Rev. Tyler Coles: Greetings. I
am the Reverend Tyler Coles I

use they/he pronouns and I greet
you from the lands of the

Powhatan and what is currently
called Richmond, Virginia. I'm a

member of your congregational
life staff in the southern

region and I am a Black
Unitarian Universalist.

Rev. Erica Baron: I am the
Reverend Erica Baron, and I

greet you from the traditional
lands of the Massachusett people

now known as Malden,
Massachusetts. I am on the

congregational life staff in the
New England region. And I am a

white Unitarian Universalist.

Sarah Millspaugh: I am Reverend
Sarah Gibb Millspaugh. I'm on

the regional staff of the UUA in
the Pacific western region and I

greet you from the lands of the
Kumeyaay people known as San

Diego. And I am white and half
Jewish, Unitarian Universalist.

Rev. Tyler Coles: Welcome to our
workshop. We are glad to have

you here joining us on this
journey of addressing conflicts

in our congregations with love,
good boundaries, and a justice

lens.

Rev. Erica Baron: Since 2017,
our UU movement has been going

through a deeper awakening of
how racism is embedded in the

way we do things, in our
culture. Black Lives of

UUbrought widespread attention
to a concept called white

supremacy culture, as outlined
by white anti racist educator

Tema Okun. In honor of her many
years of work with black anti

racist educator Kenneth Jones,
and others. What we are sharing

today is grounded in the
antidotes to white supremacy

culture, as articulated in Tema
Okun's 2021 update to the

characteristics of white
supremacy culture. We strongly

encourage you to check them out
on her new interactive website,

www.whitesupremacyculture.info.
This new version of the white

supremacy culture
characteristics is more explicit

about these being
characteristics of middle to

upper class, white American
culture, not characteristics of

all white peoples' cultures. And
it's more clearly

intersectional, affirming the
multiple identities that many of

us carry. We encourage you to
check it out in depth.

Sarah Millspaugh: Tema Okun's
antidotes to white supremacy

culture offer us many tools for
addressing conflict in loving

ways. In this workshop, we'll
explore a few of the antidotes

by applying them to a conflict
in a fictional UU congregation.

Before we embark on this
journey, I want us all to

understand these antidotes are
not magic potions, even when we

practice the antidotes, conflict
is still hard. However, when we

use the antidotes, we are able
to live our UU values in a deep

way, not just resorting to our
default of doing things the

upper class white American way.
The 2021 white supremacy culture

characteristics document
describes it in this way:

"Working with each other or
across lines of difference is

really hard. We cause harm. We
operate out of our conditioning.

We are rightfully enraged,
deeply hurt, exhausted. I, Tema

Okun, am not suggesting that
living in a racial equity

commitment is clean or easy, or
that this list is in any way a

final word on how white
supremacy culture operates. But

we do find the tools useful for
working with conflict in our

congregations."

Rev. Tyler Coles: Before we
delve into our conflict case

study, let's quickly review what
some of the characteristics of

white supremacy culture are. The
characteristics are many and

they intersect. Each
characteristic alone may not be

all that harmful, but the
combined impact of them together

is a harmful system. One that is
subtle and not so subtle, gives

privilege and power to white
skinned people and oppresses

black, indigenous and other
people of color. It gives power

and privilege to middle and
upper class folks, at the

expense of working class folks
of all races and ethnicities.

And of course, we all experience
systemic privilege and power or

the lack thereof based on a
whole intersection of our

multiple identities. This isn't
simply a binary model, but the

harm it causes hits folks
harder, the less approximate

they are to this kind of white
culture. People in the United

States absorb white supremacy
culture, whether they are white

skinned or not. People of Color
absorb it as well. It's like the

water we swim in. It shows up in
our schools, our government, our

organizations, and our
congregations too. Remember who

founded Unitarianism and
Universalism in the United

States. They were largely
British American descendants of

the colonizers and enslavers who
settled New England. They had to

have absorbed and enacted white
supremacy, or they couldn't have

done what they did.

Rev. Erica Baron: We are their
spiritual and institutional

descendants. Even if we are
radically different from those

18th century white founders.
They left us some cultural

baggage that we are still
unpacking. And when it comes to

conflict, there are some
specific characteristics of

white supremacy culture that
seem to get most in our way as

Unitarian Universalists. One is
urgency. Tema Okun says a

constant sense of urgency
reflects our cultural habit of

applying a sense of urgency to
our everyday lives, in ways that

perpetuate power imbalance,
while disconnecting us from our

need to breathe, and pause and
reflect. A constant sense of

urgency makes it difficult to
take time to be inclusive,

encourage democratic and
thoughtful decision making, to

think and act long term, and/or
to consider consequences of

whatever action we take. This
constant sense of urgency

frequently results in
sacrificing potential allies for

quick or highly visible results.
For example, sacrificing

interests of black indigenous
people of color and communities

in order to win victories. And
it reinforces existing power

hierarchies that use the sense
of urgency to control decision

making, in the name of
expediency. As Tema Okun says,

white supremacy culture is not
urgent about racial justice.

