So much animosity. Why? We are an evolving faith meeting the calls of the cries across our country. Trans youth, reproductive rights, people of color, our environment are endangered. Lets hear those voices. We need to create again and again. Create room for all. Staying stuck and same ole same ole doesn’t move us forward. So much work to uplift us all. I focus on that.
3 Likes
Given your comment about being “beaten into submission” by the principles, I thought being critical of the idea of values was fair game. I have nothing but respect for the commission and I know you and others have genuine care for our faith. I don’t mean to attack you, just as I’m sure you don’t mean to attack people who like the principles. Until these two comments, I’ve refrained from comparing the values and principles since right now, our task is to make this draft as good as possible.
I’m not questioning if you want to uplift people or the importance of those social issues. I question if this solution actually helps do those things. If I thought wearing jester hats and Tuvan throat singing would uplift people, I would do it. If I thought the values would uplift people more than the principles, then I would replace them. But so far, no one has offered me anything to convince me that the values can actually accomplish that better than what we have now. (I do still want to know your perspective…)
I would like to believe that this system really is better than the principles, but that belief cannot be blind, and so far, I have not gotten a straight answer to how the values are a better moral grounding, given how many details were removed compared to what was added. Change for the sake of change isn’t progressive if we take one step forward and two steps back.
Holding on to what no longer serves a world that’s changing quickly is counterproductive.
We’re a dwindling faith that values words, words and more debate. We have to let go of the familiar, to allow space, room, for a shift in perception. No growth happens by staying in place. Staying in ones own perception above all others is the dire reason for change. Holding on so tightly to principles or values is dogma. We’re like every other faith when we hold on.
I don’t know how I can better demonstrate my willingness to hear your perspective and my openness to change. If it were up to me, I’d rewrite a couple of the principles and add the 8th — I certainly don’t think they are perfect. I am 100% ready to abandon our current system if given a better alternative.
I don’t see how the current system no longer serves us, or how the new system is supposed to do any better. I agree completely that we should let go of things which no longer work, but I don’t agree that it’s true in this case, and that’s what I need to be convinced of. I keep saying that I’m willing to hear an argument for why it is, but no one has given one.
As a YA who was raised in this church, who has seen my friends leave slowly over the years, I am concerned that adopting this new language as written will kill our religion, and I will be of the last generation of UUs. I don’t know how I’m supposed to convince anyone that our community is worth joining with generic statements about being progressive. I don’t know how we can say that we value actions and not words when our “values” center on a short list of abstract, individual nouns. Is the idea that we cannot keep or amend the principles (because they can be abused?) and so this is the next best alternative?
2 Likes
Thank you Alec for staying in UU and in this exchange. Do you see the 7 principles in the new Article 2? Would parallel constructed sentences help to better see? A dear friend of mine would’t even look at the definitions of the petals. Turned off by tne pictoral. The 7 are there. Pluralism and love are the additions. At our churh we aren’t voting on the 8th because of the sanctity of the 7P. Sanctity might be a christian word?
Alec please know if I don’t reply to any further comments its not because of our discussion but rather technical difficulties I’m dealing with. I value your comments and this exchange. Its the relationship we’re former from this discussion that’s important. Why did your friends lose faith and dropped away from UU? I’m closer to the end of my life than the beginning. For my age group and older change is very difficult. Stay elastic and flexible to change. Change is the given for our future. Stay engaged and curious. The new article 2 is an invite to experiencing a wider wisdom not limited to words, books and our individual thought but a collectiive sharing of our hearts and elevated creation of our making. I hope to get my tech glitch corrected soon. Just in case we have more to exchange I’m not ignoring you just trying to get back on. Be well. Peace.
First off, I’m so sorry that I’ve written a small essay for you… I do indeed see some elements of the principles, but I think your friend has a point in that a lot of people will focus on the individual words, because that’s where we put the emphasis, visually and structurally. Here are some things which I don’t think have been captured by the new draft:
-
Balance of acceptance and challenge. Encouraging spiritual growth requires us to accept someone as they are, but also challenge them to be better than they are now; it may seem paradoxical, but I think it’s an intentional pairing which demands balance.
-
Interpersonal compassion: We have both communal connections and personal connections, and how we treat each other in day to day interactions is not stated. The same also goes for justice for both groups of people and also individuals.
-
Rights of the minority (and democracy): Democracy is not a footnote to the values/principles – it is a process which can realize those values. The “right of conscience” is vague outside the legal definition, but it gives us the rights of the minority: that there are some rights which cannot be voted away simply because the majority says so.
-
Actionability: the principles were already a bit lacking in strong action verbs, but going for abstract concepts as the core elements really deemphasizes that we believe in doing the right thing
-
Specificity: Words have no intrinsic meaning (this is obvious); they are defined only by their usage. When we describe a concept, anyone can find the words which match best for them, but codifying beliefs into singular words locks us into the definitions which we didn’t pick. I think it’s great to give “names” to each value, but they shouldn’t be the central focus if those names aren’t unique, because that subtlety will be lost given that this is our only document to explain ourselves.
