The New UUA Movement by John Stowe
Since 2017, when the Unitarian Universalist Association’s (UUA) Board declared that UUism and the Association were complicit with white supremacy culture, there has been a concerted, top-down effort to transform UUism from its historical theological foundations into a social justice, anti-racist, and anti-oppression movement. This Guest Reflection provides a perspective on the UUA’s attempt to transition the denomination from its historical foundations to what the author calls the “new UUA Movement.”
Historical Foundations
During the 1700s, empirical criticism led Congregational Calvinists to revisit their beliefs more rationally, starting with a rigorous examination of the Bible.
A new awareness of “natural philosophy” (science) influenced these early thinkers, who were proto-Unitarians and laid the foundation for the modern UU consciousness. Starting with their biblical criticism, they proposed a progressive evolution that developed a carefully crafted religion. These first non-doctrinal Congregationalists later became known as Unitarians. The term was intended as a pejorative for those questioning Christian dogma. Universalists traveled a similar path through their Calvinistic Baptist traditions. These proto-liberals could be considered the first to be declared “out of covenant.”
Once the free and responsible search for truth was initiated, it was unstoppable. Our UU forebears developed faith systems ranging from Semi-Arianism (Jesus is not divine) in the 1700s to Christian Humanism and Universal Salvation in the early 1800s, the Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau, and late 19th—and early 20th-century Pragmatics and Objective Ideology. Each exploration was a natural development from the one before.
There was much disagreement. Yet, for all the dissension, “wrong” turns, and occasional backsliding, the net result was a decent, realistic attempt to reconcile our highest aspirations with the empirical knowledge of the day (science, technology, aesthetics, experience). Where orthodoxy remained frozen in dogma, liberals achieved a symbiotic relationship with expanding knowledge—something no other “organized” religious tradition can claim on a consistent historical basis.
Cluttered Spiritual Palate
In the latter half of the 20th century, liberal Protestant contributions to religious thought faltered. Thought leaders such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and our own James Luther Adams (Unitarian) and Clarence Skinner (Universalist) were still highly respected. Yet the cumulative effect of waves of radical skepticism nurtured by postmodernism began to make us all uncomfortable with religion itself, perhaps seeing it as an irrelevant relic.
Our own UU religious humanism gradually morphed into a “secular humanism with some religious trappings” that has kept us comfortable for far too long.
I grew up in a church forever hearing that UUs were “too intellectual.” Yet, for all our collective power, we haven’t contributed anything intellectually respectable to religion for more than a half-century.
In the 1970s, humanism was under attack and was seen as lacking the substance to deal with “real life” problems. Spiritually hungry UUs began to appropriate tasty bits from other traditions in the vacuum. As we claimed more sources for inspiration, these acquisitions were rationalized to indicate our religious “sophistication.” Our spiritual palate was becoming ever more cluttered. A little new age here, a bit of liberation there, a dash of Buddhism, a touch of spiritualism, add a bunch of social awareness. Mix it all up; throw it in the oven. Heat until half-baked.
The hard truth is we have borrowed far too much, far too freely, and created far too little. As a result, there has been a hole in the center of UUism for decades.
Ripe for Takeover
The new UUA Movement, promulgated by the UUA, filled this vacuum. The 2017 declaration to decenter “white supremacy culture” had an appeal in its uncluttered singularity. The Commission of Institutional Change (COIC) and its 2020 report, Widening the Circle of Concern, gave the decentering campaign a feel of thoughtful legitimacy. The June 2024 passage of the new Article II language intentionally severed our connection to our past. The new UUA Movement required this severance since our past was deemed to be the source of our alleged white supremacy tendencies.
The new Article II language expressly rejects the liberal-humanist foundations as racist. Thought leaders need not apply. We now have a “top-down” creedal approach based on a proscribed form of social action.
Welcome to the new UUA Movement.
The New UUA Movement
Beloved Community
Our current UUA leadership proclaims that a “beloved community” characterized by “liberating love” is the existential centerpiece of its new UUA Movement. But what does the new UAA movement say these terms mean?
