Independence Day and the UU 5th Principle (July 5, 2008 by James Montgomery Jackson)

Originally I was to speak before you next Sunday, but since the program committee got a better offer for that day, I agreed to switch to today. And that got me thinking about Independence Day’s relevance to us Unitarian Universalists.

Have you ever wondered why of the various dates relevant to our country’s start we choose to celebrate July 4^th? Could not an argument be made for April 19, relating to the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 that started the open warfare? Indeed in Massachusetts and Maine that day (or now the 3^rd Monday in April) is celebrated as Patriot’s Day. Since our fate as a nation was uncertain until the victory at Yorktown, why not October 19, the date Cornwallis surrendered in 1781? How about September 3^rd, commemorating the day in 1783 that the Treaty of Paris was signed, where Britain actually agreed the United States were independent? Or January 14^th of the following year when the Congress of the Confederation approved the treaty?

For that matter, why did the “Fathers of our Country” even bother to write a Declaration of Independence since we had already been fighting our parental country for a year? Prior to the Declaration, everyone agreed the thirteen states and Britain had problems. What was not agreed was whether the problems could be solved by other than a revolution. Early in June, 1776 the representatives of the states were about evenly split on whether reconciliation with Britain should be pursued or whether the thirteen states should be independent. The Mid-Atlantic States were not yet in favor of independence: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, nor was South Carolina. Throughout June the move toward independence solidified. A vote on the independence question on July 1 found South Carolina and Pennsylvania opposed, Delaware split and New York abstaining because their instructions were old (although the delegates personally approved.)

Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration was considered that day and modified in a day long committee-of-the-whole. By July 2^nd a third delegate from Delaware arrived putting them in the plus column, different Pennsylvania delegates were present, turning them to positive, and South Carolina delegates indicated that although they personally disapproved, for unanimity they would vote yes.

By July 4^th the editing was done. South Carolina proved good to its word and the measure was approved without a dissenting state. The declaration is an Apology, in the traditional meaning of the word: a formal justification to the world of the acts taken.

When I reread the list of particulars that the colonists hurled upon King George’s crown I was struck to wonder if our current leaders had any acquaintance with them, particularly these accusations:

·         He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

·         For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

·         For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States

·         For cutting off our trade with the world

·         For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.

Our fifth principle calls upon us to affirm and promote: “the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.” Has our understanding of democracy so changed in the last 232 years since our Declaration of Independence was promulgated that we can condone the United States’ conduct in the “War on Terror”? I think it has not and we cannot.

Regardless of whether you believe the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are or are not justified based on our democratic principles, shouldn’t we be raising our collective voice against conduct that abrogates our basic tenets of democracy as we contemplate posting troops in Iraq for the next century? As we charge privates, corporals and sergeants with crimes and ignore their superiors? As we embargo democratically elected states as we do in Gaza because we label them as terrorists? As we maintain the Guantanamo prison filled with the world’s citizens spirited away from the purported scenes of the crimes?

When I started planning this service I planned to speak about the use of the democratic process within this congregation. How the “War on Terror” has affected the democratic process in American society hijacked my message for a few minutes, but now I want to return to my original theme. Are there lessons from the process that formed our country that we can apply to our situation today? You betcha.

Lesson #1: It takes a long time to come to agreement about big changes. The conflict, revolution, civil war, rebellion, whatever you would like to call it had been going on for a year and there was not yet agreement about how to settle the issue. Ultimately, the elected representatives of the various colonies resolved to a majority and decided independence was the right course.

Did everyone agree? No. Many of the delegations were split. Did the Declaration resolve the issue? No. It took five more years of war and two additional years of negotiation before the issue was resolved. After the Treaty of Paris did everyone agree? No. During and after the war there was a mass emigration to Canada and back to England of those who disagreed with the final action.

How the heck does this apply to us? I suggest the purchase of our Meeting House was our battle of Lexington and Concord. Some thought it hotheaded and precipitous; others a long overdue necessity. We have gained and lost members over the decision.

