Section C-2.1. Purposes. The purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association is to actively engage its members in the transformation of the world through Love. The Unitarian Universalist Association will devote its resources and powers for religious, educational, and humanitarian purposes, and shall assist congregations in their vital ministries,
support and train leaders both lay and professional, foster lifelong faith, heal historic injustices, and advance Unitarian Universalist
values in the world.
Section C-2.2. Values and Covenant. Love is the center of our shared values. As Unitarian Universalists, we covenant, congregation-to-congregation and
through the UUA, to be accountable to one another in living our values and ministries through the spiritual discipline of Love.
Pluralism. We celebrate that we are all sacred beings diverse in culture,
experience, and theology.
We covenant to learn from one another in our free and responsible search for
truth and meaning, and to do no harm to others in that search. We embrace our differences and commonalities with Love,
curiosity, deep listening, and respect.
Transformation. We covenant to collectively transform and grow spiritually and ethically in our changing world.
Openness to positive change is fundamental to our Unitarian Universalist
values, never complete and never perfect.
Generosity. We cultivate a spirit of gratitude and hope.
We covenant to compassionately share our faith and
resources, thereby connecting us through interdependence and mutuality.
Section C-2.3. Inspirations.
As Unitarian Universalists we respect and are inspired by sacred and secular
ideologies that represent our values and which deepen and expand our wisdom.
Section C-2.4. Inclusion. We pledge to replace with ever-widening circles of solidarity the systems of power, privilege, and oppression that traditionally create barriers
for those with particular identities, ages, abilities, and histories. We strive to be an association that welcomes all who share our values, icluding those with historically marginalized identities.
The article was too wordy and redundant. As a professional editor, I have made suggestions to make it more understandable and concise, while retaining the meaning in each section. The biggest objections I’ve heard to the proposed article is that it is not concise and is hard to understand, which mean that people thought the principles were being replaced rather than enhanced.
This subject has been discussed often and at length in our congregation, both formally and informally.