How covenants are used as ideological weapons in Unitarian Universalism

The church is becoming credal

Many institutions, from churches to community groups, establish covenants, which are agreements mutually accepted by members. These covenants may outline shared values, principles for collaboration, behavior expectations, conflict resolution strategies, and more. They can foster a sense of belonging and cooperation within a community, and groups need rules to function well.

However, in certain contexts like cults and fundamentalist religions covenants can become tools of oppression and control. They may be unilaterally imposed and wielded to consolidate power, punish dissenters, enforce doctrinal conformity, unfairly isolate individuals, and manipulate members' perceptions.

Some religious and political organizations reasonably incorporate creeds into their covenants. A Christian denomination might require members to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, and a political advocacy group might require members to agree to certain political positions. Unitarian Universalism, however, is a different type of church. It is non-credal, emphasizing classically liberal, pluralistic values that support freedom of belief and expression. There are no theological or political litmus tests; rather, it encourages members to explore their personal spiritual and philosophical paths. Any covenants in UU must protect and welcome these principles.

The UUA is working to change UU into an authoritarian, dogmatic, illiberal church

As many have documented, the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and its two seminaries were organizationally captured by extreme political activists who reject the fundamental tenets of liberal religion and wish to make UU into a top-down church with the UUA having power over the congregations.

The UUA’s leaders and many ideological ministers reject the principles of individual liberty, liberalism, reason, freedom of belief and expression, and liberal democracy, seeking instead to impose their political ideology onto the church. Reports are, that at a recent UU forum, the new UUA President said she does not support UU’s first principle of affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person, with ideologues dismissing it and the other UU principles as products of the Western Enlightenment. Other church leaders and activists previously echoed the President’s sentiment, saying that, to support the new collectivist vision, the church must "decenter individual dignity."

Below are some articles on this for your reading.

Standing on the Side of Power by UU Minister Rev. Munro Sickafoose

The culture wars dividing America’s most liberal church : Financial Times of London

How the Unitarian Universalist Church Melted Down (Blocked and Reported Podcast)

How the UUA Manufactures Consent by UU Minister Rev. Gary Kowalski

How to Destroy a Liberal Church : Journal of Free Black Thought

.

Covenants and “accountability” are now often used as weapons to enforce ideology and suppress viewpoint diversity

The ideologues consider their viewpoints dogma, viewing dissent as heresy and being "out of covenant." Ministers who have criticized the new orthodoxy and the authoritarian manner in which it is enforced have been labeled as "out of covenant" and punished. Within many congregations, ideological ministers and leaders have taken similar actions, calling out, censoring, and sometimes suspending or expelling congregants who dissent. This is the antithesis of UU and liberal religion.

In his open resignation letter from the UU Ministers’ Association (UUMA), longtime UU minister Rev. Alex Holt wrote: “In a few short years, the ‘rules’ (so-called ‘guidelines’) have been radically changed to fit a new norm of covenant and accountability that seems to forget the foundations upon which they were based.”

.

Employing postmodernist definitions of “truth” and “justice”

Many new UU covenants, structures and disruptive behavior rules employ racialist postmodernist theories where the value of one's opinion is based on one’s immutable characteristics, particularly race. According to this perspective, whatever a UU racial minority expresses is to be accepted as truth-telling, demanding unquestioning acceptance from white UUs. Disagreeing with a UU minority, and even asking for evidence to support a claim, is characterized as “racist” and deemed to be "out of covenant."

This approach is not only blatantly racist and throws out UU’s first principle of the inherent worth and dignity of every person and the fourth principle of “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning”, but also fosters toxic and dysfunctional communities where logic, facts, science, and fairness are disregarded. Within the UUA, normal notions of due process have been discarded, with individuals being condemned and punished without even being given details of their alleged offenses. The UUMA apparently eliminated ministers' right to legal counsel during disputes, and, according to a minister, labeled those who want this right as "racist.” Rev. Rick Davis, a UU minister and former member of the UUMA’s Good Officers program, wrote that the new disciplinary process is authoritarian, opaque, and “truly Kafkaesque.”

Educational psychologist Patricia Mohr Ph.D., who criticizes the new UUA approach, writes, “Covenants are dangerous when there are no rules for veracity, when the only ‘fact’ is the perception of the victim-- and the victim is always the most marginalized/oppressed person. It's a recipe for resentment and division, not diversity. This is why any organization needs rules for addressing conflicts. It's why empiricism, reliability, and validity are the heart of science.”

