Submission 13 Matthew Johnson The Unitarian Universalist Church (Rockford, IL) 3414
What is your suggestion or idea?
Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities and a world with equity, justice, and peace.
What is the reason for your amendment idea?
This adds an external-facing phrase to our covenant around Equity. The other values also speak of bringing our values both into our own communities and out into our shared world, this one should too. Especially since this value speaks to our historic commitment to the âinherent dignity and worth(iness)â of all, it should require us to bring that value to the world around us. Iâve also added the word âpeaceâ which does not elsewhere appear and is important as a goal, even if we do not have a consensus as a faith about means.
Have you discussed this idea with your congregation or other UUs?
Yes, I shared this with a few other colleagues, who supported the idea and thought it important to have an outward focus on this value.
Thank you. The proposed wording implies that we are to switch from improving the world to focusing on our own hearts and congregations. Most UUs are committed to making the whole world better. This amendment brings the text in line with UU values.
Thank you Matthew! Our congregation does a weekly peace vigil that just celebrated its 20th anniversary. I discussed at a congregational Article II discussion with the leader of the peace vigil how he would like to see peace added, and he said it was really important for it to be in a external-facing way that connected to world community. We may or may not separately post a proposal, as this pretty much captures what I think our peace team is looking for!
I would support this, as itâs almost the same as our current 6th principle, though I would consider bringing the original wording of the principle back in here instead: ââŚworld community with peace, liberty, and justice for allâ
Hereâs the language I think the group is at: Equity. We respect the inherent worth and dignity of each person; thus, we declare that all have the right to flourish in lives of meaning and significance. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities among us and throughout the world.
I like this version the group is moving towards (though I would list the resources). I plan to defer to that group.
EQUITY: We affirm that every person has inherent worth and dignity. We covenant to use our resources to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive congregations and communities. We work to create a just and peaceful world where all people can flourish
Submission 335, by suggesting a third line be added to Equity, âIn partnership with the historically marginalized we work for a distribution of wealth and power that creates a more equitable global community,â has a similar goal.
Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities. *In partnership with the historically marginalized we work for a distribution of wealth and power that creates a more equitable global community.
Like your proposed amendment idea, it emphasizes the global aspect of Equity.
While this third line is a longer addition to Equity than your edit, it brings in two additional components.
It speaks of working âin partnership with the historically marginalized.â This proposed change is meant to name that those most directly impacted by injustice and inequity should have the most agency in deciding what âflourishing with dignityâ means for them and how to get there. (A previous version used the phrase âprioritizing the leadership of the historically marginalized.â)
The other component names a commitment to redistribution of wealth and power, acknowledging the gross inequity in the world and the need to make significant changes to who has power and who has wealth in order to bring about global community of equity (and peace).
We have come a long way, and I like your partnership aspect. We donât have that in here, yet. Hereâs where we are now:
Equity. We defend the inherent worth and dignity of each person.
We covenant to use our time, voice, wisdom, and material resources money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities where all may thrive. We work to create a just and peaceful world where all people can flourish in lives of meaning and significance.
âWeâ is a group that includes Matthew Johnson, Alice Diebel, Rebecca Wheeler and more.
It looks like the full text of the proposed amendment of submission 335 was not previously visible in the initial post. Take a look at it now.
Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities. *In partnership with the historically marginalized we work for a distribution of wealth and power that creates a more equitable global community.
I donât support a version that cleaves more closely to the current 1st principle language. In fact, I would prefer the first line say,
We declare that every person has the right to flourish with dignity.
For me Pluralism has expressed âinherent worth in dignityâ in new, and for me more poetic and compelling language, where it says âwe are all sacred beings.â The inherent worth and dignity of each person having been established with the phrase âwe are all sacred beingsâ the language for Equity expresses a new and important idea, not about inherent worth but about each personâs right to flourish with dignity, which calls us to take actions to support that flourishing with dignity. This then leads me to desiring a more robust statement of how we go about working towards this equity, âin partnership with the historically marginalizedâ rather than by dominant groups imposing their vision of flourishing with dignity on others, and through working for âthe distribution (or redistribution) of wealth and power that creates a more equitable global community.â
I appreciate hearing your reasoning about Equity and Pluralism.
However, speaking as an atheist UU, I find the phrasing âwe are all sacred beingsâ neither resonant nor compelling. Instead, it is just baffling. I read that and wonder what the heck it is talking about and move on. So, I would suspect my fellow atheists and maybe humanists, would not agree that it captures âinherent worth and dignity.â
Iâve really been thinking about what youâve said about âwe are all sacred beingsâ not speaking to you as an atheist.
At first, I looked up sacred. I was surprised that so many of the definitions emphasize its religious connotations because for me it has a more generic meaning: a sacred thing is a thing of great worth. That is one of the definitions I found for sacred but it was not as primary in the definitions as I thought it was.
