Honestly, I am not sure. I do know that there are no longer letters to the editor in UU World—which was cut back to 2 issues a year to save $150,000 on a $28 million budget (https://www.uua.org/files/2021-04/budget_fy22-fy23.pdf).
I find the words of Susan Fredrick-Gray at about 32:00 — 33:00 in the webinar something to worry about. She is talking about requirements for membership — requiring people to subscribe to the view of the Board especially in the area of the meaning of “covenant” — something that UUs can disagree about and I have strong feelings about.
I have been putting together info for a UUJEC (UUs for a Just Economic Community) seminar on Thursday about preparing for GA. I found that the rules of procedure may be amended only at a preGA miniassembly, and by a 4/5 vote, unlike last year, when debate and amendment was possible at the first session, and the standard was 2/3. Admittedly, there may be fewer delegates at a preGA event, but . . . .
There definitely seems to be a push toward more uniformity; not good in a group that started out as heretical hundreds of years ago and prided itself on acceptance of multiple views, on responsible searches for truth and meaning by every member.
Let me try to explain.
Being anti-racist and liberating the oppressed is not “theocracy”. Deciding that your approach is the only correct way and not being open to other views is.
I got involved in watching UU affairs when I heard things that would be considered racist if I said them in my mathematical world. Things like “logic and reason are a tool of white supremacy”. While the people who said this probably meant well, there are real problems with statements like this. There are several aspects to this:
— For a mathematician, it only makes sense that logic and reason can be a tool if the other side cannot use this tool to fight back. It makes it sound like an unfair fight if one side gets to use this and the other does not. This is insulting (and sounding racist).
— There is a complete ignoring of the Asian population in the scientific community which is so large and it is insulting to them as well.
Of course this is was not intended, but when people decide that any criticism of what they are doing is racist, it can have extreme negative effects.
In mathematics we are working to get more underrepresented groups entering math and other STEM professions. One of the biggest obstacles is education — in particular, the importance for children to learn at an early age the ideas of logic, reason, being able to say things precisely, and learning the basics of math and science. When people do not get this at an early age it is hard to catch up. It is important to champion the idea logic and reason (and math) as important things for everyone and to promote it.
This is why there is distrust from many of us. After getting involved in this, I saw the use of covenant in the current UU as a way of stifling dissent.
I am happy to continue this conversation. This is one of the few UUA approved sites that seems to allow for serious conversation so I would be happy to continue.
4 Likes
Yes, there are concerns about the use of “covenant” and “accountability”, and I agree that a real debate on these issues, rather than supportive presentations with very few people putting questions in chat or Q&A, would be helpful in real discernment.
Well put. This is a perfect example of the “illiberalism” that appears to trending in UUA leadership: “If you don’t agree with out approach, we won’t let you speak.” Of course there are many others… like removing ministers from the UUMA and from fellowship for raising critical points of view, with no specific specification of their offenses. (Todd Eklof being the obvious example, but there are others less well known)
I would encourage people to read this for a careful review of what actions have been taken by UUA leadership, the UUMA, and others:
8 Likes
I am more concerned about the miniassembly on Saturday NOT being live-streamed, but a “delegates-only” Zoom event, contrary to prior GA experience. In addition, it has been announced that the CSW, not the delegates, will be selecting the 3 final Actions of Immediate Witness—when that process was removed from the by-laws, they stated that they would not be gatekeepers. The process has been a lot more visible this year, but they are taking back the final decision.
Also, I wonder about the board’s statement on the contested election (which term apparently means one with results questioned, contrary to my understanding—what we really have is contested positions); it is tantamount to endorsement, and that does not seem like something the board should be doing.
Sally
I am trying to figure all this out and it’s overwhelming. Can someone explain the status of the 8th Principle? Is it coming up for a vote this GA?
Here are the only items on which delegates are voting:
Rules of Procedure
• Business Resolution 1 – Renewing UUA Bylaws for Theologically Grounded and Mission-Focused
Governance
• Business Resolution 2 – General Assembly Planning Committee
• Rule Amendment – Election Campaign Practices Committee (Rule G-9.13.10)
The next step for Article II comes in the Thursday business/general/plenary session, at 12:30 local time:
Theological Framing
Article II Study Commission: General Introduction and Purpose
Then on Friday, we have this:
Article II Study Commission: Values and Sources of Inspiration
Break
Theological Framing
on Friday,
Article II Study Commission: Covenant
Break
Theological Framing
Friday is the vote on the business resolutions/by-law amendments; the first is Business Resolution 1 -
Renewing UUA Bylaws for Theologically Grounded and Mission-Focused Governance
The program book is available on line, https://www.uua.org/files/2022-06/program%20book%202022.pdf
The idea to replace our bylaws is wise. Creating a commission for Art 2 was equally wise. We should follow the example of the Art 2 commission and have outside (non UUA staff and board) on this new bylaw team. Our UUA board has in the past been setback by the GA delegates when they took on various UUA independent groups ( GAPC, COA). This rewrite process needs independence like the Art 2 team has - no foxes in the chicken coop.
1 Like
Thank you for posting this link. It has been very educational. I highly recommend this read to further your understanding of the ideas at play
1 Like
Shawn, there is not going to be a vote at GA on the 8th Principle specifically, ever. The 8th principle project is a grassroots movement in UU churches to adopt the Principle for their own congregations. However, the charge to the Art. II Commission mandated that they include the essence of the 8th principle in whatever they come up with as changes to Art. II. (My words, not the actual charge). There will be lots of discussion about Art II at this GA, but the Commission will not present a product for initial vote until the 2023 GA. Meanwhile, the 8th principle project keeps percolating among the congregations.
5 Likes
Thanks Robert! I appreciate your thorough response.
These are fears with no basis. To start with the first fear, of de-fellowshipping ministers, the UUA has only de-fellowshipped ministers for violations of code of conduct or failure to engage with the Fellowship Committee process. UUA Clergy Removed or Resigned from Fellowship with Completed or Pending Misconduct Investigations The second, “increasing oversight of day to day congregational activities,” in 20 years of ministry not once has the UUA attempted to oversee any day-to-day activity at my congregation. The third, “theological concepts imposed by fiat,” again, we have as much freedom of belief in our congregations as we’ve ever had. There are no UU congregations I know of that are administering a creedal test for membership.
8 Likes
So to be clear, the more recent (last twenty years) reinterpretation of the meaning of covenant is not something that congregations are expected to follow. This is good to know.
What others? What are their names and when were they removed?
It’s my understanding that Todd Eklof was removed for process reasons that were well specified, not for criticism of the UUA. He was held accountable for not participating in a review of his actions, something that was required of him to remain in fellowship.
1 Like
I don’t know about others’ names, but I will look that up. I do understand that Rev. Eklof was not allowed the “good officer” representative he wanted, which was the reason he refused to participate. That seems reasonable to me; I would want to choose my own representative.
1 Like
What does this mean? The term theological gives me pause…