Since 2017, when the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Board declared that UUism and the Association were complicit with white supremacy culture, there has been a concerted, top-down effort to transform UUism from its historical theological foundations into a social justice, anti-racist, and anti-oppression movement. This Guest Reflection provides a perspective on the UUA’s attempt to transition the denomination from its historical foundations to what the author calls the “new UUA Movement.”
Historical Foundations
During the 1700s, empirical criticism led Congregational Calvinists to revisit their beliefs more rationally, starting with a rigorous examination of the Bible.
A new awareness of “natural philosophy” (science) influenced these early thinkers, who were proto-Unitarians and laid the foundation for the modern UU consciousness. Starting with their biblical criticism, they proposed a progressive evolution that developed a carefully crafted religion. These first non-doctrinal Congregationalists later became known as Unitarians. The term was intended as a pejorative for those questioning Christian dogma. Universalists traveled a similar path through their Calvinistic Baptist traditions. These proto-liberals could be considered the first to be declared “out of covenant.”
Once the free and responsible search for truth was initiated, it was unstoppable. Our UU forebears developed faith systems ranging from Semi-Arianism (Jesus is not divine) in the 1700s to Christian Humanism and Universal Salvation in the early 1800s, the Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau, and late 19th—and early 20th-century Pragmatics and Objective Ideology. Each exploration was a natural development from the one before.
There was much disagreement. Yet, for all the dissension, “wrong” turns, and occasional backsliding, the net result was a decent, realistic attempt to reconcile our highest aspirations with the empirical knowledge of the day (science, technology, aesthetics, experience). Where orthodoxy remained frozen in dogma, liberals achieved a symbiotic relationship with expanding knowledge—something no other “organized” religious tradition can claim on a consistent historical basis.
Cluttered Spiritual Palate
In the latter half of the 20th century, liberal Protestant contributions to religious thought faltered. Thought leaders such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and our own James Luther Adams (Unitarian) and Clarence Skinner (Universalist) were still highly respected. Yet the cumulative effect of waves of radical skepticism nurtured by postmodernism began to make us all uncomfortable with religion itself, perhaps seeing it as an irrelevant relic.
Our own UU religious humanism gradually morphed into a “secular humanism with some religious trappings” that has kept us comfortable for far too long.
I grew up in a church forever hearing that UUs were “too intellectual.” Yet, for all our collective power, we haven’t contributed anything intellectually respectable to religion for more than a half-century.
In the 1970s, humanism was under attack and was seen as lacking the substance to deal with “real life” problems. Spiritually hungry UUs began to appropriate tasty bits from other traditions in the vacuum. As we claimed more sources for inspiration, these acquisitions were rationalized to indicate our religious “sophistication.” Our spiritual palate was becoming ever more cluttered. A little new age here, a bit of liberation there, a dash of Buddhism, a touch of spiritualism, add a bunch of social awareness. Mix it all up; throw it in the oven. Heat until half-baked.
The hard truth is we have borrowed far too much, far too freely, and created far too little. As a result, there has been a hole in the center of UUism for decades.
Ripe for Takeover
The new UUA Movement, promulgated by the UUA, filled this vacuum. The 2017 declaration to decenter “white supremacy culture” had an appeal in its uncluttered singularity. The Commission of Institutional Change (COIC) and its 2020 report, Widening the Circle of Concern, gave the decentering campaign a feel of thoughtful legitimacy. The June 2024 passage of the new Article II language intentionally severed our connection to our past. The new UUA Movement required this severance since our past was deemed to be the source of our alleged white supremacy tendencies.
The new Article II language expressly rejects the liberal-humanist foundations as racist. Thought leaders need not apply. We now have a “top-down” creedal approach based on a proscribed form of social action.
Welcome to the new UUA Movement.
The New UUA Movement
Beloved Community
Our current UUA leadership proclaims that a “beloved community” characterized by “liberating love” is the existential centerpiece of its new UUA Movement. But what does the new UAA movement say these terms mean?
Let’s start with the concept of “beloved community.” That concept has authentic meaning in the work of the American philosopher Josiah Royce (1855–1916), who originated the concept. He was building on an array of Enlightenment philosophers, such as Emmanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, David Hume, and Baruch Spinoza. While none of these philosophers explicitly discussed a “beloved community,” their contributions provide ethical foundations for a society based on love, respect, justice, and mutual care. Royce envisioned the “beloved community” as an ideal society rooted in mutual care, understanding, and moral harmony, where people work collaboratively for the common good, transcending individual self-interest.
