Our Seven Principles:
Whose Idea Was This?

If there is one experience that binds us together as Unitarian Universalists, it's that "Omigosh" moment when we're confronted for the first time by the question, "So, tell me, what do UU's believe?" Sometimes, this question is a friendly attempt to make conversation. Sometimes it's driven by a sense of curiosity born out of rumors. -- you know, that's the church where you can believe anything you like. And then there are those times when you know it's a set-up for a theological debate, in which case you may try to excuse yourself with whatever reasons grace and the Spirit provide at the moment. I find that faking a violent sneezing attack works for me -- well most of the time.

But there are those occasions when a serious and cogent answer is called for. In that case I'll bet that most of us begin by explaining our seven Principles and their sources. I always seem to start with "the inherent worth and dignity of every person;" our "commitment to justice, equity, and compassion in human relations;" the "right of conscience and the free and responsible search for truth;" the "goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;" and "respect for the interdependent web of life of which we are a part." Then I mention that we look to all the world religions, science, reason, art, and our own direct experience of transcending mystery and wonder.

Usually this explanation is followed by a lot of questions. After doing this little bit of religious education for several years, I know which questions to expect. But the question I'm going to answer today is one that I've never been asked. How many of you have ever read section of our bylaws and thought to yourself, "Whose idea was this?"

I'll have to admit that I just assumed that this document was an outcome of the process that created the merger of the Universalists and the Unitarians back in the early 60's. It wasn't until I was preparing for the ordeal of my interview with the Ministerial Fellowship Committee that I learned about the history of our statement of Principles and Purpose and the who’s, why’s and how’s of its development.

Because we are a non-creedal association of congregations, the story of our free church movement is one of the struggle to define ourselves despite the many diverse theologies that have always been a part of our religious community. That story goes far back into our Unitarian and Universalist roots. From the very beginning, our forebears were not only non-creedal, but anti-creedal in their ecclesiology or understanding of what it means to be a "church." Nevertheless, our history is marked by a series of statements that were best efforts at explaining to the world our way of the spirit. The Principles, their sources and the Purposes of the UUA is the latest, but probably not the last attempt

I won't take you all the way back to the very earliest days of Unitarianism or Universalism in this country. It's enough to say that both groups evolved from heretical Christian traditions were strongly influenced by humanism in the 20^th century. In 1961, after years of discussion and negotiations, the members of congregations belonging to the American Unitarian Association and the members of most of the Universalist churches in America, voted to join together as "a new world faith." A Constitution and Bylaws were adopted at that same convention.

This document describes how the new association would be governed and it also outlines the "principles of free faith" that were to be the basis for the association. As I read them, you'll hear echoes of our current Principles and Purposes.

1. To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of our religious fellowship.
2. To cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition, immemorially summarized in their essence as love to God and love to man;
3. To affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth of every human personality, the dignity of man, and the use of the democratic method in human relationships.
4. To implement our vision of one world by striving for a world community founded on ideal of brotherhood, justice, and peace.
5. To serve the needs of member churches and fellowships, to organize new churches and fellowships, and to extend and strengthen liberal religion.
6. To encourage cooperation with men of good will of all faiths in every land.

You don't need training as either a sociologist or a theologian to figure out what the issues were with this statement. By the late 70's this statement of purpose and principle was unacceptable to many of the members of the associated congregations because of the patriarchal language and the hierarchical assumptions that probably made some of you cringe as I read them. In fairness, we should remember that the authors of this statement, most of whom were male ministers, had not yet been through the consciousness-raising years of the feminist movement. To the credit of the association, some of the objectionable language was changed in the late 60’s and again in 1976. But the feminists were not satisfied. And their concern was not only the language used in the bylaws They observed that that the goal of equity was still far in the future. In 1976 the number of women ministers serving congregations as parish ministers was fewer than 50.

Of course, if you were listening carefully, you know that the sexist language wasn't the only problem. When the original statement of principle and purpose was drafted, the tug of war between the traditional liberal Christians, who were for the most part Universalists, and the equally passionate humanists, most of whom were Unitarians, had threatened the merger. To keep this impending marriage alive, it was necessary to make some compromises about the theological language. These compromises were tolerable in the 60's, but they quickly became uncomfortable and meaningless. For many, the idea that the great universal truths of the world’s religions could be summed up in the Judeo-Christian tradition became a serious sticking point. This would prove to be the most difficult and emotionally charged section to face revision.

The other force at work for change was the growing concern for ecology and the damage done to the environment by human activities. Many felt that this concern also needed to be expressed in our statement of faith.

The process of creating a new statement of Principle and Purpose began at First Parish, in Lexington, Massachusetts. A small group of feminists, led by Lucile Schuck Longview, drafted a resolution which they presented to the 1977 General Assembly. This resolution called on UU's to "examine carefully their own religious beliefs and the extent to which these beliefs influence sex-role stereotypes within their own families." It also asked everyone within the leadership of the UUA and UU theological schools to "make every effort to (a) put traditional assumptions and language in perspective, and (b) avoid sexist assumptions and language in the future." This resolution, called "Women and Religion," was adopted unanimously by the 1977 General Assembly. It became the springboard for the effort to revisit and revise the UUA Principles.