Let’s start with the concept of “beloved community.” That concept has authentic meaning in the work of the American philosopher Josiah Royce (1855–1916), who originated the concept. He was building on an array of Enlightenment philosophers, such as Emmanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, David Hume, and Baruch Spinoza. While none of these philosophers explicitly discussed a “beloved community,” their contributions provide ethical foundations for a society based on love, respect, justice, and mutual care. Royce envisioned the “beloved community” as an ideal society rooted in mutual care, understanding, and moral harmony, where people work collaboratively for the common good, transcending individual self-interest.
Royce worked during a period of remarkable UU-inspired thinking. He stressed the fundamental importance of community as well as individual consciousness. He believed the relationship between individuals and groups creates deeply improved thinking and social quality. Royce explains how loyal truth-seekers can act as a transcendent moral source and witness.
As interpreted by the Bylaws Renewal team, created in June 2022 to “reimagine” the UUA through a complete rewrite of the Association’s bylaws, the concept is perverted to make “beloved community” exist over and against the problem of individualism, which emphasizes the idea that each person should have the freedom to make their own choices, pursue their own goals, and develop their unique identity, often placing personal success and fulfillment above collective goals or societal norms.
In the effort to bring about the Beloved Community, we often err on the side of the individual as the primary agent of change over and against systemic change.
This perversion of the beloved community is repeated throughout the COIC report. It utterly fails to appreciate Royce’s work and contradicts the original meaning of the beloved community. There is little evidence that the new UUA movement knows the origin of the concept they’ve appropriated or can appreciate its philosophical pedigree and meaning.
Liberating Love
In the Article II revision, the new UUA movement defines “liberating love” as a dynamic, action-oriented principle that promotes social justice through equitable relationships and the healing of historic injustices.
Though James Luther Adams (1901–1994) never used the phrase “liberating love,” there is abundant evidence the new UUA’s use of that phrase is deeply indebted to this prominent Unitarian theologian. His theological work emphasizes the transformative power of love within communities, fostering a more just and compassionate society. Adams aligns closely with the concept of love as a liberating force. However, no evidence exists that the new UUA Movement acknowledged its debt to Adams for originating the concept.
The Values of the UUA Bylaws Renewal Team
- Interdependence over individualism
- Ending the centering of white culture
- Trusting leadership over fear of authority
- Freedom to act over risk avoidance
- Strategy, objectives, and plans over monitoring and oversight
- Clarity and simplicity over complexity
- Decisions located organizationally based on importance to mission
Let’s examine just three of these values.
“Interdependence over Individualism”
Let’s be clear: “Interdependence over Individualism” is a false choice. UUs do not subscribe to individualism. They value individuality and personal conscience, not individualism. Individualism is the idea that an individual’s wants and values are more important than collective needs and that organizations exist solely for the benefits they provide to their members.
UUs believe all persons’ ideas, cultures, capabilities, and experiences are essential to forming a good society and, when taken at their best, result in a collective far greater than the sum of its parts. Our Seventh Principle stresses this “deep consciousness of community” in the phrase respect for the interdependent web of all existence. Thus, interdependence and individuality are inextricably linked, and our 1st Principle, which honors the “inherent worth” of individuals, is an absolute necessity for healthful interdependence. Royce would agree.
Ending of White Culture
UUA leadership has used the term “white culture” as a proxy for Enlightenment values. The legacy values of the Enlightenment are the foundation of Western culture—a legacy of a community constituted by liberty and democracy, equality and social justice, individual rights, and reason. The UUA logic is simple: White men conceived of such ideas; ergo, they are racist ideas.
An irony of the new UUA Movement is that it centers on the beloved community as an existential centerpiece in its campaign to fight racism. That is, Royce’s “beloved community” is itself a product of those same white culture/Enlightenment characteristics of logic-based and closely reasoned processes that UUA leadership now so roundly decries must be decentered!
Remember, too, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Black man, incorporated Royce’s “beloved community” concept into his 1960s Civil Rights movement to provide an image of a future, more harmonious multi-racial society. Does the UUA now demand that the Civil Rights Movement and King himself be decentered and declared invalid?
