the title of this presentation is much ad do about article two why a major revision of uu's principles was predictable my name is Kenneth in the purpose of this presentation is to offer my explanation for what this revision is intended to achieve understanding the purpose of these changes will help explain why many uu members are supportive of the proposed changes but other members are concerned about the revision I'm eager to hear your explanation this is a question a lot of us have why are the
y proposing such major changes to Article 2 before I get to the good stuff I want to start with a very quick High Lev overview on the left is the current Article 2 the whole thing on the right are the comparable parts of the proposed revision I just want to do a visual comparison the purposes section has a few important things added making it a little bigger the principle section is now called values and Covenant and has about three times as many words in it the six sources are currently in the
principal section but now they would be in their own section named Inspirations they're really parrying the sources of inspiration down dropping about onethird of the words the inclusion section is about the same size and the freedom of belief section is also about the same size both of those have important changes in the language but the changes are not as dramatic as those for the principles and sources let's compare the current principles on the left and the new values on the right obviously
they're very different but most of the words in the principles are carried forward in the revision the words in the first principle can be found embedded in the last value the key words in the second principle are sort of scattered but they're in there part of the third principle was kind of replicated in the pluralism value and the other part is embedded in the transformation value the fourth principle is embedded in the pluralism value part of the fifth principle is now mentioned in the freedo
m of belief section and the other part of the fifth principle is tacked on to the Justice value the sixth principle is not in the revision this is the only principle that's comp completely dropped the language from the seventh principle is now scattered throughout the interdependence value so does this revision eliminate U 's principles that's technically true but kind of an exaggeration it's more accurate to say that the principles are no longer the Stars they're no longer the main emphasis in
most cases the words are still in there but they're embedded in paragraphs that are more like mission statements than a concise list of aspirational principles okay let's get to the good stuff why are they replacing the principles with paragraphs that look more like mission statements there's a fairly straight forward way to describe why they're doing this they want you use to make a commitment to act act think of those two words commitment to act they think the current Covenant to affirm and pr
omote the principles is not a strong enough commitment the free congregations promising to one another their Mutual trust and support does not feel like a strong commitment neither of these are commitments to act so that's the first thing to notice in the revision every one of the values that replace the princip principles comes with its own statement of Covenant and what kind of Covenant is it it is a covenant to do something there are commitments to act how can we tell because these mission li
kee statements have verbs the current principles lack verbs they want to add verbs almost every proposed value statement has a verb of some sort honor celebrate work adapt cultivate every following mission statement has multiple verbs protect create nurture repair learn Embrace dismantle support transform grow being open to change share connect use build sustain as if that doesn't cover the bases the preamble to this values and Covenant section includes a commitment to be accountable to one anot
her for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of love doing the work that is a commitment to act living our shared values that is an action that is what you us are going to be accountable for it should be very clear that a major goal of this revision is to convey a commitment to act every time we hear the word values we should mentally translate that as commitments to act okay more verbs more covenants why object to putting these commitments to act into the
bylaws there are numerous concerns about this most members see the current principles as aspirational but some members are concerned that by inserting ubiquitous covenants and verbs into the revision these are now directives turning the values into dictates turning the mission statements into mandates these members think it's better to inspire people to act than it is to tell them what they have to do they think this seems like a Creed or Dogma dictating what members have to believe mandating wh
at the priorities of members and congregations are going to be these members would insist that it's better to have the freedom and autonomy to decide for ourselves what our priorities are going to be wait a minute nobody tells us what to do we have congregational Freedom we have IND individual freedom of belief we have a right to conscience we follow the Democratic process in our congregations the UA does not tell us what to do they are just an administrative body serving the needs of the congre
gations before I respond to that we need to talk about how we think about this revision let's talk about assumptions the first assumption is that every change the commission is recommending is done for a reason every word being added is being added for a specific purpose every word being dropped is being dropped for a specific purpose as a matter of fact at general assembly last year one of the co-chairs of the commission specifically addressed this the direct quote is we took great care with ev