Royce worked during a period of remarkable UU-inspired thinking. He stressed the fundamental importance of community as well as individual consciousness. He believed the relationship between individuals and groups creates deeply improved thinking and social quality. Royce explains how loyal truth-seekers can act as a transcendent moral source and witness.
As interpreted by the Bylaws Renewal team, created in June 2022 to “reimagine” the UUA through a complete rewrite of the Association’s bylaws, the concept is perverted to make “beloved community” exist over and against the problem of individualism, which emphasizes the idea that each person should have the freedom to make their own choices, pursue their own goals, and develop their unique identity, often placing personal success and fulfillment above collective goals or societal norms.
In the effort to bring about the Beloved Community, we often err on the side of the individual as the primary agent of change over and against systemic change.
This perversion of the beloved community is repeated throughout the COIC report. It utterly fails to appreciate Royce’s work and contradicts the original meaning of the beloved community. There is little evidence that the new UUA movement knows the origin of the concept they’ve appropriated or can appreciate its philosophical pedigree and meaning.
Liberating Love
In the Article II revision, the new UUA movement defines “liberating love” as a dynamic, action-oriented principle that promotes social justice through equitable relationships and the healing of historic injustices.
Though James Luther Adams (1901–1994) never used the phrase “liberating love,” there is abundant evidence the new UUA’s use of that phrase is deeply indebted to this prominent Unitarian theologian. His theological work emphasizes the transformative power of love within communities, fostering a more just and compassionate society. Adams aligns closely with the concept of love as a liberating force. However, no evidence exists that the new UUA Movement acknowledged its debt to Adams for originating the concept.
The Values of the UUA Bylaws Renewal Team
- Interdependence over individualism
- Ending the centering of white culture
- Trusting leadership over fear of authority
- Freedom to act over risk avoidance
- Strategy, objectives, and plans over monitoring and oversight
- Clarity and simplicity over complexity
- Decisions located organizationally based on importance to mission
Let’s examine just three of these values.
“Interdependence over Individualism”
Let’s be clear: “Interdependence over Individualism” is a false choice. UUs do not subscribe to individualism. They value individuality and personal conscience, not individualism. Individualism is the idea that an individual’s wants and values are more important than collective needs and that organizations exist solely for the benefits they provide to their members.
UUs believe all persons’ ideas, cultures, capabilities, and experiences are essential to forming a good society and, when taken at their best, result in a collective far greater than the sum of its parts. Our Seventh Principle stresses this “deep consciousness of community” in the phrase respect for the interdependent web of all existence. Thus, interdependence and individuality are inextricably linked, and our 1st Principle, which honors the “inherent worth” of individuals, is an absolute necessity for healthful interdependence. Royce would agree.
Ending of White Culture
UUA leadership has used the term “white culture” as a proxy for Enlightenment values. The legacy values of the Enlightenment are the foundation of Western culture—a legacy of a community constituted by liberty and democracy, equality and social justice, individual rights, and reason. The UUA logic is simple: White men conceived of such ideas; ergo, they are racist ideas.
An irony of the new UUA Movement is that it centers on the beloved community as an existential centerpiece in its campaign to fight racism. That is, Royce’s “beloved community” is itself a product of those same white culture/Enlightenment characteristics of logic-based and closely reasoned processes that UUA leadership now so roundly decries must be decentered!
Remember, too, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Black man, incorporated Royce’s “beloved community” concept into his 1960s Civil Rights movement to provide an image of a future, more harmonious multi-racial society. Does the UUA now demand that the Civil Rights Movement and King himself be decentered and declared invalid?
These contradictions beg the question, “Is UUA leadership aware of these glaring contradictions? If they are, then they are morally dishonest. If not, then they are intellectually incompetent.
The same criticism of dishonesty or incompetency leveled at the use of “beloved community” can also be leveled at the new UUA Movement’s appropriation of James Luther Adams. He was a straight white male. Should Adams and his theology be decentered and now declared invalid?
Instead of the obsession with “end the centering white culture,” why not contextualize Euro-centric and American culture so that the best of its informing values, shorn of the discredited “scientific racism” and eugenics, can be used productively toward the goal they have always had—social and racial justice?
