The 2 cultures of Unitarian-Universalism

Understanding the ongoing schism in this religious tradition

UUism – a short primer

The Unitarian-Universalist faith tradition is a relatively new religious tradition, in comparison to Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. It started roughly in the 16^th century in the Transylvanian portion of Hungary, and then in the early 19th century as an offshoot of Congregationalism in the United States. Today, it has become a different religion, one in which many persons are atheists, and are not particularly Christian.

Unitarianism began as a “heresy” distinct from the main Christian tradition of “trinitarianism”, which is the notion that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all manifestations of the Most High. Unitarianism began as a rejection of this trinitary view (hence the name “Unitarianism”), and reverted to the founding “unitary deity” notion of Christianity, in which God is the central deity, Jesus is a prophetic voice and leader although not divine, and the Holy Spirit is not really part of the mix. As such, in the USA, it was a minor religious tradition, mostly in the New England area, although it was extended to the Upper Midwest and Heartland during the late 19^th century.  

In the 1960s, Unitarianism merged with Universalism. Unitarianism had become, in the 20^th century, a religion of intellectual interest in multiple religious sources. Universalism was far more Christian, and held to a doctrine of universal salvation and eternal life after death, without the notion of Hell to frighten parishioners. The merger was somewhat awkward, as Unitarians were far more intellectual and upper-class, while Universalists were more lower-class, and more strongly Christian. Few Unitarians today have a strong belief in the notion of eternal life nor have any belief in Jesus.

As part of the merger, a set of 7 principles were formulated:

1^st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

2^nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

3^rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations.

4^th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

5^th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.

6^th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

7^th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

These principles form the core of UUism. They define a faith tradition of rational examination of belief, but one which is not oriented toward some supernatural deity.

The faith tradition is not particularly Christian at the current time. In fact, many adherents are atheists or agnostics. Many hold pagan beliefs, spiritual views of a non-deistic nature, and strong views of social justice. The notion, from the Universalist tradition, of universal salvation to eternal life is not held by many current UUs, who often do not have much belief in life after death. Instead, UUs mostly believe that we must live good lives in the present while alive.

The Enlightenment and the Rights of Man

Current UUism draws much of its impetus from the Enlightenment, a philosophical and historically important movement. The enlightenment occurred during the 17^th and 18^th century, with a culmination in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. These two documents, written closely in time, proclaimed that men have inherent rights, that aristocrats are not inherently better, and that men have rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rights in these documents, which arose out of philosophical writings of many persons (to a large degree French), set forth a new view of humanity. In summary:

The goal of the Enlightenment's proponents was to apply the methods learned from the scientific revolution to the problems of society. Further, its advocates committed themselves to "reason" and "liberty." Knowledge, its followers believed, could only come from the careful study of actual conditions and the application of an individual's reason, not from religious inspiration or traditional beliefs. Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government.

The cultures of dignity and victimhood

In a previous discussion, the notions of 3 different moral cultures (honor, dignity, victimhood) were discussed by summarizing their description from other sources. A “moral culture” is a set of rules and beliefs which define the organization of a society. It defines what actions are considered acceptable and unacceptable, the way status is defined and increased, and defines how disputes are handled. In a “culture of dignity” (CoD, the current dominant mainstream culture in the 1^st-world countries of the West), individuals have a value, which is intrinsic. Individuals can improve themselves and increase their status, by education, economic accomplishments, achievement in the arts or sports, and by political leadership. Actions which break laws are considered unacceptable. When laws are broken, the system of courts and trials is used to resolve disputes and solve problems. This “moral culture” has held through much of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. It is the “moral culture” of the Enlightenment.

In the recent 20 years or so, a new moral culture, the “culture of victimhood” (CoV), is increasingly important in many countries of the 1^st-world west. In the CoV, the key value lies in recognizing and elevating “marginalized communities”. These include communities of color (black, brown), foreign origin (immigrant, refugee), sex (women but not men), sexual minority (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual), gender dysphoria (trans), body size (overly fat), handicaps (missing limbs), and intellectual deficiency. As such groups have been historically discriminated against, the members of the CoV work to overcome the discrimination and raise the members of the marginalized groups to the status of the supposed dominant white male normal-sex-interest group. The process of raising “marginalized groups” may include positive discrimination in favor of the marginalized persons, as well as explicit favoritism. For persons in this culture, discrimination to produce results and elevate minorities is considered appropriate.

