Is Unitarian Universalism populated by NPCs [Non-Playable Characters]?

Some questions:

How many Unitarian Universalist churches are filled with Non-Playable Characters?

What percentage of a Unitarian Universalist congregation are NPCs?

What percentage of Unitarian Universalist ministers are NPCs?

We'll discuss this in a future post. Right now we have a few videos to help us get up to speed on what a NPC is.

Enjoy...

and

and

Enjoy.

Until next time.

Devilhead

Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 4

[Continued from HERE.]

A few readers of this blog pointed Devilhead to this article on the All Souls DC situation from the Washington City Paper.

I'm encouraging everyone to read it. It's very good.

In our last few posts we looked at the ongoing brouhaha at All Souls, DC, and found the usual mix of garbage that tends to destroy ministries and congregations: 1) a congregant who doesn't understand, or care about, congregational polity, and, as we shall see, 2) an Associate Minister who has no concept of what that means.

Once the UCC decided to do a ministerial fitness review of Rev. Susan Moore's ministry, an open letter went out to the congregation on October 25, 2017. It made it clear that there was a process in place to investigate the claims made by Mr. Tyndall and that for everyone's best interests, the process would be confidential. No one, including Rev. Moore would be allowed to talk about the investigation, until it was all over.

How do you think that went?

It helps if the minister under review has a clue about, a) confidentiality,  b) congregational polity, and c) Unitarian Universalism.

Rev. Susan Newman Moore had no clue about Unitarian Universalism, or Unitarian Universalists. This is ridiculously easy to demonstrate: Rev. Moore's insistence on being called "Rev."

Literally five minutes in any Unitarian Universalist congregation will give a first-time visitor the correct interpretation that Unitarian Universalists are almost rabidly anti-clerical. It shows up absolutely everywhere:

Example: There is almost always a "lay leader" in the pulpit... because God forbid we let the minister "have too much power." That's a quote I've heard in absolutely EVERY UU congregation I've been in. Seriously, visit a UU church and ask, during coffee hour, "Why do you have a lay leader in the pulpit with the minister?" The answer will always include something on keeping the minister in check, or balancing the power. Always. Every single time. Don't take my word, try it for yourself.

Example: Associates are "called" by the congregation, which all but guarantees that the Associate rarely, if ever, understands their role. Seriously, half of them go around thinking they are the "counterpoint" to the called senior minister of the congregation. The blame for this is frequently to be placed at the feet of the search committee. Many search committees who search for an associate minister do so with the idea that there will be a "counterpoint" in the pulpit. Senior minister is preaching one vision, associate minister preaches the opposite... yeah that's not a recipe for disaster. Just look around at the number of called associate ministers who destroy their ministry along with the senior minister's ministry. The exceptions to this are few and far between.

I spoke to a colleague about Rev. Moore's insistence on being called "Reverend", and his response was, "Does she not understand Unitarian Universalism? UUs would rather eat broken glass than refer to their called religious leader as 'Reverend."

I concurred. The only time I was every called "Rev." or "Rev. Dr." was when a congregant wanted to impress a family member who visited church that day. (Or they wanted to feel important because they knew someone with those titles.) Otherwise, the "Rev." or "Rev. Dr." was never used. 

Open message to Rev. Susan Newman Moore: Yo' Sue, you didn't understand this? How many years were you serving in a UU church? Are you too stupid to understand this? Or, do you have personal motivations that makes it impossible for you to understand? [Again, not a lot of middle ground here.]

The board gave Rev. Moore paid leave from October 31, 2017 - January 1, 2018. This was later extended from the beginning to the end of January 2018.

On January 29, 2018 a letter went out to the congregation regarding Rev. Moore's "separation" from All Souls DC.

[ORIGINAL HERE]

[ORIGINAL HERE]

Rev. Moore and Rev. Hardies chose to part ways. This was done under the auspices of the Unitarian Universalist Association under UUA staffer Rev. Hope Johnson and two unnamed good offices people. All in all what sounds like a good, healthy process. The letter to the congregation, dated January 29, 2018,  was appropriate given the situation.

And this is where the story should end...

But it doesn't.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

[Continued...]

Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 3

[Continued from HERE]

In the last part we examined the questions raised by Reeve Tyndall's objections to the ministries of Rev. Susan Newman Moore and Rev. Rob Hardies. And it doesn't really matter if Reeve Tyndall is a church antagonist, the United Church of Christ (UCC) found something in his complaints that warranted a fitness review of Rev. Moore's ministry.

Despite all of the bullshit concerns regarding Rev. Moore's and Rev. Hardies' ministries, there was something there. I call bullshit concerns Mr. Tyndall's issues with sabbatical, vacation leave etc. And the reason is, this was something negotiated between the ministers and the congregation. All of this happened before either minister was called. Before a congregational vote calling either minister to the church, this was negotiated, the congregation had to know all about it, they voted on it. So, Mr. Tyndall's issues with sabbatical and vacation leave go directly against the congregation's wishes.

Mr. Tyndall seems to have an issue with congregational polity. When an individual has an issue with a policy, salary, or anything else voted on by the congregation then they have an issue with congregational polity, and ultimately with the congregation itself.

That's why both the Board of Trustees and the UUA's response may have been dismissive. Reality is many congregants who appear antagonistic toward their minister(s) simply do not understand congregational polity: they think it means "I get what I want," not the reality of the situation which is that the congregation as a whole gets what they want. There is a huge difference between what "I" want versus what "WE" want. A congregant who doesn't understand this is either too stupid to get it, or has too much of an agenda to get it. (There's not a lot of middle ground here.)

In this regard Mr. Tyndall is completely wrong. The truth is both Rev. Hardies and Rev. Moore may be shit ministers, however, going against congregational polity won't get anything done, except piss off the congregation while simultaneously displaying one's stupidity, or belligerence, or both.

Now, congregational polity issues aside, when a congregant complains about legitimate issues such as not being able to keep pastoral confidences, or plagiarism, then an investigation needs to happen.

Here's where we get into a sticky situation: legitimate complaints aren't always dealt with. There are many reasons for this, the most prominent being the popularity of the minister at the UUA. Not kidding. It's all "congregational polity" from the UUA whenever they don't want to get involved, but a minister unpopular with the UUA's hierarchy will get the UUA involved almost immediately. [There will be a whole other piece on this, as this issue is massive.]

I imagine that issues of betraying confidences coupled with plagiarism would get the attention of the UUA, or the Board of Trustees.

But it didn't. Why?