She added, “I would not stay in a congregation in which I was told to apologize to someone because I disagreed with them. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and empathy toward all?”

.

A preview of the new “covenantal church”

There have been countless instances where ministers and congregants have faced censorship, punishment, ad hominem attacks, and humiliation simply for expressing disagreement or different viewpoints. As a telling example, I point to the treatment of Kenneth Christiansen.

Dr. Kenneth Christiansen, a former member of a UU congregation in Florida, is a retired minister and pastor of the United Church of Christ and a professor emeritus of religion and sociology at Defiance College where he taught Cultural Diversity classes. Christiansen has been a dedicated racial justice activist and organizer for years, including engaging in initiatives in inner-city Chicago. He is a scholarly authority on asset-based anti-racism, an approach inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. that encourages people of all races to collaborate in racial justice work. In short, his commitment to racial and social justice and cultural diversity is beyond question.

Christiansen has been a justified critic of the current UUA and its guilt-based and segregating approach to social justice, which he has written is counterproductive. According to Christiansen, for this criticism and his disagreement on this topic with a minority member of his congregation, his congregation’s minister labeled him as “out of covenant,” and he and his wife were driven from the congregation. Christiansen wrote of his experiences in Notes from an Exit.

How does the UUA believe driving out members like Christiansen advances the cause of social justice and UU? A woman who quit her congregation wrote, “The church would do well to uplift and nurture its members, not demonize them. For a tiny and declining denomination to actively segregate, isolate, and evict members seems pretty stupid from an institutional perspective.”

The congregation I attend underwent a disastrous experience. An ideological minister, staunchly loyal to the UUA and pushing its orthodoxy and agenda, helped promote an environment where those expressing different viewpoints were labeled as "out of covenant" and “racists” and accused of causing “harm.” There was no transparency or due process, with accusations often brought by anonymous members and the accused being given no specifics about what they said that was allegedly wrong. A longstanding and highly respected member quit the congregation and UU after being instructed by the minister to apologize to a minority member simply for offering her perspective on a congregational event. This and similar incidents contributed to a toxic atmosphere with members feeling bullied and scared to express their views. Since hiring the minister, who left halfway through a three-year contract, the congregation lost nearly 40 percent of its membership, requiring hiring an outside expert to help save the congregation.

The experience of this congregation is not exceptional these days in UU, and I’ve heard of worse situations. UU has been losing membership and congregations at historic rates.

,

The church is becoming credal

A church with a top-down orthodoxy and punishment and ostracization for those who disagree is the definition of a credal church.

Mohr writes, “Covenants are promises, but as defined in UUA right now they're more like contracts because they are conditional. Quid pro quo? You do this and I'll do that. And since they are embedded in the values, there is no choice for UUs. They accept them when they join. Sounds very much like a creed to me.”

Former UU Jim Aikin, wrote, “We’re told that UU is a non-creedal religion. But if individual UUs are to be held accountable, how is a UU covenant any different from a creed?” 

Jerry Coyne, the prominent University of Chicago professor and organized religion critic who used to support UU, recently wrote: "Clearly, the freedom of speech and thought that was deeply embedded in the UU church is now gone: the authoritarian Left has taken over and has, in effect, now forced a creed on the church."

.

The church is being destroyed and transformed into something unrecognizable

The church is run by leaders who do not believe in liberal religion, and some predict that the church will disintegrate or wither on the vine. Prof. Coyne wrote, “But as for the church itself, I’m afraid you can kiss it goodbye. Maybe it will fragment into several moieties, at least one of which will embrace the UU’s original principles. But as for me, if forced to pick a faith I’d now take Buddhism over Unitarian Universalism." A UU congregant opined that the UUA is “beyond reform and saving. It is doomed.”

As a big picture and intellectually curious person who works to understand complex systems deeply, I have been disheartened by how many laity, including even congregational board members, are apathetic and ignorant about their church. Several members who quit my congregation were appalled at the apathy. UUs are famously conflict-avoidant, and many act as if if they ignore big problems the problems will somehow magically disappear. Many fool themselves into thinking the UUA has no effect on their congregation, even as their membership falls in response to UUA initiatives.

If the church falls, the apathetic and ineffectual laity will be as much to blame as the national church leaders. Hazen Pingree once said, “Voter apathy was and will remain the greatest threat to democracy.” This apathy and ignorance about national church affairs are what allowed the activists who do not believe in liberal religion to organizationally capture the church.