I continued thinking about it because I donât consider myself a theist so I wondered why it works for me. This morning I had a new idea in relation to it. I found myself thinking, what could be a more bold statement of atheism than saying we are all sacred beings? I say this because I realized that when we say we are all sacred beings we are also asserting that there is no singular Sacred Being like a God, or even a pantheon of Sacred Beings, because We are all Sacred Beings. At least thatâs what I get from it.
This leads to a more general point. I fear that we are not spending enough time with the new language, that we arenât seeing how the new proposed values interrelate with each other, not seeing how an idea from the current seven principle might be expressed in these new proposed values in a new and different way, an unexpected way that opens us up to new insights about foundations of our living tradition.
Thank you so much for thinking so expansively about this â the issue/denotation/connotation of âsacred.â Yes, itâs the primary religious associations that irk meâŚ
Very interesting, your comment about âwe are all sacred beings.â I would go one further â âall of existence is sacred.â All of everything on the Earth, in the cosmos, the cosmos itself, infinity and the unfathomable extents. I think that the more inclusive/broad meaning becomes more comfortable for me because it moves away from the âman made in Godâs image,â âThe chosen onesâ trope. Itâs like Peter Mayerâs song âHoly now.â â Everything is holy now (https://youtu.be/evRTFR_5N6o)
And I completely agree with your final paragraph â
yes, yes, yes⌠perhaps that is what is intended to happen over the next year if the A2 passes, but one would have preferred such explorations beforehand.
I feel like the âall of existence is sacredâ is covered by Interdependence. There is a suggestion to add âsacredâ to the first line of that: âWe honor the sacred interdependent web of existence.â For some reason, I donât like the flow of that as much. But it would serve as a counterbalance to âWe are all sacred beings.â In that way âwe are all sacred beingsâ and âwe honor the sacred interdependent web of all existenceâ could serve as counterbalances to each other, much the way the 1st and 7th principle do now. I feel âWe are all sacred beingsâ and âwe honor the interdependent web of existenceâ can do that without adding sacred as a descriptor of the web but Iâm open to that change if enough others want it.
Just to be clear, when I say I feel we are not spending enough time with the new language Iâm not critiquing the process. This has been the most democratic process with the most outreach for input weâve ever had! Iâm critiquing those of us proposing amendments. I think those of us proposing amendments need to make sure weâre spending enough time with the new language to really understand what the new proposed revisions have to offer. I worry that we could end up with a watered down version of what the commission gave us, which while based in good and thoughtful reasoning, ends up with a product that is not an improvement on what the commission gave us but a diminishment of it.
One thing that has really surprised me about this process is how many UUs, especially UU clergy, understand âsacredâ to be a non-theistic term. I suspect the first draft of the revised article II, which only listed âsacred understandingsâ as a source, was not meant to exclude secular ideas - that the writers thought of âsacred understandingsâ as a term that encompasses all valued ideas.
But of course, there was a lot of pushback to that, because that does not reflect the common definition of sacred, both in general and among our wider membership. I understand re-framing terms like sacred is a deeply meaningful process for many UUs-- but I hope doing so does not become a requirement.
There is more than one definition for the word sacred. It is true that some definitions emphasize its religious meaning. Itâs also true that another definition is âof great worth.â I think it really comes down to context which definition rises to our consciousness. I agree with you that the original use of âsacred understandingsâ as a source was not mean to exclude secular ideas. Even though that was clear to me it still didnât work for me. I was one of those people who gave them feedback suggesting they change it. With âwe are all sacred beingsâ it feels clear to me that the more religious implications ("devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to [secular] or [profane] are not the definitions of sacred used here â because then it makes no sense. When we say âwe are all sacred beingsâ we are certainly not saying we are all âentitled to veneration by our association with a deity.â It seems to me that the definition of sacred being used here is, âregarded with reverenceâ. We are all sacred beings, meaning we all deserve to be âregarded with reverence,â as beings of great worth, worthy to be âsecured against violation,â to quote another definition of sacred, as in the use of sacred in reference to sacred oaths or sacred rights.
âyes, yes, yes⌠perhaps that is what is intended to happen over the next year if the A2 passes, but one would have preferred such explorations beforehand.â
In my experience UUs often donât engage until there is a deadline ornthe deadline has actually passed.
I am willing to trust that weâll do well enough and that the group in charge of rewriting it all in 17 years will fix what we miss.
Note to authors and proponents of amendments that werenât prioritized or presented: This forum is closing for comment tomorrow, but our lay-led public Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, will remain open for another few weeks for commenting (and still be viewable after that).
People who want to find others to coordinate about the 15-congregation amendment process may use the group to do so while it is open.
Please read both the rules and the pinned post before posting or commenting there. Thank you.
are not the definitions of sacred used here â because then it makes no sense. When we say âwe are all sacred beingsâ we are certainly not saying we are all âentitled to veneration by our association with a deity.â It seems to me that the definition of sacred being used here is, âregarded with reverenceâ. We are all sacred beings, meaning we all deserve to be âregarded with reverence,â as beings of great worth, worthy to be âsecured against violation,â to quote another definition of sacred, as in the use of sacred in reference to sacred oaths or sacred rights.