The culture clash in UUism

UUism is engaged in a potentially schismatic dispute at the present time. This period began in the years 2016-2019 (although some hold that the situation dates to 1995 or so). There are 2 groups in this dispute. These groups may be called “Traditional UUs” (T-UUs) and the “Victim-oriented UUs” (V-UUs). With the understanding of the CoD and CoV, the issues that the T-UUs and V-UUs are in dispute about become clear and more easily understood.

The 7 Principles and T-UUs

The 7 Principles listed above were composed during the time when T-UUs were the main type of UU. From the standpoint of the CoD and persons who identify as T-UUs, the Principles are almost a definition of the CoD. The 1^st, 4^th, and 5^th Principles are key to UUism and its relationship to the CoD. The 2^nd is also somewhat important. The 3^rd, 6^th, and 7^th Principles are less relevant to the CoD notions.

·         The 1^st Principle: “the inherent worth and dignity of every person”, uses the word “dignity”, and defines a person as having intrinsic, inherent worth. That is, the worth of a person is not earned. All persons have equal worth. This worth or value is part of the person, and is a birthright. This is a core Enlightenment ideal.

·         The 2^nd Principle: “Justice, equity and compassion in human relations”, defines how disputes are handled, and considers that they must follow the notion of “justice”, leavened by “compassion”. Justice implies that rules will be used to settle disputes and contentions. The use of “equity” implies that no persons have an elevated status over others intrinsically. This follows also from the 1^st Principle.

·         The 4^th Principle: “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning” is again at the heart of the CoD, and derived directly from the Enlightenment. When a person searches, this is done because the answer is not readily at hand. In defining “free and responsible search” as a foundational principle of UUism, the implicit admission that “the answer is not known already” is included. Revelation is not sealed. Thus, no Deity, no Supreme Authority, has provided answers to questions. The admonishment to “search in a free and responsible manner” implies that each person must answer questions for himself.

·         The 5^th Principle: “The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large” is a key one for the CoD interpretation. UUs are to use the “conscience” to make decisions. Sometimes, it is said that “UUs can believe anything”. This is not true. No person who follows the “right of conscience” can condone murder or the sacrifice of children. The “right of conscience” implies that persons must make up their own notions as to what is important, although mitigated and modified by legality and appropriateness. There are boundaries in this decision, and these are defined by the conscience of a moral and reasonable person.

Thus, the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, and 5^th Principles define UUism as part of the CoD. They also link UUism to a spiritual tradition which grew directly from the Enlightenment. The French revolution, announced by “The Declaration of the rights of Man and Citizen”, and the Declaration of Independence in the English colonies which soon became the United States of America, both use similar ideas. These foundational documents, which are key parts of the Enlightenment, define “persons” having “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

The V-UUs and new views of the Principles

The victim-oriented UUs (V-UUs) are a relatively new group within UUism. They have arisen within the last 30 years, and are attempting to change the organization, structure, objectives, and direction of UUism. The V-UUs are particularly interested in changing and modifying the foundational 7 Principles of UUism. They seek to change the future spiritual path that the UU faith will follow.

If these persons are understood as adherents to the CoV, much of what they do and have done is far easier to understand. The use of the CoV as meta-narrative explains what the V-UUs are aiming to do, and much of the rationale that motivates their actions. To understand the V-UUs and why they are adherents to the CoV, it’s best to consider several recent events.

4 recent events

A brief recounting of recent events can help understand why persons who adhere to either the CoD or the CoV are in dispute. If you are an adherent to the CoD, you are not willing to be within the moral culture of the CoV, and CoV adherents reject the CoD. The two moral cultures are antithetical to one another. In addition, the persons enmeshed in either of these cultures do not understand nor communicate with those from the other culture. This is due to the great differences in the authority structure, the treatment of disagreements, and the matters over which disagreements occur.

The 8^th “Principle”

A recent proposed addition to the Principles is the “8^th proposed Principle”:

“We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote journeying toward spiritual wholeness by working to build a diverse multicultural Beloved Community by our actions that accountably dismantle racism and other oppressions in ourselves and our institutions.”

