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.