Unitarian Universalist Theology of Sin

UU leadership is in the process of making an appalling about-face in the most fundamental aspects of their theology. This reversal is rejecting a proud tradition that maintained just the opposite of what the leadership now promotes. It employs through-the-looking-glass upside down sophistry that has turned a post-modernist rejection of Enlightenment values into a weird adoption of traditional dogmatic theological mandates; turning post-modern skepticism about meta-narratives into its own dogmatic meta-narrative that contradicts its own foundational premise. Freedom, reason and tolerance are no longer acceptable in this bien pensent upside down world that imagines itself boldly striding into a new liberatory renaissance. Nothing could be further from the truth; instead of ushering in a new promised land of revolutionary activism, it has staggered back into a Neo-Calvinist fundamentalism, dogmatically segregating the “saved” from the “damned.”

Traditional religions cater to a powerful hard-wired impulse to belong to a “righteous” tribe. Coupling this with turning on cathartic attractions to self-flagellation in many believers, traditional Christianity created a powerful theology of sin, confession of sin, repentance of sin and forgiveness of sin. Only after this deeply shame based process, could one be welcomed into the righteous tribe. But, even after gaining entrance to the True Faith, the redeemed sinners were kept on track by constant reminders of the shame and depravity of their fallen condition which had resulted in the torture and death of the sinless Son of God who had died to redeem them. His agonized suffering on the cross towered over their sanctuaries.

Unitarianism and Universalism have proud historical roots in centuries of heretics and dissidents who opposed this theological control drama, often at the cost of their lives. It was an act of great courage to oppose orthodox Christian theology of sin and salvation; of the division between the “saved” and the “damned.” But, to be true to themselves, they felt it necessary to proclaim that a loving Creator would not create something like Hell in which to torture his beloved Creation for eternity. It is this irrefutable and essential logic that lies behind the First Principle: “We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

It is, therefore, a tragic shattering irony that, in blatant contradiction of the convictions of those UU forebears, the theologians presently occupying the highest levels of the organization are in the process of instituting a “new” theology that is very little different from the oppressive tradition of sin, confession of sin, repentance of sin and forgiveness of sin. Here is how Rev. Thandeka phrased it in 1997

The theological principle behind all this is expressed in Joseph Barndt’s book, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America… Barndt’s belief that all whites are racists is based explicitly on the Christian doctrine of original sin, which claims that through Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden human nature was corrupted — a doctrine linked to the Trinitarian claim that only through the death of Jesus and with the assistance of the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit can human nature be saved. In every age, Christian theologians have found new language to explain this doctrine. The anti-racist doctrine is just such a recent example…Barndt insists that whites will always remain sinners because their nature is corrupted. They are thus slaves to what Barndt calls — and again to use his language — the original sin of racism

UU’s who participated in Barndt’s Crossroads training in the 1990’s as part of the “Journey Towards Wholeness Path to Anti-Racism” were surely aware of this atavistic theology. But, being UU, they may have felt they were immune to this doctrinaire Christianity because they believed UUism was above all that Christian foofaraw. They were well aware that Barndt was, indeed, a Christian and thus, as evolved and enlightened UU’s, they could take his course and remain unaffected and only select for their re-education the enlightened anti-racist parts of it.

There is a common perception that UU’s are “intellectually arrogant” and “snobbish,” and that they believe that they are elevated above the common herd because they all tend to be highly educated professionals who practice a particularly evolved and enlightened religion. This is somewhat true; you can’t shake a stick without hitting some kind of PhD in a UU congregation. (And, as every con artist knows, some of the best marks are those that have an elevated opinion of themselves.)

It is a dangerous course to set; to proclaim your sect is above the superstitions and prejudices of all other sects. It opens the door to the very human tendency in all of us to want to belong to the “One True Church.” Perhaps a denomination that rose above the dogmatic superstitions of traditional Christianity, and which attracted many Humanists and atheists to its ranks, was primed to be taken over by more basic sentimental theological self-righteousness. Rev. Kate Braestrup addressed this in her essay “Snob Faith”

When you can access formerly boutique beliefs at the religious equivalent of Wal-Mart, the bar for luxury religion is raised and, given the unprecedented speed at which ideas travel these days, it will be raised and raised again. And so the UU brand has to be continually updated so as to remain obviously special and expensive.