A cursory reading of this proposed Principle leads one to conclude that it is written very differently than the other 7 UU Principles. It is longer (42 words), has many unknown terms (e.g., “diverse multicultural Beloved Community”, “spiritual wholeness”), includes terms which are implicit threats (“accountably”), and makes multiple assumptions about UUism and UUs (“racism and other oppressions in ourselves and our institutions”). The 8^th Principle is not mandatory for UU congregations, but has been adopted by a minority of UU congregations (perhaps 25% of all UU congregations as of March, 2024).

This proposed 8^th Principle, which was written in 2013, was defined in response to a perceived omission in the 7 Principles by the author Paula Cole Jones:

After working with congregations on these issues for over 15 years, she realized that a person can believe they are being a “good UU” and following the 7 Principles without thinking about or dealing with racism and other oppressions at the systemic level.” Thus, the 8^th Principle is motivated by the need to “deal with racism and other oppressions”.

Left unstated in this discussion of the origin of the 8^th Principle is any evidence of “racism and other oppressions” within UUism.

This wording of this 8^th “Principle” includes terms and ideas which place it firmly within the CoV. The Principle requires all to address “racism”. This is the term which describes discrimination against persons of black African heritage. By using the term “dismantle”, the proposed Principle calls for the elevation of this group of “marginalized” persons. No evidence is furnished for this “racism”, but a survey was conducted by the Committee on Institutional Change which purported to support this notion.

As noted in the “origin” page (linked above), “For people identified as white, it is too easy to ignore these issues, which is exactly what keeps the system of racism in our society alive and in fact worsening right now.  We need to de-center whiteness and other dominant cultures in UUism.” Here we see several key indicators of the CoV:

·         “For people identified as white”: persons are placed into groups and the groups define the relevant characteristics of all persons. You are “white” or “black”. No discussion in the 8^th Principle concerns those who are neither (e.g., brown, Asian, Native American). This statement assumes that the understanding of all persons about this issue is defined by the group membership of that person.

·         “keeps the system of racism in our society alive and in fact worsening right now”: This is an attempt to create a sense of urgency and of an immediate problem. It is objectively noted by neutral observers that “racism” is in fact NOT “worsening”, but is substantially a minor problem in the US and the West at this time.

·         “de-center whiteness and other dominant cultures in UUism”: here we see the Prime Drive of the CoV – to elevate “marginalized” communities to the center of the power position. This is related to the CoV project of “dismantling the power structure”.

For many T-UUs who are adherents to the CoD, the 8^th proposed Principle was a terrible shock and a violation of core UU beliefs. It is both embedded within the 7 Principles, and a contradiction of them at the same time.

The BLUU grant of 2016

During a UUA Board of Directors meeting in 2016, an award was made to BLUU (Black Lives of UU). This award of $5,300,000 was made without an actual vote, but was simply made by acclamation of the Board members. In a subsequent Board meeting, a post-action vote was taken to retroactively justify the award. The award was made without any form of plan for the use of the money (a requirement for grants to be considered by the Board of Directors), and it was proposed that the money be taken from the Endowment Fund of the UUA. Here is a paragraph from the UU World report about the vote:

The board did not take a vote on the decision to fund BLUU, but set aside Robert’s Rules of Order for the trustees’ conversation about BLUU’s request for $5.3 million. It took this unusual step, trustees said, in recognition of the frustration many UUs, especially people of color and young people, expressed about an emphasis on process over content and meaning during the successful but contentious debate and vote on an Action of Immediate Witness to support Black Lives Matter at the 2015 General Assembly. In recognition of the frustration and the need for new approaches to decision-making, the board framed the BLUU funding decision as a “religious act, not as a piece of corporate business,” said trustee the Rev. Patrick McLaughlin.

This is a set of actions rooted in the CoV.

·         The action was taken to help people of color and young people, who are being characterized as marginalized groups.

·         The action is framed as a religious act, exempting it from the normal process of consideration.

In the view of many UUs, the action to approve the grant was done due to the imposition of a feeling of “white guilt” on the Board of Directors. From the report: “We made a decision that we all understood without [first] perfecting the language, so we managed to challenge white supremacist decision-making.” By framing this as a counter to “white supremacist decision-making”, the Board is clearly “feeling the heat” of the dreaded charge of “racism” and “white supremacism”.