ery word we used I think we should take them at their word the second assumption is that the commission and the uua expects this revision to have a significant impact on uu the goal is to transform uu that's why the changes are so dramatic but many people don't think the Article 2 study commission does a good job of explaining why they want to transform uu what specific things they need to change to achieve that transformation and why such a major rewrite of Article 2 was required to accomplish
those goals I happen to think that if we study the proposal closely we can figure out the answers to those questions remember the widening the circle of concern report that came out in 2020 and is considered to be the blueprint for the future of YuYu even though the Article 2 study commission does not directly talk about that report it is listed on the U UA website as one of the resources they used and I think the influence is clear I think that if we pay close attention to what some of the majo
r themes of the widening report are we'll be able to answer these questions and more over and over the report talks about transformation immediately after that report came out the Article 2 study commission started their work we should assume that the goal of this revision is to transer for uu but transformation is a vague term what kind of transformation was the widening the circle of concern report recommending to begin with over and over in the widening report excessive individualism is highl
ighted as being a problem they think that individuals insisting on promoting their point of view just gums up the works the widening report recommends emphasizing the community more and the individual less another really important theme in the whitening report was congregational polity poity is a word that means governance in the same way over and over in the whining report congregational polity is highlighted as needing to be redefined the widening report says that the congregations have too mu
ch latitude to make their own decisions the conclusion of the report is that this makes U you less effective than it needs to be this is kind of like thinking of congregations acting too much like individuals the report recommends more emphasis on all of youu youu as a community and less emphasis on the individual congregations so if excessive individualism gums up the works and too much congregational autonomy slows YuYu down what does the widening report say YuYu as a community should be focus
ing on well over and over the widening report highlights white supremacy culture as a major problem in uyu by now most uu members have heard about this emphasis on dismantling white supremacy culture in uyu more broadly the widening report urges uu to put a much stronger focus on anti-racism and anti-oppression wow I'm having a flashback except mive individualism too much autonomy those are basically two of the three things that Reverend Frederick M called out as uu's Trinity of errors in his 20
12 Barry Street essay Reverend Mir was talking about individual members but now I'm thinking that the widening the circle of concern report just took this to a higher level instead of only critiquing individual members the widening report is also critiquing individual congregations why wouldn't this apply to congregations congregations that are too focused on themselves instead of the larger movement congregations that are allergic to handing over power and authority to the association as a unif
ied body I think the widening report is diagnosing the same Trinity of Errors just at a higher level I honestly have never heard anyone describe it that way before but it makes a lot of sense even the title of the essay from ey Church to Beloved Community can apply to the next level in fact it seems like a lot of the time our national leaders are talking about Beloved Community being all of you you so why wouldn't the Trinity of Errors apply to congregations in their relationship with the associ
ation as a whole this happens in business all the time a small company is bought up by a larger company and now the small company needs to sacrifice a lot of their autonomy to be aligned with the larger mission so show me where the Article 2 revision is doing these things let's start with asking whether the revision appears to establish anti-racism and anti-oppression as the number one priority in uu I want to draw your attention to a graphic that is proposed to be inserted into the bylaws this
graphic shows the six major values as petals encircling a central value of Love many uus are enthused about this graphic they really like the idea of love being the central value of YuYu it's true that love does not have a starring role in the current principles in the revision love with a capital well is also emphasized in the purposes where it calls on YuYu to transform the world through liberating love it's in the preamble to the values and Covenant section referring to the spiritual discipli
ne of love but the question is what does it mean to put love at the center of this revision love has lots of definitions is this just a Feelgood platitude or is this a reference to a specific definition of Love remember what we just talked about every word has a purpose the goal is to transform uu the emphasis of the revision is to embed commitments to act if love is a word that means different things to different people is that truly transformational I think the answer can be found in the charg
