Friday, August 11, 2017

The Buried Narrative in the Sources Statement

In the 20th Century, the Liberal Protestant denominations of Unitarianism and Universalism were challenged from within by a Religious humanist movement which questioned the existence of the God of the Bible and the continued use of liturgies that directed worship to that Deity. The Humanist movement reflected the theological and philosophical trends in the intellectual culture of the times.

The Humanist challenge to traditional Unitarianism and Universalism took on a geographical and historical character. The Humanist congregations tend toward the West (meaning West of the Hudson River) while the Liberal Protestants were stronger among the older and more established churches of New England, many of which pre-dated the Unitarian controversy of the early 19th century.

The conflict, which became known as the humanist-theist conflict, was sharp and protracted. Congregations split, members left, ministers lost their careers, stained glass windows were removed or covered up, hymns re-written, liturgies changed.

But before either denomination formally split, the controversy was defused by a turn toward a pluralistic agnosticism. Both sides tacitly agreed that no one knew the whole truth, and that therefore, multiple and competing theological perspectives could co-exist in the same worshipping community.

The merger of the AUA and UCA took place well into the history of the humanist-theist conflict. By 1961, Humanism was dominant in both denominations, but in a tense series of negotiations, just enough room for Liberal Protestantism was preserved in the new denomination to maintain the support and participation of liberal Christians and other theists.

Merger cemented the consensus: The prevailing theological perspective was an "agnostic pluralism" and UU liturgy was conducted, in most places, with a humanist language set. A small minority of congregations continued to use Liberal Protestant or otherwise theistic liturgies. The humanist language set became the official language of UUism at the time of merger and ever since.

The turn toward Pluralistic Agnosticism set the stage for Unitarian Universalists to be inspired a wider diversity of theological perspectives: mysticism, world religions which were included in the original Sources statement. The inclusion of the 6th Source established an institutional process by which additional Sources could become official acknowledged.

While the diversity of theological perspectives has become a centrifugal force in Unitarian Universalism, it is has been offset by the centripetal, or unifying, force of our public theology. Our public theology is our theological understanding of our work in the world, or mission. Our public theology is expressed in the Seven Principles, which have also continued to be developed over time. The most important development in the Seven Principles has been the further commitment to become an anti-racist, anti-oppressive, multicultural religious movement.


Comment: This is what I consider to be a thumbnail sketch of the story behind the Sources statement. This history, however, is only a part of a larger history, which I think needs to uncovered. The question is this: how does the story we tell about ourselves hide the decisions that were made to keep black religious liberals out of power in the UUA?

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

More on the Sources

The main problem I see with the Sources is that they hide the theological dispute that has shaped contemporary Unitarian Universalism: the Humanist rebellion against liberal Protestantism, a historic event that happened throughout most of the 20th century.

As is true with all historic events, that Humanist Rebellion against Liberal Protestantism has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is a story. It is, to a large extent, our story.

By simply listing brief summations of Humanism and Theism as differing options on a menu of theological perspectives, the Sources statement don't explain how their clash threatened to split liberal religion, and how that clash was defused and partially resolved.

I won't retell the whole story of the conflict, but will remind everyone that it was not a silly conflict. It was a serious dispute over the nature of reality that would define the teachings and liturgy of our religious communities. A lot was at stake: churches gained and lost members, ministers lost their careers, congregations were split. Beautiful stained glass windows were covered up or destroyed.

Ultimately, Unitarian Universalists moved toward a theology of pluralistic agnosticism about the propositions of formal theology. All opinions would be welcome, as no one really knows the whole truth. (The parable that best exemplifies the retreat from the battle lines is the story of the "Blind Men (sic) and the Elephant" which seemed to come into Unitarian thought with its re-telling by Sophia Lyon Fahs in "Long Ago and Many Lands" in 1948).

The Sources statement also exemplifies that Pluralistic Agnosticism: a menu of differing theological traditions that allows each person to pick and choose their truth.

The defusing the Humanist-Theist dispute by turning to Pluralistic Agnosticism had two major effects.

1. Pluralistic Agnosticism allowed UU's to acknowledge other spiritual and religious traditions beyond the binary of humanism and theism. These newly discovered, or re-discovered, and acknowledged influences are summed in the source statements about mysticism, world religions, and earth-centered spirituality. I suspect that as time goes on, more sources will be discovered and acknowledged in a statement of the influences on our living tradition: western Buddhism, Feminism.

2. But for all the growing diversity of theological influences on contemporary Unitarian Universalism, what unites UU's (as much as that is possible) is our public theology, as expressed in the Principles list, and in the 2nd Source: "words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love."

(Isn't it interesting that the Sources statement was explicit about the powers and structures of evil" which the Principles fail to describe what stands in the way of their realization?)





Monday, August 07, 2017

The Sources of our Living Tradition: A Critique

The Six Sources portion of our bylaws needs to be examined again. I think the Sources statement are a mess, more confusing and confused than wrong.

First of all, they are ahistorical. They do not describe the actual historical process of our formation. You would think that a "sources" statement would describe an intellectual history. There is a when and a where and a who behind each of these sources, which is not explained.

For example, our historical origin is in Protestant Christianity. Indeed, many of our churches were actual Protestant Christian churches for long periods of their history. It is also true that for many current Unitarian Universalists, their personal religious history begins in Christianity. Unitarian Universalism sprouted from a specific branch on the Christian family tree and our sources statement should be able to explain that.

One of our most important sources is the humanist movement of the 20th Century. The Sources statement bows to it in the Source Five.  But the Sources statement does not describe the revolutionary character of Humanism as a religious movement. Historically, humanism makes no sense except as a rebellion against liberal Christianity. Our Sources do not convey that fact that our religious movement is rooted in both sides of what seemed to be a "zero-sum" theological conflict.

I believe that the Sources statement is a like a family narrative that hides, or disguises, or minimizes, a family trauma. The falsity at the core of the narrative is the implication that to our ancestors at the time whether or not one believed in God was a mere difference of opinion without any lasting consequence. This is like thinking that Cain and Abel had an minor difference of opinion on agricultural policy.

If the humanist rebellion against Protestantism was the trauma, liberal religion survived it. But how? Because how we survived the trauma has formed us, even more than the trauma itself. Theologically, the mechanism of survival was to move to a stance of agnostic pluralism. Agnostic pluralism says that no one can really know the ultimate truth, so therefore many opinions about the truth can coexist.

