Get rid of the seven principles?? I was alarmed when I first heard that they might be removed from Article II of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) Bylaws. I love the principles. Over the years I have been a minister, I have often thought and preached about them. The principles seemed like poetry to me in their diction, brevity, and their movement from the individual—“the inherent worth and dignity of every person”—to ever expanding realities— “justice, equity and compassion in human relations; acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all,” ending with the whole of reality—“the interdependent web of which we are a part”—and all pivoting on the middle and foundational principle —“a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” I had my questions about the principles. For example, should they be in reverse order, stressing our interdependence and putting less stress on individualism? Should the first principle be about every living being? Should there be an eighth principle about race relations? Others also had questions and proposed amendments.
I expected amendments, but not a proposal that, at first glance, seemed to throw the principles out and replace them with seven values. I reacted with resistance. If you react similarly when you see this proposal I urge you to pause, gather information, and reflect. I’m a bit chagrined to realize how attached I have become to the principles. I have invested so heavily in them that now I find myself hanging on and resisting something different. Such attachment, Buddhism teaches, is what causes suffering because it denies the truth of impermanence and the need to adapt to changing times and thinking. These principles were never meant to be cast in stone like the ten commandments. As the many proposed amendments of the principles over the years reveal, this document was always intended as a guide, open to change with growing understanding of who we are as Unitarian Universalists (UUs).
The history of Article II reveals that this proposed revision would be its third version. The first version in 1961 reflects compromises made to achieve merger of two separate denominations, the Unitarians and the Universalists. Principle 2, for example, was “To cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition, immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to man,” a principle necessary for those who were still largely Christian, but resisted by others.
The second version, the one we know, was adopted in 1985. Women and feminism initiated the revision, rejecting the exclusively male language of the original version, for example, “he,” “him,” “his” and “man.” They also identified us as a “living tradition”—one open not only to the world religions, but also to change and new wisdom.
Now in 2023 there is a third proposed version, and many see in it, as do I, our current effort to widen our doors to all who share our values, in particular, to people of color. In recent years, UUs have begun to grapple with the ways in which we reflect white privilege and white supremacy and, therefore, are largely a white denomination. For example, whereas we have stressed the individual, people of color have found their support and meaning in community. Similarly, whereas many of us have rejected God and even have a hard time with the word, many people of color are theists. Some are even challenging us to be open to people of different political persuasions. My point is that we have changed and are changing, and it is time that Article II reflects our new understanding of ourselves.
For those of us who want to hang on to what we’ve got until we grow into the new Article II, don’t worry. The principles are everywhere in our literature, most permanently in the front of our hymnal, Singing the Living Tradition. What’s more, the proposed third version includes six of the principles in the explanations of the seven values. The one exception is the sixth principle, “the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.” What’s noticeable immediately is that this third version is longer, including several sentences of explanation of each of the seven values. Its essence, however, is simply seven words identifying our values: love in the center, surrounded by interdependence, equity, transformation, pluralism, generosity, and justice. These values form a rainbow graphic with love as the flame of the chalice in the center, surrounded by each of the other six values, each pictured within an arm in one color of the rainbow, each arm emanating from love, but pointing to other values, and forming, all together, a six-petal flower.
The shift from principles to values seems a huge change. The current Article II Study Commission, who wrote this proposed revision, explains that since we are always talking about our shared UU values as what hold us together, it seemed important to identify them. The principles may suggest values, but they are not immediately obvious. What’s more, there is no mention of love in the principles unless you count the reference to compassion in the second principle—“Justice, compassion and equity in human relations”—even though our hymns, readings and sermons affirm love’s significance and power in our faith tradition. I think immediately of “Love Is the Spirit of This Church” or of “Love Will Guide Us.”
I like the shift from principles to values, even though I found myself wanting to add others, for example, freedom or forgiveness. I imagine that in the future others may be added. On the other hand, I see why the Article II Study Commission chose only seven, reflecting that there are seven principles. I also see that the principles were often the sources of these values. For example, interdependence clearly comes from our seventh principle: “Respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part.” Under pluralism, we find “we covenant to learn from one another in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning,“ giving our fourth principle a community context, whereas before it seemed individualistic. Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations,” our second principle, separates into three values, justice, equity, and love. Transformation expands upon the third principle: “Acceptance of one another and encouragement of spiritual growth in our congregations.” As described, transformation calls us to “grow spiritually and ethically” and to be open to change, reminding us that we are a living tradition, not one stuck in the past.
When I first read this proposed revision, I was startled to see love, transformation, and generosity included. I quickly understood love as central, not the emotional and sentimental love of romance, but the enduring, persevering love that frees all living beings from oppression. I have long believed that love is at the core of our theology and deserves to be explored repeatedly and deeply in terms of how we are to live and act, and I appreciate the complicated and rich relationship between love and each of the other values and their relationships with each other. There is so much to be explored here. For example, recognizing our interdependence, we “humbly acknowledge our place in it” and “covenant to protect Earth and all beings.” In other words, recognition of our interdependence motivates love expressed in acts of caring for the Earth. Or, as another example, our value of justice, arising from our awareness of our interdependence and combined with love, leads us to “work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all thrive.”