Trusting Leadership over Fear of Authority
By “trusting leadership over fear of authority,” the new UUA Movement intends to shift moral and spiritual leadership away from individuals and congregations to the UUA national leadership. Effectively, “liberating love” is a coded attempt to obtain unearned authority and unaccountable control. Add the requirement for personal confessions of privilege—guilt and the demand for unquestioned acceptance of the new UUA Movement, and you get the loss of democratic governance and the imposition of authoritarian top-down control.
Despite the rather blatant attempt to restructure power away from individuals and congregations, UUA leadership continues to insist it operates under a democratic mandate from the General Assembly election process. It does not.
It is ironic that the Bylaws Renewal Team even quotes from the UUA’s 2009 Fifth Principle Task Force Report, which advocated for strengthening democracy at the UUA’s yearly General Assembly. The General Assembly is not democratic, and delegates are neither representatives of their congregations (other than being members) nor accountable to them.
After three attempts by individuals through the petition process to be genuinely elected to the UUA Board of Trustees, that body now contains only appointed trustees. General Assembly remains as broken today as it was in 2009.
“Trusting leadership over fear of authority” is just a mechanism to gain power without scrutiny or accountability.
The Theological Wasteland of the New UUA Movement
Where is the transcendence, humility, or devotion in the new UUA Movement writings?
While I have seen the word “humility” occasionally used, the authors of the new UUA Movement are 100% self-righteously assured of the rectitude of their beliefs. The UUA offers one and only one valid path to social justice, with its “beloved community” and “liberating love.” All UUs must follow this path exclusively. Questioning or disagreeing will result in censure or worse.
The new UUA Movement offers no foundation comparable to our religious Unitarian and Universalist heritages. Unitarianism and Universalism emerged from a long progression of thoughtful consideration of scripture, philosophy, science, and aesthetics. There is simply no way that a constructive theology can be developed in our modern era without using the best work that the Western religious, intellectual, aesthetic, and scientific traditions have produced.
Instead, the new UUA approach is simplistic. It is based on crude generalizations, replacing nuanced thought with a checklist of proscribed “either-or” positions.
The fact that the new UUA Movement beliefs fall on the left side of the social/political spectrum—or, better said, the “far left”—does not remove the permanent stain of illiberality.
A theology of “liberating love” has been assembled from cherry-picked bits of post-modern standpoint theory, liberation theology, and critical race theory, with a pretense of intellectual heft attempted by a whisper of Josiah Royce and lip service to the work of James Luther Adams. Royce and Adams have real potential value, but our UU leadership has failed to do the hard work of developing a coherent narrative.
By itself, “love” is not a theology, “liberating” or not, nor is a pretty picture of a flower with values petals. The preoccupation with reordering power structures is disturbing, and no amount of quasi-theological gloss can cover its true intent.
The extreme emphasis on power dynamics between groups in the “theology” of the new UUA movement and the rigid hierarchy of righteousness (based on the marginalization of race, heritage, class, or ability) are, for want of a better term, “neo-Calvinistic.” We have effectively been returned to the same power structures that Unitarians and Universalists fled in the 1700s.
Religion is the vision of something that stands beyond, behind, and within the passing flux of immediate things; something that is real and yet waiting to be realized; something that is a remote possibility and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest. A. N. Whitehead
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.
Thankyou so much, this is an excellent analysis.
Let’s try to call things by their right name. Not try too hard to be polite. The rules say three people must be nominated to run for president. Only one was nominated. So, she won the election. An honest person would have declined to accept the office, noting it was achieved in violation of the rules. Bettencourt accepted the office and brushed aside inquiries about the method. Bottom line: she considered herself above the rules. She’d ignore the rules, and do whatever she felt like in the future. The underlings would accept that, because they accepted her as president, against… Read more »
Agree. The love of power over others rules, and trumps what really IS awesome– the cultivation of the power within. And, what better place for love of power over others to hide, then under the guise of (alleged) social justice–yeah, right!
An excellent analysis, and consistent with my 50+ years of UU experience. So what’s next? The UU movement has never been particularly successful and the new version seems even less attractive. What we need is a new version of the old story of religion, written in words that speak to people today. The world is on a path that will lead to complete destruction of our civilization and perhaps our species. We need a story, a belief system, that will lead us to work together to turn our current path from failure to success, or at least, survival. And it… Read more »
Each of us must work on the part of the job that they’re best equipped for. I personally find it painfully frustrating and probably useless to organize against the intellectual and social evasions that I meet in my congregation. So I work on the intellectual foundations that we’ll need.