Lesson #2: Give a clear vision of the action and its future. The Declaration states the colonies’ independence from Great Britain and the crown. It also enumerates its justification. When comparing Jefferson’s draft with the final draft three things are evident: (1) Jefferson didn’t like punctuation; (2) Jefferson did like hyperbole and the committee-of-the-whole wisely excised all of it; (3) there was an elephant on the conference room table that was not dealt with and didn’t go away.

Jefferson’s draft was replete with flourishes bound to please the already committed, but off-putting to those on the fence or opposed – precisely those delegates he needed to convince to obtain his objective of declared independence. For example, many of the delegates had personally done well under Great Britain and were leery to agree to King George’s “unremitting” injuries, but could buy into “repeated” injuries. Jefferson railed against the British people who had allowed the conduct of the King. The conference struck from the document the attack on the British people, of whom the delegates had many friends, and focused the charges on the head of state, the personification of government.

In our internal discussions and our external social justice proclamations we would do well to remember the temperance of the committee over the individual passion. An argument holds on a factual basis, or it does not. Hyperbole tends to divide not unite – look at our current political situation in the US as an example of hyperbole’s harm. Yet the flip side is we sometimes neglect to make our arguments either because we assume all agree, or think it won’t matter a darn anyway. Both are problematical. But when we do discuss and come to agreement, we would do well to remember to publish our reasons as well as the result.

It helps us remember, because our memories are short – and tend to focus on those things we believe to be true, regardless of reality. Back to the national stage: Consider current US policy and the democratization of the world and compare it to our own founding. How would the colonists have reacted if the French and Spanish collected a “collation of the willing” and invaded North America to free us of British tyranny? Nothing would have more quickly united us with Britain.

On a local stage, I wonder if we shouldn’t have a document we can look at the beginning of each year reminding us of why we moved from Brickyard: the lack of space for our current congregation, let alone new members; the mold; the month-to-month lease and its uncertainty as the MI-41 big box corridor expands west; our commitment to long-term growth; and on and on. Perhaps we need our own Independence Day celebration each year.

Lesson #3: The elephant does not shirk over time. Excised from Jefferson’s draft Declaration was a long paragraph that begins, “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of distant people, who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”

Jefferson’s notes from July 1776 indicate this was struck because Georgia and South Carolina had never moved to restrict slave importation and a number of the northern states were embarrassed by their providing the carriers. Eighty-five years later the slavery issue would destroy the unity of the United States.

Does MUUC have any elephants? Previously, I suggested we had two that needed to be addressed: we were a congregation unwilling to openly talk about money, and we needed to develop SMART goals around professional ministry. (SMART: Specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and with a timeframe.) In the last year and a half, I have been feeling out the elephants and now propose these were really two aspects of one large elephant: the lack of a shared strategic plan. As an aside I want to remind you of the descriptions of an elephant provided by a number of blind men. Each described the elephant depending on what portion of the animal they felt: fire hose (trunk), ceiling fan (ears), columns (legs), snake (tail) and so on...

In other words, I may not have perfect vision and the program committee wants you to know that if you have different perspectives there are future service message slots available…

When we entered the Lexington and Concord battlefields of purchasing our home, we made our considered decision and recognized the need to develop a long-term plan for the congregation. We knew we could not afford both the building and immediate professional ministry, but that left us a number of alternatives of how to develop and utilize our voluntary and monetary resources. In fact, we developed projected financials under various growth and ministry scenarios when we applied for our mortgage and UUA grants to illustrate several alternative approaches we might pursue.

During our first year in this meeting house, in addition to moving and settling in, the congregation spent time to consider our near-term priorities. With a new home and without a professional minister, we needed someone to act as a connecting center, and wishfully thinking one day a week would suffice, we hired Nancy Irish as the Community Coordinator.

During the winter we held a number of discussions about what MUUC’s priorities should be. As summarized in the information provided to support the 2007 pledge campaign, the congregation enumerated five priorities. In order they were:

Religious Education (for our children)

Community Development

Social Action

Programming (Services)

Building & Maintenance.

Committees for the top two priorities provided specifics about what focus in those areas might look like for the next year.