The move to agnostic pluralism is the hidden, or buried, event that dictates the form of the Sources statement.

Each of the other statements refer to a historic event in our common intellectual history. Those events are presented as disconnected summary ideas abstractly stated. Hidden in those summary abstractions are the influence of the Christian social gospel, the Civil Rights Movement and the subsequent liberation movements, the rise of Western Buddhism, global immigration, the women's movement and on and on. All of this social history has been our sources, and all of it is hidden when we talk about those Sources.

None of this rich intellectual history is revealed in the Sources statement. The statement is designed to blur this history in order to avoid conflict.

The Sources are, therefore, not only ahistorical; they are idealist. Movements of people and of the Spirit, are reduced to summarizing phrases and then those disembodied ideas are thrown into a pot together without explaining their interrelationship.

The result is that our sourcing statements promote a theological pluralism that is individualistic. We have a cafeteria-style history, a salad bar of memory. You pick and choose. The Source statements frequently refer to "we", to "us" and to "our". But in all cases, that collective pronoun is assumed to partial and voluntary.

Note how we assume that the Principles make a unified whole, but the Sources do not. And so, the Principles take on a normative dimension -- they describe how we should act, a set of guidelines to which we can held accountable. The Sources defeat any attempt to appeal to a common history, or to common obligations that arise from our past.



Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The 8th Principle

An Eighth Principle has been proposed.

“We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote: journeying toward spiritual wholeness by working to build a diverse multicultural Beloved Community by our actions that accountably dismantle racism and other oppressions in ourselves and our institutions.”

The Eighth Principle brings to the level of our Principles the commitment to anti-racism, anti-oppression, and multiculturalism that we first declared in a Resolution of Immediate Witness in 1994, and further as a Business Resolution in 1997.

The Principles are the statement of our common theology, which, by our many previous commitments, is necessarily a public theology. (As soon as the UU's began to say "Deeds, not Creeds" to describe our theological approach, we withdrew, as a body, from a common approach to the categories of traditional systematic theology.) Unitarian Universalist hold many diverse theological perspectives; what unites us is our public theology: our mission in the world, our ways of doing things, and our journey toward wholeness. Our Principles are our public theology, as of 1985.

The Seven Principles, as written, do not describe what opposes them. They are sunny and utopian. Their shadow side, though, is our self-righteousness, which follows directly from the Principles one-sidedness. They do not name why they are not universally practiced and why we ourselves fail them so often. After all, if we have such high ideals, then we must the good ones. And those who don't agree must, therefore, be the bad ones.

To bring anti-oppression to the Principles identifies what opposes our sunny view. We are stepping beyond the "We Good; They must be Bad" world of the Principles. We say that Oppressive Systems are what opposes the Principles, and we acknowledge, because we are talking about systems, that we are implicated in them as well. We are all implicated in the oppressive systems that rule our world, different only in angle and degree.

Anti-oppression is not a political, or sociological, assertion. Implicit in its generality (not listing certain oppressions and struggles) is a statement correcting our too optimistic view of human nature, Human beings establish relationships of domination and subordination. Human beings oppress and exploit one another. Human beings organize themselves to oppress one another. Human beings build oppressive structures. Human beings are guilty bystanders in those systems. At the root of what we have called sin is the participation as the dominant side in those oppressive relationships.

What can save us from "this body of sin," to use the words of Paul?

The proposed Principle says that Beloved Community is possible on the other side of "dismantling racism and other oppressions in ourselves and in our institutions." There is a interesting ambiguity in the word "our" here. I think that "our" must refer to the global humanity community; our goal must be more than the creation of Unitarian Universalism itself, as the Beloved Community.

I support the adoption of the eighth principle as a positive step in our theological development as a faith community.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Recovenanting Task Force Report

People have asked where they could get a copy of the ReCovenanting Task Force Report. Until it is published in the proceedings of the GA, enjoy this copy of it in draft form. The actual delivery may have been slightly different.


Report of Re-Covenanting Task Force
Delivered by Rev. Susan Ritchie, accompanied by Kathy Burek, Rev. David Miller and myself.
General Assembly, New Orleans
June 22, 2017

On October 15, 2015, Moderator Jim Key called for the Board to consider ‘how we might imagine moving from the notion of membership to covenant’.  

And, 

let’s imagine, rather than signing the book, people entered and were welcomed into a covenant that could be renewed periodically. Imagine if congregations entered and were welcomed into covenant with the larger association that would be renewed periodically. Perhaps this is an approach that would energize our movement….”

Jim Key proposed a Task Force, to be led by Rev. Dr. Susan Ritchie to take up this initiative. We are that Task Force, and we are here to report to you our thinking and progress and to make a proposal for your consideration: a proposal that we think will help move our association and congregations in the direction of greater mutual cooperation and accountability, and toward greater enthusiasm and commitment to our shared work. 

The question that we felt that we needed to answer first was “what is this covenant?” that we are being asked “to enter into and periodically renew”, to use Jim Key’s phrase. 

That covenant must be more than a set of carefully chosen words that we periodically recite, like the pledge of allegiance. 

That covenant must be more than agreement between us to treat each other with respect. It must be an agreement between ourselves and something larger than ourselves.

That “something larger” is a compact between ourselves and the work we share in the world: our mission. Not our mission statement, but our mission.

We were inspired by the work of the American Baptists who engage in a form of collective discernment they call “the mission table.”  The Baptists have a simple clarity of their overall mission, “spread the gospel of Jesus Christ”, which is different than the way that we would express our work. However, they have a vigorous process of discerning how each entity in their world can work together through their work to fulfill their collective mission. They sit at “the mission table” and discuss their work, their challenges and obstacles, their strengths and capabilities, and align their work together. 

Upon reflection, the task force has come to understand that for Unitarian Universalists to genuinely covenant together, they would be engaging together in theological reflection—broadly defined to include humanism, atheism, and agnosticism--to determine the why, what,and how of our shared work as a religious movement. To covenant is to commit to that engagement and to agree to be mutually accountable to what comes of it. We do not renew our covenant periodically but continuously.

Our response to Jim Key’s invitation “to imagine moving from the notion of membership to covenant”  is to imagine all Unitarian Universalists, in all our forms, actively building mutual accountability to our collective discernment of what Unitarian Universalism is called to do in the world at the time. Covenanting is discerning together and being accountable to our mission. 