In fact, I have been working on a theological model that might make sense. I call it the “optional god”. I am a toolmaker in the foundry industry: I make foundry patterns, machining fixtures, and the like. I also still pour metal (I am 72). All good toolmakers are obsessed with precision, and the history of measurement is one of creating devices that are more precise than the measuring tools used in making them. Investigating the history of metrology, and working through the necessary thinking processes involved, was one of the first things that moved me from being a “devout… Read more »
Former sent and written by my husband, John Stowe
I heard a wonderful presentation sponsored by NAUA last Saturday about the life and work of Imaoka Shin’ichira that said the same thing- he never wanted to put down the faith statements he believed in as absolute because we are never “graduates” in our beliefs- they keep evolving.
It’s a bit difficult to come at this from your experience as a toolmaker. But if I understand you correctly, the surfaces and transcendant overarching standards that combine to make an object in your industry correspond to the mental and physical poles of actual entities, or actual occasions, in Whiteheads metaphysics? Further, your “optional god” corresponds to Whiteheads God as an actual occasion?
This is a mostly “yes”. That said, if I were to write the whole essay, you would have an un-wanted book on your hands. I think of this as a “post process” theology, in that it discards the traditional personalizing language that Whitehead and Hartshorne used. Another difference is that I do not view an event as god, or even the sum total of events. I consider the FACT of the sum total of events as god, and for me, this is my only absolute. Nothing supernatural here, but our participation in, and evaluation of, events allow us to find,… Read more »
“Our participation in, and evaluation of, events allow us to find, experience, and understand quality in the most profound sense of the word. The potential for all to engage in the search for quality (if only in a limited way) is part of what lends us our inherent worth and dignity.” If I understand you, what you’re saying coincides nicely with what Plato was driving at when he placed the Good at the summit of everything that’s intelligible. And told us that the pursuit of the Good enables the soul to be fully itself (what we call “our inherent worth… Read more »
I once wrote a paper in grad school about a dissertation by a friend of mine, now deceased, Lois Gehr Livesey. It was never published as a book, but it damn well should have been. The basic thesis, as I recall, concerned the availability of Whitehead’s metaphysics as grounds for the theological legitimacy of democracy. I recently ran across it in my papers, which I have been digitizing. This dialogue has inspired me to read it, as I wrote some 40 years ago. I also retained a copy of her dissertation. I’ve very much enjoyed this exchange, John, your “bloviating”… Read more »
Briliantly and powerfully said. I hope that many will take in your wise and eloquent analysis of the situation. I’ve been a UU since I was 12 for what it’s worth. Thank you.
A wonderful quote from Whitehead, capping off a sophisticated account of the history of UU thought. Those who can’t appreciate the beauty of what Whitehead wrote, should go back to school and learn something. Unfortunately, few seminaries (apparently) and certainly few philosophy departments have anything like Whitehead’s or Royce’s sophistication on these issues. It may not be the fault of Rev. Bettancourt and her colleagues that they don’t appreciate the richness of our western and UU traditions, since the schools (Yale Divinity School, etc.) that they’ve attended don’t seem to appreciate it either. It’s not only the UUA that’s a… Read more »
The author told me that the Whitehead quote was added by his wife. It could not have been more appropriate. But it is a really nice closing to a feast for the mind, even though the subject matter is so disheartening. I want to thank John Stowe again for such a good piece.
I want to add that I think Whitehead should be a place to start the retreival effort you so rightly referred to, and not just for UUism.
Thanks, then, to John Stowe’s wife! I certainly agree that Whitehead is one very good starting point. Others include Cudworth, Kant, Hegel, Emerson, Royce, and Plato. I’ve published a book on Plato, Hegel, and the present. People are scared of “philosophy,” but it doesn’t have to be scary or disheartening. There’s a lot of heart there, if you know where to look. I would like to know what else John Stowe has written.
Lest I be given too much credit for the Whitehead quote, it came from a recent post from All Souls in NYC. They post daily ” First Light Meditations” which you can sign up for. It resonated with me so much! Galen Guengerich, their senior minister, has written an excellent book, “The Way of Gratitude:A New Spirituality for Today” that is an excellent read by a living theologian that moves our religion forward. Food for thought. Ann Stowe
I will look up his book. Thanks again!
