# data[].attributes.headline
What's happening in Unitarian Universalism?

# data[].attributes.subject
What's happening in Unitarian Universalism?

# data[].attributes.body
This padlet was created by Rev. Mary Gear of the Olympia UU Congregation in response to questions about what's happening in our denomination.
You may have noticed that there is some tension in Unitarian Universalism congregations and circles about the focus and future of our faith.  Some people are very engaged with what is happening, others aren't. I (Rev. Mary) hope this information will help deepen understanding for those engaged, clarify for any who may be confused, and invite further conversation for all of us.
I chose these topics and in this order to give some context to the current tensions. I chose these sources and resources because they are fact-based and I trust them.
I think The Gadfly Papers are a symptom of the discomfort we feel as we face questions about who we are as a faith and how we respond to racism.  I'm most interested in engaging with those questions, and not the symptoms.

# data[].attributes.body
You can get a sense of things by reading the text under each image in each post. If you'd like to know more, click on the image, which is a hyperlink that will get you to an article, blog, or video.
There are 13 posts in this Padlet that cover a lot of ground.
The first contains a summary of how we got where we are now, in June 2022.
The second has more detail about the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) 2017 hiring controversy.
The third post explains the UUA Commission on Institutional Change.
The fourth introduces The Gadfly Papers and response.
The fifth, sixth and seventh posts are about why The Gadfly Papers resonate with some people, touching on anti-racism and it's history in the UUA.
The eight post addresses Unitarian Universalism as a covenantal, creedless faith.
The ninth outlines the UUA 7 principles.
The tenth speaks to the myth that UU's can believe anything.
The eleventh post is about the Article II Study Commission review of the UUA purpose, principles and sources.
The twelfth is about UU as a living tradition.
The thirteenth includes the questions before us now.

# data[].attributes.body
This link is to a blog by Rev. Dr. Cynthia Landrum that gives a good, fact-checked summary of the current state of things (June 2022).  There are hyperlinks in the blog to more information if you want to investigate further.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UUA has two candidates running by petition against the UUA Nominating Committee's candidates for UUA Board of Trustees this year, as well as a protest happening outside the General Assembly, as announced by the Fifth Principle Project. The Fifth Principle Project is an organization not directly affiliated with Unitarian Universalism, but dedicated to changing the course of the UUA. It has sponsored forums hosting the two petition candidates, put out announcements about them, and was created by Frank Casper and Jay Kiskel, who ran a failed campaign for UUA Board of Trustees last year. The two candidates and the protest happening at GA are all linked by one galvanizing issue, so it's worth examining that case to understand why such a mountain has been made out of it.
The Fifth Principle Project's and Petition Candidates' Claims
The Fifth Principle Project, in announcing the protest, says that the UUA has taken an "authoritarian, and anti-liberal turn." This rhetoric is used by all three of these sources. One example given is:

"Personally attacking and silencing dissenters rather than engaging their ideas - openly rejecting the need to even read their words before publicly condemning them. Condemning disagreement as "harm" to people of marginalized identities. Officially censuring and disfellowshipping ministers for expressing dissent." (Source: https://fifthprincipleproject.org/2022/05/30/update-on-election-campaign/)

This statement blends together at least three separate issues/incidents, but is referring primarily to one individual: the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof.

First, the statement about "rejecting the need to even read their words" is the key to understanding this whole first claim. It is referring to a letter signed by ministers after the publication and distribution of a book, The Gadfly Papers, by its author, the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof at the General Assembly in Spokane in 2019. The Rev. Dr. Eklof and his supporters claimed (mostly falsely) that the ministers signing the letter about his book had not read it.(**1) The letter stated, in part:

" As white ministers, we write today to make clear that this treatise does not represent us or our values, nor does it represent our vision for the ministry or for Unitarian Universalism. We deeply regret the harm this publication has already caused, and we know that this is another (intentionally provocative) incident that comes on the heels of months, years, generations of harm toward our colleagues of color. (We also acknowledge the harm in the treatise directed toward LGBTQ+ people, religious educators, people with disabilities, and others-many of whom are also people of color at the intersections of multiple identities.)" (Source: https://www.muusja.org/reprint-an-open-letter-from-white-uu-ministers/)

This was not a UUA statement, it was a letter signed independently by over 500 UU ministers, none of whom were acting in a UUA role. The UUA has not made any statement condemning the Rev. Dr. Eklof's words.

Second, the statement about censuring and "disfellowshipping" needs to be broken into two parts. Two ministers have been censured by the UU Ministers Association. The first was the Rev. Richard Trudeau, who chose to publicly share his private letter of censure from the UUMA in various online spaces. The Rev. Dr. Eklof was also censured by the UUMA, more publicly. However, both censures are from the UUMA, not the UUA. The UUMA is an organization designed to provide ministers support in their ministries and relationships with one another. Member ministers also subscribe to the UUMA Code of ethics. The UUMA is a completely separate organization from the UUA in all ways, including leadership, governance, and finance. Thus, like the previous point, adding UUMA actions into the protest against the UUA is just done to make the list of grievances against the UUA seem longer.

Third, we come to the one issue that is actually about the UUA. There is one minister they are referring to who was "disfellowshipped," not multiple ministers. (The more accurate term is "removed from fellowship," by the way.) It's the adding "censure" into the statement that allows it to be plural. And the one minister who was "disfellowshipped" by the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the credentialing body for UU ministers, was again the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof, author of The Gadfly Papers and its follow up, The Gadfly Affair.(See https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/mfc/clergy-misconduct-investigations)

So the whole paragraph from the Fifth Principle Project of grievances against the UUA boils down to one UUA action. I'll go into more detail on this action below.

Rebecca Mattis, candidate for UUA Board of Trustees by petition says, says much the same thing. She says:

"At least six ministers/lay ministers I know of have been disfellowshipped, censured, unseated, or otherwise sanctioned for sharing their opinions in the past five years." She goes on to say, "The fact that ministers are being punished for stating their philosophical and political views is a situation that I claim is a direct attack on freedom of conscience. This is what my campaign boils down to." (Source: https://rebeccamattisuu.blogspot.com/2022/05/dogmatic-and-authoritarian.html)

When asked in the comments who she is referring to, she names only two ministers: the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof and the Rev. Richard Trudeau. Again, the Rev. Trudeau's example has to do with the UUMA, not the UUA, and thus is not an issue that relates to a campaign for the UUA Board of Trustees, a separate organization. Mattis also gives a third example of Mel Pine, a lay person, who was not disfellowshipped, censured, or unseated by the UUA or UUMA. Mel Pine had a reading of his removed from the UUA's Worship Web, which might be called "otherwise sanctioned." But it is a stretch to consider this relatively small and mild action a sanction.(**2) I see this as a red herring in this discussion.

The Rev. Beverly Seese,(**3) the other candidate for UUA Board of Trustees by petition says much the same thing:

"Condemnation of carefully thought out books and pamphlets written by ministers and other leaders in our association, slander and threats of de-fellowshipping of ministers and other leaders for disagreeing with controversial actions and statements of our UUA Leadership. . ." (Source: https://beverlyseeseuu.blogspot.com/2022/05/my-position.html)

I have seen no major public response to pamphlets. Nor am I aware of any controversial pamphlets, and only one book that was publicly responded to by UU ministers and UU leaders, ( the Rev. Dr. Eklof's The Gadfly Papers), unless The Rev. Seese is counting negative Amazon reviews as public condemnation.

