All Over but the Shouting
thoughts on the Article II vote at General Assembly
Dear Readers: This is a very Unitarian Universalist specific post, although I suspect some of the anxiety I talk about here may be akin to the anxieties you’re seeing in your own faith. So…read on, or skip… but as our General Assembly begins next week, it seems the right time to post these thoughts.
I’ve been thinking about the phrase “it’s all over but the shouting,” a cliché so tired that we have often forgotten its meaning.
Until we hear the shouting right at the final hurdle.
Yes, in a week, Unitarian Universalists will be gathering online for our yearly General Assembly. Like many denominations, it is at these gatherings where the direction and business of a faith gets set, affirmed, decided. Often, the landscape of a faith may change at one of these conferences as they wrestle with highly controversial issues, such as affirming LGBTQ people, allowing women clergy, and other life and death issues. The wrestling sometimes means splits (like we’re seeing amongst our Methodist siblings), and it’s both understandable and sad. And we know that those who are answering the call to love, do justice, and be merciful sometimes cause those who refuse to see the sacred in all beings to leave rather than save lives.
By that measure, the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations will take up a total of zero controversial measures.
No, seriously. Setting aside Actions of Immediate Witness that are calling us to work for peace and care for all (which I think we can all agree are matters that require our attention), the biggest issue on the table during the General Sessions is …wordsmithing.
That’s it.
Wordsmithing.
Reworking a section of our bylaws to better represent who we are and who we want to be, in language that resonates in 2024.
Now there is a group of people who are all wildly worked up about it, suggesting that we are no longer who we have long claimed to be, that we are excluding people, that we are making demands that people fall in line with a very particular and honestly narrow view of the justice we seek for all. (That last bit, that the UUA is pushing an agenda is honestly laughable. When did two ever UUs agree about everything? Have you seen how disorganized congregational polity is? We can barely figure out what to coffee to serve at social hour.)
This idea that we are demanding everyone by in lockstep is the furthest thing from the truth. As a living tradition (look at the front of your grey hymnal…right there - I took a picture of it - see… it says it… “living tradition”), we’re always open to new knowledge, new ideas, new perspectives, new theologies, and yes, new ways of wording things that better represent who we are, in language that resonates. In fifteen years time, we’ll feel the language is a bit outdated, and we’ll follow the bylaws again that call us to examine and if needed, rework Article II, the part of the bylaws we’ve been examining and reworking quite transparently for the last four years.
Wordsmithing has people freaked out.
Which tells me these changes, which people are by and large okay with, are going to pass easily.
And the people who are freaking out are shouting. Loudly.
Clearly, they’re afraid of something, but I’ve yet to understand exactly what. It’s not like the old Article II language is suddenly going to disappear. It’s not like the pages in our hymnals that hold that language are going to suddenly go up in a poof of smoke, like some weird literary rapture. It’s not like the very ideas that are in that language isn’t also reflected somehow in the new language, in the ancient and contemporary sources of wisdom we draw on, in our practices and processes.1
My god. Are you afraid if it passes you’re going to have to take some sort of UU citizenship test? And if you can’t sign on and salute the right way and pledge allegiance to some imaginary super secret organization, you’ll be excommunicated, ostracized, and punished?
I mean, HAVE YOU MET US?2
What are you afraid of?
Oh… hang on.
Is it… are you afraid you’ll no longer be relevant?
Are you afraid you won’t leave a legacy?
Are you afraid of being forgotten?
Oh… cupcakes, no. We wouldn’t be here today if you hadn’t been strong and righteous in your youth. We would be utterly irrelevant right now if you hadn’t fought for what needed fighting for out in the world in the last 50 years. We honor you, and your legacy, your congregation building, and your traditions.
But you are the ones who taught us we are a Living Tradition. (See that image above. That’s from you.)
You taught us to live. So we’re living.
You taught us to learn, and to act. So we’re learning, and acting.
We will still hold you. We will hold our faith. We will keep the fire of commitment burning. We will remember the roots that hold us close, and we’ll use the wings that set us free.
We’ve got this. It’s okay that the words are different.
No need to shout.
Hey - completely unrelated: It’s pride all month long, and honestly, most of us can use some cool gear, pride, UU, or otherwise all year long. This great, independent, queer-owned shop is the perfect source for all sorts of cool gear. Go visit Nerdy Keppie and support a cool company! (I don’t have any affiliation with NerdyKeppie; I just like their stuff and want to help keep them in business. It’s a good thing to do.)
Yes, I know there’s been some tweaking and ensuring we keep some of the more explicit language around a few concepts, and of course that’s what these few years were always supposed to be about.
Also, have you talked to the theists among us who are still afraid to mention they believe in God because the humanists have made it impossible? But that’s another idea for another post.
As usual, you are spot on. Thanks for this. I hope everyone who needs to see this sees this.
I feel that I have been gaslit by this "Shouting" piece. Unfortunately online discussion is mostly an exchange of words since over 90% of the communication as compared to in person is absent, therefore potentially leading to hard feelings. As for the content of the proposed amendment, consider the approach to "exploitation." Most mammals, including ourselves, routinely exploit other animals in order to live. Consider that in some cultures, exploitation is a direct necessity of life. How arrogant are we to presume upon the lifestyle of those people? Please separate our own aspirations from an imposition on other humans. And how can we campaign for equity while simultaneously respecting the current practice of some religions? I see too much doublethink in the proposed amendment, and I do not apologize for seeing what I see. If I read the by-laws correctly, a proposal could give another two years to reconstruct the proposed amendment and mend a lot of fractures. Not a bad thing, since the elements of Widening the Circle of Compassion are already in action.