How Unitarian Universalism Became a Church of Shaming, Bullying and Coercion
"I look at what we are doing in the name of justice and feel ashamed," wrote a former UUA President
Unitarian Universalism (UU) has historically been a non-creedal, pluralistic and classically liberal church built upon the foundations of tolerance, freedom of belief and expression and the welcoming of individuality and personal spiritual journeys. One of its core principles is "A free and responsible search for truth and meaning," encapsulated by the slogan "We don’t have to think alike to love alike." Rejecting the Christian guilt-based doctrine of Original Sin, another UU principle is "The inerent worth and dignity of every person."
Some churches are dogmatic and expect conformity, but that is not UU. Some churches are guilt-based and believe in Original Sin, but that is not UU.
However, much of this has changed in recent years. The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and seminaries were taken over by extreme political activists who reject liberalism and wish to make the church into a top-down, dogmatic social justice organization that demands political and ideological conformity.
In his resignation letter, Farewell to UU, novelist Jim Aikin wrote: “This nation needs a liberal church, a place where those who have different ideas can gather, explore their differences, and find common ground. But the very last thing the UUA wants is to have members expressing different ideas. They want everybody to sign on to the same set of ideas, the ones the UUA potentates have deemed correct and acceptable.”
.
A new orthodoxy of original sin and racial essentialism
The current UUA and many ministers have embraced as dogma an illiberal and racially essentialist ideology premised on the writings of Robin DiAngelo, Tema Okun, and Peggy MacIntosh. This new orthodoxy views UUs primarily by their immutable characteristics, argues that all whites are inherently racist, all blacks are victims, and insists that all whites acknowledge and confess to their racism. According to this model, successful Asian Americans, Jews, Persians, Armenians, and other ethnic minorities are grouped with the “white supremacy” oppressor class.
Beyond the bigotry and ignorance of such rigid racial and ethnic generalizations, this counters the UU principles of personal self-agency and “the worth and dignity of every person.” I am Sephardic Jewish, and “Jews as oppressors” is a centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theory. My partner, an Armenian from Iran, says it is only some in the United States who call her “white,” and, shockingly offensive and ignorant to her as she is an ethnic and religious minority both in Iran and America, a part of the “white supremacy.”
Are Jews White?: American racial categories misrepresent many groups
In a famous dissenting speech, black UU minister and theologian Rev. Dr. Thandeka argued that this new orthodoxy introduces a concept of Original Sin that does not belong in the church, breaks UU’s principles, and is a misunderstanding of the nature of power in the United States. As argued by UU scholars Anne Schneider, a political science professor and author of the book (Dis)Continuing Racial Inequality, and Kenneth Christiansen, a sociology and religion professor and longtime racial justice activist, the UUA’s guilt-based and segregating approach is counterproductive to racial justice, defying the historical successful approaches of Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and William Barber III.
Studies, including at Harvard and the University of California-Berkeley, have repeatedly shown that the UUA’s Robin DiAngelo-style “call out and shame white people” antiracism training not only doesn’t work but makes race problems worse. The studies showed that segregating attendees by race and making them focus on race often increases racial prejudice and that mandatory training hasn’t increased diversity in organizations and usually decreases it.
Further reading:
"Why Antiracism Will Fail" by Rev. Dr. Thandeka
“Why Diversity Programs Fail: And What Works Better": Harvard Business Review
Tema Okun decries the misuse of her ‘Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture’ list
.
Public humiliations, smears, and ad hominem attacks of UUs who dare dissent
In an attempt to enforce dogma and consolidate its power over the entire church, leaders within the UUA, along with numerous ideological ministers and activists, employ tactics such as public call-outs, mob shaming, and smearing of UUs who dissent. The following are eight examples:
***1) Hundreds of ministers, acting like a mob and breaking the ministerial ethical guidelines, signed a public letter shaming and ad hominem attacking a fellow minister, Todd Eklof, for writing and circulating a book critical of the UUA. This was even though most of them had not read the book. UU minister Rev. Munro Sickafoose called this public attack “shameful” and a “low point in history,” while Rev. Scott Wells said the ministers “should be ashamed of themselves.”
In the account linked to below, Eklof’s Good Officer, Rev. Rick Davis, wrote: “This public shaming and humiliation was so hurriedly and unjustly executed upon Rev. Eklof that you cannot help but wonder: how did the UUA and UUMA (UU Ministers Association) lose sight of his humanity, his inherent worth and dignity? It was because they saw him through the lens of a soul-deadening political ideology that categorizes, caricaturizes and thereby dehumanizes people.”
For advocating for the attacked minister, which is the very job description of a Good Officer, Davis was removed from the Good Officer’s program.
"A Good Officer's Account" by Rev. Rick Davis
*** 2) Progressive activist and pioneering feminist UU minister Dr. Kate Rohde was disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for expressing her opinions and criticizing the UUA’s new dogma. She is suing the UUA in part for defamation.
