#190 | Steve Myles | Suggest a "Do Over"

Submission 190
Steve Myles
UU Congregation of Fairfax (Oakton, VA) 8122

What is your suggestion or idea?

The entire proposal needs to be deleted for lack of adequate participation among congregations and awareness by congregants.
Congregants were not even included as stakeholders,

That the question ““why are we only just hearing about this?”” was included in your frequently asked questions webpage is a clear indication of the lack of participation and awareness of the process. Could it be that that too many congregations were distracted from the important work of the Study Commission by the CoVid Pandemic?

There is no shared documentation of the percent of congregations who returned feedback from the surveys sent out in Spring 2021

There is no shared documentation of the analysis of the responses by demographic group.
There is no documentation or justification for the replacement of all seven principles with six new values. The COIC’s report Widening the Circle of Concern makes no mention of the need to replace the principles, rather it cites the principles as support for their many recommendations.

There is no documentation of how the six values were chosen.

A proposal that has the profound significance of altering the fundamental bases on which our religion is built requires far more in person discussion and much wider participation.

What is the reason for your amendment idea?

There has been insufficient participation by UU Congregants at the grassroots level to justify a change of this magnitude. The proposal was made apparent less than 3 months before the deadline for submission to the Board which happened to be just before the Holidays, giving insufficient time for it to be announced and discussed by congregations.

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

Yes. I suggested giving the Article II Study Commission a ““do over”” at a congregational discussion.


If one of the purposes of this exercise is to strengthen us and encourage growth there should have been a marketing study to see how our target market understands this proposal. Our current Principles draw new members. We should keep them.


My congregation (MVUU in Tucson, AZ) hasn’t heard any info about the proposed revision of Article II, still less had any discussion about it. Nothing in newsletter, nothing in services. As a congregation, we certainly don’t have time, at this point, to generate an intelligent response to the proposal.


I have been following your thoughts on this subject through the “Save the Seven Principles” list serve and have found your logic sound on the lack of congregational input in the process. I do not understand how a small unrepresentative group of persons on the Article II Study Commission can propose to the General Assembly such a substantial change to our faith without a process of discernment, We had no representation west of the Mississippi which may be a lack of understanding of regional differences,


I agree: a “do over” if anything, but not a full revision of the Article 2! Not in this way and not at this time.


I too agree that this process to change the moral and spiritual foundation of the UU denomination was inadequate. I am deeply concerned that such a radical change could potentially alter relationships of long term members to the UU denomination and perhaps the congregational level as well.