As you might expect, the first effort was to look at the non-inclusive language. After two continental conferences on Women and Religion, an amendment to change the UUA Bylaws, Principles, and Purposes was sent to the districts and congregations for consideration. The intention was that the proposed changes would be presented to the 1981 General Assembly.

These changes included replacing such terms as "foundation" and "fellowship" with less patriarchal and hierarchical words such as "center" and "community." "Center" implies expanding in all directions, not just vertically, and "community" is more encompassing.

The resolution also asked for more inclusive language when speaking of world religions. The proposed change would delete the phrase "Immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to humankind." and substitute "Recognize our Judeo-Christian heritage as well as other traditions and seek lasting value and new insights." The press, ever eager for something sensational to report, claimed that "The Unitarians [sic] were proposing to remove God from their bylaws." Some of the more theologically traditional clergy and congregations complained that they were being pushed into accepting a statement that did not represent their views. And there were others who felt that the entire amendment would tear the association asunder.

And, in fact, there was strong opposition to the proposed amendment. The Rev. Carl Scovel, the minister of King's Chapel in Boston and a leader in the UU Christian Association, wrote a letter warning that the proposed amendment would create a contest among three major theological positions: theist, humanist and Christian. He said that no one proponent of any position could rightfully speak for another and all three had their respected historic place within the new association. Scoval recommended that a dialogue among the three different positions take place. He wrote, "We believe that it is time to recognize and empower that pluralism which we are." The letter was circulated and signed by one hundred fifty ministers. Clearly the amendment was in trouble.

Another opposing voice was heard from the Board of Trustees of the UU Women's Federation. They agreed that this proposed amendment was unacceptable to most UU Christians. They also claimed that it asked for more radical changes than most delegates to the General Assembly would support. Denny Davidoff, who would later become the moderator of the UUA, said, "It didn't have a prayer of passage."

These voices of opposition were not a death knell, but rather a call to continue the work to create a statement of principle and purpose that would speak to the variety of positions and theologies within the new association. Everyone realized that too much good work had gone into the process to abandon the cause. A coalition of representatives from the varying positions and the youth delegates to the assembly came up with a resolution that a committee be formed to recommend new Principles and Purposes for the Association.

This attempt at peace making was not welcomed by all the parties. Some women claimed that this resolution was a deliberate attempt to disempower them. Some from the Christian tradition saw the entire effort as a thinly veiled attempt to write them out of the Association. Other delegates were simply confused by the sudden change in direction and could not understand why the amendment brought to the General Assembly could not have been acted on.

Despite the "profound, searing, and long-lived conflict" that marked the deliberations, the 1981 General Assembly delegates finally voted that a committee of seven persons be appointed by the UUA Board of Trustees create and oversee a process that would the various congregations and organizations of the Association in creating new or revised Principles and Purposes. This work was to be presented to General Assembly in 1983 or 1984. It might interest those of you who heard Diane Miller speak at the service in Installation back in December, that she was a member of this important committee.

This committee submitted a proposal to the General Assembly in 1983. The cover letter that accompanied the proposal stated that the new statement was not a confession of shared religious belief. Instead, the proposed statement reflected shared ethical principles. The most successful portion of the revision consists of the seven principles our current statement lifts up. But the rest of the document was rejected as bland and bloodless. The committee was charged to continue its work and to report back the following year.

Despite the frustration and disappointment felt by committee members and delegates alike, this new effort produced inspired words. The committee separated the document into two sections: Principles and sources. The sources section states that although we are a diverse body, we all draw from a "living tradition." Christian UU's were pleased to see that they were still held within the fold in the statement that this living tradition included "Jewish and Christian teaching which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves." The original order of the accepted seven principles was changed to reflect a growing focus that begins with "the inherent worth and dignity of the individual" and grows out to the community, and "respect for the integrity of the earth and its resources."

This latest revision was offered to the 1984 General Assembly. More fine-tuning was done during the plenary sessions. The word "liberty" was added to the sixth principle which talks about a world community. The seventh principle was amended to read "respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." The sources section was altered to include "wisdom from the world's religions." In 1995, another amendment was made to the sources, adding a seventh source the "spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions." I'm sure that some of you still recall the debates and the controversy that this last change created.

The very broad language of our statement of Principles and thier sources that works so well for our pluralistic association is also the reason for the confusion that is troubling to many. To many on the outside of our community, it does appear that UU's can believe anything we like; that we take a little bit of all the religions to make a patched-up faith of our own liking and perhaps even our own likeness. Many of us know how hard it is to be a UU, to live with the ambiguity, the unending questions, and the openness to new ways that our way of the Spirit demands. Ours' is a journey that offers little in the way of promises or a certain outcome. Sometimes I've felt that my own religious search would be easier if I could return to my family’s roots in the Russian Orthodox church. There I could seek comfort in the traditional rituals and liturgy. I might rest in the beauty of the ancient prayers and hymns, and perhaps findassurance in a God who offered eternal life in exchange foran earthly life of faith and good works. But as much as I'dmight wish to believe in the teachings of that faith, I can't. Something in my being calls me to be faithful to another understanding of God, of faith, and goodness and the purpose of life. And that's why I'm a UU. My deepest prayer is that I'm a good and faithful servant to my free and always challenging church.

May it be so.

UUC Home Page

Reverend BrownlieHome Page