It is strange for her to claim that she is running for the UUA Board of Trustees because of something ministers did independently. Ministers are granted freedom of the pulpit, and their public response to a public document is not overseen by the UUA, much less the UUA Board of Trustees. The Rev. Seese gives no examples of ministers being slandered, so we must assume that she is considering the public letters disputing the claims of The Gadfly Papers to be slander.(**4) She likewise provides no examples of threats, to remove fellowship or otherwise, made by the UUA over disagreement or anything else. There are no threats. Once again, the UUA's sole action alluded to here was removing the Rev. Dr. Eklof from Fellowship.
Understanding the Role of the UUA, the Board of Trustees, and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC)
These candidates seem to have vital misunderstandings about the nature of the Unitarian Universalist Association and how it relates to congregations, ministers, and professional organizations for UU professionals.They also misunderstand the role and powers of the UUA, and the relationship between the UUA Board of Trustees and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. The UUA is an "association of congregations." In our congregational polity, individual congregations choose their own minister, own their own buildings, and are free to disagree with any denominational statement made. Even Actions of Immediate Witness passed at the UUA's annual General Assembly do not compel its member congregations, nor their ministers, to take specific actions. That's why most statements at the UUA begin by "urging" action. It is important to make a distinction between the UUA and UUMA here. The UUA provides services to its member congregations, and provides leadership in that it suggests best practices. Its leaders issue statements about justice and ethics issues.

However, Ministerial Fellowship, which is a credentialing process by the UUA of UU ministers, is done by a committee of the UUA, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC). It is a voluntary and demanding process that ministers undergo. Ministers who go through this process have proved their fitness for UU ministry, and are then are held to certain standards by the UUMA, as well as the UUA, as maintained by the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC). Ministers choose to go into Fellowship because, primarily, they believe in being held to ethical standards. And congregations, in choosing to call a Fellowshipped minister, know that their minister has been vetted by this process. However, a congregation can call a minister who is not in Fellowship - the Rev. Beverly Seese is an example of this.

It is no small matter that the Rev. Dr. Eklof was removed from Fellowship, and I will examine that more thoroughly. But it is worth noting that to run for UUA Board of Trustees in order to influence the Ministerial Fellowship Committee is a misunderstanding of the power and role of the UUA Board of Trustees. The UUA Board of Trustees does not directly interfere in the actions of the MFC, nor should it. The only relationship between the two is that some MFC members are appointed by the UUA Board of Trustees, and the UUA Board of Trustees approves any changes to MFC Rules.
The Removal of the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof from Fellowship
As shown, the one actual case, at the center of this mountain of candidacies and protests, is the molehill case of the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof and The Gadfly Papers. And the one thing that the UUA has done is remove him from Fellowship.(**5) None of the other actions was even taken by the UUA. Given that this one action, removal, forms the basis for these campaigns and protest, it's worth examining exactly what happened. A good detailed timeline of the events for folks who want to know more can be found at https://revdennismccarty.com/think-pieces/.

So why was the Rev. Dr. Eklof removed from Fellowship? In his follow-up book, The Gadfly Affair, Rev. Dr. Eklof complains that he was censored and mistreated. But if one reads with a more thorough understanding, however, and examines the accounts of others as shown in the appendices, the true story emerges.

When ministers are in Fellowship with the UUA, it means that we are required to follow a code of ethics, and we are required to abide by the rules of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. (Ministers who are Members of the UUMA also agree to abide by the UUMA Code of Ethics.)(**6) This is the main way we can affirm that ministers are held to a consistent standard of ethics and behavior. One of those MFC rules is that if a complaint about an ethics violation is brought against a minister in Fellowship, that minister is required to go through the MFC ethics investigation process. We ministers have certain rights in that process - we can bring along a Good Officer as a support person, we get to state our case before the MFC, and we can invite letters of support about our character and actions.

Ethics cases can come to the MFC for a wide variety of reasons and from a wide variety of sources. We know many of the details of his case because the Rev. Dr. Eklof shared them himself in the appendices to The Gadfly Affair. A complaint was filed with the MFC by the Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA), which is the professional organization for religious educators, akin to the UUMA. The Rev. Dr. Eklof had a substantial passage in his first book about a LREDA conference he did not attend.LREDA charged that the Rev. Dr. Eklof violated the Ethical Standards in the UUMA Code of Conduct in four areas: being honest and diligent in the work; demonstrating respect and compassion without regard to race, color, class, sex, sexual orientation, and additional categories; working to confront attitudes and practices of unjust discrimination; and not engaging in public words and actions which degrade the vocation. They made this case in an eight-page detailed complaint, with additional impact statements (which have not been disclosed) from eleven individuals.

When the MFC receives such an ethics complaint, the first thing it does is start an initial investigation, to see if that complaint warrants further investigation. Spurious complaints, which are rare, are weeded out at this point in the process. The MFC appoints an independent investigator, someone not a member of the MFC. This person meets with the complainants, meets with the minister charged with ethical violation(s), and prepares a report to the MFC about whether the alleged ethical violation merits further process with the MFC. No decision is being made, to this point, about the minister's conduct. The MFC is merely determining whether further investigation is warranted. Most of the time, there will be enough cause found to warrant further process. In the case of the Rev. Dr. Eklof, this initial process happened, and it appears that the investigator found that there was "enough there" to recommend further review. It also appears, from his own account, that the Rev. Dr. Eklof refused to even meet with the investigator for even this first step in the process.

In the next step, both the minister and complainant(s) meet separately with the MFC's Executive Committee, (a smaller group within the MFC), after which the MFC Executive Committee decides whether to involve the whole committee in further in-depth investigation. At this point, however, the Rev. Dr. Eklof refused to meet with the MFC, even though that was required under MFC rules, if the review was to be completed. In this way, Rev. Dr. Eklof made it impossible for the MFC to complete its review process.(**7)

One requirement of Fellowship is for a minister to meet with the MFC when asked to do so. To refuse to meet is akin to resigning Fellowship. When the Rev. Dr. Eklof flatly refused to meet with the MFC when asked, the MFC then voted to pursue a full fellowship review. The Rev. Dr. Eklof again indicated that he would not comply with the process. So the MFC was faced with no other option than to remove him from Fellowship. The opportunities for better outcomes were cut off by his refusal. The MFC wrote:

"Ministry is a relational endeavor, and it is a sine qua non of fellowship as a minister in the UUA that one be willing to engage with others when there is a concern expressed that one's words or actions have caused harm, particularly to those from historically marginalized communities." (Source: https://fifthprincipleproject.org/2020/06/08/the-price-of-having-a-voice/)

So-was the Rev. Dr. Eklof removed for his dissenting views? No. Since the Rev. Dr. Eklof rejected the MFC process, triggering automatic removal from Fellowship, we don't know for sure what would have happened if he had remained engaged. But there are some things we can still examine. First, would the Rev. Dr. Eklof have been removed from Fellowship for having expressed unpopular opinions in his book? The answer is a clear no. The LREDA complaint was not about unpopular opinions, so he couldn't have been removed for that cause. But if a case had been brought that was about dissenting or unpopular opinions, the answer is still likely "no." We have zero other examples of ministers being removed from Fellowship for unpopular or dissenting views. (See https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/committees/mfc/clergy-misconduct-investigations) In fact, we have a long history of ministers having a broad diversity of views, including ministers who have been vocal supporters of the Rev. Dr. Eklof.These ministers have made public statements on blogs and other online platforms. None of them have been removed from Fellowship for their views.