It was neither the Board of Trustees, nor the UUA, who instigated any sort of ministerial review, but the UCC. Why?

Could it indeed be raycism? Could the UUA, and or the Board, ignore some serious issues of ministerial misconduct because of race? In this situation I do not know. However, in past situations the UUA has certainly seemed to act this way.

Remember this?

[ORIGINAL HERE]

Maybe, and this is pure speculation, the UUA has a different standard for the ministries of people of color. I don't know. It sure seems that way, though. We make a huge deal over Rev. Moore's ministerial troubles, but say nothing of the heap of shit that Rev. Hardies is facing. But that's okay, Rev. Hardies has White Privilege. The whole thing is raycist as fuck on the UUA's part.

If they ignored ministerial misconduct (for any reason,) the UUA's (in)actions could put the congregation at risk. If this is the case, then I would encourage the Board of Trustees of All Souls DC to consult with an attorney. [NOTE: I am NOT a lawyer, I am not giving legal advice that I have no qualification to give. I am suggesting that they seriously consider consulting with an attorney of their own choosing to examine the legalities of all of this.] Something smells real stinky here.

This examination of congregational polity and the UUA's blatant (to everyone but themselves) raycism has gotten a little long. Next time we'll look at Rev. Moore's ministry and actions.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

[Continued...HERE]

Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 2

[Continued from HERE.]

Given that this is a public case, in fact it's Washington Post public, let's look at All Souls, DC and see what's going on. This is a Gordian knot. Efforts to untie it by those better qualified than I am have largely failed and the failure is painted with raycism. Where to begin?

Given that this is a Washington Post article, their version of events is a good place to begin. [LINK HERE.]

Upon reading the article, it becomes very clear that there is a slant to the story that may, or may not, be real. The story is entirely about how raycism effected one black woman's ministry. Raycism is mentioned in nearly every paragraph, so clearly there's an agenda. A narrative needs to be fed... but is it the truth?

Buried in the middle of the article, is this:

And with one fell swoop of the sword the Gordian knot is split open and in the center is this: a dissatisfied congregant in the eye of the storm.

There it is, it's right fucking there. Yet, it seems to be what nobody is really talking about. Why is that? Does it not fit the narrative? Is truth inconvenient to the narrative? (If that's so, does that then make the narrative a work of abject fiction?) My guess is that the future will reveal the past. It usually does.

So, at this tootsie pop's gooey middle is the reality of an angry/upset/disappointed/antagonistic/take-your-pick congregant who felt the urge to make his needs known a) to church officials b) to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUMA too?), c) to the United Church of Christ [UCC], and the gods only know where else.

We do know he was upset enough to send several letters all over the place to anyone who would listen. And we do know that in September 2017, the UCC found something in one of his letters troubling enough to investigate Rev. Moore's ministry.

This is from the All Souls DC board of trustees to the congregation [LINK HERE]:

[ORIGINAL HERE]

[ORIGINAL HERE]

The Washington Post article and this missive from the All Souls DC board of trustees, begins to paint a picture. A congregant unidentified in the UCC process although identified by the Washington Post, lodged a complaint that the UCC deemed needed to be investigated.

The process was a confidential one. Other than the process itself being laid out and made clear to the congregation, there was to be no discussion of the specifics by any party: the UUC fitness review team, the All Souls board, and Rev. Moore herself. (This will turn out to be important later.)

But... let's get back to the complaint. We know from the Washington Post story, that Reeve Tyndall sent numerous letters to the church (one presumes the board of All Souls DC), to the UUA and to the UCC. In the cases of the trustees and the UUA, complaints were raised against Rev. Moore and Rev. Hardies, not Rev. Moore alone.

By all accounts Reeve Tyndall was one unhappy individual.

This whole thing leaves Devilhead with more questions than answers:

The UCC responded by beginning a Fitness Review of Rev. Moore's ministry. What of the letter(s) received by the All Souls DC board of trustees? What of the letter(s) received by the UUA?

Were there no red flags in any of the letters sent to the board of trustees or the UUA? None? Did the All Souls DC board of trustees act with due diligence? Did the UUA?

And what of the complaints themselves? Were these genuine issues? Or, were they spurious? If genuine then why did not the UUA or board of trustees institute some form of ministry review? If spurious, was enough noise made to shine light on Rev. Moore's ministry and genuine problems surfaced?

We can't go into whether Reeve Tyndall was acting with good intentions and pointing out glaring injustice, or whether he simply had personal issues played out on the larger stage of ministry. Both are possibilities, and this may not be an either/or situaition, but a both/and. He could be both upset at genuine stuff he's experienced and be someone with personal issues. They are not mutually exclusive. This is true of the UUA and All Souls DC's board as well.

In any case, the UCC saw something in his complaint that went beyond mere complaining.

Why didn't the UUA?

Why didn't the All Souls DC board?

In the case of the UUA there is a long tradition of turning a blind eye when one is dealing with favored sons and daughters. For a long time the ministerial flavor du jour was the white gay male minister. Currently it's anyone of color. Could either of these factors have led to a blind eye being cast upon the numerous complaints?

Or, is it possible that angry congregants acting antagonistically towards their ministers is so much the norm that it doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow? What if I told you that in 99 44/100% of Unitarian Universalist congregations there is at least one person working tirelessly to get rid of their minister by any means necessary? What if I told you that this is so completely normal that it doesn't get much traction, at all?

Let's continue down the rabbit hole...

[Continued...HERE]

Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 1

The Unitarian Universalist Association has been creating a narrative about raycism and the ministry. Like all narratives (stories, works of fiction, etc.) there has to be a basis in truth in order for people to relate. However, a narrative is a work of fiction.

When one is aware of a narrative in play, one is wise to look at who is telling the particular story and then ask oneself why they are telling this story. It seldom has to do with the truth and usually with manipulation through feelings. What are the feelings they are narrating? How does this benefit the story-teller? Does it benefit others? Or, is that just the tale we're told? In other words, what's the narrator's agenda?

The current narrative is that if any person of color in the ministry has troubles in their ministry, it is due exclusively to white institutional raycism and nothing else. I'm using the spelling "raycism" because of it's casual weaponized overuse the word racism has lost its meaning. It's used so casually, and raised at the most trivial of imagined or made up slights, that it literally means nothing. Truth is the word raycism is so completely overused in a hair-trigger manner that the bludgeon it was meant to be is now experienced as a pea-shooter. There's nothing behind it, because no thought went into it.

