Dear CUC Board members:
We write on behalf of
the Unitarian Congregation of Saskatoon to question the process that
is being used by the CUC’s Statement of Principles Task Force. At
the end, we propose a different process designed to prevent division
within our community. It is not our intention to question the personal
integrity of the individuals who are on the Task Force or those who
are in leadership positions at the CUC. Rather, we question the unintended
consequences of the process that the Task Force has designed and the
CUC leadership appears to have endorsed. In order to work honestly
and openly to achieve clarity and understanding of the review process,
we request clear and direct responses to the questions that we raise
below. Each issue-defining question is followed by a response that
we have based on the best information available at the time of writing.
We would be grateful for any documents or other relevant factual evidence
that has so far eluded our search. The mandate that was given to the
Task force by the CUC Board has just now (March 30,2005) been uploaded
to the CUC website (see page 6 for its text). In our opinion, the
Task Force has acted far beyond its mandate and is working with an
interpretation of that mandate which cannot be justified by its wording.
This is the first issue that we will address.
Issue 1: What is the
stated goal of the current review of the Principles and Sources?
At the beginning of the
CUC Statement
of Principles Project Workshop Facilitator’s Guide (November
18, 2003) is the Goal of the Workshop, which reads, “Specifically,
the goal of this workshop is to arrive at a list of common values
& areas of concern which are widely representative of UUs in Canada,
and which reflect our context & our cultural experience. These
‘common values and areas of concern’ will feed into the larger (2-3
year) process whose goal is to write a Statement of Canadian UU Principles
to replace the one now in use by the UUA and the CUC.”
In What were
they thinking?! - The Rationale behind the First Draft of the New
CUC Statement of Principles,
Kalvin Drake (co-chair of the Task Force) states, “In January 2005,
the CUC Statement of Principles Task Force circulated a first draft
of a proposed successor to the current Statement of Principles.”
The first draft of the Statement of Shared Values and Aspirations
was sent out with this introduction, “The CUC Statement of Principles
Task Force has developed this first draft of a new Statement of Principles
for review by the member congregations.”
In the Winter 2005 issue of The
Canadian Unitarian,
there is an article entitled “Revising our principles and sources:
step one”. It contains the statements, “The CUC’s Statement of Principles
Taskforce released the first draft of its proposed revision in December
(below). It’s the first major step in the journey to revise the statement
of seven principles and six sources we inherited from the UUA.” and
“The taskforce is inviting congregations to offer feedback on its
proposed statement over the next two months. After reporting on its
progress at the annual meeting in May, the taskforce will embark on
a second draft of the statement, for approval at the 2006 annual meeting.”
The stated goal of the review of the Principles and Sources, as quoted
above, is clear beyond any possible doubt. In response to our challenge
to this process, Kalvin Drake has replied that “the decision to retain
the current wording or adopt another can only be made by the Council
of congregations at an ACM.” Unfortunately, the outcome of an otherwise
democratic process can be seriously affected by the sequence of events
leading up to it, which in this case favours one outcome over all
others. It appears to us that the leadership of the CUC and the members
of the Task Force have acknowledged that their goal is the replacement
of the Principles and Sources with a new statement. We would be delighted
to find that this is not the case, but to date have not seen any persuasive
contrary evidence.
Issue 2: When will
the option of retaining the existing Principles and Sources be discussed
by the membership of the CUC?
The Facilitator’s Guide
from the 2003/2004 Workshops also contains the statement, “If all
the results of this long process point to ‘No Change Needed’, then
the Task Force will recommend that we continue using the current statement.”
In his email to us, Kalvin Drake states, “Retaining the current statement
was and still is an option.”
Why, then, is there no
time or place provided in the review process for discussion of the
existing Principles and Sources, short of the ACM in 2006? The initial
round of Congregational Workshops didn’t include this discussion.
The Task Force website has no place to record agreement or disagreement
with the current Principles and Sources. The information from the
Task Force and CUC leadership only refers to the replacement of the
Principles with a new statement and the timeline for accomplishing
this. If the option to retain the current Principles and Sources (with
or without amendment) is truly part of the process, then the time,
place, and opportunity to discuss this option have not been been shared
with the CUC membership. Even if all options are still open, anyone
participating in the process would logically conclude that the decision
to replace the Principles and Sources has already been made. Whether
intended or not, the effect of the process has been to give a strong
direction to the discussion. A person who wants to retain the current
Principles has no opportunity to express this view in the Task Force’s
review process except as a “comment” that cannot carry much weight
in the kind of numerical compiling and tabulation of responses to
the draft statement that is promised. This process does not lead to
an open, inclusive, or democratic discussion and expression of views
within a congregational organization.
In fact, the mandate of the Task Force gives the following sequence
of actions: review the principles, promote a national conversation
about our principles, discuss the principles, create one or more draft
statement(s) of principles, and circulate drafts of principles to
congregations. There is no mention of replacing the Statement of Principles
or of rewriting the Sources. The most that is implied is a process
to amend the current principles. There is no reference at all to a
statement of shared values and aspirations, which is something entirely
different. That leads directly to our next issue.
Issue 3: What is meant
by the words “principles”, “values”, and “aspirations”?