e to the Article 2 study commission the intent of the national leadership of YuYu as explained in the instructions to the commission is for love to mean something very specific let read from the charge it says our commitment to personal institutional and cultural change rooted in anti-oppression anti-racism and multiculturalism values and practices is Love In Action and should be centered in any revision of Article 2 in the next paragraph it says they should ask us to choose Love In Action as th
e path forward then the very next sentence repeats their definition of love it says our commitment to anti-racism anti-oppression and multiculturalism is Love In Action and should be centered in any revision of Article 2 there it is that commitment to act love is not a feeling or an attitude or an intention love is an action a specific kind of action so show me where we can find this love and action in the Article 2 Revision in the purpose say we see a new purpose of the uua to heal historic inj
ustices we also see this overarching new purpose of the transformation of the world through liberating love we see the spiritual discipline of love as framing how we do the work of living our shared values in the values themselves we see the new sentence added to the interdependence value stating that we will work to repair harm and damaged relationships and of course we find this specific definition of Love In Action in the Justice value where we Covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of sy
stemic oppression I think it's clearly the intention of the commission to establish anti-racism and anti-oppression as the number one priority in yuu but our social justice work is only one part of being a unarian Universalist won't this mean there will be a lot less focus on other things that are meaningful to me as a member of uu that's a good question let's look a little closer at the changes to the sources of inspiration in the current Article 2 there is a list of six different kinds of sour
ces of inspiration in the revision a new section is being created that is called Inspirations at first glance we see that this section is about onethird smaller than the current sources in general the sources will no longer be spelled out and mentioned by name instead the new inspiration section talks about things in more general terms the very first source is carried forward this is the direct experience of transcending mystery and wonder in the current sources there are also specific reference
s to the words and deeds of prophetic people the wisdom from the world's religions Jewish and Christian teachings humanist teachings heeding the guidance of reason and the results of Science and spiritual teachings of Earth centered traditions in the new inspiration section all of these sources are reduced to referring to Sacred secular and scientific understandings the explanation we get from the commission is that any specific list inevitably will leave out some sources of inspiration so they
think it's better to not even try to list the specific sources of inspiration that's a big change it makes me wonder whether removing the specific sources of inspiration makes youu more attractive or less attractive to potential members another good question but I wanted to consider how it affects the focus and priority of uu this change seems like it lowers the priority of spiritual and intellectual development in uyu it seems like it puts less emphasis on the sustenance of the souls and minds
of YuYu members this seems to be another sign that the goal of the transformation of YuYu is to put a high priority on anti-racism and anti-oppression it seems like they're counterbalancing that by putting less emphasis on spiritual and intellectual exploration so what about the other ways the proposed revision is intended to transform YuYu show me where the Article 2 revision is emphasizing The UU community over the individual congregations first let's let's compare the purposes sections rememb
er every word that is added is added to serve a purpose every word that's removed is removed to serve a purpose the most notable change to the purposes is the removal of the primary purpose of the association which currently is to serve the needs of its member congregations this has been a clear statement of the role of the uua which designated it as an administrative body removing that primary purpose EXP stands the role of the uua Beyond Administration some people will assume that the new prim
ary purpose to assist congregations in their vital Ministries means the same thing later I'll go into more detail about why rewording the first purpose is a really big deal but I need to give you a lot more background information before my explanation will make sense for now I'll simply say that this change in the wording of the first named primary purpose enables a redistribution of power and authority in unarian universalism that would certainly be a big deal remember this slide on the right s
howing how the widening of the circle of concern report highlighted congregational poity as a problem I want to point out that the first order of business as outlined in the charge to the uua commission on institutional change was to conduct an audit of power structures within the unarian Universalist Association so we should not be surprised that the Article 2 revision sets the stage for a redistribution of power in yuu notice that in the current Article 2 it explicitly refers to congregations
as free it says that as free congregations we enter into this Covenant promising to one another our mutual trust and support in the revision it removes this confirmation that the congreg ations are free remember every word is added or subtracted to serve a purpose some members will point to the changes in the freedom of belief section where it mentions congregational freedom but other members are very concerned about how the commission chose to describe congregational Freedom the revision says c