"The Ideological Takeover of the Church I Loved" by Kate Rohde
Rohde's story detailed in the podcast “How the Unitarian Universalist Church Melted Down"
*** 3) Racial, ethnic, and gender minorities who dissent have been attacked and ostracized.
What was the response to Thandeka’s speech? In an interview with the Financial Times she said, “I was kicked off committees, I was told this was an ‘attempt to accrue power’. I was told I was ignoring the way in which whites are just guilty guilty guilty, of original sin, of racism — I was attacked.”
Rev. Dr. Finley Campbell, the first black professor at Wabash College where he co-founded the Malcolm X Institute for Black Studies, founder of the InterNational Committee Against Racism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Black Studies Department, was treated even worse for expressing dissent.
Punishing UUs for expressing different viewpoints including dissent is the antithesis of UU and liberal religion.
When "uplifting minority voices” means suppressing minority voices
*** 4) UU minister Rev. Cynthia Cain wrote in the below blog post about how she witnessed two prominent UUA leaders publicly attack and humiliate an elderly Jewish congregant who dared dissent, driving him out of UU. Cain wrote that, far from being punished for this egregious behavior, the two leaders were promoted to key UUA leadership positions. One became a member of the UUA Board, while the other was appointed to a UUA Vice Presidency.
*** 5) At the annual General Assemblies, there has been organized coercion, censorship and bullying of those who questioned the new orthodoxy. Delegates who express dissent have been removed from online discussions and ad hominem attacked. Clinical psychologist and cult expert Julie Hotard Ph.d. wrote, “These strategies of shaming, blaming, censoring, scapegoating and restricting information had a big impact on GA attendees--and also at local congregations where they are used.”
In the below linked open letter, Rev. Denise Tracy wrote, “The entire meeting felt like a giant manipulation. One aim: convince (or intimidate) attendees to accept this new (or expanded) point of view,” and “People were afraid to speak up because of how they were feeling and how others were being treated. If love is supposedly at the center of this new Article II, it was not evident. In fact, the entire meeting felt unloving, unsafe, and bordered on an abusive environment.”
“Open Letter to Meg Riley, UUA co-Moderator" by Rev. Denise Tracy
*** 6) In the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association’s annual Barry Street Essay, a minister compared dissenting UUs who believe in enlightenment values such as reason, freedom of belief and speech to fascists. Soon after, she was appointed to be the UUA’s Deputy Director of the Ministries and Faith Development and the Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. In other words, this is not some random or outlier minister. This is the UUA official overseeing who gets to be UU ministers and music and religious education directors.
*** 7) In what one UU described as “mean-spirited and vitriolic attacks”, prominent ministers and UUA leaders have falsely smeared dissenters as “racists,” “alt-right” and “MAGA-types,” and have advised congregations to ask dissenting congregants to leave.
In response to an official’s attack on dissenting congregants during a UUA-sponsored training of interim ministers, Rev. Rick Hoyt-McDaniels said, “I was disturbed by the cavalier manner in which a UU minister, the leader of this training, would label and disrespect members of our congregations. It sounded like name-calling and dismissal, not an attempt to listen and understand.”
*** 8) At some congregations, ideological ministers and boards have expelled, censored and ostracized dissenting congregants. An elderly congregant was expelled from her congregation for expressing support for Rev. Eklof. At another congregation, a congregant said her minister wrote a congregation-wide letter shaming her for recommending an unapproved book. At yet another congregation, an outspoken lesbian was ostracized, suspended and threatened with expulsion because she criticized the UUA, including its treatment of Revs. Eklof and Rohde, and wrote to congregants explaining how she felt the new dogma was harmful to women and lesbians. A woman told me that the board and minister at the congregation she had attended for years would not allow her to become a member because, during a congregational discussion on the proposed UUA bylaws rewrite, she said she would vote against the rewrite.
Unitarian Dystopia: A Cautionary Tale of UUA Overreach into a Local Church
.
Professionals decry the new methods
Numerous veteran ministers and psychologists, such as the psychologist Hotard quoted earlier and educational psychologist Patricia Mohr Ph.D. quoted in another post, have decried this new intolerance, bullying and ad hominem attacks.
Rev. Cain wrote, “UUs everywhere, but particularly clergy and particularly on social media, are afraid to speak their truth. Their fear is due to their perception that not only will they be shamed, shouted down, and piled upon metaphorically, but that they may actually lose their standing with our association and consequently their livelihoods. I know this for certain.”
Rev. Davis wrote, “UU ministers now know that if they do voice dissenting views the response will be swift and the consequences severe - your livelihood and your reputation are at stake. You better toe the party line.”