And, now the bar has been raised so high that UU theology has circled around and begun devouring itself in a purity spiral that is unsustainable. This is the idea of the “Horseshoe Theory” where extremes of belief on either “side” bend back towards each other and become more similar. This seems applicable to the trend towards authoritarianism and the emphasis upon “covenant” and “accountability” that the new UU theologians are writing into the basic tenets of UUism.

This may also be a process influenced by a changing cultural milieu that Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianovitch call a “culture of victimhood”

…in the 18th and 19th centuries most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor …to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it…this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood which… gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim…it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.

So UU’s in their desire for being seen as dwelling upon the peak of the highest moral high ground have invited in a dynamic where the “saved” and the “damned” have been replaced by “victims” and “oppressors.” And these have become linked to essential identities, not character. We are either born into the Original Sin of whiteness or born without sin, like Jesus was considered to be, if we were not white at birth.

Original Sin and salvation have been introduced into the UU mainstream in the primary UU organ of communication — the “UU World.” Here is a selection from Rev. Bill Sinkford’s article, “The Dream of White Innocence”

There is a reason that our nation hastened to embrace that warm and fuzzy dream of an Amer­ican welcome table, where exceptional individuals can transcend their circumstances. That dream allowed us all, but especially white Americans, to maintain a belief in their own innocence…This American Dream, this new white identity, requires a “vivid performance of innocence,” as Teju Cole describes it, despite the truth that there is no actual innocence and never was.

And then here is a clear elucidation of the new UU theology: “Sin is Personal, Not Just Systemic: Does the sin of white supremacy live in us or in the systems beyond us?”

The collective sin of white supremacy is a material and particular sin, and we cannot redeem it at a distance or in the abstract. If we are to get free of white supremacy together, we must move into relationships of solidarity and particularity, in which our lives matter, materially, to one another.

Without getting into the deplorable details of the deeply dishonest 2017 “Hiring Controversy” that led to the “Commission On Institutional Change” and their profoundly biased report on white supremacy in UUism, it is worthwhile to look at their “theological mandate” to understand how the move from UUism as a dissident faith into a traditional faith of sin and salvation was justified theologically. A few citations from the “Theology” section of that terrible piece of theological propaganda can give a taste of how that move was propagated, beginning with this language from Rev. Dr. Sofia Betancourt:

We are on a journey toward redemption. We have lived a year filled with lamentation… with the strength of generations, the failures of the everyday, and the deep-down gritty messiness that is the promise of our salvation.

And then from Mary Byron

As a white person, I have needed to do a lot of deep spiritual work on myself. Unlearning the ideas of supremacy that I have absorbed from our culture is so much harder than learning about injustice, yet I know we won’t move away from our comfort in white supremacy until we unlearn and dismantle it in our lives…When I moved past claiming my innocence in building these systems and denying their racist intent to see them, really see how they operate, I couldn’t unsee their injustice.

And then from Dr. Elias Ortega:

If we believe in collective salvation, we must also believe in collective sacrifice. It is powerful that our faith community is working to reclaim this sacred practice

And then from the section, “Recommendation: Reinterpretation of Our Theological Legacies”

Sharon Welch notes that from an ethical perspective, we are called to liberate ourselves from bias, stating that a theology of liberation frees us from not seeing bias or privileged systems and allows us to see the threats of white violence.

This is not a “reinterpretation” this is a fundamental theological overhaul, a dramatic about-face from a religion of freedom, reason and tolerance to one of sin, salvation and redemption. The new proposed revision of the basic tenets of the faith and elimination of the 7 Principles and Purposes is a major step in that theological vandalism. This is to be voted on in the upcoming UU General Assembly — a True Believers jamboree that gives UU leadership the ability to make tremendously false claims about “democracy.”

George Orwell did not know anything about Unitarian Universalism but he did have an incisive understanding of how the human animal behaves in social groups. Even though he didn’t know about UUism he did have a fine description of the UU GA in his book Animal Farm. As he well knew, power corrupts, even when packaged in the most noble sounding ideology:

..out from the door of the farmhouse came a long file of pigs, all walking on their hind legs…out came Napoleon himself, majestically upright, casting haughty glances from side to side, and with his dogs gambolling round him. He carried a whip in his trotter. There was a deadly silence. Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. It was as though the world had turned upside-down. Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything-in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticising, no matter what happened-they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of- “Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!” It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse.

