I agree; without that word, I am fine with it, but once you make it about theology, it seems to become more about creed or dogma, which has not been part of UUism and must not become part of UUism.
I am another mathematician, like Greg Lawler, and, like him, Iâm very disturbed by the current theocracy (followers of the religion of âWokismâ - read John McWhorterâs book on âWoke Racismâ for an overview). The defellowshipping of Rev Eklof is a classic example of a theocracy (or cult, dogmatic religion, totalitarian regime, etc.) in action - his case was even cited by McWhorter.
Eklof refused to engage with a âkangaroo courtâ (procedures biased against him). Many of us dedicated advocates for peace and justice have long praised such actions for their non-violent resistance against unjust systems. In this case he was slandered and the accusers have yet to apologize, nor has there been a truth and reconciliation commission, nor have any of the accusers been held accountable.
This is powerful evidence that we should not trust the current leadership of the UUA, precisely because they have a theocratic agenda that is directly opposed to our 7 principles. Thatâs why Iâm recommending a NO vote on everything (except the amendment to the bylaws rewrite).
However there is one big gap in the bylaws. What it needs is a judicial branch - a court of appeals, totally independent of the UUA Board and other leadership. It could be directly elected by all UUs nationally, not just delegates, based on public debates and writings and endorsements of churches and other UU groups, along with a âvoterâs pamphletâ which includes âproâ and âconâ statements from different groups that either endorse or oppose each candidate. [Note: this should also be done for other elective offices].
Such a court could require the UUA to follow the current bylaws, also basic principles of ethics which are violated by the cancel culture which is currently condoned by the leadership of the UUA.
2 Likes
This is interesting news from Robert Lamb. Iâve never heard from the UUA Board or Article II Study Commission itself that there would not be a vote on the porposed 8th principle, except for none at this GA. If true, it would certainly be wise, since many of us view this âprincipleâ as more of an ideological agenda than an aspirational principle. In fact Iâd describe it as a trojan horse for theocratic rule by the Woke - with a full fledged cancel culture, as suggested by the word âaccountablyâ and by what this word means in the language of Wokism.
1 Like
Regarding the use of âtheologicalâ as a term in the context given in the document, it seems a bit of an ill-considered term, given the number of atheists within our organization. The connotations of âTheologyâ can lead one to believe that the attempt is to apply a more âdeity-focussedâ mentality to the by-laws. I do not believe this is the intent. It seems that the intent of this is merely to make the bylaws MORE inclusive, something that is well within the precepts laid out by our Seven Principles.
I am whole heartedly for this proposal and want to address some of the concerns I have seen on this message board (though some I believe are off topic so will bypass those).
I keep seeing concerns of a theocracy - nothing in this amendment or what I have seen from the UUA is suggesting that any elected leaders of the UUA or the staff are imbued with divine authority that cannot be questioned. The one specific âexampleâ that I have seen given for this so called cancel culture is Todd Eckloff and as already shown, he was not disfellowshipped because he disagreed with the UUA. As linked above, here is what actually happened - https://revdennismccarty.com/the-gadfly-molehill/
I have seen concern around the word accountability but havenât seen a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is a bad thing. All of us, and our institutions, should want to have accountability to living into our values and our promises to each other. When we harm each other, we should be called back into relationship and into covenant and that often does include repair work.
There is also a concern with the word Theology. Yâall we are a faith, we do have a theology. We believe that the ways we are together now, in this world, is what matters most - this is shown through our 7 principles that guide us. These principles need to be more present in how we govern ourselves as well. We donât have a creed in what to believe about life after death, whether there is a god or gods, etc. but we have to push back against this pervasive idea that you can believe anything as a UU. I you donât believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, then you are not a UU.
Finally, we all interpret words slightly differently. That is why we elect folks to represent us and enact the bylaws that we have. This Business Resolution calls for the board to renew the bylaws with this purpose and specifically calls for input across the denomination and then the delegates at a future general assembly will vote to approve or reject the new proposed bylaws. I look forward to seeing what is presented in the future as I believe that it is past time we update the way we govern ourselves to our new time and context.
6 Likes
In our UU understanding theological is just a fancy word for that which we hold sacred. For many U & U & UU ancestors is was a deity. For many UUs today, it is the 7 (or 8 Principles) or the Humanist Manifesto or their own construction of ethics, but for nearly all of us it includes the inherent worth & dignity of every person to live their fullest, most authentic life without oppression for who they are and it includes at least some awareness and acknowledgement that we live within a larger system of a community and an ecology that requires that we contribute and that we voluntarily limit some of our choices and behaviors for the betterment and the existence of all. The truth and tension of both of these closely held values seems to be central to much of our current struggles. Personally, I feel they are both necessary. And I value the practice of learning and self- differentition necessary to co-create Beloved Community.