Would the Rev. Dr. Eklof have faced some consequences for his behaviors? The MFC stated:

"Rev. Dr. Eklof refused earlier attempts to 'come to the table' after the distribution of his book The Gadfly Papers at the UUA General Assembly in Spokane in 2019 was received as harmful - particularly by the LREDA, Diverse and Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries (DRUUMM) and other organizations representing Unitarian Universalists with historically marginalized identities." (Source: https://fifthprincipleproject.org/2020/06/08/the-price-of-having-a-voice/)

It was, in fact, the Rev. Dr. Eklof's failure to even ask LREDA members about his account prior to putting it in his book,(**8) along with his refusal of invitations to enter conversation after its publication, that forced LREDA to seek redress through the formal MFC process in the first place. Ministry is, as the MFC says, "a relational endeavor." Under the circumstances the Rev. Dr. Eklof likely would have faced some consequences for his failure to come into right relationship. If his engagement with the process had been a good-faith effort to restore relationship, however, it is very unlikely that it would have resulted in his removal from Fellowship.

Contrary to the allegations put forth by the Fifth Principle Project, the Rev. Beverly Seese, and Rebecca Mattis, the question at stake in the UUA is not "Can a minister have dissenting beliefs?" It is this: "Can a minister do harm to people with marginalized identities, and then refuse to listen, to learn, to come into conversation with, and to be in relationship with the people who were harmed?"
The Path Forward
As a Unitarian Universalist minister, I've been thinking a lot about a case where I, as a blogger, blogged about a particular program within Unitarian Universalism, and how I felt it was flawed. I did so without much thought to those involved, and without talking to the people running the program. I was later told by one of those people how they thought this was wrong of me. I should've talked with them first, they said. It was harmful to them, they told me.

I still continue to think I was right about the flaws of the program. I still continue to think that raising awareness of that program's flaws was something that could be learned from. But I have learned that my process was bad - ministry should be inherently relational. And I am chagrinned thinking of it. I hope I apologized that day, although I do not remember. If I were called to account for my behavior now, I would know to listen and to learn, to apologize and to grow. I may be right about my ideas, but that doesn't mean that everything I did was right.

This is what it means to be a minister in our association. This is what the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof's supporters, and he himself, ignore. This is what the Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof, as well as his supporters, need to understand if they want to be leaders in our faith: our faith is covenantal and relational. Our religious life together is something we take incredibly seriously. Ministry is a series of relationships, commitments, ethics, and covenants. Our obligations to each other as colleagues, to our congregations, and to our faith can't be boiled down to a simple narrative of free speech, authoritarianism, and censorship. The leadership of our association, and our Board of Trustees members, need to have the depth of experience to uphold this commitment to one another, faithfully.

True leadership in our faith is shown less by expressing controversial opinions, and more by building beloved community. The greatest thing the Rev. Dr. Eklof and his supporters could do for our faith right now is to heal the divide they've created, not by protest but by connection and relationship, by learning from these mistakes, and by showing remorse for harm that was done. If they could do that, they might be the leaders to take us to the mountain and into the next era of Unitarian Universalism. As it stands now, they are just gadflies, making a mere molehill with their willful misunderstandings and division.

**1 EDITOR'S NOTE: As soon as Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof released his book, The Gadfly Papers, Rev. Dennis McCarty bought a copy, read it, and shared his analysis with colleagues. Rev. Dennis McCarty found the book sloppily (probably hastily) written, poorly reasoned, historically inaccurate, and in places, demonstrably untrue. Ref. McCarty's full examination can be found at: https://revdennismccarty.com/the-truth-about-the-gadfly-papers/

**2 EDITOR'S NOTE: The editor can only observe that, in a 50-year professional writing career, including nationally published novels, magazine articles, etc., he has had any number of pieces rejected. He has also offered readings to WorshipWeb. Some have been accepted, some have been rejected, and one or two were eventually taken down after being accepted. That is the kind of decision editors make, it is certainly not a policy decision made by the UUA. If, as a writer, the editor bewailed all his many item rejections and deletions to his friends, there would never be time to write anything new.

**3 EDITOR'S NOTE: While Rev. Beverly Seese is part-time minister at a small fellowship in Indiana, she has never applied for Fellowship with the UUA Ministerial Fellowship Committee, is not a member of the UUMA, and is not bound by the UUMA Code of Ethics. Because of the strong Unitarian Universalist tradition of congregational independence (congregational polity), congregations can retain ministers who are neither in Fellowship, nor members of the UUMA. This means, however, that these ministers have never been vetted by any UUA credentialing body, and cannot be disciplined by the UUA for any misconduct that takes place.

**4 EDITOR'S NOTE: It is easy to call something "slander," but beyond meaningless name-calling, it is a term with a legal definition. For example, while followers of Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof have expressed extreme displeasure at Rev. Dennis McCarty's analysis of The Gadfly Papers, no one has ever brought any kind of legal action for "slander." This is because, ever since the American Revolution, American courts have held that a statement must be false to be slanderous. Honest criticism-and pointing out poor logic and factual inaccuracies-are not slander.

**5 EDITOR'S NOTE: Since member congregations in the UUA can call any minister they choose, Rev. Dr. Eklof's removal from Fellowship has not affected his employment. He is still minister at the Unitarian Church of Spokane, WA, drawing full salary.

**6 When Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof was granted Fellowship by the MFC, and joined the UUMA, that included his agreement to abide by MFC rules and the UUMA Code of Ethics, which includes a Covenant between ministers. After being removed from Fellowship, in a sermon he delivered Oct. 17, 2021, he incorrectly claimed that Unitarian Universalism is not a covenantal tradition, and that he had never been party to any Unitarian Universalist covenant other than our Seven Principles. That was not true. The UUMA Covenant is a voluntary agreement between all UUMA members. More information on this sermon, and its many inaccuracies, can be found at: https://revdennismccarty.com/it-cant-possibly-be-a-bird-todd-eklofs-ignorance-of-covenantal-theology/

**7 AUTHOR/EDITOR'S NOTE: So the MFC's process of investigation stopped at this point. What would have happened next can vary. The MFC could find that no further action was necessary, and the process would end there, with no actions taken. If the MFC Executive Committee found further action necessary, they would convene an investigatory team. That team would investigate, talking more thoroughly with the minister and complainants, conducting follow-up research, and issuing recommendations for action to the MFC. At this point, again, they could decide no actions were warranted. Or they could decide that the minister's ethical violations were such that some level of action should be taken. This might be anything from counseling or taking a course, to suspension or removal from Fellowship. The team would make that recommendation to the MFC, and the MFC would again meet with complainants and minster before making a final decision. It is only after all of this process, with all facts in hand, that the final decision decision would be made. Removal from Fellowship occurs only in the most egregious cases. It would be more likely that actions would be taken short of removal from Fellowship. But the minister needs to participate in the process for that decision to be made at all.