I do not know where First/Last came from. I made that post.
I thought it might be a sly reference to Matthew 20:16: “So those who are last [in this world] shall be first [in the world to come], and those who are first, last.” 😉
Re. “for all our collective power, we haven’t contributed anything intellectually respectable to religion for more than a half-century” and “The hard truth is we have borrowed far too much, far too freely, and created far too little. As a result, there has been a hole in the center of UUism for decades.” I would submit that the core notion of covenant, community, and mutual commitment to “live together in peace, seek truth in freedom, serve humankind fellowship” is the core of UUism. And that we have discovered (or rediscovered) the essential truths that “all paths lead to the same… Read more »
And those who prefer CONTROL rather than “encouragement to spiritual growth.”
Brilliant article and a good explanation of why I left my UU church. I was tired of feeling shamed and dismissed and having nothing spiritual to hang on to. I’m a big proponent of social justice but I want my religion to inspire my activism not tell me what to do and how to do it. I have joined a very welcoming, very liberal Episcopal Church which offers a lot of opportunity for spiritual, theological, and intellectual exploration and has a wonderful social justice outreach project. An added bonus is that the music is beautiful. I now leave church with… Read more »
An excellent and insightful analysis. For anyone interested in a Whiteheadian community, may I suggest the Cobb Institute, named after Whiteheadian scholar John Cobb in Claremont CA. http://Www.cobb.institute. The Cobb Institute offers a certificate in Process Thought (Whitehead) and have some excellent scholars teaching.
I don’t always agree with everything on this website, but this is pure fire.
For my part, having known a lot of these people, my vote is 95% incompetence over dishonesty. There’s some of them I don’t know all that well and I’m there for a little bit unsure of, but everyone I’ve gotten to know has seemed to me to be very sincere, and of them a meaningful fraction have also seemed disturbingly shallow in thought.
I don’t doubt they’re all sincere. We all suffer, to one degree or another, from the intellectual/spiritual void that John Stowe described so well. And when people find themselves in positions in which they’re expected to lead, they can easily make mistakes that seem, at the time, like clearly the right thing to do.
With all due respect, Robert, I don’t doubt that we’re all sincere. But that’s the trouble with sincerity. It doesn’t explain anything. It’s a virtue that even evil people possess. The UUA and their minions were sincere when they shut themselves off from listening to those of us who defend the faith they have abandoned. It is perhaps true, as John’s piece so well traces, that many in leadership roles were unaware of the richness and depth of our faith. Perhaps this does help to account for why they were rife for takeover by an alien ideology. But it does… Read more »
I think the willingness to make excuses for behavior such as Frank has outlined above, e. g., the UUA hiding what they were trying to do – take over and completely change Unitarian Universalism – from the majority of UUs, outright lying about doing “research,” threatening UU ministers who did not fall into line by accepting that “all whites are racist,” etc. is part of our fundamental problem in UUism. By saying, “Hey, I’m sure they meant well” when we know no such thing is putting one’s head in the sand when there’s a raging fire burning all to the… Read more »
Dysfunction, mismanaged organizations can be run by well-intentioned and perfectly likeable you’d like to have lunch with. That they are nice and well-intentioned is irrelevant.
I don’t doubt that the UUA leaders have good intentions, but even the UUA idealogues say “impact > intention.”
“It comes from our ministers and our seminaries”? Well, then, explain where our ministers and seminaries got their ideas. As John Stowe explained very well, our ministers and seminaries have been suffering from an intellectual/spiritual void for half a century. I myself think the void is far broader than UU circles. As you undoubtedly know, cynicism has been de rigueur for a long time in our universities. It’s all about “power/knowledge” (Foucault). If this is what Ivy League humanities departments teach, how are the rest of us supposed to think otherwise? No, our new saviors aren’t outright cynics. Rather, they… Read more »
Other than the word “blame”, we’re generally in agreement. I am not blaming. I am interested examining just what you said, what is being taught in our seminaries and brought to our congregations? Your question about where they are getting these ideas is fundamental and needs to be understood if as a people we are to address the situation. That is what I mean by an investigation.