In his open letter of resignation from the UU Ministers Association, Rev. Alex Holt wrote, “I loathe shaming. I was a victim of it in childhood and beyond. Why shaming in the UUMA? It serves no purpose other than to scapegoat ministers who have devoted their lives to liberal religion and the principle of a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”
In an open letter to UUs, former UUA President Rev. Peter Morales wrote, “This is what an inquisition looks like. A rigid ideology takes hold and any dissent is seen as disloyalty and collusion with the forces of evil. People are removed from their positions. People are shunned. Many are intimidated into silence.” He also wrote, “Today, sadly, I look at what we are doing in the name of justice and feel ashamed.”
,
Unhealthy and dysfunctional congregations
While UU congregations and their cultures vary, certain trends contribute to the dysfunctionality of many congregations, rendering them ill-equipped to be truly liberal congregations for people of different beliefs and ideas. Unhealthy cultures can be as coercive as individual acts such as numbered above, and often enable such acts.
UUs are often recognized for their politeness and aversion to conflict. For many, their congregation serves largely as a social club, and they are apathetic and often even intentionally ignorant about the larger church. Congregational leadership often prioritizes maintaining superficial peace at any cost, disapproving of those who challenge the status quo. Intelligent, outspoken, and heterodox individuals often find themselves labeled as troublemakers and behavior problems.
Organizational leadership expert Marta Simeonaova writes. “When they talk about toxic company culture, most people imagine tyrannical managers, jealous colleagues, stalled career opportunities or jumbled communication. But let me tell you about the places I have found most toxic in my career – organizations where being nice is valued more than being knowledgeable or getting the job done. Places where superficial harmony is maintained at all costs and conflict is avoided like the plague."
Power-seeking ideologues take advantage of this culture and the congregants who can be guilted and intimidated into compliance and who go along to get along. I was shocked that otherwise sensible laity bought into the ideas that calling out and name-calling congregants are productive, and that, simply due to their immutable characteristics such as skin color, some peoples are collectively guilty while others are collectively innocent.
John Eichrodt J.D., a retired lawyer, has investigated poor organizational management in UU congregations. This safety malpractice, as Eichrodt terms it, including by congregational leaders can include silencing, mockery, shaming, intimidation, scapegoating, marginalization, and personal attacks on congregants. He writes that this stifles freedom of thought and expression, and creates a climate of fear and silence that can cause irreparable damage to congregations.
"Plea for the Prevention of Safety Malpractice in Our UU Communities" by John Eichrodt JD
Another problem lies in the increasing political narrowness of UU, with a majority of members identifying as politically far left. This fosters unhealthy echo chambers, groupthink, self-righteousness, and difficulty in entertaining diverse perspectives. While UU has no political litmus test, UU communities often are unwelcoming and sometimes even hostile to visitors who do not align with expected progressive political positions. This is a reason why UU congregations have such a difficult time attracting racial and ethnic minorities.
UU as a whole, and many congregations, are in trouble. Strife, division and illiberalism are increasingly common in congregations across the country, there is an extreme minister shortage, and national membership has fallen. UU currently has the lowest membership and number of congregations in church history. To some UUs, the church no longer resembles UU.
My congregation has lost over 40 percent of its members since 2019. The causes included organizational mismanagement and a failed ministry, adopting badly misguided and destructive ideas from the UUA, poor communication and censorship, a culture of conflict avoidance, scapegoating, singling out congregants for different treatment due to their race and sexuality, a loss of trust, and congregants who felt unable to express themselves. Many who quit were repulsed by the trends of dogmatism, illiberalism and mean-spiritedness within the UUA and modern ministry, and what they saw as the national church and congregation breaking its principles.
Once people quit a church it is hard to convince them to return. I talked to congregants who quit, some who had been at the congregation for decades. The consensus was the church was in their rearview mirrors and they were never returning.
Many congregations and congregational leaders have forgotten the importance of freedom of belief and expression, and that Unitarian Universalism is supposed to be a classically liberal church. As Jim Aikin wrote, in these tribalistic times, UU should serve as a beacon of how people of different beliefs and viewpoints can come together. UU and congregations should re-establish the culture and practice of tolerance, intellectual curiosity, and freedom of belief and expression. It should teach UUs critical thinking skills, including how to consider and express diverse viewpoints.
.
Further reading
Why the Unitarian Universalist Association is Doomed to Fail in Its Goals
Unitarian Universalism Faces a Severe Minister Shortage Crisis
How the Unitarian Universalist Association Became an Illiberal Democracy
I belonged to a UU congregation for 22 years, where I was very involved - on the board and head of several committees, before I quit after a sustained change in direction, when the president pointed out to me, "If you are so discontented, why don't you leave?" Basically the message was: "Disagreement is not welcome here." Since that time, the congregation numbers are half what they were a decade ago. My son once described UUs as "atheists in denial." Over 30 years, it has become more humanist and more activist. These are not necessarily bad, but they probably are not the main reasons why and when people join a church, which tend to be around personal milestones: a death, divorce, marriage, or child, moving to a new community, etc. 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 and institutional perspective.
Time to rename themselves the Church of Perpetual Everlasting White Guilt.
They could poach a lot more liberal white Catholics with that - not that they haven't already!