ongregational freedom is Central to our unarian Universalist Heritage this is a very ambiguous phrase some members interpret this as referring to the past but not explicitly applying to the future again every word matters why doesn't it just clearly confirm congregational freedom is guaranteed going forward given the way the widening the circle of concern had identified congregational Freedom as being a problem this ambiguity probably serves the purpose we can see more evidence of the demotion o
f congregational autonomy when we compare the overall covenants in the current version and the proposed version in the current version We Covenant to affirm and promote the seven principles then as free congregations we enter into that Covenant promising to one another our mutual trust and support this is admittedly a soft Covenant it's a covenant of best intentions now let's look at how the overall Covenant is worded in the revision the covenants are more explicit and broader it says we Covenan
t congregation to congregation and through our association those extra words matter they could have simply said we Covenant to support and assist one another in our Ministries leaving out those extra words but they didn't this new wording of the overall Covenant appears to make congregations answerable to each other in new ways ways and even implies that the congregations will be answerable to the association in new ways these broader covenants seem to be aimed at the perceived problem of congre
gations having too much autonomy these broader covenants would redistribute power in yuu we need to use the same lens to interpret the new accountability statement it says we are accountable to one another this is probably the most important sentence in the a whole revision but it's ambiguous does the word we refer to members or congregations or both does the phrase one another refer to other members or other congregations or the association as a whole I'll have more to say about the accountabil
ity statement in a few moments the point we're making here is that if we use the lens of the widening report where congregational freedom is considered to be a problem this accountability statement appears to have a purpose of restricting congregational autonomy that accountability statement also appears to restrict individual prerogatives which brings us back to the third objective of the revision show me where the Article 2 revision is emphasizing the community over the individual members as w
e showed before the widening the circle of concern report identified an emphasis on individualism as being a problem in YuYu perhaps the strongest protection of individual freedoms in the current Article 2 has been in the freedom of belief section the current version says nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon individual freedom of belief that is what makes sure that the principles and sources do not become a Creed individuals are guaranteed the freedom to interpret the principles to ac
t on the principles to draw inspiration from a broad range of inspirational sources in a way that is consistent with their individual beliefs now let's look at the changes to this section nowhere does it mention individual freedom of belief nowhere Does it include language that clearly says that freedom of belief is protected going forward it does mention the individual's right of conscience but only in the context of our Unitarian Universalist Heritage that is backward-looking not forward-looki
ng this is going to sound like a broken record but every word that is being removed is being removed to serve a purpose if the intent was to preserve an unequivocal protection of freedom of belief all they had to do is leave the current statement in there nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief that would make it crystal clear but many people might ask at this point is freedom of belief truly endangered that is our cue to look at the proposed change to th
e inclusion section the intent of this section has been to unequivocally state that we truly welcome all persons in Unitarian universalism this is the explicit commitment to diversity and multiculturalism in the proposed revision there is now a caveat on that statement of inclusion The Proposal is that Unitarian Universalist congregations will only truly welcome all persons who share our values it sure is curious to place a justification for exclud in usion into a section that's supposed to be a
bout inclusion and this is not just about new members this means that if a member is judged to not share our values they are no longer welcome I think that the proposed transformation of yuu is most clearly explained by those four words note that the words our values are not ambiguous our values are these value statements that are proposed to replace the principles all of these values include a couple sentences that attempt to articulate what commitments to act are mandated by these values so le
t's go back to that caveat instead of reading this as who share our values substitute who share our commitments to act I think that translation can affect how we think of this caveat it really UPS the stakes maybe we aren't that worried about being told what to think I mean good luck with that but being told what to do seems like more of an infringement on our individual sovereignty and remember the freedom of belief section no longer says that nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the
individual freedom of belief the New Freedom of belief section seems to relegate the individual right to conscience to the Past nothing in the freedom of belief SE appears to override the new caveat in the inclusion section and because we will be committing to be accountable to one another isn't this going to be up to some kind of tribunal to interpret what these values [Music] mean let me see if I understand what you're saying let's look at some examples I think the state that we will work to
