Does UU Environmentalism Still Matter?
Article II and Amendment 52 – An Unexpected Change
Guest Contributor
Rebecca Pace
The wording of the final proposed Article II language, up for a vote at the June 2024 General Assembly (GA), contains an unexpected change. The proposed Value of Interdependence, positioned to replace the current Seventh Principle regarding environmentalism, doesn’t seem to serve the same purpose. The new value, rather than protecting the earth and all beings, seems to change the focus to managing harmful human interrelationships.
Savvy delegates recognized this change in direction and proposed an amendment, Amendment 52, at the 2023 GA to ensure that the Interdependence Value focused strictly on the environment. Amendment 52 passed by a vote of 78.4% of the delegates. However, during the ensuing months, as I see it, the Article II Study Commission chose to ignore the vote of the delegates and doubled down on their path to remove or lessen environmentalism as a value.
So what’s up with all this? Similar to many of the new Article II Values that scatter phrases from the current set of UU Principles, the proposed Interdependence Value incorporates some of the wording of our Seventh Principle. The Seventh Principle, as we commonly understand it, promotes respect for the earth and the natural world.
However, the new Interdependence Value’s focus seems to point to the interdependence of humans with each other, not strictly with the environment. The emphasis appears to be on the repair of harmful interpersonal relationships.
UU’s 7th Principle
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Originally Proposed Independence Value
Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence.
We covenant to cherish Earth and all beings by creating and nurturing relationships of care and respect. With humility and reverence, we acknowledge our place in the great web of life, and we work to repair harm and damaged relationships. (bold added)
Amendment 52
Amendment 52 as approved at GA 2023 indicated that this value statement should read as follows:
Interdependence. We honor the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. With humility and reverence, we covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation, creating and nurturing sustainable relationships of repair, mutuality and justice.
We will work to repair harm and damaged relationships.(strikethrough added)
Note that GA 2023 amendment vote removed the clause, “we will work to repair harm and damaged relationships” at the end of the original Interdependence Value. However, after the vote, in the final Article II proposal, published in October 2023, that phrase reappeared.
Final Proposed Independence Value
We honor the interdependent web of all existence. With reverence for the great web of life and with humility, we acknowledge our place in it.
We covenant to protect 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 harmed and damaged relationships. (bold added)
What Happened
How did this happen?
The Article II Study Commission reserved the authority to wordsmith the approved amendment, and they did that in the first line. Humility and reverence were moved from the second part of the Value statement to the first.
However, wordsmithing should not mean ignoring the vote of the delegates. In my estimation, that is exactly what the Article II Study Commission has done by retaining the “repair harm” sentence in the Interdependence Value— they ignored the mandate of the approved Amendment 52.
Perhaps the Commission questioned whether the voters intended to remove that clause from the Interdependence Value, thereby making the Value focus solely on environmentalism. If there was a misunderstanding by the Commission or an error regarding the intention of the vote at the 2023 GA, there were remedies.
What Could Have Happened
The Board could have declined acceptance of the Commission’s version of the final Article II proposal. The Board could have directed the Commission to incorporate into the final proposed language what I feel is the objective of the entire Amendment 52—to eliminate the contested clause/sentence. This action would have addressed any misunderstanding by the Article II Study Commission.
As a next step option, if it were felt that the problem lay in the intentions of the amendment vote and per UUA Bylaws Section 15.2(a)6, the Board could have proposed a new amendment for a vote at the 2024 GA. This proposal would have added the contested clause/sentence back into the modified final Article II proposal that, per Amendment 52, did not contain the clause/sentence.
The Board did not take either of these actions. Instead, the Board chose to accept the Commission’s final proposal, which, in my view, violated the vote on Amendment 52 and the will of GA delegates. From my perspective, instead of following the vote of the majority, the Article II Study Commission and UUA Board chose to ignore the voters and deliberately retained the contested clause.