It’s fairly basic, doesn’t it? 

People joining together, agreeing on a mission and purpose, and being accountable to each other to fulfill it. 

 Why would the task force feel that what we are proposing is not what is already happening. After all, aren’t our congregations having regular congregational meetings? Don’t we take lots of votes here at General Assembly? Don’t we elect our President and Moderator? 

 Elections and debates are insufficient to generate the discernment of mission we seek. Unitarian Universalism seems by its structures and processes to sideline theological reflection and keep mutual accountability to our mission at minimal levels. From top to bottom, Unitarian Universalism is a membership organization, with minimal expectations of each other. The result is a half-hearted religious movement.

The way we do things are the result of the values that were important to our forerunners. 

The UUA is organized as standard non-profit enterprise. The standard non-profit organization structure, first evolved in the early 19th century, was itself a copy of the business corporation, and specifically, a small New England business corporation that saw virtue in consolidating power to a limited number of patrons.  The 1825 establishment of the AUA was very much a part of this milieu (see The Transformation of Charity in Postrevolutionary New England by Conrad Edick Wright), and while there have been many changes since that time some core patterns of distributing power remain the same.  Indeed, in many ways the UUA maintains much of the structure given it by Samuel Atkins Eliot (American Unitarian Association President, 1900-1927; some even call the UUA the “House that Sam built”).  Eliot did work to deliberately match the AUA organization with that of business models, especially in terms of disempowering the Board, along the lines of successful “banks, insurance companies, and mills.”  Of course, in doing so, he was also bringing the AUA even more in line with how wealthy New England families were accustomed to running New England charities. 

Our structures inexorably reduce discussion of our mission and of the work of the Association, into the business of the Association. How can we discern together what the world needs from us, and what we have to offer the world, if when we come together we meet as shareholders in a non-profit corporation, to hear reports, to elect pre-selected slates of candidates, and line up at pro and con microphones for resolutions that do not address the fundamental questions of our mission? The way we do our business inevitably keeps us focused on technical issues, rather than the adaptive issues that really challenge us.

Our present structures, ways of relating, ways of talking together are structures which maintain the supremacy of white, middle and upper class, male elites within Unitarian Universalism. 

The Task Force has come to the conclusion that if Unitarian Universalists are to fully covenant with each other, we need a different way of being together. 

Fortunately, our history has examples of more substantive ways of coming together: specifically, the General Conference.  

Both the Unitarians and the Universalists, like almost all denominations, have historically had two wings, the administrative and ecclesiastical bodies.  Traditionally, administrative wings are responsible for providing services to the congregations and to the larger world on behalf of the congregations such as the congregations cannot practicably assume themselves.  The ecclesiastical body is an intentional community of delegates who come together for the mutual strengthening of the congregations, the creation of relationships of mutual aid and accountability, and theological discernment.  The ecclesiastical body is responsible for discerning the religious movement’s ultimate and broad purpose.  Ultimately, the ecclesiastical body asks and discerns answers to the question: “what is the purpose of Unitarian Universalism in these times?”
A General Conference is an ecclesiastical meeting of delegates from congregations, covenanted communities and trans-congregational organizations that represent historically marginalized UU’s.  These general conferences should be smaller than our current General Assembly, so that meaningful discussions can be held. We might, for example, limit congregations and organizations to a small number of delegates. Every effort should be made to make these conferences affordable, so that attendees are not limited to older people of means. Further, so that these conferences can build for the future of our movement, we should actively engage youth, young adults, UUs of color, and other historically under-represented groups.  The conferences should engage in one or two large questions in depth over the course of several days.  It should be without activities that not directly advance the focused conversation.  
The Task Force welcomes feedback from all UUs. To that end, we have been reaching out to all of the identity and professional groups we know of to hear what you all have to say. We invite you to talk with us here at GA, or to email your comments to

Summary Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the UUA Moderator call for a General Conference of Unitarian Universalists as soon as possible and no later than the fall of 2018, for the purposes of exploring what the UUA is called to be and to do in today’s world. We further recommend that the Unitarian Universalist Association schedule general conferences on a regular basis, perhaps in biennial rotation with General Assembly business sessions.  Prior to merger in 1961, both the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church in America separated the business meetings from ecclesiastical gatherings that fostered deeper discernment of the underlying theology and philosophies of the respective movements. These conferences were unfortunately abandoned at the time of consolidation. The Task Force believes it is time to bring them back. Further, the Task Force believes that the organization DNA of the UUA be re-assessed given the racist, sexist, and class biases that formed and which are reinforced by our structure, precluding the full realization of covenantal relationships.   

Sunday, June 25, 2017

An Endorsement

Water, as you know, freezes at 32F degrees. 

But if you look at a cup of water which measures 36F, it is liquid. 

At 35F, it is still liquid. 

At 34F, it is still liquid, and if you want an ice cube, you are getting impatient about now, wondering why nothing is happening. 

At 33F, you think there must be something wrong somewhere. It’s getting colder, nothing is changing, it seems. 

But, at 32F, there is rapid and dramatic change. Liquid becomes a solid. The water has been transformed. A long series of incremental, quantitative changes has brought about a qualitative transformation. 

Change is gradual and continuous, but often imperceptible. However, long periods of small changes finally culminate in a transformative moment, when something long submerged reveals itself, in what seems like a wink of an eye. 
It feels like Unitarian Universalism is in the midst of one of the transformative moments of its history. 

Unitarian Universalism has always been a combination of competing impulses and aspirations. On the one hand, it is rooted in the New England elite establishment, whose customs and methods of stoic noblesse oblige suffuse it. It likes to think that Unitarian Universalism is disinterested, tolerant, above the pettiness and passions of the moment. Its self-image is respectable and even, noble. And when it acts with cruelty, or for exclusion, it does not see it, because it sees only its high motives of institutional integrity.

On the other hand, Unitarian Universalists themselves, have far outrun their establishment origins. Its most widely felt aspiration of the last century, individual religious freedom, became over time a commitment to self-determination for all, and then, a vision of the beloved community, and now the realization that the beloved community is thwarted by the systems of oppression that rule our world. If one was not looking carefully, these transitions seemed like insignificant rhetorical intensifications which changed nothing, like the difference between water at 34 degrees and 33 degrees. 

