Absolutely, Ben, I can live with where “Love” appears, as long as it is defined as we’ve been discussing. In fact, people in my congregation have convinced me that, because love is the foundation of the Values, it should NOT be listed as one of the values. Thanks!
Teresa, I put a reply to this in the file, but buried a bit so I’m not surprised you didn’t see it there. Here is what I said about your proposal, which was:
Love is unconditional compassion and respect for all beings, including ourselves. We hold ourselves and each other accountable for living our values with love.
I’m tempted to shorten the first sentence to: Love is unconditional compassion and respect. That would work for me. (I don’t restrict love to beings.) The problem I have with it, though, as I ponder it, is it’s intellectual, and that’s what I’m trying to get away from. I’m trying to convey love, not describe love. I believe we can communicate the idea of love without a formal definition. Here is my current working version:
Love is the beating heart of our faith, welcoming all who enter. It shows up in the ways we care for and about each other, in sorrow and in joy. It shows up in the ways we make our values real in the world, holding ourselves and each other accountable for living our values with love. The love of our communities gives us a deep sense of belonging, of being recognized, valued, and cherished.
I am very encouraged by this thread. what made me stop and read every thing was the phrase “Love is the beating heart of our communities”. I’m hoping the commission incorporates all of these suggestions in some way. Good work!
1 Like
Ben, thank you for bringing your new thoughts to my attention. (I find it a bit difficult to work within the Google doc.) I hear your concern, and agree that we shouldn’t over-intellectualize. Also, as others have noted, the opening, “Love is the beating heart of our faith,” is lovely, powerful. Still, I hope that we can incorporate compassion and respect into a statement about love, without restricting it to beings. Finally, I’m a bit concerned that the statement currently is rather inwardly focused, on ourselves (UUs and our UU communities). What would you think of the following?
Love is the beating heart of our faith, welcoming all. It shows up in the ways we care for and about each other, in sorrow and in joy. It shows up in the ways we make our values real in the world, holding ourselves and each other accountable for living our values with compassion and respect. The love of our communities gives us a deep sense of belonging, of being recognized, valued, and cherished.
1 Like
I like it, Teresa.
- You changed “welcoming all who enter” to “welcoming all.” That’s good.
- You also changed “…living our values with love” to “…living our values with compassion and respect” which is slightly longer but removes the little circularity of using the word love to describe love. Also good.
Thank you!
1 Like
Kara, re: your latest suggestion, about changing line 13, here is that sentence now:
We draw from our heritages of freedom, reason, and hope, building on the foundation of love.
Your change would make it:
We draw from our heritages of freedom, reason, hope, courage, and love.*
I like it because
- it’s simpler,
- love is an important part of our heritage, not just something we build on, and
- “building on the foundation of” pulls us up into that head space instead of the heart space I’m hoping to move us into.
The downside is that it’s another paragraph and another point to debate. I think it’s definitely an improvement, and at the same time, we risk distracting people from lines 14-16. I’m inclined to leave line 13 alone, even though I think your change is a real improvement.
How do you feel about it? (Kara and anyone else reading this.)
Thanks, Ben. If you make both changes, it’s a net increase of only one word.
Hi Beth (Ben),
I think you are rightly focused on what I gather is most important to you: the heart feeling of it. And you do a beautiful job!
I am trying to respond to my congregation’s reactions to the entire Section. My way of articulating their concern is that if there is freedom of belief, then nothing should be defined as the “foundation” or the “center” of belief. Some may think of God as the center, some may think of interdependence as the center, others may think of the chalice as the center, etc. Each person is searching for truth and meaning and spiritual growth. We want to be accepted and encouraged, not told what to think.
I don’t know if you’ve been following my #59. I would love to get your feedback or ideas about that.
My congregation is still trying to decide which 2 Amendments we will submit (59 on Purpose or 486 or some combination of other suggestions regarding Covenant that are more in-line with the Proposed Revision). We are discussing it more on Sunday 5-28.
I have struggled since I found my way back to a UU congregation a few years to define the kind of love we talk about all the time. I could only say what it wasn’t. Not the love I feel for my child nor for a spouse. What Ben has written here is beautiful. Nothing is perfect but this is close. I like the alternate ending. I hope it is adopted. Whether or not it is by UUA, I have adopted it for me. Thank you. For the wisdom and the… love!
2 Likes
I, too, initially, wanted a clearer definition for love. However, I’ve come to feel that the six Values of Interdependence, Equity, Justice, Generosity, Pluralism, and Transformation, are the definition for Love in this covenant.
When understood this way Love becomes the vessel and the guiding force for all of the Values. Sometimes Love calls us to lean towards our interdependence, other times towards justice. Sometimes Love calls us to honor the human need to flourish with dignity, other times to grow collectively, and still other times to celebrate our diverse beingness. This is what it means to say Love is at the center of our shared values and we are accountable to each other through the spiritual discipline of Love.
For me it helps to see how the six Values are the definition for Love by replacing every instance of We with Love (Note that I’m not suggesting we replace We with Love except as an exercise to better understand how the Six Values serve as a definition for Love):
Interdependence. Love honors the interdependent web of all existence.
Love covenants to cherish Earth and all beings by creating and nurturing relationships of care and respect. With humility and reverence, Love acknowledges our place in the great web of life, and Love works to repair harm and damaged relationships.
Pluralism. Love celebrates that we are all sacred beings diverse in culture, experience, and theology.
Love covenants to learn from one another in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Love embraces our differences and commonalities with Love, curiosity, and respect.
Justice. Love works to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all thrive.
Love covenants to dismantle racism and all forms of systemic oppression. Love supports the use of inclusive democratic processes to make decisions.
Transformation. Love adapts to the changing world.
Love covenants to collectively transform and grow spiritually and ethically. Openness to change is fundamental to our Unitarian and Universalist heritages, never complete and never perfect.
Generosity. Love cultivates a spirit of gratitude and hope.
Love covenants to freely and compassionately share our faith, presence, and resources. Love connects us to one another in relationships of interdependence and mutuality.
Equity. Love declares that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness.
Love covenants to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.
5 Likes
Hi RevLev,
I really appreciate this perspective! (However, I have always wanted the LINES of the flower petal to be “LOVE” rather than the center.)
You say you no longer want a clearer definition of love, but then you provide one!!!
I suggest we incorporate some of your language into the Proposed Revision.
Are you interested in working on an Amendment? Or are you ok with me working on one?
"You say you no longer want a clearer definition of love, but then you provide one!!!
I suggest we incorporate some of your language into the Proposed Revision."
I’m not sure I understand. Where did I provide a definition for love? Do you mean an amendment that explicitly names that the six Values are the definition for Love? Or do you mean the next paragraph?
I’m not really interested in working on this as an amendment though I’m intrigued by the idea. To me, the idea that I put forth that the 6 Values are the definition for Love is inherent in the form of the Covenant and Values section. On the other hand, it’s clear to me that many are not seeing this, as I did not see it at first.
I don’t support any of the new proposed definitions of Love. So, in that sense, I would support an amendment that made it more clear that the six Values are the definition for Love rather than new language defining Love.
Here’s the gist of what I was thinking:
Replace
Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.
with
"Love is the vessel and the guiding force for all of our Values. Sometimes love calls us to lean towards our interdependence, other times towards justice. Sometimes love calls us to honor the human need to flourish with dignity, other times to grow collectively, and still other times to celebrate our diverse beingness. This is what we mean when we say love is at the center of our shared values and that we are accountable to each other through the spiritual discipline of love.
I really appreciate your thoughts.
To me the “sometimes” paragraph is commentary. It’s an explanation with some illustrative examples. I feel it’s a very useful explanation but I don’t see it being a part of Article 2.
I also didn’t put a lot of thought into that wording. I would want to choose the words with more care though I don’t think we need those extra words even if they were more well-crafted.
The only part, for myself, that I think could be useful to add would be the first sentence. So the Love section would read:
Love is the power that holds us together and is at the center of our shared values. Love is the vessel and guiding force for all of our values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.
OR
Love is the power that holds us together. Love is at the the center of our shared values, the vessel and guiding force for all of our values. We are accountable to one another for doing the work of living our shared values through the spiritual discipline of Love.
If one of these were offered as an amendment the “sometimes” paragraph, to me, would be best included in the “What is the reason for your amendment idea” section.
1 Like
@RevLev, this is beautiful! Thank you! I’m going to share it around. Not as a possible amendment, as you say, but as a way of understand Love’s role in the 6 values.
An extremely helpful way to understand this sort of love. Makes sense and is inspirational, a tough combination to achieve.
Ben, have you decided on the amendment you will propose as a delegate? Is it a final definition of Love? If so, please let me know what the amendment is and its amendment number (if there is such a thing). I’m not a delegate, but I’ve been in close discussion with the delegates in my congregation and I’m thinking about encouraging them to support your amendment. Many thanks for all your work!
Hi Teresa-
This is the wording I currently favor. I think the last change or two came from you. 
Love is the beating heart of our faith, welcoming all. It shows up in the ways we care for and about each other, in sorrow and in joy. It shows up in the ways we make our values real in the world, holding ourselves and each other accountable for living our values with compassion and respect. The love of our communities gives us a deep sense of belonging, of being recognized, valued, and cherished.
I’m also going to propose a simplification to line 13, so it reads
freedom, reason, hope, courage, and love.
We’re having a congregational conversation about it tomorrow after worship, and after that I will submit the amendment.
Would you pls write to me at ben@betho.us? There’s supposed to be a way to direct msg someone thru this platform but I can’t figure it out. Thx.
1 Like
Although I really appreciate your effort and strongly support defining love, you may want to consider being more explicit that love is the standard for we treat each other: a call to action more than a description.
“It shows up in the ways we make our values real in the world” is less active than “While the love that holds us all is generous, kind, and forgiving, it firmly calls us to live our values in heart and mind, word and deed”
Thank you, Rayna. Too late! Submitted the amendment yesterday. And while I agree with you that love is a call to action, I don’t want to emphasize the work part of it here. That was my objection to the original wording – focusing too much on the work (the details of which are enumerated in the 6 value statements) rather than on a loving invitation. In the reply before yours, you’ll see the final language I submitted.