The 2019 GA and The Gadfly Papers

The events which occurred during the 2019 General Assembly (GA, the annual meeting of UUs) were the clearest example yet of the change of culture in UUism. These events involved the release of “The Gadfly Papers” (TGP), a collection of 3 essays by Rev. Todd Eklof, minister at The Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. The three essays discuss various aspects of current UUism. The essay which is of most interest to this discussion is the first, “The coddling of the unitarian universalist mind” (COTUUM). The essay is based closely on “The coddling of the American mind”, written by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in 2019. In this essay, Rev. Eklof discusses the conflict between T-UUs and V-UUs, although it is not termed as such.

To understand the essay and the reaction to same, COTUUM should be examined. To facilitate this discussion, it will be briefly summarized. COTUUM discussed a number of trends in recent UUism which Eklof was concerned about: safetyism (the push in numerous institutions to “help” persons by suppressing the speech which makes them uncomfortable, and which is creeping into UUism), identitarianism (the practice of focusing on group identities and promoting the interests and stature of “marginalized groups” over others, thus elevating them), concept creep (changing and expanding the meaning of words, such as “harm” and “hurt”, to include “mental harm” or “make someone uncomfortable”, which shades into linguicide, which is the control of the debate by the control of the definition of terms), microaggressions and call-out culture (controlling the debate by telling speakers that they offend others and that their speech is offending people, leading to charges of “racism” or “sexism”), political correctness (intolerance which is politically motivated leading to ruling that certain types of speech cannot be used), and witch hunts (seeking internal enemies to denounce and destroy, in a crusade for intellectual and moral purity.

Eklof notes that UUism is grounded in humanism. This philosophical position is antithetical to identitarianism. It is a belief in overall human goodness. UUism is not a faith tradition consistent with identitarianism. The essay concludes by calling for a policy of common humanity (an approach which unites), rather than a policy of common enemies (an approach which divides), and calling for tolerance of imperfection rather than Puritanical condemnation of human frailty.

The essays were published in a small volume at the expense of Rev Eklof. He began to distribute the books, without charge, in an authorized booth in the GA hall. The response was immediate and precipitous. The books were confiscated and removed from the hall. A letter (L-500M) was written by a UUA staffer, and signed by approximately 500 UU ministers, within a very few days of the release of TGP (and before a majority of those signing the letter had conceivably been able to actually read TGP). Following the letter and the release, Rev. Todd Eklof was removed from Fellowship of the UUA. The events are recounted at more length in several places.

This “Gadfly episode” has led to several consequences. As noted above, Rev. Todd Eklof was removed from Fellowship of the UUA. This is a direct attack on his fitness to be a UU minister. He retains his pulpit, as UU churches are free to have a wide variety of ministers. A very active FaceBook discussion (now archived as “The Gadfly Effect”, but I have been unable to locate the archived discussions). Accounts in the Financial Times and the “Blocked and Reported” blog discuss the events. The term “gadfly” now identifies persons within UUism who agree with Rev. Eklof. For some, the term is a pejorative, while for others it is a badge of honor.  

When the COTUUM is read in the context of the T-UU (UUs in the CoD) and V-UU (UUs in the CoV) moral cultural viewpoint, the impact of the book is clear. In the essay, Rev. Eklof pointed out that the V-UU moral culture is completely different from the T-UU culture, and identified specific practices and issues which are changing T-UUs into V-UUs. COTUUM points out features of the CoV which are changing the meaning of UUism. The CoV is antithetical to the CoD, which is the culture of the T-UU group. The L-500M should be read by you, Dear Reader. It is a response, which is ironic and self-sabotaging, as it contains within it the very elements which TGP notes are problems for UUism. During the very heated FB discussions for “The Gadfly Effect”, the very points which Eklof raised (e.g., safetyism, concept creep, microaggressions) were used by V-UU discussants, while T-UU discussants criticized them for these very usages.

The revision of Article II

In UUism, the closest document that we have to a statement of a religious faith are the 7 Principles, which were listed earlier. The Article II Study Commission completed a proposal for new wording for Article II. This is the place in the UUA documents where the 7 Principles and 6 Sources were stated. Readers should examine the Article II revision before continuing to read this posting.

The new Article II can be summarized:

·         It is far longer and wordier than are the 7 Principles and 6 Sources.

·         The 6 Sources have been completely removed and are not referenced. A very vague “Inspirations” section is added but no specificity of what the inspirations are is given.

·         The “7 Principles” are replaced by “6 Values”.