In fact, there is a simple disarming response to being casually called raycist, sexist, or other ists. Simply reply, "Yeah, sure, whatever." and then go about your business as if nothing more than a gnat got in your face. You've treated the comment with as much respect and care that it deserves. Try it and see.

Turns out we have a perfect example of raycism in the ministry playing out before us. The UU World published this on March 29, 2018 [HERE]:

And then the Washington Post published this on April 17, 2018 [HERE]

What indeed?

In reading this article, and then following up with church and denominational publications, a story becomes clear, but it's not the story of institutional raycism, but rather a story of demonstrated incompetence in the ministry, institutional failure at both the church level and the denominational level and is the story of an antagonist in the church that both everyone and no one is talking about.

Buckle up. This is going to be one HELL of a ride.

[Continued...HERE]

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

It's Funny Because it's True

Just something hilarious I chanced upon. It's funny because it's true.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

True Story: Conversation with a Former Congregant

A bit of background for context.

I've always been remarkably observant. I'm extremely introverted. I'm an extroverted introvert, which means I have little to no problem interacting with large groups of people... but then I'll sleep for two days afterward.

For the most part, in groups of people I tend to hang back a little and observe. I don't mean some of what is known as "people watching" but rather really observing. I guess I've done it so much for so much of my life that it has become a blink. (Read the Malcolm Gladwell book.) A blink is when you can size up a situation in nano-seconds.

In the ministry, this was observed and commented upon by the then NY Metro District Executive, Rev. Howell Lind, and then by PNW District Exectutive, Janine Larson. In both cases after being in a room for about five minutes I could size up what was going on with everyone's ministry. Again, this ability had been commented upon more than once by two different District Execs.

There's no magic to it. It just comes by paying attention. It's one thing to observe, another to use the information you get.

I had one fight back in high school. Not a punch was thrown, but I won hands down. Here's how it happened:

One day a high school bully decided that I would be a good choice to pick on. I was a skinny kid. He walked up to me started to talk shit and push me. A small crowd was gathering. At that point my daemon's voice spoke to me: "Tell him the truth about his life."

So, I did.

I just began to talk, very, very calmly, and I told him what I saw, the observations, the inferences and asked him over and over, "Do you like your life?" As I did something happened that I had never expected. His lip began to quiver, "shut up." Not gonna happen. I continued to tell him about his home life (remember there's a crowd now), his failed relationships, his stupidity, all with examples. His knees buckled and he fell to the ground. "Leave me alone."

"Why? You chose to pick on me." Oh, no, we're not done yet. I kept talking. I stopped when he was on the ground in a fetal position sobbing. The crowd's eyes were agog. What they witnessed was someone calmly talking, and someone else falling to the ground. People started to back away from me. It was over.

The fight was over. But I wanted to make sure this was over for good. As the crowd began to back away, I leaned over the bully and said, very calmly, "I held back. Next time I won't."

I never had a problem again, he left me alone. Those who witnessed this avoided me like the plague -- they were fucking spooked. There were rumors spread about me. I was okay with that.

That's the background.

Yesterday I ran into a former congregant outside a Starbucks, right here in Spokane.

[By the way, and this has nothing to do with anything, I find Starbucks coffee to be disgusting, it's severely over-roasted and because of that it tastes like shit. It's not as awful as UUSC Coffee Project coffee, but that will be a whole other post. (Hint: the coffee is terrible because of Unitarian Universalist racism and classism. No other reason, really.)]

This was a congregant who found my ministry threatening to her status quo and worked tirelessly to get me out of the church. She never thought I knew, so she was always super friendly to my face.

It was a weird conversation, she was overly, falsely friendly and seemed to want to pump me for info. "Tell me all about what's been going on for you..." She mostly seemed to focus on how I can afford to live in my house, since leaving the church. She wanted to know how I was earning my living.

Reality is I've been retired since 25. I made a lot of money early as a food photographer, invested well, and have basically spend my life from 25 on in a state of semi-retirement. Working when I wanted, for fun, or extra money for larger purchases, such as a top of the line electric car and real estate, but otherwise just hanging out. My congregations knew this. I made it clear that I was retired and the ministry was a second (hobby) career. No one believed me.

Since leaving the ministry I studied and became a private investigator (when I operate, I operate out of Idaho which has no licensing requirements), and I occasionally shoot porn professionally under the name Donnie Wishman (an homage to one of my favorite film makers: Doris Wishman). In both cases, I only do the stuff that interests me.

Several of my former congregants know I'm a private investigator because I was the one who turned them into the IRS. Most of the ones I turned in stopped going to church and left the area afterwards. Maybe it's too much to have your former minister turn you in to the IRS for tax-fraud. Good grief! Your own minister knows you're a fraud and a cheat and knew it the second you started to play with your pledge to manipulate the church. The rewards are lovely; the money a plus, and the emotional payoff is amazing.

So I said, "I have my own porn production company, it's been doing well." Her eyes began to spin in her head. I didn't initially have the heart to tell her that her own alienated slut daughter has appeared in several of my productions. (Yup, I'm an asshole.)

She was a pseudo-feminist and I just touched her trigger. "Pornography!" The floodgates opened. Verbal diarrhea started to spray everywhere. It went on and on with platitudes and talking points she read somewhere, or made up on the spot. I'm pretty sure that she even threw in the fish and bicycles thing.

As she went on and on she looked like a badly drawn cartoon character. It was funny. It was hilarious. I couldn't help it, I burst out laughing directly in her face.

"I don't see what's so funny."

"You are. You don't actually believe the shit you're saying, do you?"

She got redder, and the torrent became even more unhinged. And then my daemon said, "Tell her the truth."

So, I did.

I told her that having raised her own alienated daughter in such a piss-poor manner she turned to porn to supplement her student income at Evergreen State College. And as far as I was concerned, it was all on her.

I stopped when the tears began to gush. I put my hand on her shoulder, and she thought I was going to comfort her. Not today. "I held back. Next time I won't."

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

Devilhead Predicts

Apparently, it's been an interesting time in Unitarian Universalist land. Ministries are blowing up all over the place. It's pure comedy.

I call it comedy because like an old Three Stooges short, the actors are blissfully unaware that it was and continues to be their own actions that directly contributed to their fate. The funniest comedies are those where the protagonist(s) double down on the exact things that caused the trouble in the first place, with the full expectation that doing more of the same, more intensely, will bring salvation.

One may think I'm mean for saying this, or that I am an asshole, and I can assure you that I am both.

