Reminder NAUA First Annual Summit

A reminder the North American Unitarian Association (NAUA) is holding its first Annual Summit on October 17 – 20, 2024.  You may attend in-person or virtually. For more information visit our last Fifth Principle Project Discussion post, NAUA First Annual Summit.

Guest Contributor

Ken Ing

Decisively losing the vote on at the June 2024 General Assembly the Article II revision (80% in favor, 20% opposed) calls for a reality check about where to go from here. I believe that those who choose to continue to fight to preserve Unitarian Universalism as a liberal religion should be clear-eyed about what currents they are swimming against.

I want to make 6 points:

First 3 Points – Looking Back

First Point: What is happening to UU did not originate in UU.

• I believe that the urge to transform UU into something resembling a social justice activism collective has been percolating since the early 1990’s, but gained extra momentum around the year 2013 with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.
• I believe that the willingness of the UUA Board of Trustees to accept the charge in April of 2017 that so-called “white supremacy culture” permeates all of UU was fostered by dismay at the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Suddenly, something seemed rotten in America (to paraphrase “Hamlet”), so how could the Board categorically deny this is also true of UU?
• I believe that the willingness of UU members to accept the claim that UU is imbued with a so-called “white supremacy culture” is also due to their worldview being upended by the 2016 presidential election. Many liberals feel an urgent need to demonstrate that they are on the right side of history, that they are not in the infamous “basket of deplorables”.
• I believe that the illiberal practices in UU governance at all levels was imported from the activist left in the U.S., which has embraced a laser focus on identity group membership and race essentialism for at least the past decade.

Second Point: We finally can talk about what was so important about the Article II vote.

• UU governance at all levels had already become unabashedly illiberal, even though the version of Article II adopted in 1985 was still in place. The Principles and the protection against infringement on individual freedom of belief were not successfully safeguarding freedom, reason, and tolerance.
• In my opinion, the fundamental problem in UU is that claims of harm, individual and collective, present/past/projected, are assessed as overriding any and all of the 1985 Principles. Equating words with violence; treating disagreement as harm; treating feelings and opinions as truths; arbitrating conflict primarily through a calculation of social position and identity – these all transformed the Principles into paper tigers. Again, this did not originate in UU – it reflects the ideology of the activist left in the U.S.
• The true importance of the Article II vote was that it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to say “No” to the leaders in UU, both national and local, who have embraced the use of illiberal means to achieve their desired ends.

Third Point: The primary source of our discontent has been the UU clergy. The problem is not the UUA Board of Trustees, nor the UUA Administration (with the notable exception of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee). If there is an “opponent” in this clash of ideologies, it is the UU Ministers and, to a lesser extent, UU Religious Educators.

• An overlooked factor in the so-called “Hiring Controversy” in March of 2017 was a letter signed by 121 UU ministers and other religious professionals in the first week of the controversy (per UU World reporting). That letter added significant gravity to the situation, which outrage expressed by activists on social media probably wouldn’t have generated on its own.
• Most notoriously, around 300 UU white ministers and religious professionals signed a letter condemning Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof’s book, “The Gadfly Papers”, within 24 hours of it first being handed out at GA 2019. Many admitted to not having read the book before signing the letter. Eventually there were over 500 signers.
• It was the UU Ministers Association (UUMA), not the UUA Board or Administration, that issued the official letter of censure against Rev. Todd Eklof two months after the GA 2019 kerfuffle. It was the Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA) who later filed a formal complaint against Rev. Todd Eklof, which ultimately led the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC) to de-fellowship Rev. Eklof in a process that was fundamentally unfair.
• Anecdotal evidence suggests that the individual ministers in UU congregations and fellowships were the primary obstacles to an open and wide and deep exploration of the pros and cons of the Article II revision during the year that was promised to be devoted to “continuing the conversation”. This was a blatant disregard for the 4th and 5th Principles, and arguably was also a violation of the spirit of the 1st Principle.

Last 3 Points – Looking Forward

Point Four: The next 4 years are likely to be more of the same in the U.S. and UU.

