The Debacle of GA '19: What Rev. Todd Eklof and the Spokane Church Can Expect

I've had enough requests asking me to comment upon the situation of Rev. Todd Eklof, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Rev. Todd Eklof's ministry is over. It may seem presumptive to say this because Rev. Eklof's congregation is largely behind him. In a sane world in which congregational polity is respected, that would be that.

But the UUA has no respect whatsoever for congregational polity. None. If you doubt this, pay attention to the UUA's actions, not their words. Their words are usually lies, their actions speak the truth; albeit a far different truth than their narrative allows.

Put very simply, but not inaccurately, it's not over because the UUA hasn't gotten what it wants. As the UUA has no respect for congregational polity it will stop at absolutely nothing to get what it wants.

And what the UUA wants is twofold: 1) Rev. Todd Eklof out of the Unitarian Universalist ministry with prejudice, and 2) The Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane to join the borg collective the current thinking of the UUA.

Nothing else will do. The "leaders" at the UUA will stop at absolutely nothing to make sure that happens. It's already begun.

Without further ado, here's what Rev. Todd and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane can expect:

First off this is going to be one absolutely miserable fucking year for Rev. Todd Eklof. As it is, he's already been publicly pilloried for wrong-think. The cherry on that shit-sundae was the UUMA Executive Committee in a startlingly visible act of cowardice censuring the Rev. Todd Eklof. 

Dead white males all be rayciss. Nothing to see or consider here folks.

There are some standing with him: The Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane, his good offices person (Isn't it interesting that he would need a good offices person for the crime of thinking for himself?), most of his congregation and the president of the Board of Trustees.

That last one's a two-edged sword. The current board president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane is, in my opinion, the single worst person in the congregation to be board president at this time. This is someone who gets bogged down in microscopic minutia. This is also someone who really loves her minister. 

Because of that, Rev. Todd Eklof will not lose his job while the current board president holds the office. In fact he's very safe, this year. The president would consider it a personal failing of hers if she were not able to "save the ministry" of Rev. Eklof.

At the same time, every single complaint she or the board receives regarding Rev. Eklof will be given careful, minute, painstaking, detailed investigation. Each time to exonerate Rev. Eklof. This leads inevitably to two parallel results leading to a third:

1) The constant, and I do mean constant, investigations into this or that aspect of Rev. Todd Eklof's ministry will sap the time from anything else. It will be very difficult for him to get any actual ministry done with meeting after meeting dealing with utter bullshit. As a result, Rev. Todd will begin to feel and show signs of burnout. 

2) Each and every investigation into Rev. Todd's racism, and other recently uncovered failings in his ministry, will start to cast doubt on Rev. Todd. It doesn't matter if Rev. Todd Eklof is racist or not, the constant investigations will either uncover, or manufacture, Rev. Todd's racism.

Both of these lead to 3) Rev. Todd's burnout will be seen as evidence of his guilt. Which changes the tone of each and every investigation.

"But, he wasn't guilty." you say. When has that ever applied to a scapegoat? The scapegoat's job is to take on the sins of the community and be expelled into outer darkness (aka away from the religious fold).

As the Spokane church has a president who has no ability to sort and pick important issues from the general stuff that swirls around controversy, everything will be given equal detail. Everything.

The big issue of whether Rev. Todd Eklof is a racist, did not originally come from inside the congregation. Literally no one in the congregation ever felt that Rev. Todd is or was a racist. That, however has changed because of the above and what follows.

We're going to take a little time to look at this as it shows how the Unitarian Universalist Association operates. Warning... it's ugly.

In the beginning, there was Rev. Todd Eklof and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. Both were happy with each other. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane is -- whatever else it's shortcomings and failings -- one of the few Unitarian Universalist churches left in the country where free thought is encouraged and practiced. 