·         The 6 Values overlap with the 7 Principles. However, they are wordier, and thus allow less interpretation. In addition, the concepts found in the 7 Principles are de-emphasized and are less clear.

·         The term “Love” is added to the Values, but is not defined.

·         The 8^th Principle is included as a Value (Justice), although a majority of UU congregations have not accepted this Principle.

·         The 4^th and 5^th Principles are reduced. There is a mention of “free and responsible search, but it is enmeshed within a sentence of “learn from one another”. Individual learning and growth is not considered.

·         The term “accountable” is included. Accountable means that some person or group will be evaluating the fitness of others.

·         The 6^th Principle (“goal of world community”) is modified.

·         All Principles are altered to bring “mutual action” into the Values, and eliminate “individual improvement”.

·         The undefined notion of a “Beloved Community” is introduced without any clear definition.

Taken as a whole, the new Article II (which is likely to be adopted in the GA of 2024) moves UUism from a faith tradition for individuals to a community action space. Many V-UUs have indicated very directly in personal conversation that the new approach will be a “social justice” oriented UU. The focus is relentlessly on “dismantling white supremacy culture”. The monthly email from the MidAmerica District, the MidAmerica Messenger, has a section “Resource for Dismantling Systemic White Supremacy”. There is no section in the email entitled “Resource for retaining members in the pandemic” and “Resource for running a Religious Education program with 3 children” – things that are real problems for small churches.

As to the CoV and CoD, the Revision falls specifically within the CoV framework. The overall notion of “love” is the unifying term in the Revision. This is interpreted by many as a “actionable” term. That is, “love” will be interpreted as “working for social justice”. This has led many to describe the new version of Article II as “turning UUism into a social justice collective with hymnals”.

Summary about the 4 recent events

The short versions of the 4 events show a developing pattern of influence of V-UUs in UUism as a whole. These events show the pattern of takeover of those who subscribe to the CoV. UUism has always been attractive to persons who are rational and have the moral culture of the CoD.

These events discussed have occurred over the last 8 years or so, but the issue of the V-UU influence (and takeover) of UUism has been building for at least 25 years. In 1999, a prominent black UU minister, Thandeka, gave an invited address to the GA entitled “Why antiracism will fail”, in which she critiqued the anti-racism approach which had been increasingly present within UUism as of 1999. Another event during this 25-year period was the publication of “The Antiracism Trainings” by David Reich (discussed below). This is a comic novel about a serious subject by a first-hand observer, a former writer of “UU World”. The novel describes the change of culture from T-UU to V-UU. Multiple other events (e.g., the resignation of Morales, multiple articles published in “UU World”, the elimination of comments and “Letters to the Editor” of “UU World”) during this period clearly define the wind direction of UUism. You don’t need to be a weatherman to see the “way the wind is blowing”.

Moral cultures and fundamental value

Many current UUs are older white liberals. A large majority are both culturally liberal and politically liberal, but some, like this author, are politically conservative. Most UUs who have been members for any period are liberal in the classic sense – open-minded, willing to consider alterative viewpoints, and enmeshed within the ideals of the Enlightenment. Most current UUs are adherents of the CoD. They are T-UUs.

Within the professional clergy of UUism, the CoV has largely taken over. The push for the 8^th Principle was an early indication that the culture was changing. Reports from those who underwent theology training indicate that the climate within the theology schools was intersectionality on steroids, where continual challenges from other students about marginalized group memberships occurred. The reaction to “The Gadfly Papers” is a good example of the “moral panic” which insistence on CoD values induces in the CoV persons who are the V-UUs. The push to change Article II, and thus the core set of beliefs of UUism, is the culmination of the change in cultures.

How CoD persons view CoV persons

One of the great difficulties with the switch from the CoD to the CoV lies in the inability of persons in one culture to understand the reasoning, thought processes, and value structure of the persons in the other culture. For those in the CoD, the values stated in the 7 Principles are the values of the Enlightenment. The change in Article 2 described above

·         The 1^st Principle (“inherent worth and dignity of every person”) is a key value for T-UUs; the elevation of persons in “marginalized groups” over others by V-UUs is very troubling.

·         The unwillingness of the V-UUs, including the current President of the UU, to respect the 4^th Principle (“free and responsible search for truth and meaning”) is equally troubling. For the V-UUs, the “free and responsible search” has been replaced by a single-minded focus on “social justice” efforts, on “dismantling white supremacy”, and on the elevation of “marginalized group” members.