While I also rather quickly understood that transformation has long been a value in our living tradition, generosity seems brand new. I welcome it. I believe that loving, we always want to give. So I’m glad the Article II Study Commission included it. But it’s not in the principles and not as dominant, as love, in readings, hymns, and sermons, except perhaps in pledge sermons and in our abundant willingness to help others in need. It is a good addition, sure to provoke worthwhile exploration and action.
And so we come to equity whose presentation troubles me. I am, of course, in favor of equity which calls for fairness and efforts to provide resources and opportunities so as to level the playing field. While acknowledging that we are not all equal, equity affirms that we have equal rights. So I accept the value explained as “We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.” But I don’t think it says the same thing as “the inherent worth and dignity of every person.” I have always read the first principle as our recognition that each of us is inherently good—not born in sin. Also I would revise this principle, changing “every person” to “every living being.” But my point is that the proposed version obscures, if not denies, belief in our essential goodness.
I don’t really know why this happened. I speculate that perhaps not all UUs believe in basic goodness. But I suspect that the change was not meant to leave out this idea. For one thing, part of the explanation of pluralism is “We celebrate that we are sacred beings,” which would seem to imply our inherent goodness. For another thing, perhaps “the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness” is intended to maintain the idea that we are born good. But the way the word “inherent” is used here seems incorrect to me. “Inherent” means “intrinsic, innate, immanent, built-in, inborn, ingrained, deep-rooted; essential.” I don’t know what it means to have “the right to flourish with Inherent dignity and worthiness.” We simply are inherently good. I just don’t think the language works here, no matter what the intention.
I know that some of the Article II Study Article II Study Commission’s struggle with incorporating the first principle has to do with the word “worth.” In one of their reports, they explain:
Why worthiness?
We’re dealing with a past in which monetary worth was assigned to human beings. “Worthiness” is more explicit that we are talking about the quality of being worthy. Definition “quality of being good enough.” We are all good enough as we are. Worth can be monetized. People were and still are being monetized. That definition of worth is not the original intention; for people who have a history of their people being monetized. Worthiness can never be monetized. We are all worthy of love, respect, dignity, kindness, compassion and care.
I think in the struggle, something got lost. As it stands, it is not clear that the explanation of equity conveys the belief that “we are all good enough as we are.” In addition to the word “inherent” as used here, the word “worthiness” just doesn’t work for me, perhaps because it is a word we don’t use very often.
So what would I suggest? Perhaps as part of the discussion of pluralism, we could add after “sacred beings,” “born good and worthy of love, respect, dignity, kindness, compassion and care.” Or even better, as part of the discussion of equity, “every living being is inherently good and worthy of love, respect, dignity, kindness, compassion and care.” Further revision might be necessary, but these suggestions are possible starting points.
Finally, I also understand the resistance to changing “person” to “living being.” We have so much work to do toward building beloved communities of people that asking us to care about communities of plants and animals may seem like too much. But it we don’t learn to care for our other neighbors on this planet, we ourselves may not survive. If we believe in interdependence, we must widen our focus to include all living beings because we live in mutual dependence. Most certainly, it is crucial that we learn to live with and value a diversity of people. But it is also crucial that we attend to the Earth, especially during this time of radical climate change brought on by our actions. The discussion of interdependence covers this:
We covenant to protect the Earth and all beings from exploitation. We will create and nurture sustainable relationships of care and respect, mutuality and justice. We will work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
But every other value focuses exclusively on humans, revealing, I think, an unconscious anthropocentric bias. Somehow we need to do better. One small step would be calling for equity for all of the Earth.
I would vote for the adoption of the 2024 proposal, hoping for an amendment of the explanation of equity, but voting for, in any case. I have only discussed the Values part of the proposed revision of Article II. The other parts are Purposes, Inspirations, Inclusion, and Freedom of Belief. I urge you to go online and read the whole proposal. Look for “Final Proposed Revision to Article II at UUA.org. The delegates to the 2024 national General Assembly (GA) in June will vote the proposal up or down, including accepted amendments. 15 congregations must propose an amendment, so I don’t think there will be many. I thought about trying to get one together, but I don’t think there’s time to do so before the February deadline. It will take a 2/3 vote of the delegates to GA to pass the document. I hope it passes even without my hoped for amendment because it can always be amended in the future and because I think it is a significant, interesting, mostly well thought-out proposal that will provide us with guidance for growth.
I especially applaud it for its focus on community rather than individualism. Over my time as a UU (54 years), I have seen us come to greater and greater appreciation of Beloved Community and of its role in nurturing people and the Earth in all sorts of ways. The notion of the separate, solid, noble individual who does it on his own fades away with our increasing understanding of our interdependence. What’s more, this shifting view of who we are has resulted in more emphasis on spirituality, which is, in the long run, all about connection and relationship and not about the solitary individual.
This proposed Article II is not the be-all-end-all. Nothing ever will be. But it does recognize where we are and provide guidance for the future. Let our delegates to General Assembly know how you feel. Only they can vote for or against the proposal. May our faith tradition flourish and blossom under this new guidance.