However, what I say is the truth. I get emails from people all the time telling me how much they agree with what I've written even as they feel uncomfortable with the way I point it out. My response is always the same, "Tell me (with proof) what isn't true." The reply is always the same: it's the truth, but we wish it would be "nicer." Here's reality: nice is not a virtue. Never has been. The truth is an uber-virtue. Yet, in the queendom of lies, truth is seen as the deadliest sin.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is dying. Approximately a year ago given a few things that were done in the name of "institutional change" I declared that the UUA had five years to go. Today, I declare that the UUA has four years left.

For example, since instituting the Commission on Institutional Change, since the founding of BLUU, since the demand that congregations hold "white-supremacy teach-ins", as of March 29, 2018 FIFTEEN people of color had issues with their ministries. [LINK HERE]

This is only talking about the ministries of "people of color." Are these the only ministries that count? What of the others? Seriously, do they not count? In an ongoing, and worsening, ministerial shortage it seems that some ministries are still expendable. Oh, well, old dogs and all that.

Truth is this is much, much, much more widespread than fifteen people of color. Triple that number for non-people of color, add the two together, and you're closer to what's going on. I've got this from an inside source. This is some bad shit.

And as the UUA has no ability (nor real inclination) to actually fix the situation, but rather seems only equipped to virtue signal while fluttering about wringing their collective hands, this situation will get noticeably worse. There's a reason for this: what's actually going on doesn't fit the narrative. What's a narrative? A narrative is a work of fiction.

The reality is there are many ministries in trouble in the UUA. Rev. Dr. Daniel O'Connell was booted from Houston, TX; Rev. Aaron McEmrys tossed from Arlington, VA; Rev. Dr. Robert Hardies is about to be hung up to dry in Washington DC. Nobody's talking about them. Why? In these three cases, all sent to me by readers, not one is black or female. Is that why no one is talking about them? [I hope that's not the case. That would be pretty fucking racist.] Are these ministers expendable? Or, are the institutional blinders such that no one is seeing these ministries as important, or even seeing them at all? Don't know.

The fiction of course is that this is only happening to "people of color", or that "people of color" are the only ones who count. Read the article again HERE. What do you take away from this article from an official Unitarian Universalist source?

Based on the longstanding tradition of institutional myopia evidenced by the collective brain trust at the UUA, here are my predictions:

1. The gap between congregations and the Unitarian Universalist Association will continue to grow at a fairly quick pace.
2. The brain trust at the Unitarian Universalist Association are institutionally incapable of understanding this, and will continue to blame the various isms for their own lack of foresight and planning.
3. Efforts to fix the situation by doubling down on already failed policies will exacerbate the situation.
4. They are getting to a point where this won't be able to be undone as smarter congregations will do an actual cost analysis of the benefits and costs of association with the UUA.
5. The UUA has four years left.

Time will tell. I've been wrong before and will be wrong again, but time will tell.

Your Old Pal,

Devilhead

Devilhead Predicted

In my previous blog, Unitarian Universalist Nightmares, I focused upon several congregations and ministries that crossed my path, reviewed and rated them, and commented on what I saw. I'm an observant person. My comments and predictions are not magick, just observation. The truth is that if one pays attention, anyone is capable of seeing what is right in front of their noses, but sadly, and actually tragically, very very few seldom do.

One of the very few regrets I have is that I took down Unitarian Universalist Nightmares. Only a tiny fraction of it remains on the Wayback Machine, and there's very little left in which to link. Oh well...

While the blog had existed for a half-dozen years, what got Unitarian Universalist Nightmares started was a streaming service from the Arlington, VA church. This was in January 2015.

What I saw when I watched this streamed service was an energetic minister who it seemed had some vision and sparkle, Rev. Aaron McEmrys,  being upstaged by the associate minister Rev. Linda Olson Peebles.

I'll never forget this performance because it seemed that the only point of Rev. Peebles "talk" was to upstage the actual called minister of the congregation. She just rambled on and on to the point where my partner, another former minister, turned to me to ask if I thought she was drunk. No, I didn't think she was. But that disgraceful performance was such that I could understand the comparison between Rev. Peebles in the pulpit and a babbling wet-brain drunk.

I predicted at the time that Rev. McEmrys was at the end of his ministry as it appeared that Rev. Peebles was marking her territory by excreting all over the place. (Mental and verbal excretion is still excretion.) Turns out that I was wrong. Rev. McEmrys was six months into his brand new ministry as senior minister of Arlington.

At the time I made a few observations:

1. Rev. McEmrys ministry was in some serious fucking trouble.
2. The associate minister demonstrated that she didn't understand her place in a team...
   or didn't give a shit.
3. The congregation appeared clueless; this was all just a regular Sunday morning.

What I didn't say then but will now is that watching that revolting display in the pulpit triggered the PTSD I received from my experience with my last church. I've seen this shit before, up close and personal. I've seen it countless times in other ministries with the colleagues I've known. This is not isolated behavior, in fact Associate Ministers usurping the authority of the congregation (in the guise of the Senior Minister the congregation called and authorized) appears to be the norm. 

What we saw in the pulpit that Sunday seemed to both of us to be a clear turf statement that the associate was not going to tolerate this or any future senior minister with "vision" or "ideas" to change a nice sinecure into actual work. Really, was there any other explanation for such a childish display? 

Flash forward three years later: Rev. McEmrys has resigned his position mid-year...

Newsletter, Jan 4, 2018 [LINK HERE] 

suddenly...

Newsletter, Jan 11, 2018 [LINK HERE]

placed on "administrative leave"...

Newsletter, Jan 18, 2018 [LINK HERE]

a complaint against his ministry was/is being investigated... [LINK HERE]

Board of Trustees Update, March 15, 2018 (the ides of March) [LINK HERE]

While a year previously, Rev. Peebles had "retired" and been made Minister Emerita of Arlington. I say retired because she's serving as an interim minister at another congregation. I guess the ministry shortage [which we'll probably revisit soon] is still very real.

Board of Trustees Update, March 15, 2018 [LINK HERE]
(Compare the above statement against observations #2 and 3 above, kinda proves both, doesn't it?)

In any case, Arlington's rid of that one, maybe the next minister will get a shot.

Nah... this is Unitarian Universalism.

The norm is to get rid of a minister who appeared to have something on the ball (a bit of vision and the like), investigate his ministry, appear to reward bad behavior in all of those who surround said minister, all the while a ministry shortage is happening. What could possibly go wrong?