White supremacy, culture is
urgent in the name of short term

power and profit. The second
characteristic is a fear of open

conflict. This shows up when
people in power are scared of

others expressing conflict, and
so they ignore it or try to run

from it. It shows up when
someone raises an issue that

causes discomfort. And the
response is to blame the person

for raising the issue, rather
than to look at the issue, which

is actually causing the problem.
It shows up as emphasis or

insistence on being polite,
setting the rules for how ideas

or information or differences of
opinion, need to be shared in

order to be heard. In other
words, requiring that people

calm down if they are angry,
when anger often contains deep

wisdom about where the
underlying hurt and harm lies.

Closely related to this fear of
open conflict is the

characteristic of feeling a
right to comfort. So let's be

clear that this is in white
supremacy, culture, the right of

white people and white middle
and upper class people to feel

comfortable. The right to
comfort shows up as a belief

that those with power have a
right to emotional and

psychological comfort, not just
safety, but comfort. This can

involve scapegoating those who
cause discomfort, for example,

targeting and isolating those
who name racism, rather than

addressing actual racism that is
being named. Demanding,

requiring expecting apologies or
other forms of I didn't mean it,

when faced with accusations of
colluding with racism and

feeling entitled to name what is
and isn't racism. One of the

most pervasive characteristics
of white supremacy culture in my

experience is a cluster of
characteristics that we call

either/or, or the binary, and
sometimes perfectionism is part

of this too. This characteristic
explores our cultural assumption

that we can and should reduce
the complexity of life and the

nuances of our relationships
with each other and all living

things into either/or, yes or
no, right or wrong, this way or

that way, in ways that reinforce
toxic power. So for example,

positioning or presenting
options or issues as either/or,

good/bad, right/wrong with
us/against us with no nuance in

any of those categories. That
means of course, little or no

sense of the possibilities of
both/and.   Two things can be

true at once. Trying to simplify
complex things, for example,

believing that poverty is simply
the result of a lack of

education. This is closely
linked, as I said to

perfectionism, because binary
thinking makes it difficult to

learn from mistakes or
accommodate conflict, we're

either perfect or bad.

And conflict and an increased
sense of urgency, as people feel

they have to make decisions to
do either this or that, with no

time or encouragement to
consider alternatives,

particularly those which may
require more time and resources,

which is how that either/or is
reinforced by the urgency and

reinforces it. And finally, the
last characteristic we want to

talk about in depth is worship
of the written word. Now, the

first time I read that, as a
characteristic of white

supremacy culture, I thought,
you know, you probably couldn't

come up with a better
description of Unitarian

Universalist culture than
worship of the written word. We

like our words. So
traditionally, worship of the

written word shows up as things
like, if it's not in a memo, it

doesn't exist. If it's not
grammatically correct, it has no

value. It means an inability or
refusal to acknowledge

information that is shared
through stories, embodied

knowing, intuition, and the wide
range of ways that we

individually and collectively
learn and know. And a continued

frustration that people and
communities don't respond to

written communication, blaming
people and communities for their

failure to respond. And
specifically in Unitarian

Universalist conflicts, this
shows up as putting a lot of

energy into getting the written
words just right, to prove that

we are right. Sending that long
email full of logical arguments,

writing that Facebook post that
is going to win people over, or

it shows up as latching on to
particular words that someone

has written, attaching
interpretation to those words,

and never being willing to hear
a different interpretation. It

also shows up as being really
attached to the words of our

covenants often over the
practice of covenant. Your story

of conflict over changing the
title of the Leadership

Development Committee through
the Leadership Development

Ministry, conflict that went on
for months. So listen for the

ways that each of these
characteristics show up in the

case study conflict that
follows: urgency, either/ or and

binary, fear of open conflict,
the right to comfort, and the

worship of the written word.

Sarah Millspaugh: So I'd like
you to come on an imaginative

journey with me as I share our
case study. It's 2021. Remember

that year, that crazy year, the
Delta variant is on the rise,

and the UU Church of East
Cupcake is having a conflict

about COVID safety. Now in the
UU Church of East cupcake, there

is a group of fully vaccinated
folks over 60 who have been

getting together and talking
about their frustrations about

meeting by zoom. They've been
longing for community, they

start making demands that the
congregation start meeting in

person, and right away. Some of
them are even breaking the rules

and holding small groups at the
church without informing the

leadership of the congregation.
Now people who are

immunocompromised or of an age
that they aren't eligible for

vaccination or live with people
like that, such as caregivers or

guardians of children, including
the Minister and President.