These contradictions beg the question, “Is UUA leadership aware of these glaring contradictions? If they are, then they are morally dishonest. If not, then they are intellectually incompetent.
The same criticism of dishonesty or incompetency leveled at the use of “beloved community” can also be leveled at the new UUA Movement’s appropriation of James Luther Adams. He was a straight white male. Should Adams and his theology be decentered and now declared invalid?
Instead of the obsession with “end the centering white culture,” why not contextualize Euro-centric and American culture so that the best of its informing values, shorn of the discredited “scientific racism” and eugenics, can be used productively toward the goal they have always had—social and racial justice?
Trusting Leadership over Fear of Authority
By “trusting leadership over fear of authority,” the new UUA Movement intends to shift moral and spiritual leadership away from individuals and congregations to the UUA national leadership. Effectively, “liberating love” is a coded attempt to obtain unearned authority and unaccountable control. Add the requirement for personal confessions of privilege—guilt and the demand for unquestioned acceptance of the new UUA Movement, and you get the loss of democratic governance and the imposition of authoritarian top-down control.
Despite the rather blatant attempt to restructure power away from individuals and congregations, UUA leadership continues to insist it operates under a democratic mandate from the General Assembly election process. It does not.
It is ironic that the Bylaws Renewal Team even quotes from the UUA’s 2009 Fifth Principle Task Force Report, which advocated for strengthening democracy at the UUA’s yearly General Assembly. The General Assembly is not democratic, and delegates are neither representatives of their congregations (other than being members) nor accountable to them.
After three attempts by individuals through the petition process to be genuinely elected to the UUA Board of Trustees, that body now contains only appointed trustees. General Assembly remains as broken today as it was in 2009.
“Trusting leadership over fear of authority” is just a mechanism to gain power without scrutiny or accountability.
The Theological Wasteland of the New UUA Movement
Where is the transcendence, humility, or devotion in the new UUA Movement writings?
While I have seen the word “humility” occasionally used, the authors of the new UUA Movement are 100% self-righteously assured of the rectitude of their beliefs. The UUA offers one and only one valid path to social justice, with its “beloved community” and “liberating love.” All UUs must follow this path exclusively. Questioning or disagreeing will result in censure or worse.
The new UUA Movement offers no foundation comparable to our religious Unitarian and Universalist heritages. Unitarianism and Universalism emerged from a long progression of thoughtful consideration of scripture, philosophy, science, and aesthetics. There is simply no way that a constructive theology can be developed in our modern era without using the best work that the Western religious, intellectual, aesthetic, and scientific traditions have produced.
Instead, the new UUA approach is simplistic. It is based on crude generalizations, replacing nuanced thought with a checklist of proscribed “either-or” positions.
The fact that the new UUA Movement beliefs fall on the left side of the social/political spectrum—or, better said, the “far left”—does not remove the permanent stain of illiberality.
A theology of “liberating love” has been assembled from cherry-picked bits of post-modern standpoint theory, liberation theology, and critical race theory, with a pretense of intellectual heft attempted by a whisper of Josiah Royce and lip service to the work of James Luther Adams. Royce and Adams have real potential value, but our UU leadership has failed to do the hard work of developing a coherent narrative.
By itself, “love” is not a theology, “liberating” or not, nor is a pretty picture of a flower with values petals. The preoccupation with reordering power structures is disturbing, and no amount of quasi-theological gloss can cover its true intent.
The extreme emphasis on power dynamics between groups in the “theology” of the new UUA movement and the rigid hierarchy of righteousness (based on the marginalization of race, heritage, class, or ability) are, for want of a better term, “neo-Calvinistic.” We have effectively been returned to the same power structures that Unitarians and Universalists fled in the 1700s.
"Religion is the vision of something that stands beyond, behind, and within the passing flux of immediate things; something that is real and yet waiting to be realized; something that is a remote possibility and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest. " (A. N. Whitehead)
WWUUD stream 
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/nnutvs5b8y4e1.jpeg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/p44x3oxinj4e1.jpeg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/iy1foxrg062e1.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/dj3ny5z0f90e1.jpeg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/tdku3tro340e1.jpeg){kind=link}