Question to which I don't have the answer: Was bad behavior rewarded in this situation? I don't know but am open to hearing the truth of what happened.

[Rev. McEmrys, if you're out there, we'd love to hear from you. Contact me HERE.]

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

By the way, I'm back. You won't believe how Unitarian Universalism is killing itself! I'm back to help my readers enjoy the decline. There's lots to enjoy.

And my email traffic has increased a bit lately. This blog is beginning to get the interest that Unitarian Universalist Nightmares had, and for much the same reason. Thank you.

Just Loving this Vortex of Weirdness

Spokane, Washington, is a vortex of weirdness.

I know. I live in Spokane.

It's a glorious city. I'm not being ironic when I say this. Part of what makes it a glorious city is the perception that it is one of the point blank strangest, oddest, most surreal places in the US. I say surreal and I mean it in the way the original French surrealist poets and painters meant it. Read a few Surrealist manifestos, you'll understand. Here in Spokane the weirdness tends to Dada like levels. Read a few Dada manifestos, you'll understand.

Here is a perfectly good lite example of Spokane weirdness.

On April 30, 2018 this billboard appeared downtown, and immediately afterwards it began to make the rounds on the internet as a meme:

[None of these memes are original to me. All were found on the Spokane Memes FB page.]

Apparently no one on the design team, the team responsible for putting up the billboard, the City Council, or any other group encountering the bears for that matter, thought that placing the two bears next to each other might seem... I don't know... odd.

There was plenty of space to separate the bears, maybe even have the standing bear waving to us. I can almost guarantee the design team discussed that, "Don't have the  bears waving, they don't do that in the wild, Merle. And put the bears closer together, we need 'THE GREAT PNW' to take up more than half the billboard's real estate."

What the leaders and designers missed, Spokaloo Sally saw immediately. The result?

Wow, that was fast.

Then the internet responded.

There were a lot more than this one. There has been an online petition to bring the bears back.

I just heard that the bears will be made into a tee shirt. This is Spokane.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

Interlude: Having Fun with Pseudonyms, or... LARPing for Fun and Profit! - Part 2

[Continued from Here.]

I've done this exercise, more than once. Each time I've discovered things about myself and the world that I'm not sure I could have otherwise.

Being an "alter" [short for alter-ego and what I call the characters I create for my benefit] is relatively easy online. The real challenge comes from doing it live, immersed in one's discomfort zone. Can I be the character so much that no one else knows I'm "play acting"... including myself? And what do I learn from that?

Over the years I've used several characters. Here are some that are still in existence.

• Devilhead
• Founder
• This Guy
• Hostility Jones
• Jonah Nietsche
• Samael Liberalis
• Don Hartley
• And many, many more who have explored the deep web.

Devilhead, who's the writer of the bunch, is who you have been reading. The name was given to me during my first ministry by another minister. [He also left the ministry, as I did, and practices magick, as do I.]

Hostility Jones is Devilhead's alter. Yup... my alters have alters. Imagine a demonic cowboy clown. He came out in UU Nightmares. One of the reasons I've shut that blog down. (That's a whole story I'm going to tell.)

Jonah Nietzsche began as a you tube video series called Bible Study w/ Pastor Jonah. It has been taken off youtube and the concept sold as a TV series to a production company in Singapore... can't make this shit up. As part of the marketing for that, prior to sales, Jonah needed be a real person. To that end he went on a couple of the smaller social media sites. I was aiming for a Christian conservative crowd, precisely because "Bible Study" once released would be both intriguing and upsetting to this crowd. 

"Jonah" joined Faithful Earth and the Tea Party Community. Literally all he posted was a single Bible verse every day. Not offensive ones like "Bible Study" but the ones everyone seems to love. "God is Love." stuff like that. Jonah posted the same quotes in both groups daily for about a year. He'd occasionally get a question from a social media follower, which he would answer promptly and politely. For the most part it was just a single random Bible quote a day. And from that, Jonah got large followings on both Faithful Earth and Tea Party Community. 

As Jonah was going to be part of a marketing "scam". I left as many clues as possible as to who was in the driver's seat when it came to Jonah. I wanted them to find me.

As to the crowd I got on Faithful Earth and Tea Party Community... they were not the crowd to market this to. It became obvious that despite the lame characterizations of the right by "enlightened" Unitarian Universalists, they had no fucking idea who or what they were talking about. One would think, given the characterizations of the Right by Unitarian Universalists, that the Tea Party Community would be filled with knuckle-dragging Klansmen. That characterization says far more about the Unitarian Universalists who promote this image of even the middle-of-the-road right leaning people, than it ever did about the people that Unitarians enjoy denigrating.

What I found in both of those online communities were some very lonely people who sought to ameliorate their loneliness in an ideological echo chamber. The Faithful Earth crowd seemed just sad, very lonely, and a little afraid of the outside world. Doing any sort of surprise marketing on them would be cruel. There is no other word. These are good people, good people who are wounded. They didn't need Jonah.

Likewise the Tea Part Community was the same. Their sadness and loneliness took the form of anger at a world they could not control. I would be less cruel, but still cruel to market to these people this way. They also didn't need Jonah. 

Jonah was resurrected when I chose to market Unitarian Universalist Nightmares to the UUA Board, it's regions, and congregations. Again, Jonah had a direct path back to his creator. No one followed it, but all demanded to know who I was. To me that's funny.

Samael Liberalis is my latest interface with the Unitarian Universalists.

And that brings us to Don Hartley, who himself uses a "stage name" for "protection." (Don Hartly, Devilhead... connection?)

Don Hartley has become quite the speaker on the fundamentalist/evangelical conspiracy circuit. 

After the events of August, 2017, Don Hartley decided to go on a revival tour speaking about the "dangerous cult of Unitarian Universalists." I spent a good part of the fall on an evangelical speaking tour in several states: Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee.  It's part of a whole series on "dangerous cults." Don's not the only speaker, just the "expert" on Unitarian Universalism.

Here's the best part: evangelicals already believe that Unitarian Universalism is Satanic pure and simple. This means one can literally say anything about Unitarian Universalism, bring it back to Satan, and the love offerings flow. If you have a powerpoint of old AYS pornography, and some of the OWL stuff of old and/or disabled people fucking... just sayin'.

And let me tell you if you're used to a Unitarian Universalist speaker's fee... a tent revival "love offering," particularly when you're telling people exactly what they want to hear and believe in their hearts to be true, kick$ the living $hit out of a "speakers fee." I've been fortunate enough that I've never had to worry about money, but this is just literally thrown at you as you speak. 