Unitarian Universalism has become radicalized in contradiction to its establishment DNA. That push and pull of its own opposing energies broke open this year over the UUA’s hiring practices, which rapidly spread into a crisis exposing the anti-blackness and institutionalized white supremacy of our systems. 

The crisis has taken its toll on Unitarian Universalists emotionally and spiritually, but a new question and possibility has come from it: what could Unitarian Universalism be if it no longer centered white people?  

What if the present generation of white Unitarian Universalists loosened their grip on the institutions of Unitarian Universalism, freeing them to become agents for, and a foretaste of, a deep global Universalism?

What is happening in Unitarian Universalism is not just happening to us, but is happening to the whole world. New leadership is emerging on a global scale. 

So I come to the task of endorsing a candidate for the Presidency of the UUA for the next six years, a period filled with the possibility of transformative, qualitative change, a time when we might be able to make an historic breakthrough to new way of being.

I don’t believe that the ways that we have evaluated candidates in the past will work in this moment in time. Experience, knowledge of the UUA systems, good proposals, even interpersonal skills will not be enough. 

What we need in the next President of the UUA is (1) the ability to see into the future and grasp what is possible now — to see what is being born as well as what is dying away and (2) the ability to lead in those breakthrough moments when water freezes, or the dams burst, or the butterfly emerges, the unpredictable and unrepeatable moments of genuine change, and (3) the ability to offer the people of world an experience of the Spirit that can hold us all steady in the struggle. 

After careful consideration, I am going to support Susan Frederick Gray. 

I think I see in Susan that ability to be present, to lead, in the unpredictable moments of real change. I see in the way that her talk seems to always return to “mission” a clarity about how we can shape the future. I think that she is brave, and faithful, and accomplished.

No UUA President can lead all of us where we don’t really want to go. But if UU’s are ready “to trust a dawning future more”, I believe that Susan Frederick Gray can lead us there.  







Thursday, June 01, 2017

The mystery of Dating the posts

I have been asked to clarify the dates on which I posted my posts of appreciation of the UUA Presidential Candidates.

I published the first four posts -- the Big Picture post, and the three appreciations on 5/21. I published the endorsement on 5/30.

Upon the request of Susan Frederick Gray, I made two corrections to the appreciation of her: the first to clarify that she did not start running for the President of the UUA in 2012, but started thinking about running in 2012. The second was to clarify that her parents did not actually divorce in her younger years, but have stayed together after a difficult renegotiation of their marriage.

I received both of these requests before I made my endorsement of her, but made the corrections after her. Blogger persisted in listing the posts in reverse chronological order.

I have now learned how to keep my endorsement at the top of my blog by saying it was published in the future.






Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Election of the UUA President -- Appreciating Susan Frederick Gray

An Appreciation of Susan Frederick-Gray


Susan Frederick Gray started to think about running for President of the UUA after the Justice GA in 2012, because of her experience in planning that event.
She was at that the Minister of First Church in Phoenix and active in immigration issues prior to the passage of SB1070, Arizona's notorious "show me your papers" bill. She was active in the first wave of Unitarian Universalist denominational intervention in that struggle.

Participation in the Immigrant struggle meant Susan's worked with local groups and leaders from Arizona's immigrant communities. It also meant negotiating the various viewpoints of stakeholders in the UUA. Yet Justice GA was seen by all as a success. Her run for the President of the UUA is based on the authority of that experience.

Susan grew up in the Kirkwood, MO church were the Rev. John Robinson was her minister. That congregation was a source of peace and support during her parents' painful feminism inspired marriage renegotiation. The church was her extended family.

Her education was in molecular biology, but a meditation practice led her in another direction. She began to hear the call to ministry during here college period.

Her church experience includes the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Youngstown, Ohio, which is the church of my childhood and youth. I try to keep that in perspective, though I do think that experience is the Rust Belt would be helpful to UU leaders.

Susan was named by her mother after the 19th century feminist icons: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She cites that feminism as the source of her passion toward social justice.
Her campaign uses these three themes: spiritually vital, grounded in relationships, organized for impact. 

The latter two relatively straightforward and represent understandings and aspirations broadly shared. Most people understand that, at least on the national level, that our work in the public square needs to done with partnerships and coalitions with others. This is one way that we recognize the limits of our particular social location. We are acknowledging the need to step back as others step up. I think that the need for partners may not be as clear to local UU congregations, which can be inwardly-focused and isolated. 

And “organized for impact” speaks to the widespread desire to be more effective and forceful. It’s a potent phrase, combining our desire to be more powerful in the public square, and our frustrations with our debilitating organizational practices. 
And “spiritually vital”?  What does she mean by that?

“By vital, I mean healthy, life-giving, essential. We need congregations and ministries that invite people into greater connection across families, generations, neighborhoods and cultures to offer a path away from disconnection and division.”

I appreciate Susan’s effort to “go there”, “there” being the most ineffable subject among us: the felt need for some spiritual leadership from the new UUA President.  I think that this is a crucial aspect of the leadership that we are looking for.

Susan’s words from her website, again:  “a vital spiritual voice that calls us toward our best selves – to articulate the power of love in the face of fear, the importance of compassion, reverence and interconnection when it comes to how we must live into the global realities of the 21st century.” 

Note the three elements there: 
1. personal transformation: “calls us to our best selves
2. highest values: “the power of love in the face of fear, the importance of compassion, reverence and interconnection”
3. Context: “global realities of the 21st century”

I appreciate Susan's formulation of this: she connects the work of personal transformation with the social values Unitarian Universalism must embody in the times we live in. 


Sunday, May 21, 2017

The election of the UUA President -- The Big Picture

Alison Miller, Jeanne Pupke, Susan Frederick Gray
I have been observing the UUA Presidential Election since it began.


Sue Phillips
In the beginning, I committed early to the candidacy of Sue Phillips, the New England Regional Lead. I had worked with Sue while I was on the Clara Barton District Board, and had come to appreciate her inspiring and enthusiastic presence, and her perspectives. 


But her candidacy ended before it could really get off the ground. It was too complicated to be both a Regional Lead on the UUA staff and a candidate at the same time, and she withdrew. 


I chose then to stay neutral in the race, to watch and observe, and to engage the remaining candidates in some interviews for this blog. To that end, I had two interviews each with the three candidates, interviewed each for the VUU, the Church of the Larger Fellowship sponsored video series. I also moderated a candidate forum for the New England Regional Ministers' Retreat, watched a live forum at the New England Regional Assembly and also watched, on video, the candidate forum at the Black Lives of Unitarian Universalism convening in New Orleans. Plus I have had other hallway and informal conversations with the candidates along the way.  