repair harm and damaged relationships is ambiguous that could mean almost anything harm is a pretty subjective word with the concept of harm really expanding recently can challenging a claim of harm be considered to be harmful like I said this could mean almost anything and what you're saying is that if I don't agree with how this sentence is interpreted by some governing body if I don't agree with what specific action this calls for I might no longer be welcoming YuYu because supposedly I don't
share yuyu's values also added to the interdependence value is this Covenant to protect all beings from exploitation that is pretty vague I worry that this phrase could be interpreted as a rejection of markets and capitalism if I call an objective like that into question does that mean I don't share you use values what if I don't agree with a particular interpretation of racism or a specific claim of systemic oppression there's a lot of debate about whether the goal should be equal opportunitie
s or equal outcomes the widening report says that institutional racism creates different outcomes for different racial groups so it defines racial equity and Justice as both Equitable opportunities and Equitable outcomes for everyone I don't think equal outcomes are realistic I think equal opportunities are the right goal so it matters to me how racism and systemic oppression will be interpreted in Article 2 and this word dismantle what does that mean what does dismantle white supremacy culture
really mean the widening report doesn't really give us a clear definition I have heard some interpretations where this would mean abandoning some values that are really important to me like logic and reason and using evidence to make claims about truth if I still think those are important does that mean I am no longer welcome in yuu because I don't share yuu's values can my difference in opinion be interpreted as not being open to change not willing to transform not willing to adapt merely becau
se I oppose changes that are being promoted I am reminded of a distressing thing I saw at general assembly last year in her farewell address at GA the outgoing UA president really came down hard on members who opposed some of the things the UA is doing she accused the dissenters of obstructing their congregations she characterized dissenters as insisting on getting their own way against the will and vision of a community but most distressing of all is this quote she said some people begin to cli
ng to some fabricated imagination of a mythical past she said we see this among white nationalists in our country she said we also sometimes see it within ourselves I mean wow our president basically said that people that disagree with the UA are as bad as white nationalists this is why I'm very nervous about committing to this transformation value YuYu doesn't have a good track record of tolerating dissent recently well enough about the transformation value let's look at a few more of the value
s does the new wording of the fourth principle where they added the words to learn from one another mean that our free and responsible search for truth and meaning is no longer Guided by our individual right to conscience and individual freedom of belief this reminds me so much of that place in the widening report where it suggested that we operate as a collective based on principle so that this free and responsible search is done within the boundaries of communities recently we have seen books
being condemned ministers being disfellowshipped and Boos at GA being denied simply due to a pretty narrow interpretation of what a free and responsible search for truth and meaning looks like like I said a minute ago YuYu does not have a good track record of tolerating descent recently and what is an inclusive Democratic process what does the word inclusive mean here and why does it only say we support Democratic processes that doesn't sound like a commitment if these are actually Hedges on you
you commitment to democratic processes and if I protest about something I consider to be undemocratic does that mean I don't share yuu's values I remember very well the moment at general assembly last year when a very influential minister in uyu accused people of being racist and sexist for persistently challenging whether the UA is following its own bylaws and using the Democratic process can I be accused of not making an appropriately generous Financial contribution you know donating too litt
le and be judged as not sharing a value of generosity and thus I am no longer welcome in uu the equity value seems to be intended to make that same kind of judgment about how my whole congregation apportions its time attention and money what if we have our own ideas about where to use our budget what if we have our own ideas of what actions are the most urgent to undertake what if our priorities don't align with the priorities of the national uua can our decisions about how to use our money and
attention and time Le to our whole congregation being judged to not share youuu values or consider the new purpose of the association to heal historic injustices I assume that's about reparations but this is so vague and open-ended that it is easy to imagine having disagreements about what actions reparations call for would that make me or my congregation unwelcome can I or my congregation be judged as not doing the expected things to transform the world through liberating love I don't even know