People in that group are feeling
defensive, and just enraged by

what they feel is a disrespect
for the congregation's policy, a

lack of regard for their needs
personally, and just completely

unUU values and actions. But
congregations Facebook group

starts heating up with direct
and subtle attacks on the

minister and the board for not
letting people meet in person.

And then direct and subtle
attacks on the people who are

making those posts. Folks are
starting to send long emails

around to lists of undisclosed
recipients and people are

pulling out the UU principles to
support their points. You are

walking all over our first
principle the inherent worth and

dignity of every person. Don't
you care about every person? Or

did you forget about our fifth
principle the right of

conscience the use of the
democratic process, we need to

have a vote. And I can use my
conscience to go on the church

grounds whenever I darn well
please. The minister and the

board who are all feeling under
attack put out a joint

statement. But it shows a lot of
defensiveness. Yeah, well, they

didn't think it sounded
defensive when they wrote it,

but many in the congregation
received it that way, especially

the group that was advocating
for immediate reopening. And

those folks felt misunderstood
and continued their attack. The

in person groups started a
petition to call for a

congregational meeting to force
a vote on going in person next

month. Lots of fighting ensued
over email. And in the Facebook

group, lots of fear for
institutional survival and

relevance was expressed. We're
gonna die if we don't start

meeting in person. We're
individually gonna die if we do

meet in person. Lots of name
calling in both directions. And

then an immunocompromised member
who lives on the margins

economically compared the in
person proponents to Nazis in a

scathing open letter, which he
sends out to everybody, before

quitting the church. There ends
our case study.

Rev. Erica Baron: Luckily, these
characteristics of white

supremacy culture have
antidotes. That is, ways of

being together that are counter
to the scripts of white

supremacy culture. These ways of
being allow us to live into our

values of justice, equity and
compassion more fully. There are

antidotes to specific
characteristics of white

supremacy culture. But as we
were preparing for this

workshop, we noticed that there
are some key antidotes that

counter a bunch of the
characteristics of white

supremacy culture. So we may
talk about how a specific

antidote counters a specific
characteristic, but also listen

for the ways that all of the
antidotes are helpful in all of

the characteristics. And we're
going to start with a big one,

which is a power analysis. So
one of the big problems with

white supremacy culture, the
reason we want to dismantle it

is that it gives some people a
lot of power, and other people

very little or no power. And
these characteristics are ways

of reinforcing the power of
people who already have power,

and preventing people who don't
have power from getting any. So

if we take this into Unitarian
Universalism, we might notice

that some people and
perspectives have been centered

in Unitarian Universalism from
the beginning. So white people,

middle and upper class people,
men, sis men, in particular,

straight, able bodied, and
adult. Others have been

marginalized, both individually
and culturally. So people of

color, working class people,
women, girls, non binary people,

trans people, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and queer people,

people with disabilities,
children and youth. And

sometimes, elderly folks,
depending on the congregation,

have all had less access to the
central power of our

congregations. And what this
means in practice is that we

can't apply the same rules to
every person or every situation,

because if we do, the people who
already have centralized power

will continue to have
centralized power, and the

people who are already at the
margins will stay at the

margins. So when conflict gets
heated in our congregations, we

often get activated, meaning our
bodies move into the fight,

flight freeze or fawn response.
So most of you have probably

heard of fight and flight, but
if you haven't, those are the

like big body movements that we
do in response to a perceived

threat, such as running away or
fighting back. But there are two

other lesser known ways that our
bodies respond to immediate

threat. One is called freezing,
which is like going really

still. In the animal kingdom,
this is often called playing

dead or camouflaging by being
still. And then finally, there's

one that's been called fawning
because it starts with F like

the other three, but it's often
also been called appeasing. So

basically, this is a response
where you look for the person

with the most power in the
situation, and you make sure

that person thinks of you as on
their team, on their side, so

that you have have the
protection of that power, and

it's not used against you. Now,
all of those are things your

body just does and tells your
brain to do, there is no

judgment on them. And we all
need care when we get activated.

The key here, though, with a
power analysis, is that we don't

all need the same kind of care.
And activation of different

people gives us different kinds
of information about our whole

system. So activation from the
margins generally should be

centered. So that means when
someone at the margins in any of

the ways that I've just named is
activated, we need to stop and

care for everybody involved.
It's pretty rare actually, for

only one person in a room to be
activated, it can happen. But

usually, there's multiple people
who get activated in a conflict.