**8 EDITOR'S NOTE: Rev. Dr. Eklof's own RE Director had, in fact, attended the LREDA workshop Rev. Dr. Eklof wrote about in his book. It was apparently not worth his time to walk down the hall and ask her about her experience. Her blog post about the workshop in question is available at https://uucschildrenandfamilyministry.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/lreda-fall-con-a-shift-in-perspective/ It is completely different from his second-hand account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Note: this is a guest post by Rev. Dr. Cynthia L. Landrum.) The UUA has two candidates running by petition against the UUA Nominating Committee's candidates for UUA Board of Trustees this year, as well as a protest happening outside the General Assembly, as announced by the Fifth Principle Project.

# data[].attributes.body
When a hiring decision in Spring 2017 resulted in allegations of racism, sexism, and elitism at the UUA, the Board appointed The Commission on Institutional Change.  This is a summery of their work, published in October, 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the first year of its work, a team the Board of Trustees commissioned to analyze structural racism in the Unitarian Universalist Association and make recommendations for systemic change has completed its report on the hiring practices controversy that rocked the UUA in 2017. This fall, the Commission on Institutional Change convened a "collaboratory" to discuss ten priority areas for future work and to identify benchmarks that can be used in conducting a racism audit, another of the tasks the board assigned it. And the commission continues to seek out data and stories about the experiences of UU religious leaders of color.

UUA President Susan Frederick-Gray, who was elected as the commission was being appointed, has emphasized her support for the commission and her commitment to ending white supremacy culture, including within the UUA. Her administration has rewritten hiring policies so they are clearer and more fair, is investing in the success of religious professionals of color, and is building a better relationship with the board, according to UUA Executive Vice President Carey McDonald.

The board appointed the Commission on Institutional Change in June 2017 to assess structural racism and white supremacy culture within the UUA, after groups of religious professionals complained that UUA hiring practices favored white ministers over other job applicants, especially for senior positions. Those complaints-which led to the resignations of UUA President Peter Morales, Chief Operating Officer Harlan Limpert, and the Rev. Scott Tayler, director of Congregational Life-focused on Tayler's decision to hire one of two members of the Board of Trustees who had applied to lead the Southern Region staff. The trustee Tayler hired, the Rev. Andy Burnette, is a white male minister; the trustee he did not hire, Christina Rivera, is a Latinx woman who has worked as a religious educator and a congregational administrator.

After Limpert and Tayler announced their resignations, Burnette, who had resigned from the Board of Trustees, chose not to take the Southern Regional Lead position. He continues to serve Valley UU Congregation in Chandler, Arizona, as senior minister.

Rivera continues to serve as director of administration and finance at Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church-UU in Charlottesville, Virginia, and was named UUA secretary by the board in June.

Morales and Limpert have retired. Tayler has not found a position since resigning. All three assert that hiring qualified people of color was a priority for them.

The commission's first charge was to examine the controversial hiring decision, and in April 2018, after months of study and fifteen interviews, it issued its report.

"What is clear is that no one problem in the system led to the events of the spring of 2017," the report found. "When the Southern Regional Lead hiring process took place, racial tensions were already at a breaking point in the system, especially for religious professionals of color who endure countless insults and aggressions as part of their work."

The report identified a number of factors that contributed to the crisis:

The board ignored best governance practices when two trustees did not secure formal board approval before applying for the job.

The hiring process wasn't clear, and Tayler, a white male minister, made the hiring decision by himself.

Failure to give direct feedback to candidates meant that Rivera was not the only applicant-or the only woman or person of color-who mistakenly believed they were a finalist.

When concerns about the hiring process arose, the lack of a grievance mechanism meant the controversy played out on social media.

Longstanding tensions between the board and president were made worse by the resignations, which cut off opportunities for open discussion, leading to more speculation on social media.

Severance packages were provided to some of those who resigned, contrary to standard practice. The commission's report revealed that the largest severance package was given to avoid legal action against the UUA. Even though the board has a fiduciary duty to the Association, the commission reported that trustees knew nothing about the possibility of legal action or about the severance packages when they were negotiated.

The Rev. Leslie Takahashi, chair of the commission, said its work is important if Unitarian Universalism is going to live into its values, including that of racial justice and ending white supremacy culture.

"Some people have asked why we are relitigating this old controversy," said Takahashi. "What this controversy did was blow the top off of something that had been simmering for decades. I do think what's important is that it's clear that despite a 1981 audit report that showed many of the same things, and our Journey Toward Wholeness years with endless GA resolutions, we failed to put in concrete steps that would make this happen. So the pot was simmering and the lid blew off."

Among its ten recommendations, the commission said: "The President and the Board should make policies and set practices which allow for best hiring practices to promote a diverse workforce. They should also acknowledge the critical role that religious professionals of color play in moving Unitarian Universalism to reflect the multiracial dynamics which are rapidly spreading across our nation."

When Frederick-Gray was elected in June 2017, she made rooting out white supremacy culture and supporting the success of religious professionals of color cornerstones of her administration. Among other things, she appointed Taquiena Boston, director of Multicultural Growth and Witness, as her special advisor for Inclusion, Equity, and Change; created an organizational design change team to examine and make recommendations for shifting the staff culture; and implemented new policies around promotion, training, and tenure to create a more equitable workplace.

On October 1, the UUA named Jessica York the new director of Congregational Life. A religious educator who has served as co-director of the Ministries and Faith Development staff group, York, who identifies as African American, is the first layperson to lead the UUA's regional staff. The position had remained vacant since Tayler's resignation in April 2017.

In the first six months of Frederick-Gray's presidency, the UUA added four people of color to the staff in executive, managerial, and professional roles, according to an Equal Employment Opportunity report the UUA files annually, bringing the percentage of staff in those roles up from 14.6 percent in 2016 to 17 percent in 2017. The interim co-presidents the board appointed after President Morales resigned set a target of 40 percent.

Since Morales's resignation, the administration has "done a lot of work" in following consistent hiring practices, Takahashi said.

McDonald, the executive vice president, expressed gratitude for the commission's report and its ongoing work. "The commission's thoughtful and helpful report confirmed many of the dynamics and problems that we had already identified and begun to try to address within the UUA," he said.

"These specifically included creating new hiring procedures and a commitment to diversifying our staff; much more systematic support for religious professionals of color and those from other marginalized communities, who are working at every level; transparent and accountable processes for our workplace, rather than informal and personality-based processes; skilling-up our staff to be agents for dismantling oppressive systems in every community; building trust and overcoming avoidance and defensiveness to hard conversations; and a new commitment to collaboration between the administration and the Board of Trustees to advance these priorities. These are some of the key things we're working on to undo the white supremacy culture norms that are at the foundation of our institutions."

McDonald added, "We understood the need to make these changes as a core part of our work as UUA staff, and the commission's analysis affirmed those directions and will anchor the UUA's commitment to these areas for years to come. It was a key inflection point in the long-term journey of our faith towards an antiracist, anti-oppressive, and multicultural beloved community."

The Board of Trustees also made important changes in the wake of the crisis. It now requires that critical decisions be made by the entire board, preferably in person but at least via teleconference, and not by the moderator alone, by the executive committee, or via email, according to Co-Moderators Elandria Williams and Mr. Barb Greve. (The board named Williams and Greve co-moderators after Moderator Jim Key resigned due to ill health in May 2017; Key died from cancer two weeks later.) The board also voted to limit the president's ability to grant severance packages or spend more than about $75,000 without board approval, and committed to avoid unproductive tension between the board and administration.