what that means how can I commit to something I don't even understand to me this sounds like that belief in Unitarian Universalist exceptionalism remember that that was in Reverend mir's Trinity of Errors I want to go back to the accountability statement this is the most important part of the revision but it is so ambiguous who are we accountable to what exactly are the criteria we will be judged by what happens if we are judged to be failing to be living our shared values as I just pointed out
every one of the value statements could be interpreted in ways that I might not agree with I can't know what actions I am committing to be accountable for because many of the statements are ambiguous I'm assuming that accountability will be taken seriously I saw the recording of the panel at GA 2022 that included our uua president the Reverend Dr Sophia betor near the end she said something that stuck with me first she said we have to be willing to say no in YuYu spaces then she said we need th
ings that Inspire us to grow spiritually and to be our best selves but we cannot do that unless we are willing to say to each other you are out of Covenant right now when you talk to me about how or even you are so out of Covenant you cannot be back in this community until you're willing to do the work of repair then she said the sentence that stuck with me Covenant without consequences is not actually Covenant if our president is taking these things that seriously I don't think we should be com
placent about the purpose of adding accountability into Article 2 the ambiguous accountability statement which I am convinced convinced we need to take very seriously that caveat added to the inclusion section and the removal of the protection of individual freedom of belief all seem like they could have lots of unanticipated consequences was there any attempt to fix these yes there were attempts to fix some of the concerns about the Article 2 revision close to 500 amendments were offered by uu
members the uua narrowed those down to 15 amendments that would be discussed at general assembly last June five of the amendments were approved by the delegates two did not get discussed they ran out of time and eight were voted down by the delegates there was a distinct pattern if someone from the Article 2 study commission spoke against an amendment the amendment failed if the commission did not comment the amendment passed so let's look at three amendments that the Article 2 study commission
did not want to be approved and indeed were voted down these three amendments addressed the specific concerns we just talked about Amendment 25 would have replaced the accountability statement the Article 2 study commission spoke against this amendment and it was voted down with 80.2% voting no Amendment 68 would have replaced that caveat in the inclusion section the proposed amendment would have said that we welcome all persons who will Embrace YuYu values in their own search for truth and mean
ing it received an 80.3% no vote article six would have added back in a firm commitment to individual freedom of belief the commission spoke against it and 77.8% of the delegates voted against it I'm disappointed that those amendments did not get approved those could have helped reduce my concerns about the revision but I guess when the commission speaks against a change the delegates defer to them in case you're wondering amendment number one would have added back in the the list of six sources
of inspiration even that was opposed by the commission so it was voted down with 88.7% voting no a very curious thing happened to the interdependence value Amendment 52 was approved and it changed the original wording quite a bit adding some things and striking out some things the most notable change Was the removal of the line at the end that had said we work to repair harm and damaged relationships the commission did not comment on this amendment so it passed with 78.4% yes votes what is curi
ous is that in October when the commission revealed how they Incorporated the Amendments that had been approved they put back in almost all of the language that Amendment 52 had deleted those deletions had been approved by over 3/4 of the delegates since the commission also rearranged Chang the language it's kind of hard to show you what happened but here's the gist of what they did they kept most of the new words those are in green but the only deletion they kept was where Cherish Earth was cha
nged to protect Earth all of the other deleted words shown in dark red were put back in most notable the commission put back in the last sentence which says we will work to repair harm and damaged relationships wow the commission overrode the vote of the delegates I mean rearranging words is expected but putting back in whole sentences that had been deleted that sentence was one of the ones that I was concerned about it is ambiguous and could mean almost anything it must have been very important
to the commission if they felt it necessary to override the deletions that the delegates had approved before we can make an informed decision on the current proposal we have a few more things we need to take into account changing Article 2 cannot accomplish the transformation all by itself other articles in the uua bylaws would need to be Rewritten to be aligned with the same three objectives outlined by the winding report most notably in order to solve the perceived problem of congregations ha
ving too much autonomy slowing down YuYu article three would need major revisions article three is where the relationship between the congregations and the National Association is spelled out there are many places in article 3 that affirm and protect the autonomy of the congregations to achieve the goals of the Whiting report and and to bring article 3 into alignment with the proposed changes to Article 2 to redistribute power in uu those guarantees of congregational poity would need to be weake