I can personally guarantee that everything that Rev. Todd Eklof presented in The Gadfly Papers was discussed with his congregation, through sermons certainly, but more importantly through all of the various discussion groups, think tanks, philosophical discussion groups, and on and on. The ideas in The Gadfly Papers were discussed and refined in the congregation's numerous talk groups. So, while it is safe to say that everything that Rev. Todd wrote and published is his, it isn't entirely his own. These are ideas that were refined in the congregation. The congregation owns them as well. Hence the need to scapegoat.

And I personally guarantee you that if The Gadfly Papers was met with enthusiasm by the borg collective GA attendees, the congregation would own as much of it as they could. As it is, it was rejected explosively, and now the congregation feels embarrassed. Not for the ideas, but for the reception the ideas received. And there's the chink in the armor. 

Do not for a nano-second believe that the UUA is going to sit on its hands and watch the show from the sidelines. Nope. There is a golden opportunity to get rid of a political enemy (that's really how the brain trust at the UUA sees it), and that opportuity has been seized with both hands.

It started subtly, after the fracas at GA '19, when they discovered that they hadn't ordered enough hug boxes for the chronically triggered. At GA itself, delegates were approached by various hoo-hahs with faux concern about what happened. Initial contacts were presented with care and concern. You know the deal, "It's such a shame that such a nice congregation that would never harbor such horrible ideas has had your minister put you in this terrible situation."

Over the summer, several leaders in the congregation received "pastoral" phone calls from region and national leaders, each on the surface seeing how everyone's weathering the storm. 

In all cases, information was gathered, weak points were probed, and the person contacted left the conversation with these salient points firmly established in their heads: 1) this is entirely Rev. Todd Eklof's fault, 2) as a result, the congregation is an innocent bystander/victim, 3) we're with you emotionally as you face this trial with your minister, and most importantly, 4) should it not work out... there are a lot of great new ministers in the pipeline. 

This last is both the most important piece of information a UUA/Region leader can impart and it's a flat out lie. What this means is not that there are plenty of good, qualified ministers in the pipeline, but rather that there is a glut of completely mediocre ministers who pass the UUA's political litmus test. These people may literally fail in any and all aspects of ministry (and frequently do) with the exception that they have completely bought into the psyop that passes for enlightened discourse in the UUA these days. And as a complete coincidence nearly all of these political hacks are subsidized by the UUA in the form of "Consulting" or "Contract" ministers. 

That is correct... the only thing looked at for fitness in ministry is political ideology. Seriously, that's it. Anyone hiring from this new pool is begging for trouble. 

To the UUA leadership's understanding, the Spokane church initially supporting their minister was (and is) seen as the church being racist to the core. I absolutely, positively, guarantee that when (not if, when) Rev. Todd leaves, the only candidates for interim ministry will be extreme hard-liners for the UUAs chosen political philosophy. Should they accept one of these stooges, and the congregation starts to inevitably falter, they will be offered a "partially all-expenses paid" consulting minister. The way thes work is since the UUA pays for part of the minister's salary, they feel it is their bought-and-paid-for right to control the direction of all of the congregation's ministry.

In order to help further this along, the helpful souls at the UUA/Region will suggest their own consulting team to come in and assess the congregation. As this is partially paid for by the UUA/Region... you know the rest. 

That's what we're going to see this year. 

In the next few pieces we'll look at the documented proof of what's going on with Rev. Todd and the Spokane church, and examine the calibre of the ministers the UUA pays for through their consulting (and other welfare programs for failed ministers) ministry program. All of which forces me to question whether the good folks at the UUA believe in the first principle...

One last thought. I happened to drive by the church a few times and noticed that their marquee out front was empty... all week long.

This photo was taken at 11am on Saturday morning (Feb. 22, 2020) It had been like this all week.