At the board's September 10, 2018, meeting, held by teleconference, Takahashi updated the trustees on the next phase of the commission's work. She said it is focused on a racism audit of the UUA but has been hampered in its efforts by the lack of good data on religious professionals of color within the faith. The commission will be issuing a report on that issue soon, she said.

Frederick-Gray thanked the commission for its work and said the UUA is working toward collecting better data about religious professionals of color.

Two commissioners, DeReau Farrar and Caitlin Breedlove, stepped down after serving for a year. The commission has hired a consultant, Melvin Bray, and welcomed a new commissioner, Cir L'Bert Jr., a member of the UU Church of Akron, Ohio.

On September 19, the Commission issued a statement identifying ten priority areas for its work going forward. They are:

1. articulating a theology of liberation, experimentation, and innovation grounded in UU Principles and Sources;

2. ensuring quality of livelihood for religious professionals of color;

3. ensuring opportunities for full involvement for UUs of color in the various settings of our faith;

4. enacting mechanisms of accountability and integrity towards shared goals of equity, inclusion, and diversity;

5. identifying and spreading examples of innovation of equity, inclusion, and diversity and establishing channels of innovation and risk-taking;

6. designing credentialing, hiring and firing practices, and data collection across the Association;

7. valuing the knowledge of people of color and other oppressed and undervalued groups;

8. prioritizing and enabling leadership from young adults and working-age people;

9. promoting healthy and sustainable models of leadership and community life; and

10. ensuring that benchmark goals towards inclusion, equity, and diversity are reflected through budgets, planning, hiring and promotions, and professional development opportunities.

As a faith, "we have failed to make a full commitment" to the Principles and values of Unitarian Universalism, Takahashi said. "It's really been halfhearted. So the purpose of the commission is to say, 'What does it actually mean to do this right, to make a true commitment?'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commission completes review of hiring controversy, prepares for racism audit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the first year of its work, a team the Board of Trustees commissioned to analyze structural racism in the Unitarian Universalist Association and make recommendations for systemic change has completed its report on the hiring practices controversy that rocked the UUA in 2017.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. The Commission on Institutional Change

# data[].attributes.subject
3. The Commission on Institutional Change

# data[].attributes.body
The work of The Commission on Institutional Change ended in 2020 with a report to the General Assembly and publication of "Widening the Circle of Concern."  This link is to the webpage that has the recording of the GA report and free access to the publication, where it can be read or listened to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Commission on Institutional Change Report to the 2020 General Assembly

The Commission on Institutional Change presented its recommendations and take-aways from its final report Widening the Circle of Concern, to the delegates and attendees of the 2020 General Assembly of the UUA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Commission on Institutional Change presented its recommendations and take-aways from its final report Widening the Circle of Concern, to the delegates and attendees of the 2020 General Assembly of the UUA.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2019, we saw what I (Rev. Mary) would name as backlash to the work of the Commission and the UUA.  Rev. Todd Eklof of the UU Church of Spokane self-published and distributed The Gadfly Papers in 2019.  There are many who have discussed and critiqued Gadfly, noting it's inaccuracies and anti-covenantal language and assertions.  This 2019 blog by Daniel Harper is one, and there are links to many more in the comments at the end of his blog. We recommend the two 2019 articles by Chris Rothbauer because they are detailed and clear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have been following, at a distance, the controversy about the publication and distribution of The Gadfly Papers, a book of essays critical of the UUA's antiracism approach, written and self-published by Todd Eklof, the minister at the Spokane, Wash., Unitarian Universalist church. Eklof distributed the books at General Assembly (GA), the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA); GA was held in Spokane this year.

As someone who didn't go to GA, and as someone who doesn't trust social media for reliable information, it wasn't easy to figure out what went on. So far, UUWorld.org, usually an excellent source of information about GA, has not reported on what happened; instead, in their media round-up column, they pointed to an article from the local newspaper.

That local newspaper, the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., published an article on June 25 titled "Unitarian Universalist minister in Spokane stirs controversy for calling church too politically correct." The article gives a basic outline of the story. Unfortunately, while they interviewed Eklof, they didn't interview anyone opposing him, relying instead on public statements issued on social media platforms. (The simple, non-conspiracy-theory, explanation is that the reporter was under deadline pressure, interviewed the local guy, and relied on public statements to fill out the opposing side.)

If you want to see some of those public statements, UUWorld.org provides links to statements from Diverse Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries (DRUUM), and the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Assoc. (UUMA) People of Color and Indigenous Chapter, and an "Open letter from white Unitarian Universalist ministers," as well as a letter from the Board presidents of the Liberal Religious Educators Association. Elswewhere, I found a statement from the Allies for Racial Equity, and most recently a UUMA letter formally censuring Eklof.

What about the book itself? Well, I refuse to buy a copy: Eklof self-published the book on Amazon, and I won't buy books from Amazon because they reduce the already meager incomes of working authors. I haven't talked to anyone who has actually read the entire book. And most of the online reviews of the book that I have found simply state that it represents a white supremacist point of view, but don't offer critiques of the actual arguments of the book.

However, Scott Wells did read the entire book, and posted a two-part review of the book on his blog: part one and part two. Scott reports: "It might surprise non-readers that he [Eklof] has ideas for dismantling racism, and to continue to work on not being racist. ... You might think them hogwash (or wonderful) but they're there. " However, says Scott,"some terms Eklof uses, such as political correctness and safetyism, are used by other authors to dismiss or belittle critics," meaning that Eklof's sugestions for anti-racism probably aren't going to be heard. The book also offers at least one solution that I can only characterize as bizarre: in one essay, Eklof proposes splitting the UUA back into separate Unitarian and Universalist denominations, which Scott sums up as "Swiftian fancy, or simply romantic misreading" of Unitarian and Universalist history. Scott does not seem to care much for the book; if I were to pick one statement from his review to sum up the book, it would be this: "This is a work of controversy."

After Scott's dismissive review, I concluded I won't spend my limited free time reading this "work of controversy." And if I haven't read the book, I don't feel qualified to comment on it. But I do feel qualified to comment on the controversy surrounding the book, from my perspective as a religious educator.

Progressive religious educators like me spend a lot of time thinking about how to move people to a place of greater understanding; how to get people to change their perspective; and how to get people to act in more humane ways. While a confrontational approach utilizing a "work of controversy" might work in a few educational situations, if the goal is to move people towards greater understanding and more humane action, then there are many situations where a confrontational approach will not be effective. One such situation is when you, as the educator, are talking about racism and anti-racism and the U.S. today, and your auditors include people who have been rubbed raw by racism; in that situation, a confrontational approach is less likely to lead to greater understanding or more humane action, and more likely merely to piss people off. Thus, speaking as an educator, passing out a "work of controversy" on the subject of racism seems to me to be a waste of everyone's time.

So where do we go from here? As a religious educator, I'd say it's fairly obvious we in the U.S. all need to deepen our understanding of how racism has affected us, and continues to affect us. And I believe we would all like to figure out a more humane way to act with one another. The Gadfly Papers has proved yet again that controversy is not a particularly useful anti-racism strategy here in the U.S. - but that doesn't mean we should give up.