I believe that the proposed new Value of Interdependence, positioned to be exchanged for the current Seventh Principle on environmentalism, intentionally serves a different purpose than that prescribed in the current Seventh Principle of our faith. In my opinion, the delegates clearly voted to retain the singular emphasis on environmentalism in this value. However, as I see it, the Article II Study Commission and UUA Board appear to have intentionally ignored the voters’ desire to institute Amendment 52. I believe that the proposed Interdependence Value diminishes the value of environmentalism while, in its place, raising the role of managing harmful interpersonal relationships. In my judgment, the Commission’s and UUA Board’s actions offer reasons for thinking twice about how to vote on the latest Article II proposal at the 2024 GA.
Please share your thoughts in the Comments section.
Next UU the Conversation Town Hall Meeting
The theme of the next Town Hall meeting is “What We Gain, What We Lose.”
The proposed Article II rewrite has good new ideas that come with substantial modifications to how UUs function. This Town Hall will address what is gained and lost with the new proposal so UUs can decide if it represents the right direction for our faith.
- Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2024
- Time: 8:00 PM Eastern, 7:00 PM Central, 6:00 PM Mountain, 5:00 PM Pacific
- Duration: 75 – 90 minutes
Pre-registration is required. Visit this link to register.
Guest Contributors Welcomed
The Fifth Principle Project welcomes guest contributors who would like to share their thoughts and submit a new Discussion topic. This website was designed as an open forum so UUs can engage in thoughtful, maybe even provocative, discussions.
See our Guest Contributor page for more information.
Two Important Things
Subscribe to Comments
Subscribe to comments to follow the comments from other readers.
Join the Fifth Principle Project. It’s free. The Fifth Principle Project is an organic grassroots initiative to gather into community Unitarian Universalists who want to reinvigorate the right of conscience and renew the democratic process in the governing of our denomination.
Thank you Rebecca Pace!.
Responsible environmentalism can involve different, even conflicting, opinions. It’s a scary step toward authoritarianism for a church to take a position on when fossil fuels are okay, if ever; whether hundreds of public fireworks displays on July 4 and other holidays should be tolerated; whether gas powered lawn mowers should be legal. UUs can embrace the concept of environmentalism, but should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to the details.
Very true. In today’s world, there are all sorts of environmentalists. At some point, the UUs may want to explore “the varieties of environmental experience.” In any event, it’s important to understand that all of our principles and values are equally important. The Fifth Principle and the Seventh Principle (and the others) are included in the same package.
That creates some tension. In some moments, we lean towards humanism and concern for human rights, but we’re savvy enough that other species are also important in the universe.
We’re savvy enough and *loving enough*! We “contain multitudes,” as Walt Whitman said. 😉
Thank you for mentioning Walt Whitman. Walt was a Quaker, and a poet, and a volunteer nurse, and sometimes he was a populist. Bayard Rustin was another Quaker and, in some ways, Bayard brought Whitman into a new era. The movie “Rustin” is highly-recommended. We need to reimagine organized religion for an era of climate change. A new culture is needed in congregations and in clusters. The Quakers may provide some inspiration. Good government is important. However, the Quakers know that Uncle Sam won’t take us to “the beloved community.” If you want social justice, don’t rely entirely on lobbying.… Read more »
Burton, I agree with you on that there are many ways to address environmentalism, but the point is, “the Board chose to accept the Commission’s final proposal, which, in my view, violated the vote on Amendment 52 and the will of GA delegates. From my perspective, instead of following the vote of the majority, the Article II Study Commission and UUA Board chose to ignore the voters and deliberately retained the contested clause.” Can we trust the UUA?
“ …raising the role of managing harmful interpersonal relationships…” Once again, we find ourselves in the new and improved UU nether world of Orwellian language management. Who decides what is “harmful”? Who really decides the wording of the new principles? Obviously some have decided that a democratic vote is not needed and have no problem, ignoring it. This is the drip, drip, drip exercise of incremental authoritarian control. ” the Article II Study Commission and UUA Board chose to ignore the voters and deliberately retained the contested clause.” Our local UU Fellowship has been destroyed in the last 4+ years by the same incremental… Read more »
Ron, what occurred at your fellowship is tragic. Nor is the irony lost that those who claim “love at the center” are the most vociferous in their condemnation of those who disagree with them. The split in your fellowship may become the future model for the denomination.