Let that sink in.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: It Ain't Over Yet... The UUMA Exec Censures Rev. Todd Eklof for Heresy and Blasphemy

I keep getting reports about what's going on with the publication of The Gadfly Papers [buy it and support Rev. Todd: HERE] and it's dissemination at GA '19 in Spokane, WA, and as predicted [HERE], the tempest in a teapot that Rev. Eklof unleashed by simply asking everyone to look at the direction things are going and asking if that's what we really want, ain't over yet. Not by a longshot.

[My predictions are copied here for those who don't want to dig through a long-ass piece.]

These predictions sound a lot like the shitstorm of which Rev. Todd is at the center.

A few readers of the blog have sent me the link UUMA Board and Executive Team Issues Public Letter of Censure against the Rev. Todd Eklof. This letter issued two months after the initial brouhaha at General Assembly is a perfect example of the hypocritical moral posturing of the creme de la creme of Unitarian Universalist ministry.

In essence, Rev. Todd Eklof has been excommunicated by his peers for holding heretical thoughts and for having the nerve to publish them thereby committing blasphemy. 

Here's the funny thing a censure from the UUMA means absolutely nothing... it also means everything.

This is what I mean, the Unitarian Universalist Minister's Association [UUMA] is one of the most utterly useless bodies to exist. It sucks up a couple of hundred dollars from ministers every year, and gives back nothing. Seriously, look at their website yourself and tell me if you see anything of value. 

Yeah, exactly, I don't either.

I would say the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association offers a complete void of anything of value, but as this letter exhibits, the signers of the letter got an opportunity to make a safe moral grandstand that cost them nothing at all. By "safe" I mean this: two months have passed since the swirly-whirly of regurgitation and shit that calls itself General Assembly. Two months have passed to see that the issue is nice and safe to release a public statement of censure. Yup, the moral cowards exemplars at the UUMA Exec issued this rebuke when it was nice and safe for them to do so.

If you think I'm too harsh, remember I've been a UU minister. I've been to more UUMA meetings than I care to remember. I've seen the myopic political calculation that goes behind letters like this. I can guarantee that the signers of this letter all saw good political outcomes for themselves, after a two-month waiting period.

Before we go further, as these things tend to disappear from the internet once Devilhead points them out, here's the screenshot of those who signed this letter:

Devilhead's cheap advice is for anyone who's tired of this shit. If you are on a search committee, for a congregation, for a region, for a special committee, use this list along with the lists in the Special Pages section [right side of the blog] to eliminate poor candidates. These pages are a tool, feel free to use them.

Devilhead sez: "Use the Special Pages section as a blacklist if you're hiring!"

In Devilhead's opinion, this list above are the poorest of possible candidates. Not only are the ideologically hamstrung buffoons, but they are cowards to boot. 

And yet despite the utter incompetence and stupidity of those in leadership at the UUMA, it matters because there are some powerful cowards on this list. On this list we have Rev. Richard Speck [not this guy] who was a district executive for 14 years, now retired.

And we have Rev. Melissa Carvill Ziemer, who is currently the executive director of the UUMA:

She's another one who had a few years in the ministry, then jumped at the chance to work for a bureaucracy. You'll see that a lot at the higher levels of Unitarian Universalist professional ministry; people who prefer bureaucracy over parish ministry. Wonder why that is?

She could, of course, be mindful of the fate of her predecessor. The Rev. Don Southworth who was shitcanned from the UUMA Exec and is now unhirable in any Unitarian Universalist context because he simply questioned the direction of the Anti-Racist Psyop Initiative. Mind you, he never questioned the motives of the program and its handlers, which were/are far from pure.

It's entirely possible that she wouldn't want to face the same fate.

After all, the same thing happened to former UUA President Rev. Peter Morales. Unhirable. His crime? He simply questioned the speed and direction of the Anti-Racist Psyop Initiative. 

Devilhead would like to end this rather rambling rant with a question that is seldom asked. 

When did the meaning of racism change from being actively against people of color, to meaning simply disagreeing with or questioning a person of color? 

When did that happen?