So we stop, we care for
everyone. And then we come back

to see if there's information in
the activation that we need to

hear from the person on the
margins who was activated.

Another way to say this is that
we should avoid making decisions

in the absence of those most
affected by the decisions, or

said more proactively, always
include those most affected in

the brainstorming and decision
making. That's Tema Okun's words

about this.

Meanwhile, activation from the
center generally should be

decentered. So we still step and
we still care for everyone

involved. Everyone in activation
needs care. But we should not

allow the activation of one or a
few members who are central to

the power structure of the
congregation to derail efforts

that are aligned with our
values. Now, we have to use

nuance and discernment here
because just saying, centered

activation should be decentered
and marginal activation should

be centered, is a little too
simplistic, because there's

nuance This is not a binary.
People are complicated. So you

know, use discernment. But in
general, listen very carefully

to activation that's coming from
the margins. Another piece of

the power analysis is knowing
your own power, acknowledging

it, and working to use it with
integrity. You can only use your

power with integrity, if you
know that you have power. So

Tema Okun says, support people
at all levels of power to

understand how power operates,
their level of power, what

holding power responsibly looks
like, and how to collectively

resist and heal from
internalized tendencies to hoard

and defend power. So let's look
at our case study for a minute.

So who is at the margins in the
congregation in the case study?

Well, we can definitely say that
the person who is both

immunocompromised, and
economically precarious is

marginal in this story. And she
is the one who compared folks to

Nazis, on her way out, saying
you don't care about me, you're

just pretending, etc. Now, I'm
gonna guess that there are

people in the congregation,
probably a lot of people in the

congregation who are super
offended, by the way she chose

to express this particular
discontent. So the danger here

is that the attention of the
decision- making pivots to how

she should have expressed
herself more politely, and she

should not have used those
particular words. And oh, my

goodness, I can't imagine how
she could have compared us to

Nazis. And we are so offended,
rather than looking closely at

what she is saying. So the
antidote of a power analysis

would say, this is a person at
the margins, she doesn't have a

lot of power, we need to listen
carefully for the information

about our system contained in
the activation that she's

expressing. What that means in
practice, is that we should

offer follow up care to this
person. She may reject it, and

that's okay, that's her right.
But we should offer. And then we

should carefully consider the
impact of the whole conversation

on those at the margins. So in
this particular case study,

those who are immunocompromised
and economically precarious, are

going to be more impacted by a
decision to meet in person both

because they're more likely to
get sick, and because they're

less likely to have the care
they need if they do get sick.

And so those folks need to be
taken very seriously and their

needs need to be centered. But
there's other people in this

conflict and we have a really
interesting power analysis

between these older folks in the
congregation who want to reopen

right now. And the Minister and
President who don't want to

reopen right now. So this power
analysis is a little bit more

complicated. Because the
Minister and the President have

positional power, right? We're
not using even their names.

Well, we're not using names in
this case study anyway. But

we're referring to them by their
positions, right, the minister

of the congregation, the
president of the board, they are

holding positions of power in
the system. But this group of

folks over 60, especially if
they are white, has a

centralized location power,
social location power, meaning

they have the power of age,
they, if they're white, they

have the power of race. Given
what they're saying, they

probably have the power of
middle and upper class, socio

economic location, and key in
congregations, they also have

the power of having been in the
congregation for a long time. So

they're holding informal power
in the situation. To the extent

that the President and the
Minister are speaking for

children, because they're both
parents, they're also

representing children who are
another group at the margins.

So it's likely in a situation
like this, that both groups,

both the president/minister, and
this group of people who want to

reopen right now, they both
think the other has more power.

And that's why they're digging
in and pushing so hard, because

they feel themselves to be
disempowered. And they think

that they are pushing back
against power, speaking truth to

power or defending our values
against a powerful other. So

what that means in terms of the
antidote is that this is the

time for that deep reflection on
their own power. These two

groups both hold power,
different kinds of power, and

they need to stop looking at the
power the other group holds, and

look at their own power and how
they're using it. So the group

who wants to meet in person is
exercising power by just

ignoring the rules, knowing that
they won't face any sort of

discipline for that, or
accountability. They are forcing

votes because the bylaws empower
the, a block of people in the

congregation to force a vote.
The President and the Minister

are doing some framing of a
narrative that blames specific

others for where they are. And
they're both using the

principles in a kind of, as a
weapon, rather than as a call to

stop and reflect. So the power
of knowing the principles and

being able to speak in that
language, both sides are

wielding that pretty strongly.
So after some reflection, we can

invite those with power to use
that power intentionally. Once

you see that you have it, then
you can choose how you use it.