Still speaking from an educator's perspective, I would suggest that race is such a difficult topic here in the U.S. that we are going to need a wide range of strategies to address it; no one strategy is going to work for everyone and in every situation. But how do we judge what is a good strategy? I would propose a pragmatic criterion: if an educational strategy reduces systemic racism in a measurable way, then it is a good educational strategy. For example, for a religious educator working within a majority-white local congregation, if an anti-racist educational strategy leads to an increased proportion of non-white people in the congregation without a decline in absolute numbers of white people (beyond the usual losses to death or moving away), that strategy has succeeded quite well indeed.

Speaking from my own experiences in several local congregations, I believe that educational strategies based on behaviorist models (where we modify external behaviors) are generally more successful than therapeutic models (where we attempt to influence the way people feel). Similarly, educational strategies based on progressivist models (where we work together to confront or reduce racism in the wider world) generally work better than models based on logic or rhetoric (where we try to get people to think differently about racism). While I am not good at creating educational strategies at the denominational level, I suspect the same will hold true there; in which case, books about racism, or blog posts about racism, or social media chatter about racism, are not going to be particularly effective, except where they show us how to change behaviors and increase external action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning from the Gadfly Papers controversy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I have been following, at a distance, the controversy about the publication and distribution of The Gadfly Papers, a book of essays critical of the UUA's antiracism approach, written and self-published by Todd Eklof, the minister at the Spokane, Wash., Unitarian Universalist church.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Why did the Gadfly resonate with some people?

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Why did the Gadfly resonate with some people?

# data[].attributes.body
I (Rev. Mary) have had a few conversations with people who have read The Gadfly Papers and have listened a lot to minister colleagues who are helping their congregations work through the issues raised.  Some people are concerned that the 7 principles may be changing with the proposed addition of an 8th principle that is explicitly calling for multiculturalism and anti-oppression justice work.  Some may feel that the faith they joined is different than it was and may not fit them anymore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The 8th Principle of Unitarian Universalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 8th Principle of Unitarian Universalism

# data[].attributes.body
Others connect with the tone of the Gadfly publication that suggests that white people are not racist, especially not white, progressive liberals.  They say that white UUs are the victims in this controversy because they are being silenced.  Robin DiAngelo calls this "white fragility."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they "were taught to treat everyone the same," that they are "color-blind," that they "don't care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted." They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more "salient" issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term "white fragility" to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged-and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it?

In a new book, " White Fragility," DiAngelo attempts to explicate the phenomenon of white people's paper-thin skin. She argues that our largely segregated society is set up to insulate whites from racial discomfort, so that they fall to pieces at the first application of stress-such as, for instance, when someone suggests that "flesh-toned" may not be an appropriate name for a beige crayon. Unused to unpleasantness (more than unused to it-racial hierarchies tell white people that they are entitled to peace and deference), they lack the "racial stamina" to engage in difficult conversations. This leads them to respond to "racial triggers"-the show "Dear White People," the term "wypipo"-with "emotions such as anger, fear and guilt," DiAngelo writes, "and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation."

DiAngelo, who is white, emphasizes that the stances that make up white fragility are not merely irrational. (Or even comical, though some of her anecdotes-participants in a voluntary anti-racism workshop dissolving with umbrage at any talk of racism-simmer with perverse humor. "I have found that the only way to give feedback without triggering white fragility is not to give it at all," she remarks wryly.) These splutterings "work," DiAngelo explains, "to reinstate white equilibrium as they repel the challenge, return our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy." She finds that the social costs for a black person in awakening the sleeping dragon of white fragility often prove so high that many black people don't risk pointing out discrimination when they see it. And the expectation of "white solidarity"-white people will forbear from correcting each other's racial missteps, to preserve the peace-makes genuine allyship elusive. White fragility holds racism in place.

DiAngelo addresses her book mostly to white people, and she reserves her harshest criticism for white liberals like herself (and like me), whom she sees as refusing to acknowledge their own participation in racist systems. "I believe," she writes, "that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color." Not only do these people fail to see their complicity, but they take a self-serving approach to ongoing anti-racism efforts: "To the degree that white progressives think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived." Even the racial beliefs and responses that feel authentic or well-intentioned have likely been programmed by white supremacy, to perpetuate white supremacy. Whites profit off of an American political and economic system that showers advantages on racial "winners" and oppresses racial "losers." Yet, DiAngelo writes, white people cling to the notion of racial innocence, a form of weaponized denial that positions black people as the "havers" of race and the guardians of racial knowledge. Whiteness, on the other hand, scans as invisible, default, a form of racelessness. "Color blindness," the argument that race shouldn't matter, prevents us from grappling with how it does.

Much of "White Fragility" is dedicated to pulling back the veil on these so-called pillars of whiteness: assumptions that prop up racist beliefs without our realizing it. Such ideologies include individualism, or the distinctly white-American dream that one writes one's own destiny, and objectivity, the confidence that one can free oneself entirely from bias. As a sociologist trained in mapping group patterns, DiAngelo can't help but regard both precepts as naïve (at best) and arrogant (at worst). To be perceived as an individual, to not be associated with anything negative because of your skin color, she notes, is a privilege largely afforded to white people; although most school shooters, domestic terrorists, and rapists in the United States are white, it is rare to see a white man on the street reduced to a stereotype. Likewise, people of color often endure having their views attributed to their racial identities; the luxury of impartiality is denied them. (In outlining these discrepancies, DiAngelo draws heavily on the words of black writers and scholars-Ta-Nehisi Coates, Toni Morrison, Ijeoma Oluo, Cheryl Harris-although, perhaps surprisingly, she incorporates few present-day interviews with people of color.)

In DiAngelo's almost epidemiological vision of white racism, our minds and bodies play host to a pathogen that seeks to replicate itself, sickening us in the process. Like a mutating virus, racism shape-shifts in order to stay alive; when its explicit expression becomes taboo, it hides in coded language. Nor does prejudice disappear when people decide that they will no longer tolerate it. It just looks for ways to avoid detection. "The most effective adaptation of racism over time," DiAngelo claims, "is the idea that racism is conscious bias held by mean people." This "good/bad binary," positing a world of evil racists and compassionate non-racists, is itself a racist construct, eliding systemic injustice and imbuing racism with such shattering moral meaning that white people, especially progressives, cannot bear to face their collusion in it. (Pause on that, white reader. You may have subconsciously developed your strong negative feelings about racism in order to escape having to help dismantle it.) As an ethical thinker, DiAngelo belongs to the utilitarian school, which places less importance on attitudes than on the ways in which attitudes cause harm. Unpacking the fantasy of black men as dangerous and violent, she does not simply fact-check it; she shows the myth's usefulness to white people-to obscure the historical brutality against African-Americans, and to justify continued abuse.

DiAngelo sometimes adopts a soothing, conciliatory tone toward white readers, as if she were appeasing a child on the verge of a tantrum. "If your definition of a racist is someone who holds conscious dislike of people because of race, then I agree that it is offensive for me to suggest that you are racist when I don't know you," she writes. "I also agree that if this is your definition of racism, and you are against racism, then you are not racist. Now breathe. I am not using this definition of racism, and I am not saying that you are immoral. If you can remain open as I lay out my argument, it should soon begin to make sense." One has the grim hunch that such an approach has been honed over years of placating red-faced white people, workshop participants leaping at any excuse to discount their instructor. DiAngelo, for all the outrageousness she documents, never comes across as anything other than preternaturally calm, patient, and lucid, issuing prescriptions for a better world as if from beneath a blanket of Ativan. Her almost motorized equipoise clarifies the book's stakes: she cannot afford to lose us, who are so easily lost.