In all cases, these people, Rev. Todd Eklof, Rev. Don Southworth, and Rev. Peter Morales, simply disagreed or questioned the current establishment paradigm.  

When did the simple act of questioning make one a racist?

When indeed?

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Refused to Sign

I've heard from several people close to Rev. Todd Eklof. The reports are that he's getting it from all sides.

In our last piece, we looked at who signed, and asked the question if any of them had read the book first, or at all. [The answer to that query: some read the book while the vast majority did not; it seems that all claim to be experts on the contents of the book, however.]

In the lists of those who signed the essential book ban and character assassination of Rev. Todd Eklof, there are some striking omissions. Given that to be fully, completely, irrationally on-board with the anti-racism psyop initiative is the only way to have a career in UU-land, it is surprising that some key names are not on the various petitions.

Why?

In the current hysterical atmosphere at the UUA not signing a popular petition makes one stand out. The ideal at the UUA that it wants all congregations to adopt is groupthink. It makes very little sense not to sign a petition.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to refuse to sign particularly if you have been one of the architects of the current situation.

Why for instance is Rev. William Sinkford not on either list? 

He was our first "black" president. This was a fact screamed from the rooftops. 

He was also brought back when Rev. Peter Morales was  shit-canned to be part of a tripartite (trinity?) occupying presidency. This is not ancient history. The man is labeled a leader, is brought back to lead after the ousting of his successor, and yet, does NOT sign a letter denouncing the racism of a book that is being treated as if it came from Satan's bowels. 

What's up with that?

Does Rev. Sinkford not find the book racist? If he doesn't find the book rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Does he not believe that Rev. Todd Eklof is racist? If he doesn't find Rev. Todd Eklof rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Rev. William Sinkford was a driving force for the "justice" of anti-racism work. In fact, he was one of the main pushers and beneficiaries of anti-racism in the UUA. 

Why, when his colleague, friend, and campaign manager, the Rev. Rosemary Bray-McNatt signed the UUMA letter, would Rev. Sinkford not sign it?

Can you see how this is a big omission?

Is he having second thoughts? 

Is he beginning to look at what he's wrought and questioning his role?

Nah... Rev. William Sinkford seems incapable of holding an opinion that hasn't been carefully handed to him. Ask any member of his congregation. [That's what some of them are saying.]

Is Rev. William Sinkford racist?

Maybe he did his part, helped to fertilize and plow the ground from which this harvest of toxic fungus grows, and having done his part, handed the reigns over to the useful idiots and true believers who will complete the process. He's no longer needed, he fulfilled his role as a key player in the anti-racism psyop initiative. 

And having done his part fades into the night. If you let him. Why are you letting him?

Or maybe people realize that trans-racial grandpa has nothing relevant to say anymore? 

If this is true, he may simply never have been approached.

Another name that is noticeably absent from this list is that of Rev. Rob Eller-Issacs. Rev. Rob "Anti-Racism" Eller-Issacs is not a signatory?! What the fuck is up with that? I mean the man's been on the ground floor of this stuff since the candidacy of Rev. John Buehrens for president, and was part of the closed-door meeting that gave BLUU 5.3 million of the UUA's money... with no strings attached! And he didn't sign? 

It's like he wants to be invisible. Well, I suppose cockroaches hate the light.


This one's getting long and will need to be continued... Just wanted to let you all know I haven't forgotten about these motherfuckers. And then there are those ministers who have connections to the Spokane church, none of whom signed. Yeah, there's more to come.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Signed

The controversy surrounding Rev. Eklof and the publication of The Gadfly Papers continues unabated. From my observation and experience, the controversy won't end until Rev. Eklof is out of the ministry. That's the only outcome tolerable to the hoo-hahs at the UUA. You know that and I know that. Rev. Todd knows that. [If anyone is interested, I can do a piece on what Rev. Eklof can expect from his colleagues and denomination, and the cancerous effect that will have on his congregation.]