And you can choose to use it in
alignment with values. So in

this case, that would mean
holding a particular position.

Yes, meet in person, no, don't
meet in person, holding that

more lightly, and listening to
the wants and needs of others to

get out of that either/or stuck
place.

Rev. Tyler Coles: First, I would
like to uplift integrity. While

this is not a formal antidote,
from Tema and her colleagues, we

do think it is a particularly
important one that we can put in

place for our own context, as a
people of spiritual inclination,

as a religious people, as
spiritual people who have come

together drawn together by our
mission, vision and covenants.

Under integrity, we see mission
and values as the point. This is

where we act from. This is what
guides us in our relationships

with one another. It is a
reminder that we are brought

together by our shared faith,
not just our friendships. While

friendships and relationships
are important and integral in a

religious community of course,
there's also something deeper,

something wider, something more
transcendent, that pulls us and

sustains us and moves us along
in this work beyond just being

together. And last and under
integrity is the deep

conversations and reflections on
our values as a regular part of

congregational life. We can't
assume we all have the same

values or the same
interpretations of anyone given

value, we must talk it out. When
we think about integrity in

relationship to our case study,
we can go to three kind of main

points, if you will. First, is
this beginning of a heart

centered reflection on the
mission of the congregation and

what draws us together. Again,
friendships and relationships

and connection are imperative in
religious community. After all,

we are a community. But we must
be guided by the values that

draw us together in the first
place. Second, is the creative

and tender consideration for
being together that honors

safety policies for all
community members. It's not just

about us, or our friends, or our
board or our committee, or our

generation. But church is the co
creation lab of humanity. We are

in this together, or we are
desperate apart from one

another. And lastly, we must
continue to discuss our values,

reflect upon our values and
relationship with our mission in

the vision of the church, and
they how they might be applied

and caring ways, particularly in
a moment such as a pandemic. And

all of the ways that this
pandemic has both hurt us,

separated us from ourselves and
each other and has ultimately,

traumatized us as well. So we
must be mindful about how our

values are not only the things
that draw us together, but they

are also the things that ground
us together and ultimately set

us free together.

Sarah Millspaugh: Another tool
that we can bring forward from

the antidotes is to counter the
false sense of urgency. When we

get activated our bodies, our
whole physiology, our psychology

is telling us you have to
address this now now now. But

really, basically, always, we
don't have to respond right

then. We are not being attacked
by a saber toothed tiger. We are

in a situation where we're
trying to mutually discern the

best way forward as a
congregation. One of the ways

that we can remember to counter
our sense of urgency that isn't

usually a true sense of urgency
in conflict, is to remember the

mantra, respond, don't react. In
her new book An Abolitionists

Handbook: 12 steps to changing
yourself in the world, Patrisse

Cullors, who's one of the co
founders of Black Lives Matter,

talks about how important
responding versus reacting is

for people of all colors, who
are working for anti racist

change. She talked about how
when we're reacting, we are much

more likely to cause another
person harm, and to make

ourselves unnecessarily
vulnerable. She writes, you will

often want to react to people,
ideas, thoughts, media bites,

all of it. It will do nothing
but make you unnecessarily

vulnerable, which will make your
practice much more difficult to

hold up, meaning the practice of
anti racist multicultural

change. Try your best to
separate the wheat from the

chaff, she writes, determine
what is worth your energy and

what is not. One of the things
we need to remember is that

generative conflict takes time,
especially when we are trying

not to revert to our old
destructive patterns of white

supremacy culture and
retributive justice. Now, one of

the frustrations when we're at
the outset of a conflict, and

we're feeling that need to
resolve it now, is that we can't

tell you how much time this is
going to take in advance. No one

can. You can't really know. But
just allowing ourselves to

breathe, to recognize that if
we're going to get through this,

we're going to get through it
together and that is going to

take some time. It helps us have
a little more spaciousness. We

really don't need to do it all
at once. But we can commit to

returning to the conversations
until we reach a sense of

resolution and restoration. So
let's apply these thoughts to

our case study about our friends
in East Cupcake. Is it really

urgent to open again, in person
next month? Or is that just our

anxiety speaking? No, we really
did have an urgent situation

when we shut down in person
congregational gatherings in

March of 2020. There was a
pandemic coming, we didn't have

any immunity, we needed to act
quickly. But what I wonder about

the folks in East Cupcake, what
is behind the urgency here. We

actually do have some time, we
now know we can meet and gather

by zoom and other means, or have
outdoor events, you know, all of

those things. So what is behind
that urgency. And also, when we

get to what's underneath the
urgency, we might realize

there's more than one way to
address the deeper concerns

beneath the demands. So in this
case, let's say we dug deeper at

East Cupcake. And we found out
the reopen now folks are pretty

afraid of, pretty afraid of a
number of things, they're afraid

that the engagement of members
is is way down now that we're on

Zoom. They're afraid that we're
not going to have enough pledges

to continue to fund the
congregation, that we're not

going to grow, that we're just
going to dissolve and the

congregation is not going to be
there for them. And they love

the congregation. You know, when
they were saying, reopen now, or

our church is going to die, they
meant it.