Self-righteousness becomes a seductive complement to "White Fragility," as gin is to a mystery novel. ("I would never," I thought, when DiAngelo described the conversation in which her friend dismissed a predominantly black neighborhood as "bad," unsafe.) Yet the point of the book is that each white person believes herself the exception, one of very few souls magically exempt from a lifetime of racist conditioning. DiAngelo sets aside a whole chapter for the self-indulgent tears of white women, so distraught at the country's legacy of racist terrorism that they force people of color to drink from the firehose of their feelings about it.

The book is more diagnostic than solutions-oriented, and the guidelines it offers toward the end-listen, don't center yourself, get educated, think about your responses and what role they play-won't shock any nervous systems. The value in "White Fragility" lies in its methodical, irrefutable exposure of racism in thought and action, and its call for humility and vigilance. Combatting one's inner voices of racial prejudice, sneaky and, at times, irresistibly persuasive, is a life's work. For all the paranoid American theories of being "red-pilled," of awakening into a many-tentacled liberal/feminist/Jewish conspiracy, the most corrosive force, the ectoplasm infusing itself invisibly through media and culture and politics, is white supremacy.

That's from a white progressive perspective, of course. The conspiracy of racism is hardly invisible to people of color, many of whom, I suspect, could have written this book in their sleep.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Sociologist Examines the "White Fragility" That Prevents White Americans from Confronting Racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In more than twenty years of running diversity-training and cultural-competency workshops for American companies, the academic and educator Robin DiAngelo has noticed that white people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they "were taught to treat everyone the same," that they are "color-blind," that they "don't care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted."

# data[].attributes.body
Some have different ideas about how anti-racism work should be done.  This, too, is not new.  The Empowerment Controversy of the late-1960's is part of our UU history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wilderness Journey: The Struggle for Black Empowerment and Racial Justice within the UUA 1967-1970

# data[].attributes.body
Unitarian Universalism is a faith tradition that is covenantal, not creedal. That means we don't have a prescribed set of beliefs that someone must ascribe to in order to call themselves UU. Unitarian Universalist congregations also enter into covenant when they join the Unitarian Universalist Association. That covenant is captured in Article II of the UUA Bylaws. This link is to the text of the bylaws; Article II is on page 7.

# data[].attributes.body
Article II of the bylaws defines the purpose of the Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the 7 principles of Unitarian Universalism and the sources of our faith tradition. The 7 principles are part of our shared covenant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote seven Principles and share a living tradition of wisdom and spirituality drawn from many sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
10. What Unitarian Universalists Believe

# data[].attributes.subject
10. What Unitarian Universalists Believe

# data[].attributes.body
Some people assert (or tease) that UU's can believe anything they want.  Or in other words, you can believe anything and call yourself Unitarian Universalist.  This is not true.  For example, you can't believe that some people are more worthy than others--more deserving of love, of life, of what is needed to thirive in this world--and call yourself UU.  A belief of supremacy goes against the shared values we profess.  This is a good summary of our shared beliefs with a link to many resources.  The sermon from Rev. Erik Walker Wikstrom addresses this topic specifically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contrary to What You Might Have Heard, UUs Don't Just Believe Whatever They Want

Unitarian Universalists (UU) are a strange bunch. In any given gathering of UUs there may be someone whose faith is based on the teachings of Jesus, someone who has a daily meditation practice, someone who sees God in nature and someone who doesn't see a god in anything. And yet they can all sing the same hymn and worship together.

You may meet Unitarian Universalists who believe there's a divine spark in each of us and others who believe that to be human means to have a fun mix of good and evil. And yet we come together to support one another and grow spiritually.

There are some UUs who believe God has a plan for them and others who believe they are in control of their own destiny. And yet they can all join together to fight for immigration reform, reproductive justice, LGBT + rights and racial justice.

We truly are a theologically diverse spiritual community. Because there is such a diversity of practices, ideas and beliefs some might say "UUs can believe whatever they want." They're almost right, except for being pretty wrong.

You see, as a Unitarian Universalist you can have different beliefs than another UU. You can even appreciate the beliefs foundational to other religions as true for some people even if they are not true for you. But when it comes down to it, UUs can't just believe whatever they darn well please and still call themselves UU.

In fact, even the idea that UUs believe that people of other religions or no religion can believe whatever they want is not entirely true. We actively work to dismantle those beliefs and practices in the world that we believe cause harm to people, groups and our earth.
Read "Can UUs Believe Anything We Want?"
Unitarian Universalists believe in covenant. We commonly think of covenant as a sacred promise we make to one another to create an inclusive and welcoming community. But that's just a small aspect of the power of covenant. We also believe we are part of the covenant of life that leaves no one out of the circle of love. Former president of the UUA Rev. Bill Sinkford describes Unitarian and Universalism respectively as,

"One God, no one left behind."

We believe we have a responsibility to stand up to those people or groups who are tearing the fabric of the covenant of life and help repair those tears. We also believe well will be imperfect at doing so. As Martin Buber says,

we are a "promise making, promise breaking, promise renewing" people.

As Unitarian Universalists We Believe...

All Souls Are Sacred

You can't believe that someone deserves more or less love because of their skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, how much money they make or owe or because they've done something good or bad and still be UU.

Read "A Unitarian Universalist 'Black Lives Matter' Theology"

All Souls are Sacred is a truly radical statement.

There Is a Unity That Makes Us One

UUs do not believe that we're all separate, isolated individuals who need nothing from others and have nothing to give others.

Read "Our Shared Faith"

Aspen trees are rhizomes so all the roots in a grove are connected.

Courageous Love Can Transform the World

Believing that it's ok to get what you want or make your point through violence and coercion OR that you can just sit back, relax and the injustices of the world will work themselves out is not UU.

Read "What Do UU's Believe?"

Unitarian Universalist Commit2Respond climate justice march

In Salvation in This Lifetime

UUs can't believe that it doesn't matter how you behave while you're alive or that the only reason to be "good" is to have a cushy afterlife.

Read "10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About Unitarian Universalism"

Before I die I want to help heal the world.

And That Truth Continues to Be Revealed

You can't believe that you know everything there is to know or at least can find out everything there is to know because the be-all and end-all capital T Truth is written down somewhere and still be UU.

Read "The Theology Of Unitarian Universalists"

These 5 statements of faith are known as the 5 Jagged Rocks and were created by Nancy Bowen and some religious professionals in the Unitarian Universalist Association Mountain Desert District. They are an adaptation of James Luther Adams' 5 smooth stones of religious liberalism which, if you're not familiar is a reference to the biblical tale of David and Goliath. As David used stones to slay Goliath, so we as a liberal religion can use these 5 statements of faith to overcome hate, prejudice, division, exclusion and brokenness.

So, the next time you find yourself about to say or agree with the statement that "UUs can believe whatever they want," just remember we believe:
All souls are sacred. There is a unity that makes us one Salvation in this life Courageous Love has the power to transform the world And truth continues to be revealed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Unitarian Universalists Really Believe Anything?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unitarian Universalists (UU) are a strange bunch. In any given gathering of UUs there may be someone whose faith is based on the teachings of Jesus, someone who has a daily meditation practice, someone who sees God in nature and someone who doesn't see a god in anything.