It will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the UU churches of Miss, Al or Tenn.  In all honesty, the evangelical communities and Unitarian Universalist communities are both insular bubbles, and really don't brush up against each other. But they do live in the same communities. I'm gearing up for tours of Texas and Oklahoma with the same promoters.

Like I said, fun and profitable.

So,  now you know some of what I've been doing with retirement. As with most of Devilhead's stories reality is both funny and unsettling.

Your Old Pal,

Devilhead

Interlude: Having Fun with Pseudonyms, or... LARPing for Fun and Profit! - Part 1

This interlude is being written because I'm not all that inspired to finish up the Chalice Lighters series. I will finish it, just not today.

For those who want to know how it came out, and don't want to wait, here it is in a nutshell: the NY Metro District's Chalice Lighter's program was a huge success, the District loved it, the congregations loved it, it helped to bring the denomination together, yada, yada... and outside the District, the bureaucrats at the UUA hated it, and did everything they could to dismantle it. The End.

It's not depressing, it's just sad, and pathetic. Details to eventually follow.

I've mentioned in a previous (ancient) post about the use of pseudonyms. I'm a huge fan. And there is a long, long, historical precedent for the use of literary and artistic pseudonyms. Stage names are as old as theater itself from whence the tradition of stage names was ported over to all the performance arts. There's nothing dishonorable about it: Cary Grant was the stage name of Archibald Leach.

The world remembers Cary Grant while Archibald Leach is just... what exactly?

Aleister Crowley taught several methods for breaking cultural conditioning. (It's one of the things magick is good for.) One method, mentioned in Liber Jugorum [Chapter III, b], is to change one's personality along with an article of clothing. This is more than a superficial acting exercise. It is a sort of deep, deep method acting where you strive as much as possible to become the character. And this means, that you feel what your character feels, you believe what your character believes, you immerse yourself in that character's world. Crowley did it himself regularly.

It's easy when it's a character like the actor.

Very easy, if the actor gets out of his/her own way.

It's much more difficult if it's a character completely unlike the actor. The temptation is to treat it all like shtick -- play act all the time winking and nodding to oneself. But where's the benefit in that?

In becoming a character as much as possible, with the realization one is playing a character as opposed to being psychotic and losing sight of that fact -- but by bringing oneself as close as possible to psychosis, much like the method actor who stays in character for the three months of the film shoot, one may realize some deep benefits.

First off, one's perspective on life changes. Can't say much more about it. Depends on the character. It will be different for everyone. And one's perspective changes with each character. And not so oddly, each character adds to the actor's overall perspective on life.

Imagine being able to understand something from several completely different perspectives. I don't mean half-assed attempts to "understand" another whose position one finds distasteful but rather an understanding that only comes from walking a mile in someone else's shoes, blisters and all.

Secondly, one realizes that the person we think of when we think of "ourselves" is just as much a work of fiction as the "characters" we create. When I say "I," who's there? Short answer: something bigger than "I." "I" becomes just another character.

I can't even begin to describe how freeing this is.

It's also fun... and profitable...

[Continued...Here]

Everything I Know about Unitarian Universalism, I Learned as Chalice Lighter - Part 5

[Continued from Here.]

The single most hostile response came from the Rev. Lee Reid. It was her congregation that was up for the next Chalice Lighters call, and she was apoplectic that my "playing around" with the program would possibly jeopardize the anticipate $700 grant her congregation was supposed to get.

Of course, I never heard this from Rev. Reid herself.

Rather, I heard this from ministers in the New Jersey area cluster of ministers. I received several phone calls, all from people who knew me reasonably well, to tell me of Rev. Reid's unloading about me at a minister's gathering. Apparently, she was panic stricken that my redesigning the program would all but guarantee the loss of the anticipated money. Also, apparently nobody told Rev. Reid that $700 is a pittance, nearly any single member of her congregation could just write the check if that was truly an issue.

It struck me as odd then, and still now, that so many ministers operate from a center of lack and scarcity, rather than one of abundance. Rev. Reid did, and it showed in her ministry.

I remember driving back from a ministerial study group with a colleague. Rev. Reid was a member of that same group, and during check-in she had regaled us all with stories of all she's done and does in order to minister to "an intentionally multicultural community." The list was long, although the only thing I remember is her holding up a dozen or so magazines, each with an ethnic focus... just so she can stay up on what's going on in the various multicultural communities her church strives to serve. My colleague's comments were right on target, "You know for all the work she puts into her congregation, she's got nothing to show for it."

He was right, of course. It was approximately five years after her building the congregation from scratch as an intentionally multicultural community, and all that was there was a congregation of thirty members who could barely pay their bills. Rev. Reid would continually remind us that building an "intentionally multicultural congregation" from scratch was "much more difficult" than starting a regular congregation. I always wondered how she knew that, as this was the only congregation she served as a minister let alone built from scratch. Maybe congregation building wasn't her forte, and as such it would be difficult for her no matter what she did. I don't know.

The Rev. Lee Reid never saw the outcome of the Chalice Lighters call for her congregation. About a week before the call, Rev. Reid attended a board meeting, where she was informed that they didn't have enough funds to continue to pay her salary. As a result, she was to be reduced to half-time. (That's  how I remember it. It's possible that they just cut her salary and expected her to work the same hours. I don't know.)

Following that meeting at a board member's home, Rev. Reid walked to her car, and was struck and killed by a drunk driver. Given the situation, one has to ask whether she was killed accidentally or if she jumped in front of the car. The official story is accident. Okay.

She never got to see the results of the Chalice Lighters call for her congregation. About a week after her death, the call went out, and came back. The redesigned Chalice Lighters program brought in $15,000.

$15,000 and the story changed from "it will never work" to "$15,000 had to be a fluke". Okay, it didn't fail, but that's only because people were excited to see how it would come out the first time. (I was actually told this by one of the UUA's "experts" on fundraising how this couldn't possibly work long term.)

Then the next call came and it brought in $23,000.

And every Chalice Lighter's call in the New York Metro District brought in over $20,000... for years.

And while competently raising the money was nice, there was an even nicer piece to the whole thing. Congregations were taking an interest in each other. As they took an interest, and as it became clear that the sky was the limit on fundraising, congregations got creative with their appeals. Congregants would visit other congregations and be inspired by what they were doing.

