In re-reading some of the responses to The Gadfly Papers, I noticed something odd among the signatories. There were those who signed the various papers calling Rev. Eklof and his book, racist, sexist, ableist, whatever-other-ists-would-stick-to-the-wall-when-hurled-against-it, etc.
And there were those who didn't.
In both cases, there were some interesting surprises on the list. Everything I'm about to point out has already been public knowledge. I'm just connecting dots and asking questions.
On the UUMA People of Color and Indiginous Chapter Statement, is this name:
Who, as it says, is President of Starr King School for the Ministry.
In the Open Letter from White UU Ministers, is this name:
Who, as it says, is President of Meadville Lombard Theological School.
Questions:
Does it strike anyone as odd that presidents of both Unitarian Universalist seminaries signed respective letters, calling The Gadfly Papers damaging?
The implication to me is that we have the presidents of the only two Unitarian Universalist seminaries that serve the UUA calling for the ban of a book.
Is this true? If it is, what does that say?
What about the idea of reading the book critically and then debating it? Why are the presidents of the UU seminaries not calling for this?
What of the future of Unitarian Universalism if this is how the future leaders are being trained?
The Unitarian Universalism you knew and loved is quite dead.
As to our future leaders, here's another name from that list:
That's right, Isabel Call, who was the outgoing Intern Minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. WTF? She was supervised by Rev. Todd Eklof, and in leaving the church signs a petition that calls the book and her mentor racist.
What is going on here?
A few possibilities, either she had a good relationship with Todd and the church, or she didn't. She could have had a great relationship with her mentor, and at the same time saw the realpolitik of the UUA and knew that she had better sign... or give up any hope of the ministry. (Not kidding, it really works that way.)
Questions:
Did Isabel Call see the writing on the wall as to the realpolitik of the UUA? Is that why she signed?
Does she believe the book, the minister and the church are racist? Does she believe any of them are racist? Is that why she signed?
It seems from the Spokesman-Review article that Rev. Todd Eklof was surprised by the presence of his church's Interm Minister on the list. Is this how we treat colleagues? Do we sign petitions instead of seeking honest dialog with our colleagues?
What of all the others who signed? How many of them sought an honest dialog with Rev. Todd Eklof?
To be more to the point, how many of them read the book before signing the petition? How many?
How many of them have read the book at all? How many?
And, how many of them still haven't read the book, and have no intention of reading the book, and yet signed the petition calling for the book to be banned? How many?
If you are a congregant in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, do you want your leaders signing petitions against a book they have not read?
What does all of this say about leadership among the Unitarian Universalists?
If your minister is on either of these lists as signers, you need to ask them if they read the book before signing the petition, if they read it at all. If your minister admits to having signed the petition without having read the book first...
Devilhead's advice would be for you to work as hard as possible to get rid of your minister. No one needs human garbage in the ministry. Don't worry about where you're going to find your next minister, as the UUA promises again and again, there's always more in the pipeline.
Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead
