due process, and sometimes without an understanding of their offense. These practices are counter to our Second Principle, “to affirm and promote justice, equity, and compassion in our human relations.” The remedy is disproportionate to the offense.

The problems with the Article II draft go far beyond the words on paper, Values and Inspirations. The draft is symbolic of a profound change in what Unitarian Universalism stands for. The community boundaries on freedom of belief, the limits to our democratic practice, and the standards for accountability, all fly in the face of our Seven Principles.

Whatever happens, the Seven Principles will remain as an historic document, but the intellectual freedom they represented is at risk. The Values are rules that must be followed or face corrective action. The Principles are aspirational, a vision that can lead us all to be better. Doug Muder wrote an article for the Summer 2014 issue of UU World, “I don’t ‘believe in’ the Seven Principles” (Note 9) in which he describes the Seven Principles as visions, a challenging spiritual path, an invitation to dream. My dream is that we each can continue to follow the challenging path of the Seven Principles.

A revised draft proposal for Article II is expected in December. There will be more feedback sessions. Watch the weekly Heritage Connection e-mail and the Sunday announcements for a link. If you have questions about the loss of individualism and freedom of belief planned by the UUA, make sure your voice is heard.

---

Note 1: “Presidential Search Committee Nominates Rev. Dr. Sofía Betancourt for UUA President,” Unitarian Universalist Association, https://www.uua.org/pressroom/press-releases/psc-nominee-president
[Return to Article]

Note 2: Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, 2022, page xxiii. Or online at https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/methodology , in the subsection “A Brief Overview.” For a PDF version of the full printed document, go to: https://huuc.net/pdfs/widening_the_circle-text_with_covers.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 3: Widening, p. 10, or online at
https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/theology in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends.”
[Return to Article]

Note 4: Quoted at the top of the website The Eighth Principle of Unitarian Universalism, https://www.8thprincipleuu.org/
[Return to Article]

Note 5: “Board of Trustees MEETING: May 9, 2022, 7:00 pm Eastern Time,” Unitarian Universalist Association, Appendix starting on the third page of the minutes, https://www.uua.org/files/2022-07/bot_min_05092022.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 6: “Undoing Systemic White Supremacy: A Call to Prophetic Action (2021 Statement of Conscience),” Unitarian Universalist Association, https://www.uua.org/action/statements/undoing-systemic-white-supremacy
[Return to Article]

Note 7: “Combating Destructive Behavior and White Supremacy Culture,” Unitarian Universalist Association, https://www.uua.org/ga/past/2019/workshops/destructive-behavior
[Return to Article]

Note 8: Rebecca Pace is aware of persons who have said they have experienced these situations in congregations in Akron, Ohio; Atlanta, Georgia; Cincinnati, Ohio; Southern California; Tampa, Florida; and Western Washington state.
[Return to Article]

Note 9: “I don’t ‘believe in’ the Seven Principles,”by Doug Muder, UU World, Summer 2014. Online at https://www.uuworld.org/articles/i-dont-believe-seven-principle
[Return to Article]

December, 2022.

Opinion

by Rebecca Pace

What draws you to our UU faith? For many people it is freedom of belief. Our founders considered freedom of belief to be such a defining characteristic of our faith that it is codified in the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) Bylaws, in Article II.

Now the UUA is considering major changes to Article II. Article II includes our purposes, principles, sources, an inclusion clause, and the freedom of belief statement. I have written before about some of the changes being considered. Past articles are in the Heirloom archives on HUUC.net. (Note 1)

In December 2021, the co-chairs of the Article II Study Commission declared, during a webinar, that the freedom of belief clause was a throwback to old ways of thinking that made everything before it, that is, our principles, irrelevant.

A few days after that December webinar, I attended the UUA Board town hall and asked the Board members about this statement. They agreed, cautioning about outlandish beliefs that the clause could allow. One board member worried, “We could have congregations believing in space aliens.”

Delegates at June’s General Assembly (GA) seemed to support the concept of freedom of belief as long as it was controlled in some fashion. I heard more than once that freedom of belief “allows for Nazi members” and “freedom to be racist.”

Just a few days ago, the Commission released an advance draft of the Article II proposal. (Note 2) As expected, the freedom of belief clause includes a qualifier. We must express our beliefs “… in ways that further Beloved Community.”

The full proposed freedom of belief clause reads:

Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief which is inherent in the Unitarian Universalist heritages or to conflict with any statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any congregation unless such is used as a creedal test. In expressing our beliefs, we do so in the spirit of love, in ways that further Beloved Community.

The first sentence is identical to the existing clause except the order of the words Unitarian and Universalist is reversed and they are not connected by the conjunction “and.”

The first sentence is certainly archaic and legalistic. I would have liked to have it restated in plain language. Instead, this sentence and the inclusion clause are the only elements of Article II that are not substantially changed in the draft.

The second sentence reinforces a commitment to “Love.” “Love” is highlighted in the purposes clause. See my October opinion piece in the Heirloom archives regarding the purposes clause. (Note 3)

What is “Beloved Community”? Why is it capitalized? The publication entitled Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institution Change (COIC), released in June of 2020, refers to Beloved Community 11 times, but never defines it. (Note 4) Other UU organizations and statements by UU leaders have defined it.

The 8th Principle organization defines Beloved Community as happening “when people of diverse racial, ethnic, educational, class, gender, abilities, sexual orientation backgrounds/identities come together in an interdependent relationship of love, mutual respect, and care that seeks to realize justice within the community and in the broader world.” (Note 5)

How are we expected to further Beloved Community? Does this mean our freedom of belief somehow requires a commitment to action to promote our values? Will our congregation’s actions be measured and judged as sufficient or insufficient by some monitoring authority? Questions about social justice activities have already been added to the annual report format that congregations must fill out and send to UUA headquarters.

The Widening the Circle of Concern report, in discussing freedom of belief, laments that there has been an overemphasis on “centering of the individual [which] decenters the communal.” (Note 6) The Commission seemed to believe that the focus on the individual, or autonomous congregations, is incompatible with fostering Beloved Community.

In 2012, Rev. Fredric J. Muir gave a lecture known as “From ichurch to Beloved Community” at the annual UU Ministerial Conference. He proposed the idea that UUs need to make a dramatic change from being centered on the individual (the first principle) to being centered on the church as an interdependent whole. In this view, the word “interdependent” focuses on interpersonal relationships. These are the interdependent relationships referred to by the 8th Principle organization. Muir implied that the nationwide church should operate with centralized authority. This would encourage congregations toward Beloved Community. (Note 7)

Drawing from these sources, it appears that the church, nationwide, needs to make significant changes. Yes, this probably means a commitment to action, measurement, and monitoring. If this draft is approved, we should expect to be asked to channel our freedom of belief, in the spirt of love, in ways that further Beloved Community.

In the draft proposal, principles have been replaced by values and covenants, and sources have been replaced by inspirations. Next month, we’ll look at values and inspirations included in the draft Article II.

The Commission will conduct 10 days of feedback sessions beginning November 5, before the Commission presents its final draft to the Board. You can learn more and register at the link below. Drafts will also be reviewed at mini assemblies before GA (in Pittsburgh, PA and on-line) in June 2023. Please let your voice be heard.

For more information and to register for a feedback session, go to the Commission’s page at https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/article-ii-study-commission/blog/draft-feedback

---

Note 1: Some of Rebecca Pace’s past writings on Article II and related topics can be found here:
https://huuc.net/lofty-goal-or-purpose-of-our-church/
https://huuc.net/campaign-practices-at-general-assembly/
https://huuc.net/a-report-from-general-assembly/
[Return to Article]

Note 2: The Commission’s draft proposed revision for Article II, and the current Article II, can be found here:
https://huuc.net/draft-of-proposed-revision-to-article-2/
[Return to Article]

Note 3: Rebecca Pace’s October article:
https://huuc.net/lofty-goal-or-purpose-of-our-church/
[Return to Article]

Note 4: Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, 2022. For a PDF version of the printed document, go to:
https://huuc.net/pdfs/widening_the_circle-text_with_covers.pdf
[Return to Article]

Note 5: “What is Beloved Community,” The 8th Principle of Unitarian Universalism,
https://www.8thprincipleuu.org/what-is-beloved-community
[Return to Article]

Note 6: Widening, p. 10, or online at
https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/theology in the subsection “Backgrounds and Trends,” third paragraph in that subsection.
[Return to Article]

Note 7: “From iChurch to Beloved Community: Ecclesiology and Justice,” Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association,
https://www.uuma.org/mpage/BSE2012
A shorter version of this content appeared in UU World magazine,
https://www.uuworld.org/articles/end-ichurch
[Return to Article]

November, 2022

(Changing Unitarian Universalism via a Newly Revised Article II)

Opinion

by Rebecca Pace

Is the newly revised draft of Unitarian Universalist Association’s Article II Bylaws (the document that directs the essence of Unitarian Universalism) really what it appears to be on the surface? In September, as part of the periodic updating of this living document, UUs were asked to provide feedback, both in a Zoom group setting and by filling out a survey, on the latest proposal to replace the Article II Purposes Statement. (To see a copy of the discussion handout, click here.) This statement differs from the version that was presented at this year’s UUA General Assembly. I’d like to bring you up to date on the controversy and provide my interpretation of the draft language.

The last sentence of the new, purpose paragraph states: “We will transform the world by liberation through love.” Although seemingly a lofty, admirable goal, is it really the purpose of a church? What does it mean, anyway? Could it mean something that we members don’t truly think it means or is not what we believe? What is meant by “liberation through love” and how does that define the UUA Purpose?

The newly reworked draft of the Article II Purpose Statement reads as follows:

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations shall devote its resources to and exercise its organizational powers for religious, educational, and humanitarian purposes. Its primary purposes are to equip congregations for vital ministry, to support and train leaders both lay and professional, to heal historic inequities, and to advance our UU values in the world. We will transform the world by liberation through love.

The Italicized sentences would replace a portion of the current statement. To see the current Purpose Statement, click here.

Instead of a purpose statement for the UUA, I believe this reworked statement is actually a call to action. The publication entitled Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institution Change (COIC), released in June of 2020, in its introduction explains, “To keep Unitarian Universalism alive, we must center (or privilege) the voices that have been silenced or drowned out and dismantle elitist and exclusionary white privilege, which inhibits connection and creativity.” (For passage source, see Note 1.) “Center,” in this context, means to make of utmost importance. I believe that the Widening reference means, “Step outside your privileged life; listen to the cries of the oppressed; connect and transform the world … through love.”

On the surface, the draft purpose statement appears admirable; however, I found it troubling on several fronts. First, this statement exhorts the UUA and the member congregations to take action, not just to change the world but to transform it. Is world transformation really the purpose of a church? Might that be interpreted as an imposed action plan?

Since my childhood, I exercised my personal choice to work for social justice through many church-sponsored groups. However, to me the purpose of a church is to provide the structure and resources for an individual’s spiritual growth, not an action plan to transform the world. I believe that if anything is transformed, it should be the individual’s spirit or internal compass. This transformation may inspire an individual to take action or participate in social justice work by their own choice, but not by the decreed purpose of the organization. In my view, spirituality is intensely personal rather than dictated.

My next concern involves the word “liberation.” One school of thought states that the purpose of religion is to lift up the oppressed. The report of the COIC puts it this way, “Liberation theologians are not concerned with the essence of human being per se, but with the creation or maintenance of a specific form of human existence.” (See Note 2.) It seems to me that the new Article II authors are saying that the purpose of the UUA and the member congregations is to transform the world by lifting up the oppressed. I believe that’s a worthy goal, but not the purpose of the UUA or member churches.

“Liberation” means different things to different people. Liberation to some people can mean oppression to others. In fact, the report of the COIC says that the dismantling of “capitalist oppression” is a crucial element of any plan to dismantle white dominance. (See Note 3.) Does that mean we should oppose all capitalism as oppression, and for what alternative?

On the other hand, to some people “liberation” means “not liberal.” The classic concept of “liberal” is almost too philosophical for my logical, accounting mind to fully comprehend. However, Wikipedia defines liberalism as “based on the right of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.” Liberalism is one of the “enlightenment” values. Unitarian Universalism was founded on the enlightenment values of belief in an individual’s choice and free will (liberty), tolerance, and questioning of orthodoxy.