ned wait congregational autonomy is still safe right if anything in uu is carved in stone it's got to be congregational Freedom not necessarily I know most members assume congre ational autonomy is as you say carved in stone but there is another commission that's been formed by the uua board and that bylaws renewal team is working on rewriting the rest of the uua bylaws including article 3 I've only found two publicly available reports from the bylaws renewal team so far as of January in their r
eport to general assembly last June they reported that the project will take longer than anticipated the bottom line is that we will have to make our decision about Article 2 without knowing what changes are going to be recommended for article 3 and the rest of the bylaws and just in case you're wondering if the widening report is still relevant considering it was published almost four years ago the answer is absolutely the uua created a team to oversee the implementation of the recommendations
in the widening report and in 2021 they published a 5-year implementation plan the most recent version is the 2023 update of that plan pertinent to our concerns the Article 2 revision is spotlighted in the context of the foundation for a cultural change and transformation in Unitarian universalism so yes transformation is still on the UA's mind the 2023 plan also mentioned mentions the bylaws renewal team and pertinent to our concerns this reimagining of the rest of the uua bylaws is considered
to be an opportunity to provide accountability to uu's values including through Covenant so it's not just Article 2 that has those goals the last thing to note is this comment that an area to plan for in the coming years is expanding understanding about congregational policy so yes the widening reports focus on transformation and recommendations to address accountability and congregational poity are all still taken seriously by the uua you know I keep hearing that Unitarian universalism is a liv
ing tradition pointing out that we are a living tradition is frequently used to criticize opponents of this rewrite as being too attached to the status quo but it has always confused me why everyone assumes that the one thing that will never change the one part of the status quo that is carved in stone is congregational autonomy there have been lots of things that I thought were safe but they aren't Democratic processes have been in the principal since the merger so I thought that was non-negoti
able but then the first version the article two study commission proposed did not include the Democratic process sure they added it back and later but obviously it wasn't carved in stone same thing with the fourth principle the free and responsible search for truth and meaning part of uyu since the merger deleted in that first version later put back in apparently not carved in stone even the first principle the inherent worth and dignity of all persons was called into question by a congregationa
l study action issue in 2018 but we're told don't worry congregational polity is safe if we are a living tradition why do we assume congregational autonomy is the one thing that won't change good question it's not like nobody has ever suggested that congregations have too much autonomy back in 2015 the Reverend Sue Phillips put on two workshops at General Assembly one was titled congregational polity and the myth of congregation autonomy the other was called reimagining congregational poity for
a Beyond congregation age you can just tell from the titles that she thought there should be limits on congregational autonomy so how did the national uu leadership respond to her views on congregational poity she got nominated to be the next uua president eventually she dropped out of the race but the point is that I can't imagine a stronger endorsement of her views on congregation ational poy at the same time uua moderator Jim key gave a report to General Assembly where he imagined congregatio
ns entered and were welcomed into Covenant with the larger Association that would be renewed periodically he created a task force and two years later that task force on reimagining Covenant reported that they would bring to the 2018 General Assembly recommended bylaw changes that would require member congregations and covenanting communities to renew their connection to the uua banally with a vote of intention to join and a statement of how they understand their Community to be fulfilling Unitar
ian Universalist purpose in other words congregations would have to reapply to be in the association every 2 years long story short just a few years ago congregational autonomy was certainly not carved in stone two of those task force members are on the bylaws renewal team and I'm sure they remember the plan that they had been ready to bring to General Assembly now we have all of the background we need to understand why changing the wording of the first named purpose of the uua is a big deal ess
entially the new purpose would be to assist congregations rather than serve congregations let me try to explain with a different between serve and assist is it's about the implied power relationship let's listen to how the word serve sounds when it's used to describe different Power relationships does it sound right that a cab driver serves his passengers yes does it sound right that a cab driver assists his passengers yes that still works even though the passenger is in control and calling the
shots let's try using these words when both parties have equal power the husband comes to the airport to pick up his wife does the husband serve the wife no the word serve doesn't work between equals how about does the husband assist the wife yes that works assist is a word that works between equals how about does it work to say that a boss serves an employee no that does not accurately reflect the power relationship between a boss and an employee can a boss assist an employee yes a boss can ass
