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.

The Debacle of GA '19

I have the feeling the Unitarian Universalists have hit a historic point. It's not the historic point anyone would want to make, I'm sure, but a historic point has been made. 

Rev. Todd Eklof, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. is at the center of a fucking shitstorm.

Given the absolute outrage over Rev. Todd Eklof's actions, one might expect that he is a serial sexual predator or a molester of children,  but apparently, he's done something worse, much worse. 

His crime, the response of which is deafening, doesn't come close to being a serial sexual predator. The UUA/UUMA continues to keep predators safe. How else can one explain the large number of people with piss-poor sexual boundaries in the ministry? (One of them had his congregation leafleted by an irate husband of the congregant our minister was sleeping with, on Easter morning no less. That one is still in the ministry, although not in that church. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.)

The response to Rev. Eklof's crime to date has been louder and more psycho than usual. Certainly more so than the situation around that cancer Christina Rivera, or those surrounding the swift axing of Rev. Peter Morales from the UUA presidency, and that of Rev. Don Southworth from the UUMA presidency.

Moreso than the arrest and conviction of confessed pedophile Rev. Ron Robinson. That one barely had a peep made. It was pretty quiet, and some defended his character. So, Rev. Todd must be horrible.

Rev. Todd Eklof's crime was in publishing a book called The Gadfly Papers, [available on Amazon, purchase it] which called into question some of the methods of the "white supremacy" bullshit that is a part and parcel of anti-racism. [Kindle edition here.]

Before we go any further, let's examine what happened from the core documents that are out there:

Here's the backlash:

An Open Letter from White UU Ministers

An Open Letter from UU People of Color

A Statement from LREDA

And one from DRUUM:

So, that's the official channels. Reddit is off the hinges. I've never seen this community so up in arms:

I love Reddit. In no particular order:

The Death of UUism by the Numbers

Rev. Todd Eklof's First Sermon Following the Release of the Gadfly Papers

Why You Should Read the Gadfly Papers

"White Fragility" Smacks of Psychological Abuse

Coverage of the Eklof Controversy from a Spokane Paper

This is, by Far, the Best Critique of the Gadfly Papers I've Read So Far

Curious About the Process of the Book Ban and its Rescinding

Telling Our Stories: The Failure of The Gadfly Papers

What is Going On?

The Gadfly Papers

General Assembly is Happening Right Now!

Well, that should give us all something to chew on. 

Next time, we'll unpack some of this stuff. And being Devilhead, I'm interested in looking at the stuff no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

Let's Talk...

I've been gone for a while. I've had, and continue to have, a few things going on in my life:

Currently, my 90+-year-old mother has been moved into an assisted living facility. I've been traveling, looking over properties in New York, New Mexico, Washington, and Italy (old family estate).

I've finished up a course of treatment for the PTSD I received from dealing with some horrid church leadership with help from a denomination that wanted to see me gone and my memory purged. EMDR treatments have been successful. I no longer feel the rage and pain I felt at being railroaded out of the ministry. I may finally talk about some of my personal experiences.

All of the above has contributed to this blog being put on the back burner. I haven't really checked my email much at all. [BTW Devilhead welcomes email from readers, contact me HERE.] 

But there's a thing about back burners, everything simmers. So, for the past nine months or so, I've essentially ignored this blog. Not completely ignore it per se, I just had too much personal business that demanded my attention. And for the past several months readership has steadily grown. Not bad for a blog that could have been considered dead.

And boy do you guys write! My inbox has been overflowing with almost exclusively supportive material. There's negative too, usually along the lines of "how dare you force me to look at the shit-sty my denomination has become". But there's so little of that, I'm surprised.

A few of you have commented openly on this blog. Some of you want to know what I know. That's a two-way street. Contact me HERE (subtle fucking hint, I know).

So, as the blog slept, its readership grew steadily. 

Who Reads This Blog?

A surprising number of people who like this blog are ministers who've become disillusioned and disgusted with a denomination run by ideologically-blinded buffoons. Some are retired and are grateful to be done. Several have communicated that they will never set foot in another Unitarian Universalist church, even as they collect a pension check from the UUA. 

Another large group, not as large as the ministers, are congregational leadership. And that's been growing. GA '19 was a wake up call for many. This one that has proven how far the UUA has strayed from its roots. [It's probably safe to say that what calls itself "Unitarian Universalism" is so completely different from what has been Unitarianism and Universalism (in both separate and combined forms) for all of its history that it would be more honest to simply name it something new and move on.] This would have the added benefit of exorcising inconvenient history to the dumpster in the process. Don't worry, that'll never happen because it makes sense.

Here's the best part, several UUA staffers read this blog and largely agree [?!] with it. The number one complaint I get from UUA staff is this: hypocrisy at the higher levels. Quelle surprise!

I can't make this shit up. Yo' Rev. Sue, looks like you don't have a unified team at all. Time to purge house, again. 

And finally, readers from UUReddit have found this blog and have been sharing posts with their friends. This accounts for much of this blogs growing popularity among a certain segment of the UU populace. All I can say to that is Welcome Reddit!

And many of the readers have lots of questions. Most are about the ministries and churches I've already discussed, filling me in with details. I've heard from family, former congregants and others who've had dealings with some of the ministers mentioned in this blog. Let's just say that from what I've heard, it's a good thing some of these people are out of the ministry.

And since GA '19, all anyone can talk about is Rev. Todd Eklof of the Spokane UU Church and his book decrying the excesses of a denomination that has run off the rails. I don't know the minister, but I do know the congregation very well. (Intimately, in fact.) I will do a few posts on this, but let me give you a preview.

The distance between Spokane, WA and Hayden, ID home of many white nationalists and some very famous white nationalist groups is only 36.8 miles. Nothing, particularly out in the west.

There are current members of the UU Church of Spokane who grew up playing with Richard Butler's kids. 

I know for a absolute fact that that their former minister, Rev. Richard Erhardt was completely against the anti-racism bullshit as promulgated by the CIA UUA, and made that fact well known to the search committee. Their response was applause.

The congregation supports Rev. Eklof, does not see the Gadfly Papers as racist, and that's where it should end. But it won't.

Who says watching Unitarian Universalism commit suicide isn't fun?

Yours Truly,
Devilhead

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]