What is there in a Name?

Keeping or changing the current name of Thomas Jefferson Unitarian Church should be considered a ponderous decision on the part of the entire congregation.

Why might one consider changing our current name?

1) The time may have come to rethink its significance, especially in view of the UUA’s recent concerns about “white privilege”.

2) Jefferson’s ownership and treatment of slaves may indeed call us to reconsider continuing to use his name.

3) A name change may call us to remodel our own lives in response to a social challenge of our regional community, and confront “white privilege”. I would suggest the consideration of “Harriet Tubman”, not to attract a new membership of persons of color, but rather to challenge us to imitate the values that made her a champion for social justice.

4) We might retain the current name recognizing that it was under this name that we have accomplished our achievements over the years.

5) It is who we are and what we stand for, rather than our name that will attract a new permanent minister, or increase our membership.

Joseph Brennan

 

 

 

 

 

 

My focus here is not on Thomas Jefferson, except to say that I believe the Board of TJ did not anticipate the strength of feelings on both sides of this issue.  What I want to explore is what we are trying to accomplish with a name change and whether it is a wise move at this time.

1. WE ARE SEEKING A SOLUTION WHEN WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

It has been acknowledged that a major motivation of the Board was to try to attract (especially younger) people to TJ.  But, aside from an anecdote or two, we have no idea how widespread is the belief that Jefferson was someone who should not be honored as opposed to those who consider him a hero.  Moreover, we do not have a clue if a name change would make an iota of difference in attracting people and what other moves might be appealing to prospective members.

If we are considering a name change in an attempt at moral purity, we should note that this view is not universally supported by members of the congregation.   Changing our name is a momentous decision and we need to make sure that it is worth it.

2. THE TIMING IS AWFUL.

Apparently it was thought that proceeding with a name change at this time would present TJ in a positive light to prospective ministers.  Aside from the question of whether we should be altering our behavior to impress an outsider, this has backfired. It is understandable that we might want to clear up a “problem” before presenting ourselves to candidates, but it would be better to indicate that we take this issue seriously, than to head off a cliff.  We  will not make a good impression if we are in the midst of a divisive  course of action.  I know Unitarians are accused of talking issues to death, but we still need to consider the implications of action before a “Brexit” vote.

3. WE COULD END UP WITH AN EVEN MORE EMBARRASSING NAME

If we do end up deciding to ditch Thomas Jefferson, please, please, please let us choose a real name but a broad, neutral name with a modicum of dignity, that invokes community, not an aggressive  or self-congratulatory attitude.

                                Not some hippie-sounding name (peace, justice etc.)

                                Not a slogan  (e.g. “Towards _____anything__________________

                                Not a single issue (e.g. justice)

Barbara Averell

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson, Architect – CBS News

Thought you might find this interesting. A balanced way of dealing with Jefferson.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/thomas-jefferson-architect/

Submitted by Friend of TJ:  Cozad Taylor

 

 

 

Here’s what I’ve been thinking about related to a name change:

My father used to give me advice which became much wiser as time went by.  I’ve been thinking a lot about one such piece of advice related to changing the name of the church.

He said, and I paraphrase, when you’re about to make a change, consider whether you are making the change because you want to get away from something you don’t want OR are you making the change to move toward something you do want?

So I wonder whether we want to distance ourselves from Thomas Jefferson because we perceive his faults to be greater than the good he did. Are we adequate to judge him, either individually or together? The facts were created long ago, when they happened.  Society and standards then (when Jefferson lived) are very different from society and standards now. Are we judging Jefferson’s faults and flaws to be more important that his positive accomplishments. Is that the right thing to do?  Are we removing Jefferson from our church name because we want to be as distanced from him as possible, because we’re disappointed in him?

On the other hand, do we want a name that draws us forward, toward who we want to be as a church community? What are the many facets of church life and work do we want to contribute to our society now and into the future? How do we want to re-shape our destiny, contributions, actions and good works?  How many ways could we be influential to create a better world?

It seems I have more questions than definitive opinions or answers, such as the following:

1. Will we honor our 50+ year history with Thomas Jefferson?

2. What will we do with the bust of Tom?

3. Changing the name has costs, like changing the sign out on Brownsboro Rd. and the flag across the street from the sign, among other things like stationery, the website, and all contacts who know us as Thomas Jefferson UC and contact the church electronically.

There are more ramifications to a name change, so I urge that we proceed thoughtfully.

Diana Fulner

 

 

MUST DEAL WITH IT WHETHER KEEPING IT OR CHANGING IT

Thomas Jefferson rightfully belongs at the top of many lists of human achievements. As a diplomat, inventor, and author of the most seminal documents defining the United States of America, Jefferson’s place in history will remain significant for many years to come. Jefferson also shared another characteristic in common with many Presidents of the United States, including George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, James K. Polk, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Martin Van Buren, and Ulysses S. Grant. These 12 of the first 18 Presidents of the nation at one time owned slaves.

Van Buren and Grant each owned a single slave early in their adult lives before freeing them. Van Buren, Grant, Johnson, and Harrison no longer owned slaves once taking office in the White House.

But Jefferson and seven other Presidents owned slaves while serving as President, ranging from a low of 25 (Polk) to 317 of Washington to the highest of more than 600 (Jefferson). In some cases, most notably Washington, their attitudes towards slavery changed over time and they eventually freed their slaves. Jefferson, however, also developed a different perspective on slavery and yet never found a way to place the freedom of his slaves as a higher priority than his own financial well-being.