Yes, thanks. We could certainly go into more detail than John Stowe had room for in his essay. I’m not myself an expert in the history of UU thought and preaching. I do think I have a pretty good idea of the history of philosophy in the US over the last two centuries, from Emerson and Thoreau through William James, Josiah Royce, Whitehead, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell and AJ Ayer (two Britishers who’ve had a lot of influence in the US), WVO Quine, John Rawls, and others. Scientism, as in Ayer and Quine, drove the idealism of Emerson, Royce, and… Read more »
Maybe I should define a couple of my terms, here. “Scientism” is the doctrine that the physical sciences are the final authority on what is real. (So freedom, consciousness, thought, value, and the like are probably not going to qualify as real.) What I refer to as “idealism” is not the doctrine that “everything is ideas,” which few serious thinkers maintain; rather, it’s the notion that our experience of consciousness, thought, value, freedom and so forth gives us access to a kind of reality that the physical sciences don’t identify, but which must be real if we are to take… Read more »
But you have enough background in UU thought to immediately recognize the trend that Stowe put his proverbial finger on. I too, believe our universities are teaching from a post-modern playbook. They certainly seem to be in our seminaries. That is, as you said, how someone with Betancourt’s background can diss the likes of Kant as a racist, and of course the whole Enlightenment movement. If that is what they are giving doctorates for then we’re in a world of hurt intellectually and politically, as we now see that the ideology she seems to have swallowed whole and uncritically is… Read more »
James and Whitehead, certainly, plus Emerson, Kant, and Hegel, and the Plato whom they all draw on (James, unfortunately, unconsciously). Ours is indeed a world of intellectual and political hurt. I do draw some consolation from the recent trend in analytic philosophy (Rawls, Tom Nagel, Susan Neiman, John Martin Fisher) to grapple seriously with ethics, politics, consciousness, and free will. But the rigor of their discussions doesn’t attract folks who want to save the world. Perhaps most valuable of all are the Romantic and mystical poets, Rumi, Traherne, Wordsworth, Emily Dickinson, Whitman. Can we personally be the “bards of the… Read more »
Kant and Rawls for sure, but I doubt you can get a democratic politics from Hegel or Plato.
Ah, but you can! Plato’s politics in the Republic are the result of the traumas of Socrates’s execution and Athens’s insane expedition against Syracuse. But his primary commitment is to the principle that “the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul” (518b). His Laws show him trying to be more optimistic about applying this principle in a political system. The Stoics, Christian thinkers, and modern theorists like Rousseau, Kant, and Mill simply extend this application of Plato’s principle. Hegel, similarly, was traumatized by the Terror. As we, too, may be by whatever Trump’s democratically elected regime has in store… Read more »
I know about Plato’s contribution to the idea of the soul. Whitehead called the notion of the eternal value of the individual soul a Platonic/Christian idea. That certainly has historically undergirded the development of democracy. But Plato’s own criticisms of democracy are well known. His preference for a top-down, elitist governance structure contrasts sharply with democracy’s emphasis on bottom-up, participatory governance. Also, his distrust of the masses and his ideal of the philosopher-king stand in stark contrast to the democratic belief in collective wisdom and the equal political rights of all citizens. Sure, you can use some of his ideas… Read more »
It is a striking fact that Plato propounds his doctrine of the soul in the same dialogue, the Republic, in which he spins his fantasies of hierarchy. He had to be aware of the conflict between the two. As I suggested, he moderated his political views a lot in his last work, the Laws, in which he takes pains to make the laws intelligible to the citizenry at large. It is really fairly participatory, in that way. Of course, he couldn’t anticipate the extent to which his idea of the soul would wind up inspiring millions of people. He would… Read more »
Plato’s discussion of the soul in the Republic is not a “striking fact.” Plato discussed his idea of the soul in several dialogues. The doctrine we’re discussing, the soul’s immortality, is found in the Phaedo. In The Republic, Plato uses the idea of the soul as an analogy to explain justice at both the individual and societal levels. The well-ordered soul mirrors the well-ordered state, and it’s not a democratic order. As to acknowledging that his criticisms of democracy may be justified, they may be. But his criticism is from the perspective of his well-ordered state. Dial forward a couple… Read more »
Thanks, Frank. It’s helpful for me to be confronted by the kinds of objections that you’re articulating. The “striking fact” that I referred to is not that Plato’s doctrine of the soul first appears in the Republic, which it doesn’t, but that it’s developed extensively there, at the same time that he develops his hierarchical fantasies about the state. … You say, “The well-ordered soul mirrors the well-ordered state, and it’s not a democratic order.” I hope you don’t mean to suggest that if we reject Plato’s political authoritarianism, we should reject the order that he says we seek to… Read more »
The order of Plato’s metaphysics was my first dazzling taste of the sublime. When I read the Republic, particularly when Plato has Socrates explain the idea of the Good, I could feel a seismic shift in my mind as the mere whisper of comprehension lifted me momentarily above the dither of the day-to-day. That experience changed my life, and I haven’t been the same since. I was in my early 20s. But it never once occurred to me that any of it was a program to be implemented. It was for me, more like I had just been bequeathed a… Read more »
You and I are in complete agreement about what you say here. I am very happy to hear about your early embrace of Plato. In my case, it took a lot longer. I never had any doubt about justice, but I came much later to an appreciation of how important Plato is for the subject. And many thanks to you and Jay for setting up this fine discussion forum.
