#147 | Janet Leavens | Add Depth, Breadth, and Specificity

2023 Article II Amendment Idea Submissions Amendment Ideas
1

Submission 147
Janet Leavens
University UU Fellowship, Inc. (Orlando, FL) 2920

What is your suggestion or idea?

Section C-2.3. Inspirations.
As Unitarian Universalists, we use, and are inspired by the full depth and breadth of , sacred and secular human knowledge. understandings that help us to live into our values. We respect the histories,contexts and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced.

These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times.
Grateful for the religious ancestries we inherit and the diversity which enriches
our faith, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.

Honoring the pluralism of our lineage as we move forward, we affirm and promote these four sources:

1. Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which renews our spirit;

2. Religions and spiritual traditions which inspire us in our ethical and spiritual life and which center love, justice, and harmony with one another and with nature;

3. Humanist teachings, which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and honor the verifiable knowledge produced by reality-based communities of inquiry, protecting us against harmful self-deceptions.

4. The creative arts, which reveal to us the face of life’s beauty and joy and its enduring truth and meaning, and which open our hearts to feelings of awe and gratitude.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

This amendment adds needed depth, breadth, and specificity to the proposed ““Inspirations”” section.

It offers the following improvements:

  1. It adds back in a shortened version of our current first source. Throughout the ages, all major religions have had their traditions of mysticism and have celebrated the experience of oneness with the divine. Whether or not one ascribes a metaphysical origin to these unbidden, ecstatic moments of insight and personal transformation, it is clear that they are experiences we should honor and affirm.

  2. It preserves the generality of ““sacred and secular understandings”” of the proposed revisions, not promoting one religion or spiritual tradition above the others, while at the same time not suggesting an indiscriminate embrace of all religions and spiritual traditions.

  3. It eliminates the problematic sentence: ““We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced”” in the proposed revisions. Religions and spiritual traditions have complex, contested histories and grow out of non-monolithic cultures. It is not always easy to separate the elements worthy of respect from those that are not.

  4. It adds back in a new version of our current fifth source – humanism. Instead of ““science”” per se, which evokes specific disciplines, institutions and practices, it instead tries to get at the heart of what science is about – what Mike Denino (UU Fellowship of Lima, Ohio) calls the ““iconoclastic nature of empiricism”” and attempts to express this scientific world view in easily understandable terms.

  5. Finally, it adds the creative arts as one of our key secular sources of inspiration, joy and wisdom.

Have you discussed this idea with your congregation or other UUs?

This amendment was originally written Kerry Lusignan of WSUU (West Seattle) and discussed on the FB group Blue Boat Passengers. With her permission, I have reworked the opening paragraph as well as her second and third sources (religious traditions and humanism).

Kerry Lusignan took the fourth source (as a direct quote) from the work of Rick Davis, who spearheaded the move to add this new source during a prior Article II revisions project; see p. 62 of Theology Ablaze: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Unitarian Universalism, by Tom Owen-Towle.

The proposed Article II revisions have been widely discussed in our congregation, in three meetings which involved well over a third of our members (35+) as well as in private conversation with other members who were interested but couldn’t attend the meetings. About four or five members were explicitly concerned with the removal of “science” from our sources and nobody objected to its re-inclusion. Another member was vehemently opposed to the sentence asking us to respect the histories and contexts of the various religions and sacred traditions upon which we draw. She specifically objected to any requirement to respect the history and contexts of certain Western European religious traditions.

12 Likes
2

I generally support this suggestion. I like the way you’ve included categories of sources without falling into the trap of naming some and excluding others. I like the way you described reality-based communities of inquiry.
I understand the critique you mentioned in point number three, that not all religious histories and cultures are to be respected. But I would like to add some language acknowledging the need to respect cultures not our own and to avoid cultural appropriation without real understanding.

2 Likes
3

Affirming that this is originally my amendment posted in Blue Boat Passengers and discussed there, and Janet took it to her congregation (as well as me taking it to my own more recently), with my permission to use and adapt it. I will be posting my own version after receiving any additional input from my congregation.

2 Likes
4

Thank you, Janet, for your thoughtful improvements, which I can support, with one exception, in source # 3. I understand and support the need to follow the guidance of science, which you describe without naming it. However, it includes outdated terminology, which is misleading. The out-of-date terms are “verifiable” and “reality.” Some scientific knowledge is verifiable by direct observation. Other knowledge–such as theories–are reliable only because they are falsifiable in principle by crucial tests. “Reality” is metaphysical, not a scientific concept, as it is neither observed nor objectively testable. I recommend the following wording, after the word “honor”: “the reliable knowledge produced by empirically-based communities of inquiry that can protect us against harmful self-deceptions.”

1 Like
5

I’m not a stickler about the terms “verifiable” or “reality”, but your wording works for me too

1 Like
6

Thanks, Jonathan. Although I am now a retired lawyer, I have an undergraduate major in philosophy and an MA in philosophy, where my concentration was on the theories of knowledge and, especially, the philosophy of science. My mentor and thesis advisor introduced me to Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, which had a considerable influence on my understanding of science. In general, “falsifiability,” not verifiability, is the touchstone of a scientific hypothesis.