1 Like
Some of us believe that the parliamentarian has been that authority. However, at GA2011, when a delegate raised the question of whether the body could overrule the Commission on Social Witness (which had rejected on a technicality an Action of Immediate Witness [AIW] in support of Tim deChristopher, a UU who was scheduled for sentencing in July of that year for civil disobedience*), the parliamentarian ruled that we could notâthey had done their job. That could raise the question of what an employer (the GA delegates) is able to do if the employee (CSW) is considered to have done a substandard job.
The particular issue with that AIW has probably been addressed, as the CSW works more closely with AIW proposers, so would likely steer them away from such errors (I donât remember the specifics), but the question of an independent authority to which questions are appealable is still sort-of unclear.
*Toolbox â Beautiful Trouble (BTW, the Beautiful Trouble site and toolbox is a great resource!)
I greatly appreciate the recent discussion of this resolution. The word 'Theological" threw me because of its implication of the presence of a god in our beliefs, and any dictates of that god. The words âhold sacredâ makes sense to me. So, should we actually be using the words âtheological commitmentâ in our bylaws? Can we find a way to make it clear that we hold certain principles as sacred?
1 Like
I donât think we should be including âtheological commitmentâ in the by-laws; as one of the many UU atheists, they are not meaningful to me. I donât know how they would resonate for the many UUs who have left dogmatic religions to take shelter with us, but I suspect that they would seem a bit uncomfortable. (I could be wrong about that, anyone here with that experience?)
3 Likes
Re: use of the word âtheologyâ: it of course literally translates to the study of God. However, language evolves. We arenât in Ancient Greece and in modern times theology has acquired a broader definition. And this seems to me like a time when it becomes easier to get hung up on the specifics of language and miss the bigger picture.
When Iâm explaining our faith to newcomers I try and differentiate between personal theology about our collective beliefs. You and I might have very different understandings of why we are called to affirm inherent worth and dignity (God, humanist, Buddhism, pagan, etc.). But regardless, we agree thatâs what we are endeavoring to do collectively. And that agreement is reflected in our current bylaws. So, IMO, our bylaws as-is incorporate some theology.
My personal concern is that while often overly formal processes act as a barrier to full participation, there are also times when it is effective in protecting rights of those not in the majority. Being able to call for a manual count does slow things up. And, I recall a time in recent years when it turned out that recount changed the call of the moderators.
I also think itâs helpful to have the procedural mic to gauge whether people are following whatâs going on. If there are a lot of questions then itâs good to slow it down and clarify. Even if what we are doing is almost certainly going to pass, democracy is made stronger IMO by making sure people are paying attention.
Itâa hard to hold ourselves accountable if we arenât aware of what is actually being done (or not).
2 Likes
Think, write, speak what you will about Dr. Rev. Todd Eklofâs character, actions, books, and sermons. It is an excellent academic exercise for anyone to read such an account in a blog post and to honor the authorâs freedom to share her personal perspective from her position half-way across the country.
Those of us with front row seats to the whole gadfly affair as members of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane can tell you exactly why Rev. Eklof remains in our pulpit as our respected minister in one clear and precious word: Democracy.
4 Likes
I think the UU umbrella has to hold room for many different religious backgrounds, but that is a much bigger discussion than we need to have here. Would you be comfortable with a term like âsacred commitmentâ?
1 Like
I do think that would be better. Everyone understands ââsacredâ, and it does not have the baggage that âtheologyâ has for some.
1 Like
The current UUA Bylaws are certainly quite detailed, and a few major issues need to be resolved, but overall, I have found them to be very well thought-out and functional. No, they are not âoverly complicated and inefficientâ nor do they create âobstacles for meaningful participation in UUA governanceâ. Yes, they were created in a different time, and should be updated to reflect current technology, but they did not have a âdifferent purposeâ. Their fundamental purpose remains fair and just decision making, now under severe strain due to failure to follow our own principles â not even standard principles of ethics. So, No, the UUA bylaws do not need a complete rewrite, especially at this time of societal crackup.