Since we are talking about Hegel, we note that, despite his profound influence, Hegel is a transitional thinker on the cusp of a significant change that he does not quite recognize himself. He is still philosophizing within a religious context and self-identifying as a Lutheran. Philosophy was still a subset of religion at that time, but not for long. Ultimately, religion becomes a (sometimes minor) subset of philosophy…but the one that posits meaning and value as its reason for being. When secular humanism swept through liberal religion, it became difficult to define the implications of “inherent value”, and the trend… Read more »
I think your remarks about skepticism, and about secular humanism’s difficulties, are apropos, and wise. As to Hegel, of course he presents himself as a Lutheran Christian. But much of his philosophy of religion can be used by non-Christians, or only “cafeteria” Christians, such as myself. It is not correct to say that philosophy in his time was still a subset of religion. Religion had been under challenge for a couple of centuries at that point. Both Spinoza and Kant were perceived by many as dangerous atheists (though neither of them can correctly be called an atheist). Kant famously refuted… Read more »
Well, I can readily accept this. I picked Hegel as a convenient tipping point, not an absolute one. And yes, challenges to the “omni-omni” creator (omniscient-omnipotent) God were certainly appearing from the age of reason on. Perhaps Hegel wanted the “comfort” of identifying as he did. Kant was right: Anselm’s proof, while clever in its way, is ultimately circular, as are arguments from necessity, and first-cause arguments. Deism, of course, has its own story. Interestingly, Boston moralist Unitarians thought of themselves as the ultimate Christians; they were pietistic and rejected Deism completely. Channing continued to defend the gospel miracles, and Unitarianism… Read more »
My sense is that Hegel thought the tradition of Christian thought and devotion contained more truth than the secular alternatives that were being bandied about. (He was deeply impressed by Meister Eckhart and by Jacob Boehme.) And I tend to agree with him, even though I am not a Christian, as such.
“Is UUA leadership aware of these glaring contradictions? If they are, then they are morally dishonest. If not, then they are intellectually incompetent.” YESSSSS !!!
Has anyone forwarded this to them? Maybe as an early Christmas present. 😉
Amen. Like James Luther Adams, I think having physical churches with institutional memory is a very important part of a religion. The problem is with wanting to wipe out our 6 sources, our informing heritage, and with statements like Betancourt made in the fall/winter UUWorld, when asked “If you could go six years into the future, how do you think you’d like to look back on your presidency” she replied, “ I hope we still have vibrant brick-and-mortar congregations…”there is serious doubt that we actually will be able to maintain our churches. And given the lack of a coherent theology… Read more »
What you say, Ann Stowe, about physical churches and institutional memory, is very true. It would be fantastic if it turns out that UU churches have enough memory of real sources of inspiration that they can pull us through this current madness. … Rev Betancourt is probably not the most coherent thinker or the best communicator in the UUA leadership. I had an extended dialogue on a Facebook group (was it “Savethe7Principles”?) with one of the co-chairs of the Article II revision committee, who was reasonably coherent, in his own terms, and was not condescending or obviously jingoistic. He simply… Read more »
I couldn’t agree more. My experience with a local UU fellowship has existed for almost 19 years. New to UU when we first attended, we were both shocked at the unreasoned, almost (or not) authoritarian tone of the new movement. Our fellowship is quite small,and although we have been through some dire times, it has been one stable place for discussion, service, and a spiritual place to come to. We are unique in that we only survive financially due to Winter Texans, whose attendance is November through April. That leaves our numbers quite low during five or more months. Maintenance… Read more »
I’m very sorry to hear of your difficulties. I’m afraid many smaller congregations may have trouble dealing with this new world. Some buildings will probably end up being abandoned, with great sadness. But keep looking; I think you will find there is lots of spirituality out here, often in unexpected places. You may be a resource for others.