But enlightenment values are under assault, being characterized as the system that created White Supremacy Culture. Therefore, some think enlightenment values are oppressive. In this context, it seems that the sentence means, to the Article II revision authors, that, “we will transform the world by dismantling White Supremacy Culture through love.” (For more on dismantling White Supremacy Culture, see Note 4.)

Now we come to the sentence’s final word, “love.” By one definition, to love is to feel and work through acts of service. This circles back to the basic question: what is the purpose of a church—an individual’s spiritual growth, or collective social action? What is a purpose statement verses an action plan?

But the draft purpose statement is more than a single sentence. When I took part in the Zoom feedback session, the discussion group that I joined questioned what it might mean that the UUA purpose would be “to equip” member congregations, and not “to serve,” as it reads currently. We also talked about the removal of certain phrases in the current purposes statement.

A draft of the Freedom of Belief clause was also presented, but without the accompanying values statement it wasn’t possible to understand the proposed changes. Rumor has it that the principles will be entirely replaced by a values statement.

So where does the new Article II debate go from here? The current Purposes draft will be revised based on the September sessions’ feedback. I hope that you will provide your reflections and personal feedback to the UUA Article II Study Commission during the next series of discussions, to be held in late October or early November. Watch the weekly Heritage Connection e-mail for information on how you can participate. The final Article II draft will be released in the beginning of 2023. The proposal will be voted on at General Assembly in Pittsburgh in June, 2023. The final vote is scheduled for General Assembly 2024.

If your UU affiliation has deep meaning to you, now is the time to prove it by shaping the destiny of our organization. Investigate the Article II issues with a critical eye and provide your feedback. Get involved, whatever your opinion might be. Don’t regret it after the votes in General Assembly in 2023 or 24. It means our church’s future.

---

Note 1: This same passage is repeated at two places in Widening the Circle of Concern: Report of the UUA Commission on Institutional Change, Unitarian Universalist Association, Boston, 2022. (For a PDF version of the printed document, click here.) One place uses the word “center” and the other place uses the word “privilege.” For the passage using the word “center,” see the printed version of Widening, p. xix, or online at “Introduction | Widening the Circle of Concern,” https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/introduction, under the heading “Principles to Guide Work,” fourth bullet point. For the passage using the word “privilege,” see the printed version of Widening, p. 8, or online at “Theology | Widening the Circle of Concern,” https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/theology, immediately under the heading “The Joy in the Spiritual Work, by Mary Byron.” [Return to article.]

Note 2: Quoted from Sharon D. Welch, Communities of Resistance and Solidarity, in Widening, p. 127, or online at “Accountability and Resources | Widening the Circle of Concern,” https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/accountability-resources, second paragraph. [Return to article.]

Note 3: Widening, p. 115, or online at “Restoration and Reparations | Widening the Circle of Concern, https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/restoration-reparations, the last paragraph under the “Investment/Divestment” heading. [Return to article.]

Note 4: Widening, p. 142, or online at “Distinctions and Definitions | Widening the Circle of Concern,” https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/cic/widening/distinctions-definitions, the definition for “co-laborer.” [Return to article.]

September 21, 2022

Opinion

by Rebecca Pace

On August 7, I gave a report to the congregation on my experience as a delegate at General Assembly. Unfortunately, the recording of that presentation was corrupted, so you won’t be able to view the service.

In this month’s Heirloom, I want to highlight a conversation I had with another delegate in Portland.

Two candidates ran by petition for Board of Trustee positions. My friend, Rebecca Mattis, was one of them.

At breakfast one morning, I noticed a woman wearing a “UU the Vote” button. UU the Vote is a nonpartisan civic engagement initiative focused on strengthening democracy and organizing for justice, accountability, and healing. Unitarian Universalist (UU) congregations across the country participate in voter mobilization, get out the vote, and election defense efforts.

I asked this woman if she knew that Candidates by Petition had not been able to campaign.

She said, “Yes, they’d been able to campaign.” She’d seen Rebecca on the sidewalk passing out her literature.

I said, “But she’s not allowed to campaign inside the building—she can’t hand out her flyer or speak with delegates about her concerns.”

“Of course,” my companion said. “We don’t want a repeat of what happened in New Orleans. We couldn’t get any business done.”

