Bold underlining indicate insertion ; [brackets indicate deletion.]
Line by line:
Article II, Section C 2.2:
37 [Generosity] Service - We cultivate a spirit of gratitude, giving, and hope.
38 We covenant to [freely and compassionately] share our faith, presence, and resources freely and compassionately. [Our]
39 [generosity connects us to one another in relationships of interdependence and mutuality.] Through service, we form relationships of mutual support and solidarity.
Article II, Section C 2.2:
37 Service - We cultivate a spirit of gratitude, giving and hope.
38 We covenant to share our faith, presence, and resources freely and compassionately. Through
39 service, we form relationships of mutual support and solidarity.
I agree that the word “giving” needs to included in the first sentence in order for either the word Generosity OR Service to make sense.
In Amendment #24, I inserted the word “giving” at a slightly different place. Because if I were more verbose, I would say, “We cultivate a spirit of gratitude for what we have, hope for what can be, and giving in order to make it happen.”
I’m not sure I like the word “Service,” because it does not seem as inclusive as “Generosity.” I can be “generous of heart” without providing a direct “service.”
I had not thought about generosity of spirit rather than of action; I think action is more important in general. I’ll check out Amendment #24.
The reason our group developed and proposed this amendment is that very often, in our congregations and society at large, “generosity” is used as a synonym for “large financial gifts.” Leaders express gratitude for the “generosity” of those who make large gifts, while members with fewer financial resources sometimes say “I can’t afford to be generous.” Of course this is not the intended message of “generosity” as a value, and I can’t imagine any of us would want to give the impression, either to our members or those outside Unitarian Universalism, that we place a higher value on people with greater financial means.
Changing “generosity” to “service” keeps the spirit of the original, while using inclusive language that does not carry class connotations. Anyone can serve other human beings, and we as congregations can serve one another, Unitarian Universalism, and the world.
I found this rationale convincing.
agreed and more characters to be 20
This is an amendment I support. I find the language of the amendment more inviting and welcoming. I appreciated the ideas from this work-group. nicely done!
I like the idea of making this about service so while financing is not rejected, those with less finances can still feel that they can meet this value. Also I think service is a clearer term than generosity.
It is too bad that means large financial gifts in your congregation. I love how some congregations are cultivating generosity of spirit, of time, of love, of curiosity. I also think generosity is a generative word because we are moving from individuality to community generosity.
To presenters or promoters 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 few weeks for commenting (and still be viewable after that).
If you want to find people to coordinate with for the 15-congregation amendment process, you may use the group to do so while it remains open. There’s now a specific post for this in the group (“A post for those wishing to do the 15-congregation amendment process to coordinate”).
Please read both the rules and the pinned post about the pending suspension of the group 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