Very helpful analysis
This article and these comments have been incredibly helpful and supportive to me. At the end of GA, I resigned my church membership since I wanted to have nothing more with to do with UUA, after having called myself a UU since 1978. Since then, I have continued to attend church and work on committees, but I definitely feel a certain shunning, and I am deeply in search of spirituality, which had been lacking in my particular congregation already. I have found joy in an online class on healing taught by UU minister Laura Horton-Ludwig, some excellent poetry readings, working… Read more »
Wouldn’t it be lovely if all of us who have posted here could live in the same locale and exchange ideas on a regular basis as a UU fellowship we formed. Unfortunately, that is not possible. I am looking for some very practical suggestions for those of us who still belong to UU congregations that still have some association with the current UUA. What I admire about the posting by John Stowe is that for the first time someone has pointed out the intellectual bankruptcy of the current UUA leadership, whether from ignorance or overweening ambition or insular thinking or… Read more »
Thanks Andrew and others to thought provoking comments on John Stowe’s very useful essay. To address the NAUA reference, I am on the Board and yes we are in “beginning stages”. Please do checkout and bookmark the NAUA website As a long time Unitarian, I used to think that the UUA/CUC both served and defined our denomination. I now see the “capture” by post modern followers of our denomination and many other of our institutions. This has resulted in current leaders seeing our liberal religion as a means to a new and quite revolutionary utopia. That isn’t necessarily bad in… Read more »
John Stowe has written a wonderful and insightful article about the New UUA Movement. I am a retired UU Minister and I am excited to read John’s statement that “there has been a hole in the center of UUism for decades.” I have been saying the same thing for decades! Unitarianism and Universalism are religions, but UUism took the religion out of the mix leaving a gaping hole which is now filled with radical left wing anti-white racism! As another writer commented, there is no need to be so polite. Our country faces a frightening undemocratic future and the only… Read more »
I appreciated the article.
I’d like to know more about the author. Would a bio be possible?
I think resides in Hartford CT and presumably is it was a UU and possibly member of that congregation.
Not to be confused with Bishop John Stowe
That would up to John. He’s reading this thread so I defer to him.
Well, my bio will be singularly unimpressive: I never went to college, and you will find no particular honors or distinctions attached to me, though I do hold a couple of patents. I live in Hartford CT and have been married to violinist Anhared Stowe for 51 years. I have served two apprenticeships. The first was as an aircraft metalsmith and the second as a patternmaker. (foundry toolmaker) My son and I operate a small foundry -the last in Hartford, which was once arguably the center of advanced industrial culture in the US. I am a multi-generation UU, and this… Read more »
Thanks John. I hope this is helpful to the person asking for it.
Thanks for sharing this with us, John. Regardless of credentials, handsome is as handsome does, and you write very well and know a lot more about religion and UUism than many UU leaders seem to know. I hope you’ll publish more from time to time.
Thanks so very much for this careful, reasoned disquisition.
Thanks, John. I appreciate your historical context. And I think you were too kind too the liberal faction high jacking our faith.
I thank you all for your amazingly erudite and thoughtful insights! I now have enough reading suggestions to last me the rest of my lifetime. I also don’t feel so alone with my anger in dealing with the morass our denomination has been thrown into by the New Movement and its adherents. With gratefulness and love, Ann Stowe
T.S. Elliot described liberals as those of good intention setting out to do good only to produce bad results and then justify themselves by by their good intentions. I do wonder what Elliot meant by liberal, but I do find his discription does apply to the UUA.
The UUA idealogues also push the theory of impact > intent. Though they probably don’t apply that to white people.
There is a saying attributed to Churchill (and others) that goes something like this: ” If a young person of twenty years is not a liberal, he has no heart. If the same person at the age of forty is not a conservative, he has no brain.” Let’s amend that with: “If in the fullness of his adulthood, he has not found a useful synthesis between the two, perhaps he has no soul”. To risk over-generalizing, the liberals often seem to treat their efforts at reform/justice as form of personal therapy. Meanwhile, so many conservatives use the upholding of “standards”… Read more »