Alison Miller
In my opinion, Unitarian Universalists place their faith these day in right relationships as the primary tool of leadership. They evaluate their potential leaders on their personal qualities, specifically on the interpersonal skills. Do they have the ability to listen well, to establish rapport, to maintain boundaries, to respect others, to stay at the proverbial table and their appropriate lane, to live with discomfort and difference? UU's seem to believe that  if our leaders have these qualities, then we will able to move forward as a faith. If they lack them, then everything else will fail anyway.

We have both a negative and positive experiences to support this point of view:




Jeanne Pupke
The negative was the Board/Administration conflict in the early years of the Peter Morales administration. There was a calamitous breakdown of mutually respectful relations that was trouble for the entire Association. When Jim Key was elected, progress was made to resolving that conflict. Whatever else was going on, the lesson learned by many was that skill in interpersonal relationships was key.

Susan Frederick Gray
The positive example is the 2012 Justice GA, which could have been “a hot mess in the desert.” Having decided not to boycott Arizona, but turn GA into an engagement with the immigration issues embroiling that state, success depended on forging a GA strategy with the GA planning Committe, the UUA Board, the staff, stakeholders like DRUUM and others, Arizona UU's and Arizona Immigration activists and community representatives. but skill at relationships and interpersonal interactions allowed it to be successful. It was our leaders' skills in right relationships and interpersonal interactions that were key to Justice GA's success.

Promo for the BLUU Convening Forum
The 2016 UUA Presidential campaign has also unfolded in the context of another major upheaval in Unitarian Universalism. Criticism of the hiring practices of the Association at the highest levels has spread out into a damning critique of white supremacy in Unitarian Universalism. It has been revealed that, beneath political liberalism of the Association, there lurks an anti-blackness that manifests as a deep suspicion of black people who are Unitarian Universalist or who are interested in it. UU’s understand Unitarian Universalism as a “white” religion, and while they often bemoan that, they are discomfited by rising diversity within what seemed to be the previously white space of their faith. It is a quite a bind: UU's love their UU culture, but hate its whiteness. They yearn to be a multi-racial faith, but push away and marginalize the very people who make it a possibility. 

 White Unitarian Universalists are being called to a profoundly different way to relate to their faith community. They are being challenged to know that they don’t own their religious organization, but must share it with the global majority. And once white UU’s grasp that Unitarian Universalism is not “their” religion, and that the local UU church is not there to meet ‘their’ needs, they will hear its call to be an anti-oppressive religious and spiritual movement. For many, answering that call is a leap into the unknown. 


The leap into an unknown future involves a new set of skills in relationship building in the President of the UUA. Neither the ministers, the Administrative Staff, or the UUA Board of Trustees are the leading element in creating the UU future. The real functional leadership (the ones who are leading) are people of color in our movement, organized into various groups, none of which are named in the by-laws: BLUU, DRUUM, the Religious Professionals of Color. How the elected, official leaders of the UUA work with the real, prophetic leaders of our faith is the open question of this election.

Black Lives of UU Organizing Collective

The Election of the UUA President: Appreciating Jeanne Pupke

An Appreciation of Jeanne Pupke

Jeanne Pupke comes to the campaign for the UUA President as an experienced and seasoned veteran of the UUA’s governance. She has served on the UUA’s Board of Trustees and been chair of the Board’s Finance Committee.

She has also served as the Senior Minister of the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Richmond, Virginia. In addition, she brings a wealth of other experience to her candidacy. She was a member of a Roman Catholic religious order, and then a business consultant, before she entered the Unitarian Universalist ministry. Jeanne is “savvy” and speaks with the authority of experience. Above all, I appreciate her experience and the tough mind it has given her.

When Jeanne is asked about the sources of her commitment to social justice, she answers first about the televised image of children beset by dogs in the Birmingham struggle in 1962. (I think that this is common of people of a certain age; those images are vivid in my mind, too.) The second thing she recalls is reading about the lives of the saints, with those strong images of courage and martyrdom. She did not mention being a lesbian in the conversation that I had with her about her deepest motivations for justice, but how could that not be a part of it.

In these appreciations, I have been trying to make as few direct comparisons of the candidates as possible, but I do think the fact that Jeanne is a lesbian has relevance. She is the candidate who was not encouraged from youth or young adulthood to be a UU minister. She had no home church minister who saw her potential. I appreciate this about her. (I also appreciate the others for their opposite experience; appreciation is not a zero-sum game.)

Another way that her Roman Catholic background reveals itself: when she talks about going to the Richmond Church, she was warned that the church was difficult for ministers. Her response was that “someone has to go.” She has a strong sense of duty. 

What I really appreciate in Jeanne is her long experience in governance in the UUA. She has had a front row seat to what has been going on back to the days of the Board/President conflicts with Gini Courter and Peter Morales. She pledges to work in partnership with the Board. She would bring a level of institutional memory and continuity with her into the Presidency, which would valuable in what will be a post-Morales, post-Key, new era. 

Jeanne has revised, sharpened, clarified her platform as the campaign has progressed. (As long as this process has been going on, it is the sign of learning.)
Now she has three main points:
  1. Creating a “commonwealth of congregations and covenanted communities” as a different way to be together than “an association of congregations.” The difference is the amount of mutual help that congregations and covenanted communities offer to each other. We build this commonwealth by listening to each others’ needs and dreams. The theme of building this commonwealth gives her an opportunity to speak directly to, and about, the work of small congregations. 
  2. Her second “Plank” is organizing the UUA for the 21st century. I have heard her talk about making better use of social media and communication to draw UU’s together and to speak to the wider world more effectively.
  3. And her third is “a faith on fire through radical inclusion.” I appreciate what I think she is driving at with this: that our habits of exclusion cut us off from the potential vitality of our faith. Resolving our white supremacy is ‘building a new way’ of being religious liberals, which will be on fire, exciting, having that quality that now seems lacking.  

I appreciate Jeanne’s experience in ministering in the epicenter of organized white supremacy in US history: Richmond, Virginia.  I wonder if skill and experience in working across the black/white divide might not be the most necessary attribute of leadership for the future. 