The enthusiasm was amazing. It was real, not bureaucratically manufactured, and infectious as fuck. I attended the district annual meeting at the end of this first year as Chalice Lighter and received a standing ovation when I was introduced as the district's Chalice Lighter coordinator.

Literally, in absolutely every way, the redesigned Chalice Lighter's program was a complete success. It consistently raised significantly more money than before and had congregations becoming enthusiastic about the wider world of congregational Unitarian Universalism, and as result increased denominational loyalty.

In other words, the New York Metro District's Chalice Lighters program not only raised significant amounts of money for congregations, but also did everything the denomination had been crowing about wanting from congregations: they were becoming less insular, took an interest in each other, began to cooperate together... and on, and on, and on...

There is an old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, as we shall see.

[Continued...]

Your Ol' Pal
Devilhead

Everything I Know about Unitarian Universalism, I Learned as Chalice Lighter - Part 4

[Continued from Here.]

There were several "roll-outs" to various area councils of the district.

(Area councils no longer actually existed, but were treated to exist by nearly everyone in the district. That's another story for another  time. Suffice it to say that it, like most stories of institutional Unitarian Universalism, tends to reflect poorly on the bureaucracy of the Unitarian Universalist Association.)

An idea as "radical" as the new Chalice Lighter program needed to be rolled out to the appropriate parties along the way. It was rolled out to the district board, and as stated above, following that to several of the local area gatherings of Unitarian Universalists.

The district board was the easiest of the presentations. Why? Because I was a known quality. I was serving a congregation in the district that was by all accounts showing signs of vibrant health and well-being; this after a rocky several decades as a congregation. I had served on local committees. And I had served on several as hoc committees of the district board. In other words, they knew who I was and how I worked. Their response to me was "let's give it a go and see what happens."

The Long Island area council, again, trusted the idea. Why? They trusted me. I was one of theirs. It really was that simple.

It's when I presented to the area council in New Jersey that things were, I don't know... weirdly hostile. Why? They had no clue who I was. I was an unknown in every aspect. I was a minister from "over there" in Long Island.

Most of the questions were along the lines of "How do you expect this to work AT ALL since it's different?" My personal favorite exchange was during the questions part of the presentation between myself and a member of some 17 member "church" [social club (long since dissolved)] who took issue with the fact that the new Chalice Lighters program would have no set dollar amount per ask.

"Do you mean to tell us that people can give whatever they want?"

"We encourage people to be generous and not limit their generosity to $10."

"Suppose they only want to give a dollar, or just a penny?" this said with that smug look. Unitarian Universalist ministers all know what that smug look looks like. To me that smug look looks exactly like the special ed kid who is convinced she's the class valedictorian. Only the other special ed kids buy the bullshit. Everybody else wants to get back to something constructive.

"People give what they want. We encourage people to be as generous as possible."

"But they don't have to be."

"They don't 'have to be' now."

What surprised me then, but doesn't now, is that the single most hostile response came from the minister of the congregation that was supposed to receive the next Chalice Lighters call...

[Continued...Here]

Your Old Pal
Devilhead

Everything I Know about Unitarian Universalism, I Learned as Chalice Lighter - Part 3

[Continued from Here.]

The program itself was very simple in idea and execution. It was predicated upon several assumptions I had:

1. Congregations, not individuals, are the focus of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations 
2. Congregations communicating and working together is good.
3. Creativity is good.
4. Enthusiasm is good.
5. I am lazy.

[This last piece was/is important.]

During all of this, a vision of a barn-raising came to me, and it was used in the initial promotions of the New York Metro District's Chalice Lighters Program.

The idea was a simple one: Congregations helping Congregations. 

And it worked like this: About a month before a Chalice Lighters call, congregations would receive a small packet from the district office which contained several pieces of promotional materials about the project and the congregation seeking aide [information put together by the congregation seeking the grant], some clipart for the newsletter, and a letter encouraging people to be creative. That was it. It was up to each congregation's leadership how they would respond to the Chalice Lighters call. 

Some might just give a grant from the congregation, others might hold a special offering, still others would replicate the old Chalice Lighters model of direct mail to their members. The point is it didn't matter. That's Chaos. It's also the only place from whence creativity may arise. Creativity was strongly encouraged and congregations encouraged to rise to the occasion.

Bottom line... it was up to the congregations to decide how to treat fellow congregations. To that end, as much as possible, everything was removed that got in the way of direct communication.

The District Executive loved this approach. Ultimately so did the congregations. And I'm glad because this was designed for the congregations, no one else. 

[Continued... Here.]

Everything I Know about Unitarian Universalism, I Learned as Chalice Lighter - Part 2

[Continued from Here.]

Having taken on the role of Chalice Lighter for the New York Metro District of the UUA, now I had to do something constructive.

As stated in the previous post, the average call for a chalice lighter was about $700, and if I wanted to do a good job all I had to do was double that... That's it? Where's the problem?

Confession time: I had already soured on the Chalice Lighters program in the New York Metro District. I had signed up to be a Chalice Lighter, which at the time meant I would receive no more than three calls a year, at $10 a call. I signed up as a high school student, ready for college. I received one call, paid it and never heard from them again.

It's not that I didn't try.

Each time I moved as a young adult, I sent in a change of address notification to the Chalice Lighters. I moved three times, and three times notifications were sent. I did that for a period of about five years.

I reasoned, rather naively, that if the entire program ran on an up-to-date mailing list, it was imperative that there be an up-to-date mailing list. So, as soon as I got my hands on the mailing list I looked for my name, I found it, ten years later... with my parents' address listed. Clearly the three change of address notifications had no effect. I concluded, also rather naively, that if my address had not been changed despite my reaching out [3x !!!] to keep my address current, this may have happened to other people.

As it turns out, that was the case with much of the list. The list was best described as a work of fiction.

So, when presented with something completely broken, one has options. One can rebuild what was broken. One can re-create something from scratch. Or one can create something brand new.

I went with the latter. I went with it for several reasons.

For starters, ever try to fix something completely broken? Imagine a car with two-thirds to three-quarters of the parts broken or missing. Is it better to rebuild the car? Maybe if it's a priceless vintage auto. But, some old beater car? Much, much easier to purchase a replacement car, and cheaper. Less headaches too.

So... if we're going to purchase a new vehicle, why just a car? The world of possibilities opens up. It's exciting and creative. Exciting and creative, as it turns out, makes bureaucrats squirmy and uncomfortable.