We had run at a full sprint to acquire the building and move in. We worked hard at developing priorities for the next year. We increased our financial support for our religious community. And in the year past, we enjoyed the fruits of that labor.

In material presented with the 2007-8 budget, the Board recognized a need to “continue to assess the congregation’s desire for professional ministry.” The document continued, “Indeed, the next visioning task for the congregation is how to meet the need for ministry in the congregation in the future. This might involve remaining lay led as we currently are, at one extreme, to moving toward hiring a full-time minister, at the other extreme. There are a variety of options in between. The congregation needs to explore what it wants to do in this regard and when it wants to do it.”

But I think this last year we were tired, and rested in the difficult work of setting goals and priorities, and ultimately a long-term strategic plan.

Back to the historical perspective: After the Declaration of Independence our founders quickly developed the Articles of Confederation in 1777. The darn thing didn’t work very well and amendments to it required 100% of states to agree—which being a democracy of varying interests never happened. A decade later our current constitution was written and in the following 220 years has only been amended twenty-seven times (ten of which were essentially immediate.) As an aside only six amendments have been approved by Congress and not ratified by the states. How did the drafters manage such an enduring document?

They were experienced. Many had participated in writing state constitutions and all were wide read. They knew they had to compromise to attain the goal: a government that could function. Third, they knew from the experience of the Confederation Congress that they could not anticipate the details and so they left the constitution to address only broad issues of how to govern the country. The details would be worked out over time, and they have been. Fourth, the constitutional conventioneers spent lots of time talking: in twos and threes, in committees, in meetings of the whole. This is how our democratic process works best: when we take the time to understand issues thoroughly, make our opinions known, listen carefully to other points of view and come to common understandings.

Some of you have been involved in developing “Vision Statements.” I think MUUC has one, but I couldn’t come up with it. I looked on our website, but the webmaster[i] was remiss in not including it with other important documents, like our bylaws. The newsletter editor is equally remiss in not including it as part of our newsletters. The bylaws do have a purpose statement. Article II reads: “This congregation exists to serve the human needs of its members and friends, to stimulate individual development of a positive and ethical philosophy of life, and to provide a common shelter for everyone's personal growth.”

I don’t know exactly what that means, and for me that is the problem with vision statements. They are so succinct and general that they do not inform decisions. I don’t wish to dismiss vision statements as not worthwhile; I see them as a limited, but desirable, by-product of developing our long-term strategic plan.

What would this long-term strategic plan consist of? It would articulate a SMART ubergoal for the Congregation around the issue of how we will minister to our congregation’s needs.

Say we consider MUUC ten years from now. Let’s say for the purposes of this morning’s discussion that we agree to remain lay-led. What talents must we develop as a congregation in order to be successful (as we define it) ten years hence? What kind of children’s religious education support will that require? What does it mean for our building? What kind of financial base (pledges, capital funds, etc.) will that require. Similar questions would result if we wanted to have full-time ministry in ten years or some mix of the two.

However, if we ask the question, UU minister or lay lead, we introduce a false and perhaps divisive choice. The key to this process is to envision what we want the congregation to be: how will it serve the human needs of its members and friends. Once we agree on the objective we will be ready to access alternative paths to where we want to be. A powerful understanding of what we are about has the effect of providing focus to our community efforts, and should encourage growth in our resources.

When we have developed our uberobjective, we will have a shared language in which to communicate; we can measure how we are doing against our shared objectives, and modify strategies based on that knowledge; we will know our time and financial resources are being expended in ways that support our shared ministry, and our sense of community will be strengthened by the process of developing the strategic plan.

With a strategic plan, we can address each new opportunity by asking the question: “Will this further our goals, or is it a distraction, regardless of how worthy it may seem.” Without the long-term plan, how can we know?

Part of our democratic process to take a risk and introduce ideas for discussion. The delegates took a treasonous risk when they signed the Declaration. My risk is insubstantial in comparison: I will have wasted everyone’s time if not enough people agree we should develop a strategic plan.

The next step in our democratic process is up to you.

Home