The Election of the UUA President: Appreciating Alison Miller

An Appreciation of Alison Miller 

Alison Miller is the Senior Minister of the UU Fellowship in Morristown, New Jersey. She is the only candidate chosen by the Presidential Search Committee who is still in the race. (For those of you who weren't paying attention many months ago, the other chosen candidate, Sue Phillips, withdrew her candidacy. Susan Frederick Gray was then urged to run, as she had been the third choice of the Search Committee. Jeanne Pupke is running through a nominating petition process.)

Alison Miller (like Susan Frederick Gray) is a child of Unitarian Universalism, having grown up in All Souls’ Church in New York City. 

She started working for Unitarian Universalism as a part-time sexton in her church as a youth, and she has worked for nearly three decades in a wide variety of projects and ministries as a lay and ordained leader.

She brings an astonishing breadth of experience to the campaign, having been involved with almost every sort of ministry that UU’s have been practicing and forming in the past 3 decades. She points out that many of them were new ministries. She was involved in the creation of an AIDS ministry while at All Souls. She created a youth ministry in New York that was very successful; she worked at the UUA in creating a campus ministry network. She currently serves as the Board President for the Church of the Larger Fellowship, during a period when the CLF has been leading the way into online ministry and worship. 

I appreciate Alison’s “worldliness” in talking about the realities of congregational life and budgeting, the ways of the UUA as an organization; the budget decisions we have made. She can get really concrete, questioning whether we resource what we say is important. Her call to increase the amount of UUA staffed with supporting worship (currently one half time position) is an example of this. She mentions the decision to not fund the Washington Office as another concrete example of not matching the funding with our goals.
In some ways, I think that Alison the most “insider-ish” candidate of the three, attuned to the nuts and bolts of the way the UUA is managed. Her long experience is one reason. Related is her experience, which she shares with several other ministers, in the UUA politics about youth and young adult ministry. I have never been able to figure out the whole story, but for many it seems to have been a formative experience. My impression is that for them, their lasting learning was that the UUA staff, structure, and budgeting process can choke off potentially powerful ministries. 

Alison’s parents came to UUism as an interfaith couple seeking somebody to perform their marriage ceremony. Their need was met at All Souls New York, and that is where they stayed and Alison grew up. Her mother is Jewish and her father Protestant. They came from different economic and social classes. Her interfaith family is an important part of her understanding of Unitarian Universalism. 

When asked about what motivates her social justice ministry, she invokes her mother’s Jewish tradition, taking from it that there is no option to quit: survival and persistence is necessary. 

I knew Alison the least when I started this process, but she is a very forthcoming and generous presence. I appreciate her natural ease as a communicator; she listens well, really engages, and always seems to have a well-formed response. She always has something to say. 

The catchphrase of the Miller campaign seems to be “make visible the bonds of love”. And the three aspirations below that are “ignite faith”, “empower change” and “advance justice.” 

There is an interesting section on her website, entitled “Together We Can”. It lists several goals that “we” (unitarian Universalists) can do. I appreciate that the list is a list of ways we can be different. It is mostly about how we are together. Together we can “free our communities to be spiritually alive”; Together we can “practice gratitude for the heritage”, etc. It is a set of practical goals for UU’s as we work together. I appreciate that she seems to recognize that we will move forward as we increase the level of our cooperation with each other. 


I appreciate Alison Miller’s deep experience in the workings of our denomination, in her confidence in what UUism could be that is based in her own life experience, and in her sense that we need to get out of our own way and get to the work ahead. 

Friday, April 28, 2017

A UU General Conference

The Board Task Force on Re-Covenanting has recommended that a General Conference be held sometime before the Fall of 2018. The recommendation is still just a sketch and not a detailed plan.

I am on that Task Force, but do not speak for it. These are ideas still in development.

I think that there are three concepts that are at the heart of the General Conference Proposal.

1. Mission Alignment.

The General Conference is not about governance; it is about mission alignment. (Rev. Ritchie brought the concept of mission alignment into our discussions. She was inspired by example of the American Baptists who see their discernment work as sitting around 'the mission table'.)

Every entity within Unitarian Universalism has a few purposes and a mission. I am not talking about mission as their idealistic aspirations, but the practical work that they do. The typical congregation has these missions: to conduct a weekly worship service, to teach UUism to their children and youth, to form and sustain a committed community through social activities and mutual support, and to engage with their wider community for love and justice through some specific projects and ministries. Forget the high-flown language--this is what they do, and where they spend their resources of time, energy, and money.

Unitarian Universalism has a mission in the world. Perhaps the document that most explains it is the Board's Ends Statement. Perhaps the Seven Principles? Perhaps it is not yet articulated concisely; it does not have to be. It is probably a waste of energy to try to get agreement on the exact language to express it.

Mission Alignment is the work of entities who share an overlapping mission to discern that mission, to bring focus to that work, to align that work with others. It is not making governance decisions, which is legislating what others have to do. It is discerning with others what ought to be done, and then each entity changing what they do to more closely work others.

A General Conference would need to be focussed on one big question to be effective. The Task Force asks for a conference to explore "what the UUA is called to be and to do in today’s world."

2. Spectrum of Practice

UU's do the work of Unitarian Universalism in many different organizational forms: congregations, covenanted communities, "independent affliliated organizations," identity-based groups, professional groups, community ministers embedded in non-UU organizations, camps and conferences, and more. There is a spectrum of UU practice, and entities all along that spectrum should be participating in a General Conference. Governance tackles the question of how all these diverse forms of organizations are represented and integrated into one organization. A Mission oriented conference skips over that question and asks what can each of these entities contribute in our mutual discernment. 

3. Network of Covenants

The goal of a General Conference is not the adoption of one big covenant, but deeper discussion and discernment about a crucial issue. The output should be the creation of hundreds of covenants between UU entities to work together in a mutually accountable agreements. The possibilities are endless, and hold the potentiality of bringing more UU entities into right relationship. 




The Board Task on Re-Covenanting is Rev. Susan Ritchie, Kathy Burek, Rev. David Miller and myself.  They are brilliant and creative.  This post speaks for me, and no one else. 


Thursday, April 27, 2017

Calling for a UU General Conference (LINKS FIXED)

I have been serving on a UUA Board "Task Force on Re-Imagining Covenant."  For over a year, we have meeting to imagine a Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations defined by mutual commitment to shared values and each other. We have been looking for an alternative to present non-profit service provider/client relationship between congregations and the UUA. We have been looking for alternatives to the membership model of participation and toward a model of shared mission.

