Hi Friends -
You and I have two decisions to make this week. One decision is our vote on the acquisition of Unity Worldwide Ministries by Unity World Headquarters. The other decision is how we will respond to the first decision. The second decision is far more consequential.
The first decision – whether to sell or not to sell – may or may not be the best way to go, but the risk of it being a disaster is unlikely. It's a sale of assets within members of a family. Family members have common interests. UWH is interested in the well-being of the ministries, and the ministries are interested in the well-being of UWH. It's like selling your car to your brother-in-law; you want a fair deal, but you have to live with the guy afterward, so you are careful to make sure he also gets a fair deal. Because we have common interests, we should be careful but not overly skeptical about the outcome of whatever course is chosen for the acquisition.
The other decision – how we will respond to the acquisition decision – is far more consequential. We are a blended family, but a family nonetheless. As a family, we know one another all too well. We are well aware of one another's weaknesses. Familiarity can breed contempt. Family dynamics can get downright nasty. How we respond after the vote can be a catastrophe.
So the first point I wish to make is that the consequences of whatever decision is made on the acquisition will not be determined on Wednesday. Instead, the consequences will be determined in the upcoming year by how we interact with one another as a family.
The second point I wish to make is that THE DECISION OF HOW WE WILL INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER AFTER THE VOTE IS BEST MADE BEFORE THE VOTE.
We may be saying to ourselves, "I'll see how the vote goes and then I'll decide how I will respond." Do you see the mistake in that logic? That's like saying, "If you do this, I'll do that." If our decision on how to act is based on the decision of how others act, we're giving away our freedom to the choices made by others.
In fact, any decision that has the word "if" in it is a self-limiting choice. It limits our integrity, our wholeness, our freedom of choice. It replaces Mind-Idea-Expression with because-they-express-like-that-I-will-will-express-like-this. We shouldn't go there.
We have three bad choices and one good choice:
- We see the vote as an opportunity, and will build alliances to move it forward.
- We see the vote as a problem, and will work to marginalize the troublemakers.
- We see the vote as irrelevant, and will withdraw.
- We see the vote as a choice made by well-intentioned colleagues, and will engage with the outcome to the best of my ability.
The first three choices can be made only after the vote because we do not know what the vote will be. Only after the vote can we see it as an opportunity, a problem, or irrelevant. Only the fourth choice can be made before the vote.
It may be that after the vote, you and I in fact do see its outcome as an opportunity, a problem, or as irrelevant. Further, it may be that our best response is to build alliances, marginalize troublemakers, or withdraw. But it can only be a response made with integrity, wholeness, and freedom if we choose to see the vote as having been made by well-intentioned colleagues and we choose to engage with them to the best of our ability. We should make that decision today.
Sunday, November 2, 2025