But when we get to what's
underneath, if we're, if we can

break through that sense of
urgency, we can get to what's

underneath. And we can recognize
that maybe they're feeling

uncomfortably vulnerable and
powerless to do something about

a situation that they really,
really care about. And maybe

they were flocking together just
for emotional safety, but then

that escalated and ratcheted up.
So by recognizing what's going

on more deeply, we're given an
opening, an opening to take the

time to make a good and
collective decision about when

we're ready to reopen in person.
And we're also given time to

explore the deeper issue and you
know, move beyond that either/or

binary. If we're afraid that
engagement is down, let's talk

about all the different ways we
might get engagement up. Or if

we're feeling uncomfortably and
unusually vulnerable, it has

been a really hard couple of
years, and of course we feel out

of control. Maybe we can
recognize how reacting versus

responding isn't really going to
address our deep concerns or

make us feel whole, whether
we're at the center or the

margins.

Rev. Erica Baron: And that leads
us to more options. This is

particularly an antidote to the
either/or thinking or the binary

characteristic of white
supremacy culture. But it's also

just helpful like a lot in life.
So more options. Tema Okun says

it this way, when we are caught
in an either/or, think of a

third thing. And I would say
that third thing can be

anything, it can be silly, it
can be completely absurd. It

doesn't matter if it's
practical, as long as it is just

a third thing, because the first
step is to notice that you have

more than two choices, then you
can be discerning about which of

them you want. So in this case,
what options are there other

than opening or staying closed?
Well, there's meeting outside,

there's a massive tech upgrade
that would allow for some off

site, as for meetings where some
people are on site and other

peoples are off site. There is
the possibility that that

passion of wanting to be in
person could be turned to

advocacy for vaccine rollout and
to get folks vaccinated. So that

might look like volunteering at
clinics, giving people rides or

these folks who are vaccinated
could go lobby the legislators

to make sure that vaccines
access is expanded as fast as

possible, so that the most
number of people are safe to

meet in person as soon as
possible. And you could think of

potentially other things, one
specific application of the

antidote of expanding options is
when somebody is challenging you

if you are in a position of
authority, so a lot of times

people in positions of
leadership and authority in

congregations like board
presidents and ministers and

other religious professionals,
other board members, other

committee chairs, etc. are going
about their work. doing the best

we can. And then somebody will
come and say, I don't like the

way you're doing that, and you
should do it differently. And

the sort of natural human
response to that going back to

our conversation about
activation is to get pretty

defensive. And that is, there's
no judgment on the fact that we

might get defensive about that
internally. But externally, it

might be helpful to pause or
process that defensiveness

somewhere else, in order to be
able to have a tell-me-more

approach when challenged. So the
tell-me-more approach is,

basically, I hear that you're
saying that you don't like

something? Tell me more. And in
this particular case study that

might look like this. So if the
board president and the Minister

were practicing, tell me more,
they might ask questions such

as, what is important to you
about being in person? What do

you miss when we're not in
person? And then to get even

deeper: What has been hard for
you  in Pandemic times? Because

I think a lot of the people who
are really pushing for in person

or who were really pushing for
in person, first, were people

who felt very isolated,
sometimes people who lived

alone, for example. So what has
been hard for you in Pandemic

times? And what would help you
know that you matter to us.

Similarly, the in person
advocates in our story, if they

were going to practice a tell me
more approach to parents and

immunocompromised people might
ask questions like, how has it

been to be a parent during the
pandemic? How does it feel to be

medically vulnerable right now?
What are your fears? What would

make you feel safer, and more
cared for? And again, what would

help you know that you matter to
us? If you can ask these

questions, you can often get
information about what the

emotional core of a position is,
that opens a whole new set of

options.