As we thought this over, it became clear to us that UU's needed to have a different kind of discussion and in a different kind of setting. Our report became a call for a forgotten kind of gathering: a General Conference.

Our task force presented our report to the UUA at the most recent Board meeting. Of course, in the aftermath of the resignation of one President and the appointment of three co-Presidents, our report did not receive much attention.

I am publishing our report here, so that anyone can see it. It has sets forward our proposal, and our rationale for it. It also provides an historical overview of how we are presently structured as an Association.

Here it is

Recommendation: From Board Task Force on Re-Imagining Covenant.

The task force members who submitted this report are:

Rev. Dr. Susan Ritchie, Chair
Kathy Burek
Rev. David Miller
Rev. Tom Schade

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

White Supremacy in Liberal Religion, particularly Unitarian Universalism

I posted this elsewhere; 


To break down white supremacy in the UU hiring context, it is an unspoken (but indefensible) assumption that because UUism is "predominantly white", UU religious leaders who are white will be more effective leaders, a better fit, more likely to be team players with the rest of the leadership and less likely to run into problems with our mostly white congregants and congregational leaders. 

It is also an assumption that investment in creating congregations of color is very risky and most likely to fail. 

It is also a white supremacist assumption that most people of color are not interested in a religion like ours, therefore UU religious professionals of color are doomed to failure -- unable to minister to people of color outside our congregations and less likely than their white colleagues to minister effectively to the white people in our congregations/communities. 

These assumptions lead inevitably to the unspoken conclusion that when it comes to hiring religious leaders for the UU movement, white is better!

This whole train of assumptions and conclusions are based on the idea that liberal religion and Unitarian Universalism are culturally appropriate to white people, but not so to people of color. It's white supremacy, friends.

Sunday, April 09, 2017

More Interviews with UUA Presidential Candidates

The UUA Presidential Campaign is heating up.

Over the last few weeks, I have interviewed each of the candidates about their thinking about the role of the UUA President in the widespread resistance to the Trump administration. I asked similar questions to all three candidates so you can compare their answers and approaches.

You might especially interested in the last question I asked each candidate about where their motivation to struggle for social justice comes from in the personal history. Each answered in a different way.

Here are the interviews:

Jeanne Pupke:




Alison Miller




Susan Frederick-Gray 

















Note: I started this interview process before the announcement of the decision to hire Andy Burnette as the Lead of the Southern Region. In order to keep the interviews on the same topics, I did not ask about that decision and all that has followed in its wake. I am sure that the candidates views on the whole question of the white supremacy active in the UUA's hiring practices will be checked out during the campaign.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Sin, Shame, and Compensatory Goodness

Like so many, I am struggling with the news of Ron Robinson's arrest for possession of child pornography. He has been a friend of mine since I was in seminary. I suggest you read Tony Lorenzen's account of his influence on a group of us. I considered him a modern hero of Unitarian Universalism, someone whose vision of ministry was a prophetic challenge to the rest of us. If you are not familiar with Ron's ministry, read this 2010 article in the UUWorld.

I do not know what happened in Ron's life to give rise to such unhealthy and dangerous desires. We don't even know how much his desires were acted upon. But there it still is, the presence of such an orientation to abusive desire, an orientation toward sin, in one I thought an exemplary human being.

We are told that such an orientation toward abuse, such sin, does not spontaneously arise, but often has roots in the person's experience. The abuser was once the abused.

But none of us now know that about Ron Robinson.

What we see is two things in contradiction. One is this sin, which has now been revealed. The other is what we have seen all along: an extraordinary ministry of service and generosity.

What is the relationship between the two?

One possibility is that a malignant sociopath created a whole facade of faithful, loving service as a elaborate ruse, to hide behind, while he sought to gratify his abusive desires.  A demon in disguise. But I have to say in my 25 years of interacting with Ron, I never saw something that seemed insincere, self-serving, manipulative, or otherwise bullshit.

Another possibility is that his secret orientation toward abusive desire was a source of shame, and out of that shame, a whole counter-life was lived, to compensate for the shame, to prove to himself that he still had worth.  A self-destructive "sainthood," because its purpose was really to destroy a part of the self that is a source of shame.

The second possibility seems kinder, but is terrifying upon reflection. It means that we ought to suspect the hidden motivations of those who seem the most heroic, and the more heroic, or self-denying, the more we should be suspicious. There are people who are too good to be true. In retrospect, should I not have seen that in Ron?

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Simple Messaging for Trump Supporters

Forget converting them !

The goal is to neutralize them by diminishing their enthusiasm.

Many people liked Trump because he was (1) wealthy (2) a success at business and therefore (3) beyond corruption because of his wealth and thus (4) free to speak the truth as he saw it.

But none of those are actually true:

He is not as wealthy as he claimed, but deep in debt, much of it to foreign banks and shadowy Russian businesses.

His reputation as business leader depends on overspending on his projects and then going into bankruptcy. Businesses can advantageously go bankrupt. The US government cannot. His particular business skills are irrelevant to the job of being President.

His debt and obvious cash flow problems are forcing him into corruption. He is selling the Presidency for quick profits. A truly wealthy person would divest and liquidate his holdings, content to live the rest of their life on the profits accumulated over the years. But Trump's refusal to divest means that he needs to continue to make money through his businesses. He is probably too indebted to liquidate. If he sold everything, he wouldn't make enough money to pay his debts.

And yes, he speaks whatever is on his mind. Unfortunately, it is the incoherent bluster of a profoundly uninformed person.

There was a certain logic for voting for Trump. But you have to see that the logic for Trump has turned out to not make sense.




Tuesday, January 31, 2017

10 Actions for Avoiding Protest Burn-Out

Article by Cynthia L. Landrum
With all the Executive Orders fling fast and furious, there's a lot for progressives to respond to right
now, and one of the things I've been worried about is protest burn-out. After having a webpage with an article on protest burn-out crash on me ten times as I tried to load it yesterday, I decided to write my own. So here's some things you can do.

1. Know your energy style. 
 Are you an extrovert or an introvert? Do large crowded protests energize you or deplete you? Do you like sitting down and composing letters to representatives and the press, or do you dread them?  There is a lot of work to be done, and we need people doing a wide variety of things.  So focus on the kind of activities that energize you, and don't beat yourself up for not doing everything.