It is yet to be seen if the sheep will indeed drown out all other voices when the Article 2 revision comes up for a vote by “delegates.” But this vote will not be democratic in any way shape or form. If it passes, as is most likely, the journey to Calvinist theology will be well on its way. Considering this, certain questions about sin and salvation for UU’s are bound to arise.

Christian orthodoxy has struggled with whether redemption from sin is obtained through grace or through works. It is therefore only natural to inquire of this new UU theology: how does a white person gain salvation from the sin of whiteness? Is it through grace or works? Christians pretty much decided that it is grace, but there are a lot of problems with that. Does an evil person who has been evil all their life gain Paradise when they claim to accept Jesus as their savior on their deathbed?

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8–9.

But then James 2:24 says.

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Many Christian theologians like to emphasize works, because otherwise how would they get people to give them money and do the things they want them to do, if all the lazy slobs had to do was to pronounce fine sounding declarations of faith?

Likewise a UU white person seeking UU salvation from their sin of whiteness is facing some confusion. Is it devout confession of belief, like Rev. Don Southworth professed while daring to criticize the UU Board of Trustees decision to give $5.3 million to BLUU (among other things)?

I identify as a white, cisgender male. I become more aware every day at how that identity clouds my decisions and actions, hopefully more and more unconsciously, despite the years of study, training and spiritual and personal development work I have done. According to our moderator Jim Key I am swimming in the water of white supremacy.

Can white UU’s gain UU salvation by making similar declarations?

Not really.

UU Theologians seem to be coming down strongly on the side of works:

I don’t know that UUs on the whole are looking for more ways to do anything in particular. We are a verbose bunch, generally speaking — so I witness folks doing a lot of talking and thinking about this intersection, but not necessarily doing anything differently than they did the day before. This doesn’t surprise me because the vast majority of UUs benefit from the oppressive systems they are being asked to dismantle and people don’t want to sacrifice their ill-gotten gains. I also see many white UUs using their outrage and indignation as a stand-in for action, but your venting ultimately yields nothing because those of us who need access to resources can’t do anything with your shock or frustration. — Dr. Takiya Nur Amin

Apparently UU confessional appeals to grace are woefully inadequate. The sinless are not going to accept pious repentant words any more. UU’s are to be “accountable” to “covenants.” As the UU President has said, (GA 2022 Session #409: Accountability, Justice, and Wholeness — UU Theologies of Liberation)

We have to be willing to say “no” in UU spaces. We talk about covenants as floors, not ceilings, yes, its aspirational. It should be something we lean into… you are so out of Covenant, you cannot be back in this community until you’re willing to do the work of repair. Covenant without consequences is not actually Covenant… So honestly, we have to learn how to say “no” — with love — … with a loving reminder, we will be here when you are ready to do the work. You cannot break this community over and over again out of your, whatever it is, trauma, fear, anger, loss, despair. I mean, those are pastoral issues. You can always come home, but you got to come correct. That’s a covenant.

Since white UU sinners are all swimming in the sin of white supremacy culture they must “do the work” to “come correct” back into “covenant.” But who is it that is judging the “work” and who is it that will grant the salvation that will purportedly be obtained from doing that correct work? Traditional Christians looked to Jesus, who was born without sin as redeemer and savior.

Rev. Thandeka clearly revealed so many years ago who white UU sinners were to look to. Like Jesus, it was those who were born without the Original Sin of whiteness.

Lacking all agency, they thus can’t effect their own salvation. In short, they need a savior. And in the Barndt theology, this savior isn’t Jesus but, in a brash leap, “people of color.” Listen to what he says:

“Leadership and direction can only come from [people of color because they] understand racism far better than we do, and they know what needs to be done to eliminate it. Thus, the first step toward breaking the chains of this prison [for white people] is to recognize that we cannot be in charge of the changing.”

So those who were born without the sin of whiteness look down on us with love, but also “saying ‘no’” until we “come correct.” And in their righteous, sinless state they await our entrance into the Beloved Community; await for us to go through the process of confessing the sin of whiteness, repenting the sin of whiteness and being forgiven for it by those born without sin. And then, in the spirit of “transforming the world through liberating love,” they may, perhaps, allow us to reside with them in the blessed Anti-Racist, Anti-Oppressive, Multi-Cultural Beloved Community.