It’s become obvious to everyone that the UUA is no longer interested in the responsible and individual search for truth, nor is it interested in anything dealing with social justice unless it is about continuing racism against whole groups of people who are identified as being bad solely by the virtue of the accident of their birth.
It is no longer an association that has the moral gravitas to attract me as a member
Does the UUA’s concept of “interdependence” include unborn humans?
Good question. The answer involves questions of accountability and stewardship. Indigenous people have said that today’s people will be held accountable by “the seventh generation.” If we accept this idea, then, yes, our circle of moral concern includes unborn humans. Plus other creatures. There was a time when the folks reading this note were “unborn.” We suffer because of historic injustices, but, in some moments, we can be grateful for what our ancestors accomplished. If you’re involved with an historic UU church, think about the people who built and sustained the congregation.
The existing Seventh Principle has enormous importance for Unitarian Universalists. In some ways, it may be as close to a metaphysical statement as we get in the UUA Bylaws. The Seventh Principle has been almost unquestioned since the day when it was first proposed, and that’s significant. The UUs are skeptical about almost everything. Suggestion: A Bylaws statement about accountability will do some good. Indigenous people remind us that we will be held accountable “by the seventh generation.” Most UUs can appreciate the point.
This is such an “in your face” disregard of Unitarian Universalists and what they think is best for UUism! Now the UUA, which has chosen to take the label “service organization” out of their name and replace it with a top-down “when we say ‘jump,’ you say how high!” attitude towards its members, has blatantly ignored the will of UUs and seems to be daring us to do something about it. The good news is, as I travel around visiting UU churches, I see more and more people getting angry about this dismissive attitude, as they read articles like Rebecca’s.… Read more »
I noticed this trend some time ago and lost all interest in UU Environment and Climate groups as a result. If all you have is a hammer, then everything is a nail. If all you can think about is CRT, its colors everything you do. You do, because I don’t. There are lots and lots of things I can do, groups I can join, to benefit the planet, the environment, the climate, etc. I love that some of the groups I join just all get to work on the causes we came to address. We go out and collect litter,… Read more »
“Doing good work together.” Good message for organized religion. And it’s important that religious groups be voluntary and diverse. If your church is located in the suburbs or in a rural area, look at what happens in the church parking lot. Individuals arrive in their automobiles to make their personal protests against “energy waste.” However, sharing transportation, to reduce pollution and highway crowding, isn’t popular with some folks. Result: Some people – often, the very young and very old, and people with disabilities – don’t have easy access to the church building. (Zoom has helped to improve the situation but… Read more »
The GA vote was a clear indication that environmentalism is a central concern of many UUs. The the quiet ignoring of Amendment 52 shows that it’s not important to the UUA leaders who wrote the Article 2 Revision. They mix it in with relationships because to them environmentalism is just an empty space, a metaphor for their actual concerns.
It’s one of many actual UU values that they don’t really hold.
I don’t think it’s because these people aren’t UU, but I do believe they’re spiritually underdeveloped and myopic. And they are putting our religion on a destructive path.
Thank you for this detailed background. Your impression appears accurate to me, that the Commission is trying to rewrite the meaning of this value so that it is not as focused on the relationship between humans and the environment and more focused on human-to-human relations.
Big challenge for the Unitarian Universalists and everybody else: “How do we defend human rights and dignity while defending other species and the whole environment in the same moment?”
I agree with Lifelong UU that “environmentalism is a central concern of many UUs.” And there have been hundreds of congregation-based projects and conversations for the environment since the 1970 Earth Day. However, for some reason, national leaders have been reluctant to give major and sustained attention to Mother Earth. It’s the grassroots groups that keep bringing environmental topics forward.
Ponder this. What power does the last sentence of the proposed final version of the Article II Interdependence Value carry that drove the Commission into committing democratic deceit? What motivated the Commission to violate our electoral rights? What is it about this sentence that led the Commission to over-ride the vote of the June 2023 General Assembly delegates? Most UUs believe that the Interdependence Value is about environmentalism. On the other hand, the phrase “We work to repair harm and damaged relationships” has been commonly used to describe our resolve to engage in anti-racism work. I interpret the… Read more »