Volunteer participation is far easier today due to zoom. The biggest problem has been the increasing centralization of power in staff that has disempowered and discouraged volunteers. Exhibit A is the elimination of the districts. The districts must be revived, not replicated, in ways that involve volunteers in a wide variety of endeavors that are locally driven, not staff driven. Exhibit B would be the affiliates. These are still in the Bylaws and some ex-affiliates still function without affiliate status, but this disempowerment has robbed General Assembly programming of much of its vitality and diversity. Some affiliates used to organize regional gatherings and endeavors and could play a role in reviving the districts. Some could even help revive UUs as part of a âworld communityâ â to spread our principles globally. Sadly, this vision of a global movement has fallen by the wayside, a casualty of parochial identity politics.
One unresolve tension is of authority â between the Moderator and the President, and more broadly between staff and volunteers, remembering that the primary purpose of the UUA is to serve its member congregations and auxiliary functions such as leadership development and opportunities to engage with our principles and sources, from local to global communities. This deserves a multi-year deliberation. Another unresolved tension is that of the status and roles of affiliates, already discussed.
A huge new opportunity is to envision and implement new forms of democratic governance, taking full advantage of current technology for direct participation by individual UUs and by groups on a wide variety of decision making and issues. This means not just modern voting methods (my expertise), such as ranking or rating options, but multiple ways of deliberation and feedback, and of many activist roles. However, the UUA must stay out of politics, as broadly understood, encouraging dialogue between different factions, not choosing sides when multiple approaches are consistent with our principles.
Another glaring need is for an independent judicial authority in the UUA, an appeals court, directly elected by UUs nationally, without the involvement of a Board appointed Nominating Committee. The current UUA leadership is highly politicized â and often in open violation of our principles and bylaws. Progressive elections for local and local judges show how to do this: Public debates and writings, endorsements by churches and other UU groups, statements in a voterâs pamphlet, etc.
Very careful, deliberative, and highly selective updates of the bylaws are in order. But what weâre really lacking is wise and humble leadership. Societally, we should focus on healing, not fueling, the cultural wars, cultivating a more resilient national and global society to withstand ever increasing shocks. And letâs start at home - by honoring our 7 principles within the UUA itself.
1 Like
Hi Sally, Iâm a convert from a very, very theocratic religion and a current atheist. I have no discomfort at all with the use of âtheologyâ in this proposal. I am one data point, and I canât speak for others who have had a similar journey to this faith, but I am a very real point. 
1 Like
well my âlittle confessionâ of being uncomfortable with the terminology certainly started a conversation⌠I appreciate your response and can even embrace much of what you said⌠Theology is a hot button for many people and I think more descriptive language such as you expressed, whittled down to something that would fit in the statement would be more appropriateâŚ
thanks for your inputâŚ
Thanks, Kim, that is good to hear.
Sally
I just want to note that reviewing bylaws periodically is a best practice, and itâs surprising to me that we havenât done it previously. My congregation is doing a review of our bylaws after maybe 10-12 years and consider it overdue.
1 Like
Fair enough, and Healthcare-NOW! just did the same. It is a hard thing to do for a national organization composed of so many suborganizations, each with many individual members. It is important that the process be as open and transparent as possible all the way through, as it is such a big project that simply reviewing results would be really difficult if there was not an opportunity to track as it goes along.
The author of the blog article posted on Rev McCartyâs blog (Rev Dr Cynthia Landrum) is not being entirely honest. Cynthia herself, has challenged the Fellowship of other ministerâs in the last 18 months. The official reason for Toddâs removal (from link she posted later in this discussion) is non-cooperation the charge being âbullying and abusive behavior.â It is easy to see why he would ânot cooperateâ with a ridiculous charge for writing and distributing book or pointing out logical flaws. The very fact that the charge was laid, and the 500 ministers violated professional decorum by signing a letter condemning it and Todd within 24 hours of the distribution of 200 copies (not all of them to ministers) make this argument close to ridiculous. (They obviously they didnât even read it). How can we trust that other ministers on the list were not removed for similar official reasons (bullying), but really for opinions they expressed? Who brought the accusations? Also, this list makes the statement that Rev Ecklof is the only one false. Finally the statement that there are no connections between the UUMA and UUA may also be legally true, but the close relationship between the two described in this discussion begs the point. How many ministers in Fellowship are not also members of the UUMA (except for those who resigned the UUMA in protest of the handling of Todd Eklof (or vise versa)? Are all members of the MFC not also members of the UUMA? The claim that these are separate and unrelated organizations is really not credible if one looks at the relationships articulated in this blog post. To me, this affair represents much more than a âmole hill,â rather, it represents a serious problem.
3 Likes