In the discussion so
far, people seem to be using the words “principles”, “values”, and
“aspirations” interchangeably, as if they have the same meaning, and
this we find highly perplexing. Whether you go to a dictionary definition
or everyday usage, the three words clearly refer to different concepts.
“Principles” are fundamental beliefs, truths, laws, or assumptions
on which people base their lives. “Values” refers to the relative
worth of people’s beliefs and convictions. “Aspirations” are yearnings,
longings, and hopes for the future. How could the ideas which these
words describe be interchangeable? We often meet and work with people
whose values are different from our own (their priorities and the
passions in their life, for example). We might share a common value
with someone but disagree about the effective or ethical way to accomplish
the goal that we agree on (for example, eliminating poverty by forcible
redistribution of property or by providing poor people with access
to educational opportunities.) Rarely do we need to share another’s
personal aspirations unless we are working on a project together.
Personal aspirations change considerably during the course of a life,
and UUs, of all people, certainly don’t want to be told what their
personal aspirations will be by a majority vote. History suggests
that we should be wary of group aspirations, in any case.
We can usually communicate and work with people if the principles
underlying their choices and decisions are reasonably close to our
own. If you try to integrate the UU Statement of Principles into your
life, you still have many decisions to make, but some actions are
indefensible; for example, racism, dictatorship, or the exploitation
of natural resources without regard to environmental damage. Principles
don’t tell you how to do what needs doing, but they do steer you past
things that are best not done. The fact that principles leave room
for individual interpretation seems to bother some UUs (see Brian
Kiely’s column in The
Canadian Unitarian,
Winter 2005). Surely this kind of diversity is one of the most precious
qualities of UU communities.
Issue 4: Should our
Principles reflect our current values and aspirations?
In What
were they thinking?,
Calvin Drake, referring to the first round of Congregational Workshops,
says, “The Task Force then performed a very interesting impartial
analysis. It constructed a ‘matrix’ that mapped the feedback received
from the workshops directly to the wording of the current statement.
The conclusion … verified that the current Statement of
Principles still reflects the values of Canadian UUs. However, it
appeared that the current statement is perhaps incomplete and does
not give voice to as many of our shared aspirations and values as
it might.”
Is giving voice to shared aspirations and values the reason to have
a statement of principles? No. Principles act as a foundation and
starting point for the development of values and aspirations by individuals
and communities. People often take different paths from shared principles,
but keep the ability to communicate. Surely the intent of the review
process should not be to tell Canadian UUs what every one of them
must value and long for as a condition of continuing membership in
UU communities.
Issue 5: What are
the possible costs of carrying through with the ongoing process?
There are many UUs in
Canada, including long-time, active, and committed members, who value
the seven Principles. Are we expected to set them aside simply because
a majority at an ACM chooses a new statement of values and aspirations?
If the current process is carried through to its planned conclusion,
it is highly probable that a significant number of UUs who value individual
freedom of conscience and religious thought will leave the movement.
This is not a remote possibility. The right to a free and responsible
search for truth and meaning is a powerful idea, one that Unitarians
have supported for centuries and defended against those who would
set up one set of values or beliefs as authoritative. There are UU
communities in Canada that have incorporated the Principles and Sources
into their bylaws, and communities in which the majority of members
choose to belong to a community of shared principles and diverse values.
Some of these communities may decide that as an issue of conscience
and principle they must withdraw from the CUC. Even if they choose
to stay, their resentment of a process that appears to have proceeded
under false—or at the very least misleading—premises will last for
years. Is this the result that the CUC Board and the Statement of
Principles Task Force desire?
Issue 6: Is there
a better way to proceed, one that respects both UU traditions and
the personal beliefs of UUs in Canada?
Yes, we do believe that
there is a better way. It appears that a statement of shared values
and aspirations is important to many Canadian UUs. We propose that
the Task Force continue its work to create a Statement of Shared Values
and Aspirations, and present it to the membership of the CUC for approval
or rejection. If it is approved, let it stand together with the Statement
of Principles, and let each individual member of our community choose
the statement that best expresses his or her individual beliefs and
convictions. Since the two statements will be based on separate concepts,
how could one replace the other? In addition, we believe that the
existing Statement of Sources should be maintained. It is far more
inclusive and accurate than the revision that the Task Force has proposed.
We agree that none of these documents is sacred. They can be and should
be reviewed. They can be and should be amended as conditions change,
but only when a strong consensus for change has first been achieved.
At the same time, we see as very unlikely a need to completely rewrite
or replace statements that have been at the heart of our movement—and
of so many of our lives—for many years.
The idea that we should work to create a religious movement that speaks
with one voice is exactly the idea, no matter how well-intentioned,
that Unitarians have struggled against for centuries. In a study of
the history of religion, we can see that dogma, orthodoxy, exclusivity,
and intolerance have always followed whenever a religious movement
decided that the time had come to assert one truth. Unitarianism is
one of very few religious movements in the world today that has never
taken that step. Let us work together to continue that proud and vital
tradition, remembering that it is most valuable when it is least comfortable.
Yours,
Bryan Carroll &
Michael Wilson
Mandate
of the Statement of Principles Task Force