• If our 45^th President becomes our 47^th President, liberals of all stripes will interpret the outcome of this election as an existential threat, similar to 2017-2020. Given that his opponent is a woman, a person of color, a child of immigrants from non-European countries, with a Jewish husband, this result would be tempting to chalk up to almost every bogeyman of the activist left – sexism, racism, patriarchy, eurocentrism, xenophobia, antisemitism, white supremacy, etc. The leaders of UU institutions will conclude that something is still rotten in America, giving them cover for continuing their illiberal practices.
• If our current Vice-President becomes our 47^th President, this will vindicate the activist left, as well as raise expectations about follow-through on policies that it is assumed a woman of color would pursue, because “now is the time we have been waiting for.” The leaders of UU institutions will conclude that they are clearly on the right side of history (given the outcome of the election), giving them cover to continue their illiberal practices.
• Many liberals of all stripes will continue to derive meaning from signaling their virtue by accepting the Catch-22 tenants of “white fragility” and the castigation of “whiteness” and “privilege” as kinds of original sins, contemporary versions of Scarlet Letters.
• Similar to 2017-2020, dissent on the left will not be tolerated because it will be seen as weakening the left and giving sustenance to the right.

Point Five: The newly appointed UUA president matters more than the Article II vote.

• Current UUA President Rev. Dr. Sofia Betancourt is the most talented UU leader since UUA Moderator Jim Key. She has a compelling presence, she embodies a multitude of historically marginalized identities, and she is a gifted extemporaneous speaker. She has a vision for UU that is not merely an amplification of the current state of the movement, but a leap forward in its transformation.
• I could name numerous young activist leaders in UU who could capably succeed Betancourt when her term ends, to keep the transformation going. This transformation of UU is not on autopilot with an uncertain commitment to the new ideology. It is going to have staying power.

Point Six: Completing the reversal of the flow of power in UU is going to be easy to do.

• We should expect the initiative to replace the rest of the UUA Bylaws (including the all-important Article III) to follow the playbook of the Article II revision. The supporters of the Article II revision were very effective at portraying it as being very benign. It really came down to trust. If we trust that all of the new covenants and accountability and mandated actions will only be interpreted in ways that everyone agrees are fair and beneficial, then what is there to worry about? Contemplations about how the revisions could be exploited in ways that are not fair or beneficial – in other words, being realistic about human nature, the intentions of activists, and the temptations of power – often exposed dissidents to accusations of racism or characterized as cynical attempts to preserve one’s privilege and power.
• We should expect the UU clergy to continue to stonewall efforts to have open and wide and deep discussions about the rewrite of the Bylaws. I could write an entire essay on how the comprehensive revision of the UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry back in 2020 almost certainly makes Ministers think twice about expressing disagreement with initiatives that come from the UUA. Preserving congregational polity is not the hill most UU religious professionals are motivated to stick their necks out and defend.
• There is already a prototype for how accountability for congregations might be enforced. There was a recommendation for doing this back in 2017. It is quite simple. An Accountability Board does not have to kick congregations out of the UUA. They can simply write into the Bylaws a rule that “would require member congregations and covenanting communities to renew their connection to the UUA biennially, with a vote of intention to join, and a statement of how they understand their community to be fulfilling Unitarian Universalist purpose.” An accountability board can simply deny the re-application for membership in the UUA.
• So, who holds an accountability board like this responsible for making sure congregations are prioritizing the right missions? Well, that would be the Accountability Teams composed of representatives of historically marginalized identity groups, already being formed to keep the UUA Board of Trustees and Administration focused on anti-racism, anti-oppression, and multi-culturalism objectives. The monitors will be monitored.
• It is inaccurate to describe this as the UUA telling congregations what to do. What is more likely is that a ranking of what “missions” have the highest priority in UU would be decided at General Assembly. Actions of Immediate Witness (AIWs) from recent years are good examples of what these missions might be. What would be different is that congregations would be obligated to prioritize those agreed-upon missions, to satisfy the standard that they are “fulfilling Unitarian Universalist purpose.”
• I don’t expect UU members to refuse to pass the replacement for Article III, because they will continue to assume the re-written Bylaws will be enforced reasonably and will accept assurances that periodical renewal of membership is a mere formality that is only intended to address truly egregious conduct on the part of a congregation.

All of this will make the preservation of liberalism in UU a steep uphill climb, for those who are inclined to engage in that effort.

Two Important Things

Subscribe to Comments

Subscribe to comments to follow the comments from other readers.

Join the Fifth Principle Project. It’s free. The Fifth Principle Project is an organic grassroots initiative to gather into community Unitarian Universalists who want to reinvigorate the right of conscience and renew the democratic process in the governing of our denomination.