Who in Boston determines what is misappropriation?

Today the UUA is for all effective purposes, an interfaith collection of churches, with some churches themselves being interfaith, and other churches being rooted in specific traditions. When we acknowledge this, accept it, and learn to live with it; we can leave behind the anxiety and conflicts over denominational identity (including the problematic issue of quasi-creedal P&P documents). Anything short of this is destined to prolong the painfull conflicts over the UUA being too Christian, too Humanist, too Pagan, etc..

PS – My personal preference is to worship with Christian churches that are part of the UUA. It gives me a solid practice, combined with a larger liberal network.

To me, this draft smells a bit of identity crafting. The authors are suggesting an identity that the UUA is supposed to be. But is that what is really there? That is why I think Jay’s notes about the treatment of Humanism are valid criticism. But instead of trying to craft different balances, which will inevitably disappoint some and satisfy others; why don’t we just do without a P&P’s document entirely? When will we cease to yearn for a united religious identity that does not exist? Why do we insist on an official list of approved Sources? I think we need to admit that RIGHT NOW we are an interfaith federation of independent congregations, leave it at that, and live contructively into the reality that exists, instead of the illusions that we want UU denominational reality to conform to.

I nevertheless agree with your assessment that the draft is unsatisfactory. There’s so much fluffy language, but here’s one example. “[The UUA] will empower the creation of just and diverse congregations that enact Unitarian Universalist Principles in the world.” Empower the creation? Enact . . . principles? Is that better than what Section 2 currently says (that the UUA will “extend and strengthen Unitarian Universalist institutions and implement [the UUA's] principles”). I don’t think so. This is a covenant. It’s ok if it sounds a little more, well, lawyerly. The words are important and should be used precisely.

I think the revisions to the Sources section are particularly unappealing. The sentence about “wisdom and beauty” (and, as you point out, fabric!) is interesting, but it’s hard to relate to the rest of the text in the section.

More problematically, I think the paragraph on our actual sources may be divisive, especially for Humanists. We absolutely want our Sources section to pay appropriate respect to *each* of our constituencies: Judeo-Christianity, Earth-centered traditions, world religions, Humanism, etc. The draft may currently suggest that UUism is primarily a Judeo-Christian religion, if one that “draws from” Paganism and “other world” religions. (At this point in our history, shouldn’t Buddhism get a specific mention?) Humanism isn’t even listed as something that UUism “draws from.” It, instead, is in a list of sundry perspectives that UUism has, along the way, “engage[d]” with. Much of this paragraph looks like something the UCC might be able to adopt; it might be read as describing an essentially Judeo-Christian tradition that has been influenced by other traditions. The paragraph doesn’t seem to me to describe a religion in which a significant percentage think of themselves as Humanists, anyway. I think I prefer the current Sources section, particularly the way it gives the six sources a completely different line.

As you point out, the draft also confusingly mixes statements concerning congregational commitments with statements about the responsibilities of individual UUs.

Our current P&P is popular with UUs for good reason, I think.