2. Follow your expertise.
Do you have a lot of experience in an area that might be helpful?  How can you use that strength?  One great example is how lawyers responded to the immigration issue this week by going down to the airports themselves and helping people with legal aid on the spot.  Are you a teacher?  Maybe you can help with a teach-in.  Are you a veteran?  Share what you know about how this is not in America's security interests.  Are you a writer?  Write!  If, like me, you're a great generalist, do a little of this and a little of that.  There's lots of space for you in this movement, because we need people to be flexible and responsive, and a wide variety of skills are needed.  There have been a lot of times campaigns, for example, have asked me to go door-to-door.  I refuse.  That's not my strength.  But if you want someone to spend an hour spreading your message on social media, I'm your gal.

3.  Find friends to do this with you.
Make a plan with a couple of friends who share your passion to engage in this together.  You'll keep each other going and keep each other strong this way.  Protests are easier and more fun if you've got friends to make signs with, share the drive with, and debrief with afterwards.  Don't have good friends you can ask?  Ask for some to partner with you in a Facebook group for local progressives, or in your place of worship.

4.  Similarly, connect to community.
Engaging in social justice can be draining, and having a community of support with you can help.  So find a spiritual community, and join in the local progressives.  In the last week, I've found two local progressive groups on Facebook that I had no idea existed.  In one case, that's because it didn't, and it's new.  Joining them connects me to other people in my community with my values, and then when I go to events, I connect with the people there that I've been talking with online, so it gives a touchstone at the events, as well.

5.  Set your limits for larger actions and smaller actions.
Are you going to get burned out if you protest every weekend?  Know your limits, because there will hopefully be ongoing protests for quite some time.  So if you engage once a month and that will be energizing for you and not burn you out, set that limit -- and keep to it.  It's better to miss the next important big thing but have energy to sustain this.  Similarly, even smaller actions can burn you out, because there are endless ones you can take.  So set yourself a daily or weekly time limit for how much you're going to do.

6.  Know your social media limits.
If you have Facebook friends like mine, all you have to do is open it and you'll be inundated with all the fear, despair, and bad news of the world.  So know how much of that you can take before it depletes you.  Then disconnect from it and do something energizing or community-building or just plain fun.

7.  Find the places where victory is possible.
We need to engage in long-term resistance and protest even when victory isn't in sight, but we also need to have periodic wins.  So make a point of prioritizing some places where victory is possible.  And that brings me to the next point...

8.  Don't forget the local.
With all the action going on at the national level right now, it's easy to forget about local issues.  But local issues are where we can sometimes make a big impact, and it's important to have periodic victories as we engage in this work over the long haul.  We can resist at a local level, too.  Encourage and support your local government in standing up to oppression.

9.  Cut back when necessary.
If you find yourself burning out, don't be afraid to pull back.  Yes, we need large numbers of people to resist and to protest.  But I can count one friend who didn't march on the day of the women's march for every friend who did, and it was still the largest protest in history.  And those friends who didn't march are hopefully energized by what they did instead and by seeing the wonderful photographs of their friends, and ready and excited to engage in the next thing.  So allow yourself to cut back when you have to -- without apology.

10.  Engage in a spiritual practice.
Practice something that keeps you calm and focused, and do it daily and/or engage in it before and after significant social justice work.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Nation versus the State

The current American State was created by the Constitution, a document written in 1787 and adopted by the thirteen states in 1789. By that act, the first post-revolutionary state, the government created by the Articles of Confederation was overthrown. The Constitution established the second post-revolutionary state. You could call the second American Republic.

The authors of the Constitution conceived of the American nation as an ordered society in which white men of property were supreme, and others were subordinate to them, not because the government said so, but because it was the natural order of things. White supremacy was reality, according to them.

Their view was that the nation (the people as a whole) was naturally dominated by white men of property and so the state that they created to govern that white supremacist nation was structured to preserve white rule. The new government was studded with anti-democratic barriers to thwart reform from below. The founders created the strongest central government they could that still lacked the power to interfere with the practice of slavery.

So, White Nationalism is not a strange new ideology. White Nationalism is the founding ideology of these United States. The present government of the United States, the one created by the Constitution of 1789, is a White Nationalist State. We see this today in belief that white Americans are the "real Americans," or that August Wilson is a great black playwright, while Arthur Miller is a great American playwright.

Today, we consider that the American Nation, (the people, the society as a whole) is a multi-cultural nation. We are a multi-cultural people, with all the unity and disunity which naturally flows from that fact. But the structure of the American state is, from its beginning, white nationalist, which makes it a barrier to justice for the multicultural American nation.

The structure of the state, the government, is at odds with the nation, or the people and society.

The question now is whether the present US State, as structured by the US Constitution, can deliver democratic justice, especially to People of Color, and even more particularly, Black People, anytime in the foreseeable future.

If you think that the answer is "yes," then your strategy has to be gain enough political power in the system as it now stands to deliver the reforms needed for justice. How's that being working out?

If you think that the answer is "no," then your strategy has to be to work for structural changes in the government, either through a series of amendments to the present Constitution, or the replacement of the present Constitution by a new one.  But, the prospects of amending the Constitution to create a democratic and just state is that the anti-democratic features of the Constitution are designed to prevent that kind of change.

The alternative is to propose a new Constitution.

I think that it is time for a group of prominent and respected people who represent the full range of the American people be gathered to propose a new, or radically revised, Constitution, one that dismantles the anti-democratic structures of the present one, and yet still protects the civil rights of those with minority opinions.

Examples:


  • The qualifications to vote and the administration of elections should be standardized across all states: universal, automatic registration, national standards on voting periods and administration etc. 
  • Local policing should be directly accountable to the Federal government with a nation-wide system for civilian review of police conduct. 
  • A nation wide system of equitable public school-funding.
  • The abolition of the Electoral College
  • Positive guarantees of rights to health care, education, housing, food, etc. 
How would democratic self-government in the United States be structured? How could a government be created that would have the power to reverse and repair the injustice and exploitations of centuries of white supremacy? How would get from here to there?

A new people's Constitution written by an all-peoples' Constitutional Convention could establish a goal, a positive vision of our hopes.  

With the election of Trump, people are talking the possible end of the American Republic. But we don't want to just preserve the American Republic. The pre-Trump status quo is not our goal; it was unacceptable, then and now.