At this time, Denny was moderator. She had a propensity to fart out "programs" [edicts] for congregations to follow. One of which, the name eludes me, was some pronouncement that congregations would benefit from communicating and working together. There was more to it than that, but the general idea was the Unitarian Universalist Association wanted to see congregations communicating and working with each other.

To me that sounded great. What I naively misunderstood at the time was that when the Unitarian Universalist Association says it wants congregations communicating and working with each other, that's not what it means at all. What it meant was the UUA wanted to see congregations communicating and working together under its watchful eye, in carefully structured events, all under the direction and gaze of the bureaucrats.

I found out that the absolutely last thing the bureaucrats want, is for congregations to freely communicate, work together, and inspire each other. It makes them super uncomfortable and squirmy. Let's face it, if congregations communicate with each other, they may come up with ideas that work splendidly without the Associations assistance/direction. When they work together they discover they can do things they never thought possible... usually cheaper and without the bureaucratic ideological baggage attached. To the bureaucrats this sort of thinking is both heresy and treason. In my defense, I went with what they said they wanted, not the unspoken meaning behind their words.

And my final piece was my own perspective being a practitioner of ceremonial and chaos magicks. I desired a place where magick can happen. In the process we took away the $10 "limit" on Chalice Lighters and told people, be generous.

I communicated all of this (not the magick piece, I have always kept that to myself until now) to our District Executive and again stressed that I was going to build up a brand new program, and in the quest to raise money and assist congregations in the goal of working together, the old program would be dead as the new sprang from its ashes.

His reply, "Let's try it. See if it works."

[Continued...Here.]

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

Everything I Know about Unitarian Universalism, I Learned as Chalice Lighter - Part 1

I recently learned that the New York Metro District (which no longer exists; it was eaten by the Central East Region) re-visioned their unique Chalice Lighters program to be identical to the Chalice Lighters programs all across the country. I'm pretty sure, though not positive, that this happened around 2014.

The thing with the New York Metro District's Chalice Lighters program was that it was both successful and wildly popular, and from its inception was loathed by the bureaucrats in the UUA. Loathed is probably too mild a term. As the program was instituted in 1996, and killed re-visioned in 2014, that's eighteen years of being a thorn in the side of the Unitarian Universalist Association, all the while literally doing nothing but good.

Read that last sentence again. It's 100% true.

And every single bureaucrat at the Unitarian Universalist Association hated the program. That's also 100% true.

Can you see the cosmic joke? 

First a little direct history, dates may be off as this is from memory, but otherwise you're getting it from the creator of the now very dead New York Metro District's Chalice Lighter program.

I was serving my second congregation, the first being a year-long consulting gig to a now dead congregation. I knew them well. It's best they're dead.

Things were going well in my congregation in Freeport, NY. I had settled in, weathered a divorce, and the congregation was growing. That said, I felt it was time to give back a bit to the district. 

I spoke with our District Executive (another dead position?) and made it clear that if there was some way to serve the district, I was available. His response was immediate, "I want you to take on Chalice Lighters." 

"Oh shit that program is really fucking broken." I thought to myself. I said aloud "What are the parameters?"

"Raise money." he replied.

"That's it? What I mean is, do I have freedom to change the program?"

"As long as you raise more money than we usually get, feel free."

"How much money does an average call receive?" I asked.

"About $700."

I just looked at him in silence, then, "I could write a check for that..."

"That's the point. This program's completely broken. You can't break it. If you put any effort in at all, you'll easily double the average call amount."

And so I took on the position of Chalice Lighter in the New York Metro District.

[Continued...Here.]

Your Ol' Pal,

Devilhead

Random Thoughts

I stated in my last post that once I discovered that the gods talk back it was game on. I guess this feeling tends to separate magicians from non-magicians. Over the years I've discovered that the only people who really want to communicate with [what exactly?] and have returned again, and again, to repeat the experience(s) are magicians. In saying this I'm not denigrating other ways of approaching the truth, just that it takes a particular type of person who chooses magick as a spiritual discipline. And it is a discipline.

I've discovered over nearly 40 years of practicing some form of ceremonial or chaos magick, that normal people are terrified of it. I mean really terrified. When people find out you practice magick, they tend to be terrified of you. There is a reason that silence is a principle of magick.

All of this is to say that of late, I've been working with Thoth, ibis-headed god of wisdom. (Gods tend to be very stable forces, and when I approach them correctly I get very good results.) Specifically, I began this working in August. The impetus was the recognition that literally everything in our world is broken. No, really, everything.

Government, business, health care, religion (both exoteric and esoteric), education, and on and on it goes. It doesn't matter where one looks, everything -- every institution that people have relied upon for years is broken, really seriously broken. Smashed. Shattered.

A perfect example is main stream media news. To claim it is a joke is its only point. We don't have news anymore. We have corporate propaganda. [This is legal because it is not governmental propaganda.]

Politics is a fucking joke. The system is broken. Some believe that the various interlocking systems can be fixed. Others, myself included, think it's time for a clean sweep. The old aeon is dying, all of its institutions are smashed and broken beyond recognition, the new is becoming. Although others may disagree, I see the Aeon of Horus as a cleansing aeon. Part of that cleansing is to dismantle, destroy and remove the debris of everything.

The Book of the Law was received by Aleister Crowley in 1904. It is written in three relatively short chapters. Each is addressed by a different god. The third chapter is from Horus, in his guise of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, a war god. The third chapter has upset some. Others have made peace with it. I read it immediately after performing The Supreme Ritual which is an invocation of Horus, and was positively fried with Horus' energy, and I "got it." I can't explain it, nor will I be a centre of pestilence, not now anyway. Long story short; the third chapter of the Book of the Law is my favorite chapter.

My relationship with Ra-Hoor-Khuit is a good one a very powerful one. I tend not to formally invoke Ra-Hoor-Khuit often, having only done it a few times, because the energy tends to knock me right on my ass. During one of those times, I asked to see through Horus' eyes. Having seen, I get it, but can't explain it; it all has to go. Completely.

The Aeon of Horus, the age of the Crowned and Conquering Child, is an age of almost pure destruction. It is not an age of rebuilding. It is an age of razing. Just imagine the Crowned and Conquering Child toddling through everything: playing with, randomly breaking, stepping on, tripping over, everything. Until nothing is left. Then we have to deal with truth. The Aeon of Ma'at, which is that of truth is prophesied to follow.

And that is why I've been working with Thoth. Thoth is a god of wisdom. I have invoked Thoth on a near daily basis for one thing and one thing only, to know the truth of everything.

Let's just say be careful of what you seek.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead