Hi Rebecca,
I proposed Amendment 52, which was voted on favorably by the 2023 General Assembly, and led to the revision of the Interdependence value. I wrote Amendment 52 in collaboration with the UU Animal Ministry board, in consultation with staff of the UU Ministry for Earth, religious professionals, and the three groups of delegates who were most engaged throughout Spring 2023 in the national conversations about amending
the Interdependence value and covenant statement.
Unfortunately, in my perspective, your comments (which I have responded to elsewhere) continue to mischaracterize the content of the revised Interdependence value, and the appropriateness of the process through which those changes were made.
To be clear, although the words in the final proposed Interdependence Value are not the sole result of Amendment 52, both the UU Animal Ministry board and I enthusiastically support the final proposed Interdependence value, and as far as I know, so do the other groups who were involved in drafting Amendment 52.
You claim that the final proposed Interdependence value disregards the democratic process. I think instead you unfortunately continue to misunderstand the nature of last year’s GA 2023 vote. It was to endorse amendments and refer them to the democratically elected UUA Board’s appointed Article II Study Commission. The Commission was charged to consider the amendments referred by the 2023 GA as they developed their final proposal. It was clear from the beginning that the Commission’s final proposal might or might not exactly reflect the wording of amendments as adopted by the 2023 GA.
The Commission’s job was not to produce a final proposal that reflexively mimicked what anyone else, including GA, wanted them to do, or else we would have had no need of a Commission for that role. We would have needed only a scribe. The Commission’s job has never been to do exactly what any particular leader, congregant, congregation, professional association, identity group, philosophical or theological group, advocacy group, conference (looking at you, GA 2023), UUA staff member, UUA board officer, UU seminary, UU issue group, or other UU organization that they received voting results or other feedback from to do. Their job has been to do their best to take all of those perspectives seriously and into account, as well as much more, review Article II, and propose any way to revise it that in their best judgment will best enable the UUA, member congregations, and covenanted communities to be powerful forces for spiritual and moral growth, healing, and justice. And I believe that this is exactly what they have done.
I don’t know what the Commission’s discussions were as they struggled with how best to incorporate Amendment 52. I know that I apprised them that a version of Amendment 52 that DID include “work to repair harm and damaged relationships,” as well as “care and respect,” had more a enthusiastic and less divided response on discuss.uua.org than the version that lacked those terms. I also informed them that I did not find those phrases to conflict with the intentions of those who developed Amendment 52. People who are interested can read more about that here.
For folks who consider it undemocratic for a GA-elected Board’s appointed Commission to figure out how best to incorporate a variety of perspectives, including but not limited to perspectives conveyed by a GA vote, I would remind you that the final, decisive, binding vote on the final proposed language is not the Board’s, or the Commission’s, it is the 2024 GA’s. The commission’s Final Proposed Revision is just that: a proposal.
Further, the Final Proposed Revision was deliberately released in October 2023 to provide those who might take any issue with its words or its process of development to organize and submit to the 2024 GA an amendment to correct it. But as far as I know, no one even attempted to amend the final proposed Interdependence value. If someone did, they clearly did not garner the support of 15 congregations (out of more than 1,000 congregations) needed by February 2023 to bring the amendment before the 2024 GA. Other amendments did garner sufficient congregational support to merit consideration at the 2024 GA.
As far as I know, the final proposed value statement including “we work to repair harm and damaged relationships” has been raised as a serious concern only by those who oppose the Article II revisions as a whole.
Rebecca, you wrote, “That final sentence solidifies the meaning of the Value to be about human relationships.” The UU Animal Ministry and I obviously are in favor of repairing harm and damaged relationships among human beings; our passion for the final proposed Interdependence value has also to do with its applicability to the more-than-human world, which is explicit in the Value’s references to not only “reverence for the the great web of life” and “we honor the interdependent web of all existence,” but also “we covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation.” This is the context for the final sentence, “We will work to repair harm and damaged relationships.” The final proposed Interdependence value is the culmination of many years of work by UU Animal Ministry supporters and others who care deeply about the planet, its people, and other animals. There is unfortunately plenty of harm and damage to repair in our relationship with Earth and ALL beings, human and otherwise.
To sum up, the final proposed Interdependence value statement, which is not going to be modified by any amendment properly brought before the Assembly at this point, is something that the GA delegates, UUA Board and Commission, and congregations can choose to be very proud of — as an expression of where our faith is and where it is going, and as an example of our democratic principles in action.
John
Rev. John Gibb Millspaugh
Executive Director
UU Animal Ministry