“But that means Rebecca isn’t able to connect with the delegates,” I said. “Yes, there was one debate recorded before GA opened, but she was not permitted to do anything on site. Did you know she wasn’t allowed to have a booth in the exhibit hall?”

In fact, the current board had issued a statement in support of her opponent. I asked her if she thought that was right.

She said, “Yes, Rebecca wanted to take the UUA in a different direction.”

I said, “Well, that’s why you didn’t vote for her, but it that a reason to prevent her from campaigning?”

She said, “That’s the decision of the Election Practices Committee.” She added that she thought they made the right decision. I retreated to my own table.

The UUA is in the process of developing changes in the UUA By-Laws, and these changes could be significant. In fact, members of the UUA Board openly say that they intend to drive major changes at the congregational level.

In Article 2, the Purposes clause says that the Purpose of the UUA is to support the congregations, but the UUA Board of Trustees seems to be intent on exercising more control.

As in our local elections, only about 20% of the possible delegates to General Assembly actually participate in the process. However, these decisions deserve a robust debate. Please ask your UU friends in other communities to get involved and learn more.

8/25/2022.

Opinion

by Rebecca Pace

I enjoyed being one of your delegates to the 2022 Unitarian Universalist Association’s General Assembly in Portland, Oregon. Please come to the HUUC worship service, on August 7, to hear from all of your delegates, about the business of the UUA.

One of the things that struck me is how little involvement many congregations, across the country, have with the UUA, and how many members are uninformed about the changes being implemented by the Board of Trustees.

Business resolutions are usually voted on by less than 20%* of our electorate, that is, potential authorized delegates, and usually pass with high margins. When I spoke with delegates on site, many did not know that rules severely limited the ability of Board candidates, by petition, to campaign or voice their concerns; that a number of ministers resigned from the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association en masse in protest of certain decisions; that letters to the editors of UU World are no longer being published; or about many other Board and UUMA actions that I find troubling.

Most of the Portland GA agenda focused on discussing Article 2 of the UUA’s Bylaws. Massachusetts requires our Bylaws to state the purpose of our organization. We considered two different drafts of the purpose clause. We did not vote on these, but were encouraged to provide feedback. The final proposals will be presented to the UUA Board in January 2023, and will be voted on at the General Assembly in Pittsburgh in June, 2023.

The UUA Board’s Charge to the Article II Study Commission is lengthy. You can find it here: https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/article-ii-study-commission/charge

In considering these drafts, keep in mind that the charge to the Article 2 Study Commission, at one point, states, “The Board would like to see an Article II that is inspirational, memorable and poetic. The language should be inclusive and welcoming, and explicitly anti-racist.” For several years the Board of Trustees has encouraged staff to move away from language of the “Enlightenment,” as they claim it is the root of “White Supremacy Culture,” and instead use “Post Modern” terminology.

This is our current Purposes Statement:

Section C-2.2. Purposes.

The Unitarian Universalist Association shall devote its resources to and exercise its corporate powers for religious, educational and humanitarian purposes. The primary purpose of the Association is to serve the needs of its member congregations, organize new congregations, extend and strengthen Unitarian Universalist institutions and implement its principles.

This is Draft Purpose A:

The UU Association shall devote its resources to and exercise its organizational powers for religious, educational, and humanitarian purposes. Its primary purposes are to equip congregations for vital ministry, to support and train leaders both lay and professional, to heal historic inequities, and to advance UU values in the world. We do all this consistent with our theological pluralism.

And here is Draft Purpose B:

The UUA’s purpose is to grow and resource faith communities that support people through their lives’ journeys and transform the world by liberating ourselves through love. We make that love real through care and justice for ourselves, for our communities, and for the larger web of existence that we are all in. We are called upon to risk ourselves for love.

What do you think of the drafts? Does either one convey your understanding of the purpose of the UUA? Let me know.

Please, join us on August 7 and learn more about our UUA and your delegates’ experiences at GA.

---

*For example: 2022 Business Resolution 2. To suspend a portion of the bylaws: Vote held on Thursday, June 23, 2022. If every congregation sent their full slate of delegates there would have been 4,828 delegates voting, but in fact only 821 delegates voted on this resolution. (A 17% voter turnout) The measure passed with 95.6% of those who voted, voting in the affirmative. Only about half of the registered delegates even voted.

---

7/15/2022.