While Jefferson never formally belonged to a Unitarian or Universalist church, he expressed strong Unitarian sympathies and was known to worship at Joseph Priestley’s Unitarian Church in Philadelphia. He also wrote in an 1825 letter to Benjamin Waterhouse:

“The population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented with being a Unitarian by myself.”

Given that we Unitarian Universalists proudly claim him as one of our own, then we owe it to ourselves – particularly if we choose to use his name to adorn our congregations – to deal with the entirely of his life and the full implications of his beliefs and actions.

One reason we continue to hold Jefferson in esteem certainly derives from his contributions to our nation. Of course, one might argue that had Jefferson not existed, someone else might have filled a similar role as father of American democracy. Therefore, as people committed to the free and responsible search for truth and meaning, we owe it to ourselves to explore other reasons for maintaining our continuing legacy to the man. Sadly, some of those reasons speak perhaps to darker motivations.

Jefferson was a rich, white, cis-gendered man is a society that to this day provides its strongest privileges to those born as rich, white, cis-gendered men. Remove any one of these attributes from the infant Thomas Jefferson, and the author of the Declaration of Independence never becomes an historic figure. Therefore, by holding Jefferson in such high regard, we indirectly support the systems of privilege that continue to provide a disproportionate share of social, political, and economic power to individuals born into the upper class, who derive from European heritage, and who identify as heterosexual and male.

Which brings us back to the matter of slaves. Thomas Jefferson did not simply own hundreds of slaves. DNA evidence has proved that Jefferson had many children together with Sally Hemings. Jefferson kept Hemings enslaved, and also enslaved their children, freeing them one by one as they came of age. To further complicate matters, Sally Hemings was a half-sister to Jefferson’s late wife, the product of a relationship between Jefferson’s father-in-law and one of his slaves.

Jefferson’s sexual relationship with Hemings spanned several decades, beginning when Hemings was a teenager and Jefferson was in his 40’s. It was not, therefore, in any sense of the word a consensual relationship. Hemings was a child, and Jefferson literally owned her. What Jefferson did to Hemings by any modern understanding was rape.

Drop the Thomas Jefferson name.

Had Jefferson not left such a monumental legacy of American achievement, we would distance ourselves as far as possible from him, treating him with the contempt we hold for other slaveholders of that or any era. So, why do we continue to revere this man, and should we continue to honor him as his namesake church? Possible answers to this question are not easy, and each comes with its own challenges.

Keep the Thomas Jefferson name.

One might understandably feel that Jefferson’s singularly extraordinary accomplishments outweigh the stain deriving from his personal philosophy toward human personhood. Judging any historic figure by modern standards always brings the risk of unjust presumptions. Should we disavow ourselves of the achievements of Henry Ford or Charles Lindbergh, for instance, because of Ford’s anti-Semitism, or Lindbergh’s pro-Nazi views? Or should we separate the good from that we perceive as bad and judge people on some form of cumulative merit?

After all, no one is perfect, one may argue. Many of our most honored national heroes killed during time of war, or supported causes deemed erroneous by modern standards. And in the specific case of TJUC, a church residing in Jefferson Country, we are certainly not alone in being willing to forgive our heroes their mistakes.

Imagine that you are a descendant of slaves kidnapped and brought to this continent by force. You live in a nation where your skin color can make the difference between a moving violation warning and lying dead on the pavement surrounded by dozens of police. You see Confederate flags flying on homes, stuck on bumpers, and proudly worn on shirts. The global history taught in school of your people begins with Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass and excludes virtually any coverage of African or Caribbean history, or modern day Americans beyond Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. Beyond February, your children are being exposed to a virtually pure white world view.

You are looking for a church and learn about Unitarian Universalism. Intrigued by the Seven Principles and our commitment to social justice, you Google local churches and find that the closest UU church is named after an unrepentant slave owner whose descendants include hundreds of people of color who were denied their heritage for 200 years. Is it so hard to imagine that you might feel reluctant to visit that church?

After years of debate, the Thomas Jefferson District of the Unitarian Universalist Association changed its name to the Southeast District in 2011. Churches across our denomination are beginning the challenging work of exploring whiteness and systemic racism in our society and within our congregations. Whatever the outcome of such discussions here, one logical action deriving from such discussions would be to divorce ourselves from the name of a person who epitomized the attributes we are now learning we must reject.

Keep the Thomas Jefferson name and publicly acknowledge his complete life.

Then there is the middle path – one that acknowledges all truths and boldly addresses the need for authentic change. Keep the Thomas Jefferson name, but show boldly and publicly that you recognize his faults and want to rid our nation of any remaining vestiges of such thinking. One way to do this would be to name the proposed Justice Center the Sally Hemings Justice Center, with the mission of advancing the rights of oppressed persons through advocacy, education, and action.

For the next year (or two), TJUC would undergo dedicated and intentional antiracism training and education, exploring the pervasive impacts of privilege and white supremacy on our nation. The center would link with other human rights organizations and begin connecting with community-based organizations in areas of Louisville most ravaged by systematic racism.

Rev. Jeff Liebmann

(As printed in the JULY 2019 Tapestry)