Rev. Tyler Coles: Our next
antidote is that of care and

love. This is understood as the
prioritizing of relationships,

again, the ways in which we are
connected to one another over

being right, or having the right
way, or doing it the right way,

or understanding something the
right way. We must aim not to

weaponize this, as we ask people
how they have experienced harm,

and not rush to move through
that discomfort of their sharing

of their stories too fast.
actually caring about actual

people. This is the center of
what we do as religious people,

we love one another, or at
least, or at least actively hope

for the well being of one
another. Next is covenant. Our

covenants are both the map and
the terrain in which we navigate

the life with one another. It is
the thing that holds us together

and gives us a clear pathway to
be with one another. It is both

the baseline for how we are
together and the great

aspiration for which we are
seeking to be together. And if

our covenants are worth their
weight in love and care, they

will also give us a way of which
to return to one another when

our relationships have been
broken. From there, we assume

that there is a reason for how
everyone feels that's not the

same as having the correct
position. We must listen deeply

care deeply. And in our
listening we must find the

reasons for the feelings and
lift them up. This is about a

trueness and understanding of
our relationships with one

another. And ultimately, in this
understanding and antidote of

care and love, we must prepare
for conflict ahead of time. Talk

about styles and triggers within
our conflicts, talk about what

to do when we're activated.
After all, when two or more are

gathered, conflict happens. It's
just part of human life. That's

okay. Now, when we apply care
and love to our case study, we

can invite ourselves to wonder
how do we tend to our

relationships without
weaponizing our covenants, our

values or our principles? One
example is holding off on that

too often quick response of
weaponizing our principles as

they did in our case study of
what about the inherent worth

and dignity, or what about
conscious and democratic

process? When we do that we
strip our principles out of the

context of 1) why they were
written and 2) how they guide us

in being in relationship with
one another, not only as

individuals within
congregations, but with

congregations in relationship to
other congregations, thus

forming the association. From
there, we must understand that

while we might want to be
together, particularly in a hard

moment such as this, we must
understand that policies are in

place to keep us all safe. I
know this is a hard one to

wrestle with, especially when we
miss one another. We miss the

people who have travelled
alongside us and the ups and

downs, highways and byways of
our lives. But we understand

that policies are created for
the whole community, not just

for any one person. That leads
us into respecting decisions

regarding safety, and engaging
them so that we might be with

one another safely. Again,
policies and this case study

could be understood as
invitations of care and respect

and love and cherishment and
reflection of our ultimate faith

values. They're not to be seen
as transgressions or rules which

need to be broken, as they are
more unfairly pressured on one

group versus another. And
lastly, there is an invitation

of acknowledging that we are
again, tender and traumatized in

this moment. Emotions are raw,
dear ones. And we wish we

weren't having to navigate life
under the impact of a pandemic.

But we have to take seriously
about how the pandemic and COVID

and systematic violence and
brutality are impacting us. And

that's important to understand
that we are raw, that we are

sad, and that we are sorrowful,
and that we must take these in

consideration because our fuses
are short, right now,

Sarah Millspaugh: another
antidote, thinking about the

worship of the written word is
to just talk to each other, to

talk verbally to the people that
we're in conflict with, have

some courageous conversations.
And that involves making the

choice not to fight over email,
or Facebook, or any kind of

writing based thing. You know,
understanding more about our

psychology and our physiology,
we actually don't resolve

conflict by finding the perfect
words. We resolve conflict by

solving problems together, we
resolve conflict by making

repair of relationship felt when
our bodies and our minds

returned to a more grounded and
less activated state. But we

don't always gravitate that way.
In the book, We Will Not Cancel

Us, Adrienne Maree Brown
implores us to talk to one

another instead of calling each
other out. If you have each

other's phone numbers, she
writes, or if you are within two

degrees of social media
connection, and particularly if

you are in the small, small
percentage of humans trying to

change the world, you actually
have access to transformative

justice in real time, get
mediation support, think of the

community, move toward justice.
In other way, and having that

direct conversation, in trying
to be in conversation, you know,

sometimes you do need support.
If, if there are power

differentials between you or
things from your own history

with each other that makes it
hard to have that conversation,

you know, one to one, seek out
some help for holding the space

in a way where all parties can
be listened to and can speak

their truths, and can find some
paths forward. And also,

speaking in honest, direct and
respectful ways, many of us have

been culturally conditioned not
to do that, to try to be subtle,

to try to, you know, think, Oh,
well, this other person, it's

obvious, they should be able to
see how they've hurt me. I'm not

going to talk about it there.
They obviously know and, you

know, they don't want to do
anything about it. Those

assumptions are really poisonous
to our relationships sometimes.