2 Likes
7

+1 I appreciate the specificity of this suggested revision. As a deeply spiritual UU, I was dismayed by the almost complete removal of our religious and spiritual heritage from Article II as it was proposed and accepted by the UUA Trustees. I was also dismayed by the lack of any reference to the direct experience of transcending mystery and wonder. This suggested revision brings those traditions into balance with our humanistic and artistic teachings. Thank you.

1 Like
8

I do miss “science” here, it is hard for me to find it in the words after reason in item 3. (I would also prefer no numbering, as it can lead to a perception of hierarchy)

4 Likes
9

Here is my original proposed amendment for this section, for further contribution to the conversation. I will wait for any further congregational input and have a look at comments elsewhere again before posting, so it may look different when I post it here. (I will add that the language from the “Charge” will not be included in the final text).

Section C-2.3 Sustaining Sources

In transforming Article II, the UUA seeks to “lead us into the second quarter of the 21st Century, while honoring the historic roots of our liberal, progressive faith.” (3)

As Unitarian Universalists, we are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human knowledge. Honoring the pluralism of our lineage as we move forward, we build upon the historic sources of our faith, including:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which renews our spirit;

Spiritual teachings from Abrahamic religions, Earth-centered traditions, and other world religions and leaders, which inspire us in our ethical and spiritual life and which center love, justice, and harmony with one another and with nature;

Humanist teachings, which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the truth offered by such fields of verifiable human knowledge as the sciences and math;

“The creative arts, which reveal to us the face of life’s beauty and joy and its enduring truth and meaning, and which open our hearts to feelings of awe and gratitude.” (4)

(3) This quotation is from the Charge to the Commission;

https://www.uua.org/…/article-ii-study-commission/charge

(4) This quote is from Rick Davis, who I understand spearheaded this added Source proposed during the prior suggested changes to Article II; see p. 62 of Theology Ablaze: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Unitarian Universalism, by Tom Owen-Towle.

2 Likes
10

No! You propose using the words “knowledge produced by reality-based communities of inquiry, protecting us against harmful self-deceptions.” Absolutely not! You are entitled to your opinion, as you have written, that Humanism is the ONE & ONLY TRUTH, but you can’t be allowed to impose that on Unitarian Universalism. My very Unitarian beliefs are not humanist but they are also “reality based!” Unitarians also hold many many other beliefs that are not humanism-you’ll see that if you read the proposed Inspirations/Sources amendments here. And our beliefs are NOT “harmful self-deceptions” as you imply.

1 Like
11

Who is this addressed to? My draft does not state anywhere, nor have I stated anywhere, that Humanism is the ONE & ONLY TRUTH. My draft is also still a draft, and as we’ve discussed, I’m still thinking about and soliciting ideas for how to describe science and math knowledge, which is different, though not superior to, other knowledge. Maybe you can edit or add to your reply to make it clearer whom you are speaking to here, if not to me? Thanks, @CSTownsend .
ETA: I think this is intended for @Janet 's version, since you directly quote from her first paragraph.

1 Like
12

so sorry Kerry. I thought I was replying to Janet. Oh, I’ll try to edit it on anybody that reads your draft to know that you didn’t have those words in it. Sorry gosh I’ll even go into yoUUA questions to get help from them because I’m the format won’t let me edit, but I’ll try that first I can sorry I’m such a Luddite sometimes

13

That’s OK, @CSTownsend , I should have read the words that were an actual quote more closely!

14

I’m looking forward to seeing your amendment.

1 Like
15

“Verifiable” and “reality” are not “out-of-date,” they are merely denied by a certain ideology of radical relativism (i.e critical social justice).

16

Saying that humanism is the “one and only truth” is a vast oversimplification. Simply because there is a shared reality and this shared reality is important, doesn’t mean that everything of human worth is part of this shared reality. Far from it. Cultural difference is real and extremely important. Affirming the work of reality-based communities of inquiry in no way implies that they have the whole truth or even most of the truth. But they can certainly tell us when we are wrong about certain things.

1 Like
17

I think this is meant to reply to @CSTownsend , not me, @Janet .

18

Saying that humanism is the “one and only truth” is a vast oversimplification. Simply because there is a shared reality and this shared reality is important, doesn’t mean that everything of human worth is part of this shared reality. Far from it. Cultural difference is real and extremely important. Affirming the work of reality-based communities of inquiry in no way implies that they have the whole truth or even most of the truth. But they can certainly tell us when we are wrong about certain things.

19

I just accidentally responded to you, instead of CSTownsend, but the system wouldn’t let me both erase my post and repost it as a reply to her. What a mess. Sorry!

1 Like
20

Yes this addresses the “lack of spark” I sense in the proposed A2 changes - thank you

2 Likes