ist an employee without implying that the employee has any power over the boss now let's try these out in the context of uyu if the congregations are in control and calling the shots does it sound right when we say the uua serves the congregations yes obviously does it still sound right if we say the uua assists the congregations yes that still works both words work when the congregations have the power can the congregations and the uua have equal power if the purpose of the uua is to serve the
congregations no the word serve locks in an unbalanced power relationship what about if we say that the the purpose of the uua is to assist the congregations yes that wording allows for a balance of power between the congregations and the uua if there was a vision of making congregations accountable to the uua essentially giving the uua the authority to control the priorities of the congregations wouldn't having the word serve as the primary purpose block off that possibility doesn't using the w
ord assist instead of serve open up the possibility that power could be centralized in uu and that the uua could be given the power to hold congregations accountable and control their priorities yes the word assist fits that power relationship in other words changing the primary purpose from serving congregations to assisting congregations does not force a redistribution of power in uu both words work if the congregations retain their power but it allows a rearrangement of power because the word
assist works for all varieties of power Arrangements in other words if there is a vision of centralizing power in uu the word serve had to be replaced this is why many of us think this change in wording is a really big deal anything that weakens congregational autonomy like this could is something we need to take very seriously speaking of accountability there's one other initiative at the national level that's relevant to our decision about Article 2 responding to a clear recommendation in the
widening report the uua Board of Trustees is creating two accountability teams the purpose of the accountability teams is to monitor how diligently the uua board and the uua administration attends to uu's anti-racism and anti-oppression missions with that Focus the representatives in the accountability teams will be exclusively from Identity groups of historically marginalized or oppressed people the details about how the accountability teams will operate is still being worked out but the purpo
se seems clear let me read from the plan presented to the board in May of 2022 it reads team members need to be included in generative conversations while decision ision are being made not called in to critique decisions after the fact uua Administration and board members must provide access to existing meeting spaces or create new ones to ensure that the team can impact the ongoing work of dismantling and transforming white supremacy culture in an intersectional way I don't think this leaves an
y doubt that an overarching purpose of voluntarily submitting to oversight by these non-elected identity-based groups is to ensure that anti-racism and anti-oppression activism is the top priority throughout Unitarian universalism okay it's time to summarize the thesis of this presentation I started out by saying that a major revision of yuyu's principles was predictable I built a case that the objectives of the dramatic revision of Article 2 can be derived from the themes in the widening the ci
rcle of concern report that report is considered to be the blueprint for the future of uu since the bylaws including Article 2 only undergo a major review every 15 years it's completely predictable that the Article 2 study commission would propose a transformational revision of uu's principles and other components of Article 2 to address the reported problem of excessive individualism gumming up the works the revision emphasizes the community over individual members to address the reported probl
em of congregational autonomy slowing down YuYu the revision emphasizes the broader YuYu community over the individual congregations to address the reported problem of white supremacy culture in YuYu the revision places a high priority on anti-racism and anti-oppression to make progress on the overall goal of transform U you the revision embodies a commitment to act by adding accountability broader and stronger covenants and verbs I also pointed out that this is not the end of the story there ar
e three initiatives that came out of the weding report so far and they should be expected to align with each other the rest of the bylaws including the rules for the relationship between the congregation in the uua are in the process of being Rewritten and accountability teams overseeing the actions of the national uua institutions are being activated this Trio of initiatives is intended to transform yuu the question in front of us at the moment is whether this transformation this vision for the
future of uyu is what the members and congregations in yuu want deciding which direction youuu should take is in our hands it's a huge responsibility if you're looking for more information about the concerns some members have about this revision visit the website save theprp.com conversation at uthe conversation. org a particularly exciting opportunity to share opinions about Article 2 are a monthly series of virtual Town Halls that are scheduled between now and general assembly register for th
e town halls at uthe conversation. org we owe it to Future uus to understand all perspectives on this revision let's make sure we make an informed and hopefully wide decision about the future of unarian universalism
Comments