·         The V-UUs are largely uninterested in important issues for T-UUs, represented by the 7^th Principle. Similarly, important groups within the UU faith, who center this Principle (UU-Pagans, UU-Wicans, feminist groups, men’s groups) are equally denigrated by V-UUs.

·         V-UUs do not support the 5^th Principle (“right of conscience and use of the democratic process”). The election of the current UUA President involved a single candidate (who won, amazingly enough), which was additionally facilitated by changing the rules of nomination to make it impossible for a second candidate to be nominated in opposition to the UUA candidate.

How CoV persons view CoD persons

I begin this section with a disclaimer: I am a T-UU, and am only modestly able to understand the viewpoint of V-UU persons. That being said, the revision of Article 2 contains important clues. Other clues have come from conversations with V-UUs.

·         V-UUs consider T-UUs to be old, white, and wrong. There is a belief that they must be brought into the “new UU order” either by deception or coercion.

·         The word “accountable” or “accountability” is found frequently within V-UU documents. This term suggests that methods to force V-UU beliefs on all UUs will be used.

·         There is a frequent complaint that “people who pledge large amounts are attempting to force certain conclusions”. That is, older, whiter UUs, who make the majority of the pledges for their churches, are not to have any say in those churches.

·         The UUA has actively segregated persons into groups for worship services (the 2021 GA final worship service had designated seating areas for specific groups), discussion sessions (persons are separated into groups of POC and white persons for discussions), and trainings.

·         Dismantling white supremacy is considered the main function of the UUA.

What will happen?

Why does it matter to identify the core members of the UUA, the V-UUs, as CoV adherents? Any label for a group is only useful if it can be used to make predictions of future behavior. This attempt to place this change in the organization of UUism from CoD to CoV suggests that further aspects of the CoV will be introduced. Active cancellation of those who disagree may be considered. Elimination of congregational polity (lack of centralized direction of individual churches) is rumored to be the next revision of the UUA.

The future of the UU faith

The comic novel “The Antiracism Trainings”, released in 2009 by a staffer who had worked on the UU magazine “UU World” for many years, imagines a religion which has many similarities to UUism. The religion is called “Yuperism” (YUism). Instead of 7 Principles, it has “6 suggestions”. In this book, the main character (who represents T-UUs) is friends with an anti-racism trainer (who represents V-UUs). At the end of the book, the T-UU leaves YUism and the V-UU trainer remains to coerce YUs to become anti-racists. That is what is happening today in UUism.

For the T-UUs, the crisis point will occur in Summer, 2024. The GA will have a final vote to accept the new Article II. For most T-UUs, this revision is unacceptable. Its acceptance is highly likely. Once this Article is accepted, many changes will occur with the UUA. Documents will be written about the new version of the Principles. No documents will support the old version. Many T-UUs will find other changes, including more strident “social justice” and “dismantling white supremacy” campaigns, which will be difficult to accept. Many will fall away from UUism.

The North American Unitarian Association

Rev. Todd Eklof has retained his position in his church, and has begun a new organization, the “North American Unitarian Association”. This organization is new, but is developing rapidly. If you are concerned about the direction of the UUA, click that link, examine the NAUA website, and think about the new organization. I have joined it. There is no cost for membership.

Conclusion

There are 2 cultures within UUism today. Those who have been UUs for a long time, which are termed T-UUs here, have centered their views of UUism around the 7 Principles. These UUs fall into the moral culture of the Culture of Dignity. Newer UUs, the substantial bulk of the clergy (especially in younger cases), are term V-UUs. These V-UUs are far less interested in personal growth, spiritual development, and the “free and responsible search”. There is a single-minded objective of “social justice” and “dismantling white supremacy”.  

The COTUUM essay by Todd Eklof of 5 years ago had many things to say that are similar to this essay. The contribution here is the name of “culture of victimhood”. When you know a name, you know something about the group. I have named it, and this leads to further predictions about the V-UUs.

The revision of Article II, likely to pass at 2024 GA, will precipitate a crisis in UUism. Many will leave the UUA and affiliate with the NAUA. This will be difficult, as many church By-Laws have deep connections with the UUA. There are legal issues about church ownership which will be complicated as well. In my view, by 2026, the UUA membership will have fallen by 25%, perhaps more.