# data[].attributes.body
Because Unitarian Universalism is a living tradition, the UUA Bylaws require that we revisit Article II every 15 years.  They were last revisited in 1987.  At the General Assembly is 2020, the UUA Board issued a charge to the Article II Study Commission to do this work.  The Commission has worked hard to listen to input and gather information about what UUs around the country think and feel. You can find information about their work at this link.  In January 2023, the Commission is expected to deliver suggested revisions to Article II to the UUA Board.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Article II and the Study Commission

Article II of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) Bylaws, Principles and Purposes, is the foundation for all of the work of our UUA and its member congregations and covenanted communities. It is the covenant to which all of our congregations and covenanted communities pledge themselves when they become members of our UUA.

Our current Principles and Purposes were last revised in 1987. At General Assembly (GA) 2017, there was discussion of amending the Principles to add an 8th Principle, addressing racism, and an amended 1st Principle, addressing non-human life. The 5th Principle was the subject of a report in 2009, which dealt with the ways in which GA and other Unitarian Universalist (UU) gatherings do and don't embody an inclusive democratic process. The 7th Principle has also been the subject of discussions about possible amendments.

There have been many projects, resolutions, task forces and other strategies that have come from the Board, Commission on Appraisal and grassroots groups which encourage us to take a look at our principles, purposes, bylaws and rules. It is time for us to do a review and make changes so that we are living into the Unitarian Universalism of the future, a Unitarian Universalism that holds us in times of great need and ethical, moral and spiritual crises. We are in one of those times now.

In response to those discussions, the UUA Board committed to establishing this Article II Study Commission to complete this study and offer a revised Article II.

Summarizing two years of work with UU individuals, groups and leaders, this report offers a proposed new draft of Article II of the UUA Bylaws. Read the report (PDF 26 pages)

Article II Study Report

The Article II Study Commission has completed its two year study. They submitted their Article II Study Report (PDF) to the UUA Board of Trustees at their meeting held on January 20, 2023. The report includes the Study Commission's initial recommended revisions to Article II.

The Unitarian Universalists Association's Article II Study Commission, Board of Trustees, and Administration and Staff have received a lot of questions regarding the Article II study and proposed revisions. We have curated this list of answers to some of the frequently asked questions.

2023 General Assembly Amendment Process

Following the presentation of the Article II Study Proposal (YouTube) in January 2023, the Board of Trustees developed a congregational engagement and amendment process. The UUA's goal was to maximize discussion and engagement with the initial Article II Study Commission proposal (PDF), which addresses the foundational values and purposes of our faith community.

The Board of Trustees established a four phase process to support the Co-Moderators in prioritizing amendments on the General Assembly agenda.

April 2023, Unitarian Universalists were invited to submit suggestions and ideas on how to modifying the proposed Article II, through an online form. All qualifying suggestions were posted on an online forum for public discussion at discuss.uua.org.

May 2023, the Board's General Assembly Moderation Team, the ModSquad, hosted three amendment discussion workshops. Workshops were open to anyone and focused on areas where multiple amendment ideas had been submitted, to help proposers connect with each other to develop formal amendments where their ideas align.

June 2023: After the final General Assembly Agenda was published and the delegate platform was open, delegates could submit one (1) amendment per delegate. Amendments were accepted through the Article II mini-assembly at the General Assembly.

2023 General Assembly: The ModSquad and Article II Study Commission reviewed the over ninety (90) submitted amendments and prioritized fifteen (15) on the General Assembly agenda as directed by the bylaws. Amendments selected went through the collaborative process and represented repeated themes in the formally submitted amendments. The General Assembly adopted and referred five (5) amendments (PDF) to the Article II Study Commission for consideration and incorporation into the final proposal.

Shared UU Values Flower

The Shared Values flower, found in the final proposed revision to Article II, is available for Unitarian Universalist congregations to use, without fee or special permission from the artist, as long as certain requirements are met.
Shared UU Values Flower Images and Permissions

2024 General Assembly Final Article II Revision Consideration

The Article II Study Commission completed the final draft of its proposed revision to Article II (PDF) in October 2023. The Study Commission and the UUA Board of Trustees have shared letters about the final proposal and upcoming processes.

Amendments to the Article II Study Commission's proposed revision were submitted by 11:59pm Eastern on February 1, 2024.

Each amendment submitted by congregational petition under Section C-15.1(c)(4) of the UUA Bylaws had a primary congregational sponsor. Each primary congregational sponsor was the primary sponsor of one amendment to the proposal. Amendments met the following standards to be considered:

only applied to a single section of the Article II proposal;

matched the structure of the UUA Bylaws and Rules; and

could not conflict with other rules, bylaws, or adopted statements.

had the support of at least 15 certified UUA congregations.

The Board reviewed all submitted amendments to ensure they met the standards listed above. All submitted amendments which were received and supported by the deadline and met these standards were publicly posted on the Discussion Forum on February 2, 2024. We encourage you to carefully read and discuss it with members of your congregations and communities.

Continuing the Conversation Resources

New Article II Congregational Resources from the Field

In an effort to support congregations to continue to engage with the proposed Article II revision, UUA staff have collected and commissioned new Article II resources from the field to supplement the original Article II Study Commission resources.

Theological Reflection

Rev. Dr. Sheri Prud'homme was commissioned to provide this Theological Reflection of the proposed Article II revisions (PDF) to deepen spiritual and theological conversations around the proposal.

UU World Article

On December 7, 2023, UU World published an article, "As Unitarian Universalists Reassess Core Beliefs, Article II Study Commission Reflects on Progress Made," about the work of the Article II Study Commission and where the conversation is right now. We encourage you to read and share it with your communities.The final proposed revision to Article II was completed by the Article II Study Commission in October 2023.

Amplifying the Charge

The Amplifying the Charge (PDF, 33 pages) resource is a multi-layered tool that blends small group ministry and worship resources for congregations as our Association moves into the next stage of the bylaws adoption process. Engage religious professionals, worship team, lay leaders, and others to integrate four weeks of worship resources and four weeks of small group ministry into your spring congregational calendar!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about the Article II Study Commission and Its New Article II Proposals

# data[].attributes.body
Being a "living tradition" means that Unitarian Universalism has a long and rich history and we expect to grow and change over time as we learn more, experience more, and as we and the world change.  We expect to respond to the longings of our hearts and of the world.  This blog was written by Rev. Susan Fredrick-Gray in 2015 when she served in Phoenix, before she was elected UUA president.

# data[].attributes.body
Unitarian Universalists are a people of covenant who share values and principles that recognize our interdependence as we work together to create a world that is more loving and just.  We can expect to change as the world changes, and the world is certainly changing.  There are some important questions we can be asking and exploring now, and that is where I would love to see our energy and attention go.
Who are we now?
How are we called to be in this world?
What promises will we make to each other about how we will be together?
How will we remain in relationship when we disagree?
What promises will be make to all beings and this Earth?
How will we make decisions when there are competing needs?

# data[].attributes.body
We'll update this as things change.  Let's continue to the conversation.
Rev. Mary Gear minister@ouuc.org
Rev. Sara Lewis dre@ouuc.org