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

The Debacle of GA '19: What No One is Really Talking About

So far, the discussion surrounding the publication of Rev. Todd Eklof's The Gadfly Papers has focussed almost solely on whether the book is racist or not. That's not a big surprise as this narrative spin tends to favor the dominant voices in the UUA.

Is The Gadfly Papers racist?

Not at all. 

That hasn't stopped the professionally aggrieved from hysterically shrieking that it is not only vile racism of the lowest order, but dangerous to boot. So dangerous that people shouldn't read it. They have been told that not only shouldn't they read it, but if they want to know what's inside they need only listen to one of the aggrieved as they tell you what it's all about. 

Readers may notice a similarity between this viewpoint and that of the Medieval Church in regards to people reading the Bible for themselves. It was thought too dangerous, and so the Bible had to be mediated through priests. Does that sound familiar? Who does that benefit?

As a cherry on this shit sundae, it should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that many of the aggrieved who are happy to denounce the book as racism haven't bothered to read it. (I guess reading is rayciss.)

Welcome to today's Unitarian Universalism.

Here are a couple of pieces from the Spokesman-Review, Spokane's paper of record. [Here and Here]

Lost in the rush to denounce Rev. Todd Eklof as a racist, and make sure that no one reads his book and become infected with opposing viewpoints, is what happened in the meeting he had with the Right Relations Team.

Here's Rev. Eklof's account:

And here's the version from the Spokesman-Review, which was given verbatim from the UUA:

 And:

Notice a difference?

This from a Redditor [Here] makes the timeline clearer:

My favorite part is, "Someone on the Right Relations team did not like the outcome of this meeting, and went above the Right Relations team."

That, my friends, is the whole fucking story right there. A meeting occurred, things were agreed upon, then someone on the very team who initiated the meeting had issues on the ride home, and went above everyone's heads. Remember, this is the new Unitarian Universalism. Rules are rayciss. 

So, who's on the Right Relations Team? Here is the official web blurb. Interesting, it doesn't mention who's on the team, although it does have a few pics of previous Right Relations Team members.

Yup, the moderators were members of this team.

Here's what no one is talking about, but at the same time is the issue: the piss-poor boundaries of the leaders at the highest levels of the association.

Let's just go through this again:

Rev. Eklof hands out copies of his book at GA. Some were offended. Some tried to stop this book from being read altogether, but settled on it not being distributed for free. Rev. Todd agreed not to distribute the book. Meeting over, decisions reached. In a sane society that would be the end of it.

Except that Unitarian Universalism is populated by the emotionally damaged. Except that the whole anti-racism CIA Psyop initiative is deemed too important to follow rules. It has to succeed, and it doesn't matter if it does so on a lie. The rules don't matter if they stand in the way of naked political grasping. From this, we wind up with declaring that Robert's Rules of Order are rayciss.

[On that:

That's from a retired Unitarian Universalist Minister. How things have changed.]

A meeting did occur, someone didn't like the outcome. Most likely couldn't find a way to virtue signal, or even more likely, realized that they would have to deal with the sniveling of the professionally offended for the rest of GA. (And there probably weren't enough hug boxes in the safe room for everybody.) That's how the professionally offended get their way. They cry and throw tantrums until they get what they want. 

And that's what happened. The official pronouncements are making it all about Rev. Eklof. You may notice they don't mention the names of the others present. What are they hiding? The reality is the unprofessionalism of the people on the Right Relations Team (whoever they are), the UUA Board member (whoever that is), and a co-moderator (whoever... wait... he? Mr. Barb Greve?) calls into question all of the processes and professionalism of the UUA.

Seriously, if you can't trust the word of your elected leaders, or trust that your leaders behave ethically, what the fuck do you have?

If this incident has proven anything, it's that the UUA leaders at the very highest levels can't be trusted and cover for each other.

That's what no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

Happy 4th! Maybe it is time to dissolve the Association.