However, the real losses happen in the Inspirations:
-
“transforming power of love”: Maybe our best answer for what “love” is: it is those actions which transform the spirit. This line always brings a tear to my eye (literally), and was one of the few poetic lines we had.
-
“Idolatries of the spirit” and the guidance of reason: we can do better than just referencing the fact that all inspirations are either secular or spiritual. These must be balanced because of their relationship to each other. Some people even want to add “reason” as a value. Being able to derive moral values without needing to reference an objective system of Gods is an incredibly powerful statement. I don’t think it can be understated how important it is to be able to secularly justify morality.
-
Taking credit: Frankly, we appropriated almost all of our beliefs from other cultures, and it’s disrespectful to not acknowledge the actual history of our species and the religions that set the groundwork before us.
-
Individual figures & direct experience: it’s nice to think that ethics dictate what we “like” but the truth is that aesthetics do that just as much. We tend to feel inspired by the specific words and art made by specific people or our personal experiences – because of their or our unique perspective.
And I’m a bit skeptical of some of the elements which were added:
-
Love: I’ve mentioned some of my issues in this thread already, but let me give a specific example: Hymn #18 What Wondrous Love has different words than the original Christian version. To a Christian, “Wondrous Love” (capital L := Christian God) means Christ laying down His crown for our sins. This is not exactly what we mean when we sing that hymn or speak of “love”.
-
Generosity: I’m all for altruism and “giving back” to society, but this can also be read as a demand to proselytize (share our faith), which is something UUs traditionally don’t like doing.
-
Readability: The proposed values have a similar reading score – equivalent to about 10 to 14 years of formal education (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Gunning Fog Index) – but we managed to do it in twice the words.
The things I think improved include removing the numbered list, removing the problematic conflation of Jewish and Christian teachings and the improper partitioning of them from the “world’s religions”, and including Beloved Community & addressing the complex, emergent systems of groups of people. The last point is pretty significant, but the first two don’t seem critical to me. My congregation has been quite negative about the draft, and so I want to understand what people are seeing which makes this a worthwhile trade.
If I had to guess at why my childhood friends don’t attend UU camp or church any more, I would ascribe it to apathy. The thing they liked as teenagers was having a community of people who accept them as who they are. After the teenage years, this is less important and easier to find in other communities. The question then is why should this community be the one they invest in? I don’t think any of them had a negative experience that drove them away (though maybe I’ll think about asking now…) and I’d guess they just don’t find it any more fulfilling than any other progressive social group.
3 Likes
Hi Alec, I sense your fervor in words and reason. I’ll put it simply. Your friends were around with the current 7 principles. 6Ps have been around since 1960s and the 7th came long about 1985. During this time our numbers have been dwindling. We can stay the course and keep things the same and dwindling OR we can try to adapt and be relevant to our times. Maybe empty words mean nothing now without action. Maybe less words with heart might be exactly what we need?
Enjoy the Assembly! Great workshops to explore and learn.
In faith,
Cecilia
Thank you for your insights.
This kind of brings us back to my original point. Let me try an analogy: Let’s say that UUism is a boat, Article II is the hull, and as you point out, the hull has been slowly leaking water for some time as we have been sinking.
You say that we must repair the hull, and I agree. However, the solution this draft offers is to take a hammer and smash some bigger holes in the hull. Now, when I ask how is this supposed to fix the leak, I get no response other than, “we have to do something.”
I’ve now outlined in detail why and how this solution will make our situation worse, not better. From everything i can see, I believe the proposed change (note, not any change) will accelerate our death, not prolong our life.
Alec you believe repair of the hull is a hammer and smashing holes. Can’t help you see the repair any other way then. I would have used it to test the inegrity of the hull and caulk the holes IF we wanted to stay in the same boat. I’m saying its time to change the boat. In any situation even when changing boats, we carry within us the important things.
You are saying to change to a boat that’s made of newspaper, and all our “important things” will sink with us.
The analogy is only a rhetorical device. I’ve given you an 800 word mini-essay giving a straight answer to why I think the suggested metaphorical boat is made of metaphorical newspaper. Please do not address my serious concerns only metaphorically.
Alec I’m sorry you’re in such distress. Maybe this quote from the Minns Lecture might shade light on our inability to communicate in any meaningful way.
“The universes amenable to the intellect cannot satisfy the instincts of the heart.” You write more and I write less and less. My UU sibling please do what you need to feel at peace.
-Ceci
Note to authors and proponents of amendments that weren’t 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 couple weeks for commenting (and still be viewable after that).
Anyone who wants to find others to coordinate about the 15-congregation amendment process may use the group to do so while it is open, but please read both the rules and the pinned post before posting or commenting there. Thank you.
Blue Boat Passengers: Info & Constructive Discussion re Article II, etc. | Announcement: This group will soon be suspended | Facebook