So having a way to speak
honestly, directly and

respectfully to each other.
There's even a book called

Honest, Direct, Respectful,
which we reference in our

resources that can really help
us have those courageous

conversations. So thinking about
our case study, if this kind of

direct call on the phone
communication might have

happened early on, this fight
would not have been playing out

in the painfully public and
divisive space of Facebook and

anonymous emails or undisclosed
recipient emails, I mean, then

it would not have become so
harmful to the immunocompromised

member, or to the other people
in the congregation that felt

hurt or harmed by the way the
conversation ratcheted up. It

might have taken more time, but
if people would have talked

directly to the minister in one
on one or small group

conversations, she wouldn't have
gotten so activated either. She

and the board would have had
more space to respond, rather

than react, and the trust in the
ministry and the board and one

another would not have been as
injured as it was.

Rev. Tyler Coles: From there we
have our last antidote we think

is worth lifting up. That is the
willingness and ability to sit

in discomfort. Now this is a
hard one because many of us have

been taught that we have a
birthright to be comfortable.

This is vital for holding each
other in care. This

understanding that this
willingness and ability to sit

and discomfort because life is
complicated. Being willing to

engage where it is hard out of
love for each other and a

commitment to our values. In
this we must notice how fear

shapes us, how defensiveness
shapes us. And we must notice

this both within ourselves and
with each other, we must tend to

one another. An invitation and
understanding how fear and

defensiveness shows up is to ask
ourselves, what are we

defending? And what are we
defending against? Lastly,

activation is not a moral
failing. We are emotional people

from womb to tomb, that is okay.
It is a blessing that we have

full, messy, complicated selves.
But we must let go of this

innocence. This presumed
innocence and this notion of

objectivity. They weren't real
to begin with anyway. And also

we must realize that all
activation is worthy of care in

some way. But not all activation
needs the same type of care.

This is important to understand
our positionality in our world,

and how our, our identities
intersect and live within the

world itself. And lastly, asking
for help is an essential part of

this overall antidote of a
willingness and ability to sit

into discomfort. In a moment,
you can ask yourself, how an

outside facilitator, someone
maybe outside of the conflict,

can support you in  navigating
the conflict and inviting your

own self worth wondering, Why am
I being activated about this

thing? Secondly, is to lead so
that leaders don't have to

ignore feelings and experiences.
As Congregationalists, as a

faith community, we all lead in
some way, shape or form. So we

must be cognizant of the ways in
which we shape our community and

understanding that we have
responsibility for understanding

ourselves too. And lastly, a
systems way of understanding

Unitarian Universalism, asking
for help from our resources,

particularly regional staff at
our new conflict engagement

ministry, the Hope for Us team.
So what does it look like if we

were to take these this antidote
and these wisdoms and lastly to

apply it to our case study. It
is important that we understand

that it is vital for holding
each other in care and being

willing to engage where it is
hard out of love for each other,

and a commitment to our values.
Just because something is hard,

doesn't mean we can back out of
it always. Though life is hard,

we can do hard things. Let us
honor the fears of becoming or

causing someone else to be
unwell. Right. This is why

safety policies are in place in
a pandemic. We must investigate

and honor why we feel so
strongly about how we are with

one another, both virtually, and
not. And again, we must ask,

what are we defending? And why
are we defending against it? And

lastly, inviting others outside
of the strife to aid in

conversation. This is our
outside resources while focusing

on the care present within our
community. utilize our

resources, our communities, for
ways in which we can tend to one

another, because again, church
Is the is about being the co

creation lab of humanity.

I want to close with this one
reminder. Is that white

supremacy culture forces us to
view ourselves too often, as

utterly unredeemable, damned and
lost. This is a way that white

supremacy culture has been
theologizing, if you will, and

passed on from generation to
generation, particularly in

Protestantism, and in Unitarian
Universalism, as part of the

Protestant movement, Unitarian
Universalists have kept the work

ethic, but we have gotten rid of
the potential for mercy and

grace and redemption. Thus
creating an attitude of hubris

in which we judge everyone else
and ourselves. When we live

heavily into the prophetic
vision of Unitarian

Universalism, we are reminded
that we are bound up by love and

mercy, and set free in that love
and mercy too. And as elders

within our community say, as
Unitarian Universalists as

creation, we have already been
saved from perfection. So let us

be fully and completely human as
we strive to create heaven on

earth.

Sarah Millspaugh: Thank you.
Wow, Tyler, thank you so much

for that beautiful, beautiful
way to bring us out. And our

whole team, thanks you for your
time and your interests and

exploring how we apply these
antidotes to white supremacy

culture, and times of conflict
in our congregations. We've

prepared some questions for you
to reflect on yourself, or

discussed with others. We've
also prepared a workbook with

some of our slides and our key
points that you can download in

the app. We really appreciate
your engagement and we wish you

well in conflict and in peace.
Take care.